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



Where is the evidence for the dangerous positive feedback in the Vostok Ice Cores?

Vostok, Antarctica, Photo: Michael Studinger 2001

It appears the warming of the 20th Century has been done before.  It’s just business as usual for the planet.

Frank Lansner has been hard at work again, and we’ve been discussing the Vostok ice cores. This time Lansner was looking to see if the current warming trend was unusual, and if there was evidence to support the high climate sensitivities the models suggest. As it happens, most of those high climate sensitivities that the models “estimate” come not from carbon dioxide directly, but from the feedbacks (the way the planet responds to any small change in temperature).

The models assume the net feedbacks are positive. These same feedbacks ought to have been working 100,000 years ago, and if so, there should be some hint of it in the ice cores. Lansner has been hunting for large swings in temperature during the periods when Earth was at a similar temperature to present day conditions — but what he finds is that the current claimed rise of 0.7 degrees C over the last century, even if it were true (and not exaggerated by thermometer siting, the UHI, inexplicable adjustments, or selective use of records) would still be a dog-standard rise.

The Vostok ice cores sampled temperature at 20 – 60 year intervals. At least three times in the last 350,000 years temperatures have been warmer than they are today. If positive feedback was a real factor we ought to see sudden rises that then rapidly increased another 3 degrees within 100 years. That is exactly what Hansen, Gore and the IPCC are telling us is likely to happen. If water vapor rises, sticks around and makes the upper troposphere more humid, then surely we would see it happening in records from the Pleistocene world which had much the same oceans in the tropics as we do today. We can’t measure water vapor back then, but we can see if any natural bursts of warming were amplified. Instead Frank finds that there are often rises of a degree in 100 years, but that it almost never goes on to be amplified into a larger rise.

This fits with the other empirical evidence we have for negative feedbacks. It’s exactly what we would expect given that the radiosondes don’t find warming or more humidity in the upper troposphere (that hot spot is missing). The pieces of the jigsaw fit together.

Frank ignores the times when temperatures were much colder than today. That’s because the feedbacks could be quite different in a cooler world, and what we are really interested in is the current conditions on Earth. Will the CO2 we put out there mean a small warming is magnified into a big one? Feedbacks like the melting icecaps, vegetation changes, and release of CO2 from warming oceans — would work in similar ways no matter what caused the initial rise in temperature. The icecaps don’t care what caused the warming…

— Jo

Guest Post by Frank Lansner, Civil engineer, Biochemistry

Is the warming in the 20th century extraordinary?

I have examined high quality Vostok temperature ice core data from the interglacial periods of the last half million years. These warm periods are the best evidence we have from Earth to examine the dynamics of present day climate on Earth.

We are looking for other huge temperature rises of 3K – 6 K that should result from just minor temperature rises.

Below I have identified all temperature rises of the Vostok data fulfilling the following criterion: “Temperature at the beginning of temperature rise must be at most 1 K below today’s temperatures indicated by -1K anomaly in the Vostok data. Next, the examined periods must be at most 300 years in length (we want to focus on the warming effect of one century time intervals) and finally, the initial temperature increase from glacial to interglacial is not included”:

Fig 4

96% of all temperature increases are between approx 0 and 1,4 K, only in one situation (approx 1 %) we find an interglacial temperature increase of almost 3 K. That is: Under present day like conditions, temperature rises of 3K are very rare indeed, while smaller temperature rises of around 1 K are abundant and normal.

The interglacial periods shows no temperature peaks of the size interval larger than 3K. If in theory a minor warming of 0,5 – 1 K should lead to a 4-5-6 K warming including feedbacks, why are there no such peaks in the previous interglacial periods? There are plenty of 1K warming peaks (resulting of from all kinds of natural mechanisms) to induce the massive positive feedbacks that IPCC and Hansen expects.

The average interglacial temperature rise (from these data criteria) shows a warming of 0,65 K and lasts 113 years. In average they begin at –0,17K and end at +0,48K. (These averages are only to some degree dependant of my definition of interglacial periods – unless my definition of interglacial periods are totally wrong.)

The average temperature increase for these data of 0,65 K over 113 years – does not exactly make the modern temperature increase 1900 – 2010 of around 0,6-0,7K appear that special, does it?

The data tell us more: When the time intervals exceed around 100 years, the average magnitude of the recorded temperature increase does not increase. This is interesting and surprising because a longer interval should give time for a larger temperature increase. But on average the timeintervals in data longer than around 100 years shows smaller net temperature rises indicating – unless this is a coincidence – that temperature peaks of the interglacial periods in average lasts around roughly 100 years.

Via Joanne Nova, I got a feedback to this result from George White:

“The analysis is consistent with long term averages changing more slowly than short term averages.  The correlation drop at 100 years is because of a periodic effect of about 180 years.  After 90-100 years, the direction of the temperature change reverses and the deltaT drops.  If the analysis is continued, a second peak should appear between 250 and 300 years as a result of the second cycle of this period showing up with a minimum centered between the peaks. ”

Interesting, and thanks to George White. When nature has warmed the planet over 100 years, this warming seems to END rather systematically. If positive feedbacks where strong why do temperature rises end so systematically? At least this warming-turn-off suggest that:

Natural forces or perhaps negative feedbacks are stronger than positive feedbacks after just a limited warming over 100 years

In addition, we see very few small temperature increases (of the order of 0 – 0,15K) for time intervals less than 150 years. On the other hand, the longer time intervals shows several of these tiny temperature increases. This indicates – unless it’s a coincidence – that if at first, temperature is on the rise, it often continues to rise until a significant temperature rise is reached. In other words:  Temperature variability is the norm and constant temperature seems unusual.

Conclusion

Nature has provided us with data telling a simple story: For periods on earth comparable with today, we see many examples of temperature increases in the magnitude of 1 K for all kinds of natural reasons. Very rarely does any temperature rise (via supposed positive feedbacks) reach 3 K within 100 years.

It is thus surprising that IPCC and others with big confidence can claim large temperature rises of up to 3 – 6 K as most likely result from just a minor temperature increase, for example induced by CO2 warming.

More, it appears (fig 4.) that the temperature rise of 0,7K from 1900 to 2010 is as normal as can be when comparing with other temperature rises during other warm periods.

It’s hard to see how IPCC and others can be so confident in such claims without data from the past to back it up.

***

Comments

  1. I have defined “interglacial temperature rises beginning at -1K  compared to modern temperatures, no lower. On this definition I found that the temperature increase 1900-2010 was normal. If I had defined interglacial periods as starting at -2K, then there would have been a few more temperature increases in the area 1-2K which would make the present temperature rise appear smaller in comparison. However, the limit -1K for interglacial periods mostly is in compliance with the nature of the interglacial periods. When first we have interglacial period its not often we find temperature in the area under – 1K. Therefore I found -1K to be the best choice to limit interglacial tendencies. Also, temperatures should resemble today’s temperature range as close as possible.
  2. I have used 0,7K for the temperature increase 1900-2010. This is obviously highly questionable due to significant UHI measuring problems and adjustment issue that is likely to have exaggerated the temperature increase 1900-2010. On the other hand, temperature variations at Vostok are likely to be larger than global temperature changes, so perhaps a qualitative compare is somewhat fair afterall. At least, if you claim that the present temperature increase is extraordinarily large, I think one should show data that supports it. And, as I showed, Vostok data does not really support the claim.
  3. By Joanne Nova: “In the past natural temperature rises we should also see the positive feedbacks at work. But it is very difficult to isolate the exact amount of warming due to the natural forces vs that due to the natural feedbacks. Where does one stop and the other start? In any 3 degree rise, how much was due to the forcing, and how much to the feedback? If positive feedback was strong we would expect to see examples of it occurring in the past ice cores.”
  4. Frank: This is very true and makes this topic a little fluffy to deal with. However, the absence of 3K – 6K temperature rises in the interglacial periods means that there should not have been any natural warming excl feedbacks of just 0,5 K or so (macthing the raw CO2-sensitivity warming). And we still can see that the temperature rise 1900 – 2010 is just a normal interglacial variation.
  5. Hereafter it could be interesting to do analysis using Dome C core temperature data that has twice a many data points for temperatures which may refine the results to some degree.

Source used for Vostok data:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/vostok_data.html

See also:
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/08/ice-core-evidence-no-endorsement-of-carbons-major-effect/

http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/925—a-factor-that-could-close-the-global-warming-debate-193.php

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/30/co2-temperatures-and-ice-ages/

Franks full post is on his blog at: Is the warming in the 20th century extraordinary?

Image from The Earth Institute | Columbia University

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 5.5/10 (4 votes cast)
Where is the evidence for the dangerous positive feedback in the Vostok Ice Cores?, 5.5 out of 10 based on 4 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/26ogmw5

105 comments to Where is the evidence for the dangerous positive feedback in the Vostok Ice Cores?

  • #
    PJB

    All the more “surprising” is that as the global temperature warms, even more CO2 is released by the oceans. Since the temperature cycles back down then it must be increasing CO2 that causes the decline! No wonder they tried to hide it…. ;-)
    Perhaps their latest studies would indicate that the rising CO2 causes increased plant growth that then cools the planet.

    For a “settled” science, there sure is a lot that is unsure.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    grayman

    Frank & Jo; look on Anthony Watts site there is a paper put out by NASA on it that says that more CO2 causes more vegetation therefore causes cooling by way of a Model, “GIGO” ,that they say is even better than other models, Its a hoot.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    Yes, the DomeC has a lot more data points. The analysis I’ve done shows the RMS change in the 50 year average is about 0.8C per century for DomeC and closer to 0.6C for Vostok, so there certainly are more larger short term changes in the DomeC data. Change goes in both directions, so a short term rise of 1C per century is most likely followed by a short term fall of equal magnitude. Over a few hundred years, these will more or less average out, except that there’s always a small mismatch between warming and cooling which can accumulate into longer term warming and cooling.

    It’s also important to notice that transitions between ice ages and interglacials and back are far from monotonic, they only appear to be monotonic when examining longer term averages. A 8C change over thousands of years is the consequence of dozens of 50-100 year heating and cooling cycles accumulating a relative deficit in one direction or another. The shorter the sample time, the more evident this becomes. In the limit, seasonal variability shows this over a 12 month cycle. We even see changes in the year to year average of as much as 1C per year, which extrapolated would be 100C per century. Of course a year with a 1C rise is quickly followed by a year with a 1C drop and they will cancel. We just happen to be in a slow natural warming phase coming out of the LIA, which many have been deluded into believing is attributed to man’s CO2 emissions, but if history is any guide, this will be reversing soon and the consensus will have a lot of explaining to do.

    George


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    i think, ice core data need to be interpreted in light of (all) other geologic data, because there have been wide fluctuations of average barometric pressure over epochal periods in the regions where the ice was deposited, and it not possible to ascertain what those pressure variations were.

    It’s clear to me that long-term average “feedback” (which I call “damping”) must be negative, if not so, I think the atmosphere would have saturated with water vapour eons ago.

    Simply put, there is a property of carbon dioxide from industrial sources put there by the emotions alone, which cannot be measured or defined by any physical measurements, that imparts very negative attributes to this carbon dioxide that is found nowhere else in Nature, excepting in other substances that humans have any influence in their manufacture.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    This is a very interesting analysis, thankyou Frank, and thankyou Jo for bringing it to our attention.
    Rather surprising that this angle wasn’t explored before (none that I’m aware of at any rate)

    If I may play the devils advocate for a moment (I am a natural sceptic afterall) seen that John Brookes is fresh out of ideas :)

    By way of an analogy…..

    * Mom, dad and kid are at the playground

    * Kid is sitting on a swing (delta T)

    * Mom comes along and starts giving the kid gentle pushes (natural forcing)

    * Kid swings legs rythmically to get a little higher (feedbacks)

    * Along comes dad (anthropogenic CO2) and pushes the kid higher and ever higher

    * Even though the kid (now scared) stops swinging legs (negative feedbacks)……

    * Dad keeps pushing harder and harder (we keep pumping all that CO2 into the air)

    * The kid eventually swings violently and will possibly fall (catastrophic AGW)

    * The swing never does a full circle (runaway warming)……

    * Because dads strength and reach isn’t adequate (logarithmic effect)

    In summary, the Vostok data shows natural rythms of the climate, as Frank has found in his analysis.
    Frank inadvertantly supports Al Gores Inconvenient Truth of a nice Goldilocks climate, not too hot not too cold, until mans industrialization came along.

    Any feedback is welcome (pun intended)


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Hi George/co2isnotevil.

    I agree in all you write, perhaps though im not sure about the year to year 1K differences in temperature in ice. I would expect gasses to mix to some degree in ice before its all sealed off, at least if you measure temperasture from gas content, O18 or the like. So even if temperatures where indeed changing so radically, gasses should mix years together to some degree?

    For example, the mix up of gasses in ice cores was the argument to legalise the move of icecore data from 1880 to 1953 when the Vostok and Mauna Loa was combined. (was it vostok?) So gasses are supposed to still be in contact with the surface air in 73 years old ice, deep down.
    Obviously this is a rather optimistic idea to legalise the move of too-high-Co2-content-data 73 years foreward, but still, a mixup of gasses from year to year or perhaps from dekade to dekade sound more realistic?

    George: Could you provide the DomeC data as link?
    K.R. Frank


    Report this

    00

  • #
    gbrecke

    All the while, useful idiots write stuff like this:

    12/08/10 “Cancun climate change summit: scientists call for rationing in developed world Global warming is now such a serious threat to mankind that climate change experts are calling for Second World War-style rationing in rich countries to bring down carbon emissions.”

    Lousie Gray who writes for the Telegraph may be a contender for top honors for spewing Alarmist Propaganda. If your read her tweets, she appears to be more of a greenie groupie than a reporter. It would be interesting to know how she got the job at the telegraph, and who hired her, and what type of bubble gum she chews. One thing for certain… you’ll never see a thought provoking comment phrased by Her.. it’s likely beyond a branch she can reach…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    Frank,

    The ice cores can’t show year to year change because ice core samples are averages of between 20 years and 20 centuries. The year to year change up to 1K is evident only in the satellite record, although the average year to year change is just a few tenths of a degree.

    I have some plots of domeC data and other ice core data in these directories.

    http://www.palisad.com/co2/domec
    http://www.palisad.com/co2/ic

    The data I’ve used is from the EPICA cores which can be found here.

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/domec/domec_epica_data.html

    George


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    PJB: # 1

    … it must be increasing CO2 that causes the decline! No wonder they tried to hide it…

    ROTFL – Great to start the day with a smile – thank you.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    The biggest skeptics of AGW have always been the Geologists. They’re used to looking at things in what’s termed ‘deep’ time.

    Pointman


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Hello Mr Humbug, Baa.

    If Gore understood what I show he would cry :-) IPCC and co are so “sure” that just a tiny warming should lead to 3 – 6 K warming due to claimed feedbacks. But how can any only be sure of this when these 3 – 6 K heatings does not happen in ice core data? So there has never been a little heating to trigger these positive feedbacks before?
    No, this is toxic for Gore and IPCC and thats why im happy that Joanne Nova promotes this.

    Therefore, the rather limited temperature variations are deadly for the AGW claims. It seems that up to around 1,5 K temperature rise is just ordinary magnitude of temperature rises.
    But then as you may think: What is the present temperature rise continued to a magnitude of 3 K? Well, then you are correct, according to Vostok data this would actually be odd, and should be investigated. But thats not the situation :-) We only have around 0,7K incl significant UHI and adjustment contributions.
    Thanks for comment!
    K.R. Frank


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Frank Lansner: #12
    December 9th, 2010 at 6:07

    Hi Frank, and congratulations on this excellent work.
    before I go any further, let me just stress what I said in my post at #6

    If I may play the devils advocate for a moment (I am a natural sceptic afterall) seen that John Brookes is fresh out of ideas

    I am trying to put myself in the shoes of an alarmist.
    Having done that, it can be argued that what your analysis of the Vostok ice core data shows is that climate (pre mans influence) was quite stable, with natural variations keeping warming periods within the bounds you show in your analysis.

    However the current warming, and especially since the 1980′s, has the newly introduced forcing, ACO2 emissions, ergo unprecedented in the last half mill years. The very essence of alarmists claims.

    I can deconstruct my own “devils advocate” assertions, but thought it would add to our conversation by inviting comments,

    Any feedback is welcome (pun intended)

    keep up the great work you’ve been doing over the journey.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    scott

    Have you seen those scientific geniuses at Cancun signing up to ban DiHydrogen Monoxide.

    Honestly this shows how scientifically illiterate they are.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    scott

    timing Ross

    I was busy having a laugh and was a bit slow.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Eddy Aruda

    Thank you Frank for your enlightening guest post. I read something interesting at the following link http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/stomata.html

    Recent stomata studies show that CO2 was more variable and the average CO2 concentrations have been significantly higher during our Holocene interglacial period (last 11,000 years) than are indicated by the ice core record.

    The chart at the link shows the results of several studies using stomata proxies. According to the author, there has been several times during the current interglacial when CO2 levels were higher than today and yet temps were lower. In other words, all we are experiencing is natural variation. I can think of nothing in the geological record to indicate there was ever an instance of runaway greenhouse warming. Actually, if it would have happened we probably wouldn’t even be here to debate the CAGW hypothesis.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Friends:

    The above analysis by Frank Lansner is interesting and important. But I think there are two more important points about climate behaviour over geological times.

    Firstly,
    the climate system seems to have been bi-stable over the 2.5 billion years since the Earth has had an oxygen-rich atmosphere.
    It has had two narrow bands of temperature; i.e. a glacial condition and an interglacial condition.

    These two conditions are very stable. The Vostock ice core indicates that a change from one condition to the other does not consist of a gradual rise (or fall) in temperature. Instead, the climate ‘flickers’ between the two conditions: it switches from one condition to the other in a few decades, stays at that condition for a few decades, then flicks back to the other condition, and it does this repeatedly. When changing from glacial to interglacial the times in interglacial condition increase until the flickering stops and the interglacial remains established (and vice versa for the change from interglacial to glacial).

    Secondly,
    the Sun has increased its output ~30% (at least by 20%) over that 2.5 billion years.

    But the ~30% increase to radiative forcing from the Sun has had no discernible effect. The Earth has had liquid water on its surface throughout that time, but the oceans would have boiled to steam long ago if radiative forcing had a direct effect on global temperature.

    So, the Earth’s climate seems to have been constrained to two narrow temperature bands despite immense tectonic changes over the geological ages since the Earth’s atmosphere became oxygen-rich and despite radiative forcing from the Sun having increased ~30% .

    Doubling atmospheric CO2 concentration will increase radiative forcing by ~0.4%. So, knowing that more than 20% increase to radiative forcing has had no discernible effect on global temperature, I fail to understand why ~0.4% increase to radiative forcing will have a discernible effect on global temperature.

    Instead, I postulate that the climate system is chaotic and the observed two narrow temperature bands indicate the global temperature moving around the positions of its two main strange attractors.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Lawrie

    While some laugh some must cry. Our Chief Scientist, Ms Penny Sackett, has assured listeners on the ABC that all this rain causing flooding in NSW is indeed the result of Global Warming. She added that the drought was also caused by GW. When we have a chief scientist who is more concerned with pushing the government line than looking at the science and data as found by Frank Lanser and many others we have no chance of reliable policies.

    Abbott take note. When you are the PM get rid of everyone of the syncophants in the CSIRO and BoM and in particular Ms Penny Sackett.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Lawrie

    I should have added that according to Sackett el Nino and la Nina play no role in Australias weather. And she is our Chief Scientist. Wow. The lesser scientists are all employed by CSIRO and BoM.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    wendy

    Cancun warmists in deeper water than they realise.

    Now they want to DEAMONIZE Dihydrogen Monoxide, otherwise known as WATER(H2O)!!!!

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/cancun_warmists_id_deeper_water_than_they_realise/

    These people have No Morals and No Credibility!!!

    How GULLIBLE do they that that people are???????

    The SCAM about Dihydrogen Monoxide was originally started by a student’s “tongue in cheek” science project in 2007………

    http://www.snopes.com/science/dhmo.asp


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    Ross: # 14 & Scott: # 15

    Di-Hydrogen Monoxide:

    I seem to remember that I got a lot of flack from the good folks on this site for suggesting that “the next big thing” would be water. So there you go …


    Report this

    00

  • #
    wendy

    Stories about this “useful IDIOT” Penny Sackett……

    Head of Australian Science Academy issues decree from Pagan Chieftans of Science:-

    http://joannenova.com.au/2010/08/head-of-australian-science-academy-issues-decree-from-pagan-chieftans-of-science/

    Giving the Chief Scientist cold water:-

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/giving_the_chief_scientist_cold_water/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    wendy

    A Powerful New Research Tool

    December 7, 2010

    Canadian blogger Hilary Ostrov and Australian computer programmer Peter B. have given the climate change world a gift this week. Since March they’ve been hyperlinking and annotating the 3,000-page Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report released in 2007. The result is AccessIPCC.com.

    Those of us who’ve been taking a close look at the 2007 report (also known as AR4) have identified numerous concerns. Now we have a tool to analyze it more comprehensively than ever before.

    MORE:-

    http://nofrakkingconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/12/07/a-powerful-new-research-tool/


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #

    Lawrie: #19
    December 9th, 2010 at 8:01 am

    Funny you should mention that. I’m in the throes of a discussion with someone claiming the exact same thing over at Judith Currys climate Etc blog.

    Richard S Courtney: #18
    December 9th, 2010 at 7:56 am

    Thankyou Richard. Your usual enlightening succinct self.

    Rereke Whaakaro: #22
    December 9th, 2010 at 8:09 am

    Haha ha that’s funny Rereke, well done.

    Eddy Aruda: #17
    December 9th, 2010 at 7:13 am

    Keep up with the times will ya Eddy. Natural variation is sooooo yesterday. We are in the age of Human Induced catastrophies.
    I do wish you’d pay attention to news on the MSM

    Ross: #14
    December 9th, 2010 at 6:36 am

    Ross I’ve got a couple of bridges for sale. Do you know how I can get in touch with those “delegates” in cancun. (psst there is a % in it for ya)


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Rereke @ December 9th, 2010 at 8:09 am

    Hi Rereke, now that Carbon is proving to be a “no sale” item to the electorate, they do indeed seem to be moving onto water in the shape of ocean acidification. Given the damp squid that Cancun has proven to be, all the alarmists can do is scream louder about a new looming doomesday. Basically, they’re in the anger/bargaining stage.

    http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2010/12/07/the-death-of-the-agw-belief-system/

    Pointman


    Report this

    00

  • #
    wendy

    I Love CO2: Here comes the “ocean acidification” scam, watch out!…..

    http://www.iloveco2.org/2009/04/here-comes-ocean-acidification-scam.html

    The Cancun Shuffle: Carbon Emissions and Ocean Acidification………

    http://ourmaninsichuan.wordpress.com/2010/11/16/the-cancun-shuffle-carbon-emissions-and-ocean-acidification/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    wendy

    A FANATSTIC article here from Andrew Bolt!!!

    Over 350 posts!

    The great warming scare turns into a greater joke……..

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_the_great_warming_scare_turns_into_a_greater_joke/desc/


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    co2isnotevil

    Richard,

    There does seem to be some bi-stable behavior in the climate, but the transitions between states are clearly driven by orbital and axis variability. This is a plot of Vostok and DomeC cores temperature data, smoothed with 22K year integration, the orbits eccentricity and the Earth’s tilt. The 22k averaging cancels out the 22K year affects resulting from the precession of perihelion.

    http://www.palisad.com/co2/domec/orbit.png

    When the Earth is more tilted, the cold becomes more concentrated at the poles and the ice shrinks. When the Earth is less tilted, the poles aren’t as cold, but the colder regions extend further towards the equators and ice grows. The mins and maxs of the Earth’s tilt are all associated with min and max’s in temperature/ice coverge. The misalignment between DomeC and Vostok is also clearly evident and it seems that the DomeC is more correct, relative to forcings. Another effect is that when the eccentricity is rising, warming occurs and as the eccentricity is falling, cooling occurs, although I don’t have a clear explanation for why this is.

    Right now, the eccentricity is starting to fall and the Earth’s axis is becoming less tilted. This is a double whammy cooling influence as when either of these has happened on it’s own, cooling occurred and that both occurring at about the same time is a necessary and seemingly sufficient condition for initiating a drastic cooling.

    If the warmists are so convinced that CO2 causes warming, why aren’t they demanding that we pump it in to the atmosphere as fast as possible to stem off the next, inevitable, ice age? Too bad that won’t work either …

    George


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    wendy

    Why Earth may be entering a new Ice Age…

    All data points to the sun as the primary source of short-term and long term climate change on Earth. While volcanic eruptions such as the current one in Iceland can affect short-term weather conditions over a region, planetary climate is governed by solar activity-or lack of it.

    MORE:-

    http://www.helium.com/items/1837151-why-earth-may-be-entering-a-new-ice-age


    Report this

    00

  • #

    To Eddy Aruda,

    You mention past CO2 concentrations, and i made this little overview if interested:
    http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/co2-carbon-dioxide-concentration-history-of-71.php

    And to Wendy:
    About Ocean Acidification, well it seems that this has stopped a decade ago?
    http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/ph-in-oceans-31.php

    All: Thanks for commenting :-)
    K.R. Frank


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    co2isnotevil:

    I agree all you say at #31. The Milankovich cycles are well documented.

    However, if my postulate is correct then the effect of those cycles is to initiate a switch from one main attractor to the other.

    The importance of my postulate is that it explains why

    Doubling atmospheric CO2 concentration will increase radiative forcing by ~0.4%. So, knowing that more than 20% increase to radiative forcing has had no discernible effect on global temperature, I fail to understand why ~0.4% increase to radiative forcing will have a discernible effect on global temperature.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    Richard; an important distinction; between radiative forcing and climate response as measured through temperature. As Frank has noted there have been equivalent increases in temperature in the past to what we are, probably [UHI excepting], seeing now. In fact some of those interglacial increases have been much more rapid than anything experienced in recent time; some were in this interglacial:

    http://www.pnas.org/content/97/4/1331.full

    And in the previous [Eemian] interglacial:

    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=25353

    These temperature shifts were both sudden and large, up to 9 degrees Fahrenheit, 4C and in less than a century. Even though there have have been equally rapid and large changes in CO2 levels in the past none of the temperature movements described above were correlated with the CO2 movements.

    As well as AGW being dependent on todays’ temperatures being exceptional [which McShane and Wyner, amongst many MWP studies have shown to be false] and the rate of todays’ temperature increase being exceptional, which the above studies show is false [as well as the rate of temperature increase since 1850 which has been PDO cyclical] the other aspect of AGW climate sensitivity as expressed through temperature is that there is a stored temperature potential; this is the difference between transient and equilibrium climate sensitivity; Beenstock and Reingewertz have put paid to that and David Stockwell is working on a new paper which shows the ocean/atmosphere difference in terms of what heats either and the inability of CO2/LW radiative forcing to have either a delayed effect or an ocean heating capacity, with the ocean being where future heating capacity and therefore climatic effect is stored.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    George and richard: Very interesting discusion, George your graphic of ECC and Tilt is very enlighting.
    http://www.palisad.com/co2/domec/orbit.png
    But still, its like something is missing? For example, why did the present warming become so strong when the ECC was low?
    K.R. Frank


    Report this

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    Frank,

    The current interglacial isn’t that strong relative to others. The last few were 2-3C warmer than this one, probably because the ECC was larger. It also seems that the direction the ECC is moving is more important than it’s absolute magnitude, at least relative to initiating change. Another effect is the precession of perihelion which when aligned with other effects, can amplify or attenuate them. This is a 22K year influence which was canceled out of the earlier plot by using 22K year averaging.

    George


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Cohenite at #36:

    Yes, I agree. Indeed, in my opinion that agrees with my postulate.

    Anything that increases radiative forcing (including additional atmospheric CO2 concentration) will induce a global temperature rise. But the empirical evidence indicates that the climate system responds to negate that rise. However, we have no method to determine the response time. Observation of temperature changes following a volcanic cooling event suggests that the response time is likely to be less than two years. If the response time is that short then we will never obtain a discernible (n.b. discernible) temperature rise from elevated atmospheric CO2. But if the response time is much longer than that then we would see a temperature rise before the climate system reacts to negate the temperature rise. And this is why I keep saying we need to determine the alterations to clouds, the hydrological cycle, lapse rates, etc. in response to increased radiative forcing. We need to know how the system responds and at what rate.

    Alternatively, of course, I may be completely wrong. The truth of that will become clear in future if atmospheric CO2 concentration continues to rise. (All scientists should remember Cromwell’s plea, “I beg ye in the bowells of Christ to consider that ye may be wrong”.)

    Frank Lansner #37 and co2isnotevil at #38:

    I agree and support the answer co2isnotevil suggests to Frank’s excellent question.

    Richard

    PS It is now way past midnight here so I am off to bed and will be absent the discussion until tomorrow.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Arguing from first principles, is it even possible to have positive feedbacks – surely this would cause inherent instability and climate would capsize? Any thoughts?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    Richard,

    You said at #39,

    And this is why I keep saying we need to determine the alterations to clouds, the hydrological cycle, lapse rates, etc. in response to increased radiative forcing. We need to know how the system responds and at what rate.

    Most of these things respond to surface power and temperature, which responds indirectly to solar forcing making the response somewhat obscure when examined relative to incident solar power. The better metric is surface power or temperature.

    Here are some response plots relative to the hydro cycle and cloud coverage. They are scatter diagrams of the relationship between surface temperature and total atmospheric water content or cloud coverage. Each small dot is a monthly average for a 2.5 degree slice of latitude covering over 25 years of samples per slice.

    http://www.palisad.com/co2/gf/st_wc.png
    http://www.palisad.com/co2/gf/st_ca.png

    Clouds always trap surface power, resulting in warming, but above 0C, clouds are more reflective than the surface and the incremental cooling from increased reflection more than offsets the warming from trapped surface power. Below 0C, ice and snow makes the surface as reflective as clouds, thus negating the incremental cooling effect, which instead becomes a permanent cooling. This is seen as the local maximum cloud coverage at 0C in the second plot. The increase in clouds above 300K corresponds to rapid increases in evaporation as shown in the first plot.

    The feedback effects of clouds depends on temperature. Over the nominal operating range between 273K and 300K, if there are too many/few clouds, more/less energy is reflected and the planet cools/warms as it radiates more/less power than received. Below 273K, there is little to no difference in reflectivity between clouds and space and the net result of clouds is the warm the surface by blocking radiational cooling effects. If there are too many/too few clouds, the surface warms/cools, opposite to the effect above 0C. This is the source of the change in direction of the response of cloud coverage to temperature.

    George


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Sorry to go off topic again but I think the following open letter from Assange to The Australian is an absolute must read:

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/wikileaks/dont-shoot-messenger-for-revealing-uncomfortable-truths/story-fn775xjq-1225967241332

    I think The Australian is struggling with the traffic because it can’t even handle a two line response at this stage.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    Richard,

    As to the rate, we can detect that as well. The climate system has a time constant on the order of months which we see as the delay between min/max seasonal sunlight and min/max seasonal temperature. The climate system can be easily expressed by the diifferential equation,

    Pi = Po + dE/dt

    where Pi is the power coming from the Sun, Po is power radiated and reflected away and E is the total energy stored in the Earth’s thermal mass. When more power is arriving than leaving, dE/dt is positive, E increases and the planet warms, otherwise, the planet cools. dE/dt is never really zero, except for twice per year a couple of months after each equinox.

    Po is dependent on cloud coverage, water vapor, surface and cloud temperatures and reflectivities, which are all feedback and gain related components of the system. Since all of these attributes are a function of surface temperatures and hence, E. the dependence of Po on E establishes a first order LTI whose response to an impulse is an exponential decay and whose response to a sinusoidal stimulus is a delayed sinusoidal response. The time constant, 1/t, quantifies the complex and somewhat dynamic dependence of Po on E.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_constant

    George


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Ted Gray says: #40
    December 8, 2010 at 3:11 pm

    Arguing from first principles, is it even possible to have positive feedbacks – surely this would cause inherent instability and climate would capsize? Any thoughts?

    I’d need to understand better what it is you are saying before I can offer my thoughts Ted.

    If you are suggesting there are NO positive feedbacks, it would then follow that ALL feedbacks are negative. But as CO2Isnotevil demonstrates in his posts at #41 and #43 how and when clouds act as positive feedback.

    However if you are asking can positive feedbacks be so overwhelming that they feed on each other indefinately (loops, tipping points) then 4.5 billion year history says no, us being here now proves that.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    o/t but …
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/
    More than 1000 dissenting scientists (updates previous 700 scientist report) from around the globe have now challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore. This new 2010 320-page Climate Depot Special Report — updated from 2007′s groundbreaking U.S. Senate Report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming “consensus” — features the skeptical voices of over 1000 international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC. This updated 2010 report includes a dramatic increase of over 300 additional (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the last update in March 2009. This report’s release coincides with the 2010 UN global warming summit being held in Cancun.

    read on at WUWT or Climate Depot (full links available)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mike Jowsey

    1000 eminent scientists agree with you Jo!

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/08/shredding-the-climate-consensus-myth-more-than-1000-international-scientists-dissent-over-man-made-global-warming-claims-challenge-un-ipcc-gore/

    INTRODUCTION:

    More than 1000 dissenting scientists from around the globe have challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore.

    e.g.:

    “I am ashamed of what climate science has become today,” The science “community is relying on an inadequate model to blame CO2 and innocent citizens for global warming in order to generate funding and to gain attention. If this is what ‘science’ has become today, I, as a scientist, am ashamed…Science is too important for our society to be misused in the way it has been done within the Climate Science Community.” Swedish Climatologist Dr. Hans Jelbring,

    “We’re not scientifically there yet. Despite what you may have heard in the media, there is nothing like a consensus of scientific opinion that this is a problem. Because there is natural variability in the weather, you cannot statistically know for another 150 years.” — UN IPCC’s Tom Tripp, a member of the UN IPCC since 2004 and listed as one of the lead authors and serves as the Director of Technical Services & Development for U.S. Magnesium.

    “The whole idea of anthropogenic global warming is completely unfounded. There appears to have been money gained by Michael Mann, Al Gore and UN IPCC’s Rajendra Pachauri as a consequence of this deception, so it’s fraud.” — South African astrophysicist Hilton Ratcliffe, a member of the Astronomical Society of Southern Africa (ASSA) and the Astronomical Society of the Pacific and a Fellow of the British Institute of Physics.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mike Jowsey

    val majkus:
    December 9th, 2010 at 1:44 pm
    o/t but …
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/

    Beat me to the punch Val – on ya!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    The thing about feedback is that it’s often confused with open loop gain. The gain equation for a feedback network is given as,

    1/Go = 1/Gc + f

    where Go is the open loop gain, Gc is the closed loop gain and f is the feedback, defined as the fraction of the output fed back to the input. Define the closed loop gain as the ratio of surface emitted power to the incident solar power whose measured value is about 1.14. Warmists believe that the open loop gain is 1, which requires 13% positive feedback to achieve a closed loop gain of 1.14. Many skeptics believe the open loop gain is closer to 1.33 and the net feedback is about 12% negative. Both of these solutions result in the same closed loop gain and surface temperature, as does a whole family of solutions, one for each possible value of open loop gain. If the Earth had an albedo of 0 and no atmosphere, it would have an open loop gain of 1. Otherwise, average reflectivity decreases the open loop gain while average atmospheric opacity increases it. In fact, the net feedback is close to zero and I suspect that it’s exactly zero, at least relative to the pedantic feedback model as applied to the climate. The reason being that the physical feedback system modulates clouds to maintain the planets energy balance and is not some hypothetical feedback network controlling the surface temperature.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    The effect George describes at 41 has been known for some time:

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/Spencer_07GRL.pdf

    The Spencer, Braswell, Christy, and Hnilo paper concludes:

    “This indicates that the net (SW + LW) radiative
    effect of clouds during the evolution of the composite ISO is
    to cool the ocean-atmosphere system during its tropospheric
    warm phase, and to warm it during its cool phase.”

    There is now a concerted attempt by pro-AGW researchers to establish AGW influence on macro-climatic factors such as ENSO, its Modoki form and PDO as in the latest Santer paper:

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/w661873236444q18/fulltext.pdf

    The purpose of this is obvious; if ocean dominated climate factors are shown to have an AGW component then the role of clouds as a forcing which moderates temperature trends will be mitigated and the role of clouds will be as a feedback to AGW; as Spencer notes:

    “4XCO2 (or 2XCO2) CAN be used to extract climate sensitivity, either from models or (hypothetically) from satellite data. But the reason WHY that is possible does not apply to the real world.

    In order to diagnose feedback, radiative feedback (as opposed to radiative forcing) must be the primary time-varying signal present in the data. This is definitely the case for 4XCO2.

    Now, there are only 2 ways to achieve this condition: (1) have NO time-varying radiative forcing being generated by any process [or at least it should be small relative to radiative feedback]; or, (2) you must KNOW the time history of the radiative forcing, and then remove it from the data.

    The latter is how Forster & Taylor (2006) accurately diagnosed feedbacks from the IPCC AR4 models.

    The former is achieved if radiative forcing, no matter how strong, is CONSTANT with time, or, as demonstrated with satellite measurements of the Earth by Spencer & Braswell (2010), there needs to be some significant NON-radiative source of temperature change in order to drive significant radiative feedback. SB10 claim in the real world that this comes primarily from intraseasonal oscillations in deep convective activity. It could also occur from a change in ocean upwelling, but we have not seen an obvious case of this yet in the satellite data.”

    It is this latter condition that Santer and others are attempting to marry with AGW; this is despite the fact that. as Spencer notes, it does not apply to the real world where clouds have both forcing and feedback properties.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Vince Whirlwind

    As I am not an expert in climate science, I rely on the relevant experts to filter out the crank-nonsense (of which there are vast reams), so what I need to know is this: when will Frank have his ideas written-up, peer-reviewed, and published?
    As it is, when the body of scientific knowledge says one thing and a few lone voices express opposing views, I remain sceptical of those fringe opinions until I’m given some reason to believe the lone voices are onto something.
    Also, what is Frank’s history of academic papers accepted for publication in the field of climate science?
    And to further get an idea of his credibility as a scientist, apparently he is a biochemist, what has he published in that field?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John Smith

    Nope positive feedbacks don’t exist as far as the evidence is concerned, though the SINOs (Scientists In Name Only) will tell you otherwise.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Iren

    This is off topic but should urgently be distributed as widely as possible. A dire warning from Lord Monckton -

    http://sppiblog.org/news/the-abdication-of-the-west

    This is absolutely terrifying because there is already a successful template in the EU. Dictatorship by stealth.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by LillyGrillzit and Tom @BONOProject, ProjectBONO. ProjectBONO said: Where is the evidence for the dangerous positive feedback in the …: Hi Rereke, now that Ca… http://bit.ly/foZVXR #OceanAcidification [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Vince @ 50

    Science is all about facts, it’s not about personages or rank or the number of papers that someone has published. Just the facts, Maam. You say:

    I remain sceptical of those fringe opinions until I’m given some reason to believe the lone voices are onto something.

    First of all, I question whether climate scepticism is a fringe opinion – unless one counts the number of dollars thrown the way of sceptics compared to the alarmists. O happy day when the sceptics get a 2 week holiday in Mexico at the taxpayers expense!

    Secondly, assuming you have read Jo’s post and associated links, you would appreciate that atmospheric CO2 increases AFTER the temperature increases. Perhaps you need to consider the following scenario:

    1. The IPCC claim that CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas and warn that a doubling of CO2 level will cause a significant global temperature increase. (Computer “projection”)
    2. The oceans contain 50 times the tonnage of CO2 as does the atmosphere. (Known fact.)
    3. The solubility of CO2 in water decreases with temperature. (Known fact.) This causes the oceans to outgas CO2 as they warm.

    If the increased CO2 caused warming of the earth (and ocean), then the oceans would outgas some CO2 (of which there’s plenty) and the additional CO2 would then make things warmer again. Which then heats up the oceans, releasing more CO2, heating up the oceans even further, etc etc.

    May I suggest that the computer projections are wrong, and that the people who are paid to make them are trying to make this gravy train run way after it has run out of steam?

    Cheers,

    Speedy


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Vince, its allways a good sign when peoble like you run out of arguments and just focus on personal stuff. If thats all the alarmists can do here, well then we have a winner :-)

    I have contributed to my company Novo Nordic´s Succes world wide by improoving knowledge about increased insulin production from fermentors. In this process i have programmed a lot to control processes. In addition I have invented a type of printer used world wide today. etcetc. Today I am working as a programmer of SAP and more earning a good easy living, and i used to hold speaches on the development of life and Astronomy since i was 8 years old. Now im speaking sometimes about the climate situation on schools and companies, peoble are taken with their trousers down :-)

    Vince, you know the story about the emperors clothes?
    This is what you proove today.

    Look at this:
    http://hidethedecline.eu/media/InterglacialTemperatures/fig2.jpg

    In the yellow area (the interglacials) can you see many temperature increases of 3-4-5-6K from within ongoing interglacials?
    Nope because they aint there.

    But IPCC thinks that just a tiny amount of heat should create theese temperature increases from periods already warm. But this never happened before, so how on Earth can IPCC be so sure it will happen now? never before did a little heat trigger a biiig heat in warm periods.

    So you can see: There aint no huge warm peaks from periods already warm.
    But you say: “You are not a specialist, Frank”

    Its H.C.Andersens emperors clothes: Everybode can see there is no clothes on the emperor (if they dare open their eyes) but: “The specialists says”….

    Have you not learned a lesson from this story? THINK!!!!!

    K.R. Frank


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ross

    Iren @ 52. I’ve sent a copy of your link off to an MP ( who fights against our ETS) here in NZ for comment. I suggest you send it to your minister responsible for climate change asking for comment.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    Frank, re 84

    Similarly, there are no large cooling dips when it’s already cold. As Richard points out, the climate seems bistable between a pair of meta stable states, one which is cold and another which is warm, the difference being the amount of persistent ice. So what this illustrates is the clamped nature of ice feedback. Maximum warmth is set by minimum ice, which is pretty close to where we are today, while maximum cold occurs at maximum ice, at least relative to the million year record. Ice feedback is large as ice grows or shrinks, providing it has room in the desired direction. This is why the relatively large ice related positive feedback seen in the transitions between ice ages and interglacials is irrelevant once we are already in a warm state. The same effect is seen in the seasonal record where the effective climate system gain varies between winter and summer owing to the ebb and flow of seasonal ice and snow.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    Iren at #52

    Lord Monckton does get excited about this sort of thing, but YIKE when I read the list of quangos that the UN wants I thought they are not off their tree, they are off their forest!

    “…and a Body to Develop Modalities for the Operationalization of the Work Program on the Impact of the Implementation of Response Measures.”

    What is it supposed to do? Does anyone know how to translate UN into English?

    Unfortunately if you have read history you will know that there is only so much the population will take before they do something. If I was the UN I’d seriously think of moving my HQ to a place with fewer guns per head of population.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    CO2isnotevil, you write “Similarly, there are no large cooling dips when it’s already cold. As Richard points out, the climate seems bistable between a pair of meta stable states, one which is cold and another which is warm, the difference being the amount of persistent ice. So what this illustrates is the clamped nature of ice feedback. ”

    I agree totally. This is also important to the main point of an earlier article i wrote:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/08/working-925-what-a-way-to-make-a-livin-at-agw/

    I found what equals to 9.25 CO2 doublings each with same effect (of the limited total CO2 effect). Some commenters then think still, that “ohh yes! but THIS doubling will create feedbacks much larger than the other doublings and therefore a warming of 3-4-5-6 K from one CO2 doubling is likely”.

    But as you indicate, this is total nonsence because we are in a WARM period, with relatively little ice (to regulate albedo) and rather stable warm conditions. Therefore this particular doubling is NOT likely to cause more heat incl feedbacks than any other CO2 doubling, and thus this CO2 doubling must have a limited effect.

    K.R. Frank


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Vince Whirlwind: #50
    December 9th, 2010 at 3:35 says

    As I am not an expert in climate science, I rely on the relevant experts to filter out the crank-nonsense (of which there are vast reams), so what I need to know is this: when will Frank have his ideas written-up, peer-reviewed, and published?
    As it is, when the body of scientific knowledge says one thing and a few lone voices express opposing views, I remain sceptical of those fringe opinions until I’m given some reason to believe the lone voices are onto something.
    Also, what is Frank’s history of academic papers accepted for publication in the field of climate science?
    And to further get an idea of his credibility as a scientist, apparently he is a biochemist, what has he published in that field?

    This question is often asked.

    * Claiming there are a few lonely voices with opposing views tells me you haven’t look into this matter too carefully at all. Start by looking just 4 posts above yours, there is a link provided by Mike #46 to a list of 1000 eminent scientists with opposing views.

    Were you lazy or disengenious?

    * On the question of relying on the relevant experts, you again display your laziness (or ulterior motives in posting here)

    Let me ask you the following. You’re probably not an electrician, can you tell when an electrician does shoddy work for you? Can you tell when a plumber does shoddy work for you?
    Most of us are not pilots, but we can tell when an airplane is being flown badly.

    Those of us who are old enough remember the “coming ice ige” scare of the late 60′s-70′s some of the “experts” of the time are the same “experts” in the current scare. Google it.
    A contemporary example is the bird flu scare, H1N1 I think it was. “Experts” warned us millions were going to die in a pandemic if something wasn’t done. Millions were spent on vaccines that are now being destroyed, they’re out of date. Turns out H1N1 is no worse than regular garden variety flu. So being called an expert doesn’t make one so.

    Regards peer review publishing, you may have gathered that Frank is no fool. You need to catch up on the fallacy of peer review, (if you are being genuine that is) it would take this whole thread to detail it for you. But I will give you just one example.

    Google the following, I’ll explain in my own words, though I’m not an expert Vince.
    The Wright brothers tried to have their paper on heavier than air flight published in just about every known journal of the time. None would touch it. Years were wasted trying. They were repeatedly told flight was impossible. they were derided and treated as cranks. But they needed to publish in order to get recognition (that’s the system for you, still hasn’t changed)
    They finally found one journal prepared to publish their paper. That journal was called BEE KEEPERS MONTHLY.
    In the current environment, there are many examples of peer review subterfuge. Have you not heard of the climategate “we’ll keep it out somehow, even if we have to redefine peer review.” Google it.

    Vince, comments like yours have been made here many many times by trolling alarmists. I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and would like you to keep commenting.
    If you run away, then we’ll all know you were a troll, probably a regular from one of the alarmist blogs. in which case I’m sure I’ll catch up with you sooner or later.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    Below are three argument from vince whirlwind.

    As I am not an expert in climate science, I rely on the relevant experts

    when will Frank have his ideas written-up, peer-reviewed, and published?

    I remain sceptical of those fringe opinions until I’m given some reason to believe the lone voices are onto something.

    All three statements have been offered before, almost verbatim by, shelly, spatch, well and others. They are nothing more than the auto-cued offerings of a spam-bot, just ignore it.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Bruce of Newcastle: #57
    December 9th, 2010 at 5:21 pm

    “…and a Body to Develop Modalities for the Operationalization of the Work Program on the Impact of the Implementation of Response Measures.”

    Bruce my late dad used to work for NATO. We often had European diplomats/delegates visit/stay at our house, so I heard lots of ‘beurocriese’.
    I’ll reprint the quote and insert my translation.

    “…and a Body to Develop Modalities [ the body are the beurocrats involved in this particular instance] for the Operationalization of the Work Program [this is the scheme being discussed] on the Impact of the Implementation [how do we split the loot] of Response Measures.”[this is the expected political backlash. There is always political backlash, not from the voters, but from those beurocrats who are not included in this particular scam, especially from the African delegates]

    Hope this helped.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    manalive

    it is very difficult to isolate the exact amount of warming due to the natural forces vs that due to the natural feedbacks

    Feedbacks both positive and negative would have been and now be, a constant, intrinsic and invisible component of the climate, whether warming or cooling and therefore nearly impossible to identify.

    We are now in an ‘ice age’ (i.e. the Earth has ice-caps which is, on the geological timescale, rare) and for the past ~3 million years there has been a steady decline in temperature with a corresponding increase in the amplitude of fluctuations.
    There appears to be some mechanism which has limited the ceiling to (broadly) within 2 – 3°C of the current temperature (the dotted line and using the now usual Wiki caution on climate matters) but not the floor.
    The logic of the ‘out-of-control’ ‘runaway climate change’, tipping points etc. should apply to any changing temperature state — even a falling temperature has albedo effects like increasing snow and ice and decreasing forest cover.
    I thought that the ‘climate establishment’ had distanced themselves from the runaway notion.

    It’s odd how we consider our present state as the norm, a datum from which to measure past and possible future climate changes.
    For instance, the people who did these exquisite paintings (Bradshaws at least 18,000 yrs. B P) or, on the other side of the planet, these (Lascaux 18,000 yrs. B P) lived in a very different world.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    wendy

    Subject: IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT CANCUN – The abdication of the West – THIS MUST BE STOPPED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    THIS IS VITALLY IMPORTANT TO EVERYBODY WHO VALUES FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    =============================

    From The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

    Cancun, Mexico

    I usually add some gentle humor to these reports. Not today. Read this and weep. Notwithstanding the carefully-orchestrated propaganda to the effect that nothing much will be decided at the UN climate conference here in Cancun, the decisions to be made here this week signal nothing less than the abdication of the West. The governing class in what was once proudly known as the Free World is silently, casually letting go of liberty, prosperity, and even democracy itself. No one in the mainstream media will tell you this, not so much because they do not see as because they do not bl**dy care.

    The 33-page Note (FCCC/AWGLCA/2010/CRP.2) by the Chairman of the “Ad-Hoc Working Group on Long-Term Co-operative Action under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change”, entitled Possible elements of the outcome, reveals all. Or, rather, it reveals nothing, unless one understands what the complex, obscure jargon means. All UNFCCC documents at the Cancun conference, specifically including Possible elements of the outcome, are drafted with what is called “transparent impenetrability”. The intention is that the documents should not be understood, but that later we shall be told they were in the public domain all the time, so what are we complaining about?

    Since the Chairman’s note is very long, I shall summarize the main points:

    SORRY THE ARTICLE WAS TOO LONG TO POST IN ITS ENTIRETY.

    READ THE REST HERE.

    http://sppiblog.org/news/the-abdication-of-the-west

    “……………………How can we, the people, defeat the UN Secretariat and keep the democracy we love? Simply by informing our elected representatives of the scope, ambition, and detail of what is in the Cancun agreement. The agreement will not be called a “Treaty”, because the Senate, particularly after the mid-term elections, will not pass it. But it can still be imposed upon us by the heavily Left-leaning Supreme Court, which no longer makes any pretence at judicial impartiality and may well decide, even if Congress does not, that the Cancun agreement shall stand part of US law on the ground that it is “customary international law”.

    What to do? Send this blog posting to your legislators. It is their power, as well as yours, that is being taken away; their democracy, as well as yours, that will perish from the Earth unless this burgeoning nonsense is stopped.”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    Governments work, and people prosper, when there is the means for the people to endorse or sanction the actions of the Government.

    The two extremes of government – hereditary monarchy, and communism – do not work over the longer term. Even in the short term, they rely on the threat of force and punishment to maintain the position of the ruling class.

    Eventually, the governed rise up against the government, in a revolution, or they undermine the ability of the government to govern though the establishment of alternative structures, such as black-markets, alternative currencies, subversive acts, et cetera.

    Successful governments have one thing in common. They replace the threat of force and punishment with a ritualistic form of revolution – the ballot box.

    Whether you are a proponent of the Westminster style of parliament, or the American form of republican democracy (Benjamin Franklin’s term for it), the populace have the ability to express approval for, or sanction of, the actions of the government. This ritualistic revolution keeps the politicians honest (and I use that word advisedly), and acts as a mechanism to defuse the populations tendency to occasionally lop the heads off of leaders who step over the invisible line.

    Herbert Van Rompuy is on record as saying that he wants to see the end of the individual European nation states because nationalism is, in his view, a primary cause of war.

    I think he is wrong. It is the rising of peoples against a common perceived enemy that is the primary cause of war, and in this case, the common enemy is likely to be those who have stolen the power of self-determination from the people they seek to govern.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    anthony cox

    Just following on from Wendy’s and Rereke’s posts about Cancun and the UN agenda, this has been posted by one of the Green agipropagandists;

    http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/42008.html

    Such hubris; I find this article as disconcerting as the angry boy video and have made this reply:

    “Mr Cass looks young; young enough not to know any other existence except the civilized one bestowed on him by the “carbon-industrial complex” [reminder to self, put said phrase on list of most pretentious and meaningless expressions]. I say this not only to be condescending but to describe the complete hypocrisy of people like Mr Cass. The hypocrisy here is of a basic kind; biting the hand which supports you and not having the wit to realise that your position and freedom of being able to utter such amphigory is entirely dependent on the social and political structure which the “carbon-industrial complex” has produced. This hypocrisy is therefore grounded in cognitive dissonance.

    What is fatally absent from Mr Cass’s analysis is an appreciation of the fact the “great powers’ who cobbled together the “The Vienna Peace Congress” were not democracies; by today’s standards; they were oppressive and brutal regimes. In a further irony they were also dominated by natural process; medicine, technology, social infrastructure and support were almost entirely absent by today’s standards; life was harsh, short, miserable, and the populace was ill-informed.

    The irony is extended with Mr Cass’s stated plans to eradicate the “carbon-industrial complex”; those plans would be right at home with the brutal and oppressive methods which were employed by the “great powers” to keep their populaces in control at the time of the Vienna Congress.

    The irony would be completed if Mr Cass is successful in his mission to rid the world of the “carbon-industrial complex” and replace it with the renewable energy he espouses. Given the abject failure of the renewable energy sources which Mr Cass advocates to cater for the standard of living which the West currently enjoys and the third world aspires to, if these renewables are introduced then the type of existence which will be forced on the citizenry of the world will be similar to the one which people suffered under at the time of the Vienna Congress.”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    co2isnotevil:

    I agree your comments at #43 and #56 and I think the comments (with link) of Frank Lansner at #58 are very important. They show why the article which is the subject of this thread disprove AGW.

    Richard

    PS The idiocy of Vince Whirlwind at #50 should be ignored. Otherwise the ideas of that second rate patents clerk who wrote that not-peer-reviewed stuff he called General Relativity and Special Relativity must have been worthless: now, can anybody remember what that patents clerk was called?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Its rather unusual, but I too agree with Richard that it appears that over the recent past the earth has flipped from cold to hot and back again. There was a long period before we started the hot-cold-hot thing, when the earth was a couple of degrees warmer than it is now, and there was no ice anywhere. That is why the warmists, alarmists, socialist world government by stealth conspirators, high taxing creators of long sentences which don’t scan properly, and freedom thieves keep banging on about limiting warming to 2 degrees. The damn fools think that we might somehow kick ourselves out of the hot-cold-hot cycle and end up just plain hot all the time. Talk about misguided!

    BTW Richard, I’m pretty sure Mr Einstein published in reputable journals. What is funny about him is that in his day he was the subject of a pretty strong movement which was convinced he was wrong. They even had tours where they explained why he was wrong. For some reason this reminds me of something, but I can’t quite remember what it is…..


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    I’m going OT here.

    Bulldust@42: Thank you so much for the link to Julian Assange’s piece in The Australian. I think Wikileaks is fantastic. I can’t see why we shouldn’t know what our elected representatives really think, and what they actually do. I also applaud the hackers who brought down the web sites of Visa, MasterCard, Paypal and that Swiss Bank, because these organisations caved in to government pressure and stopped processing payments for Wikileaks.

    I’m a lefty, but Julia Gillard has behaved badly on this. She has really upset Andrew Wilkie, himself a whistle blower in the lead up to the Iraq war.

    Open government is totally worth fighting for.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    John Brookes: #67
    December 10th, 2010 at 12:26 am

    They even had tours where they explained why he was wrong. For some reason this reminds me of something, but I can’t quite remember what it is…..

    I didn’t know there are guided tours that drive past Jimmy Hansens place? Hey, if the tour includes Schmidt, Santer and Tom Karls joints, I’d love to go. Do you know where I can get tickets?

    p.s. But I would draw the line at Schneiders place, that would be crass, hope they don’t drive past Schneiders place. (rest his soul)


    Report this

    00

  • #

    John Brookes: #68
    December 10th, 2010 at 12:47 am

    I’m a lefty, but…

    Are you a lefty John? really? Well knock me over with a feather and call me Martha.

    It turns out we do have something in common afterall.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    John Brookes: #67
    December 10th, 2010 at 12:26 am

    There was a long period before we started the hot-cold-hot thing, when the earth was a couple of degrees warmer than it is now, and there was no ice anywhere.

    When was that John? I’ve forgotten my Vostok time tables.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    John Brookes:

    Following a set of unsubstantiated fears that the sky may fall you say to me:

    “I’m pretty sure Mr Einstein published in reputable journals. What is funny about him is that in his day he was the subject of a pretty strong movement which was convinced he was wrong. They even had tours where they explained why he was wrong. For some reason this reminds me of something, but I can’t quite remember what it is…..”

    I can help there. Google ‘Germany 1930s politics’.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Hey Richard@73: There were anti-Einstein tours in America too, and not just because he was Jewish…

    You a lefty Baa? Good to hear it.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    BTW Richard, I’m pretty sure Mr Einstein published in reputable journals. What is funny about him is that in his day he was the subject of a pretty strong movement which was convinced he was wrong. They even had tours where they explained why he was wrong

    You are making stuff up (again) that you “don’t know nothing about.” This is your modus operandi and your hall mark .

    Read the history of the development and dissemination of the theory of relativity (1905-1916)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    John Brookes:

    So, you think it is the name of the journal that publishes a paper that determines the worth of a paper and not the paper’s merit?

    Nature published Einstein’s relativity papers but the Editor did not put those papers to peer review because he thought they could be blocked from publication by the peer review process. To use your words, “Does that remind you of anything?”

    And I commend the advice of Brian Valentine concerning what you need to read before posting on this subject. You are making yourself look foolish (again).

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    You’re a resident of the UK, are you not, Mr Brookes? Isn’t that the country currently gripped by snow and sub-zero temperatures over half the Isles, and the National Guard had to be called out to save people from freezing?

    Cold hard reality means nothing to some people, if they have been convinced of something that contradicts their experiences that somehow resonates with their emotions.

    The difficulties experienced by people suffering some weeks of +30 degree summer weather in Eastern Europe and Asia could have been ameliorated by air conditioning available from reliable grid electrical power, worth more than all the blathering about CO2 in the air that ever was.

    It is such NINCOMPOOPERY I am speechless, I have never witnessed such mass delusion in my entire life


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    John Brookes:
    I think Wikileaks is fantastic. I can’t see why we shouldn’t know what our elected representatives really think, and what they actually do. I also applaud the hackers who brought down the web sites of Visa, MasterCard, Paypal and that Swiss Bank, because these organisations caved in to government pressure and stopped processing payments for Wikileaks.

    I’m a lefty…

    Actually, John, what you are is an anarchist, and a free-rider on those with enough courage and integrity to fight for both liberty and the rule of law.

    You, like Assange, think that the end justifies the means: You applaud taking down MasterCard because you don’t agree with them — do you applaud the deaths of US soldiers as well? Should I applaud if someone “takes you out” for your beliefs? (In case you can’t figure it out, the answer is no.)

    What you (and perhaps Assange) don’t understand is that there is no end — only an endless succession of means. You become what you do.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Bob C:

    Speaking as a genuine ‘lefty’ (which I am), all I can say to your post at #77 is

    Yes! Yes! Yes!

    More of the same, please.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Sex deviant/criminal/incomparable coward Assange has bee hearlded in the liberal media as “pioneering” and they publish he intercepted diplomatic cables “in the public interest”

    the same liberal media refuse to publish “climategate” communications for being “private communications” that were “stolen” and subject to “misinterpretation”

    Misinterpretation, I dare say


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    @42,

    Quoting from Assange’s letter.

    …a Republican bill sits before the US Senate seeking to have me declared a “transnational threat” and disposed of accordingly.

    The actual details should allow accurate judgment. :-)

    Here is the press release from the senator proposing the change to the espionage act (verbatim).

    Las Vegas, NV –Senator John Ensign today announced legislation that will make it illegal to publish the name of a human intelligence (HUMINT) informant to the United States military and intelligence community to protect both the life of the person and our national security interests in light of the threat that WikiLeaks poses to both. Senator Ensign’s bill does not ban anyone from publishing leaks directly but will make it illegal for a group such as WikiLeaks to publish the name of those helping in our efforts against terrorism.

    “There is a distinct difference between a whistleblower and a person who knowingly endangers the lives of many because of the information that they publish,” said Ensign. “With this newest document dump, WikiLeaks has knowingly endangered the lives of thousands and further threatened our military efforts. My legislation will extend the legal protections for government informants, such as the Iraqis named in this latest document dump, and will prevent an organization such as WikiLeaks from hiding like a coward behind a computer mainframe while putting lives in jeopardy.”

    By amending Title 18 Section 798, a section of law more commonly known as the Espionage Act, the bill would extend legal protections that already exist for communications intelligence and cryptography to HUMINT.

    This is the link to the pdf version of the actual bill. It’s hard to follow in part because it just mentions changes to an existing law.

    I suspect that as always, the truth lays somewhere in-between Assange and the proposed law revision. And surely he knew he was picking a fight with a powerful enemy.

    Why does Australia not have some interest in protecting one of its citizens from a frame-up? Don’t bother answering. We all know why. Those who work in the dark cannot stand the light of day. The same is true of my own country — and not to our credit either. :-(

    This will add fuel to Obama’s push for censorship of TV, radio, cable and the Internet.

    I hope Mr. Assange can weather the storm. It is unconstitutional to apply a law to acts committed before the law actually bacame law. So prosecution for anything past is (theoretically, sigh) impossible.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    gbrecke

    @80

    I think we need note the Deeds of Assange supporters and their tactics to ‘blindly’ stike back at anyone they suspect were implicated in interfereing with wikileaks activities. Reminds me of anarchists using a shotgun in an orphanage and not taking note or caring if innocent children are in the line of fire. If this organization has your support, why wouldn’t it be OK for me to enter your house in the middle of the night? I KNOW you have secrets, and I am sure you have done some thing illegal. I also know you have said unthinkable things about your neighbor who just happens to be my good friend.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    If the warmists are so convinced that CO2 causes warming, why aren’t they demanding that we pump it in to the atmosphere as fast as possible to stem off the next, inevitable, ice age? Too bad that won’t work either

    Regular greenhouses (with the glass and steel, etc) seem to work quite well. I don’t think it’s panic stations just yet.

    Besides, the cooling phase of the ice cores is always more gentle than the warming phase.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    gbrecke @81,

    I think we need note the Deeds of Assange supporters and their tactics to ‘blindly’ stike back at anyone they suspect were implicated in interfereing with wikileaks activities.

    True.

    Also does everyone realize that something like Wikileaks is a double edged sword? It can do great harm as well as good. Worse, what may be good for some may be harmful to others. The United States surely thinks so!

    I’m sure that the power to declare things classified is abused. But it’s not always abused. I wonder if it’s the province of John Doe living on some side street somewhere to determine the difference. :-) I confess that I’m having mixed feelings about it.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    … the same liberal media refuse to publish “climategate” communications for being “private communications” that were “stolen” and subject to “misinterpretation”

    If you look carefully, the mainstream media are not publishing anything from wikileaks either. Oh they are pretending to do, but they never actually provide an entire document, only a few brief excerpts, surrounded by plenty of creative interpretation, and with no link or reference to allow the reader to follow up on details.

    What they are attempting to do is recapture the initiative, so that readers have some small trust that they are being informed. You can be completely sure that the media corporations are spreading misinformation about anything they find on wikileaks just the same as they were spreading misinformation about climategate.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Vince Whirlwind blathers on at post #50.

    As I am not an expert in climate science, I rely on the relevant experts to filter out the crank-nonsense (of which there are vast reams), so what I need to know is this: when will Frank have his ideas written-up, peer-reviewed, and published?

    You sure are no expert.You could not even try a simple counterpoint to Franks presentation.

    Since you imply that you do have skill in determining what is crank and what is not crank.How come you could not figure out Franks Presentation? Since you never posted ANY counterpoints against it.

    LOL

    Vince drones on with his gibberish:

    As it is, when the body of scientific knowledge says one thing and a few lone voices express opposing views, I remain sceptical of those fringe opinions until I’m given some reason to believe the lone voices are onto something.

    As it is,YOU could not come up with a counterpoint against Franks presentation.Despite that you make it clear that you OPINED that you regard Franks presentation as a “fringe” opinion.This indicates the possibility that you did understand what Frank was presenting.Otherwise how could you claim that it is “fringe” thinking?

    Since you did not,it reasons to state that you have no idea how to do it.Just prate the argument from authority with some leavening of consensus thrown in.What a lazy bum you are.

    Where is YOUR opinion counterpoint Vincent?

    Still he takes the path of avoiding a simple try at a counterpoint,by trying this deflection tactic.Hoping that people who read his blemish filled post (#50) will forget a presentation that is right here.Not in some “science” publication.Not even hiding behind a paywall,isn’t that sweet of Frank?

    Where is your COUNTERPOINT to Franks presentation? Did the dog eat it? Did you flush it down the toilet by accident?

    Come on share it with us.

    By now anyone who has read his post (#50) must now realize that all he did was post NOTHING! that deals with the posted presentation.That is why he end his bilge with this:

    And to further get an idea of his credibility as a scientist, apparently he is a biochemist, what has he published in that field?

    Just another lower form of life (mindless moron) inhabiting the web.

    But you STILL have a chance to redeem yourself.

    Post a rational COUNTERPOINT!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    Sunsettommy @ 85:

    Good try, but Vince Whirlwind is probably incapable of a rational response. He is almost certainly innocent of the knowledge that argument from authority is a logical fallacy.

    Anyone who claims that they use “peer review” to decide what to believe, has admitted that they can’t follow the arguments.

    Note to Vince: Peer review can’t determine if a theory is correct — that can only be shown by predictive skill. The AGW hypothesis has shown no predictive skill that can be statistically distinguished from chance. Here’s a (peer reviewed! published!) paper demonstrating that, if you can follow it.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    Richard S Courtney @78:

    Thanks. I rather think you’re closer to a “Classic Liberal” than today’s version.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Bob C:

    At #87 you say to me:

    Richard S Courtney @78:

    Thanks. I rather think you’re closer to a “Classic Liberal” than today’s version.

    Actually, I am a left-wing card-carrying socialist of the old-fashioned British kind.

    It is a good that your and my politics differ.
    Variety leads to diversity that leads to development.
    Lack of variety is totalitarianism.

    Not everything is good. Totalitarianism is not good. And the abuse and misuse of science for political ends is not good.

    The AGW scare is a clear example of such abuse and misuse of science. And it is being used in attempts to obtain totalitarianism (e.g. see what is happening at Cancun
    http://joannenova.com.au/2010/12/breaking-the-abdication-of-the-west/ ).

    Thus, I think those of who value freedom need to promote real science such as that Frank Lansner reports above. If we fail in that promotion then the abusers of science will win their political ends and everyone – of every political opinion – will lose.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    BobC:

    Actually, John, what you are is an anarchist, and a free-rider on those with enough courage and integrity to fight for both liberty and the rule of law.
    You, like Assange, think that the end justifies the means: You applaud taking down MasterCard because you don’t agree with them — do you applaud the deaths of US soldiers as well? Should I applaud if someone “takes you out” for your beliefs? (In case you can’t figure it out, the answer is no.)
    What you (and perhaps Assange) don’t understand is that there is no end — only an endless succession of means. You become what you do.

    So I think the end justifies the means? Most people think that secrecy is necessary to achieve ends. I’m arguing that one shouldn’t sacrifice honesty and accountability to achieve our ends. I don’t applaud the death of soldiers, be they US or otherwise. I find the argument that Wikileaks endangers lives to be highly dodgy. I guess Wikileaks did cause the death of several thousand Iraqi civilians – because the actual number of civilian deaths only came to light because of Wikileaks.

    If Assange was only releasing US secrets, with the aim of embarrassing the west, you could maybe question his motivation. But the diplomatic cables reveal that the arab world fears Iran, and that China is not that enamoured with North Korea.

    Still, if you want your elected representatives to cover up their mistakes with impunity, and to vote without knowing the full story, go for it.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Baa @ 59

    Let me ask you the following. You’re probably not an electrician, can you tell when an electrician does shoddy work for you? Can you tell when a plumber does shoddy work for you?
    Most of us are not pilots, but we can tell when an airplane is being flown badly

    You make a very good point. I am not an electrician and yet not only can I tell shoddy from expert work, I have expertly wired several houses. I am not a plumber but I have plumbed new and repaired plumbing in many old houses. I am not a pilot but I have flown aircraft.

    Your comment was simple and the analogy brilliant! One does not have to be a “climate scientist” to recognize shoddy or incomplete work. Additionally, one doesn’t have to do wiring or plumbing OR climate science to understand human nature.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Mark D.:
    December 10th, 2010 at 10:41 pm

    Hi Mark, thnx for the comment.

    I wanted to have a chat to John Brookes, but he don’t wanna talk to me :( So I’ll ear-bash you instead ok?

    He who won’t talk to me says….

    Most people think that secrecy is necessary to achieve ends. I’m arguing that one shouldn’t sacrifice honesty and accountability to achieve our ends

    ????? WhatsUpWithThat???
    I would have thought, he who would have taken a totally opposing point of view, possibly e.g.

    * Wiki had no right to disseminate PRIVATE cables
    * Contents of the cables have been taken out of context
    * Diplomats in the cables were under extreme pressure to meet dead lines
    * The cables only show bad behaviour by a select few (though understandable under the circumstances)
    * The cables do not change the well established, well understood diplomatic relationships practiced since before the time of Arhennius :)

    Hmmmmmmmmm Wikigate anyone? Climapocrasy anyone?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Re Brian @ 79: If he (Assange) is a sex deviant I think we might all be. Here is the story: http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/sex-by-surprise-at-heart-of-assange-criminal-probe/19741444 Sweden has some interesting laws. I still have mixed thoughts on Assange and the Leaks. He didn’t steal the information (apparently), He published it. It may be irresponsible but recall a different “leak” that became Climategate. Interesting moral judgments come into play here.

    I am mostly in agreement with John Brookes with respect to the free speech issues. I imagine the regulars here know that I am a USA conservative. However, if pushed I will bend Libertarian or fall on the Constitution. I completely agree with the wisdom of Richard Courtney:

    It is a good that your and my politics differ.
    Variety leads to diversity that leads to development.
    Lack of variety is totalitarianism.

    I would fear complete Republican control too, although even if that was to happen, you’d see factions develop and soon enough a split into “left and right wings” of that party. Wisdom is not only found in a persons’ favorite political party. Further, stupidity can be found everywhere.

    Variety is the spice of life. I don’t think the human mind is wired for happiness without a certain amount of disagreement.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Hey Baa, I don’t have a problem with the release of the climategate emails. Maybe I have a problem with their theft/leaking, but I think they are a legitimate subject of public interest. A failure to publish them would have been a dereliction of duty for any news organisation.

    Most people here argue that you can’t trust governments (at least on AGW). The best way to be able to trust governments is to make sure the secrets come out. The truth will also keep the conspiracy nuts quiet ;-)


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Thnx for the reply John. And glad to hear your view re: emails.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    John Brookes:
    December 10th, 2010 at 10:16 pm

    So I think the end justifies the means? Most people think that secrecy is necessary to achieve ends. I’m arguing that one shouldn’t sacrifice honesty and accountability to achieve our ends.

    Well John, you also approved of attacking your enemies in any way possible, and damn the consequences. (Goes along with your approval of the 1010 child snuff video.) History, if nothing else, should be a lesson and a warning:

    1) The French Revolution proceeded on the idea that the end justified the means — it ended in the Terror and the rise of Napoleon.

    2) Every Communist revolution has explicitly embraced the end justifying the means. They never achieved the Communist Utopia that was the goal, but they did manage to cause the deaths of 100,000,000 people along the way. The countries that are recovering the best are the ones which have abandoned the Communist ideal of forced “equality”, and are re-discovering the advantages of personal freedom and property (however slowly).

    3) In contrast, the American Revolution was, from the first, based on principles of liberty and human rights. This was explicitly stated in the primary document of the revolution, the Declaration of Independence.

    My belief, based on personal inclination and history, is that principled action is necessary to achieve “ends” — especially since the “end” is never actually reached and all you really have is a sequence of actions. If you advocate lawless actions that violate other’s rights, then that is exactly the kind of society you get. It doesn’t matter how you justify this as necessary to achieve a glorious end — what you get is the actions. The far Left doesn’t seem to be able to understand this (or they don’t care).

    I’m arguing that one shouldn’t sacrifice honesty and accountability to achieve our ends.

    But that’s precisely what you did advocate in approving of illegal attacks on those companies who dissociated themselves from Wikileaks. In your eyes, do these companies forfeit their legal rights by not supporting Wikileaks? Are they now outlaws that can be vandalized with your approval? Apparently so.

    I do agree that government secrecy is greatly overused and covers up acts that wouldn’t be done if they had to withstand scrutiny. However, I don’t see how publishing a list of the US’s infrastructure most vulnerable to attack can be spun as ethical or responsible. What if I published the easiest way to get into your house and the dates when you would be on vacation? I could argue that publishing this information would make you a more responsible and accountable homeowner, but I don’t think you would buy it.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    gbrecke

    “You applaud taking down MasterCard because you don’t agree with them.”

    How many people innocent people might have paid large penalties or even lost their home to a foreclosure because these anarchists took down the infrastructure that would transfer funds in time? If john Brooke can rationalize this as being a good thing, I am certain others can rationalize why his head should be on a stake. Once you set aside the rule of law, the rest is easy. It’s little different than making money… once you set aside your ethics and sell your soul, making money is easy. Al Gore and John Brooke may have far more in common than John understands.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] of a degree in 100 years, but that it almost never goes on to be amplified into a larger rise. Where is the evidence for the dangerous positive feedback in the Vostok Ice Cores? « JoNova [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    I think that the Wikeleaks thing is a war. The American War of Independence, wonderful that it was, killed people. You can’t make an omelette without breaking some eggs. The American Civil War ended the evil of slavery in that country. It killed a lot of good men. Was it a good thing or a bad thing? Did the ends justify the means?

    So I’m just arguing that in the same way as attacking the English in the fledgeling USA was a good thing, so attacks on MasterCard or Visa may also be a necessary part of building an open society where our governments don’t keep secrets from us. But its a value thing, maybe you are happy to let the government only tell you what they want you to know.

    And BobC, I’m not a communist, and don’t in any way applaud totalitarian communist regimes. And I foud the 10/10 video’s tasteless.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    “…video’s”?? Why did I want to put an apostrophe there?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    John Brookes:
    December 12th, 2010 at 10:22 pm

    “…video’s”?? Why did I want to put an apostrophe there?

    because there was one video, so your sentence reads video’s (video is). Look’s OK to me.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    So I’m just arguing that in the same way as attacking the English in the fledgeling USA was a good thing, so attacks on MasterCard or Visa may also be a necessary part of building an open society where our governments don’t keep secrets from us.

    So John, just asking but is there no circumstance where government is justified in keeping something secret? If so, how is it that someone without any authority to release the data suddenly has a license to publish it all over the world?

    I’m just asking John. What say you?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    John,

    Yes, this is a war, just like fighting terrorism is a war. You have a stateless enemy who thinks they know better than everyone else and who feels that it’s their right to make the world bend to their will.

    While it’s clear that my government classifies far more than it should, especially when it’s embarrassing, for example, the fiscal coercion used to bring countries that otherwise know better into the fold of climate alarmism. Of course, little to none of the embarrassing information that was released was not already widely known or suspected, so little was really gained. The collateral damage to reluctant allies is far more damaging and leaking information that puts lives at risk was inexcusable. In this case, the ends clearly weren’t justified by the means. Frankly, all I see is some punk ass anarchist who wants his 5 minutes of fame. Well, he got it and should be getting 20 to life for his trouble.

    And you should never forget that in many countries leaking state secrets is automatic death, often without the benefit of a trial.

    George


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    John Brookes:
    December 12th, 2010 at 7:48 pm

    And I foud the 10/10 video’s tasteless.

    Sorry, John: I momentarily confused you with MattB.

    The American War of Independence, wonderful that it was, killed people.

    Ghandi’s liberation of India killed over 1 million people, as predicted by Churchill (for which he was reviled).

    You are seriously distorting my meaning by assuming that I’m saying that killing is never justified. I can only assume that you are seriously politically naive, and a target for the political flim-flam artists of the world. Perhaps you are one of those who think that “both sides in the middle east are equally at fault”? Or that it is equally evil for a Jew to kill a Nazi trying to send him to an extermination camp as it is for the Nazi to send the Jew there?

    I really don’t know how to start with someone so ignorant of the world. Try reading the Declaration of Independence for a start. It lays it out pretty well.


    Report this

    00

  • #