JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Not FOUR degrees, 1.4 degrees

ADDENDUM BELOW (with answers from Christopher Monckton)

The December SPPI monthly report came out on Jan 23. As usual, it contains graphs of the latest juiciest data: sea levels, ice, sunspots, cyclones, global temperature trends and the latest papers. Here’s a few snippets that caught my eye.

Get ready for 1.4 degrees (or more… or less).

Global Temperature Trends 1981-2009

Global Temperature Trends 1981-2009

Call me a cherry picker, but going by the full satellite data record we have and drawing a simplistic straight line, we are rocketing towards 1.4 degrees of warming by 2100, (but only if that trend of the last 30 years doesn’t change, which it is, every year). For those who are new to this, there are two interpretations of the satellite data and this neatly combines both of them (UAH and RSS) and makes one wiggly line out of masses of data.  Not surprisingly, the SPPI team have chosen to ignore the surface record of airports and air-conditioners, “ground based thermometers”.

Just look at the wild rising uptrend in global cyclones. We could extrapolate that…

Accumulated Cyclone Energy Index

Accumulated Cyclone Energy Index

Let’s feel-good about paying trillions to control the weather. It’s a spiritual thing right?

Waxman Markey

Waxman Markey

There is a whole lot more in the full 37 page report.

ADDENDUM: Fierce debate in the comments below. There are questions about Moncktons “straight line”. My answer in #144 here. There are very informed comments going in at #192 co2isnotevil and onwards. Skeptics can pull out log equations to explain why Moncktons graph is reasonable. The bluff that fans of The Big Scare pull, crumbles under discussion.

To those who say it’s inaccurate, those baseless accusations are thrown out like so much bluster ad infinitum, as people said in comments before mine:

  1. Show us what the IPCC predicted (as in “in the past”). Links to graphs they have post hoc redrawn from 2007 hardly count. The IPCC are not big on giving anything “firm”, and they keep their predictions so far in the future (like all good politicians do) that they will be safely 6 feet underground before anyone could prove them wrong.
  2. How much of a curve can you throw on the end of a hockey stick without breaking laws of maths? Cyber forester incisively wrote: “So let me get this straight (so to speak). We have a temperature trend a la Mann that shows a hockey stick shape over the last 1000 years and then it goes flat for the next 50 years and then exponential in the following 50 years?”
  3. Baa humbug is doing a great job #42 and #59. “The IPCC should be aware that if they fail to clarify these things, others will nevertheless examine the data and draw their own conclusions. Climate scientists may or may not agree with those conclusions. However, absent clear verifications with full documentation of verification methods by the IPCC, those who wish to inform themselves have no alternative but to perform their own.”
  4. Christopher Monckton replied to criticisms of an earlier version of this graph posted here in May 2009 on my site, as follows:
    “the IPCC predicts CO2 concentration rising exponentially to 836 [730,1020] ppmv by 2100 on business-as-usual scenario A2, which is the scenario closest to actual emissions worldwide at present. It also predicts equilibrium warming at 4.7 ln(C/C0) Kelvin degrees, where the bracketed term is the proportionate increase in CO2 concentration over the chosen period – in this case the 21st century. Since the CO2 prediction is exponential and the predicted warming caused by the added CO2 is logarithmic, the resultant prediction is of course a straight line – which is what is plotted in my temperature graph, which is actually generated by quite a sophisticated computer program that first calculates the exponential increase in CO2 year by year to replicate the IPCC’s curve and then uses the calculated data, month by month, as the basis for calculating the consequent equilibrium warming. The IPCC, of course, pretends that there is a huge lag in the system, allowing it to pretend that temperatures ought to be rising far slower initially and far more rapidly later than the straight-line prediction produced by its own warming formula on the basis of its own CO2 projection. However, measurements by the ARGO buoys show none of the ocean warming that would be essential to demonstrate the “radiative imbalance” that Hansen, Schmidt and Willis (2005) conjured up by computer modelling. Therefore the system response to any forcing is near-immediate, from which the straight-line prediction follows.”

So all those bellowing about lies and dishonest graphs, and to those who demand immediate answers and laud silence as “success”, marvel at the irony. I work on your behalf demanding answers from people who spend your tax dollars, and demand nothing from you, bar good manners.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)
Not FOUR degrees, 1.4 degrees, 10.0 out of 10 based on 1 rating

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/27nupua

406 comments to Not FOUR degrees, 1.4 degrees

  • #
    Lara Bickle

    Ms Nova, the first chart presents a totally false prediction which is attributed to the IPCC. How can you justify such a blatant mistruth?

    If it is an error, please acknowledge that here. If it is not, then what – deliberate misrepresentation?

    You’ve used the same misrepresentation as outlined and debunked here:
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/05/moncktons-deliberate-manipulation/

    In fact the graphs are so similar both in style and error, I can only assume Monckton is the author of both? (Incidentally, the fabricated lines contradict each other…)

    _____
    See #20 and #144. — Ed


    Report this

    00

  • #
    janama

    Ms Bickle – you must understand that these days Lord Monckton has more credibility than Gavin and his cohorts at Realclimate, something to do with Climategate is suspect.

    The chart is quite simple – If you draw a straight line trend for a final temp in 2100 of 3C – 6C which the IPCC has projected you get the lines as shown in the chart. However if you add the actual empirical trend from the satellite data you get a final temp at 2100 of 1.4C

    Now what don’t you understand about that?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    janama

    Here’s another take on it


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    MikeO

    I don’t like trend lines much wasn’t it such an argument that proved that London would be buried in 9 feet of horse manure within 50 years. That was 1894 see all the manure now how do we cope? You just have to pick your end points which is precisely what Monckton and many others have pointed out about the alarmist arguments. For the sake of the argument here is an independent UAH trend line It works out at about 1.17 per century but the IPCC is using an exponential curve isn’t it? Then they just need to twiddle a few knobs to scare the hell out the flock. Baa baa baa we’re doomed, I tell you. we’re doomed!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MoonBender the XIV

    Lara Bickle observes “Ms Nova, the first chart presents a totally false prediction which is attributed to the IPCC”

    I noticed that too.

    Janama defends, fawningly “you must understand that these days Lord Monckton has more credibility…”

    Hang on. You are constantly harping on about appeals to authority WHEN IT SUITS YOU. This is nothing more. The fact is that the lines in the chart attributed to “IPCC” are completely invented by deniers. They do not come from the IPCC AT ALL. This is blatant and deliberate (one can only assume, since the ‘error’ has been repeatedly pointed out to both Monckton & Nova) misrepresentation.

    Which part of that is controversial?

    “The chart is quite simple..”

    Yes. Simply WRONG.

    “If you draw a straight line trend”

    If you do that, you’re being OVERLY SIMPLISTIC. If you do that then FALSELY ATTRIBUTE IT TO THE IPCC, you’re misleading – accidentally or not. If you repeat this FALSE ATTRIBUTION once you’ve been caught out… that’s A LIE.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Captain Marvel

    You are right Jo. You are a cherry picker. All denialists have to be.

    Have fun in the orchard.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    janama

    so Christy is a cherry picker also? you’d better tell him mate!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    CyberForester

    Moonbender & Lara

    Although the graph does not emanate from the IPCC and was drawn by someone else, it illustrates the predictions of the IPCC.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MikeO

    Jo I note that my comment has exactly 5 thumbs down and Lara Bickle has 5 up also that janama has 5 down for all comments. A coincidence?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    janama

    MikeO Jo is sleeping – it’s 5.30am in Perth.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Captain Marvel

    CyberForester writes “Although the graph does not emanate from the IPCC and was drawn by someone else, it illustrates the predictions of the IPCC.”

    NO IT DOES NOT. Don’t make me laugh. Here, for contrast, is the relevant IPCC prediction:
    http://www.realclimate.org/images/comp_monck3.jpg
    _________

    See #20 and #144 — Ed.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Captain Marvel

    Let’s play spot the differences between the ACTUAL IPCC published information and the Moncked up version?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Captain Marvel

    I know you guys like to pick on the scientific method, but you need to understand that if an ACTUAL scientist made such deliberate misrepresentations, he or she would be discredited. You lot complain about scientists… does even ONE among you have the balls to stand up for the side of REALITY and against Monckton? Or will EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOU maintain full support of him, even after repeated misrepresentations and mistruths?

    Jo? What about you? You claim to support “real scientists”, how about making a bit of a stand for reason and against these deliberate misrepresentations?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Adam

    Captain Marvel “Here, for contrast, is the relevant IPCC prediction”

    That’s not a prediction. The models used in that graph were created in 2006, so it’s actually a fit to historical temperature data.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Captain Marvel

    Wow – misunderstanding alert!

    Let’s say you’re both correct and accurate (you’re not). Where from IPCC can one find the bits of the grapsh marked “IPCC” in Nova/Monckton’s charts?

    NOWHERE, that’s where. They are inventions.

    ———–
    The answer to your question is found in post #20. — Ed.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Captain Marvel

    Still not one person willing to take a stand FOR science and AGAINST blatant lies? No?

    Speaks volumes, doesn’t it…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Patrick

    Oh dear, it looks like the alarmist trolls have finally discovered Jo’s blog.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Black Duck

    It seems your blog is gaining a bit of notoriety Jo. Various doppelgangers using different pseudonyms are arriving who would be right at home with Grant Foster’s or Gavin Schmidt’s propaganda machines.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    janama

    “Where from IPCC can one find the bits of the grapsh marked “IPCC” in Nova/Monckton’s charts?”

    table 3.1 page 23 Ar4_syr.pdf.

    B1 scenario – best estimate 0.6 by 2100 likely range 0.3 – 0.9
    through to
    A1FI scenario – best estimate 4C by 2100 likely range 2.4 – 6.4


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    Captain Marvel et al.

    Well well. It seems that the trolls alarmists are unusually active – perhaps they haven’t been fed yet.

    Y’know, it always amuses me when people refer to “realclimate” as a source, since by their own admission, the folks who maintain that sight suppress any opinions counter to their own myopic views and The Concensus – perhaps Gavin and the team are getting bored and having to come here for their fun? :-)

    I suggest we focus on the comment under the first graph: “… going by the full satellite data record we have and drawing a simplistic straight line …”. Ooo, published data (well sort of), and exposure of method. Now there is a novel concept. Also, the graph refers to data that has not been “value added”, or “adjusted”, or “corrected”, or cherry-picked, or “made up”.

    By referring us to a graph on “realclimate”, you are asking us to compare apples with oranges, because nobody with the power of reason actually takes the science based on these models or data at face value any more.

    Of course, whether making predictions (straight line or otherwise) from computer models is a valid thing to do is another debate. But at least a straight-line projection based on available observations is less prone to covert falsification.

    There is a “cute” Australian saying: “Looks like you’ve been keeping the manure in the bedroom, mate”.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    Of course “sight” should have been “site”. I am now sure to be totally discredited because of a typing error. Oh well … :-)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Adam

    There’s plenty of blame to go around. Monckton took a curved line and flattened it to a straight line by just taking the endpoints and connecting them. That is either dishonest or a gross error. Realclimate then muddies the waters in their riposte by stating that back-fitting of models are actually “projections.” Monckton’s sin is the worse of the two, though.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Scott

    Does even ONE among you have the balls to stand up for the side of REALITY and against Gore, Mann, the whole IPCC? Or will EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOU maintain full support of them, even after repeated misrepresentations and mistruths?

    Yep I stand up for reality and against Gore, Mann, Jones, and the whole corrupt IPCC


    Report this

    00

  • #
    josh

    Marvelous.

    I think a lot of shouting about whose graph is whose is distracting. The SPPI graph clearly says it is their graph and that they are using the broad IPCC predictions, which even scientists have a hard time deciphering – see.some graphs to compare plus workings, courtesy of R Pielke Jr

    The basic headline, wherever the graph comes from, is that it looks like global temperatures are rising less than a lot of people predicted. This is good news!

    And good morning Jo!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Oh, the Traffic light tendencied bedwetters have appeared waxing lyrically over an incomprehensible, to them, simple graph. What, not complex and nuanced enough for your discerning analyses? Not hidden in enough obfuscatory verbal virtuosity so that many narratives are possible from the data?

    Jo, seems the faux intellectuals are under some cognitive stress here, but as the IPCC data has to be correct by definition, then everything else which contradicts it, must be wrong, and we are evil for publicising it.

    GOSH, as Bernard Woolley might have exclaimed.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Scott

    How dare somebody put our corrupt temperature projection output into a simple-to-see graph that compares us with reality!

    Its not fair, its not fair, nobody was supposed to do that to us.

    signed 4000 60 IPCC scientists bureaucrats


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    Josh #25

    … it looks like global temperatures are rising less than a lot of people predicted. This is good news!

    I agree, it is good news – unless, of course your continued funding is reliant on the scare continuing … Hmm?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Adam

    Sordnay,

    The first graph is showing more than 0.4C which matches the trend you pointed to. How is that a clear mistake?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MadJak

    OK,

    Considering all that has been revealed about the IPCC, their review procedures, their obvious bias and what we now know about the corruption of their data, I say it’s open season on each and every graph they have published.

    The IPCC has positioned itself as being an advocacy weapon for the various NGOs with vested and biased perspectives, so I cannot consider any piece of their published work to be based on anything but politicized science.

    As such, any adjusted IPCC graph being used to demonstrate a falsehood is perfectly valid, IMHO.

    The AGW advocates can complain that this is not an “exact graph” from the IPCC, but the “exact graphs” have been shown to be inexact falsehoods on more than one occasion now.

    And yes, surely there must be some good science coming from the IPCC, but until the corrupted science is both exposed and removed, it must all be considered to be merely artistic impressions and incomplete.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    average joe

    Not to worry, folks. The IPCC will be history before 2010 is over;

    Lets hope we dont get a new UN organisation on our hands;

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/10/nature-suggests-ipcc-get-an-overhaul/#more-16291


    Report this

    00

  • #

    @ Lara Bickle, Moonbender and Captain Marvel

    Lara said,”Ms Nova, the first chart presents a totally false prediction which is attributed to the IPCC. How can you justify such a blatant mistruth?” Jo never said that nor did the graph, you have employed a straw man. Real climate? You mean these guys? ” We can hold comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you’d like us to include. You’re also welcome to do a followup guest post, etc. think of RC as a resource that is at your disposal to combat any disinformation put forward by the McIntyres of the world. Just let us know. We’ll use our best discretion to make sure the skeptics dont’ get to use the RC comments as a megaphone…”

    They are not interested in the truth, just propaganda. Please help me to understand why the chart is wrong. Are the numbers wrong? The graph in the link you provided is not the same as the one Jo posted. You claim errors but failed to give the details, please do so.
    Moonbender wrote,“If you draw a straight line trend” If you do that, you’re being OVERLY SIMPLISTIC. If you do that then FALSELY ATTRIBUTE IT TO THE IPCC, you’re misleading – accidentally or not. If you repeat this FALSE ATTRIBUTION once you’ve been caught out… that’s A LIE.

    Perhaps I am not getting it but it would seem the straight lines are meant to show the various IPCC predictions, the red line shows an average and that is superimposed over the actual data.

    Correct me if I am wrong but the forecasts by the pro AGW crowd have never been right. Hansen told congress 20 years ago we would hit a tipping point in ten years and it didn’t happen. We were told ten years ago we would hit a tipping point in ten years and it didn’t happen. The geological record shows no correlation over the last 600,000,000 years between temperatures and CO2. Please review the following graph in the following link and tell me what you think http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

    Captain Marvel wrote,”I know you guys like to pick on the scientific method, but you need to understand that if an ACTUAL scientist made such deliberate misrepresentations, he or she would be discredited.”

    Really? Climategate, droughtgate, Africagate, etc.

    But hey, I am just a layman. Lets let the scientists speak. Fraudulent manipulation of data. Prof. Jones, “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” Conspiracy to obstruct FOI requests, “Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.” Integrity of the data. Trenberth, “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.” How about that pesky MWP when temps were higher but CO2 was lower? “……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back….” Gaming the peer review process, ““This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”
    “I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”

    Captain Marvel (great handle, BTW) also wrote, “Let’s say you’re both correct and accurate (you’re not). Where from IPCC can one find the bits of the grapsh marked “IPCC” in Nova/Monckton’s charts? NOWHERE, that’s where. They are inventions.”

    Jo never said the graph is from the IPCC, so you have used a straw man. Would you be so kind as to provide information that shows that the information used to create the graph is false?

    The AGW hockey team has thoroughly impeached itself. Speaking of teams, are there one or more of you? At Jo’s post, “Australian climate poll: 60% passionate (but half in the dark)” you had two people posting the exact same links as references, hmmm. Maybe you can make it from the minor league hockey team to the majors. You better hurry because once these climate criminals are indicted the taxpayer funded scam will be coming to an end.

    Oh, one other thing, all the ice core records show that temps rise hundreds of years before CO2 and decline for hundreds of years before CO2 follows. If CO2 causes temperatures to rise, shouldn’t CO2 levels rise before temps? You know, cause and effect? I heard a rep from the IPCC say that although temps rise before CO2 the CO2 then kicks in and it is like throwing “gasoline on a fire.” If that is the case, why do temps decline for hundreds of years while CO2 levels continue to rise? I realize you didn’t make that argument but I was hoping you could help me to understand what is really happening. Thanks in advance to your team.

    _____
    Eddy, the “Captain Marvel” you are addressing is not our regular “Captain Marvel” (as #7), but someone else using his handle. — Ed.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Captain Marvel @ 12

    LOL… the graph you link to (by eyeballing it) shows abour 0.6C rise over 30 years. If this trend were to continue that would result in a 2C rise over 100 years… abd that is based on the surface thermomemter stations with all the known associated issues.

    What part of your graph are we misinterpretting? I would like to know. No, really.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sordnay

    Adam, It’s embarrassing, it was mine the mistake!
    In 30 years anomaly should be 0.42 which is what it’s shown on the link of my last comment.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MadJak

    Average Joe,

    I like the idea of a living web presence to replace the IPCC. That is provided any moderation is perfomed by some smart people who are unbiased on the topic (if thsi is possible)?

    For matters that affect public policy, the data, process, tools and ongoing disucssions must be made freely available to the public for critique and review. Just having some white coats with green t shirts underneath saying “trust us, we know what we’re doing” simply is not enough.

    They also need to be able to trace the references between papers, so as one data source or reference has been debunked or has a significant scientific question hanging over it, we must be able to see the impact on other papers – much in the same way good requirements analysis is done within software engineering.

    That’s my 2c worth


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ben Hern

    Captain Marvel, your choice of shortcuts serves your argument, but the other two graphs on the same site in RealDenial actually don’t look so dissimilar to Monckton’s as to warrant allegations of lying.
    http://www.realclimate.org/images/comp_monck1.jpg
    http://www.realclimate.org/images/comp_monck2.jpg
    Taken with Christie’s graph linked by Janama the point is obvious that the observed temperature trend isn’t following the alarming predicitions made by the ex-spurts and their apparently sophisticated versions of paintbrush.
    Throw the denialist tag about as you wish, but it is increasingly obvious that those most in denial are over-paid hot-air makers clinging to the notion that human’s paltry contribution to a harmless trace gas which also happens to be an extra part player in the atmospheric greenhouse is on the brink of unleashing a catastrophe which is somehow worse than they reported in the BBC last week.

    I note that the RealClimate graphs in the story Lara linked for us to manage to show the decline; even though using Hadley and GISS data.
    Gavin makes a huff about 2003 being a dubious starting point, but why is this any more dubious than any other start point. Like the end of the 1970s cooling, or the end of the little ice age? When (and at what average temperature) do you propose an enlightened observer should define zero?

    All knit-picking aside, This ‘lie’ on the part of Jo and Christopher is hardly Hockey-Stick rivalling stuff. I’ll not support an ETS because one graph was simplified.
    Care to comment on the manner in which Al Gore misrepresents statistics while on the way to earning a Nobel PC prize, not to mention a tidy wee profit?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Scott

    Nice Post Eddy deserves more than just a thumbs up

    Hey did you hear realclimate are running courses for free over at their site

    Brainwashing 101 – school kids and politicians free
    Frantic raving 101 – for those that dont have a science background but like to try and post against those nasty smart deniers.
    How to have multiple post names 101 – so you can attempt to troll on sceptic sites (Frantic raving 101 is a pre requisite)

    Stay tuned more to come


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MadJak

    And let’s not forget the great Buildabearville propoganda just before Xmas to get the kiddies brainwashed even earlier…

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIKxKlofcHY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wO_OJdKMyww http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13qLreLbt2A

    Yes kiddies, Christmas was going to be cancelled due to global warming…

    And this camp is trying to tell us about ethics?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Captain Marvel wrote, CyberForester writes “Although the graph does not emanate from the IPCC and was drawn by someone else, it illustrates the predictions of the IPCC.”
    NO IT DOES NOT. Don’t make me laugh. Here, for contrast, is the relevant IPCC prediction:
    http://www.realclimate.org/images/comp_monck3.jpg
    Try to engage the skeptical part of your brain – do a bit of critical thinking instead of assuming that Monckton & Nova are incapable of lying to you.

    I reviewed your link, does the line represent an average of the IPCC prediction of future temps? Here is a, link I found where Dr. Ball explains just how wrong the IPCC has been in its predictions. Please review it and share with me your opinion and whether or not it contradicts the graph from Realclimate you posted. Thanks.

    BTW, your hockey team, if it ever wants to make it to the majors, needs to study rhetoric and logic so as to avoid fallacies such as the straw man arguments you have made. Perhaps a new coach is in order?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Adam

    Eddy #40 writes “does the line represent an average of the IPCC prediction of future temps?”

    No, it does not. The line represents values from AR4, which was published in 2007 (the model runs were actually from a bit earlier, mostly 2006.) The line represents the models fitting to past, observed temperatures. You’ll notice that the models and observation start to split around 2006-2007, that’s not just a coincidence.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    This is a good example of people delving into subject matter they don’t understand enough and making Richard Craniums of themselves.

    Firstly, the SPPI graph “shifts” the IPCC projections to ZERO with the TREND line in order to simplify VISUAL comparison, this is a well accepted method used by ALL graph producers, be they related to climate issues or economics or any other field. If anybody thinks this is wrong, show why.

    But as with any graph, the devil is in the DETAIL. And the detail in this case is twofold.

    1-) The IPCC SRES scenarios of 2.4, 3, 3.9, 4.7 and 5.3 DegC per century (as detailed in the upper portion of the graph, AS IT SHOULD BE) Anybody have a problem with those numbers should show the rest of us the correct ones from the IPCC reports. ANYONE?

    2-) The creator of the graph (SPPI) STATES CLEARLY in the footnote of the graph that they use a compilation of UAH and RSS. If anybody thinks these figures are wrong should tell us why and point us in the direction of the correct UAH and RSS data sets. ANYONE?

    Linking to other graphs in RealClimate or anywhere else is spurious. You must CLEARLY SHOW why the data in the above graph is wrong and or why the METHODOLOGY is wrong.

    So far I haven’t seen any poster do this.

    Further, the Richard Cranium who linked to the Real Climate site needs to look at the Real Climate graphs presented there, the two side by side ones with the grey error margins large enough to steer a container ship through. DO YOU SEE THE HADCRUT3 AND GISTEMP LINES BELOW THE MID POINT OF THE PROJECTIONS? ISN’T THAT THE WHOLE POINT OF THIS SPPI GRAPH? TEMPS ARE TRENDING B.E.L.O.W. THE IPCC PROJECTIONS. Gettit? Comprehendo? Understand? Apprehend? Capiche? Catch? Click? Conceive? Perceive? Fathom? Get the picture? You dig?
    The fact that temps are within the wide WIDE W.I.D.E error margins is spurious. Throw a wide enough net you can catch anything.

    Does the above make sense to any of you foolish crossbred Lemming Parrots?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    ANGRY

    SUBJECT: IPCC Admits It Doesn’t Do Science !!!

    This admission (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/10/ipcc-reform) by an IPCC lead author in the UK’s Guardian is simply stunning:

    “The Nobel prize was for peace not science … government employees will use it to negotiate changes and a redistribution of resources. It is not a scientific analysis of climate change,” said Anton Imeson, a former IPCC lead author from the Netherlands. “For the media, the IPCC assessments have become an icon for something they are not. To make sure that it does not happen again, the IPCC should change its name and become part of something else. The IPCC should have never allowed itself to be branded as a scientific organisation. It provides a review of published scientific papers but none of this is much controlled by independent scientists.”

    READ MORE HERE:-

    http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/12721


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Otter

    Baa H.~ Hey! My wife and I raise lemmings (small pet business). Please don’t insult them. They have tender sensibilities and are Far smarter than these hystericysts.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Adam

    Baa Humbug #42 writes “You must CLEARLY SHOW why the data in the above graph is wrong and or why the METHODOLOGY is wrong.”

    The methodology problem in the graph is taking a curved line and straightening it by drawing a line between the start and end points. It’s like someone claiming that they’ll earn $1,000,000 over 50 years because of compound interest and then someone else claiming that their prediction is wrong because they didn’t earn $100,000 in the first 5 years (most of the $1,000,000 dollars comes in the latter half of the 50 years.) Actual IPCC prediction graphs are accelerating curves, which has the fortunate (for the IPCC) characteristic of showing very little warmth in the short run, and leaving all of the effects from “feedbacks” out 50 years or more.

    There are plenty of valid reasons to attack the IPCC’s “predictions” but this graph is a pretty bad. We really don’t need to resort to this kind of tactic.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    @ Adam 41

    Thank you for enlightening me.

    From the IPCC AR4: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-4-7.html

    During the last decade, there has been steady progress in simulating and predicting ENSO (see Chapters 3 and 9) and the related global variability using AOGCMs (Latif et al., 2001; Davey et al., 2002; AchutaRao and Sperber, 2002). Over the last several years the parametrized physics have become more comprehensive (Gregory et al., 2000; Collins et al., 2001; Kiehl and Gent, 2004), the horizontal and vertical resolutions, particularly in the atmospheric component models, have markedly increased (Guilyardi et al., 2004) and the application of observations in initialising forecasts has become more sophisticated (Alves et al., 2004). These improvements in model formulation have led to a better representation of the spatial pattern of the SST anomalies in the eastern Pacific (AchutaRao and Sperber, 2006). In fact, as an indication of recent model improvements, some IPCC class models are being used for ENSO prediction (Wittenberg et al., 2006). Despite this progress, serious systematic errors in both the simulated mean climate and the natural variability persist. For example, the so-called ‘double ITCZ’ problem noted by Mechoso et al. (1995; see Section 8.3.1) remains a major source of error in simulating the annual cycle in the tropics in most AOGCMs, which ultimately affects the fidelity of the simulated ENSO. Along the equator in the Pacific the models fail to adequately capture the zonal SST gradient, the equatorial cold tongue structure is equatorially confined and extends too far too to the west (Cai et al., 2003), and the simulations typically have thermoclines that are far too diffuse (Davey et al., 2002). Most AOGCMs fail to capture the meridional extent of the anomalies in the eastern Pacific and tend to produce anomalies that extend too far into the western tropical Pacific. Most, but not all, AOGCMs produce ENSO variability that occurs on time scales considerably faster than observed (AchutaRao and Sperber, 2002), although there has been some notable progress in this regard over the last decade (AchutaRao and Sperber, 2006) in that more models are consistent with the observed time scale for ENSO (see Figure 8.13). The models also have difficulty capturing the correct phase locking between the annual cycle and ENSO. Further, some AOGCMs fail to represent the spatial and temporal structure of the El Niño-La Niña asymmetry (Monahan and Dai, 2004). Other weaknesses in the simulated amplitude and structure of ENSO variability are discussed in Davey et al. (2002) and van Oldenborgh et al. (2005).

    Is it me or is there a lot of uncertainty expressed by the IPCC? Especially, “Despite this progress, serious systematic errors in both the simulated mean climate and the natural variability persist.”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Eddy Aruda:
    February 11th, 2010 at 9:36 am

    “Captain Marvel (great handle, BTW)”

    Eddy you should know by now that you have to be very very clear for some people to understand. Do you mean Comic book character by name, Comic book by nature?

    Hi by the way


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Adam

    Eddy # 46 writes “Is it me or is there a lot of uncertainty expressed by the IPCC?”

    It’s not just you. The IPCC is pretty dishonest in the way they portray their error ranges. The way the climate models work makes the error ranges cumulative, which should have error ranges of +/- dozens of degrees by 2100, not enough to have any value for prediction. Instead, they invent their own form of statistics to arrive at the measly +/- 2C, which is nonsense.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Adam,

    Could you please provide me with a link to the IPCC graphs? I googled it but couldn’t find it. Thank you.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    actually Adam I don;t think your explanation in 45 is right. Although it is a log relationship – over the local timescales a liner relationship pretty much fits the bill. The problem is just joining the start dot and the end dot and drawing a line. This fails junior high school maths, ignoring even the most basic statistical realities.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    @ Baa humbug

    Bro, I keep seeing your name at various internet sites. Hat tips, excellent posts, etc. Way to go!

    Regarding handles, everybody yearns at some point in their life to be a superhero. Sadly, some people cannot distinguish between reality and fantasy. You know? Rudd, Turnbull, Obama, Pelosi, Hansen, the IPCC and the hockey team (including their minor league franchises.)


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Adam

    MattB #50

    That’s true for just CO2 forcing, but IPCC predictions include a number of feedbacks which increase the curve quite a bit. Some models are pretty flat, but the ensemble still has a pretty sharply climbing curve.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Thanks Adam for the link. I noticed that a higher resolution was unavailable. I expanded the graph as best I could on my Mac (yep, I love my Mac) and it was blurry but the predictions were all over the place. If the science is so certain, shouldn’t the models be in substantial agreement?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Adam I was actually about to post a correction to my last post but you beat me too it. THe problem with posting to a blog while getting the kids ready for school and eating breakfast.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    No thumbs down, where did the hockey team go?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Adam

    Eddy #54 writes “If the science is so certain, shouldn’t the models be in substantial agreement?”

    You would think, yes, but they manage to take that weakness and turn it into a strength. Each model has it’s own error range, measured in dozens of degrees by year 2100. But the IPCC is able to take the disagreement between the models and use that as their error range and discard the error ranges of the individual models completely. It truly is “voodoo science.”


    Report this

    00

  • #

    @ Adam 57

    Thanks, I hope these modelers don’t moonlight as tax preparers or bookkeepers because their clients would be audited and prosecuted for such chicanery.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Below is a nice summary of this sort of confusion. From Lucias Blackboard, Roger Pielke jnr plots the various IPCC projections since 1990

    Pielke jnr

    Exercises such as these highlight the usefulness of projections of relevant climate variables that can be verified on timescales of a few decades or less. Such projections, no matter how accurate, can help to accelerate understanding about the human effects on the climate system as well as the limits to our ability to predict future consequences of those effects with accuracy and precision.

    To facilitate such comparisons the IPCC should (1) clearly define the exact variables in its projections and the appropriate corresponding verification (observational) datasets, and (2) clearly explain in a quantitative fashion the exact reasons for changes to its projections from assessment to assessment, in even greater detail than found in the statement in 1995 regarding aerosols and the carbon cycle. Once published, projections should not be forgotten but should be rigorously compared with evolving observations.

    I tendorse Roger’s suggestion to the IPCC. Careful attention to verification of past projections against later data would help the public and their chosen policymakers better understand the certainty of AGW while quantifying the predictive fidelity (or infidelity) of models and methods used to predict the magnitude of zero order metrics like Global Mean Surface Temperature and Sea Level Rise.

    The IPCC should be aware that if they fail to clarify these things, others will nevertheless examine the data and draw their own conclusions. Climate scientists may or may not agree with those conclusions. However, absent clear verifications with full documentation of verification methods by the IPCC, those who wish to inform themselves have no alternative but to perform their own.

    Neither Lucia nor Pielke jnr can be described as skeptics.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    CyberForester

    Adam @65

    So let me get this straight (so to speak). We have a temperature trend a la Mann that shows a hockey stick shape over the last 1000 years and then it goes flat for the next 50 years and then exponential in the following 50 years?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    ANGRY

    SUBJECT: AL GORE’S BEACH HOUSE

    Isn’t it interesting that the head of the Church Of Al Gore owns a beach house!

    WHAT ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING AND ALL THOSE RISING OCEANS?

    ===============================================================
    FIGURE EIGHT ISLAND REAL ESTATE
    This private, peaceful ocean side haven offers bright blue waters and long stretches of beach, and is home to notables like Al Gore, John Edwards, and others who relish seclusion and natural surroundings. This 1,300 acre 5 mile island does not offer hotels, shopping centers, and tourism. However if bird watching, quiet walks and sunbathing is your strong suit you may find life here appealing. There are only 441 homes, no condos, but it does offer proximity to activity rich Wilmington, NC. Enjoy the myriad architectural styles of neatly cared for properties if you can get onto the island. If this is your style, Figure 8 Island may be your place.

    http://www.joepascal.com/figure-eight-island.html

    ———————————————————————————————–

    Figure Eight Island is one of the places in North Carolina that is home to many celebrity houses. Celebrities like John Edwards and former Vice President Al Gore own houses on this island. The island has beautiful views as it is located between the Intracoastal Waterway and the Atlantic Ocean. The entire island only has about 440 houses making it an ideal place for couples and individuals to relax. It is also home to many beautiful exotic animal species. If you are looking for a vacation house, check out the Figure Eight island real estate. Wrightsville beach real estate also offers many bargains and great houses.

    http://wilmingtonrealestatehome.com/561/figure-eight-island-real-estate-and-wrightsville-beach-real-estate/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Adam:
    February 11th, 2010 at 10:37 am

    Each model has it’s own error range, measured in dozens of degrees by year 2100.

    I once read somewhere if the IPCC did show their full error margins, they would cover the full y-axis and more by 2100. A grey out if you will


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Adam

    CyberForester #60

    Not exactly. The blade part of the hockey stick is just supposed to be accelerating the whole time, so that a line drawn between any two points will always be above the curve.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    There are plenty of excellent blogs showing the error ranges associated with regression fits to temperature data series, be they from thermometers or satellites. Anyone thinking they can predict more than a few years out with any degree of accuracy is smoking something illegal (in most countries … maybe not Amsterdam cafes). The system is far too poorly understood and the error ranges of the climate variables far too big for any model to have the accuracy to predict out 50 to 100 years with any reasonable degree of certainty.

    As a rule of thumb.. the more complex the model and the more variables it contains, the more sensitive it is to the input parameters. Common sense will tell you that much without years of studying econometrics and statistics (as I have). I learned long ago that the long-range forecasting of even simple models (such as US aluminium consumption for instance) is incredibly difficult, to say the least. Using that example I was able to produce models that all fit with 95-99% (R^2) accuracy and had a range of forecasts from aluminium consumption doubling to halving over the next few decades. I should do an ex-post to see which model was the best forecast just for giggles.

    Just to reiterate… the IPCC models are far more complex than the ones I tinkered with, and have far worse fits to the historical data (simplistically think of it as the R^2 being a lot lower). No way on earth can they predict temperatures out 10, 20 letalone 50 or 100 years with enough accuracy to be meaningful. That is completely bogus aka GIGO.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Seriously thought this is where say Monckton falls flat on his face. He puts on a good show, he entertains, and realistically he says some fairly accurate/humorous things about the far left and greenies, hits a raw nerve about the various gates and the IPCC etc… but then churns out graphs like these that are essentially junk (oh but that’s ok because the IPCC uses hockey sticks rah rah rah).

    TO stand by these graphs is to make oneself a laughing stock. Or Stockus humouriti as the Lord would put it.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    @ MattB

    Welcome back, I take it the kids are off to school? Although the graphs are simple they are so deliberately. Die dulci fruere (have a nice day!).


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    MadJak: #31

    The IPCC has positioned itself as being an advocacy weapon for the various NGOs with vested and biased perspectives, so I cannot consider any piece of their published work to be based on anything but politicized science.

    So, in short, you think that they should hide the decline … in their credibility?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MadJak

    Rereke,
    I don’t think they can hide the decline in their credibility anymore. The IPCC must go and be replaced with something that is dedicated to unbiased, non partisan science which is conducted in a completely open and contributory fashion. By this I mean, all data, all models, all source code, all review comments (and the responses to them), all communications (email or otherwise) pertinent to the published works the lot.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    (The original) Captain Marvel

    Hate to spoil the fun, but my first and only comment on this thread was at (7) above. Any other comments under the name ‘Captain Marvel’, great handle or not, have not been by me.

    I am new to this interesting site, and have been under the impression that each name = a separate distinct blogger. I now realise that anyone can pretend to be anyone else around here.

    If they fix this situation up, site management might let me know via email. Meanwhile, be it known that any posts signed ‘Captain Marvel’ might be from the original and best. Then again, they might not. Most probably the latter.

    ________

    See #140. — Ed.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Facts toasted in reporting Rio Roast.

    ABC news passes on dubious reports due to being blinded by climate alarmism (32 killed as heat wave roasts Rio-http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/11/2816371.htm). Reported temp in Rio of 46.3C is more than 3 degrees greater than previous Brazilian temperature record, and no one says …perhaps we should verify those numbers. And they say that Auntie is not biased, perhaps she’s just blind.

    More here…

    http://abcnewswatch.blogspot.com/2010/02/facts-toasted-in-reporting-rio-roast.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    (The original) Captain Marvel:
    February 11th, 2010 at 12:43 pm

    Your pic is different. You have that “The Phantom” look.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Albert

    Scott at 28
    On PM Rudd’s address to students on Q&A recently he repeated the lie that I’m sick of hearing. Your comment that the 4,000 was really 60 was also repeated on Andrew Bolt’s blog today.
    I have known for years that the IPCC’s biggest project was to inflate the consensus numbers of climate scientists by adding, any scientist not remotely connected to climate science, lab assistants, secretarial staff and anyone present, thereby increasing 60 to 4,000 This feat is worthy of a Nobel Prize.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Peter of Sydney

    It’s very sad to see the debate all boils down to whether the climate will get warmer or not. If the climate warms considerably then the AGW alarmists win. If the climate cools dramatically, the other side wins. I find this both childish and stupid. Whatever the outcome, it does not answer the question of how much man is influencing climate, and therefore what if anything we should do about it. I find the debate amongst virtually all scientists corrupted. It goes to show the essence of scientific research, that is to search for the truth, is all but forgotten, and that we’ve entered a new dark age where lies are turned into truths. George Orwell would be very proud of us all in fulfilling his warnings. I’m still waiting for fraud charges to be handed out to the leading clowns of the AGW scam since they have proved nothing and yet they have convinced much of the world that we are facing a global warming catastrophe. It may be true but there is absolutely no evidence to support this hypothesis, no more than there’s evidence that we are being invaded by aliens in UFOs, as some claim. The difference being is the UFO believers are not forcing a new super tax on us that might very well destroy our economic future. The AGW con artists are trying to do so, all based on an unproven ideology, hence they must be brought to account, ideally behind bars.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    J.Hansford

    Lara Bickle says, Go to RealClimate……. There’s your problem right there Lara….

    It is not an ad hominem attack on Gavin. Just a statement of fact backed up by CRU emails. Realclimate is implicated as being a gatekeeper and a disinformation shill for CRU.

    Sad but true.

    I would seek other sources for scientific explanations of climate observations


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    This is from the intro to the SPPI Monthly Report

    “IPCC assumes CO2 concentration will reach 836 ppmv by 2100, but, for nine years, CO2 concentration has headed straight for only 570 ppmv by 2100. This factor alone almost halves all of the IPCC’s temperature projections.”

    Insanity. Has the Lord not heard of India and China and their rapid growth. moonbattery!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    MattB @ 75:

    I am not full bottle on the CO2 cycle, but it certainly has a number of sources (of which mankind is a relatively smaller one) and a number of sinks (the oceans & flora being the biggest of course). One would hope that the entire system has been modelled to arrive at the various numbers. I am willing to bet that the IPCC assumes that the oceans will have a reduced ability to absorb CO2 in the future etc etc.

    BTW those bagging RealClimate.. it serves a purpose. It is how I get my daily laugh in the mornings.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    I am willing to bet that the science used by the IPCC uses the best that science has to offer when it is considering how the oceans will react to increasing atmospheric CO2 in terms of what proportion will end up in the ocean vs the atmophere.

    But you never know maybe the worlds leading ocean scientists are also in on the deal and are keeping mum while their science is bastardised by the pseudoscientific cabal and the IPCC?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    Adam #52

    You make reference to a wikipedia entry. Has this entry ever been touched by Mr Connelly (sp?) at wikipedia? If so, it is probably inadmissible as evidence.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Morning All.

    If you reckon temperature prediction is rubbery, don’t even think about rainfall projections! Even in the field of weather prediction, it is relatively easy to pick the max/min for the next few days with some degree (pardon the pun) of accuracy. But when it comes to rainfall it often ends in tears.

    Which makes predictions like “Our” CSIRO for increased drought etc all the more unlikely.

    Cheers,
    Speedy


    Report this

    00

  • #

    @ MattB 77

    You wrote,” I am willing to bet that the science used by the IPCC uses the best that science has to offer when it is considering how the oceans will react to increasing atmospheric CO2 in terms of what proportion will end up in the ocean vs the atmophere.
    But you never know maybe the worlds leading ocean scientists are also in on the deal and are keeping mum while their science is bastardised by the pseudoscientific cabal and the IPCC?”

    I am having a little trouble understanding “used by the IPCC uses”. The IPCC has been impeached and is void of credibility. At the IPCC magazine articles pass for peer reviewed literature and scientists alter data to fit a preconceived agenda. Ocean data? They do not use the latest Argo buoy data because it does not give them the answer they want. I am sorry to tell you that it was never a scientific organization pursuing the truth. Instead, it was the InterGOVERNAMENTAL Panel on Climate Change, not a scientific panel. The IPCC was formed to promote the theory of anthropogenic global warming, not to find the truth. If it were “scientific” they would gladly release there raw data instead of hiding it. If they would engage in open debate instead of destroying the careers of those who disagreed with them they might have some credibility, but they don’t. The cabal is rather small. There is a group of climate scientists that have convinced the politicians that they are right and unless they are given a lot of taxpayer grant money the world will face an apocalypse. Other scientists have to go along to get along or they lose their funding. Would you take the moral high ground, Matt or would you prefer to remain employed and feed your family? There is ample evidence in the released (not hacked) emails to make a prima facia case that they were willing to sacrifice the truth for money and power. I have yet to see or hear one proponent of AGW explain why the geological record for the last six hundred million years shows no correlation between CO2 and temperatures or adequately explain why the ice core records ALL show that temperatures rise before CO2 and decline before CO2 by hundreds of years. If you can, MattB, you may win a Nobel Peace Prize. If Al Gore can do it, anyone can. Can you address the two previously mentioned arguments with empirical evidence or is it time to admit you have been had? Its okay Matt, it happened to me, too. I hope your family is well.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    Baa Humbug #59

    Thanks for pointing this out – a breath of sanity at last.

    As a one time professional modeller, I have said on numerous occasions that computer models cannot, and should not, be used for predictive purposes. They are meaningless in any real world terms.

    They can be used to project possible future values based on one or more hypotheses. The results can then be compared with observed values to reject some hypotheses as being improbable, and to modify other hypotheses (and the model) to explain the observed results. You then repeat the experiment.

    But they will never accurately predict the future, and especially not in terms of x amount of y by the year z.

    On no account should computer model predictions be used to inform policy, especially policy that requires governments to invest large sums of money. It is criminal, and the people who do it are no more than confidence tricksters.

    By appealing to models, as their authority, the scientists are tacitly admitting that they do not fully understand how and why the climate behaves as it does.

    This was why the last decade of cooling was not predicted, and why they still cannot explain it today. Similarly, it was why they had to “loose” the MWP and little ice age.

    If any of the hockey team are still playing, I challenge you to show how I am substantially wrong in stating these facts!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    MattB:

    I would like to think the scientists are all applying themselves ethically and skeptically in their work too. But even if we assume that this is the case, there is an awful lot that they simply do not know. One has to remember that this field referred to as “climate science” is in its infancy and there is a heck of a lot less known than there is known, and the climatic systems are horribly complex. The summary documents of the IPCC aimed at policymakers convey far too much certainty about their “consensus” which is simply not appropriate.

    The fact that the whole thrust of the IPCC is boiled down to one variable (CO2) by the activists and politicians is the real problem. There is much more at work in the climate system than CO2, but very little airplay is given to the other, often confounding, variables. Some of these variables are endogenous to the system, and some exogenous. The latter are impossible to tax, so the politicians wish to downplay those.

    BTW regarding IPCC “consensus” it is useful to look at the comments received by the panel reviewing the draft chapters*. Some of the well reasoned arguments criticising IPCC content are summarily rejected by the panels with little or no reason given. In some cases these rejections are clearly not justified. Therefore it becomes apparent there is no “consensus” of X thousand scientists. There is simply consensus amongst the much, much smaller number of chapter reviewers (I presume these panels are run by the lead authors).

    I picked out one such example by a chap called Kenneth Carslaw on WUWT the other day. Prof Carslaw made a perfectly logical criticism on the action of aerosols which had implications for the IPCC models. Basically he said the IPCC represented aerosols as the only possible explanation for an effect where, in his opinion, they only represent one possible explanation of many. This argument was based on the uncertainty regarding aerosols that the IPCC themselves stated in a previous section of the same report. The panel rejected the comment out of hand, saying they used the word “likely” and that this was sufficient to let the text remain as is.

    This is a clear bias… rather than saying aerosols are one of several variables that could explain the phenomenon in question, they say aersols are the likely cause and mention nothing else. The untrained reader would have no idea other variables could be at work, thereby adding much more uncertainty to the IPCC models. This kind of improper portrayal of apparent scientific certainty borders on fraud.

    When the IPCC refers to the rigorous science, this may very well be true for the primary scientific documents they produce. The problem is that policymakers only read the summaries which have been word-smithed to push political agendas which are often not in line with the science. This was just one such example.

    * Here is the link to a draft review of chapter 9:
    http://pds.lib.harvard.edu/pds/view/7798293
    Prof Carslaw’s comment is on page 23, but is strengthened on pages 2-3.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Eddy:

    Not everything reviewed or referenced by the IPCC is necessarily peer-reviewed science. They state in their own terms of reference (I forget the name of the document – I linked it in a previous thread here) that they must also review non-peer-reviewed literature. So basically they can use any reference they care to…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    sorry Eddy makes sense to me. The key is that the IPCC don’t “do” science, so they use science someone else has done, and I assume that science uses the best science that science has to offer if it made the grade.

    Also Eddy if you think “I have yet to see or hear one proponent of AGW explain why the geological record for the last six hundred million years shows no correlation between CO2 and temperatures or adequately explain why the ice core records ALL show that temperatures rise before CO2 and decline before CO2 by hundreds of years.”
    then you’ve not been looking.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    MattB:
    February 11th, 2010 at 2:17 pm

    Not so fast Matt. Here is a thought experiment. (Remember we are talking about projections into the future, 2100+)

    Once upon a time, people were burning wood and straw, consisting of 10 parts carbon to 1 part hydrogen. If you projected carbon emissions back then, you’d have ended up with a very high ppm.

    Then people started to burn coal, 4 parts carbon to one part hydrogen. If you projected future emissions then, you would end up with a different trajectory to the one earlier.

    Then people started burning oil. 2 parts carbon to one part hydrogen. Different trajectory again.

    Then we got onto gas. One part carbon to 4 parts hydrogen. Yet different trajectory again.

    In essence Matt, nobody can predict the future. Therefore it’s acceptable to chart where we are now, and extrapolate a straight line into the future from there. It’s as good a guess as anyone elses. The IPCC does that too. That’s why their projections are different from one report to the next. See my post at #59


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Scott

    Mattb

    I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt after Jo’s post about listening to you. so rightly or wrongly I am going to assume your comment…

    I am willing to bet that the science used by the IPCC uses the best that science has to offer when it is considering how the oceans will react to increasing atmospheric CO2 in terms of what proportion will end up in the ocean vs the atmophere.

    is said tongue in cheek because as Eddy as commented the IPCC has zero credibility.

    And that your comment

    But you never know maybe the worlds leading ocean scientists are also in on the deal and are keeping mum while their science is bastardised by the pseudoscientific cabal and the IPCC?”

    Is a gentle dig at the IPCC’s gross un-professionalism so far.

    I would point anyone to the fact that Co2 levels have been higher in earths distant past and life on this planet evolved out of the oceans.

    So if higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations are so bad for the ocean how did life emanate from these same oceans?

    I would suggest it isn’t as bad as is being made out.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    But the science that goes in to the IPCC does not just make up emissions projections – this numbers are not controversial are they?

    I don’t see the point of your thought experiment to be honest. Projections are based on the best knowledge we have to hand. Obviously if someone invents some low carbon wonderfuel then great the projections will change. But you can’t use that as a reason not to project? If it was easy to see a path to lower carbon than those projected* then no one would be up in arms about it. The whole rational behind blogs like these is that reducing carbon emissions below projected levels is very very expensive. If it was free who would care?

    *of course the easy path is nuclear and we do have it but them’s the breaks I guess.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    MattB wrote,”sorry Eddy makes sense to me. The key is that the IPCC don’t “do” science, so they use science someone else has done, and I assume that science uses the best science that science has to offer if it made the grade.
    Also Eddy if you think “I have yet to see or hear one proponent of AGW explain why the geological record for the last six hundred million years shows no correlation between CO2 and temperatures or adequately explain why the ice core records ALL show that temperatures rise before CO2 and decline before CO2 by hundreds of years.”
    then you’ve not been looking.

    Really? If you are correct than you can cite empirical evidence to prove me wrong. You dodged the questions and segued. Cite the evidence, if you can!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Sorry to disappoint you Scott:)

    Let me just ask you to think about how the life that existed in the earths distant past would enjoy things on the earth today? My suggestion is that if they would love it then they’d still be here, and in fact their biology would not cope. mass extinction is one of the warnings we do not want to induce significant climate change on the planet.

    I am sure there will be life on earth no matter what CO2 and temps do, but based on track record not many species survive significant changes in the long run.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    MattB:

    Projections are based on the best knowledge we have to hand.

    As I point out those projections are based on complex models which don’t even take into account all the climate variables. Often where they do incorporate them, they are poorly modelled. Top that off with the fact that the system is a chaotic one. Those projections aren’t worth the paper they are printed on.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Scott

    Let me just ask you to think about how the life that existed in the earths distant past would enjoy things on the earth today?

    Dont know they might enjoy a Cappuccino

    My suggestion is that if they would love it then they’d still be here, and in fact their biology would not cope

    But Matt why has their biology changed ? did man change the climate back then or did something else change it for them?

    mass extinction is one of the warnings we do not want to induce significant climate change on the planet.

    My understanding is mass extinction happened due to an astoroid strike, not saying previous ice ages didnt have an impact but man was not responsible back then so why are we assuming they are now?

    If man did not change it then, what did change it? Maybe the sun?

    I am sure there will be life on earth no matter what CO2 and temps do, but based on track record not many species survive significant changes in the long run.

    I agree however I have seen zero proof its man increasing CO2 levels. In fact the eveidence suggests the opposite that increased CO2 assists plant growth.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    @ MattB 89

    Corals developed when CO2 levels were much higher and the water didn’t become acidic and they are still here. Still waiting for an answer to my two arguments @ 80, MattB.

    My friends in Australia will find this interesting: Australiagate. I am not talking about the debunked claim that Australia’s drought was caused by AGW. Apparently, GISS cooked the books on Australia’s weather, as they have done everywhere. See: http://www.climategate.com/australiagate-now-nasa-caught-in-trick-over-aussie-climate-data. The IPCC has more “gates” than Disneyland.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    So you want empirical evidence for these two things yeah?

    1) I have yet to see or hear one proponent of AGW explain why the geological record for the last six hundred million years shows no correlation between CO2 and temperatures

    2) or adequately explain why the ice core records ALL show that temperatures rise before CO2 and decline before CO2 by hundreds of years.

    Well you are happy with those two statements so I asume you are comfortable they are derived by emperical evidence.

    Maybe my answer will disappoint you yet again Eddy, but I’m sure you can do some research and find out some information about historical climates – certainly no climate scientist I’ve heard of challenges that temps and CO2 have been much higher and lower in the past, and oftern uncorreleted. That is what the emperical evidence shows, and there are a wide range of explanations for these changes from various lng and short term cycles. I was under the impression this was not a massively controversion part of the science. I’m honestly not sure where I could get emperical evidence to explain the CO2 and temp record in some pre historical time period sorry and I’m not going to start looking. Maybe you could find me an example of a climate scientist complaining about the historical record and making up what you consider to be dodgy reasons and it will give me somewhere to start.

    2) similar answer. Short story is something else caused warming, and also made CO2 increase (like a long term cycle causeing ice to melt to water and atmosphere getting more CO2 and other gases), these things increased warming, but they were not the initial cause of warming. Then at the end of it all something else happened (another long term cycle) that had a cooling influence that was stronger than the atmosphere’s warming influence.

    But again I am not sure what emperical evidence would show that sorry. It appears to me again to be a non-controversial aspect of the science and I’ve never really looked in to it.

    If in these historical situations CO2 had lead temps rising, then it would be quite the conundrum to figure out what had released all the CO2 in the first place… for example in the midst of an ice age just what would produce a whole heap of CO2 to cause warming… no it is another warming forcing that does the initial warming.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    MattB:
    February 11th, 2010 at 4:34 pm

    The key is that the IPCC don’t “do” science, so they use science someone else has done, and I assume that science uses the best science that science has to offer if it made the grade.

    I love analogies and stories to make a point, so here goes.

    BigBoss: Baa Humbug, the CEO is coming from the states on 5th April. I want all our future projections by the 1st. And remember, it’s important to both our careers.
    BH: Sure thing boss.
    BH: Matt, how are we looking at the wholesale side?
    Matt: Yeah good, it’s very likely we got 6 mill collard.
    BH: Good, accepted.
    BH: Bulldust what about the retail side?
    Bulldust: very likely 12 mill and likely another 5 in the works.
    BH: OK accepted. That’s 6+12+5= 23 mill
    BH: Rereke what’s happening on your end?
    Rereke: Unfortunately there is a very likely 8 mill lawsuit pending, doesn’t look good.
    BH: When is that, before or after 5th April?
    Rereke: Not till May
    BH: Good, REJECTED. We’re still on 23 mill
    BH: Roy what’s happening on the farming side?
    Roy: The droughts busted us, very likely loss of 8 mill
    BH: Aren’t we getting govt subsidies.
    Roy: Not sure yet, 6 mill but unlikely.
    BH: Accepted, only 2 mill loss. We’re good with 21 mill total, that should do it.

    The above wouldn’t pass muster in a private corporation, but apparently it does in climate science, never mind the economic well being of the globe is at stake.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Eddie, all early life on the planet evolved under different climate conditions than today. I’m not really sure what you hope to gain from this line of argument.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Rather than all talking about the IPCC projections, how about we look at them instead. This took me 20secs of time to find on the net. Tough research eh?

    Here’s the source link.

    Not sure if the image is showing up in the direct image link or not (not on my system). Should Monckton have used the actual projection lines? Yes. Would it have made much difference to the look of the top graph in Jo’s original post? Not much at all. The divergence would have been just as obvious. Note that some of the projections would have made the divergence look worse than the straight lines do. Note also the huge uncertainty range for each of the projections at 2100. I would argue the uncertainty is greater still because of ommitted variables, and poor representation of some included variables. However, even taking their uncertainty ranges the range of possible projections is huge.

    Almost never is this uncertainty conveyed in the media or by the advocates for climate action.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tucker Grant

    Wow. The Skeptics’ case is being sabotaged from within? I’ll be frank – I think we need to cut ties with the loonie fringe or risk losing the momentum that we’ve built up with the public. I think we need to cut away from Mr Monckton and draw a very clear line between what WE (skeptics) believe and the lies being pushed by the extremists on our side.

    Here’s the thing. Either what our side is publishing is true and correct, or it is wrong and misleading.

    There is no middle ground. We cannot claim that Monckton is right because of anything the IPCC have done or because of the frauds within the scientific community. The charts we publish and support either must stand true or fall away.

    These charts are clearly NOT true. The IPCC don’t publish linear trends or linear confidence bands. The models that scientists use (which the IPCC reviews, summarises and publishes) are far more complex and advanced than Monckton would have us believe (in fact, that he would have us believe are created and published by them – which they are NOT!).

    An observer, who may be ‘on the fence’ can quickly check and when they discover they are being lied to and hood-winked, they will turn away from our cause very quickly. This is the danger. Monckton (and Nova, having repeated his efforts without clarifying or correcting) may well be doing more harm than good for the skeptical movement.

    I for one, will do everything I can as a paid, practising scientist to rally against such nonsense and pseudoscience. I feel it is my duty to my cause and urge all other blog readers to do the same.

    Seriously, we can either grow in knowledge and power, or we can shoot ourselves in the foot. We can either carry on increasing understanding of climate or we can simply go the way of the flat-earthers.

    Of course, there is one other alternative, which is to heavily edit threads like this, removing all comments from people who can see the misleading and untrue nature of what has been published, and pray that the people who may come to read it will not have the wherewithall to go out for themselves and discover that they’re being lied to by the ‘skeptical’ camp.

    I don’t think that last option is wise, but it surely is better than keeping Mr Monckton on a pedestal and holding everything he says to be true when it so clearly is not.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    MattB:
    February 11th, 2010 at 5:03 pm

    If you believe what you posted at #93 then you have no choice but to be dubious (dare I say skeptical) about the science as presented by the IPCC


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Okay Matt, I will try one more time. Nobody can explain why CO2 levels rise AFTER temperatures rise. If CO2 caused temperatures to rise they would rise BEFORE temperatures do, Cause and effect? Here is a graph I have already posted showing the temp and CO2 record for the last 600 million years http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html. The graph is displayed a third of the way down the page. Unless you are legally blind you will see that there is no correlation between temps and CO2.

    You wrote, “Eddie, all early life on the planet evolved under different climate conditions than today. I’m not really sure what you hope to gain from this line of argument.”

    The fossil records show that coral evolved when CO2 levels were much higher than they are today. If CO2 were causing harm to the coral reefs the reefs would have gone extinct a long, long time ago. The corals that were around then are still here and still the same. Some forms of life have changed and some have not. To suggest that higher levels of CO2 would cause a mass extinction is not supported by the evidence. Please correct me if I am mistaken (with evidence).


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Adam

    Bulldust #96

    Here’s a higher resolution version of that graph

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/figure-spm-5.html

    The red line is the one that Monckton is talking about, so we can ignore the others. It’s clear that a straight line drawn from the start to the end of that curve is misleading. Simply holding up a ruler to your monitor will show you how much Monckton’s straight line diverges from the prediction.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MadJak

    Tucker,

    I agree completely. We need a cleenskin who is well versed in both the science and the clear communication of the science. Someone who critics would find it almost impossible to lambaster.

    Who wants to lead the extreme middle?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    BTW, MattB, when you view the graph you will note that during the late Ordovician (approximately 350 mya) CO2 levels were 4,400 ppm. That is more than an order of magnitude greater than today and yet we were in the grips of one of the worst ice ages the world has ever seen. AGW theory, if correct, would mean that the world would have been ice free. Since you will not conduct due diligence I will tell you that there was no volcanic activity or anything else that would have caused the temps to drop. If you don’t believe me then do your homework.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Eddy “Okay Matt, I will try one more time. Nobody can explain why CO2 levels rise AFTER temperatures rise. If CO2 caused temperatures to rise they would rise BEFORE temperatures do, Cause and effect?”

    I simply don’t agree. It is accepted that warmer oceans hold less CO2, so a warmer planet generally has more CO2, so when SOMETHING ELSE warms the planet then CO2 rises. When SOMETHING ELSE cools the planet then CO2 falls, generally speaking. Once the CO2 has increased, however, that also causes warming (as is the case today).

    Can I put it this way. JO believes CO2 warms about 1-1.4 degrees per doubling. JO is aware that CO2 lags temp change in much of the ice core record. Therefore – JO does not believe that the fact that CO2 lags in the ice cores brings the warming properties of CO2 in to question.

    Eddy “The fossil records show that coral evolved when CO2 levels were much higher than they are today. If CO2 were causing harm to the coral reefs the reefs would have gone extinct a long, long time ago. The corals that were around then are still here and still the same. Some forms of life have changed and some have not. To suggest that higher levels of CO2 would cause a mass extinction is not supported by the evidence.”

    Coral reefs have ADAPTED to slow changes in climate just like everything else. THe clear concern of the IPCC and scientists is that the rapid rate of change will exceed the ability of many species to adapt. Your saying Coral reefs is like saying “birds” or “fish”… we all know that the species of these kinds of animals have changed vastly ofer history… even the early dinosaurs were vastly different to those that came later. I feel you are assuming that the corals that developed way back then are the same ones as are around today – I don;t know they may be but they will have moved with chances in circumstances.

    I don’t need “evidence” to demonstrate that these two issues you have simply don’t make sense. Take note… they are probably not mentioned in Skeptics Handbook 1 or 2.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Jo – a suggestion. You know A Few Things Ill Considered and the list of debunks to arguments of climate skeptics?

    Well at the risk of annoying one or two of your members, have you thought about putting together a similar guide for skeptics to say “These common arguments against AGW are demonstrably false and if you use them in conversation, even if you convince your friend, please be aware that you are not communicating science, but you are perpetuating a myth, and when this is exmplaed to your friend they will think everything you said about AGW was wrong.”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tucker Grant

    Eddy Aruda:
    “Okay Matt, I will try one more time. Nobody can explain why CO2 levels rise AFTER temperatures rise. If CO2 caused temperatures to rise…”

    Two points. Firstly, nobody in their right mind is suggesting an anthropogenic cause for the global climate pre-industrialisation. Of course there was another driver, and I’ll hang my hat on Milankovich Cycles, which you may be surprised to find are actually fairly well understood. But external forcing isn’t enough to explain the scale of variation that occurred following the initial orbital cycle trigger. There MUST have been feedbacks from the earth herself.

    And THAT is where CO2 and greenhouse gases come in. They handily explain the bulk of the historical cycle – based on what we know from measurement, experimentation and physics. Cycles which without them cannot be explained. There’s no big mystery here. If SOMETHING warms the earth initially, we know that greenhouse gases are released, and we know that increased atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases then cause further warming. This is not voodoo science, it’s absolutely grounded in observation.

    So no problems with history.

    What we know about NOW is that ABSENT the initial forcing from orbital cycles, we are increasing the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. No serious person doubts this. It’s not the absolute temperature, nor the change in temperature that is feeding the case for AGW, it’s that this change is not being forced from outside (as far as they can tell), it is coming from within.

    Here’s a bit of a logic test for you. Let’s say that you’ve eaten some dodgy seafood, then fallen ill. Is it wise to assume that because you have been ill in the past without first eating seafood, that the seafood cannot be to blame THIS TIME? Even if scientists tell you that dodgy seafood harbors bacteria that can make a person ill?

    Skeptics need to stick to one tack, and that tack is that the AMOUNT of warming due to CO2 cannot be ascertained with absolute certainty. These side-lines do our cause no good at all.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Ok Eddy in 102… here is what wikipedia says about the Ordovian:

    “The Early Ordovician climate was thought to be quite warm, at least in the tropics. As with North America and Europe, Gondwana was largely covered with shallow seas during the Ordovician. Shallow clear waters over continental shelves encouraged the growth of organisms that deposit calcium carbonates in their shells and hard parts. The Panthalassic Ocean covered much of the northern hemisphere, and other minor oceans included Proto-Tethys, Paleo-Tethys, Khanty Ocean which was closed off by the Late Ordovician, Iapetus Ocean, and the new Rheic Ocean.

    As the Ordovician progressed, we see evidence of glaciers on the land we now know as Africa and South America.”

    Now hear is the clincher:
    “At the time these land masses were sitting at the South Pole, and covered by ice caps.”

    So you are complaining we were gripped by an Ice Age, ignoring the fact that all the land was at the south pole!! where it is cold!!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    And then Eddy, the Ice Age that knocked off the Ordovian… guess what – it was caused by SOMETHING ELSE! Not falling GHG levels in the atmosphere.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Apologies if someone has already posted this:

    http://www.climategate.com/australiagate-now-nasa-caught-in-trick-over-aussie-climate-data

    Yet more fudged temps courtesy of GISS, this time in Queensland.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tucker Grant

    Madjack: “I agree completely. We need a cleenskin who is well versed in both the science and the clear communication of the science. Someone who critics would find it almost impossible to lambaster.

    Who wants to lead the extreme middle?”

    I would hope that Joanne Nova is up to the task. However, I’ve just watched her and Mr Evans give a presentation to CEI:
    http://ceiondemand.org/2009/03/13/cooler-heads-briefing-by-dr-david-evans-and-joanne-nova/

    I’m not so sure. Certainly it would be advisable to keep Mr Evans away from microphones in future – right or wrong, he comes across as a tinfoil-hatter… Ms Nova – if she can shrill it down a bit – would benefit from sounder science and perhaps diction lessons, but could certainly lead a credible organisation if she hasn’t done too much damage to her reputation already.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    MattB, What is that “something else”? If something else is causing temps to rise then your CO2 theory as the primary driver of temps is falsified. Do you read what you write before you post it? Also, as temps decrease but CO2 continues to rise what is the “something else” that causes temps to fall while CO2continues to rise for several hundreds of years? If CO2 caused temps to rise temps wouldn’t fall and we would have the “runaway” greenhouse effect, but that doesn’t happen.

    Many of the first corals are EXACTLY the same as they were when they first evolved yet higher CO2 levels had no effect on them. Can you cite one instance where CO2 levels caused mass extinctions? If you looked at the graph I provided via a link you would see that there is no historical evidence of a correlation between temps and CO2.

    You wrote, “I don’t need “evidence” to demonstrate that these two issues you have simply don’t make sense. Take note… they are probably not mentioned in Skeptics Handbook 1 or 2.”

    If you don’t need evidence then what you have is faith. You know, religion? And what is it that I wrote that doesn’t make sense to you? Even someone who likes to read books with pictures could comprehend what I wrote. Are you being intentionally obtuse? What does the skeptics handbook have to do with anything? Cease with the non sequitur B.S. and try thinking logically!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tucker Grant

    Eddy Aruda:
    “As temps decrease but CO2 continues to rise what is the “something else” that causes temps to fall while CO2 continues to rise for several hundreds of years? If CO2 caused temps to rise temps wouldn’t fall and we would have the “runaway” greenhouse effect, but that doesn’t happen.”

    Not necessarily. We could build a rather simple mathematical model to show why your conclusion is not necessitated by either logic or mathematics… but you’d argue against the usefulness of models, I guess…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Scott

    We could build a rather simple mathematical model to show why your conclusion is not necessitated by either logic or mathematics… but you’d argue against the usefulness of models, I guess

    Love to see this model


    Report this

    00

  • #

    MattB wrote, “So you are complaining we were gripped by an Ice Age, ignoring the fact that all the land was at the south pole!! where it is cold!!”

    Wikipedia? They have been thoroughly discredited and have had to fire some people over it, don’t you read the news?

    Matt, the south pole was covered by land, so what? There have been periods when there was a land mass at the south pole and the earth was much warmer and ice free. Moreover, ALL the continents were grouped together to form one continent and the mass was not just contained within the antarctic circle. BTW, CO2 wasn’t falling, it was at 4,400 ppm! I feel like I am trying to teach a pig to sing. It wastes my time and annoys the pig!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    “What is that “something else”? If something else is causing temps to rise then your CO2 theory as the primary driver of temps is falsified.”

    sorry Eddy that is simply rubbish.

    “Also, as temps decrease but CO2 continues to rise what is the “something else” that causes temps to fall while CO2continues to rise for several hundreds of years?”
    Dunno. Do they keep rising or is it they just fall a bit after.

    “If CO2 caused temps to rise temps wouldn’t fall and we would have the “runaway” greenhouse effect, but that doesn’t happen.”
    Because whatever is pushing the other way is pushing harder. Submarines go under the ocean even though they contain air that is pushing upwards…

    “Many of the first corals are EXACTLY the same as they were when they first evolved yet higher CO2 levels had no effect on them.”
    Are they? can you show me where that is from – I’m no coral expert.

    “Can you cite one instance where CO2 levels caused mass extinctions?”
    Nope.

    “If you don’t need evidence then what you have is faith.” Nope – nice try though. You are right though I have faith that what scientists tell me about the history of the planet is reasonably accurate. And so do you as we both seem to agree about what the planet was like back then. I could do you a research paper on the causes of climatic shifts throughout the history of the planet and get your evidence, but you’d need to pay me.

    “What does the skeptics handbook have to do with anything?”
    The skeptics handbook is a distillation of the issues with climate science down to a couple of key points… my argument is that if your points were the gamebreaker then Jo would have them in her booklet?

    I am the one thinking logically here Eddy, sorry.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Scott

    Because whatever is pushing the other way is pushing harder.

    Ok I give up, what is pushing the other way


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Tucker wrote,”Eddy Aruda:
    “As temps decrease but CO2 continues to rise what is the “something else” that causes temps to fall while CO2 continues to rise for several hundreds of years? If CO2 caused temps to rise temps wouldn’t fall and we would have the “runaway” greenhouse effect, but that doesn’t happen.”
    Not necessarily. We could build a rather simple mathematical model to show why your conclusion is not necessitated by either logic or mathematics… but you’d argue against the usefulness of models, I guess…”

    Which model predicted the current lack of global warming? Models are not empirical evidence. Trenberth said,”The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.” There models said one thing and the evidence said another.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Eddy – I don’t think there is much political espionage and fabrication going on at the Octovian wiki page, sorry to dissapoint you.

    Eddy – you are arguing against what you think warmists believe. That is that CO2 is THE primary driver of climate and has been since the dawn of time, and therefore any cold perior with high CO2 must falsify AGW. What I am telling you is that every single publishing climate scientist is aware of historical climate, and is aware that there is no contradiction in times of higher CO2 being cooler, or CO2 rising as it was cooling, or temps rising before CO2 did. They are simply not-credible arguments.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Eddy in 116 – do you see that if the temperature record was being manipulated as suggested by many skeptics, then the temperature record WOULD match the models and Trenberth would not have had to worry. Does it not suggest you you that the global temp record is not being doctored?

    The simple fact is they didn’t know what was causing the pause in temps rising, and because it was being latched on to by skeptics he felt it was a travesty they could not explain it. Science recognising a lack of knowledge wow hold the front page!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Eddy @ 92!

    The acidification of the sea is a non-issue. The figures I’ve seen indicate that the oceans hold 50 (fifty) times the tonnage of CO2 that is currently in our atmosphere. So, logically, if we doubled the atmospheric CO2 levels and the additional CO2 all (somehow – ignore Henry’s Law) managed to find its way into the oceans, then the CO2 level in the oceans would increase by a HUGE, HUGE, HUGE!!! Two (2) percent. (Yawn). And the warmist problem is???

    And I’m not even going to start on outgassing of CO2 from the oceans and the potential for this to drown out any man-made emissions… Let alone the potential for such an outgassing to have generated the runaway greenhouse hundreds or thousands of times before humanity existed. And guess what? No runaway greenhouse…ever.
    Theory falsified. Get another one. It’s the sound of a beautiful theory being crushed by an ugly reality – welcome to science, children.

    Cheers,

    Speedy.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Scott in 115? Which time? there are many cooling and warming forcings and cycles that are well documented that happen in the lifetime of the earth. Solar cycles, Milankovich (sp? – very low frequency), El Nino (high frequency).

    Is it that hard to grasp – something happens, earth warms, something else happens, earth cools, somethign happens etc etc etc… modern era… we add CO2 and others, earth warms.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Scott

    Eddy in 116 – do you see that if the temperature record was being manipulated as suggested by many skeptics, then the temperature record WOULD match the models and Trenberth would not have had to worry. Does it not suggest you you that the global temp record is not being doctored

    Actually the models were fixed and due to their incompitent manipulations the following temperature corruptions fell short of their model projections.

    basically they stuffed up. There models predicted such runaway temerature that no amount of manipulation could match their poor models.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Scott

    Scott in 115? Which time? there are many cooling and warming forcings and cycles that are well documented that happen in the lifetime of the earth. Solar cycles, Milankovich (sp? – very low frequency), El Nino (high frequency).

    Is it that hard to grasp – something happens, earth warms, something else happens, earth cools, somethign happens etc etc etc… modern era… we add CO2 and others, earth warms.

    And your point is? everything else except man made effects


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Speedy the ocean is only expected to move from pH 8.104 to pH 7.824 from 1990 to 2100. So methinks either the scientists who know this, or you, have no idea of the kind of impact such an apparently small change in pH may have. My money is on the scientists.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Scott

    My money is on the scientists.

    so is mine just not the corrupt ones used by the IPCC


    Report this

    00

  • #

    MattB, when cornered and asked to provide evidence you can’t.
    Matt wrote, “sorry Eddy that is simply rubbish.” Prove it or remain quiet and quit embarrassing yourself. Pay you to make alogical argument to defend your idiotic contentions? Matt, when you make a claim and somebody challenges it, respond with evidence or else you forfeit.

    You wrote, ” I have faith that what scientists tell me about the history of the planet is reasonably accurate.” An appeal to authority. Did you ever study logic?

    Matt wrote, “And so do you as we both seem to agree about what the planet was like back then.” Straw man
    Matt wrote, “The skeptics handbook is a distillation of the issues with climate science down to a couple of key points… my argument is that if your points were the gamebreaker then Jo would have them in her booklet? Are you saying that only Jo’s handbook can be used as a resource? You can’t possibly be that stupid, can you? I didn’t bring up the handbook originally, you did! Another straw man.

    Matt wrote, ” I could do you a research paper on the causes of climatic shifts throughout the history of the planet and get your evidence, but you’d need to pay me.” Pay you? You are too lazy to respond with evidence, cannot reason logically and cannot construct a sentence on a regular basis.

    Matt wrote, “Are they? can you show me where that is from – I’m no coral expert. Here you go Matt. http://www.springerlink.com/content/q3280640m7r4320w/

    Matt wrote, “I am the one thinking logically here Eddy, sorry. Your statement is refuted by the straw man arguments and the appeals to authority you made. Also, if you were thinking logically you would have responded with evidence instead you did nothing but embarrass yourself. Have you no shame or decency?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Regarding Temp data see Read Me Harry file.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Sorry folks but IMHO you are wrong to believe a 1-2degC CO2 induced warming will release more CO2. Just not possible.
    Also, just because there seems to ba a correlation between CO2 levels and temps in the last 50yrs or so doesn’t make it so in geological time.

    Regards corals. You’re all off the mark. Temps do not effect corals directly. Corals are NOT bleached directly by temps.

    Do you want an explanation?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Eddy just quoting text and making false claims about logic does not win you an argument sorry.

    Youre argument
    “What is that “something else”? If something else is causing temps to rise then your CO2 theory as the primary driver of temps is falsified.”

    ok is rubbish BECAUSE: (1)I never said CO2 is the primary driver of temps through history. I think you call that a strawman. I do consider that it is the major cause of the current issue, but even then I’m not of the belief that other cycles could not overpower CO2 just as they have in the past.
    (2) Not one single climate scientist says that CO2 is the cause of all temperature change in the history of the planet. Not one!!! Milankovich cycles EXIST, and they DRIVE TEMPERATURES, so by your logic their existence falsifies AGW theory. Insanity!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    BH in 127 I do not believe that the feedbacks are reliant on more CO2 being released by a 1-2 degree rise in temps. Although warmer oceans do hold less CO2 as a proportion of the total it seems.

    I’d like to know where somone has said that temperatures bleach CO2 directly in this discussion.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    coral not CO2 sorry


    Report this

    00

  • #

    @ Baa Humbug

    Matt seems to believe that CO2 levels rising will cause a mass extinction (see MattB at 89) I explained that coral has been around for a long time when CO2 levels were much higher. I know that the acidification of an alkali ocean won’t happen.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Scott

    Not one single climate scientist says that CO2 is the cause of all temperature change in the history of the planet

    I do consider that it is the major cause of the current issue

    Why is it now Mattb but not in the past??


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    MattB: @ 123.

    You sound like you’re confusing precision with accuracy. Quoting pH figures to 3 decimal places sounds very impressive but it doesn’t make a prediction correct if the underlying assumptions are just plain wrong. To quote Mark Twain –

    “It is better to be approximately correct than precisely wrong.” You seem to have fallen for this basic trap.

    On what basis did the “scientists” arrive at this number? Is it the truth – the WHOLE truth? Please pardon me if I am “skeptical”.

    Secondly, I know very well what happens to calcium carbonate (the building block of coral) at pH 7.824. Nothing, unless you count a bit of growth. It would be a simple exercise to stick some vinegar in a fish tank (get a well calibrate pH probe first) if you doubt this – why don’t you toddle off and try? I’ve spent a few years looking at something like this this myself…

    Cheers,

    Speedy


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Also Eddy logic would dictate that I accept what science tells me until such a time that I am given cause to allocate limited time resources to investigating the issue. I have no reason to spend my time investigating pre-history given that I am not aware of any major debate that is relevent to my life. Even you and I agree about the past it seems so why would I spend hours researching that issue?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Speedy who cares about the decimal places… my point is that the general science is that the change expected in pH is as I posted. If you think the impact of that is zip then bully for you.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Scott in 132 re-read what I said, which is that no one claims it is the cause of ALL change in the past, but certainly CO2 played a role.

    Funnily enough though what interests me is the world we live in NOW and the impacts we may be having, and implementing sensible things to avoid something that our pathetically miniscule understanding of the planet suggest may happen and we could easily avoid.

    If I believed some of the dire predictions of reducing AGW that skeptics bandy about then I’d probably not want to reduce emissions either.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    @ MattB

    You wrote,”Eddy just quoting text and making false claims about logic does not win you an argument sorry.
    Youre argument
    “What is that “something else”? If something else is causing temps to rise then your CO2 theory as the primary driver of temps is falsified.”
    ok is rubbish BECAUSE: (1)I never said CO2 is the primary driver of temps through history. I think you call that a strawman. I do consider that it is the major cause of the current issue, but even then I’m not of the belief that other cycles could not overpower CO2 just as they have in the past.
    (2) Not one single climate scientist says that CO2 is the cause of all temperature change in the history of the planet. Not one!!! Milankovich cycles EXIST, and they DRIVE TEMPERATURES, so by your logic their existence falsifies AGW theory. Insanity!

    Logic speaks for itself. When I say you have committed a fallacy of logic and you can’t refute it you lose!

    The AGW theory states that CO2 is the primary cause of temp change. I never said that there were no other factors affecting climate and I never said that you said the same. You still have not answered my question, what is that “something else”? CO2 cannot drive temps because if they did the temps would continue to rise as CO2 levels increase, but they don’t. You wrote, ” so by your logic their existence falsifies AGW theory. Insanity!” Non sequitur.

    Well, its 1:03 AM in California, good night. Enjoy your green kool-aid, Matt.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    MattB:

    I’m just saying that if we could somehow get ALL of the current atmospheric CO2 inventory into the oceans, it would increase the ocean’s CO2 concentration by 2% (relative). Big deal.

    As Eddy has demonstrated from the paleo-climate history, acidification of the oceans won’t happen. I suggest you get on with your life and enjoy it.

    Cheers,

    Speedy.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    CORALS

    Same species of corals can thrive in warmer waters but bleach (starve) when ones in cooler waters reach temps of those in warmer waters. Corals live off zooplankton which live amongst the coral. It’s this zooplankton that die with sudden increases of temps such that in strong el nino years, hence the coral starves or bleaches.
    If zooplankton that thrive in warmer waters (as is in much warmer tropical waters up north) were introduced to the coral in the cooler but warming waters, that coral wouldn’t bleach at all. (I think I made sense there)

    REGARDS OCEANS RELEASING CO2.

    The oceans are opaque to the radiation bands that CO2 emitt. Hence any warming caused by CO2 greenhouse effect has no influence on ocean temps. Only direct sunlight, which penetrates down to about 100mtrs can heat the oceans.
    Some ocean circulations take days, some months yet others decades or centuries. So any prolonged warming by direct sunlight will in some cases not manifest itself for hundreds of years.
    That’s why it is nigh on impossible to tune AOGCM’s to any degree of acceptable levels, they can only be rough guesstimates at best.

    That’s why the IPCC or realclimate cannot definitively say where the CO2 came from or where it goes.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    HOUSEKEEPING

    Captain Marvel #1
    Sorry someone else picked up the same moniker. You were the first so you can keep it.

    But as it happens I don’t allow baseless namecalling, eg “denialists”. Naturally, if you can name a paper with empirical evidence that we deny, then it wouldn’t be baseless would it? See here for guidelines.
    http://joannenova.com.au/2010/01/is-there-any-evidence/ or http://joannenova.com.au/2008/10/what-is-evidence/

    Your comments will be moderated until you either provide the evidence we deny or acknowledge that it’s baseless namecalling and agree not to do it again. No comments will appear until this is resolved.

    CAPTAIN MARVEL #2
    Please pick a different moniker. Conversations don’t work if there are two people who appear to be the same. Thanks.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Eddy not sure what colour your kool-aid is but it works.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Matt,

    You refuse to do the research necessary to bolster any claim you make and you have the gall to say you should be payed to do so? Wow! No wonder you get hammered EVERY time you post something on this site. I should have remembered the old proverb: Never engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed person. The day you can make a logical argument I will gain a little respect for you. Until then, I will treat you with compassion as I would anybody who is mentally challenged. If you weren’t mentally challenged you could provide evidence to support your arguments, illogical as they are.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Scott

    Mattb

    you are making the assumption that all sceptics are against reducing pollution and that is a falsehood.

    I can only speak for myself but I dont believe CO2 is a pollutent, in fact I see it as a critical gas that helps maintain life on this planet, through plant food.

    I beleive man made contribution to the total CO2 in the atmosphere is negligible compared to historical levels, and is totaly insignificant when compared to water vapour. its impact is so small compared to the suns activities that its a hair on a flea riding on an elephant.

    I have yet to see any proof that CO2 increases will lead to runaway heating of the planet when it has not at any time in the past.

    I believe that the people in charge of pushing the barrow of Man made global warming have used corrupt data sets and incomplete models that I would not dare show to one of my clients for fear of being sued for incompetence.

    I also believe if it was science versus science this debate would have ended years ago in favour of us sceptics.

    The issue that keeps it alive is idiological political barrows, fiscally incompetent governments that need the funds to pay off their debts, scientists that are afraid of speaking out for fear of losing their jobs and those corrupt scientists that are on the take for grant money and high paid jobs for the boys.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    MONCKTONS GRAPH

    I’m glad I posted it. To those who say it’s inaccurate, those baseless accusations are thrown out like so much bluster ad infinitum, as people said above:

    1/ Show us what the IPCC predicted (as in “in the past”). Links to graphs they have post hoc redrawn from 2007 hardly count. They are not big on giving anything “firm”, and they keep their predictions so far in the future (like all good politicians do) that they will be safely 6 feet underground before anyone could prove them wrong.

    2/ Cyber forester wrote: “So let me get this straight (so to speak). We have a temperature trend a la Mann that shows a hockey stick shape over the last 1000 years and then it goes flat for the next 50 years and then exponential in the following 50 years?”

    3/ Baa humbug is doing a great job #42 and #59.

    AND
    4/ Christopher Monckton replied to criticisms of an earlier version of this graph posted here in May 2009 on my site, as follows:
    “the IPCC predicts CO2 concentration rising exponentially to 836 [730,1020] ppmv by 2100 on business-as-usual scenario A2, which is the scenario closest to actual emissions worldwide at present. It also predicts equilibrium warming at 4.7 ln(C/C0) Kelvin degrees, where the bracketed term is the proportionate increase in CO2 concentration over the chosen period – in this case the 21st century. Since the CO2 prediction is exponential and the predicted warming caused by the added CO2 is logarithmic, the resultant prediction is of course a straight line – which is what is plotted in my temperature graph, which is actually generated by quite a sophisticated computer program that first calculates the exponential increase in CO2 year by year to replicate the IPCC’s curve and then uses the calculated data, month by month, as the basis for calculating the consequent equilibrium warming. The IPCC, of course, pretends that there is a huge lag in the system, allowing it to pretend that temperatures ought to be rising far slower initially and far more rapidly later than the straight-line prediction produced by its own warming formula on the basis of its own CO2 projection. However, measurements by the ARGO buoys show none of the ocean warming that would be essential to demonstrate the “radiative imbalance” that Hansen, Schmidt and Willis (2005) conjured up by computer modelling. Therefore the system response to any forcing is near-immediate, from which the straight-line prediction follows.”

    So all those bellowing about lies and dishonest graphs, and to those who demand immediate answers and laud silence as “success”, marvel at the irony. I work on your behalf demanding answers from people who spend your tax dollars, and demand nothing from you, bar good manners. Today I was looking after a sick child.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Adam: @ 100
    I agree that there is a difference, though it would be slight to the eye for the time span of the graph in the Monckton slide. Does this excuse it? No. Would there still be significant divergence? Yes.

    I imagine Monckton used straight lines because he didn’t have the year-by-year projected data to populate his graph, but that is obviously an assumption on my part.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    I retract the first answer no then :) Thanks for the update Jo.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    O/T but relevant in that it refers to graphic/data manipulation, there is a new post regarding dodgy temperature reconstructions in Australia (courtesy of GISS):

    http://www.climategate.com/australiagate-now-nasa-caught-in-trick-over-aussie-climate-data


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Jo

    My best wishes to your child and you. and thankyou for taking the time to post.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tucker Grant

    “Since the CO2 prediction is exponential and the predicted warming caused by the added CO2 is logarithmic, the resultant prediction is of course a straight line – which is what is plotted in my temperature graph”

    WTF? No. Only if the rates are COINCIDENTALLY exactly the same to many decimal places (otherwise tiny differences spiral into massive differences over time). This claim is completely bogus, and if not, it would be easy to provide the actual figures. Got them, Ms Nova?

    “…– which is what is plotted in my temperature graph, which is actually generated by quite a sophisticated computer program that first calculates the exponential increase in CO2 year by year to replicate the IPCC’s curve and then uses the calculated data, month by month, as the basis for calculating the consequent equilibrium warming.”

    Complete and utter BS! What is in the posted chart is a STRAIGHT LINE that’s been calculated using the 2100 prediction, subtracting the Jan 1980 value, dividing by 120 and adding the annual figure once per year.

    That’s all. And it’s titled “IPCC predicts”, then labeled “IPCC” which are both about as false as you can get. Ms Nova, YOU are now damaging our cause. Maybe far more than you know.

    I’m incredibly disappointed and disheartened. If this is the best we have, we may as well throw in the towel.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Jo,

    If and when you find the time, both you and David should get a copy of “intellectuals and Society” by Thomas Sowell”, published by Basic Books, and readily obtainable from Amazon. I am 1/2 way through it (an hour reading in bed each night), and the mess science is in at present, especially the social sciences and those like climate, which are quasi physical, can be explained by the simple fact of intellectualism and their belief that being experts in thinking, in a very specialised and narrow band of knowledge, allows them the right to reorganise society as they belief it ought to be organised, since masses are dull and not as intelligent as they.

    Intellectuals excel in creating abstractions which are disconnected from physical reality, and this system of thinking is clearly obvious in climate science and the AGW hypothesis based on an assumed climate sensitivity.

    The intellectuals control government, by and large, and and AGW is firtn and foremost, a product of government. The leading lights in the AGW hypothesis seem to be “intellectuals” in the Sowell sense, and an intrinsic part of the progressive political parties that are running the AGW hypothesis.

    I would not, and have not, called it a world wide conspiracy, despite the revelations in the draft Copenhagen Treaty, but recognise it as the way intellectuals think how science is done.

    As Sowell points out, intellectuals deign not to bother with empirical tests of their ideas, because they cannot, intrinsically, be tested. Those sciences in which it is difficult to do physical experiments then tend to attract the intellectuals in society as any testing, (and I use the term loosely) is restricted to the imaginative world of thought experiments.

    I’m going to pen an article for Henry Thornton on this over the next couple of weeks, (I have to first read Sowell’s book) but an explanation for some of the comments here over the interpretation of, what is essentially a mundane graph, highlight this gap between those who have been trained what to think, and thus spend most of their thinking efforts intellectualising, (principally to convince their peers and thus form a consensus about the particular topic), and those who have been trained how to think.

    This, I would suggest, would explain the polarisation over the AGW hypothesis, since it’s a conflict between two incompatible world views, rather than one of scientific scepticism.

    (Having said that, I must admit consternation over the obvious fact that those who have a tragic view of life (CM would probably expand on this from his experience with the classics) seem to rely on the existence of the intellectuals to enable the contrasts to be perceived in the first place; you don’t have hot in the absence of cold, in other words. This means that the argument seems perpetual).


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Tucker:

    I am confused… what part of the log of an exponential function being a stright line is confusing? This is straight-forward maths. Last I checked: ln(exp(f(x))) = f(x). So to my mind the difference in the rates would only affect the slope of the straight line, not the shape.

    But hey my maths is rusty … too much economics polluting my brain. Feel free to prove otherwise.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    MattB fits the example of an intellectual as defined by Sowell.

    In terms of Eddy Aruba’s reply to MattB in terms of CO2 and mass extinctions, I will muddy the debate a little more than simply poking my pink into the mix and, tentatively, doing some pinky-stirring (pun intended).

    1. Science DOES NOT KNOW what causes mass species extinctions over geological time.
    2. Mass species extinctions seem to be linked to ice ages.
    3. Science DOES NOT KNOW what causes ice ages, though many hypotheses are put with heated disputation.
    4. Global kimberlite eruptions are associated with mass exhalations of CO2 into the atmosphere. This CO2 comes from inside the Earth.
    5. These kimberlite eruptions are the result of upper mantle melting events of a catastrophic nature because the basic physics tells us that an mantle melt 250 km down, in order to retain carbon as diamonds, must crystallise at the earth’s surface within 8 hours or otherwise you end up with carbon in the form of graphite.

    The key question then is what caused the upper mantle area under the continents to melt in order to result in kimberlite eruptions that also, incidentally, caused a CO2 peak in the atmosphere.

    MattB, as all intellectuals so, stereotypically, and hence poses unanswerable questions that form the justification of his world view.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    A couple of keyboard typos involving adjacent letters :-) Apologies


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Otter

    But is he being ‘intellectual,’ or is he cutting and pasting arguments he gleaned from elsewhere?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tucker Grant

    Bulldust:
    “This is straight-forward maths. Last I checked: ln(exp(f(x))) = f(x)”

    Are you claiming both the rate of CO2 forcing and CO2 release coincidentally share an irrational constant approximately equal to 2.718281828?

    Are you SERIOUS? FMDS…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tucker Grant

    Try this. The effect of additional CO2 on radiative forcing is fairly well established (I don’t think even Jo disputes this):

    5.35 x ln(C/Co)Wm^-2

    Now what exponential trend (approximate is fine) has Monckton fit to make his linear-looking temperature trend (that’s not actually linear, it just looks like it)?

    Simple answer: he hasn’t. He drew a straight line between two points, then claimed that is what the IPCC predicted. They didn’t. This is a blatant lie. Joanne Nova clearly supports this lie, even now it is apparent that it IS a lie.

    This is a stake through the heart of true skeptics.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Tuker Grant

    The line is as stated, a linear regression fitted to the data.

    One of the more volatile strawmen conjured here!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tucker Grant

    Louis Hissink:
    “The line is as stated, a linear regression fitted to the data.
    One of the more volatile strawmen conjured here!”

    Joanne Nova herself used it in a vain attempt to justify her quoting (without qualification) this complete falsification from Monckton:

    “Since the CO2 prediction is exponential and the predicted warming caused by the added CO2 is logarithmic, the resultant prediction is of course a straight line – which is what is plotted in my temperature graph, which is actually generated by quite a sophisticated computer program that first calculates the exponential increase in CO2 year by year to replicate the IPCC’s curve and then uses the calculated data, month by month”

    If it’s a strawman, it is one built by your two idols, I am afraid. Seriously old chap, are you with the true skeptics, or are you going to bat for the flat-earthers? The choice is yours. But whatever you choose, do try to educate yourself before you begin throwing around insults.

    It was Nova and Monckton who claimed that the linear trend-line in the graph is defensible on the basis of not being a simple linear trend but the result of a log multiplied by an exp. Even if this were true (it ISN’T as you rightly point out), it is still a lie to attribute this to the IPCC.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tucker Grant

    # 144 for reference.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    Here’s a bit of a logic test for you. Let’s say that you’ve eaten some dodgy seafood, then fallen ill. Is it wise to assume that because you have been ill in the past without first eating seafood, that the seafood cannot be to blame THIS TIME? Even if scientists tell you that dodgy seafood harbors bacteria that can make a person ill?

    On the day I ate the seafood I also rode on a train, walked along a street, saw some clouds in the sky, listened to some music, read a book, talked on a telephone, farted a few times and got annoyed at the Greenpeace activists begging for my cash. Is it logical to assume that none of these things could be to blame, THIS TIME?

    The answer of course is that a statistical sample size of one gives such minimal data, that it cannot generate any meaningful correlation. You only selected the example of “dodgy fish” because it was conveniently emotive and set out with a presumption of the answer it was trying to prove. Hmmm, that is a remarkably similar methodology to current climate science.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Tucker Grant,

    And your point is?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Adam

    Bulldust #145

    It’s not possible to tell what the difference would be based on that graph, it’s far too low resolution (even the thickness of the line introduces a great deal of smoothing.) What’s going on is revealed in Moncton’s explanation, but it unfortunately leaves me wanting.

    I understand, now, what he’s trying to do, and it does have merit, but unfortunately it leaves him wide open for criticism that is distracting. What he’s done is create his own “brain dead” model based on the IPCC’s data using a very simple calculation of forcings which are derived from the IPCC’s models. Truthfully, his model more accurately reflects the IPCC’s predictions than anything they’ve published. BUT! Since their published predictions don’t match his “brain dead” model it can be said that he’s misrepresenting the IPCC and being either dishonest or incompetent. Reconciling his assessment of the IPCC’s predictions with their published predictions, while possible, is a difficult task and one that leaves too much room for criticism. It’s a really bad PR move, in my opinion.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    5.35 x ln(C/Co)Wm^-2

    Now what exponential trend (approximate is fine) has Monckton fit to make his linear-looking temperature trend (that’s not actually linear, it just looks like it)?

    Any and all exponential trend will give a linear result:

    y = 5.35 . ln([ A . exp( B . x )] / Co )

    This is a straight line function for whatever constant values of “A” and “B” and “Co” you care to use. I think you will find that it simplifies down to:

    y = 5.35 . [ ln( A ) + ( B . x ) - ln( Co )]

    (using dot “.” as multiply, to avoid the confusion with “x”)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    This is interesting.
    Below are the GISS temp adjustments made each year for prior years. Each year is adjusted over and over again in subsequent years.
    This may well be the next “-GATE” dare I say GISSGate or Hansengate.

    GISS temp adjustments

    Well the answer came from E. M. Smith of the Musings from the Chiefio site:

    “It is inherent to the way GIStemp runs that every month will produce a new and different history.

    EACH and EVERY time the input data changes (by, for example, having a new month of data as time passes) will produce a different set of ‘homogenization’ adjustments and different UHI adjustments and GRID Box adjustments.

    One example: All records shorter than 20 years are disposed. If a record is 19 years 11 months long, it is simply thrown away. In the next month, ti will be 20 years old, and so kept. Suddenly there are 20 years of history for this new record and just as suddenly it will be used to fill in missing data in other temperature series for the past 20 years. More perniciously, it will also participate in UHI adjustments that may extend to the beginning of time in the data set (it can help determine the adjustment factor during the period of overlap, that may then be applied in far removed times.)

    So it is simply to be expected that history, in GIStemp, is a polite fiction that is re-written on each monthly computer run. So you can point this out to Hansen and friends and they will simply nod approvingly.”

    mmmmm I think i need to do some more reading


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    For what it’s worth, adding a constant to the exponential breaks linearity:

    y = 5.35 . ln([ A . exp( B . x ) + K ] / Co )

    … not a linear function, but close to linear when exp( B . x ) >> K, which is to say when the additional constant is relatively small.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    ooops my “image” attempt failed. Try HERE


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Scott -where could you draw the conclusion I think skeptics don’t want to reduce pollution? really where is that I’d like to correct it if I wrot that somewhere.

    Otter – my ramblings are all my own work – cutting and pasting = less typos.

    I like this Tucker guy – for a skeptic he makes a lot of sense.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    I like this Tucker guy – for a skeptic he makes a lot of sense.

    Mattb, you’ve hit the nail on the head. If he makes sense to you it’s because he’s not really a skeptic (:-)). Don’t fall for the fake, instantly retracted, compliments. Cute new trick though of the AGW-blogger team.

    I’m not mentioning any names, but a couple of the recent over-the-top commentors come via the same building.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Do you really think so? Nah I think quite a few skeptics make sense. Tel is the same – a genuinely critical eye for their skepticism. Sure I disagree but that’s not so critical IMO. I have no idea who this tucker is if you are implying some sort of collusion in posting.

    Also Louis – I’ve never been called an intellectual before thanks:) Although it does not seem to be the compliment I’d hoped.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Mattb 129

    Sorry Matt – I should have agreed with #130 (not 129). I meant to acknowledge I do make the odd “tipo” myself at times. (“Suttle” joke there as well.) Post 129 was rap with a silent c I’m afraid, because it fails to demonstrate a basic understanding of physical chemistry. Hot water doesn’t dissolve much CO2, and if you don’t believe me, why not crack a can of hot lemonade over your good wife’s wardrobe tomorrow morning, tell her, and then ask her scientific opinion??? I’m sure she’ll be thrilled to embark on this journey of discovery…

    Immediately before the terrible and fatal blow, can you please ask her to advise us of the location of your funeral so that Baa Humbug and I can pay our respects – Lovely knowing you old son.

    Alternatively, you could live a longer and happier life by checking out some basic data on the solubility of CO2 in water as a function of temperature. (Even google has it.) I’ve never carried out this dangerous wardrobe experiment myself and it’s probably part of the reason I’m not pusing up the daisies at the moment…

    As to why corals “bleach” at higher temperatures? It’s not bleaching at all – bleaching being an electrochemical effect of course. It’s just that the plant colonies living on the “hot” corals are ejected, leaving the bare coral behind. This was explained above as well. Keep this up and you’ll be learning fast. (Or should be.)

    Cheers,

    Speedy.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    sorry speedy you’ve lost me there. it seems we agree on CO2 and water. And why the random lesson on coral?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Mattb, no disrespect intended, just a quiet dig. And no I was not suggesting you had anything to do with him. Two recent new commenters are both apparently typing from the same building on the other side of the planet to you and I.

    Tuckers first comment shows his target is Monckton.

    “Wow. The Skeptics’ case is being sabotaged from within? I’ll be frank – I think we need to cut ties with the loonie fringe or risk losing the momentum that we’ve built up with the public. I think we need to cut away from Mr Monckton and draw a very clear line between what WE (skeptics) believe and the lies being pushed by the extremists on our side.”

    In his dreams he would like to fragment us, to paint Monckton as “damaging our cause” and hopes to draw out dissent from within skeptics. The irony being that we are already a unorganized mass of individuals, we already prod and disagree with each other (see Spencer and Lindzen), and that he failed completely.

    Tucker is fairly transparently here to throw in false weak flattery, then fire off an anti-skeptic shot.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    I see a skeptic groaning at Monckton as similar to my own groans about Gore’s Inconvenient truth, or some hippy prattling on about nuclear power, to be honest.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    and it’s not that they are “wrong”… just alienating.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Matt @ 129/130 et al….

    I was trying to say that CO2 is not very soluble in hot water. That when water – (e.g. an ocean like the Pacific), heats up, it releases CO2 into the atmosphere. I also proposed an interestingly fatal way for you to demonstrate this effect to your wife.

    As a deep thinker, you understand the science already, because you commented in #129 –

    “Although warmer oceans do hold less CO2 as a proportion of the total it seems.”

    Spot on! Now – the next question. What happens if that extra CO2 has a SIGNIFICANT impact on infra-red capture in the atmosphere and (after feed backs) causes a SIGNFICANT increase in the atmospheric (and global) temperature?

    Do you think it would – say – warm the oceans? Guess what happens next? Like to phone a friend perhaps?

    That’s right! Warmer oceans would release more CO2, causing the earth to warm, which makes the oceans hotter, so they release even more CO2, causing the earth to get hotter still. Which makes the oceans warmer, releases more CO2, makes the atmosphere warmer etc etc. Ad infinitum et eternum. Cactus phuctus. RIP. Bugger.

    I hate to break this to you MattB, but you and I and everyone on this site are, theoretically, dead. It’s the undeniable science of global warming – Welcome to the afterlife…

    Or maybe there’s a flaw in the logic somewhere? Perhaps we’re not dead? If so, its no thanks to the solubility of CO2 in water as a function of temperature, as this is pretty well established. I’d be looking somewhere else – perhaps the impact of atmospheric CO2 concentrations – given the logarithmically declining absorption of infra red radiation in the 15 micron region by CO2 as a function of CO2 concentration (refer Beer-Lambert et al.) Or the potential for the same negative feedback functions that have been preventing the earth from going into runaway greenhouse for several megayonks. The same ones that have been operating for about 2 or 3 billion years and don’t seem to pay much attention to the IPCC.

    Damn! I’m starting to talk science again – sorry!

    Also please excuse the lecture on coral, I thought you were asking a question about coral bleaching way back then at 129. The response at #170 is my understanding of the subject. By reports, the regrowth on the Barrier Reef has been quite impressive – great news…

    Going back to my earlier comment, get on with life and enjoy… It’s nearly Friday. Time for a beer, so lets go liberate some more of those lovely CO2 bubbles…

    Cheers,

    Speedy.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Lord Monckton is willing to take on all comers. I pity the fool who squares off with him! If only the goreful dodger would step up.

    You still here, MattB? I thought someone would have paid you by now to do some research? Maybe your out testing your submarine vs. Air theory?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Scott

    Damm Jo

    You exposed him too early – Grin

    I was still waiting for Tuckers fantastically simple model on why CO2 follows temp.

    Must have confused the poor fellow like Tel and Bulldust did with facts.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Scott

    Matt,

    Scott -where could you draw the conclusion I think skeptics don’t want to reduce pollution? really where is that I’d like to correct it if I wrot that somewhere.

    Comment 136

    If I believed some of the dire predictions of reducing AGW that skeptics bandy about then I’d probably not want to reduce emissions either.

    Correct me if I am wrong here but that sounds very much to me like you are accusing skeptics of not wanting to reduce emmisions. The difference is I do not see CO2 as a pollutent.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    PhilJourdan

    Baa Humbug:
    February 11th, 2010 at 10:08 am
    This is a good example of people delving into subject matter they don’t understand enough and making Richard Craniums of themselves.

    Baa Humbug – where did you pick up that idiom? I ask for personal reasons, not to criticize.

    Thanks


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    Baa Humbug,

    Any process involving regression or curve fitting (including basic linear regression) is non-causal. Addition of new points will move the regression to a new best fit. That’s pretty much unavoidable.

    Since the GISS data is year-on-year stable to something of the order of 0.1 degrees (working left to right across the table above and considering variance in the result), then any conclusion you draw from the GISS series is only accurate to at best 0.1 degrees (but there may be additional systematic errors that don’t show up in the variance, so it may be less accurate).


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    Must have confused the poor fellow like Tel and Bulldust did with facts.

    With luck he has picked up a highschool math textbook to brush up on properties of exponential functions, which could only be a good thing. He might be back in a few days with a new theory, and that’s how science makes progress (eventually).


    Report this

    00

  • #
    bill-tb

    Why isn’t it celebrated as good news when the rise is less than first thought. We should all be relieved at that.

    Oops, forgot, follow the money.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tucker Grant

    Scott #177:
    “I was still waiting for Tuckers fantastically simple model on why CO2 follows temp.”

    That is not what I said at all. I said a simple logic or mathematical model will show that Eddy’s statements contain an unsupported conclusion.

    Take a simple formula:
    A = (B + C)*(B + C)

    Now let C[2] = B[1]*0.8

    C lags B, and causation flows from B to C.

    Now at any point where B is declining, introduce (force) an exponential increase upon C.

    Voila!

    http://img688.imageshack.us/img688/1049/logical.gif

    Thus proving that CO2* lagging temperatures* historically is not logically or mathematically incompatible with CO2 driving future temperatures.

    * Or any other two related phenomenon. Seriously, people who are hanging desperately onto this flotsam of an argument look more and more like Leonardo DiCaprio near the end of Cameron’s last abomination…


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Tucker Grant: Thanks for demonstrating your mathematical ignorance here. If you didn’t know the math you could have at least run a few numerical examples on a scientific calculator(you do own one don’t you)or invoked a calculator on a PC.

    We now know how seriously to take you arguments.

    Jo really needs to sprinkle some TrollBane around this site before they ruin it as they did to Jennifer Marohasy’s blog.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tucker Grant

    Mike Boghelt #185:
    “Tucker Grant: Thanks for demonstrating your mathematical ignorance here. If you didn’t know the math you could have at least run a few numerical examples on a scientific calculator(you do own one don’t you)or invoked a calculator on a PC.”

    Thanks for the useful ad-hominem attack. If YOU had bothered to check, you’d find my example is true. It merely proves that Eddy’s argument (CO2 historically lagged temperature, therefore CO2 cannot cause temperatures to rise) is invalid. You could use any number of models to prove this.

    Or you could use logic…. Fancy?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tucker Grant

    Mike Boghelt how about you actually state a position rather than merely sniping at those who have a position (presumably your reason for doing this is that your undisclosed position is at odds with that being demonstrated).

    My position is: Eddy’s claim that CO2 historically lags temperature proves CO2 cannot drive future temperatures is FALSE.

    You either:
    1] Agree
    or
    2] Disagree

    If it’s 2], then state your case.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tucker Grant

    lags lagging


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    PhilJourdan:
    February 12th, 2010 at 7:07 am

    Hi Phil. I get a little hot under the collar sometimes. Are you asking what it means?

    Tel:
    February 12th, 2010 at 7:16 am

    Gday Tel. You lost me there. I’m lousy with plotting graphs. I think the point of the article is that Hansen is presenting temp data differently each year in order to make it seem like (x) year is hottest etc. e.g. In 2007 he shows 2006 anomaly was 1.15 by 2009 it changed to 1.31


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Tel:
    February 12th, 2010 at 7:16 am

    I just relised I didn’t link to the article at ICECAP

    Feb 10, 2010
    Why GISS Temperature Anomalies/Rankings Are Always Changing

    This letter was sent to NASA GISS’s James Hansen by Arvind Kumar after he noticed that the anomalies he had downloaded each year had changed with each new update.

    Dear Dr. Hansen,

    I see that the numbers in the data set here keep changing. I know that there were reports that you revised them once to make 1934 the hottest year on record and this was due to a bug. However, when I go to archive.org, I find that the numbers for specific years change arbitrarily and I have picked dates after you made the change. Perhaps it is not arbitrary, and maybe this is the famous “Mike’s Nature Trick” that everyone speaks of? Can you please explain why the numbers for the same year keeps changing?

    I sense something important is developing here.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    Tucker, re 156

    The IPCC heuristic which quantifies the effects of forcing on CO2 concentration as dF = 5.35 x ln(C/Co)W/m^2, is only accurate starting from a CO2 concentration of 280ppm. More precisely, it should be dF = 5.35 x ln(C/280)W/m^2. While it gets a close answer (3.7 W/m^2 of additional atmospheric absorption by doubling CO2), this is a consequence of curve fitting the heuristic by setting the arbitrary constant to 5.35 so that the result matches atmospheric absorption simulations.

    The logarithmic effect is only valid for low CO2 concentrations and at larger concentrations, the effect is asymptotic to a limit and not asymptotic to infinity as a logarithmic relationship would suggest.

    BTW, there’s a serious flaw in how the IPCC portrays this as 3.7 W/m^2 less power leaving the top of the atmosphere. While 3.7 W/m^2 of additional atmospheric absorption is reasonable (my HITRAN 2008 simulations show 3.6 W/m^2), the energy absorbed is re-emitted by the atmosphere where about half goes to the surface and half leaves the planet.

    Few skeptics worry about the anomalies with determining forcing from CO2 concentrations, or even the factor of 2 that arises when power absorbed by the atmosphere and re-emitted to space is not considered. The real point of contention is the climate sensitivity heuristic which multiplies this power into a temperature increase. This is another arbitrary constant which is nominally set to 0.8, so that 3.7 * 0.8 = 2.96C, which is in the middle of the IPCC predicted temperature range. The actual value would be closer to 0.25 when you illogically consider that power and temperature are linearly related (actually, power is proportional to T^4, so the linear relationship is broken to begin with). BTW, neither the 5.35 constant above or the 0.8 constant here has any foundation in physics and are simply arbitrary constants which dial in the presumed equations to match the desired temperature change. This is definitely not what I would call rigorous science.

    The only valid way to specify the climate sensitivity to forcing power is to determine the ratio between forcing power and surface power, not surface temperature. When you do this, the ratio is about 1.6, which can be measured in many ways. Using this number, 3.7 W/m^2 of forcing directed at the surface (2x what’s reasonable), would be multiplied to about 6 W/m^2. At 289K, the surface energy is 395.6 W/m^2 (from Stefan-Boltzmann). If we add 6 W/m^2 to this and convert back to a temperature, we get a final temperature of 290K (an increase of 1C). If more reasonably, we consider that the increase in surface energy is only 3 W/m^2 (half of the 3.7 W/m^2 absorbed is re-emitted into space), the corresponding new temperature is about 290.55K.

    George


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Alarmists in all areas tend to be literal minded, with a taste for simple extrapolation.

    “If such-and-such continues, then by such-and-such a date…”

    Comments of this type are usually preceded by words like “Swedish studies have suggested”, “Scientists report”, “Analysts say”, “Tests on Canadian rats confirm” etc.

    From pork belly futures to Y2K, the hundred percent failure rate of all such empty boffinism does not deter alarmists from their basic fear of change. You can’t cure neurosis with arguments.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    Tucker re 187,

    While it’s true that there is a mutual dependence, that is, CO2 can affect temperature and temperature can affect CO2, the simple fact is that the forward effect CO2 has on temperature is far, far smaller than the forward effect of temperature on CO2. This is why in the final analysis, we see a correlated lag between temperature and CO2 levels. If the opposite were true then the ice cores would show a lag between CO2 and temperature.

    The fact that the ice cores show that CO2 follows temperature doesn’t preclude the existence of a finite forward effect of CO2 on temperature, just that whatever this finite effect is, it’s very small and overwhelmed by the dominant effect of temperature on future CO2 levels.

    George


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Tucker,

    You seem like an intelligent, well educated fellow and I hope you can help me out. If CO2 drives temperatures and MattB is correct that something else causes temps to fall for hundreds of years, how is it possible for CO2 to continue to rise for hundreds of years while temps fall? What is that “something”? Thanks


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tucker Grant

    Eddy Aruda #194:
    “What is that “something”? Thanks”

    I posited Milankovitch Cycles earlier.
    http://serc.carleton.edu/images/research_education/corals/milankovitch_cycles.png
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

    co2isnotevil #193:
    “[T]he simple fact is that the forward effect CO2 has on temperature is far, far smaller than the forward effect of temperature on CO2. This is why in the final analysis, we see a correlated lag between temperature and CO2 levels. If the opposite were true then the ice cores would show a lag between CO2 and temperature.”

    The issue is, I think, one of feedback vs forcing.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Eddy in 194 – maybe because during the initial phase of lowering temps by the external forcing, the conditions are such that more CO2 is still being released… for example a car still moves forward while the brakes are being applied.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Scott in 179, sorry I’ll clear that up – in the context of the discussion emissions = CO2 emissions. If you don’t think CO2 is pollution then why would you want to arbitrarily reduce CO2 emissions. I wouldn’t. Sure they may reduce as a by product of reducing other forms of pollution, but I was using emissions to mean GHG/CO2 emissions.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    Tucker,

    Lets address the feedback. The IPCC conclusions rely on the speculative assertion that the net feedback acting on the system is strongly positive and that the intrinsic 0.6C or so warming from increased atmospheric absorption is amplified by this positive feedback into 3C of warming.

    If we start at 288K (390.1 W/m^2) and end 3C warmer at 291K (406.6 W/m^2) we get a total power increase of 16.5 W/m^2 of additional surface power. Somehow, 3.7 W/m^2 of forcing power directed to the surface (actually 1.85 W/m^2) is amplified by this feedback into 16.5 W/m^2. This represents a power gain of about 4.5 (actually 9).

    Power gain isn’t free. Conservation of energy dictates that this power must be coming from some place. Where could this extra 12.5 W/m^2 of surface power be coming from?

    Water vapor absorbs about 2/3 and CO2 about 1/3 of the total power absorbed and re-emitted by the atmosphere due to GHG. This means water vapor absorption is about 2x CO2 absorption. If water vapor absorption was also doubled, we might consider the increase in absorption to be about 7.4 W/m^2 (twice of that from CO2). Clearly the intrinsic 0.6C of warming from doubling CO2 will not even come close to doubling water vapor. For all intents and purposes, the contribution from increased water vapor absorption from a 0.6C rise is almost zero, so this extra power can’t be coming from increased water vapor absorption.

    What happens as increased temperatures cause increased evaporation? It turns out that there are more clouds and more rain. Clouds both cool by reflecting more solar energy and warm by trapping more surface energy, but the net effect is close to neutral. Evaporation and rain are the more important elements. Rain effectively cancels out surface heat with colder precipitation as it transports cold from the clouds to the surface, while evaporation removes heat from the surface, turning water into vapor, causing it to become lighter than air and to rise. Both ends if this cycle remove heat from the surface and at a faster rate as the temperature increases! This is a strong negative feedback influence.

    The next thing that happens as the surface temperature increases is that the power flux leaving the planet increases by T^4. This means that it requires exponentially more energy gets to maintain higher temperatures.

    Keeping what I’ve said in mind, I will ask again. Where is the extra 12.5 W/m^2 of surface power be coming from in order to sustain a 3C higher surface temperature from doubling CO2?

    Quantify where this power is coming from and show your work. My point here is to make you actually think about your answer.

    George


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Neil Fisher

    Tucker grant:

    Simple answer: he hasn’t. He drew a straight line between two points, then claimed that is what the IPCC predicted. They didn’t. This is a blatant lie.

    Is this any more of a “fabrication” than fitting a linear trend line to the highly variable data that constitutes GMST?

    In any case, wander on over to Lucia’s blog, where you will find she shows real IPCC predictions from 2000, and compares them to the major GMST metrics. She finds the predictions are falsified at the 95% CI from 2001-2009.

    Now, if this is a valid comparison (and it appears to be), then how is what Monkton did different from what alarmists do? Not that such is an excuse for bad behaviour, but in the propoganda war that is AGW, why are skeptics crucified and true believers lauded for using the same tactics? MattB has asked many times for skeptics to be as skeptical of other skeptics as they are of believers, so is it too much to ask that he should deride those who “simplify” AGW warnings and get it wrong as much as he derides those who get the skeptic arguements wrong?

    An example: “Global temperatures increased by ~0.8C from 1900-2000″.
    True, but misleading, because the “adjustments” amount to over 3/4 of that! That’s easily documented and has been on other sites, so I won’t show it here.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    MattB, re 197

    CO2 is clearly not a pollutant, therefore there’s no reason to regulate it. The most important effect of increasing CO2 is to drive biomass production. I guarantee that once we move from fossil fuel to alternative sources (which we must let market forces drive us towards nuclear), the biggest concern will be how to put more CO2 into the atmosphere to replace man’s emissions in order to sustain agriculture and feed the planet.

    George


    Report this

    00

  • #
    janama

    I’ve contacted the SMH Online dept andThe Sydney Morning Herald will be streaming the Monckton/Lambert debate live at 12.30 sydney time.

    You can see it on their main page http://www.smh.com.au/ it will appear in the main picture top left currently joyce/abbott.

    for overseas viewers you can sync your time here.

    http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Sorry Tucker & Tel:

    Don’t take silence as absence. We Aussies sleep too, and have day jobs like most of you out there, no doubt. So it seems we have to go back to basics for you guys. Notwithstanding what CO2isnotevil has posted regarding CO2 forcing being limited, let’s suspend that constraint for a moment (which works in the AGW favour) in the following analysis.

    Mockton starts with the premise that the IPCC says CO2 is growing at an exponential rate. There is a very simple formula for exponential growth which goes like this:

    C(t) = C(0) * (1 + r)^t

    C(t) = CO2 conc in year t
    C(0) = CO2 conc in year 0 (presumably the 280 mentioned above)
    r = growth rate in CO2 conc per year
    t = year

    Some will no doubt recognise this formula from other fields such as finance (compound interest formula). I don’t care what the starting point is, what r is, or what t is. Plug in any numbers you want and trial it on a spreadsheet. Or plug in the IPCC value for C(0), C(t) and t and solve for r. Whatever, it matters not a jot.

    Now apply your time series for C(t) to the abovementioned formula for temperature rises driven by CO2 and you always get a straight line plot regardless of what value r is.

    Or a one line way of explaining this concept… if you have an exponential funtion, if you plot it on log graph paper you always get a straight line.

    If you want to fault Monckton’s approach then you should start with the formula or the assumption that CO2 concs are rising exponentially or the like… not the maths, because there is no mistake there.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Albert

    Eddy Aruda @ 176
    “Lord Monckton is willing to take on all comers”

    A few years ago 15 year old Kristen Byrnes from Portland, Maine wanted to debate Al Gore, he declined, that’s right! the newly anointed Dr. Al Gore declined to debate a 15 year old girl on his favorite subject for which he shared a Nobel Prize.
    Kristen would have made a mess of Al Gore in a year when we was conscripting disciples. 


    Report this

    00

  • #

    @ mattB 196

    In your car analogy, what is the “something” that causes the brakes to be applied? Converly, what causes the car to accelerate. If CO2 drives temps up even though it takes centuries for the car to accelerate, what accelerates the car? What suddenly causes the car to accelerate?


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #

    Sorry for the typos. I am on my iPhone.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tucker Grant

    co2isnotevil #198:
    “Quantify where this power is coming from and show your work.”

    Not my job really. I’m highly skeptical of the predictions of warming due to CO2, as you’d know if you’d read my earlier comments in this thread. Your 16.5 W/m^2 is not something I have ever stated support for or claimed to be able to demonstrate.

    However, this does not disqualify me from rallying against lies and misinformation from within the skeptical camp and against stupid arguments that are illogical or have been repeatedly debunked.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Eddy – simple – other things. The kinds of things that have sent the planet in and out of ice ages since the dawn of time for example. Don’t you think they exist?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tucker Grant

    Oh dear. Listening to the Monckton/Lambert debate. Please tell me the first audience question wasn’t from a joannenova commenter….

    O.o


    Report this

    00

  • #
    crakar24

    RE post 194

    I got this one Matt, Eddy when there is a correlation between CO2 and temp its caused by CO2 when there is no correlation it is caused by “something” which is masking the CO2 effect. This “something” can be anything you want it to be.

    For example CO2 levels (from man) where not high enough to effect the climate until post 1940. So as CO2 began to rise the temp dropped until 1970, the “something” in this case was aerosols.

    The aerosols then went away and the temp rose in concert with CO2 from 1970 to 2000, as the masking of the aerosols was gone and we could see the full effects of CO2.

    Since then the temps have not risen (possibly fallen slightly)this is because “something” is masking the CO2 again. In this case the something is weather. Once the weather goes away we will see the full effects of CO2 warming again.

    Now this is a robust theory Eddy supported by the worlds leading authority on climate change so it is not to be laughed at.

    There is still one conundrum the theory cannot explain but rest assured we are working on it, the one conundrum is that the warming rate of 1910 to 1940 is exactly the same as the warming rate from 1970 to 2000. The official line at the moment is “something” caused this warming rate, as i said we are working on it.

    I hope this helps.

    Cheers


    Report this

    00

  • #

    MattB,

    I am familiar with the Milankovitch cycles, what “things” are you talking about? I don’t want to tax you too much. I am surprised you are available. I thought you would be busy doing research and getting paid for it. Are you capable of making an intelligent response or will ths be another exerciese in futility?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    PhilJourdan

    Baa Humbug:
    February 12th, 2010 at 9:09 am

    Baa Humbug, no, I know what it means. I thought my daughter coined the term about 20 years ago (yes I am old). I was just curious how you came to hear about and use it. I have never heard (or read) anyone else until you did.

    Thanks

    ________

    It’s Ebenezer Scrooge’s favorite expression of dismissal or contempt in Charles Dicken’s A Christmas Carol, one of the most famous classics in English literature . . . assuming you aren’t having everyone on. — Ed.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Cracker,
    what was the something that caused temperatures to be warmer during the MWP when CO2 levels were lower than current levels. I have seen recent papers tha dispute the aerosol reason. One paper said aerosols actually caused cooling. I would look them up but I am at the hospital with my mom and am on my mobile phone. Thanks.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    Tucker,

    OK. I read through your posts and while you say you are skeptical of AGW, that position is at odds with some of the other things you have said (not counting the personal attacks on Joanne, David and Monkton).

    You said that Milankovitch drives the climate, but most scientists who are warmists also agree to this, so this doesn’t distinguish you as a skeptic. You then assume that GHG, specifically CO2, is the only explanation for the differences between the expected temperatures from the solar variability arising from orbit and axis variability and what we see in the paleo record. Embracing this speculative assumption as fact is something you have in common with warmists, not skeptics.

    Have you considered the ebb and flow of ice and the corresponding effects this has on the albedo? If you examine the satellite record of surface ice and snow, relative to surface temperatures and incident energy, the dynamic range of seasonal snow and ice is quite large. If the current seasonal winter snow pack was permanent (i.e. a period of glaciation), the average temperature would be about 7C cooler. This is more than enough to explain the discrepancy.

    You should take a look at this. It covers how ice amplification works and goes in to deep detail about what the ice cores tell us.

    http://www.palisad.com/co2/slides/siframes.html

    George


    Report this

    00

  • #
    crakar24

    Eddy,

    Apparently there was a tree in Russia that proved the MWP and LIA did not exist. The tree itself also does not exist anymore because they made a hockey stick out of it.

    Yes aerosols do cause cooling which is why it is the “something” from 1940 to 1970.

    The official line is the MWP did not exist as per the Russian tree, you cant do research on something that does not exist.

    Unofficially, the something could be many numerous things i would suggest it was caused or at least partially caused by the sun. Officially this cannot be because the total solar irradiation (TSI) changes are too small to have any real effect, after this the worlds leading authority must have run out of money because they did not consider the following:

    X-rays
    UV-rays Both A&B
    Solar winds
    Galactic cosmic rays (well they did, they considered the theory and dismissed it in the space of three sentences)
    Coronal Mass ejections (CME’s)
    Solar flares
    Sun spots
    Solar magnetic fields
    Earths magnetic field
    and so on.

    I hope all is well at the hospital

    Cheers


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MadJak

    RE: Lord Monkton debate.

    With this being the first time I’ve seen him in action, let’s give this man citizenship and get him in Government.

    I hear there might be a position becoming available with teh environment portfolio.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    @ Cracker
    Ah, the infamous Yamal outlier. So, we must trust the scientists? I am sure we can trust the honesty and integrity of the IPCC! After all, Pauchari doesn’t have a conflict of interest, the IPCC has told us we must act and save the Himalayan glaciers from melting before 2035 and the Africans from losing half their food production. Also, we must act now because half the Netherlands are below sea level and could be completely inundated becaseb Al Gore says the seas will rise 20 feet.
    Fortunately, we have a nucleus of honest, brilliant, ethical scientists at the CRU working hard to save the world. Although some people will cast aspersions on their character we can provethem right by examining their raw data! Oh gosh, the janitor just told me the raw data has been lost. Well, no master, we will be able to rely upon the work of their equally laudible comrades on the other side of the great pond. They are famous for promulgating their raw data and adding temp measuring stations at lower altitudes and in rural areas to avoid an artificial UHIE effect. And, if all else fails we can turn to that master of research, due dilgence and deductive reaoning, Matt “The Logician” B!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Scott

    Well put co2isnotevil – its a bit like boys playing against men in a game of football – no contest

    Eddy hope everything is ok


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Sorry about the tyos. Not being able to “feel” the keys on my iPhone makes it difficult to type. Also, I don’ have my reading glasses with me.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tucker Grant

    “While you say you are skeptical of AGW, that position is at odds with some of the other things you have said…”

    No, I’m quite prepared to accept that there is evidence that increasing atmospheric greenhouse gases will increase temperatures. But I think few skeptics actually disagree. Ms Nova seems to concede this (some places, others she seems to contradict herself), Monckton concedes this (but claims the effect is very small).

    I’m skeptical all right.

    “You said that Milankovitch drives the climate, but most scientists who are warmists also agree to this, so this doesn’t distinguish you as a skeptic. You then assume that GHG, specifically CO2, is the only explanation for the differences between the expected temperatures from the solar variability arising from orbit and axis variability and what we see in the paleo record. Embracing this speculative assumption as fact is something you have in common with warmists, not skeptics.”

    Firstly, I think you misunderstand what a skeptic is/does. Secondly, I don’t assume what you claim I do.

    “Have you considered the ebb and flow of ice and the corresponding effects this has on the albedo? If you examine…”

    Sure I have. I was thinking of asking you how much of your unexplained 12.5 W/m^2 could be attributed to albedo effect(s). But again I’ll suggest that it’s a question of forcing vs feedback.

    Ice albedo, cloud albedo, other vapour feedbacks, are not drivers. Nor is “temperature increase” which you pointed to earlier. These are all important pieces of the puzzle, but they cannot be CAUSES in their own right.

    Something causes ice to grow or shrink. Something causes the hydrological cycle to expand or contract. These are symptoms of something else not causes.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    We used to get a whack with a ruler across the back of the knuckles if we swore at school. So all us kids used Richard Cranium, not sure where it came from. But now we know thnks to ed.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Tucker Grant:
    February 12th, 2010 at 1:45 pm

    Yes something does. It’s the sun and the earths revolution around it. Everything else comes after


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tucker Grant

    Baa Humbug:
    “Yes something does. It’s the sun and the earths revolution around it. Everything else comes after”

    So you discount the possibility of anything but solar output and the path of the earth forcing an increase in warming?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Keith

    Well, this is a very lively debate. I have been busy preparing for an audit, so I am unable to contribute much. I am providing a link to a definition of an audit. I hope this will assist climate scientists who might be unfamiliar with the concept.
    Basically it’s an independent examination of data to ensure it reflects reality.

    I have a request :
    Does anybody know of any source where all the long range climate predictions for tha last 20-30 years might be compiled ? I think it would be fascinating to look at the variation over time, and any indications of precision.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Tucker Grant:
    February 12th, 2010 at 2:10 pm

    No not at all. but until we fully understand these things, we can’t hope to fully understand all the other forcings.
    Start at the top, work your way down to the bottom


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Scott

    Take a simple formula:
    A = (B + C)*(B + C)

    Now let C[2] = B[1]*0.8

    C lags B, and causation flows from B to C. because I said so

    Add IPCC fudge factor by show of hands in IPCC meeting where they are asked to think of a number between 1 and 10 call it force now insert in equation.

    Now at any point where B is declining, introduce (force {IPCC fudge factor}) an exponential increase upon C.

    Voila! Gold ? bingo what?

    http://img688.imageshack.us/img688/1049/logical.gif

    Thus proving that CO2* lagging temperatures* historically is not logically or mathematically incompatible with CO2 driving future temperatures. Ha ha thats funny

    * Or any other two related phenomenon. Seriously, people who are hanging desperately onto this flotsam of an argument that AGW is real look more and more like Leonardo DiCaprio near the end of Cameron’s last abomination… snowman?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    crakar24

    Eddy,

    For many many years the appeal to authroity defence has been used with great success to blunt any probing questions. Any questions not covered by this defence are completely ignored.

    As you can see there has been no refutation of my conundrum as yet and there never will be. The hockey stick as we all know has been proven to be a complete fraud and yet it lives on because the IPCC said so, but let me tell you Eddy its days are numbered.

    Once the appeal to authority is smashed so will the charade as it is all propped up by the central issue of authority.

    For example there is a lot said about sources of CO2 (how much is from man) well according to the alarmist its all coming from man. But as you said CO2 levels were very low during the MWP and *we* know there is a 800 odd year lag in CO2 to temp. How many years since the MWP Eddy?

    So the longer the stick survives the longer the MWP does not exist, therefore the higher temps from 800 odd years ago did not exist and therefore all the co2 rise is from nasty humans.

    As for the temp manipulation you must remember the original stations were put there to measure the temp for a purely statistical nature and were never intended to prove AGW. Are stations at airports there to give advice to pilots or prove Saint Al of the Gore correct?

    Throw in a challenge to scientists to save the world and is it any wonder a God complex emerges? The less religious ones simply recognise a gravy train when they see one. So whats the problem with a little nudge here and a prod there the important thing is they keep their sole source of employment alive and there is enough money left in the budget to go on fully funded junkets held in the most exotic locales the world over.

    As for convincing the local believers i have completely given up on that thought Ed, there is an old saying “you can lead a horticulture but you cant make her think”.

    Cheers


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Keith:
    February 12th, 2010 at 2:10 pm

    Keith I guess you could start by downloading the IPCC reports from 1990 to 2007


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tucker Grant

    Scott:
    “Now at any point where B is declining, introduce (force {IPCC fudge factor}) an exponential increase upon C”

    No, we KNOW from simple measurement that atmospheric CO2 is INCREASING. This is nothing to do with the IPCC, it’s a simple empirical fact.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Rex Hunt, famous aussie rules commentator and character, regularly uses Richard Cranium – that’s where I know it from.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Tucker Grant

    Given the verified fact that the Earth receives millions of amperes of plasma currents in and out of the polar regions, and that these electric currents must also pass through the earth to complete the circuit, then those currents are another source of energy, and thus heat, in addition to that of solar radiation and any effect attributed to orbital mechanics.

    Those of us who use the Plasma Model in explaining geophysics see no need to invoke the thermal behaviour of a trace gas in the air, to explain thermal anomalies.

    I suppose the reason climate science doesn’t incorporate electricity in its science is because it’s probably still caught up in the Victorian Era gas-light science.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    BANNGGGG goes MattB right thru the hi diddle diddle. He gave the Richard Cranium goal umpire a crick neck :)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Yesss Louis. A bloke I disliked very much put the climate dillema very succinctly. He said..

    “Regards climate, there are knowns, unknowns, known unknowns and unknown unknowns.”

    Then he started a war


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Crakar24

    Love yer work old son! I’ve been thinking the same way myself. The beauty of science is it’s inherent anarchy; it’s a place where an obscure Swiss patents clerk can become a world famous physicist named Albert Einstein. The only qualification is to be right.

    The IPCC’s been quiet lately, eh? We must be due for another fraud-gate by about now you reckon? Sorry, I forgot about Oz-gate (cheers Baa-Humbug) and the McKay weather station swindle yesterday. That should do until about Sunday.

    Cheers,

    Speedy.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tucker Grant

    Louis Hissink:
    “Those of us who use the Plasma Model in explaining geophysics see no need to invoke the thermal behaviour of a trace gas in the air, to explain thermal anomalies.”

    Okay, point me in the direction of any/all papers that explain the mechanism by which these plasma currents cause observed changes in global mean temperature, and any/all papers that provide empirical evidence to support this theory. I need some reading for the weekend. 8-)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    crakar24

    Tucker,

    Yes CO2 increases are an empirical fact, name one other the IPCC uses to calculate sensitivity and therefore predicted temp rise by 2100 please.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    @ Cracker

    As you can tell from my previous post I think that the AGW scam is about as credible as Bill Clinton saying he did not have sex with that woman. It amazes pme how many people blindly believe and fearlessly follow the green lemmings of the cliff of reality into the abyss Of green tyranny.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    crakar24

    Dont be fooled Louis, the next line from tucker will be “the only effect the sun has on climate is TSI and TSI BLAH BLAH BLAH” thus equating the suns effects on climate to a bar heater.

    Turn it off and we may as well live on Pluto, turn it on and its sunny again.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Anyone in need of a laugh should look at this

    Via Andrew Bolts blog


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tucker Grant

    crakar24:
    “name one other the IPCC uses to calculate sensitivity and therefore predicted temp rise by 2100 please.”

    Why? Were you following the discussion that led to my last post, or did you just jump into a conversation you don’t understand?

    I’ll assume the latter, and ignorance rather than malice on your part.

    It was claimed earlier that the glacial record of temperature rise preceding CO2 rise proves that a current/future increase in CO2 cannot cause an increase in temperatures.

    That claim is what is being debated, and your post has 0% relevance. Thanks for playing along though.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    See Humbug – I reckon we could enjoy a few beers, watch the footy, and never even mention climate change.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Tucker 229.

    Yes, it’s increasing. Is it relevant? Nothing you’ve said so far indicates this. The physics and the paleohistory says no. Recent history (Viking colonies in Greenland and Newfoundland) says no. Isotope analyses from sea sediments and cave stalagmites say no. The geology says no. But you say yes? Forgive me if I don’t find that very convincing, to be perfectly francis.

    As Eddy has been at pains to point out, the CO2 levels have been waaaaaay higher than this during the odd ice age or two in the past. Why is now any different? Have the UN just invented a new law of physics for our benefit? We know you know about the diminishing impact of CO2 due to its logarithmic absorption characteristics, so it is obvious that you are trying to muddy the waters.

    Please don’t play dumb.

    Speedy.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    crakar24

    Yeah i got that impression pretty early on and dont worry you are not alone. It wont be long now before the CO2 facade is removed, but the job will not be done. Moves are already afoot by the movers and shakers to switch to nitrous oxide, the gas that makes up 99% of the atmosphere is increasing at an alarming rate apparently.

    It turns out Bill Clinton has a heart, who’d a thought?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tucker Grant

    Speedy #242:
    “As Eddy has been at pains to point out, the CO2 levels have been waaaaaay higher than this during the odd ice age or two in the past. Why is now any different?”

    I hate to be Captain Obvious, but this time human activity is causing atmospheric CO2 to increase. And when you say “waaaaaay higher than this”, you’re talking about what… tens of millions of years ago, are you not?

    If that is the case, in light of the relative very recent emergence of AMH, it doesn’t particularly comfort…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    crakar24

    Well its obvious isnt it?

    CO2 lags Temp by 800 years so how can co2 be driving the temps now?

    I showed a conundrum earlier on maybe you missed it so here it is again.

    The warming rate from 1910 to 1940 is 1.5C/cent this is pre human influence and was caused by natural variability, the warimg rate from 1970 to 2000 is 1.5C/Cent and we are told it is caused by CO2.

    My question is how can this be? why cant naturaul variability account for the warming rate from 70 -00 as it did in 10-40.

    A follow up question would be if CO2 is driving the temps is there a delay? If there is how long is the delay? Is there peer review research which shows us this delay?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Tucker

    I politely asked you to stop playing dumb. I was assuming you had some choice in the matter – apologies if that was incorrect.

    You know that CO2 is CO2 whether it comes out of your car exhaust or it comes out of a warming ocean or a volcano. It makes no difference so don’t try to suggest otherwise.

    Again. Why is the current situation any different? Answer. It isn’t.

    Speedy.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Bulldust wrote:

    “I am confused… what part of the log of an exponential function being a stright line is confusing? This is straight-forward maths. Last I checked: ln(exp(f(x))) = f(x). So to my mind the difference in the rates would only affect the slope of the straight line, not the shape.

    But hey my maths is rusty … too much economics polluting my brain. Feel free to prove otherwise.”

    To which Tucker replied:

    “Are you claiming both the rate of CO2 forcing and CO2 release coincidentally share an irrational constant approximately equal to 2.718281828?

    Are you SERIOUS? FMDS…”

    Tucker, you obviously have absolutely no idea how stupid that comment makes you look.
    I guess you’ll do natural logs and exponentials in another couple of years if you stay at high school.

    You might get a little better treatment here if you stopped pretending to be a sceptic. Better still go and pollute another blog.

    Oh, and make the effort to to spell my name correctly.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    crakar24

    Tucker re post 244,

    If we assume the ice core data to be correct, we can see that the temp went up and 800 years later CO2 went up.

    From this we can deduce that temp rises correlate with CO2 to rise .

    We can also see that the temp went down and about 1000 years later so did CO2.

    Now lets think about this for a moment, we can see a CO2 level of 1000′s of PPM and climbing and the temp going down.

    Fast forward to today and you claim that if CO2 goes up so will the temp.

    So how can a rising CO2 level of the past fail to push up temps but a rise in CO2 levels today has the opposite effect?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tucker Grant

    crakar24 #245:
    “CO2 lags Temp by 800 years so how can co2 be driving the temps now?”

    Matches were invented after fire, so how can matches start fires in future?

    It’s not that I misunderstand your point, it’s that its inanity blows my mind. ;-)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tucker Grant

    Speedy:
    “I politely asked you to stop playing dumb. I was assuming you had some choice in the matter – apologies if that was incorrect.”

    In the absence of anything to add to the discussion, why don’t you merely try to insult your opponent? ;-)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tucker Grant

    Speedy, I’d appreciate you answering my question from previous: “when you say “waaaaaay higher than this”, you’re talking about what… tens of millions of years ago, are you not?”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    Tucker,

    The amount of ice melted by an average surface temp increase of 0.66C is not much under current conditions, so while ice does amplify the intrinsic effect of CO2, it’s not by enough to really matter.

    To be accurate, of the 3.7 W/m^2 of additional atmospheric absorption, 1.85 W/m^2 is added to the surface. At 289K, the power density is 395.6 W/m^2. Adding 1.85 to this and converting back to temperature gives us 289.34K, which is only a .34C rise. A 0.66C rise is what arises from 3.7 W/m^2. Anything more than this must come from some kind of feedback. There just isn’t enough feedback to support as much amplification as is required for a 3C rise.

    The point is that the extra 12.5 W/m^2 comes from nowhere because it isn’t there to begin with. Overall, there’s a small, apparent amplification, but this is a consequence of the release of surface energy being deferred into the future. This is what GHG does, it defers the release of surface energy by capturing it on the way out, transferring the heat energy to the rest of the atmosphere, about half of which is reabsorbed by the surface and subsequently re-released at a later time. The time constant of CO2 by itself is relatively short, hence effects like radiation cooling on a cloudless winter night. The combined effects of all feedback mechanisms can be measured as the ratio between the emitted surface energy and the post albedo incident energy. This ratio is about 1.6 is is a more accurate measure of the climate sensitivity, i.e a ratio of power densities, rather than a ratios of temperature and power density.

    Ice is a little tricker and operates over longer periods. This is not because the response is particularly slow, but because the average global temperature changes so slowly. Ice does grow more slowly than it retreats. This is because precipitation is less at lower average temperatures and it takes longer for glaciars to grow and subsequently advance. It’s more rapid retreat is accelerated by increased rain. It’s approximate magnitude can be estimated by the reduction in surface temperature from the increased reflectivity of winter snow and works out to about 0.5C of extra warming (or cooling) per intrinsic 1C rise (or fall) in temperature. Relative to the paleo record, this effect is non linear and is larger at maximum ice (ice ages) than it is at minimum ice (interglacial periods) as is the case today, where it is less than 0.2C of extra warming (or cooling) per intrinsic 1C rise (or fall) in temperature. During deep ice ages, this can be as much as 1C of additional effect.

    This still isn’t enough to explain the paleo record. The final piece is that the quantification of solar energy changes across orbital and axis variability are changes in yearly averages. What this doesn’t account for is the asymmetry between hemispheres which itself has an amplification effect dependent on when perihelion occurs. This is a consequence of the differences in the dynamic reflectivity of the 2 hemispheres and when perihelion is relative to maximum seasonal reflectivity. This is not a feedback, but has the effect of increasing the effective dynamic range of incident solar radiation as computed from yearly averages alone.

    George


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    I’ve been following this debate and have stayed out of it. But the match analogy is killing me. It’s silly.

    If fires started matches in the past, yes maybe a good analogy.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Tucker Grant

    No point in pointing you to anything – you would deny the physics behind of an electric room heater. You do understand that electric currents when passing through matter, generate heat, don’t you?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    Louis,

    The electrical aspect I like is that the climate system stores significant energy as a potential difference stored in the capacitance between clouds and the surface, each other and space. Another interesting place energy is stored is as the potential energy of a mass of water lifted against the force of gravity (clouds are heavy!). We can actually extract some of this as hydroelectric power.

    George


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Scott

    I am still waiting for the simple model that shows CO2 preceeds temp from tucker

    he put a pretty maths theorem up that a = b therefore b = a therefore CO2 precceds temp sorry no cigar

    I have a maths theorem too its c2 = a2 + b2 – nup no CO2 preceeding temp

    but still no model thats shows CO2 preceeds temp – still waiting


    Report this

    00

  • #
    ANGRY

    Scientists threatened for ‘climate denial’

    By Tom Harper
    Published: 12:01AM GMT 11 Mar 2007
    Scientists who questioned mankind’s impact on climate change have received death threats and claim to have been shunned by the scientific community.
    They say the debate on global warming has been “hijacked” by a powerful alliance of politicians, scientists and environmentalists who have stifled all questioning about the true environmental impact of carbon dioxide emissions.
    Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada, has received five deaths threats by email since raising concerns about the degree to which man was affecting climate change.
    One of the emails warned that, if he continued to speak out, he would not live to see further global warming.
    “Western governments have pumped billions of dollars into careers and institutes and they feel threatened,” said the professor.
    “I can tolerate being called a sceptic because all scientists should be sceptics, but then they started calling us deniers, with all the connotations of the Holocaust. That is an obscenity. It has got really nasty and personal.”
    Last week, Professor Ball appeared in The Great Global Warming Swindle, a Channel 4 documentary in which several scientists claimed the theory of man-made global warming had become a “religion”, forcing alternative explanations to be ignored.
    Richard Lindzen, the professor of Atmospheric Science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology – who also appeared on the documentary – recently claimed: “Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labelled as industry stooges.
    “Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science.”
    Dr Myles Allen, from Oxford University, agreed. He said: “The Green movement has hijacked the issue of climate change. It is ludicrous to suggest the only way to deal with the problem is to start micro managing everyone, which is what environmentalists seem to want to do.”
    Nigel Calder, a former editor of New Scientist, said: “Governments are trying to achieve unanimity by stifling any scientist who disagrees. Einstein could not have got funding under the present system.”

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1545134/Scientists-threatened-for-climate-denial.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Crakar24.

    The obvious conclusion from Tucker’s comments is that we have fried already. Because if higher temperatures drive up the ocean temperature, which releases CO2, which increases atmospheric temperatures then we would have become extinct a long long time ago. Like tens or hundreds of millions of years ago.

    The earth’s climate is a stable system. Our existence demonstrates this.

    Cheers,

    Speedy.

    Tucker

    Ones and tens and hundreds and thousands of millions of years! Cambrian era for instance was about 7000 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere. No runaway greenhouse – but I wonder what would happen if we threw that data into an IPCC model??? Have a wild guess…

    Now, time for you to show some manners please. What is so different in the CO2 absorption physics that has changed over the last million or ten million years? Remember that James Hansen said we’re all doomed when CO2 hits 480 ppm… Or is he wrong?

    Excuse me, I’ve got to go and talk to some grown-ups.

    Speedy.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    I thought you guys would like this.

    From Moncktons diary of his Oz tour.

    “From Beverley, a geological expedition to Arkaroola, Doug Sprigg’s 144,000 acres of paradise in the Flinders Ranges. The dolomitic rocks containing 40 per cent CO2, said Ian Plimer, were formed 750,000 years ago, when atmospheric CO2 concentration was 30 per cent (it’s just 0.04 per cent today) and Australia was equatorial. Yet there was a mile of ice at sea level. Go figure. I flew us out in Doug’s 207″.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    Tucker,

    I’m glad to see that you aren’t pretending to be skeptical that AGW is significant anymore. The reason skeptics shielded their skepticism when posting on real climate was to gain the confidence of Gavin and become unmoderated to get past the censoring, at least temporarily. Of course, that’s not necessary here.

    This is one of the differences between the sides of this debate. The warmists hired full time people like Gavin to actively moderate posts on pro AGW blogs. Joanne would rather not waste her donated time moderating/censoring posts, which is the right thing to do anyway. The advantage of this openness is that I get to understanding how the other side thinks, which helps me craft my arguments in terms warmists may get which might cause them to change their mind, or at least introduce nagging doubts.

    George


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Saw the Monckton/Lambert debate in Sydney this afternoon. I doubt Tim will be so smug after that hiding. Monckton’s standout performance answered everything including stepping in when Tim’s maths skills let him down. Deltoid now Dungtoid!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Unsurprisingly MarcH you comments don’t reflect those at Deltoid, who admired Moncktons showmanship but Tim nailed them on science and had done his research well. I gather Alan Jones was as evenhanded a moderator as one would expect from Mr Cash for Comments. I’ll have to try and watch the debate hopefully the newspaper has it as a feed you can pick up other than live. But sounds like it was a good event and a bit of fun, and good on Lambert for having a go.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Angry – wow now is is breaking news from 2007! Next you’ll let us know there is going to be a Rio Earth Summit soon.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    MarcH:
    February 12th, 2010 at 4:40 pm

    Hey march I missed the early part of the debate. What happened when Lambert played audio of Pinker?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    The last 45mins that I saw, Lambert was indeed outnumbered coz of Mod Jones bias. But to say Lambert won the science is wrong. He stumbled a few times but Monck didn’t.

    Kudos to Lambert for being there and doing a good job for his side.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Humbug from what I gathered Monckton tried to explain that he understood Pinker’s science better than Pinker. Apparently it was quite the master stroke.

    Also Humbug – you think that Aruda is dominating the science on this thread;) so you’re not the best judge:) I’m sure Monckton DID win the science to people who think that some lag of CO2 behind temps in pre-history is relevant to the discussion.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    I don’t understand why you have to be so rude Matt. Your credits with me have run out, so FO.

    Who the F do you think you are telling me what I think. Wanker


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Settle petal, I obviously misinterpreted your jovial nature. I did put a wink afrer the comment FYI.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    I just got home and have my mac computer and my reading glasses on, much better!

    @ crakar24 i apologize for misspelling your name earlier, I guess it is time for lazik surgery. Thanks to all for your concern for my mom, she is resting and recovering.

    Tucker Grant wrote, “Matches were invented after fire, so how can matches start fires in future?” Speaking of inane! Besides being non sequitur you need to strike the match and then you can start a fire. Give it a try, perhaps under proper supervision if it is your first time.

    Besides the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, was the composition of the atmosphere different than today? If it wasn’t, then the effects of CO2 should have been the same then as now.

    You also wrote, “Speedy, I’d appreciate you answering my question from previous: “when you say “waaaaaay higher than this”, you’re talking about what… tens of millions of years ago, are you not?” So what? During the Roman warm period Hannibal crossed the Alps to attack the Romans. The route he took through the Alps is now impassable, even with modern mountaineering gear. They are digging up Viking corpses in Greenland below the permafrost. In the Alps, as the glaciers retreat, they are finding evidence of Medieval civilization. Atmospheric CO2 content was lower and yet temperatures were higher. If CO2 drives temperatures and the effects are monotonic, as the IPCC pontificates, why were temps higher then than they are today? No aerosols, no SUV’s.

    MattB I am still waiting for you to explain those “somethings”? But then, you may actually have to do some research. I cannot wait to read your next feat of illogic! It is entertaining, though! Are you doing your submarine vs. air test or are you playing crash dummy while doing your break test? You still have to explain your analogy as I asked you to at # 204. Then again, the last time I asked you to provide evidence to support your claim (see # 114) you said, ” I could do you a research paper on the causes of climatic shifts throughout the history of the planet and get your evidence, but you’d need to pay me.” Of courses, when I respond you reply, ” Eddy just quoting text and making false claims about logic does not win you an argument sorry.” (see 128) Translation: Eddy posts links and sources. You, Matt don’t have the ambition or the ability to do so and you think you should be paid to do what is incumbent upon anybody who makes a statement or claim on this site.

    Google fallacies of logic, study up, and then try and form an intelligent thought. Who knows, it could even lead to a lucid, coherent argument instead of brain dead statements such as, “Also Eddy logic would dictate that I accept what science tells me until such a time that I am given cause to allocate limited time resources to investigating the issue. I have no reason to spend my time investigating pre-history given that I am not aware of any major debate that is relevent to my life.” The point of logic is to think in a critical manner and not to assume that someone is correct because they are an authority. Damn, trying to teach a pig to sing again!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    @ MattB 103

    You wrote, “Can I put it this way. JO believes CO2 warms about 1-1.4 degrees per doubling. JO is aware that CO2 lags temp change in much of the ice core record. Therefore – JO does not believe that the fact that CO2 lags in the ice cores brings the warming properties of CO2 in to question.”

    I must have been tired to miss this one. You said you need to be paid to do research, is Jo paying you to do research or are you just putting words in Jo’s mouth? What were you thinking? Or were you thinking? You do love those straw man arguments, don’t you? it also smells like a red herring. And don’t forget Cum hoc ergo propter hoc. You will learn what it means when you complete you assignment for the day. I can almost hear that pig a singing!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Well, I am really tired. I stayed up late last night going back and forth with MattB. I made a mistake but I did learn from it. Good night everyone!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Eddy – you can start here since you don;t seem to have any knowledge of things other than CO2 that can change climate:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change


    Report this

    00

  • #

    @ MattB

    Wikipedia? Wow ,you are pathetic! Newsflash Matt, Wikipedia is another “gate.” Is that the best you can do? That would be the equivalent of me pasting junkscience.com or climatedepot.com. At least with the two sites I mention they are honest and forthright and state that they are skeptical. Wikipedia, on the other hand, is extremely disingenuous. Why didn’t you just direct me to Realclimate? You dodge questions like Al Gpre dodges debates. UI don’t want you to waste another second of my valuable time until you respond to my post at 269. How do you know what I have or don’t have knowledge of? The IPCC admits that there are other drivers of CO2 but they state emphatically that CO2 is the current primary driver of climate change. You do remember the links I posted earlier. Unlike you you lazy excuse for a debater, I read what I link to before I post it. If you would have reads the link I posted regarding the 600,000,000 year geological record you wouldn’t have made the idiotic claim that the world was cold because the continents were at the South Pole. The super continent was so large that it stretched from all the way past the equator. Yet, there was ice at the equator. You would have also read, despite you ridiculous claim that CO2 levels were falling, that CO2 levels were at4,400 parts per million. My nine year old son can do better. Then again, my son isn’t a sloppy, complacent pseud!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Speaking of brain dead, if I don’t get some sleep I am going to start writing posts as bad as Matt’s. Already my typing is getting bad and I am making even more typos than Matt.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Eddy it is hard to judge your knowledge base, so I’ve linked to a very basic wikipedia page that discusses the basic “things” that have significant impact on climate over time. Other than the last “AGW” type entry, just what on that page is so controversial to you? Unless you can comprehensively debunk the page then it stands. I repeat there is nothing controversial there.

    You say that IPCC “admits” as though they have been forced to that position rather than it being basic science:)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Can you spell out which bits of 269 you want an answer for, and which bits are just rant?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    janama

    I’m sorry Eddy – I thought you were an Ok bloke – but when you mentioned your Mac computer I had to put you in the [snip...c'mon we can be nicer about that] category. Not that is have any problem with Mac computers, only those who feel they must emphasis the fact they have one.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    #255 CO2isnotevil

    Your metaphor that the earth seems like a capacitor is apt – it is actually much like an electrical capacitor in which electrical energy is stored internally inside the earth, either causing partial melting leading to volcanic eruptions, or electrical discharges at depth causing earthquakes, basically the subterranean analog of lighting strikes in the atmosphere. It’s the incessant build up of internal electrical charge that is the root cause of the atmospheric electrical effects, much as what happens to a leaky electrical capacitor.

    I also note some comments about the CM – Tim Lambert debate, and the glee over Lambert’s ace deal in having Pinker point out CM’s misinterpretation of Pinker’s work. Sourcing this will be job for the weekend but I would make a preliminary point that considering the Earth radiatively as a passive radiating sphere suspended in a vacuum, the only radiation being that emitted by the solid itself to space, is incomplete, The Earth is encapsulated by a plasma double layer isolating it electrically from space, and in which electric currents flow, generally in plasma dark mode which is invisible, often in glow mode when the polar auroras occur, and often in arc mode when the electric field short-circuits between its surface, the plasma double layers in the atmosphere and toposphere, and above. These electric currents are also a source of radiation but not factored into any weather model, so I suspect Lambert’s Ace might well be specious and Monckton still in his superior position concerning the science.

    I’ve had to come to the sad conclusion that lefties basically tend to intellectualise science as an abstraction disconnected with reality but bolster that science with experimental proofs of their hypotheseses from self confirming experiments. They seem unable to understand that the crucial aspect of the scientific method is to falsify an experiment, not verifiy it with proofs, basically the purpose of debating an argument. That’s why they obsess over consensus in science – not realising that it’s actually pseudoscience they are doing.

    In any case if the Earth is indeed what advocates of the Plasma Model suspect it to be, the Lambert’s main point becomes irrelevant.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    125 Eddy Aruda:
    February 11th, 2010 at 6:37 pm
    MattB, when cornered and asked to provide evidence you can’t.

    Eddy,
    Welcome to the world of arguing with Matt, but at least he’s usually polite about it. ;)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    #277 Janama

    Just wotcher mate, :-) I also have a Mac at home – (do run Windows on it) but otherwise use Wintel machines in work. What annoys me is that no Wintel manufacturer has made an IMAC equivalent – though some are starting to appear. I’m running a Mac-mini, using Snow Leopard, a 12 year old SGI Flatpanel screen and multilink (that’s 3 power supplies already), onother for the WIN raid drive, another for the UNIX backup drive, and cables everywhere for the vid cam, USB outboard speakers.

    Although the MAC is good in isolation, it’s one pain in the you know where when you need to share your work data with it. Email is via Exchange and my Mac won’t, so I have to run VMWARE Fusion with Windows 7 etc to access it.

    Let’s face it, Wintel is 95% of the business computing market, 100% of the mining market, (and I am in mining), and why would I have a Mac? Because it’s UNIX.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Whoops, correction to #278, one falsified an hypothesis, not an experiment.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    janama:

    Currently I am forced to use a PC for reasons to do with the accountant software which I have to use. When I see a friend’s Mac of more recent vintage there’s no doubt as to which I would prefer to use. The Mac, if you’re in any doubt.

    My old LC575 left PCs of its era for dead as far as ease of use was concerned. I think you are in the same morass that most PC users find themselves in. A bit like the flea infested dog who can’t imagine life without the fleas.

    Bill Gates and Microsoft are the greatest scavengers on the face of the earth. Never invented anything new, just purloined whatever they saw fit. Mac OS is much “more of a piece” than Windows whatever will ever be.

    On a more salient note I watched the Monckton-Lambert presentation today. Wouldn’t say that the Viscount slayed Lambert, rather a good TKO. Lambert was preoccupied with his GCMs and theory whereas Monckton was more intent on the observational data. Didn’t know Lambert was a Kiwi; his ‘eccent’ certainly suggested that.

    Regrettably, the first question from the audience was an unbelievably incoherent babble from someone who was obviously drunk. Moderator Alan Jones wisely brushed it aside.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Oh, by the way mattb, have you come up with the falsifiable part of AGW yet, or are you still shifting the goalposts?

    Just asking.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    MattB:
    Not sure which debate you were watching, but from the 10-15 mins I saw Lambert was faltering repeatedly and Monckton was flawless. I will search for the full video, but given the sample I saw Monckton certainly seemed to have it all over him.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    #282 Mark

    “Bill Gates and Microsoft are the greatest scavengers on the face of the earth. Never invented anything new, just purloined whatever they saw fit. Mac OS is much “more of a piece” than Windows whatever will ever be.”

    We in business use Windows because it is boring and now, with WIn 7, reliable. Even Guvmint has standardised on it.

    So what is it with Mac users and their, obvious, sensitivity, over OS choice.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    G,day Louis:

    Didn’t think I displayed any hypersensitivity. As I stated I have PCs at the moment and the only raw nerves seem to be on the PC side. I don’t have an I-phone I-pod or I-anything at present. Only saying that I still think that for a heck of a lot of people, Macs make a lot of sense.

    Would have to say that I’m not at all impressed that Al Gore is currently on the Apple Board.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    george

    A final thought on Macs before someone starts cracking the whip re OT postings.

    BTW tongue is firmly in cheek here…

    http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=macs_cant

    PS Is there a pie that the Gore-creature doesn`t have it`s finger in?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    george

    Re today`s Monckton/Lambert debate – read Janama #201 (thank you dude!) about 2 minutes after it would have started, watched the whole thing, must have been a good 2 hours. A precis for those without a spare couple of hours;

    - AJ was a tad polarised towards CM (but hey, doesn`t THAT make a nice change)
    - CM his usual and unflappable self (and obviously the better public performer of the two)
    - TL deserves brownie points for agreeing to the debate
    - Very civil repartee
    - An absolutely inane question was asked of TL about H20 vapour warming from the oceans, the guy was either pissed or a plant, even CM was trying not to cringe
    - At one stage CM (as a courtesy to TL) indicated to AJ that a question being asked of TL was not relevant
    - At the end AJ made a point of (twice) thanking TL for appearing
    - The audience did appear to be more supportive of CM than TL, both in response and in terms of questions being asked – make of that what you will

    Ah, if only it had been Ms Wong in Lambert`s chair, now THAT would have been good.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Eddy A.
    I don’t think it is teaching a pig to sing. Instead it is like wrestling with a pig: They are slippery, hard to grip and after a while you realize the pig enjoys it.

    I suggest you not waste your time. Mattb is terminally burdened with guilt. His Faith that man HAS to be doing harm to the earth. The reason he is here at all is because he desperately WANTS us to be right. He is actually wanting someone to resolve his guilt of carbon use. There is no other explanation.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Matt B:

    At #77 you say;

    I am willing to bet that the science used by the IPCC uses the best that science has to offer when it is considering how the oceans will react to increasing atmospheric CO2 in terms of what proportion will end up in the ocean vs the atmophere.

    I accept the bet and offer to put up US$10,000 at odds of 2:1 in your favour.

    Please read one of our 2005 papers; viz.
    Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, ‘The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle’ E&E v16no2 (2005)

    Then please find any reference to it in any IPCC Report.

    The paper assesses all the known interactions in the carbon cycle and concludes from this

    In the light of all the above considerations it would appear that the relatively large increase of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere in the twentieth century (some 30%) is likely to have been caused by the increased mean temperature that preceded it. The main cause may be desorption from the oceans. The observed time lag of half a century is not surprising. Assessment of this conclusion requires a quantitative model of the carbon cycle, but – as previously explained – such a model cannot be constructed because the rate constants are not known for mechanisms operating in the carbon cycle

    It goes on to say;

    In an attribution study the system is assumed to be behaving in response to suggested mechanism(s) that is modeled, and the behaviour of the model is compared to the empirical data. If the model cannot emulate the empirical data then there is reason to suppose that the suggested mechanism is not the cause (or at least not the sole cause) of the changes recorded in the empirical data.

    It is important to note that attribution studies can only be used to reject hypothesis that a mechanism is a cause for an observed effect. Ability to attribute a suggested cause to an effect is not evidence that the suggested cause is the real cause in part or in whole.

    Our paper considered three models of the carbon cycle. Each model assumed that a single mechanism is responsible for the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration that has happened in the recent past (i.e. since 1958 when measurements began). The model was then compared to the empirical data to determine if the modeled mechanism could be rejected as a sole cause of the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration.

    Each of the three models was used to assess if the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration could be attributed to
    (a) a purely anthropogenic cause
    and
    (b) a purely natural cause.
    i.e. a total of six models.

    This attribution study determined the following:

    Each of the models in this paper matches the available empirical data without use of any ‘fiddle-factor’ such as the ‘5-year smoothing’ the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) uses to get its model to agree with the empirical data.

    So, if one of the six models of this paper is adopted then there is a 5:1 probability that the choice is wrong. And other models are probably also possible. And the six models each give a different indication of future atmospheric CO2 concentration for the same future anthropogenic emission of carbon dioxide.

    Data that fits all the possible causes is not evidence for the true cause. Data that only fits the true cause would be evidence of the true cause. But the above findings demonstrate that there is no data that only fits either an anthropogenic or a natural cause of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration. Hence, the only factual statements that can be made on the true cause of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration are

    (a) the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration may have an anthropogenic cause, or a natural cause, or some combination of anthropogenic and natural causes,

    but

    (b) there is no evidence that the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration has a mostly anthropogenic cause or a mostly natural cause.

    Hence, using the available data it cannot be known what if any effect altering the anthropogenic emission of CO2 will have on the future atmospheric CO2 concentration. This finding agrees with the statement in Chapter 2 from Working Group 3 in the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report (2001) that says; “no systematic analysis has published on the relationship between mitigation and baseline scenarios”.

    When you fail to find any reference in any IPCC Report to our paper that I cite here (there is none despite my mention of it in my peer review for IPCC AR4) then please contact me so you can pay me the money.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Sorry Mark – no guilt here.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Richard do you need my bank details?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Also – do you have that in a peer reviewed scientific journal? Or just E&E?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    To gain an sense of whether the graphed data represent a significant trend, errors in these values must be represented somehow, and it must be shown that the variability of the errors is random about the means.

    I think the unbiased interpretation of the data scatter would show that there there has been neither warming nor cooling over the stated period


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Richard S Courtney:
    February 13th, 2010 at 12:46 am

    Hi Richard, good to see you at Jo’s place again.
    Is there a link where I can download your paper pls?
    Also, are you aware of any papers which study the rates of evaporation by temp increases vs total average sunshine hours SSH? Closest i get is the Natalie Lockart et al “On the recent warming in the Murray-Darling Basin: Land surface
    interactions misunderstood”.

    kind egards


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Richard S is correct and by the way – and as he probably knows, his interpretation is the only way to reconcile all of the measured carbon and oxygen isotopic rations of the atmosphere.

    DON’T accept ANY other interpretation of the origin of 20th century CO2 in the air!!!!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Matt B:

    I notice that you are trying to find excuses to renege on your bet (no surprise there). At #293 you ask me:

    Also – do you have that in a peer reviewed scientific journal? Or just E&E?

    The paper I referenced was published in Energy & Environment (E&E) before I was invited to join the Editorial Board of E&E. But now I am on the Editorial Board I am fully conversant with the peer review procedures of E&E.

    I do not know how you could have become so mistaken as to assert that Energy & Environment (E&E) is not a peer reviewed journal. Perhaps you are citing lies from UnrealClimate.org. But you could not be more wrong. The peer review procedures and standards of E&E are more severe than those of several other journals including, e.g, Science and Nature.

    For example, the now infamous ‘hockey stick’ of Mann, Bradley and Hughes (MBH) was published in Nature although its authors refused to allow open access to its source data. That paper would have been rejected for publication in E&E because the standards for E&E peer reviewers could not accept that refusal. However, the MBH ‘hockey stick’ papers were first disproved by peer reviewed papers in E&E (refs.
    McIntyre S & McKitrick R, Energy & Environment, v 24, pp 751-771 (2003)
    McIntyre S & McKitrick R, Energy & Environment, v 16, no.1 (2005)).

    Some other quality journals adopt equally strict rules to those that peer reviewers for E&E must apply when considering papers for publication. For example, Philosophical Transactions B of the Royal Society (Phis Trans B) also insists on open disclosure of source data. So, Briffa discovered that he had to disclose his source data or withdraw the tree ring ‘hockey stick’ paper he published in Phys Trans B, and that disclosure resulted in the ‘Yamal Controversy’.

    Raising the standards of peer review in popular journals such as Science and Nature to the standards of peer review practiced by E&E is one of the good things which it can be hoped will result from resolution of the Climategate scandal.

    So, you made the bet. I accepted it. You have lost it. Pay me!

    Baa Humbug:

    At #295 you ask me;

    Is there a link where I can download your paper pls?

    Sorry, but no. The paper needs to be purchased from Elsevier Science Publishing as a past publication and (being on the Editorial Board of E&E) it would be improper for me to provide it. However, I gave an exposition of it at Heartland-1 where I quoted it extensively so you can see the video of that on the web or, alternatively, I will send you an email of that presentation paper if you email me at
    RichardSCourtney@aol.com

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Baa Humbug:

    Sorry that I missed – so did not answer – your other question to me; viz.

    Also, are you aware of any papers which study the rates of evaporation by temp increases vs total average sunshine hours SSH?

    The only papers I know of this are by Dick Thoenes and are commercial information not available in the public domain. Sorry.

    This is but one example of the sillyness of the ‘peer reviewed’ mantra of warmers. The great bulk of scientific information has commercial, military or political importance so is not published in the public domain. Indeed, the most important scientific findings are confidential and not published in the public domain until they have become obsolete or are independently obtained by others and have become common knowledge(this is often decades after the research was done).

    All information shoud be assessed on its merits and not on the basis of its origen, its manner and/or place of publication. Pretending otherwise is denial of the scientific method. And most recent scientific information is closely guarded secrets.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #

    MattB @ 293: …do you have that in a peer reviewed scientific journal? Or just E&E?

    Referring to: Richard S Courtney @ 290

    Your demand for proof of peer review falls rather flat in face of the facts we have discovered about the IPCC, CRU, NASA, et. al. They have severally and jointly been found to bhave cooked the data, cherry picked the data, lost the raw data, refused to disclose details of how they reached conclusions, skewed the peer review process, used non-peer reviewed heavily biased sources, presented conclusions not supported by or in contradiction to the body of report, …. See the growing list of “gates” for the details.

    While your complaint is not technically against the man, it is against the article content because of a totally and completely irrelevant point. I find this a distinction without a relevant difference. Others might also.

    Your argument would be far stronger if you addressed the content of the article rather than the simple fact it’s not peer reviewed according to your favored definition of “peer review”.

    Why not give it a try and show us were Richard is wrong?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    Louis re 278,

    Considering the surface/cloud/space interactions as a capacitor storing energy is not a metaphor, it’s the way it is. We can even perceive a small fraction of this stored electrical energy in the form of lightning. We can easily calculate this stored energy. Capacitance is calculated as e0*A/d, where A is the area of the places, d is the space between the plates and e0 is the permitivity of free space. For a typical thunderstorm cloud the surface area covered by it is about 2.5×2.5 km and the space between the cloud and surface is about 1.5km. The resulting capacitance is about 0.037 uf. The potential difference between the place of this capacitor is about 1E9 volts. The energy stored is calculated as 0.5*C*V^2 = 18.5 GJ. Energy is also stored within the capacitance of the cloud itself and between the cloud and space and between the cloud and other clouds.

    What is even more interesting is that if you calculate the stored potential energy of the mass of water in the cloud lifted against the force of gravity, it’s about the same order of magnitude as the sum of the electrical and thermal potential energy stored in the cloud. Are these related? Probably, but this requires knowing the relationships between electrodynamics, thermodynamics and space-time curvature (gravity) which are understood by even fewer people than the climate.

    George


    Report this

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    Baa Humbug and Richard,

    A good way to see the relationship between temperature and evaporation is to examine the ice cores. Ice cores are analyzed as fixed width slices, where each slice contains some number of years. If the number of years per slice is plotted, there is a clear inverse relationship to the temperature, where at lower temperatures, more years per slice are in the core.

    http://www.palisad.com/co2/precip.gif

    In this plot, the gray line represents the number of years per slice and the blue line is the temperature. This is related to evaporation since precipitation is proportional to evaporation and when there is less precipitation, there will be more years per slice

    George


    Report this

    00

  • #

    @janama

    I apologize for taking you and others off topic, it was not my intent when I mentioed my mac to appear smug. I am 50 and I was dragged kicking and screaming into te computer age. The reason I love my Mac is it doesn’t get viruses and I get great support from the Apple store which is five minutes by car from my house. I put my pants on one leg at a time, just like everybody else.

    I have read yor posts with interest and I believe you are both intelligent and sincere and I have learned from you. Thank you. Again, I meant no offence.

    @ MattB… Oh, never mind. You’ve feeble attempts at deductive reasoning have already been addressed by others more qualified than me.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Otter

    Hit the Road, Mac! And don’t come back. No more no more no more no more…… what? Jack?

    …. never mind…………

    Wait. ‘Hit the road, Matt,’ works.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    @MattB

    It would be an understatement to say that you and I have some serious disagreements about AGW. That being said, the tenor of some of my recent comments were a little over the top and I apologize. Although there is no excuse I have let my personal problems and the attendant stress get to me. Regarding wikipedia, please read this article before citing from wikipedia again http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/12/23/lawrence-solomon-climategate-at-wikipedia.aspx


    Report this

    00

  • #

    we are rocketing towards 1.4 degrees of warming by 2100, (but only if that trend of the last 30 years doesn’t change, which it is, every year).

    1.4 degrees. That means that the Sonora Desert will only extend through Oklahoma, and not all the way to the Dakotas? Good news for China’s wheat output in the northern provinces. Band news for U.S. and Canada, don’t you think?

    What are the lesser effects of 1.4 degrees that we should celebrate?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    @ Ed Darrell
    I am at a loss to understand your claim that the Sonora Desert would extend to the Great Plains. Could you please cite the relevant source for your claim?

    During the Holocene Maximum during the Bronze Age the Earth’s temperature was much warmer than today. The warmth was approximately equal to the IPCC’s’ s worse case scenario. Amazingly, the deserts didn’ t grow to such outlandish proportions. If they didn’t grow then, why should they now if global temps increase 1.4 degrees?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    jo,
    u need a new thread for the bombshell of phil jones throwing michael mann under the bus and admitting the MWP -

    WUWT: CRU’s Jones: Climate data ‘not well organised’ and MWP debate ‘not
    settled’
    12 02 2010
    From the BBC
    By Roger Harrabin
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/12/crus-jones-climate-data-not-well-organised-and-mwp-debate-not-settled/#more-16384

    BBC: Q&A: Q&A: Professor Phil Jones
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

    watched monckton/lambert on a-pac – included the brilliant questions from the audience and monckton on top throughout the questioning; however, sky news replayed today and left out all questions, which narrowed the debate down considerably and over-emphasised the pinker matter. it will be interesting to see where the pinker debate goes now.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    I am willing to bet that the science used by the IPCC uses the best that science has to offer when it is considering how the oceans will react…

    The highlighted phrase is of course completely subjective. One reader may be impressed by colorful graphs, another may like clear, easy to follow explanations, while someone else will refuse to accept any research without vast columns of data to back it up. Some people swoon over the concept of peer review, but generally cannot define exactly what is peer review anyhow… which peers count, and which peers don’t? And why? What makes one qualification “the best” compared with others? Completely arbitrary personal prejudice is all.

    Ultimately the only way to know “best science” is far down the track when the predictions of today can be measured. There is nothing else of value in science other than the ability to make successful predictions.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Tel:

    You rightly say:

    Ultimately the only way to know “best science” is far down the track when the predictions of today can be measured.

    But the most important word in your statement is “ultimately”.

    Before it is possible to make meaningful predictions the “best” science does not pretend that meaningful predictions are possible. At that stage, the “best” science explains the reason why the present state of knowledge does not enable the possibility of meaningful predictions. That is the present state of our understanding of the carbon cycle.

    And our paper (cited above)explains the reason why the present state of knowledge does not enable the possibility of meaningful predictions.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Otter

    @ Ed Darrell

    I am also interested in your sources claiming the Great Plains will become desert. Considering that they were Warmer during the MWP

    Midieval Warm Period Map (global)
    http://www.co2science.org/data/timemap/mwpmap.html

    Great Plains MWP http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l2_greatplains.php


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Ed Darnell @ 305
    1.4 degrees. That means that the Sonora Desert will only extend through Oklahoma, and not all the way to the Dakotas? Good news for China’s wheat output in the northern provinces. Band news for U.S. and Canada, don’t you think?

    What are the lesser effects of 1.4 degrees that we should celebrate?

    Ed, I have several questions for you:

    The first is where did you get this notion about the Sonora expanding?

    The second is where did you get the idea that we can do anything about the Earths temperature trends?

    Third, please tell me what is the correct stable temperature of the surface of the earth? (in either Degrees F or C and please provide a reference)

    Thank you.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    During the Holocene Maximum during the Bronze Age the Earth’s temperature was much warmer than today.

    And how did Australia fare in the Holocene Maximum? How’s that no-placentals policy working now?

    The idea of acting now would be to avoid going back to the Bronze Age. You think we should reduce human populations to Bronze Age levels, you argue it. It’s a repugnant idea, as well as politically untenable.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Otter

    ‘You think we should reduce human populations to Bronze Age levels, you argue it. ‘~ darrell

    Demonstrate to us that is what he was arguing. While you are it, explain to us why the Sonora desert didn’t expand through Oklahoma during the Midieval Warm Period, as several of us asked you above, please!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Here we are, after the CRUs questionable (probably criminal) machinations with our data, not even knowing if there has been any warming, let alone AGW, and there’s also no (none, nada, zero) evidence that CO2 at levels far higher than current will have a discernable influence on temperature; in fact, everything we do know about CO2 points the other way. The alarmists have nothing credible to say unless /until they can provide some evidence that (1) there’s been sufficient warming to cause concern, and (2) mankind is responsible for at least some significant part of it, and (3) recognize that, in any event, at the current rate of increase of CO2 (2ppmv / year) we have some time to look for cost effective approaches. (This will be a difficult task since, for starters, the boys at Anglia and Hadley seem to have “lost” most, if not all the raw data, and at this point, even if they “found” it, how could anyone really believe what they provided was actually untouched? )

    The concerns about a major crisis befalling us because of too much CO2 is really more like a (weak) theory, and in that regard seems more questionable than those of the various (and real) scientists now claiming that greenhouse gas considerations are very different than what happens in the atmosphere, and that applying greenhouse gas physics to the open atmosphere is bogus because it breaks basic laws of thermodynamics. (and you alarmists: please don’t argue with me about that … discuss your concerns with the scientists who, unlike the IPCC, have put their money where their mouth is”.)


    Report this

    00

  • #

    @ Ed Darrell #312

    Written like an attorney defending a mafia don. How did you pass the bar? During the warm periods of the current Holocene humans did quite well. During the little ice age humanity faired poorly. You keep droning on about how 1.4 degrees would cause an apocalypse but provide no empirical evidence to support your claim. Please, no computer model garbage in garbage out crap. You should replace that picture of the American flag with a hammer and sickle, don’t you think?

    Put up or shut up and cease with the straw man arguments. You di study rhetoric and deductive reasoning in law school, didn’t you? The reason sharks don’t eat lawyers is professional courtesy.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Richard S Courtney:
    February 13th, 2010 at 2:43 am

    Hello again Richard. In my search for a paper re: evaporation rates related to temperature, I found this HERE

    extract

    A simple formula for estimating evaporation rates in various climates, using temperature data alone

    Edward T. Linacrea

    aSchool of Earth Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney (Australia)
    Received 20 August 1976;
    accepted 7 April 1977.
    Available online 1 April 2003.

    Abstract

    The Penman formula for the evaporation rate from a lake is simplified to the following:

    Eo=700Tm/(100-A)+15(T-Td)
    —————————————- =(mmday-1)
    (80-T)

    View the MathML source
    where Tm = T + 0.006h, h is the elevation (metres), T is the mean temperature, A is the latitude (degrees) and Td is the mean dew-point. Values given by this formula typically differ from measured values by about 0.3 mm day−1 for annual means, 0.5 mm day−1 for monthly means, 0.9 mm day−1 for a week and 1.7 mm day−1 for a day. The formula applies over a wide range of climates. Monthly mean values of the term (T − Td) can be obtained either from an empirical table or from the following empirical relationship, provided precipitation is at least 5 mm month−1 and (T − Td) is at least 4°C:

    (T−Td)=0.0023h+0.37T+0.53R+0.35Rann−10.9°C
    where R is the mean daily range of temperature and Rann is the difference between the mean temperatures of the hottest and coldest months. Thus the evaporation rate can be estimated simply from values for the elevation, latitude and daily maximum and minimum temperatures.

    Agricultural Meteorology
    Volume 18, Issue 6, December 1977, Pages 409-424

    My laymans brain won’t comprehend the equations. I wonder if this is useful in determining the IPCC claim of CO2 initiates increase in temp which then increases WV leading to xWm2


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    And our paper (cited above)explains the reason why the present state of knowledge does not enable the possibility of meaningful predictions.

    Then you yourself have made a prediction that any other predictions can only be as effective as a random guess.

    I believe we can meaningfully make predictions a little bit better than a random guess. For example, CO2 in the ice core especially lags the temperature on the cooling part of the cycle. Since we must be somewhere near the top of the cycle right now, I can predict (long term) we will see cooling firstly, and then CO2 falling sometime after that. I doub’t I’ll live long enough to test this.

    I’m basing my prediction of the simple idea that what happened before is the most likely thing to happen again, I don’t claim any fancy computational model to back this up.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    And how did Australia fare in the Holocene Maximum?

    The answer you get depends very much on who you might be asking.
    But I do suggest that race relations are beyond the scope of this blog.

    How’s that no-placentals policy working now?

    Presumably an oblique reverence to marsupials?
    They seem to be doing OK, please provide suitable terms for comparison.

    The idea of acting now would be to avoid going back to the Bronze Age. You think we should reduce human populations to Bronze Age levels, you argue it. It’s a repugnant idea, as well as politically untenable.

    I wholeheartedly accept that on a hot day I do tend to get a bit muddle headed…
    but I’ve been through some very hot days and always managed to remember the basic stuff: which way is up, where my home is, how to smelt iron.
    Those would surely be the things that every man keeps foremost in mind during a climate crisis.

    You must be confusing your scenarios.
    You are thinking of the dystopian one where the Greenies mesmerise the whole world until everyone forgets how to make fire.
    Without fire we have neither iron nor bronze.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Thumbnail

    Times ONline weighs in:

    World may not be warming, say scientists:

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7026317.ece


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Otter

    eddi darrell, this one’s for youuuuuuuuuuuuuu!

    There’s never been a better time to start in life-
    It ain’t too early and it aint too late!
    Starting as a farmer with a brand new wife-
    Still be living in a brand-new state!
    Brand new state-
    gonna treat you great!
    Gonna buy you barley, carrots and pertaters,
    Pasture for the cattle, spinich and termaters,
    Flowers on the prarie where the June bugs zoom,
    Plen’y of air and plen’y of room,
    Plen’y of room to swing a rope!
    Plen’y of heart and plen’y of hope.

    OOOOk-lahoma, where the wind comes sweepin’ down the plain,
    And the wavin’ wheat can sure smell sweet, When the wind comes right behind the rainQ
    OOOOk-lahoma, Ev’ry night my honey lamb and I, Sit alone and talk and watch a hawk makin’ lazy circles in the sky.

    We know we belong to the land (yo-ho)
    And the land we belong to is grand!
    And when we say
    Yeeow! Aye-yip-aye-yo-ee-ay!
    We’re only sayin’
    You’re doin’ fine, Oklahoma!
    Oklahoma O.K.!

    —-

    Doing pretty well for having been WARMER during the MWP, eh eddi? No desert. Nothing to see here! Certainly nothing of substance from YOU.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Tel:

    I’m basing my prediction of the simple idea that what happened before is the most likely thing to happen again, I don’t claim any fancy computational model to back this up.

    Remarkably simple (and brilliant) Tel.

    I wholeheartedly accept that on a hot day I do tend to get a bit muddle headed…
    but I’ve been through some very hot days and always managed to remember the basic stuff: which way is up, where my home is, how to smelt iron.
    Those would surely be the things that every man keeps foremost in mind during a climate crisis.

    I have a similar muddle-head on a hot day but for me it is because of the beer. To make beer you need the ability to use both fire, plow fields for some extra food (grain) and iron helps too.

    I am pretty sure we’ll never lose the ability to make beer no mater how warm or cool it gets and therefore Man will do OK. :)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Hey Richard S. Courtney. Since you are an IPCC expert reviewer, and you claim they did not use the best science as they didn;t use your Rorsch et al (2005) paper from E&E, do you have reasons from them at your fingertips? I assume you commented they should consider it, and they refused (or ignored) that suggestion?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Richard in the absence of your paper I’m working off a DF of a presentation that Bahh Humbug has provided. Opening paragraph of the introduction:
    “It is commonly assumed that the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration during the twentieth century (approx. 30% rise) is a result of anthropogenic emissions of CO2 (1,2,3). However, the annual pulse of anthropogenic CO2 into the atmosphere should relate to the annual increase of CO2 in the atmosphere if one is causal of the other, but their variations greatly differ from year to year (4) (see Figure 1).”

    Could you provide a cite for: “However, the annual pulse of anthropogenic CO2 into the atmosphere should relate to the annual increase of CO2 in the atmosphere if one is causal of the other.”

    who says it “should”.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    And a bit further on do you have a cite for “But the lack of correlation between the anthropogenic CO2 emissions and accumulation of CO2 in the air (see Figure 1) provides doubt to the assumption that the emissions are causing the accumulation”


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Tel:

    Thankyou for your interest.

    At #317 you say to me;

    Then you yourself have made a prediction that any other predictions can only be as effective as a random guess.

    I believe we can meaningfully make predictions a little bit better than a random guess. For example, CO2 in the ice core especially lags the temperature on the cooling part of the cycle. Since we must be somewhere near the top of the cycle right now, I can predict (long term) we will see cooling firstly, and then CO2 falling sometime after that. I doub’t I’ll live long enough to test this.

    But that is my point. We can make many such suggestions as to what will happen but – at present – we have no method to determine which is right. Therefore, any such determination is an expression of prejudice or, to use your language, is a random guess.

    Time will tell which guess is nearest to the truth but, at present, there is no data that permits us to determine which guess is nearest to the truth. Hence, at present, adopting any such guess as being a determination of what will happen is not a meaningful prediction.

    Please note that this is not some esoteric academic discussion of the philosophy of scientific prediction. Warmers have adopted one guess as being a truth that merits destruction of the economic and industrial systems of the developed world. Such destruction would cause the deaths of billions of the world’s poorest people. Indeed, the adoption of biofuels has already starved many.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Matt B:

    You made the bet. I accepted it. You have lost it. And you are making excuses for reneging on your bet. At #322 you say to me:

    Hey Richard S. Courtney. Since you are an IPCC expert reviewer, and you claim they did not use the best science as they didn;t use your Rorsch et al (2005) paper from E&E, do you have reasons from them at your fingertips? I assume you commented they should consider it, and they refused (or ignored) that suggestion?

    At #290 I wrote:

    When you fail to find any reference in any IPCC Report to our paper that I cite here (there is none despite my mention of it in my peer review for IPCC AR4) then please contact me so you can pay me the money.

    You can refer to all IPCC review comments and responses on-line following a Freedom of Information judgement that forced their publication. The IPCC chose to ignore that review comment of mine presumably because it did not fit their agenda as well as WWF assertions of magical rates of glacial disappearance (which IPCC did choose to publish).

    And at #323 you ask me;

    Could you provide a cite for:
    “However, the annual pulse of anthropogenic CO2 into the atmosphere should relate to the annual increase of CO2 in the atmosphere if one is causal of the other.”

    The citation is our paper, but the statement is a self-evident truth: i.e. how could they not relate to each other if one is causal of the other?

    Then at #324 you ask me:

    And a bit further on do you have a cite for “But the lack of correlation between the anthropogenic CO2 emissions and accumulation of CO2 in the air (see Figure 1) provides doubt to the assumption that the emissions are causing the accumulation”.

    Again, the answer is the citation is our paper, but the statement is a self-evident truth: how could their failure to correlate not provide doubt to the assumption that the emissions are causing the accumulation?

    Then your citation at #325 completely destroys whatever little credibility you may have had. It demonstrates that you claim insults overwhelm evidence: are you insane or merely desperate to avoid paying your self-inflicted betting debts?

    Richard

    PS I wonder why you did not ask me for a copy of the presentation if you wanted it instead of seeking it from a third party. Perhaps you are too ashamed of your identity for you to reveal it, or you think I may put pressure on you to pay your debt if I were to know who you are.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Tel:

    This matter is a different subject from the “best scientific information” concerning the carbon cycle, so I address it separately.

    At #317 you say;

    I’m basing my prediction of the simple idea that what happened before is the most likely thing to happen again, I don’t claim any fancy computational model to back this up.

    I have often stated a similar prediction on the basis of “what happened before is the most likely thing to happen again”, and I repeat it here.

    The climate seems to vary in cycles that are overlaid on each other, and two such apparent cycles are important.

    There is an apparent ~900 year oscillation that caused
    the Roman Warm Period (RWP),
    then the Dark Age Cool Period (DACP),
    then the Medieval Warm Period (MWP),
    then the Little Ice Age (LIA),
    then the present warm period (PWP).
    All the observed rise of global temperature in the twentieth century could be recovery from the LIA that is similar to the recovery from the DACP to the MWP.

    And there an apparent ~60 year oscillation that caused
    cooling from ~1880 to ~1910,
    then warming from ~1910 to ~1940,
    then cooling from ~1940 to ~1970,
    then warming from ~1970 to ~2000,
    then cooling since.

    So, has warming from the LIA stopped or not? We cannot know because the effect of the ~60 year oscillation masks that warming.

    What will happen when the ~60 year oscillation returns to its warm phase around ~2030?
    Either
    (a) warming will resume until we reach temperatures of the RWP and MWP
    or
    (b) cooling will set in until we reach temperatures of the DACP and LIA.

    And atmospheric CO2 concentration is affected by global temperature.

    So, even using the past as a guide to the future provides little meaningful predictive insight.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    george

    Richard

    An addendum to your last post, if I may.

    I would suggest that introducing solar cycle and oceanic oscillation considerations into your appraisal above would add even more statistical noise, such that any determination of climate change trends (I stress – long term) would be, at the very least, questionable given a 20-30 year snapshot at any given time.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Hi Richard, I made a “bet” if you like, but you bounded in and slammed $10k on the table, mentioned your paper and said “there you are wrong MattB pay up.” Now where I come from that’s not a bet, it is daylight robbery. I’ve not reneged, I’m doing my due diligence to see where your paper fits in. I’ve also made it clear that I never made a bet for cash, as I don’t have the cash to cover it. But I’m happy for a bet on scientific honour. So rather than see me as a combatant, see me as someone who is just looking for the truth. I;ve asked a few questions which you are in a good position to answer, such as the feedback from the IPCC re: your paper and review comments.

    You say “You can refer to all IPCC review comments and responses on-line following a Freedom of Information judgement that forced their publication. The IPCC chose to ignore that review comment of mine presumably because it did not fit their agenda as well as WWF assertions of magical rates of glacial disappearance (which IPCC did choose to publish).” but where is this – can you provide it? Lets say there was $5k of my hard earned on the table, not just my honour, well I hope you’d allow me some due dilligence to figure out if I win or lose, other than your good word Richard.

    If your idea of peer-review is “here is a paper, you lose I’m right” then no wonder you publish in E&E;)

    And if you are so thin skinned to not have a laugh at 325 then that is your problem not mine. E&E is a laughing stock like it or not, but I’m moving beyond that and having a genuine look at your paper? My look will be less genuine the more dismissive your assistance.

    p.s. I had been away for the weekend, got back lots of posts, just mentioned looking for your paper, humbug reminded me it would cost $8 online but provided me a PDF of a related presentation you did as a starting point. Nothing too sinister there Richard sorry.

    But lets just get one thing clear – your comment “You made the bet. I accepted it. You have lost it. And you are making excuses for reneging on your bet.” is a blatant lie. I made a “bet” – you stormed in and slapped $10k on the table, not me. Imagine going to the casino and saying you’d like to gamble, and the guy at the roulette just says – It was 29 you lose sorry you owe me $10,000 when you;ve neither placed a bet nor seen the roulette table yet? crazy talk.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Matt B:

    Discusssion of the bet is becoming complex because it is now on two threads of Jo’s blog. In attempt to remove that confusion, I hope to return the discussion to this thread alone by copying here my post at #94 on the “Shock: Phil Jones …” thread.

    It says:

    Matt B and Eddy:

    I have responded to all points concerning the subject of the bet on the original thread.

    The facts are plain for all to see.
    Matt B made the bet.
    I accepted the bet.
    Matt B has lost the bet.
    Matt B is trying to find any excuse to renege on the bet that he offered.

    Please remember that if the IPCC did use “the best available science” then they had a duty to explain why they made no reference to our paper (if only to say why they were ignoring its conclusions).

    Our paper presented six different and possible explanations of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration and demonstrated that none of them – n.b. not one of them – can be shown to be wrong by use of available data. Furthermore, the IPCC adopts an explanation for the rise which requires the use of 5-year smoothing of the data which cannot be justified by any known physical mechanism (but their explanation does not work without that smoothing). None of the possible explanations we examined requires any ‘fiddle-factor’ such as 5 year smoothing to get it to fit the data.

    The “best available science” never ignores contrary data: that is avoidance of science. So, the fact that the IPCC did not mention our paper is prima facie evidence that the IPCC were not attempting to show they were using “the best available science”: the IPCC was merely presenting the “science” that fitted what they wanted their readers to know about. (This is directly analagous to the ‘hide the decline’ issue mentioned in this thread where the failure of tree rings to represent temperature after 1960 was not openly shown but was replaced – or overlaid by – other information).

    As you both say, the money is not the issue here. Matt B and other warmers make false assertions concerning peer review and the IPCC’s propoganda. As I said in an email that replied to Eddy’s email to me;
    “The misuse of peer review by the self-titled “Team” and the misrepresentation of IPCC propaganda as being “the best available science” require publicity, and that publicity is what I hope to achieve.”

    So, Matt B, pay me, pay a charity, or – if you cannot afford to pay up – admit that you were wrong to make a bet that you have clearly lost.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Matt B:

    I am responding to your silly desperation expressed in your post at #330 above.

    I will accept an apology for your unwarranted assertion that I lied when I said you made the bet. The facts are plain for all to see: at #77 above you made the bet and I accepted it at #290.

    The peer review of a paper for publication in E&E (or any other journal) is conducted prior to the acceptance or rejection for publication. It has nothing to do with any citation of the published paper by me or by anybody else.

    And whether or not you like E&E is not relevant.

    The IPCC likes WWF lies and publishes them. That does not make those lies are “the best scientific information”, and the existence of those lies does not mean that all information from WWF should be ignored. Information shoud be assessed on its merits and not its source.

    Find fault in the information. If you were to prove that E&E is not worthy or that it is worthy (it is very worthy) then that would say nothing about the merits of our paper. Information should be assessed on its merits and not on the basis of where it is published or by whom.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Richard you are obviously not a betting man if you think that is how bets work. I;d be a rich man if I could walk down the street asserting that random strangers owed me $5,000 based on no evidence and on a bet they never made. It seems you are sticking to your side of things which (1) makes the bet off, and (2) shows you to be a charlatan.

    I shall nonetheless continue my research of your paper at my own pace and update my findings here in due course.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Surely even Eddy is on my side here?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Richard if you look the comment you are annoyed I posted in the other thread was posted 3 minutes after your post here – so maybe just for a moment you could consider that I hadn;t seen it. In fact it is I who proposed to continue all such discussion in this thread, after which you posted in the other thread, and I replied. Happy to continue all discussions here.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Matt B:

    You post another irrelevance (at #333) and an unfounded insult (at #334).

    It does not matter if I am or am not a “charlatan”. And it does not matter who you can call to your “side”.

    You made the bet, I accepted it, and you have lost it.

    I will not answer insults to me, to E&E, or to anybody else. And I do not care who you call to your aid. Why should I be such a fool as to bite on your red herrings?

    Admit that you have lost the bet that you made.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Matt B:

    The nature of the bet is plain for all to see. You made it and I accepted it at 2:1 in your favour. My acceptance included US$10,000 that I was placing.

    Your response has been
    (a) to assert that you did not make the bet, and
    (b) to assert that if you did make it then you have not lost it.

    Now, anybody who was sure that they were in the right would
    (1) agree they had made the bet,
    (2) attempt to prove they had won the bet, and
    (3) demand US$20,000 from me.

    Hence, your behaviour proves you know you have lost the bet and you are trying to find ways to renege on it.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Richard I have not lost the bet that I (never) made. All the evidence you have presented to support your claim is an unknown article by yourself produced in what is, and sorry you don’t like the fact, a laughing stock of a journal. That is not to say I dismiss the paper because of where it was published… but lets face it I’d want to be damn sure it stood up to scrutiny even it it were published in Nature.

    Facts are that you are of the opinion that I lost my bet because of your paper in E&E. That bet of zero or non-agreed value. You then say I owe you $5000:) funnily enough I’m not convinced.

    How is mentioning Eddy an insult? just out of interest?

    Imagine if Mann, Briffa and the rest reacted like you do when their articles were under scrutiny. This would be front page news of how stubborn, manipulative and deceitful the IPCC’s minions are.

    My suggestion is that you let this slide and give me a chance to do my diligence and give your paper the respect it almost definitely does not deserve. At the moment you are arguing at my level and most certainly losing with your pants round your ankles looking like a right wally.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Richard in 337 – lies and fabrication again.

    Also you’ve placed a bet of $10,000, how could you possibly owe me $20,000? You putting $10k on the table at 2:1 means I owe you 5 or you owe me 10, surely? You’ve only put $10k on the table.

    You say “anybody who was sure that they were in the right would
    (1) agree they had made the bet,
    (2) attempt to prove they had won the bet, and
    (3) demand US$20,000 from me.”

    Ok then have it your way. Richard you owe me $20,000 by citing as your only evidence for your claim that the IPCC did not use the best science a “paper” published and “peer reviewed” in the journal Energy and Environment, a paper that has roundly been ignored by the scientific community as being irrelevant.

    As I said very early on – would you like my bank details.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Matt B:

    You continue your red herrings, for example you ask me:

    How is mentioning Eddy an insult? just out of interest?

    I never said it was. Instead of demonstrating your lack of reading comprehension skills, just admit that you were wrong to make a bet that you had no chance of winning.

    I have made no defence of my paper but I have stated where it can be purchased, where an exposition of it can be obtained, quoted from it, and explained what it says and the implicatios of its findings. Many of us would welcome Mann, Bradley & Hughes doing the same for their publications: we have been demanding exposition of their papers and their source data for years.

    You have made no attempt to show that the IPCC “used the best available scientific data”, you assert that our paper was “ignored” (your word) by the IPCC and its supporters, and you have shown no flaw of any kind in our paper. This is clear acceptance by you that you have lost the bet that you made and which I accepted.
    PAY ME!

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Richard in #336 you said “Matt B: You post another irrelevance (at #333) and an unfounded insult (at #334).”
    But my post #334 was “Surely even Eddy is on my side here?”
    so I said “how is mentioning Eddy an insult? just out of interest?”
    To which you reply in #340 “I never said it was”

    Hello? umm, yes you did.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    I also see you continue to be under the delusion that I somehow owe you some money?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Surely you assert that your paper has been ignored by the IPCC? Sure they are my words but this whole issue is that you think they didn;t use best available science in omitting your paper? No?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Really though Richard, I need to know just what I could do to convince you you’ve lost the bet. I’m prepared to let you know what you could do to win the bet.

    Get your paper published in a reputable journal. Simple.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Matt B:

    Your most recent postings prove that you are a liar without honour.

    You made a bet.
    You have lost the bet.
    You are refusing to pay the debt.
    You are scrabbling to find excuses to justify your not honouring your debt.

    News for you:
    THERE ARE NO HONOURABLE JUSTIFICATIONS FOR YOUR DESPICABLE BEHAVIOUR.

    And your unfounded accusations that I have lied add to your dishonour. I apologise that I transposed “#333” and “#334” in my post at #336. That was my mistake, but it does not justify your attempts to call me a liar. You are in the wrong, not me, because you offered the bet and having lost it you are trying to renege on it: my mistyping the order of two numbers that indicate postings in this thread does not change that, and does not obscure it.

    You say to me:

    I’m prepared to let you know what you could do to win the bet.

    Get your paper published in a reputable journal. Simple.

    OK. I have done that: I published it in E&E. So, PAY ME!

    Or are you going to try the CRU trick of redefining peer review? That seems to be the established method for warmers to get away with disreputable behaviour.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Typical weasel argument: the term “reputable” will never work to win this bet. Mattb, as the greased pig, will simply never accept any publication he disagrees with as reputable.

    He is toying again and the list of people willing to take the bait is surprisingly long……….


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Mark D:

    I completely agree with you.

    I am not after money: as I said at #331

    As you both say, the money is not the issue here. Matt B and other warmers make false assertions concerning peer review and the IPCC’s propoganda. As I said in an email that replied to Eddy’s email to me;
    “The misuse of peer review by the self-titled “Team” and the misrepresentation of IPCC propaganda as being “the best available science” require publicity, and that publicity is what I hope to achieve.”

    So, Matt B, pay me, pay a charity, or – if you cannot afford to pay up – admit that you were wrong to make a bet that you have clearly lost.

    With each of his responses Matt B demonstrates to the uninformed just how corrupt the IPCC is. And I can do no more to explain the importance of this than to quote the IPCC Chairman, Rajendra Pechauri who said recently;

    I don’t think the credibility of the IPCC can be dented. If the IPCC wasn’t there, why would anyone be worried about climate change?

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #

    @ Richard S. Courtney.

    I did not get the email you sent because I made a mistake. I sent the first email fro an email address that isn’t valid. I sent you a second email from a valid email address. Would you please forward your email to the second address, thank you. Also, I was hoping you could help Matt to see the light. Matt seems to predicate his belief in AGW on an Appeal to Authority, the IPCC. You are a recognized scientist and I thought Matt might accept you as an authority. I made the mistake of assuming that MattB was capable of deductive reasoning, my mistake. I am sorry you wasted your time. MattB is indeed, a greased pig.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    I have a “friend” coincidentally named Matt that is on the opposite side politically of everything I consider sane, rational and democratic. He used to do the same thing as this Mattb to me at every opportunity. (Pick a daily news topic and spin it at me to get me going.) After many many of these moments of argument where he successfully raised my blood pressure beyond 300 I finally realized he had no sanity, no ability to be rational, and even though he called himself a Democrat, lacked any concept of democracy.

    I learned that when I ignored him he quit.

    Richard, I understand why you are defending correct principles and your point is already well made. (and by the way agree with your position).

    Mattb cannot be saved. He has the leftist (USA strain) virus (USALV) compounded with a case of AGueW. The combination of these illnesses has, for him, caused several permanent deficits.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Eddy Aruba:

    At #348 you say:

    I did not get the email you sent because I made a mistake. I sent the first email fro an email address that isn’t valid. I sent you a second email from a valid email address. Would you please forward your email to the second address, thank you.

    But I only got one email from you. This may be a fault at my end. Following concerted (and damaging attacks) I have had several layers of protection put on my systems and some emails are rejected from my server.

    I will send to your other address if you email me from it again.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Richard are you able to read? I did not call you a liar because you got two post numbers wrong. I called you a liar for claiming I have somehow made a $10,000 bet with you.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Also Richard, I wonder why you are continuing this line of attack. You clearly thought a $10k trumpet shock and awe would send me scurrying, same for Eddy who got excited at my silence over the weekend when in fact I was camping with my family. But here I am, in direct conflict with your opinions of “warmists”, willing to have a genuine look at your paper and the IPCC to reach a sensible opinion on whether or not the IPCC should have taken it in to consideration as part of the “best that science has to offer.”

    I’m moving past the predictable dismissal of E&E as a joke of a journal, and the general consensus that you have no credibility on climate science, fabricate your qualifications etc etc, and instead am going to see if I can actually understand what your arguments are and if in fact I am relying on Authority.

    However, for most of us out here in real life, it is impossible to make a genuine critical assessment of the science as we simply do not have the skills to separate the wheat from the chaff, which is why ultimately the great unwashed will follow one appeal or another. One only has to look at this blog to see that many many posters make an appeal to anti-authority if you don;t mind me putting it that way.

    So anyway excuse me if I have made the odd dig in your general direction re: E&E etc, old habits die hard I guess. But I’d appreciate you dropping your blustering and big-noting too.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    PhilJourdan

    Mattb#352
    I dare say no one is “moving beyond” a line of attack, but merely moving on. There is a difference. Moving beyond means you have left things unresolved, while moving on means they are resolved. I think Phil Jones has resolved most of your insecurities. And clearly the only “moving beyond” is in the AGW faithful trying to hold on to a dying religion now that a major priest has denied it. Moving ahead, perhaps we can actually start using real science to determine what is going on? Or are you going to thwart that as well?

    Your choice. Dying religion or real science.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    PJ – nice rant but what does it have to do with the status of Richard’s paper?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    MattB,

    May I suggest a few science classes. Once you can wrap your head around thermodynamics, black body radiation, control theory (feedback systems), atmospheric absorption, the meaning of error bars and the difference between a speculative hypothesis and a confirmed theory, then you will be able to make an assessment of the science.

    Oh yea, one more thing. Like most warmists, you will need to let go of the preconceived idea that mankind is somehow culpable for any significant amount of climate change. This is Jones problem. He acknowledges the faults in the IPCC case and the deficiencies in the science used to support it, but still stubbornly insists that mankind is responsible for recent warming. This ends justifies the means crap under the guise of the precautionary principle doesn’t cut it, especially since the physics contradicts catastrophic AGW and there are trillions of dollars and even our freedom at stake.

    If you can just concede to the possibility that man’s CO2 emissions have just a small, second order climate effect, then if you’ve been paying attention, the pieces will start to fall in place.

    George


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Holy S–t!:

    Mattb said

    I’m moving past the predictable dismissal of E&E as a joke of a journal, and the general consensus that you have no credibility on climate science, fabricate your qualifications etc etc, and instead am going to see if I can actually understand what your arguments are and if in fact I am relying on Authority.

    Something very scary is going on here…….


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    CO2 – since I have degree qualifications in Physics and Engineering I should be able to cope thanks.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    MattB,

    Well then, you must not have been able to get past your preconceptions (part of the chaff you referred to). Lets start with 4 simple yes or no questions. If you do have physics credentials, then your answer to all 4 questions should be yes.

    1) Do you agree that the upper limit on the intrinsic effect of doubling CO2 (i.e. no feedback effects) is about 0.67C?

    To calculate this, convert surface temp of 289K to surface power with SB to get 395.55 W/m^2. If you add 3.7 W/m^2 (the ‘forcing power’ from doubling CO2) and convert back to temperature, you get 289.67K, which is a 0.67C increase. In fact, only about half of the extra absorbed energy finds it’s way back to the surface!

    2) Do you agree that any temperature increase from CO2 that’s in excess 0.67C must from from feedback?

    3) Do you agree that a surface temperature 292K (3C warmer than 289K) corresponds to a surface power of 412.24 W/m^2, which is 16.69 W/m^2 larger than the surface power at 289K?

    4) Do you agree that to achieve a temperature of 292K, feedback must amplify the 3.7 W/m^2 of additional atmospheric absorption into 16.68 W/m^2 of additional surface energy (a gain of 4.5) ?

    Assuming you have a basic understanding of physics and answered yes to all 4 questions, now for the hard question.

    What possible physical feedback mechanism can supply this much gain? Show your work.

    FYI, I can quantify the ice and water vapor related feedback effects and they are no where near large enough.

    George


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    I must admit I thought the basic feedback was about 0.8?

    To quote Wikipedia “The remaining uncertainty is due entirely to feedbacks in the system, namely, the water vapor feedback, the ice-albedo feedback, the cloud feedback, and the lapse rate feedback.”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    However CO2 not evil there is a wealth of literature out there that assists the IPCC arrive at their 1.5-4.5 sensitivity figure, with 3 being the middle ground. Seriously rather than ask me to do the maths maybe you should instead demonstrate why they are wrong (or maybe why you favour 1.5).

    So my answers are irrelevent, but you shoudl post your working regardless as you clearly think you have better than the IPCC has used.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    For those interested the following link gives a good discussion on climate sensitivity. http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/10/27/uncertain-sensitivity/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Matt B:

    You claim to have a physics degree but post questions that demonstrate you do not understand cause and effect. Sad, very sad.

    At #357 you say:

    I have degree qualifications in Physics and Engineering

    OK. But if that is true then please explain your failure to understand the points you queried in #323 and #324. I answered both those questions at #327 by saying and asking

    The citation is our paper, but the statement is a self-evident truth: i.e. how could they not relate to each other if one is causal of the other?

    This is not trivial. As the links you have provided demonstrate, climate realists (including myself) have been subjected to decades of smears that cast doubt on our integrity, our motivation, our financial backing and our quaifications. Entire web sites have ben set up to tell lies about us, and warmer minions have spread those lies around the web (including you spreading such lies about me in this thread).

    In this thread I took a silly statement that you made and tried to force you to justify it. And I tried to cause you to worry that the justification could affect your income. I kept up the pressure for a few days.

    Did you feel comfortable over those few days?
    Remember, I was only one person having a bit of fun for only a few days.

    Now, consider how those of us who have opposed the pseudoscience of AGW feel when we have been subjected to much, much worse for decades by well-financed and orchestrated warmers with hundreds of minions (including you) to spread their smears and lies. And I have not mentioned the attacks, the destruction of careers and the death threats inflicted on us by the warmers.

    My skin is so thick that I have coped with decades of treatment from warmers that is much worse than I have given you over the last few days. And those few days have upset you.

    The pseudocience of AGW is collapsing. It is too soon for triumphalism from those of us who champion science against the pseudoscience. We need to ensure the collapse is completed by applying as much pressure as possible on the warmers.

    I have put a little squeeze on you. This was not revenge: it was part of the pressure that needs to be applied to all warmers until the wicked myth of AGW is eradicated.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Richard – glad you were just having fun with me, although from my perspective you were confirming suspicions raised by others that you were stark-raving mad.

    As for 323 and 324 I fail to see how asking you for a couple of references was a sign of lack of understanding of physics. Rather I have a hunch that your expectations lack that understanding – but I asked for a reference so I could read and learn, that is all.

    If there is no cite that is fair enough, I just thought you may haev omitted reference to other studies that confirm that the reaction to increased CO2 is expected immediately at those measuring stations.

    I have a strong strong hunch that I am not the only person who would contend with the two statements I highlighted in those two posts. I feel they are central to your argument, but they do appear to just be what you reckon, rather than what science has demonstrated.

    FYI yes I felt very comfortable in those few days – I was camping with the kids having a ball, quite unconcerned that some random thought for no reason that I owed him $5,000.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    MattB:
    February 16th, 2010 at 7:26 pm

    Matt you’ll recall the friendly advice I gave you at the other thread.

    He also has courage to go against the orthodoxy especially since carreers like his can be made or broken by such actions. Having considered all that, I would have thought twice (and thrice) before attacking him without a full gammut of information at my fingertips.
    You made your bed Matt.

    You didn’t take the advice. This isn’t about the bet or the money, it’s about your tactless attacks on the man, his work and the journal he works for.
    Surely an educated person like you (raising kids as well) could have found a better way to approach this whole sad saga.
    Even though we are on opposite sides of the AGW debate, I’ve found myself cringing at some of your comments.

    Lift your game Matt, you’re losing what credibility you’ve built up on this blog.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Matt B:

    You say:

    I have a strong strong hunch that I am not the only person who would contend with the two statements I highlighted in those two posts. I feel they are central to your argument, but they do appear to just be what you reckon, rather than what science has demonstrated.

    Bollocks! That demonstrates you did not read (or understand) the paper you claimed to be querying.

    It says;

    Figures 1 and 6 provide an apparent paradox. The annual anthropogenic emission of CO2 should relate to the annual increase of CO2 in the atmosphere if one is causal of the other but Figure 1 shows these two parameters do not correlate. However, Figure 6 shows that – using each of these different models – we were able to model the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere as being a function solely of the annual anthropogenic emission of CO2. It is important to note that we did not use any ‘fiddle factors’ such as the 5-year-averageing used by the IPCC (that cannot be justified because there is no known physical mechanism that would have such effect).

    The apparent paradox is resolved by consideration of the calculated equilibrium CO2 concentration values, Ce. These are shown in Figure 7. Each model indicates that the calculated CO2 concentration for the equilibrium state in each year is considerably above the observed values. This demonstrates that each model indicates there is a considerable time lag required to reach the equilibrium state when there is no accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere. In other words, one has to reckon with a considerable time lag to reach the equilibrium state Fa = 0 when Fin increases to a certain value with increasing Fem. As Figure 2 shows, the short term sequestration processes can easily adapt to sequester the anthropogenic emission in a year. But, according to these models, the total emission of that year affects the equilibrium state of the entire system. Some processes of the system are very slow with rate constants of years and decades. Hence, the system takes decades to fully adjust to the new equilibrium. And Figure 6 shows the models predicting the atmospheric CO2 concentration slowly rising in response to the changing equilibrium condition that is shown in Figure 7.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    MattB:
    February 16th, 2010 at 7:26 pm

    you were confirming suspicions raised by others that you were stark-raving mad.

    Well you see this is what I mean. Firstly, by generalising with the use of the word “others”, you are casting aspersions on “others” on this blog. If your statement is true, name them so that “others” like me don’t get hit with the mud you keep slinging.
    Secondly, is that all a person with degrees in physics and engineering could come up with?
    How old are your kids? Is this the type of education and guidance you provide them?
    Like I said, lift your game Matt


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Matt B, Eddy Aruba, Baa Humbug and Brian Valentine:

    At #363 Matt B accepted that my taunting him about the bet was “a bit of fun” (as I said at #362) and I was not after the money (as I repeated at #347). But I stress that my taunting had a serious purpose which I stated at #347.

    There is only one more stage to completion of that purpose. And I do it here.

    The completion is to demonstrate that the IPCC documents are deliberately constructed to exclude the best available scientific information on climate change.

    Warmers have constantly asserted that the IPCC provides the “best” available science concerning climate change. Before glaciergate, Africagate, etc., their claim could seem to be plausible.

    Anybody who challenged the claim was viciously attacked as to their honour, credentials, motivation, integrity and funding. The eminence of the challengers did not discourage such attacks: those who have received such attacks include, for example, Paul Reiter (the world’s foremost authority on vector borne diseases), Niils Axel-Morner (the world’s foremost authority on sea-level change) and Vincent Gray (the world’s foremost authority on hurricanes).

    But warmers believe the attacks are merited because heretics must be burned.

    So, when Matt B made his silly bet that the IPCC had used the “best science” I decided to demonstrate how warmers behave; i.e.
    (a)
    they make blatantly false assertions concerning IPCC so-called peer reviewed science,
    (b)
    they provide no attempt to substantiate their assertions (because they know they cannot), and
    (c)
    they attempt to destroy the reputation of anybody or any journal that presents the scientific truth concerning the assertion.

    And, true to his predictable form, Matt B did behave like that.

    This raises the question as to why warmers behave like that.

    The IPCC is NOT a scientific organisation. The IPCC never has been and never was intended to be a scientific organisation. Its purpose is indicated in its title and is stated in its Charter.

    The InterGOVERNMENTal Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) exists to obtain scientific information that governments (i.e. politicians) can use to justify government (i.e. political) policies. Its entire purpose is to collate scientific information that supports those policies.

    Information that is complete rubbish is included in IPCC in so-called scientific reports when the rubbish provides support for the political policies (as glaciergate and Africagate demonstrate). Scientific information that disproves – or provides doubt – to the political policies is rejected or ignored for publication.

    Importantly, scientific information that contradicts the IPCC’s political purpose is not considered then rejected by the IPCC. Instead, it is ignored or demeaned.

    Reiter had to resort to law to get his name removed as an IPCC Author when he objected to the IPCC publishing falsehoods instead of facts concerning his specialism. Morner and Gray have each spoken out concerning the distortions of their specialisms in IPCC reports. Glaciergate occurred because India’s scientific authorities on Himalayan glaciers told their government that the IPCC assertion of complete loss of the glaciers by 2035 was impossible – a fact that all glaciologists knew – but the IPCC Chairman (Rajendra Pechauri) replied that this fact was “voodoo science”.

    The Climategate emails prove that the IPCC supporters used claims of ‘peer review’ as proof that information is correct (such claims are a denial of the scientific principle that information is assessed on its falsifiability). They then accepted for publication information of their own supply that had yet to be published in the peer reviewed literature (e.g. MBH 1998), and information from advocacy organisations (e.g. WWF) that had never been submitted for peer review.

    But the flow of real scientific information continued and this was a problem to the agenda of the self-named Team that collated information for inclusion in IPCC reports. So, as the Climategate emails prove, the Team suborned the peer review process and the Editorial Boards of journals that continued to publish untainted science. After that, also as the Climategate emails prove, when some journals continued to publish real science the Team attempted to redefine peer review so the Team could ignore anything published in those journals. Meanwhile, the Team continued to put completely unpublished nonsense (e.g. from WWF) in the IPCC reports.

    Matt B supported these activities when he asserted at #77

    I am willing to bet that the science used by the IPCC uses the best that science has to offer when it is considering how the oceans will react to increasing atmospheric CO2 in terms of what proportion will end up in the ocean vs the atmophere.

    I reacted to this as Reiter, Morner and Gray have when their work was similarly demeaned. So, I accepted the bet at odds in favour of Matt B and with a prize for him that no reasonable person would reject if he actually believed what he had written. However, there would be some cost to him of being wrong. His subsequent behaviour demonstrated that he knew he was wrong. Eddy Aruba recognised that demonstration and repeatedly pressured Matt B to defend his case. But Matt B did not and, instead, attempted the usual ‘burn the heretic’ ploy that warmers adopt when called-on to justify their claim that IPCC provide the “best” science. Baa Humbug was not impressed by this ploy and repeatedly said so.

    But it is very, very important to note that Brian Valentine proved Matt B knew he was wrong.

    At #290 I stated

    So, if one of the six models of this paper is adopted then there is a 5:1 probability that the choice is wrong. And other models are probably also possible. And the six models each give a different indication of future atmospheric CO2 concentration for the same future anthropogenic emission of carbon dioxide.

    But at #296 Brian responded to that saying:

    Richard S is correct and by the way – and as he probably knows, his interpretation is the only way to reconcile all of the measured carbon and oxygen isotopic rations of the atmosphere.

    So, I said we had considered six models and Brian responded that I my interpretation is “the only way to reconcile all of the measured carbon and oxygen isotopic rations of the atmosphere”.

    Nobody (not me and not Matt B) mentioned this apparent discrepancy between the six models and the single interpretation. And the reason is explained in our paper. As I quoted at # 365;

    Each model indicates that the calculated CO2 concentration for the equilibrium state in each year is considerably above the observed values. This demonstrates that each model indicates there is a considerable time lag required to reach the equilibrium state when there is no accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere. In other words, one has to reckon with a considerable time lag to reach the equilibrium state Fa = 0 when Fin increases to a certain value with increasing Fem. As Figure 2 shows, the short term sequestration processes can easily adapt to sequester the anthropogenic emission in a year. But, according to these models, the total emission of that year affects the equilibrium state of the entire system. Some processes of the system are very slow with rate constants of years and decades. Hence, the system takes decades to fully adjust to the new equilibrium. And Figure 6 shows the models predicting the atmospheric CO2 concentration slowly rising in response to the changing equilibrium condition that is shown in Figure 7.

    So, the single explanation that, as Brian says, reconciles “all of the measured carbon and oxygen isotopic rations of the atmosphere” is that the carbon cycle is adjusting.
    And the six models provide three different possible mechanisms for the adjustment and (in each case) two different possible causes (i.e. anthropogenic and natural) for the adjustment.

    Now, the IPCC adopts an assumption of accumulation of anthropogenic CO2 emission in the air. But our paper explains that this assumption is improbable because

    At present the yearly increase of the anthropogenic emissions is approximately 0.1 GtC/year (see Figure 1). The natural fluctuation of the excess consumption (i.e. consumption processes 1 and 3 minus production processes 2 and 4) is at least 6 ppmv (which corresponds to 12 GtC) in 4 months (see Figure 2). This is more than 100 times the yearly increase of human production, which strongly suggests that the dynamics of the natural processes here listed 1-5 can cope easily with the human production of CO2. A serious disruption of the system may be expected when the rate of increase of the anthropogenic emissions becomes larger than the natural variations of CO2. But the above data indicates this is not possible.

    Furthermore, the assumption requires much larger changes to atmospheric carbon isotope ratios than are observed to have happened. And the assumption requires unjustifiable 5-year smoothing of the data to obtain an agreement with observations.

    But our interpretation (i.e. that the carbon cycle is adjusting) requires no data smoothing and agrees with the isotope data.

    The IPCC was informed of our paper (by me in my peer review for the IPCC) and chose to ignore it for no stated reason. n.b. the IPCC did not overtly consider it, assess it and/or reject it: they merely ignored it. Many others (including Reiter, Morner and Gray)have had similar treatment of their work by the IPCC.

    Hence, it is important to reject all assertions that the IPCC presents the “best” science and to do all possible to draw attention to that rejection.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    HUmbug – I am confident that Richard is well aware of the general level at which his scientific opinion is held by the warmist community. He would be well aware that someone like me could google away and conclude that he is stark raving mad. As I say I’m moving past that – but I felt appropriate to let him know that his initial mode of pursuing me aggressively with no reason or basis in fact made me sway towards agreeing with the many many viewpoints it is easy to find on the web.

    And Richard you know (or should have a hunch) that as yet I’ve not purchased or read your paper. So I would hardly disagree with “That demonstrates you did not read (or understand) the paper you claimed to be querying.” as it is correct – I’ve not read it.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    I should just say no basis in fact as he thinks he had reason (although at the point he leapt in I’d not made any reference to him).


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Richard thanks for your post at 367. We’re getting somewhere.

    Yo are still wrong about the bet though, and my reaction was of that to a madman who was fabricating events. But I do kind of see your point now and again I’m happy to move past our initial disagreement.

    For the record I don’t make $$$ bets I cannot afford to lose, no matter how sure I am I’m going to win. A general rule that keeps me out of strife.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Matt B:

    Thankyou for your comments at #368 and #369. They provide an clear demonstration of the truth of the ‘burn the heretic’ ploy I mentioned in #367.

    I think this is the first time you have given upport to anything I have written and this increases my gratitude for the support.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Richard can I ask why it is that it is very difficult to find much reference to your paper. Scepticism is rising as documented on this blog, but I don’t see many sceptics championing your paper specifically – for example not Monckton on his tour, not Plimer to any great extent (is it referenced in Heaven and Earth?)… For a paper that falsifies AGW theory effectively, why is it not front and square of the sceptical movement? OK this method of probing often annoys my opponents, but to be honest it is motivations and emotions that interest me in this whole thing.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Matt B:

    Do not wriggle. Your weasel words at #370 do not wash.

    You admit that you have not read my paper but have insulted it. You say that warmers insult me and lie about me (a fact that I am proud to proclaim) but you have repeated those smears without retraction or apology. You have now added an insinuation that I have “fabricated events”.

    So, no, we are not “getting somewhere”. To quote Baa Humbug, you need to raise your game.

    Attacks on me do not distract from the fact that IPCC reports are political tracts and NOT the “best” science.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Hang on a tick Richard. I think you are reading 370 out of context of our discussion. I was explaining my reaction to your initial attack on me – not justifying it. And you did fabricate events as you aggressively and repeatedly claimed I made a $10,000 bet with you – but I thought we’d established you were using creative licence to prove a point and I am comfortable with that explanation (I often do the same myself).


    Report this

    00

  • #

    @MattB

    You said you were going to debunk Courtney’s paper. You ask some interesting questions at 372 but they are a smokescreen and your usual segue. Cite the evidence that disproves Courtney or admit you are, as always, wrong.

    Mr Courtney, my last name is Aruda not Aruba. I am often mistaken for the island of spice. It could be worse. I went to school with Richard Head, Jr. What was his father thinking?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    I can;t help but sing kokomo when I reply to you Eddy, if that excuses Richard.

    Eddy I’ve not read the paper, have been at a 4 hour council meeting this evening, and have a day job, so you’ll have to wait your precious time for me to consider the paper in full I’m afraid.

    I’d guess Richard Head Jr’s father was thinking about the same as Richard Head Jr’s grandfather.

    as for 372 – no not a smokescreen – just interesting questions. All I know is that if I knew a paper debunked AGW so simply then I’d be crying from the rooftops so all could hear… not worrying about some hotspot.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    MattB:
    February 17th, 2010 at 1:39

    Richard can I ask why it is that it is very difficult to find much reference to your paper. Scepticism is rising as documented on this blog, but I don’t see many sceptics championing your paper specifically – for example not Monckton on his tour, not Plimer to any great extent (is it referenced in Heaven and Earth?)… For a paper that falsifies AGW theory effectively, why is it not front and square of the sceptical movement?

    This paper is a detailed scientific paper that average Joes like me and MSM just could not get their head around. It is a paper meant for the scientific community. If media-exposed people like Monckton were to try and use it, he would get the exact same response you just gave i.e. If this paper is so good then how come….”
    But a paper or even an observation that says “hey the glaciers aren’t melting” gets immediate attention.
    Papers like this one are “keepers”. They will be referred to in the future in university courses and by other researchers. That’s the arena where it will be valued as it deserves.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    nah Humbug – because MOnckton uses his issues of climate sensitivity without boring people or getting that response. he could whip up a crowd with this paper too. Or maybe it is ego in the way?


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Eddy Aruda:

    I apologise for mis-spelling your name, mea culpa.

    Matt B:

    I went through the sequence of links initiated by the URL you provided at #379. The only mention I could find of my AR4 peer review comments in those links was at
    http://www.climatedepot.com/a/3008/Skeptical-UN-IPCC-Scientist-Mocks-CO2-control-is-failing-so-the-soot-fallback-position-is-being-adopted-by-those-who-like-to-pretend-people-effect-global-climate–we-dont

    My few AR4 review comments listed there relate to discussions on black-carbon (anybody who doubts this can click the link).

    But all my review comments are available (as are all other IPCC AR4 review comments) on the Harvard web site following a Freedom of Information request. My total review comments total over 30 pages of A4 and the selected ones in the URL are not all of those concerning black-carbon.

    But you attempt to mislead onlookkers by asking me at #379

    how come your review comments to the IPCC on AR4 do not mention your seminal paper?

    THEY DO! For example, this one:

    Start Page SPM-3
    Start Line 30
    End Page SPM-3
    End Line 34
    Delete this paragraph that makes two statements which are both untrue. The statement that the rises “are directly linked to fossil fuel use … and other human activities” is an assumption that is not supported by any available evidence. Although the assumption can be used to attribute the rises to human activity this only shows that it is possible that the assumption may be correct. It is equally valid to assume that the rises are natural as has been demonstrated by e.g. ref. Rorsch A, Thoenes D and Courtney RS, (E&E v10 no2 (2005).
    And the statement saying “The concentrations of these gases also increased … were much slower than those in the last century. [2.3, 6.4]” is another use of selective data. It is supported by the ice core data but not the stomata data. It should be noted that ice core data are inherently incapable of revealing high and low atmospheric concentrations of the gases. There are several reasons for this with the most notable being that gases diffuse from regions of high concentration in unsealed firn in the decades before the ice sealed, and high values of the gas concentrations measured in the ice cores are deleted from the data sets using the assumption that high values are ‘biogenic artefacts’. The diffusion also reduces the observed rates of change to gas concentrations indicated by the ice core data. Stomata data do not suffer from these problems and indicate that the recent rates of change to atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide have repeatedly occurred in recent millennia and during transition from the last ice age.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Thanks for that Richard. The Claimate Depot article didn;t make it obvious (to me) that it was just a subsection of the comments to AR4. no intention to mislead.

    DO you have a link to that Harvard site? Have I missed it amongst the banter?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    MattB @ 379:

    “how come your” name is not mentioned as a leading highly cited climate scientist in the list of 5000 IPCC climate scientists. Why are your works not referenced in the IPCC favored peer reviewed journals? By your implied line of reasoning, we should not respond to the content of your posts but simply berate you for not being sufficiently qualified to comment? Alternatively, might it be that you feel you are only qualified to pick at scientifically irrelevant nits?

    Once again, actual science is not about the person, the paper, the journal in which it was published. It is not about the number of citations a paper has or has not received. Its about the CONTENT and CONTEXT of the hypothesis and the relevancy, validity, and adequacy of its supporting theory, experiment, and empirical evidence.

    How about sticking to the actual ON TOPIC science?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Matt B:

    I cannot answer your questions in #372 because they are unclear and make unwarranted assertions. For example, you ask

    For a paper that falsifies AGW theory effectively, why is it not front and square of the sceptical movement?

    Firstly, I do not know of any “sceptical movement”. If you can explain what or who this “movement” is then I may (or may not) be able to answer your question.

    Secondly, I have not claimed our paper “falsifies AGW theory effectively”. In fact it does not, although it does provide severe doubt to AGW theory.

    The AGW hypothesis is founded on three assumptions: viz

    (1)
    It is assumed that the anthropogenic CO2 emission is the major cause of the increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration.
    (2)
    It is assumed that the increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration is significantly increasing radiative forcing.
    (3)
    It is assumed that the increasing radiative forcing will significantly increase mean global temperature.

    There are reasons to doubt each of these assumptions. But if any one of them were known to be false then the entire AGW hypothesis would be known to be false.

    Our paper addresses Assumption 1. It demonstrates that it cannot be known if Assumption 1 is true or not. So, as our paper says,

    This indicates that the observed rise may be entirely natural; indeed, this presentation suggests that the observed recent rise to the atmospheric CO2 concentration most probably is natural. Hence ‘projections’ of future changes to the atmospheric CO2 concentration and resulting climate changes have high uncertainty if they are based on the assumption of an anthropogenic cause.

    But that is very different from a demonstration that the observed recent rise to the atmospheric CO2 concentration is not anthropogenic.

    So, our paper proves that investigation is required if it is to be known whether Assumption 1 is true or not.

    But warmers adopt Assumption 1 as an article of faith, and they demand actions on the basis of their faith. Our paper finds that their faith is not supported by presently available knowlege. And, as our paper says, this finding is a caution to ‘projections’ based on Assumption 1.

    A scientific response to our finding would be to call for research that investigates the validity of Assumption 1.
    The IPCC’s response to our finding is to pretend that our finding does not exist (as is demonstrated by the IPCC ignoring my review comments that reference our paper).
    The warmer’s response to our finding is to attack the heretics who have dared to prove that their faith cannot be justified (as your behaviour here demonstrates).

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    MattB, re360

    Your answers to my questions are indeed relevant. If you can’t acknowledge how simple aspects of the climate system work, how can you possibly grasp the big picture? Science is like a pyramid where each level of understanding is built on another. You need to get the base right first.

    Yes, the IPCC literature supports a range of 1.5-4.5 for doubling CO2 (which by the way is an energy uncertainty of about a factor of 10!). If you look at this in more detail, every ‘estimate’ of CO2′s effect assumes that CO2 is the dominate factor influencing the future climate. This assumption is the garbage going in that results in garbage coming out. I’ve looked at all of the ‘estimates’ I could find and not a single one is certain enough to justify the IPCC claim and most actually support a very low climate sensitivity when interpreted properly.

    I’ve also mentioned many, many times why the IPCC estimates are wrong. If you want to see more detail, study this,

    http://www.palisad.com/co2/eb/eb.html

    George


    Report this

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    MattB, re 359,

    The 0.8 number is not feedback, but the IPCC estimate of the climate sensitivity. That is, for each 1 W/m^2 of incremental forcing, the surface temperature will increase by 0.8C. The obvious counter example is the Sun, whose energy varies by 80 W/m^2 between perihelion and aphelion (20 w/m^2 average across the surface). If we multiplied 20 by 0.8, we should expect the global temperature in January to be 16C warmer than the global temperature in July. The data tells us that the global average January temperature is about 4C cooler instead. You would claim that the climate responds too slowly to be affected by this, but I would say that the data clearly indicates that the system responds rapidly to change. The first indication of this is that night time temperatures cool down very quickly once the Sun sets. If the climate system were as sluggish as you need it to be, there would be no differences between the day and night temperatures.

    George


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Hmm has there been some moderation here? does not seem to flow. I’m sure I replied to the bollocks post.

    Humbug – “others” refers to the countless examples of such suspicions on the rest of the web, not on this blog.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Sorry ignore that a new refresh brought up about 30 more posts. As they say “never mind the bollocks” comment above.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    And Lionell – sorry mate I’m the best you’ve got here – reputable scientists are off doing research.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Matt B:

    You say in #386:

    I’m sure I replied to the bollocks post.

    Yes you did. At #368 you replied by saying:

    And Richard you know (or should have a hunch) that as yet I’ve not purchased or read your paper. So I would hardly disagree with “That demonstrates you did not read (or understand) the paper you claimed to be querying.” as it is correct – I’ve not read it.

    So I was right to say at #365:

    Bollocks! That demonstrates you did not read (or understand) the paper you claimed to be querying.

    Your behaviour throughout has been despicable. And your attempted demeaning of a paper you admit you have not read is one of the lesser of your reprehensible actions. But everything you have done here is typical of the behaviour of warmers. Indeed, you have cited other warmers who have behaved in similar fashions as though that somehow justified your behaviour.

    Have you no shame?

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Mark D.

    That is not a lie!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    MattB,

    I wonder why you persist despite the pummeling you have received in this thread?

    I wish there was a Moderator looking over this thread,because at post #363 you wrote:

    “Richard – glad you were just having fun with me, although from my perspective you were confirming suspicions raised by others that you were stark-raving mad.”

    I will also say that others have called you names as well such as this one,from post #348:

    “MattB is indeed, a greased pig.”

    I am disappointed in you MattB,because Richard Courtney goes to a lot of effort with long postings,trying to explicate his thoughts in an understandable form,only to get very short replies from you that are not constructive.

    I wish threads like this would get some moderation to help keep the discussions on a more constructive conversational level.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Oh no – you are dissapointed in me… alas what shall I do.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    In these comments that keep appearing in my posts, does “Ed.” mean “Editor” like an editor’s comment, or is it actually Eddy? Anyway Sunset to me it means there is moderation at present.

    Anyway “Ed.” – I’m glad someone picked up on my Richard Head laugh, sometimes I’m so subtle I worry people miss my best work.

    Quite seriously I’ve considered becoming a comedian with an AGW theme – there must be a lot of cash in lampooning sceptics for a 45 minute lunch session at conferences for $1000 a pop.
    ________

    “Editor.” — Ed.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    MattB:
    February 17th, 2010 at 2:54 am

    DO you have a link to that Harvard site? Have I missed it amongst the banter?

    HERE

    But I warn you, it’s a very very tedious task and you will need to know which working group (safely assume 1) and which chapters, and which working drafts Richards comments relate to.
    I already have comments for the WG1 SPM, chapter 1 1st and 2nd order drafts and chapter 9 1st and 2nd order drafts. Hundreds of pages, converted to pdf on-line 10 pages at a time.
    Good luck :)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    MattB,

    If you want to be a comedian, you should look at being anti-AGW and lampoon the warmists. There is a lot more material there …

    George


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Monckton already has that gig.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    In that case, you should tour with him. You can be his ‘Washington Generals’, you know, the opposing team that never wins.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    MattB,

    “Oh no – you are dissapointed in me… alas what shall I do.”

    You could start by taking what Richard writes seriously and make a real effort of a good counterpoint in reply.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    MattB here you go, Richard Courtneys review comments..

    HERE
    HERE
    HERE

    More to come..


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Heres the rest Matt, total of 55
    HERE
    HERE
    And HERE

    Good luck.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Cheers Humbug – but surprisingly I’d already figured it out:)


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] the statement “it’s definitely getting warmer up there” proves nothing. The statement may be true, but it does not prove that AGW or increased co2 has [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    MattB:
    February 17th, 2010 at 10:12 am

    And Lionell – sorry mate I’m the best you’ve got here – reputable scientists are off doing research.

    Thanks for admitting that you are not a “reputable” scientist even by your own definition of the term. That means you are only qualified to pick at scientifically irrelevant nits. It’s rather like a court jester without a court, a king, or an appreciative audience. You are doomed to muck about us common folk who are asking questions and getting answers you don’t like. You must be living in an inner circle of Dante’s Hell.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Lionell at 404 – that only works if you use an appeal to authority bsed on qualifications or lack thereof.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    MattB @ 405: Lionell at 404 – that only works if you use an appeal to authority bsed on qualifications or lack thereof.

    That’s right. Glad you noticed. It is therefore curious that you thought it necessary to question someone else’s qualifications rather than addressing the content of his post. Especially since you agree that one’s qualifications or lack thereof have little to nothing to do with the validity of what is said.

    Perhaps it might actually be safer for you to stick with picking scientifically irrelevant nits rather than addressing anything of substance. Keeping a solid hold on the truth is hard enough without also weaving contradictions into your thoughts.


    Report this

    00