Two major proxy studies, larger than ever, were released in April and June 2012. They show that the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) existed, and was similar to current temperatures. These comprehensive studies suggest current temperatures are not unusual, and that itself is not all that surprising — I’ve mentioned before how there are hundreds of proxy studies showing it was as warm or warmer back then. (CO2science has been documenting them.) But these studies are worth a mention because they are so large.
Climate models cannot explain what caused the warming 1000 years ago, nor the cooling 300 years ago, so they can’t rule out the same factors aren’t changing the climate today (though they claim they can). If climate models can’t explain the past, they can’t predict the future.
The last 12 Centuries
Ljungqvist used 120 proxy records — nearly 3 times as many proxies as previous studies and conclude: “during the 9th to 11th centuries there was widespread NH warmth comparable in both geographic extent and level to that of the 20th century”. Their proxies included ice-cores, pollen, marine sediments, lake sediments, tree-rings, speleothems and historical documentary data.
Ljungqvistet al 2012 Fig. 4. Mean time-series of centennial proxy anomalies separated by: (A) data type, (B) continents, (C) latitude, (D) seasonality of signal. The curves in (B–D) show the mean and moving block bootstrap confidence intervals (±2 standard error) (Wilks, 1997).
The numbers in parentheses indicates the number of proxies in each category.
The last 2000 years
In April 2012 Christiansen and Ljungqvist published a study of 32 proxies going back as far as 1AD for the extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere. They found the first millennium was warmer than the second, that the Little Ice Age (17th Century) was awfully cold and colder than the “Dark Ages” cooling (circa 300- 800AD), and about −1.0 °C below the 1880–1960AD level. It warmed a bit in the 1700’s then cooled again in the 1800’s almost back to where it was in the 1600’s. The Little Ice Age appears in records across vast areas, and the three century pattern of colder-warmer-and-almost-as-cold-again repeats all around the Northern Hemisphere. Things have warmed fast since the Little Ice Age but then, it was the coldest patch in the 2000 year record, so it’s not altogether surprising that it has rebounded quickly.
The MWP peaked from 950 to 1050AD at around 0.6°C warmer than the calibration period 1880–1960 AD: “Note that the extra-tropical NH mean temperature from HadCRUT3v in 1880–1960AD is 0.23 °C colder than in the often used standard climate period 1961–1990 AD.” That means the MWP was about 0.4 °C warmer than the 1961-1990 period.
Here’s is the long reconstruction of the last 2000 years (extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere). The “zer0” is set at the average for the 1880-1960 period. So Roman times were about as warm as the first half of the 1900’s. The MWP was hotter than that.
…
Past reconstructions are flatter…
…
This graph shows different calibration periods. (1880-1960; 1880 – “latest data”; and 1990 – “latest data”)
…
For what it’s worth, these graphs are the thumbnails of the 32 proxies. Click to enlarge.
…
The locations of those proxies.
…
…
ABSTRACTS
Abstract. Ljungqvist et al 2012
We analyse the spatio-temporal patterns of temperature variability over Northern Hemisphere land areas, on centennial time-scales, for the last 12 centuries using an unprecedentedly large network of temperature-sensitive proxy records. Geographically widespread positive temperature anomalies are observed from the 9th to 11th centuries, similar in extent and magnitude to the 20th century mean. A dominance of widespread negative anomalies is observed from the 16th to 18th centuries. Though we find the amplitude and spatial extent of the 20th century warming is within the range of natural variability over the last 12 centuries, we also find that the rate of warming from the 19th to the 20th century is unprecedented in the context of the last 1200 yr. The positive Northern Hemisphere temperature change from the 19th to the 20th century is clearly the largest between any two consecutive centuries in the past 12 centuries. These results remain robust even after removing a significant number of proxies in various tests of robustness showing that the choice of proxies has no particular influence on the overall conclusions of this study.
Abstract: Christiansen and Ljungqvist 2012
We present two new multi-proxy reconstructions of the extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere (30–90° N) mean temperature: a two-millennia long reconstruction reaching back to AD 1 based on 32 proxies and a 500-yr long reconstruction reaching back to AD 1500 based on 5 91 proxies. The proxies are of different types and of different resolutions (annual, annual-to-decadal, and decadal) but all have previously been shown to relate to local or regional temperature. We use a reconstruction method, LOC, that recently has been shown to confidently reproduce low-frequency variability. Confidence intervals are obtained by an ensemble pseudo-proxy method that both estimates the vari10 ance and the bias of the reconstructions. The two-millennia long reconstruction shows a well defined Medieval Warm Period with a peak warming ca. AD 950–1050 reaching 0.7°C relative to the reference period AD 1880–1960. The 500-yr long reconstruction confirms previous results obtained with the LOC method applied to a smaller proxy compilation; in particular it shows the Little Ice Age cumulating in AD 1580–1720 with 15 a temperature minimum of −1.1°C below the reference period. The reconstructed local temperatures, the magnitude of which are subject to wide confidence intervals, show a rather geographically homogeneous LIA while more geographical inhomogeneities are found for the Medieval Warm Period. Reconstructions based on different number of proxies show only small differences suggesting that LOC reconstructs 50-yr smoothed 20 extra-tropical NH mean temperatures well and that low-frequency noise in the proxies is a relatively small problem.
Background Information:
- The big picture: 65 million years of temperature swings
- Roman Warming (was it global?)
- Climate helped drive Vikings from Greenland
- The Medieval Warm Period hit west Antarctica
- Fraudulent hockey sticks and hidden data
h/t NIPCC 2012 July also GWPF
REFERENCES
Christiansen, B. and Ljungqvist F. C. (2012). The extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere temperature in the last two millennia: reconstructions of low-frequency variability. Climate of the Past, 8(2):765–786, 2012. [abstract] [PDF] [NASA copy] [Discussion on CA noted a lack of complete archives and code]
Ljungqvist, F. C., Krusic, P. J., Brattström, G., and Sundqvist, H. S (2012).: Northern Hemisphere temperature patterns in the last 12 centuries, Clim. Past, 8, 227-249, doi:10.5194/cp-8-227-2012, 2012. [abstract] [PDF] or try this [PDF] [CO2science discussion]
————————————————–
UPDATED: The first graph was replaced with Fig 4 from Ljungqvist et al on Oct 17, which gives a better representation of the paper. H/t “Nice One”
“If climate models can’t explain the past, they can’t predict the future.”
Why can’t the powers that be, get it through their thick sculls?
There was a brilliant article recently ‘Climate models fail reality test’ by Ross McKitrick, in the Financial Post Jun 13, 2012.
“Climate models not only fail to do better than random numbers, in some cases they are actually worse.”
In 2008 and 2010, a team of hydrologists at the National Technical University of Athens published a pair of studies comparing long-term (100-year) temperature and precipitation trends in a total of 55 locations around the world to model projections. The models performed quite poorly at the annual level, which was not surprising. What was more surprising was that they also did poorly even when averaged up to the 30-year scale, which is typically assumed to be the level they work best at. They also did no better over larger and larger regional scales. The authors concluded that there is no basis for the claim that climate models are well-suited for long-term predictions over large regions.
A 2011 study in the Journal of Forecasting took the same data set and compared model predictions against a “random walk” alternative, consisting simply of using the last period’s value in each location as the forecast for the next period’s value in that location. The test measures the sum of errors relative to the random walk. A perfect model gets a score of zero, meaning it made no errors. A model that does no better than a random walk gets a score of 1. A model receiving a score above 1 did worse than uninformed guesses. Simple statistical forecast models that have no climatology or physics in them typically got scores between 0.8 and 1, indicating slight improvements on the random walk, though in some cases their scores went as high as 1.8.
The climate models, by contrast, got scores ranging from 2.4 to 3.7, indicating a total failure to provide valid forecast information at the regional level, even on long time scales. The authors commented: “This implies that the current [climate] models are ill-suited to localized decadal predictions, even though they are used as inputs for policymaking.”
—————————————-
REPLY: Tony Cox and I wrote about that study by Koutsoyiannis and Anagnostopolous here: We can’t predict the climate on a local, regional, or continental scale — Jo
40
Well, this is useful information Jaymez! We can use the predictions of climate models to constrain future climate to whatever the models don’t predict. In other words, we can be relative certain that whatever the models predict won’t happen. Not as good as a positive prediction, but still a significant improvement over random guessing.
10
It is early in the morning for me … can’t cope with that … have a green thumb instead … 🙂
10
Right, so what that tells you, is that you get a random variation in the output of the model, every time it is run.
So the unstated conclusion is that, if you conduct enough runs of the model, you are bound to get at least one set of results that support whatever political position you wish to adopt.
Isn’t that fun?
10
And a sufficiently large number of monkeys randomly typing at keyboards for long enough “could” produce the collected works of Shakespeare…
10
Its’s been done:
00
Hi Cohenite – an interesting result in and of itself – but not random.
The selective element introduces a factor that conditions what happens towards a pre-determined end.
The only question worth asking once the end has been predetermined is “how long will it take?”
00
Hi ex-warmist; the example I gave was developed to mimic selective adaptation; it shows that a Creationist position about the inability of complex organisms to develope in relatively short periods of time is not impossible.
It is not random in as much each ‘stage’ of the adaptation starts from scratch and has equal probability, but the stage after each adaptation is held is random.
00
The selective pressure in evolution is death. Death is not random – it selects out the maladapted.
I think that we are on the same page here.
00
It sure isn’t working with federal government politicians.
10
Hi ExWarmist
“The selective pressure in evolution is death.”
True but there is something that necessarily comes before death if a species or adaptation of that species is to continue.
It must reproduce.
So.
The selective pressure in evolution is The Failure to Reproduce.
KK 🙂
00
Climate Scientists will not be reproducing..
They will be extinct in their current form: “Enviro Advocats” in ten years.
KK
00
Hi KK,
Your right – I wasn’t making a fully nuanced statement.
00
The other study is the Esper et al paper. Some startling graphs.
00
The climate models are based on 5 distinct wrong physics’ assumptions.
1. There can be no direct thermalisation, instead it’s mostly indirect.
2. The heat transfer is hideously wrong because of its assumption of imaginary ‘back radiation’: it exaggerates IR absorption in the lower atmosphere by a factor of 5.
3. This is offset by double real low level cloud optical depth and the variable net AIE of the wrong sign. The latter is from Sagan’s mistaken aerosol physics when applied to clouds.
4. Experimenters fail to realise that single pyrgeometers do not measure energy flow, instead it’s the temperature radiation field.
5. The net result of these errors is to exaggerate the evaporation of water, hence thermageddon has been replaced by climate disruption. In reality, humidity is decreasing.
The Jury’s out as to whether this systematic bias was deliberate or plain incompetence. Fix the physics and there is a fixed GHE set by water vapour and no possible CO2-AGW.
00
Hi TON; what is your source for saying “humidity is decreasing”; this is an essential point and contradicts every requirement of AGW. There are plenty of humidity sources about, but I’m curious about yours.
So, I’ve shown you [one of] mine, you show me yours.
00
Hi Cohenite
Would humidity be low in the deserts at the poles ( N & S) and places like the Sahara.
Are these areas increasing in size.
I’m not aware of the humidity changing where I live but ? What’s behind this idea?
KK
KK 🙂
00
Humidity is water as an atmospheric gas derived from evaporation; both the poles are too cold for evaporation [much] so they are in effect deserts and therefore have low humidity, just like [hot] deserts.
I don’t know if they are changing.
The importance of humidity is in my reply to TON below.
00
It’s here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/new-paper-on-global-water-vapor-puts-climate-modelers-in-a-bind/
This is a game changer because only recently Philip Stott was claiming that since the 1970s, TPW has increased by 4%.
My take on the models is that because they assume 5 times higher IR absorbed in the lower atmosphere and offset it by exaggerated cloud albedo, the rise in predicted TPW is an artifact from the exponential increase of evaporation as air-sea temperature increases.
I cannot say this was the core of the scam because it could have been stupidity.
00
TON; thanks; Miskolczi, of course noted that SH data for 60 years showed declining trends at the same time as CO2 levels were increasing; this preserved a constant Optical Depth of the atmosphere. The OD is as good as any measure of the ‘Greenhouse’ effect; if it hasn’t changed then something other than greenhouse gases are causing the warming over the 20thC.
00
There was also another excellent article last year here which tells us what scientists, including those involved with the IPCC think of Climate Models.
The following are extracts:
Freeman Dyson – one of the world’s most eminent physicists:
“I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in.
The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models.”
Here is what some IPCC insiders spontaneously say about climate models? The first significant discussion appears on page 97 of a 678-page PDF (names were removed before these questionnaire answers were made public). There’s some technical jargon here, but the gist of this IPCC contributing author’s concern shines through nevertheless:
With regards to climate models, their deficiencies are airbrushed. We never see the actual temperatures simulated by the models, only their deviations, hiding fundamental problems of the model temperature simulations. There are no agreed upon metrics for evaluating climate models. (p. 97)
A few pages later, this person adds:
All climate models used in the IPCC assessment reports should undergo a formal validation and verification process, accompanied by clear documentation. Not just scientific publications, but actual manuals and documentation that are publicly accessible. The strengths, weaknesses and limitations of climate models and codes need to be stated explicitly and unequivocably. [sic] People are left with the impression that the 21st century simulations are actual climate predictions, and they are not. (p. 99)
That last theme is picked up nearly 100 pages later, when a coordinating lead author observes:
At the current time, [IPCC reports too often produce] flattened views of the world, where unreasonably high precision and confidence is accorded outcomes from numerical models which have known limitations, while use of information from other sources is not accorded equivalent status (where merited), and questions related to structural uncertainties in models are almost entirely ignored.” (p. 183)
In other words, even though the models have shortcomings, the IPCC appears to favour model results over information that comes from alternative sources.
Now for some further spontaneously-volunteered observations:
The current process of the IPCC has elevated global climate model outputs to a level of authority that the modelers themselves cannot be comfortable with. (p. 332)
The modelers have a particular feeling that their models are the TRUTH, and they do not properly recognize that the models are very limited in scope and in terms of processes included. The resolution is yet far too coarse, and the parameterizations used make the model results very uncertain, and the modelers and the IPCC report do not recognize this properly. (p. 374)
Many results described in [Working Group 2] are based on very limited studies, simulations with just one model, etc, that do not faithfully represent the range of uncertainty. This also makes the whole IPCC Report inconsistent: whereas the Report by [Working Group 1] includes results achieved with climate simulations performed by a whole suite of climate models, [Working Group 2] is much more limited and includes conclusions that are not valid when the full suite of IPCC climate models is considered (p. 383)
Governments around the world are now convinced CO2 emissions are dangerous and that drastic steps must be taken to curtail these emissions. And where did they get this idea? From computer models that even IPCC insiders say are uncertain, unreliable, and unvalidated.
00
On the Bom thread Dave asked why we built desal plants.
Your last two lines above are a great summary.
” Governments around the world are now convinced CO2 emissions are dangerous and that drastic steps must be taken to curtail these
emissions. And where did they get this idea? From computer models that even IPCC insiders say are uncertain, unreliable, and unvalidated”.
The next question that follows then is “Why do we have Global Warming” if it isn’t there?
You have led to the same question we all want answered: Why do we have Governments rushing to save us from Global Warming when they have never given any indication previously that they gave a rats about us?
The answer is probably in the reply made to Dave:
“Why did we build all these desal plants just a few years ago”
We all know it wasn’t about the water supply , after all we aren’t Israel, we have huge amounts of wasted runoff from the Eastern states.
So the answer lies somewhere else.
Perhaps it lies in the favours owed by the Government.
Everyone owes favours in politics and this is a payoff.
Funny, we are killing two birds here with this one stone.
Why build desal plants? and why has the federal Government run up debts of $140 billion.
Where has all the money gone. Reminds me of a song. Thanks Pete thanks PP&M. Songs of injustice.
Well the feds give states money for infrastructure..
Unions Build the infrastructure.
Examples are the centre of New York where public Works construction was used over many decades to enrich those with access to the public teat.
More locally we the infamous road works in Victoria where each worker had a salary double normal.
And then ,, ,,,,,,, drumroll, yes we have our Desal Plants where everybody got rich except the taxpayers…..
Man Made Global Warming is just so politically useful.
It cam be used to wrap almost any scam.
And the greens haven’t got a clue they have been used for this!!!!!
Totally Thick.
KK 🙂
00
Actually Keith, the desal plants were a response to the continuing dry spell, and were required because of inadequate prior planning. Places like Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide were actually looking at very awkward water supply issues. If Nina hadn’t switched when it did, things could have got very nasty. Nothing to do with climate change, just a large increase in urban population and not building new storages. BAD PLANNING !!
Yes there is a lot of un-utilised run-off when it rains, but catching that takes a whole new infrastructure, which takes time to build, way longer than building a desal plant, and you can’t catch run-off if it doesn’t rain.
From a water supply security issue, desal plants were probably a good idea, and would have been very handy IF the drought had continued. It is Australia, droughts happen, and with the meagre historic data we have, its basically impossible to say how long they might last for. Thing that makes desal plants now look so silly is the switch back to a wet period. It is Australia, was going to happen sooner or later.. fortunately, it was sooner 😉
I prophesise that we will see another drought some time in the next decade or 2, because we live in Australia, and the desal plants, if kept functional, might just come in handy.
00
Hi AndyG55
I hear what you are saying but a cynic like me could rewrite some of your comments:
“the desal plants were a response to the continuing dry spell, and were required because of inadequate prior planning”.
Could become :
“the desal plants were a response to the continuing attacks from the Green Voting Lobby, and were required because politicians believed that voters would never wake up to who caused the water shortage that resulted from the refusal to build dams”.
And ” BAD PLANNING !! would become simply a “FAILURE TO GOVERN” when even the dumbest politician knows that: “It is Australia, droughts happen”.
Dams have been made to seem to be environmental vandalism while this being Australia even the dumbest politician knows that dams are great.
They store water and have the potential for a double benefit in providing hydroelectricity.
Dams also, as in the case of Brisbane, can provide flood mitigation at least when politics doesn’t interfere with science and engineering.
KK 🙂
ps your second comment that I just read also says a lot of this.
00
ps, If Welcome Reef, the ones in central Vic and the 2nd Brisbane dam had been build when first planned, (names skip my mind at the moment) the desal plants would not have been needed. The Green/reds should get out the way, and let those dams be built.
Adelaide really does need to think about it’s reliance of water from the Murray River., and Perth has to use its aquifers to maximise storage. These are the two places that will have major issues when we have another major drought, because they don’t have large long term storages.
00
Both Adelaide and Perth could solve their respective water problems by piping/channeling water from the Ord river down. SA could fill the great salt lakes north of Port Augusta. The by product of this would be:
#1 Roxby downs would no longer need to pump the guts out of the great artesian basin allowing it to replenish back to its once great (former) glory (environmental plus)
#2 The lakes would encourage/increase the animal life in the area (environmental plus)
#3 SA would neven need pump water from the Murray ever again allowing the river levels to be maintained at a higher level (environmental plus)
#4 WA would no longer be reliant on its aquifers (as per the GAB) (environmental plus)
An opertunity did exist once for this to happen as the WA opposition leader (LIB) promised to build a pipline from the Ord as a campaign promise leading up to a state election. Of course the Labor spin doctors made him out to be a fool.
Then another opportunity arose not long ago when the federal government had a wad of cash to spend however they choose to give away pink batts and school halls instead. The bottom line is, this will never happen whilst we have parties in power that think “greening the desert” is the work of the devil.
Proof? well simply look at Libya, not the most advanced country in the world but they have (maybe had not sure if the West blew the crap out of it) a very advanced water system in their northern desert.
Dubia build islands out of the sea.
Japan build airports out of the sea
and the list goes on………………….but not here in Australia oh no, no,no,no, and no, progress is not allowed, feats of engineering is frowned upon. My advice to any young engineer in this country is to leave, leave and go somewhere else where your talents will be used, your inginuity will be encouraged. If you stay here you will wither and die sitting behind a desk pushing carbon tax papers around.
What a joke this once great country has become.
00
I guess the point is that, for a variety of reasons, not the least being political interference, storages and transfers that SHOULD have been built, weren’t.
This left very few options other than the ludicriously expensive DeSal plants, now sitting idle because of the shift away from drought conditions.
If the drought had continued, they would have helped. New dams don’t fill during a drought.
The long term implementation of infrastructure was pretty darn bad…..do you think we will wake up to this once we get rid of the Lab/green mess ??
Some new dams, pieplines. Bring some real drought security !!
And while were at it, some nice new COAL fired power stations for cost effective energy security 🙂
00
We don’t pipe water from the Kimberly down to Perth because it is a very expensive way of getting water.
————————————————————————
Would help if you read the comments you respond to first JB. Libya was given as an example. i.e. The Great Manmade River of Libya supplies 3,680,000 cubic metres (4,810,000 cu yd) of water each day to Tripoli, Benghazi, Sirte, and several other cities in Libya. The pipeline is over 2,800 kilometres (1,700 mi) long, and is connected to wells tapping an aquifer over 500 metres (1,600 ft) underground. It can be done! – Mod
00
And yet this is the same plan they propose for CCS, a humungous system of pipes and pumps to get the CO2 from the power plants to the, er, hole in the ground, wherever that might be!
Tony.
00
Yep. That’s why we don’t pipe water from Perth up to Kalgoorlie.
.
Oh, wait . . .
00
.
crakar24 TICK
AndyG55 TICK
John Brooks FAIL
TonyfromOz TICK
memoryvault TICK
.
Amazing JB:
.
Lets just give up JB – too expensive? What the F*)K – you’re sitting there like me on an world wide internet typing about expense in front of your iPad or Apple or desktop and telling us we should operate on windmills, wave and solar! A pipeline from Ord to Perth – impossible NO! expensive YES!
.
Our converstaions in your negative world (along with Tristan, Adam & MattyB) will disappear totally – but you will not be drinking water in Perth through a Desal plant as your sustainable water supply is unsustainable!
.
You – along with Adam B. Smith – will be moving by horse and cart to greener pastures with your new world vision of take the money and save the world stupidity! If you survive!
00
Ernie Bridge used to flog the idea of a pipeline from the Kimberly to Perth. Some costings were done, and it was the most expensive option. That it was done in other places proves nothing. Every place is unique.
Of course we pipe water to Kalgoorlie – because it is the cheapest way of getting water there (especially since all the infrastructure is already there).
In Perth, as in many other places around the world, ground water is being used in an unsustainable fashion. Perhaps if consumers were charged the real cost of groundwater (i.e. the future cost of depletion of groundwater reserves added in), then piped water from the Kimberly might be competitive – but I don’t know.
We are currently deliberately making energy generated by burning fossil fuels more expensive, because we recognise that emissions of CO2 may be dangerous in the long term. The market will end up deciding what the best way of producing power is, now that the hidden cost of CO2 emissions is being factored in.
Of course, all this fades into insignificance compared to the joy of seeing the pathetic eagles getting smashed by Adelaide this arvo.
10
The “hidden cost” meme is a brilliant strategy by the econuts. It works (JB being exhibit A, for he repeats this meme).
John, the “hidden cost” meme can be evoked for anything and everything humans do.
We could all (all 6 billion of us) go back to living in caves rubbing sticks together to stay warm, BUT THERE IS A HIDDEN COST TO THAT JOHN. Not enough sticks
What are the hidden costs of windmills?
What are the hidden costs of solar panels?
Usually, but not exclusively, governments handling other peoples monies hide costs much much better than private enterprise.
01
“If the lie you tell is big enough to defy comprehension, and if the lie is delivered with enough authority, then it will become the truth”.
Attrib: Harry S. Truman
00
…in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. —Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol. I, ch. X
00
No wonder Hitler didn’t remain a corporal – excellent insight into how people actually operate. A high level, functional psychopath.
“They” – walk amongst us sheep, wolves in sheeps clothing and we remain blissfully unaware until their fangs have ripped out our throats.
Intra-species predators.
I’ve come to the conclusion that the vast majority of people are not asleep – so much as holding their eyes shut tight against the revealed horror of the world as it is. We are willfully blind to the evil that stalks our lives, that farms us as cattle, that reaps the value of our lives and harvests our goods, our services and our lives at will.
The systems of control operate as governing frameworks of belief, religeon, politics, economics, the law, education, and propaganda that appeal to our inherent needs for purpose, meaning, values, morals, certainty and our fear of mortality and being alone.
Psychopaths feast on such points of vulnerability in the human psyche, and construct elaborate lies to mold and manage our behaviours.
AGW is just another lie, just another system of control, just another psychopathic game to reap the value of our lives, to direct goods and services to a well connected power elite that live without love, without trust, without empathy and without compassion.
Hitler was just one of the many wolves, and certainly not the last.
Ask yourself this question: Why is the acquisition, maintenance and execution of power over other human beings not taught in schools? Why is such a conversation not a normal conversation, why is it frowned upon, why is it forbidden?
00
My favourite “big lie” was the WMD one from Dubya and his mates. That was a beauty, and conservatives just lapped it up.
10
Isn’t that what we used to call social studies?
I think you’ll find that power is not ignored in schools. When analysing texts, students are encouraged to explore who has power. But this is part of the post modern mumbo jumbo that nobody likes.
However you are probably right, there is some aversion to discussing power. Religious schools would be particularly averse, as religions have power (although I like to think its rapidly waning) and want to keep it. Governments do to, but at least you can vote them out.
I guess the other reason is that in school, the teachers are in charge. They have the power. The last thing they want is to have to negotiate with the students.
10
John Brookes July 21, 2012 at 7:30 pm said:-
For once I, at least partly agree, with John Brookes. There are lessons that can be learnt. I live in Britain, where Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair got some leading experts to produce a dossier of “evidence” to justify the war. The most substantial bits of evidence was plagarised from a PhD student’s work from a number of years before. The political spin doctors (government propagandists) went into overdrive promoting the case for war based on the flimsiest of evidence. I must admit I fell for it along with three-quarters of the population.
I have since learnt to question the evidence. On climate there are close parallels – flimsy and biased evidence, a huge propaganda campaign to shut down opposition (e.g. questioning of motives)and blocking any review of the evidence. For supporters, there is also a parallel. Any new confirming “evidence” of CAGW is just lapped up, no matter how flimsy.
00
manicbeancounter.
OMG you used an O in a superscript to represent the degree symbol.
Just a little tip. This is something I had to figure out when I first started commenting here 2 years ago about global warming.
To type in a degree symbol in HTML you can type the HTML entity sequence for Unicode codepoint
00B0in hexadecimal.In plain english that means: ampersand hash X 00B0 semicolon.
In the HTML edit box that looks like: °Which prints out like this: °
Just trying to be helpful. Not trying to give you the 3rd°.
00
Andrew MacRae
Thanks for the tip about the superscript O. I normally use the Word blog documents, so I blame it on Microsoft 🙂
00
And more on Germany and the big lie:
More on Goebbles and the big lie:
00
Or alternatively…Governments around the world are now convinced CO2 emissions are a marvelous cash cow they can milk endlessly to fund their lust for power. That seems like the more accurate statement to me. 🙂
00
PROSECUTION
For example, you wrote extensively about the case of Guy Paul Morin, a Canadian who had been convicted and imprisoned for a horrific murder. After years in prison, Morin was proven innocent by DNA testing, released, and compensated financially by the Canadian government. Isn’t that correct?
LAFRAMBOISE
Yes.
PROSECUTION
And isn’t it true that in that case, a government inquiry eventually vindicated your reporting, revealing that, in fact, there had been police and prosecutorial misconduct, and misrepresentation of forensic scientific evidence?
LAFRAMBOISE
Yes.
http://www.lies.com/wp/2012/03/14/the-imaginary-trial-of-peter-gleick-%E2%80%93-part-4-prosecution-witness-donna-laframboise/
00
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/articles/macleans/morin-inquiry-report
00
[…] …why should we trust them on the present or future? […]
00
Good poster published by the Queensland Government. http://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/products/pdf/australiasvariablerainfall.pdf
I shows just how the rainfall varies, in Australia, from the year 1890 to 2011.
It makes me wonder just why some people appear to be surprised and alarmed at ‘climate change’.
Maybe they should get out to the bush more often.
00
“Creeks run dry or 10 ft high
and there’s either drought or plenty. ”
look at the dark blue over the whole of Ausralia for 2010-2011 and how similar it is to 1973-1974, when the last Brisbane flood hit.
NOTHING HAS CHANGED !!
And I’d be pretty sure that if you removed all the temperature tampering, there would be very little difference in that metric, either.
00
Yeah. Looks like a lot of unprecedented weather events to me. It’ all weather – not climate.
00
And if anyone is looking for a career change after the Carbon Tax has put them out of work, I would suggest boat sales. Looks like Aussie is in for a 20 year wet spell.
00
Gotta say, I like that pdf !!
You can actually trace the historical drought record reasonable well. Here are some of note..
1. The Federation Drought, which started in the 1890’s and lasted until 1902 over the whole of Australia. Darling River dry at Bourke for nearly a year. Sydney water supply causes big concerns. Extreme losses of sheep and cattle.
2. 1914 – 1915: Severe drought over most of eastern and southern Australia
3. The World War II Drought. Eastern Australia has dry conditions that last from 1937-1945
4. 1963-1968: Major droughts effect most of eastern Australia
5. 1982-1983: Considered the worst drought of the 20th century for short-term rainfall deficiencies over a huge area. Caused by a strong El Nino of the SOI.
6. 1991, building to 1995: A long El Nino causes what is considered the worst drought ever in Queensland. Crops fail, Queensland is forced to import grain from other states.
7. 2003 – 2007: Long and severe drought in Inland NSW, Queensland and South Australia. Murray-Darling Basin has its second lowest rainfall since 1900 (Federation drought). In the large NSW regional centre of Goulburn, water supply runs dry. For all major cities the centralised water supply systems are severely stressed.
00
It has always amazed me how the most simple, obvious and irrefutable evidence debunking the CAGW theory is never mention, let alone addressed, by the warmanistas!
1. There has never been a runaway greenhouse effect in the past even though CO2 levels have been more than a magnitude of order greater. In fact, over the last 650,000,000 there has been no correlation between CO2 and temperatures.
2. ALL of the ice cores show that rising temperatures cause CO2 levels to rise, not the other way around.
3. The temperatures of the current interglacial peaked in the bronze age when there were no other forcing at work and CO2 levels were lower.
As this post by Jo demonstrates, the empirical evidence overwhelmingly shows that the MWP was warmer then it is now. Yet, CO2 levels were lower. As the ice melts in the Alps as a result of a slight but very much welcomed warming since the end of the LIA (1850) they are now discovering evidence of medieval civilization. Who knows, if it warms a little more perhaps grapes can once again grow in Northern England and Greenland may be green again?
If only climate scientist were searching for the truth rather than promoting a political agenda. From http://epw.senate.gov/hearing_statements.cfm?id=266543
Yep, a real “inconvenient truth”.
00
And notice that historically, all the raised temperatures periods are those of human prosperity.
Bronze age, RWP, MWP. The colder periods.. not so.
What have the AGW bletheren got against human prosperity ?????????
00
Well that is bloody lucky, because if there had been a runaway greenhouse effect we wouldn’t be here, would we?
However, Eddy, it has been a lot hotter in the past, particularly in the recent past before the ice ages started. Could we return to this ice free state?
11
“Could we return to this ice free state?”
If it means warmer temps during winter, more CO2 for plant life..
seems like a pretty darn good scenario to me. 🙂
note. you seem to accept that the Arctic may have been ice free at some time in the past.. we still have polly bears.. ie , they survived… therefore , what is the problem ??
00
It is not “luck” John, it is impossible. If rising CO2 levels could cause a runaway greenhouse effect through a positive feedback from increased water vapor it would have already happened. How could we have a runaway greenhouse effect at 400 ppm when it did not occur at 4000 ppm?
We have seen ice ages at CO2 levels of greater than 4000 ppm! Think before you hit the post comment button, John!
01
Think before you hit the post comment button, John!
…there you go again Eddy!
Asking unreasonable demands….
🙂
00
A quick look at Ljungqvist’s 120 proxies reveals ITRDB CA534, otherwise known as the Graybill – Sheep Mountain strip bark proxies. Steve McIntyre has investigated this in detail a number of times, at it is one of the most notorious proxies used to suppress the MWP. For instance, in debunking Tamino’s defence of Mannian Hockey Sticks, McIntyre shows that a PhD student failed to replicate the results.
It could be that Ljungqvist’s result’s marginally understate the MWP significance as a result.
00
Boy it sure is getting hot outside…… Oh that’s just summer.
Great post, I can’t wait to hear the warming carbonista comments
00
A quick look at Ljungqvist’s 120 proxies reveals on page 236
Where the numbers represent Longitude & Latitude.
Could this be the study that relied on Yamal 06? The one where Dr Keith Briffa took a Russian proxy study that showed no C20th warming, removed 95% of the late C20th warming and hey presto gets a huge C20th hockey stick. See Figure 2 of Steve McIntyre’s analysis from a FOI request.
It could be that Ljungqvist’s result’s marginally understate the MWP significance as a result of the inclusion of this proxy study.
00
Thanks for those details. What we also don’t know is just how many times researchers started to look at a proxy — didn’t like the results — “they don’t make sense”– and never bothered to publish or pursue those records further.
Think of how the law dome results sat unpublished for 2 decades. Top quality resolution, but showing a cooling trend.
Scientists should not be funded to study a crisis — not unless equal funding is provided to find there is no crisis. (And may the best team win).
Perhaps scientific institutions (CRC’s and Uni’s) ought to compete for reputational ranking on only one point – how successful their predictions are. Perhaps instead of “citation” ranking we need universities to post up their predictions to an independent centre which will keep track of which predictions were later borne out by observations.
Universities which allow researchers to make illogical statements and who resort to fallacies (like Stefan Lewandowsky and Clive Hamilton) ought to lose points in the ranking.
00
Jo,
Surely you are not suggesting that there should be objective measurements of academic endeavour, are you?
Why that is crass commercialism at its worst. Being measured and compared on some league table? Whoever heard of such a thing?
/sarc
00
A nice idea but if you want a following, fame and fortune you can’t get it by telling people they have no problem. If you do that then no one needs you and good bye fame; hello oblivion. No, it’s got to be the folks like us who must stay sharp enough to call it the way it is and always keep up the pressure.
00
Well said.
00
Jo,
It is being predicted that the next IPCC report will push more uncertainty with the models.
Still wrapping their futures on CO2 as the climate changer.
Bunch of useless wasteful politicians who advocate for more money to solve the uncertain problem of warming…or not.
00
In comments #5 and #7 I have noted that Ljungqvist’s 120 proxies included two of the most notorious proxies that suppressed the medieval warm period.
The trail does not end there however. The list of proxies on pages 236 and 237 reveals studies of
Searches of climateaudit.org will reveal problems in all of these studies.
It might be that there are proxy studies included that overstate the MWP. Also the studies do not include the Gaspe series – possibly the worst of Mann’s tree-ring proxies. But, given the huge effort (and matching funding) to suppress natural climate variations, any proxy study that aims to include every available proxy will have a bias against the MWP. It is a bit like taking an opinion poll in Australia of voting intentions by only selecting Labor-dominated areas. In opinion polls you can offset this bias by asking people how they voted in the last general election and weighting current preferences accordingly. It is not so clear how you eliminate the bias in proxy studies. But, this study reaffirms my own findings. To maintain that the 1990s were the warmest of the millenium requires flawed analysis on a number of levels. This is true of the output of both Micheal Mann and Joelle Gergis. Remove some of the flaws and the C20th warming ceases to be unusual.
As always, do not simply accept or reject my assertions. Compare and contrast the arguments and reach your own conclusions.
00
I’ll add to MBC’s comments about tree ring work that Steve McIntyre has a nice post from a while back on the amazing finds from the Roman warm period which were emerging from the melting ice in the summer of 2003, at the height of the current warm period.
In other words unless a whole pile of people in around 200 AD climbed the glacier then carefully buried stuff in the ice to look like it was supposed to be there, the Roman warm period existed and was warmer than today.
Very little of this appeared in the press at the time, and it has been carefully forgotten since.
00
Who said dead men tell no tales? So, cue JB, Catamon, Sillyfilly or Adam Smith to tell us how the RWP, MWP and Bronze Age climate optimums were only localised to the Swiss Alps to the exclusion of the rest of the world (ie. by what mechanism could this possibly occur, and especially at altitude?), or failing that how man’s activities caused such wild fluctuations in climate independent of CO2?
00
They appear to be busily engaged elsewhere…………………………………………………………………..
Crickets…………………..
Even more crickets……………………
Even more and louder crickets………………….
Radioactive, mutant, 10 foot tall blood sucking crickets……………………….
Arrrrhrdghghghghghghghghgghhgh………………………
00
Sorry,
My fault, Adam has been digging himself another hole elsewhere.
00
Australian cricket does suck.. at the moment ! :-(((
00
We are still better than NZ Andy…:)
00
I wonder if CAGW-advocates will ever admit that they are wrong about the MWP. How long can they drag this out for? It seems that every day more and more people are getting more skeptical about CAGW, surely they can’t keep this pantomime up forever? Then again, perhaps they can. Go to Wikipedia and it still cites Mann’s Hockey Stick as valid science, which has probably misled thousands, possibly millions of many people into thinking that his graph is the orthodoxy. The towers of lies have to come down, sonner or later.
00
Loved “the tower of lies”.
Have engineering wet dreams of its collapse and then seeing the collective condemnation of all who profited from the scam: politicians, banksters, journalists, “Climate Scientists?” UN hangers on, the IPCC mafia and the ever present Naifs who keep the WWF executive in the style to which they and most alarmists leaders have come to expect.
KK 🙂
00
[…] update: hat tip […]
00
Now all you have to do is show how the cause of MWP is the same cause as today’s. Oh and perhaps think about the other half of the planet too, not just the Northern Hemisphere.
Cheers Big Ears.
00
If you click the very first link in the post, you’ll see that the Southern Hemisphere has been covered. Doh!
Really? Are you sure you haven’t got that bassackwards?
Afterall, it’s the activist econut scientists who claim the current (so called) warming is unprecedented and they’ve got access to all the grants and resources.
00
Guess you skipped the IPCC report containing peer reviewed science that demonstrates that GHG’s are responsible for most of the modern warming today.
I look forward to seeing how you do with finding a cause for the MWP and how you can attribute it to todays warming, as well as reverse our physical understanding of GHGs.
00
.
We will happily attribute “today’s warming” to something when you can show us “today’s warming”.
In case you haven’t noticed, the current official trend is cooling.
00
Someone should tell the oceans to stop gaining heat.
Global oceanic heat content 0-700 m depth
00
Sorry, can’t do that.
At least not for as long as “The Team” have propriety rights to calculating OHC in the first place.
You DID know OHC was a calculated, not measured, quantity, didn’t you?
Basically they calculate the amount of heat energy there SHOULD be, if their models were correct, and what the global temperatures SHOULD be, if their models’ calculation of heat energy were correct.
Then they look at what temperatures REALLY are, and how much heat energy is REALLY involved, and voila ! – “missing heat”.
Then they attribute the “missing heat” to the oceans, because there’s nowhere else to account for it. Simples.
If you follow your own link and scroll up a few graphs, you will some of oceans surface temperatures, which are all now DROPPING (a measured, not calculated value). This creates two conundrums for you:
First, how can the ocean deeps be accumulating energy if the ocean surfaces are losing it? and second:
What on earth has any of this to do with CAGW anyway? Alleged CO2-induced CAGW is supposed to be happening in the atmosphere. The oceans transfer heat energy TO the atmosphere not FROM it.
How is the atmosphere allegedly transferring significant amounts of heat energy to the oceans to account for the alleged increase in OHC?
00
You know chris,
Its amazing what can happen when the gate keeper for the ARGO data is a warming zealot and simply engages in Cooling the Oceans by discarding inconvenient data
What fun…
You just gave me a Good Feeling
Please come back and visit again – I just love sharpening the tools of reason on the blunt whetstones of warmist minds.
00
Would that be the bit about the glaciers all melted by 2035?
Or the stuff on looking after boots from a mountaineering guide?
Or the approximately 30% of material that was sourced back to Greenpeace and WWF advocates?
Come on, it’s a big report. Help us narrow it down a bit.
00
Oh my! Do you know Chris, on this planet there are comparatively few people who can correctly claim to have audited the IPCC AR4 report. I am one of them.
And yes, I must have missed the bit that “demonstrates” that GHGs are responsible for most of the modern warming.
Would you be kind enough to provide a link to that bit please?
00
Peer reviewed science has not explained how come temperatures have not risen since 1998 while GHG’s have increased exponentially. That doesn’t fit the CAGW theory. Nor does the periods of cooling since industrialisation. What it does point to in fact is some form of natural cyclical variability which the peer reviewed science is in greater consensus regarding. That is solar cycles.
Many scientists who contributed to the IPCC report consider it a travesty that the politically motivated ‘Summary for Policy Makers’ did not reflect the uncertainty of the causes of global warming that was reflected in the main body of the scientific reports.
It is only activists and ideologically driven politicians who claim the peer reviewed science actually attributes most of the warming to human GHG emissions. If that were the case, we would also have a consensus as to how much exactly of the warming could be attributed to human GHG emissions. Show me the peer reviewed references.
00
Oh… that would be the same IPCC that began an enquiry into the impacts of Man Made Global Warming with the predetermined conclusion that Man Made Global Warming (1) Existed, and (2) was Catastrophic.
Now that’s intellectually sound isn’t it?
Cart before horse and what not…..
Didn’t they teach logic and reasoning when/where you went to school – or did you just fail to learn it.
(…(wanders off stage)… mumbling too self… well a predetermined conclusion whould shape the epistemological methodology that would be used, methods that favoured the conclusion (models, proxies, confirmation bias) would be selected over those that didn’t (radiosondes, satellites, etc), human nature, so inclined to believe what it wants to believe, even in the face of contrary evidence (cognitive dissonance), what can be done?…)
00
Maybe someone should tell Mann and the IPCC.
After, Mann’s infamous graph, for so long the poster child of the IPCC, was only for NH temperatures.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hockey_stick_chart_ipcc_large.jpg
Don’t you just love the twisted logic?
It’s not enough to establish that it really DID happen, after a decade of denial by the cultists.
It’s not enough to demonstrate it WASN’T caused by CO2.
It’s not enough to establish there’s absolutely nothing unusual happening that hasn’t happened before.
00
33 comments in – not a single warmist to be seen?
Where are they all hiding?
00
right above you EX
🙂
00
But this one is very much a low level entity.
Nowhere near as knowledgable or sophisticated as Adam 😉
00
Missed it by “that” much!
00
Problem with warmists particularly of the alarmist kind. If the real facts get in the way.
They just tend to ignore them or worse do a Goebbels and want to try and censor any or do a tirade against anyone especially in the MSM for presenting them. Instead of just presenting the same old, same old Warmist line.
That’s why hardcore warmists tend to stay on their cyberfantasy Warmist World when the facts get in the way and censor out any that incoveniently do and call those even with qualified science credentials who says differently to them a Climate Crank or Climate Kook. They can be very good at applying double standards when it comes to name calling aswell.
00
19 July: Reuters: Nina Chestney/Jeff Coelho: UN sees future for carbon scheme despite price drop
The United Nations’ carbon offset market has a long future in helping the world curb man-made greenhouse gas emissions, even with carbon prices at record lows, the executive chairman of the U.N. Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) said on Thursday…
The benchmark CER contract hit record lows below 3 euros this week…
“I don’t see the current low prices as affecting the longevity of the CDM,” Maosheng Duan, the executive board chairman of the CDM, said in an emailed statement.
“The CDM is a mature mechanism that has proved its worth,” he said…
But U.N. offset schemes will remove at best 2 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalent over a five-year compliance period through 2012, barely making a dent in some 170 billion in fossil-fuel emissions over that time, analysts say…
But the crash in prices has been hard on many project developers, particularly those that have contracted to buy carbon credits at prices much higher than current levels.
“This downward movement is extremely negative for project developers,” said Gus Hochschild, alternative energy equity analyst at Mirabaud Securities, adding low prices could cause the liabilities of some companies to outstrip their cash positions.
Some project developers, such as Camco International and Trading Emissions Plc have been renegotiating or adjusting their contracts in a bid to help cut losses…
Prices for CERs often follow movements in EU permits called EU allowances (EUAs) and both markets are over-supplied, which has dragged prices to record low levels.
Even if EUAs recover when details of the Commission’s fix emerge, CERs could continue to drop to near zero, some analysts warned this week…
“It is certainly not the death of the market and we expect CERs to carry on trading even if we won’t see the heady prices of 13 euros again,” a carbon trader said.
“I can understand panic when a lot of companies’ portfolios are five euros under water but the EU and U.N. have the ability to limit supply and decide which credits are eligible and where. It’s not all doom and gloom,” he added.
http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/07/19/un-carbon-price-idINL6E8IJFUT20120719
00
20 July: Scoop New Zealand: Carbon News: Forester Says NZ Now Has “Clayton’s” ETS
Media Release, Carbon News: New Zealand’s Emissions Trading Scheme is now a Clayton’s scheme, says the man who spent five years fighting for carbon credits for forest owners.
Roger Dickie, of the forestry investment company Roger Dickie New Zealand, is reported in New Zealand’s specialist carbon market information service, Carbon News, today as saying the Government’s decision not to restrict the free flow of international credits into the New Zealand market was “the final blow”.
Carbon prices are at an all-time low in the wake of new uncertainty over the legality of the European Union’s plans to restrict carbon supply.
Spot New Zealand emission trading units (NZUs) – the units held by most New Zealand forest owners – closed between $5.15 and $5.20 last night.
The New Zealand Government had proposed imposing restrictions on the number of international units such as CERs and ERUs that New Zealand emitters could use to meet their carbon obligations, but backed off at the last minute because of fears it would push carbon prices up in this country.
Dickie, who led the forest owners’ fight for ownership of the credits generated by the carbon stored in their trees, has told Carbon News that he remains optimistic that in the long-term carbon prices will rise.
But in the meantime, carbon forestry is a non-starter, he says.
“Everybody is sitting on their hands and doing nothing,” he said. “The Government isn’t committed to it. It’s a Clayton’s ETS and there’s not much we can do about it.”…
http://business.scoop.co.nz/2012/07/20/carbon-news-forester-says-nz-now-has-claytons-ets/
00
Adam Smith, where are you? We miss you! (NOT!)
Ken
00
Come on – don’t be harsh.
Adam was fun.
Adam – please come back.
00
nah, give it another couple of days, my sides are still aching from laughing. 🙂
00
The damage this and its many preposterous iterations has done is incalculable.
00
ALERT MODERATORS: Both these images are in gif format if you wish to insert them here.
Hey look, sorry people, this is way off topic, but was just too irresistible to pass up.
As most of you know, I am the editor of the site where I contribute, and each day I cruise the sites we are allowed to copy Posts from.
Oddly, three of them have videos posted to their sites, and as I accessed each video, there was an ad for ‘Come talk with Julia’ How touching.
However, there I was at NewsBusters when this advertisement piqued my interest.
Some of you will remember a few weeks back now I mentioned an ad (at that same U.S. site)for Adelaide University and their new course, a Masters degree course in Applied Innovation and Entrepreneurship.
I even included an image they were using to advertise the course. That image showed, of all things an Incandescent Light Bulb. How stupid can you get.
Here’s that original image.
Adelaide University
It must have severely embarrassing for them, as that ad soon disappeared, so luckily I copied it.
Now, lo and behold, there I was today, and this new ad for the same course has appeared. Gone is the incandescent light globe, replaced by a new curly CFL globe.
So, I copied and saved the image, and then loaded it into one of my image Programmes, and converted it to JPEG and also gif, so it could be used here at this site.
Here is the new image for that same course.
Adelaide University 01
I have absolutely no illusions whatsoever that anything I mentioned originally had any influence on them to change the image, but at least we can see both images and realise that something made them change it.
Say, isn’t Adelaide Uni one of the hidey holes for our good Doctor. I wonder if …. naah!
Oh, what a hoot!
Tony.
——————————————————-
Definitely OT Tony, but we’ll let it slip as you are such a solid contributor. We also think that you should maybe seek commission from Adelaide Uni’s advertising agency. – Mod
00
Is the 2nd image, with all it’s cast off incandescents , suggesting the energy saving coil was the innovation ?
Use of incandescents is being banned in Europe. Who’d have thought such a ban might extend to using its image in advertising.
I remember Ericsson using the light bulb to promote its ISDN, in the nineties.
00
Thanks Moderators.
I’m trying really hard to stay on topic these days, because I don’t want to provide ammunition, but this time, I just couldn’t help myself.
I hope you meant commission and not permission!
Tony.
————————————————–
Commission! Mod
00
“replaced by a new curly CFL globe.”
ohh those luvly mercury filled monstrousities that they say you should dispose by delivering to special recycling places that don’t exist.
the ones you need 4 or 5 of so can actually see ??
is them the ones ??
00
Well Tony, while we are O/T, can I push it a bit more….
Can you (or anyone) please provide current comparisons of power around the world compared to Oz?
I believe it is the cost of Solar and Wind subsidies that are really causing OUR power bills to go up 50% in 2 or 3 years….
After all, I have heard South Korea can import our coal, burn it, and sell it cheaper than what we do it for???
WTF ??
Is that for real?
Aprreciate any help guys and dolls ….
00
I clicked on that image.
Now it haunts me on the web, showing up at inconvenient times and places.
Now my wife is now accusing me of wanting to do a degree at Adelaide University.
The Shame, The Horror….
Damn Google!!!
00
I walked through the Adelaide University campus yesterday. The damn place is never finished. I reckon there have been cranes on that site since 1972. Lots of money there.
00
Off topic post here but I think it is a worry that there is a very strong chance that tomorrow’s by-election in Melbourne for the Legislative Assembly could be won by the Green’s, Cathy Oke. Either way it will be close.
You can read about it more though this link:
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/melbournes-changing-colours-20120719-22cwd.html
The Liberal party have no put up a candidate although a member of the Liberal party is running as an independent. Quite amusingly, there is a a candidate who would be regarded as an extreme climate change alarmist who said that unless we tackle climate change, humans will not be able to inhabit everywhere under Bendigo. There are 16 candidates running.
Sorry for the off-topic post but I think this is an important result tomorrow.
————————————————–
Perhaps if you had lead with the para about the alarmist candidate it would have been more on topic 🙂 – Mod
00
Fair enough mod, but I think this is a significant issue and there isn’t really a place to put such posts so I just posted it in the most recent thread.
00
You make a good point Juliar.
Jo and Mods, you are the ONLY site worth looking at in Oz, therefore sometimes we might go O/T.
It does not mean any dis-respect, it`s just we aint got anywhere else to go….
Jo Nova WEBSITE ROCKS!!!
We loves you all….even team smith.
JB, JB where for art thou JB?
we love you too.
[If this was an audition, you would get marks for pathos, but as it isn’t try to find some link to the topic – Fly]
00
Coincidentally Climatologist Dr Roy Spencer has just announced the submission of a paper to Journal of Geophysical Research (JGR). He writes here, “I think is quite significant. We used a 1D forcing-feedback-diffusion model of ocean temperature change to 2,000 meters depth to explain ocean temperature variations measured since 1955.”
In criticising the shortcomings of current IPCC 3D models he writes:
“After all, if a climate model can’t even satisfy the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, and global warming is fundamentally a conservation of energy process (net accumulation of energy leads to warming), how then can 3D models be used to explain or predict climate change? I don’t see how the IPCC scientific community continues to avoid mass cognitive dissonance.”
Dr Spencer recognises though that the greatest challenge may be to receive an unbiased peer review process if past experience is any guide!
00
Where is team Smith?
00
Having a beer with Al Gore, Mann, and Flim Flannery down at the Hard Luck Cafe…..
00
And our very own little fem-fraud Gergis.
00
Speaking of which?
Where has she gone?
Perhaps Christmas Island to study crabs…..
(You guys need to get back on topic) CTS
00
Hi Sonny! I’m right here!
00
Hey Adam, how are things?
00
Citation please.
Furthermore, if the MCA was that high, globally, it’d imply a high climate sensitivity, which is bad times for all.
00
Citation please.
00
No need to play dumb Tristan. You would know the IPCC Climate Models assume human green house gas emissions are the main climate driver. It is repeated ad nauseum in the Summary for Policy Makers. There were no significant human GHG’s 1000 years ago or 300 years ago that is why the climate models cannot back cast accurately to those periods. They do not contemplate other climate drivers.
If you disagree and believe Climate Models can indeed explain the warming of 1000 years ago and the cooling of 300 years ago then we all look forward to your citation.
Solar activity is far better correlated to global temperature in the shorter time frames, but there are multiple factors which impact on earth’s climate. To think the earth is so fragile that human GHG emissions could cause catastrophic climate change is scientifically naive when there is so much bigger things affecting our planet than a fraction of a percent of atmospheric gas. We have a huge molten core which is circulating beneath the crust and consistently breaking through the surface. There is a huge magnetic field. There is a massive sun. The entire solar system and the universe. Maybe you could read this for a start? http://robertkernodle.hubpages.com/hub/The-Cosmology-Climate-Connection-How-Extraterrestrial-Forces-Influence-The-Weather
00
Hi Jaymez
Have appreciated all of your recent posts.
They are forceful.
KK
00
Very good background informational post, my personal take on how this applies to predicting the changes in the climate can be found here;
http://research.aerology.com/natural-processes/galactic-perspective/
http://research.aerology.com/aerology-analog-weather-forecasting-method/
00
I’m sceptical about your approach to “predicting the changes in the climate” because your webpage is predicting that the temp today in Adelaide will reach the mid 30s, but in the early afternoon it is currently 16.2.
http://www.aerology.com/home?location=Australia&mapType=Tmax&date=07/21/2012
The same map also shows that there will be parts of Tasmania that will have a max of -5 close to other areas that will have a max around 35, which just doesn’t seem logical; especially when you factor in that the current temp in Hobart is 14.7, with the current recorded max being 15.2 at 2 pm:
http://www.bom.gov.au/products/IDT60901/IDT60901.94970.shtml
The precipitation map shows falls of up to about 0.75 inches (about 19 millimetres) in Perth, Sydney, and Brisbane, but according to the BOM, there’s been 0mm in each of those locations since 9 AM:
http://www.aerology.com/?location=Australia&mapType=Prcp&date=7%2F21%2F2012
Maybe your system has been calibrated for U.S. data? Because the maps it spits out for Australia look nice (well, it would be nice if at the very least the capital cities were labelled) but they are completely uninformative.
00
Say, Doctor, (against my better judgement) tell us what you think of Hayden Walker.
Tony.
00
Seriously off topic in this thread, albeit will interest most. In a recent essay “How to Kill an Economy” US CFA Ned Schmidt writes, in connection with France and the USA a seven part strategy:
1. Higher taxes on incomes of successful individuals.
2. Taxes on the wealth accumulated by the work of someone else.
3. Higher taxes on those that work.
4. High government pensions funded by the above higher taxes.
5. Government regulations that effectively prevent companies from hiring workers.
6. Higher government spending, a.k.a. vote buying, funded by borrowed money
7. Higher future taxes to pay for the above mentioned vote buying.
Sound like somewhere familiar? http://www.financialsense.com/contributors/ned-schmidt/how-to-kill-an-economy
00
Hi Tony. What rank did you retire as? I’m happy to address you by your correct title if you want me to.
I guess you are referring to the guy that runs this website?
http://www.worldweather.com.au/
Well he seems to want to charge people and organisations money for a similar sort of analysis that Mr Holle gives away for free.
So I would have to say I don’t think much of him at this stage.
00
Perhaps maybe you might comment on the information at this link:
History Of Walkers Weather
And perhaps a more accurate link to his site would be the following, which has numerous links to sites that even you might find interesting.
Hayden Walker
Tony.
00
Yeah well I read the info and some of the links, particularly those to the NASA webpages because they are interesting.
I’m still not sure why I should trust that guy’s weather forecasts instead of those from the BOM or even the free forecasts on Mr Holle’s site (which seem to use a similar methodology).
Sure he claims that he and his father have a history of making accurate weather predictions, but he doesn’t backup any of those claims with evidence.
I also found the following disclaimer quite amusing
http://www.worldweather.com.au/Request.htm
I mean he says he is 80% accurate, doesn’t back that claim up with any evidence, but then he adds a disclaimer to his webpage that seems to imply that even after you pay him to do some forecasting he won’t guarantee at all that it will be accurate!
If he is so confident about his track record of 80% accuracy, wouldn’t he at least provide some level of guarantee to be accurate within an agreed on margin of error else you get your money back?
But anyway, he seems to like the Mars rovers. I’m very much looking forward to Opportunity landing on Mars in just under 16 days:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/msl/index.html
(And Tony, Opportunity is nuclear powered, which means there’s no need to pray that the rovers get enough sunlight to keep their heaters working during the Martian winter!)
00
My correct title is Mister if you wish to that formal, but everyone just refers to me as Tony.
You’re the one who subliminally suggested we refer to you as Doctor, so, having an understanding of the conventions, then that’s why I do that. After all, it’s only being correct, in much the same manner as you use your own Post Nominal.
Some Officers of Senior rank may be referred to by their former rank.
However for the rest of us, upon discharge, other members of the Military, no matter how long they served, just go back to being ordinary citizens, and we are not allowed to use that rank again.
But then, you already knew that didn’t you?
Tony.
00
Keep in mind that this is analogous.
And right there is another example of how some people have no concept of the Military ethos. To most, they are just a mindless bunch of programmed robots who (now) receive grudging respect, because do not ever be seen to denigrate anybody from the Military, well, within public earshot anyway, but even I remember being referred to as a ‘baby killer’.
People have no understanding of Military discipline. They just think it’s there to programme the ‘robots’. At the start, it is rigorously imposed, and that’s what people see.
However, what it does is something subliminal, with the longer you serve. All those things become automatic, and you do them without thinking. The originally imposed enforced discipline then becomes self discipline, and the longer you serve you gradually realise that.
We are taught respect for anybody senior, and over time that then becomes a natural thing, and here I have an example from the U.S.
A Senior serving Army Officer was appearing before a U.S. Senate Committee, and it was being chaired by a female Senator from California.
As is Military convention, even among senior ranking officers, he referred to her as ‘Ma’am” with every response, exactly as he had been instructed to do right from his own initial training, and something he did absolutely naturally.
Her perception, as a liberal (how they refer to Democratic Party members in the U.S.) was that he was doing this to have a ‘snide dig’ at her. He addressed the male Senators as Sir, and the female Senators as Ma’am, and she was the only one who ‘took offence’. She angrily berated him and demanded that he refer to her as Senator, which he did from then on, but remained with Sir and Ma’am for all others.
That video went around the Country like wildfire, and I am absolutely certain that amongst ALL members of the Military, she was a laughing stock who had no concept that he was showing her the respect that she deserved.
It is the same when I refer to you as Doctor. As soon as I found out, from that point forward, I have always addressed you as Doctor.
It’s just all those years of training, and ‘doing’ that I do that.
And that is what those from the Left will never understand about the Military. They quietly do what it is that they always do, and their original enforced discipline is now something that comes to them automatically.
Way way off topic I know, but even I can sense how you ‘come across’ here.
Tony.
00
I am not going to ask if I can but in here, because I already have …
Another thing that Tony did not mention, because it is subliminal, is that the military rank you hold, whatever it is, is immaterial – it doesn’t matter what rank you are. What does matter is the relativity of ranks; A is senior to B, so B refers to A as Sir, or Ma’am. It is the relative seniority that defines responsibility. If something goes wrong, it is the senior ranking person who is answerable.
If you have ever seen the movie, “Zulu”, the two Officers present, try to establish their relative seniority, before the battle. It comes down to one being commissioned a few days before the other. Once that has been settled, they know how the system works, and get on with the job.
The only exception to the rule, is when you have a non-specialist Officer in charge of non-commissioned technical specialists: In all matters to do with the technical speciality, the senior specialist make all of the technical decisions, not the Officer. But it is still the Officer who takes responsibility for those decisions, should they be wrong. This requires a degree of professional trust, which always seems to be there in the military.
Many corporations work in the same way, especially in America. You have only to look at Apple, and Microsoft to see how well it works.
And a final comment for Adam, it is only Flag officers (Admirals and Generals, and the like) who are addressed by their rank after they leave the service. Neither Tony nor I reached that exalted station in life, so your gesture towards Tony, although well meaning, was not really appropriate.
00
Sure some people think that. But there are many other people who realise that there are reasons for military discipline because diligently following orders and respecting the chain of command are principles that exist for very good reasons. In a military setting people’s lives are often at stake. If someone doesn’t carry out an order properly that can directly or indirectly result in someone dying or being seriously injured.
Rather than angrily berating him she should’ve just politely requested to be referred to as “Senator” if she found “Ma’am” annoying.
But on the other hand, I am surprised that the officer wasn’t told beforehand to address all of the Senators as “Senator” considering that is their correct title.
A long time ago I signed up a South Australian senator for a credit card for a department store I was working at. He presented his passport as part of his I.D. Even his passport had his title as Senator and mentioned he was a Senator of the Australian Parliament; I guess in case he was ever involved in any difficult diplomatic circumstance while overseas.
Oh come off it Tony. The only federal MP who has served our country in the military, including during the last Iraq war (as well as East Timor) is a Labor MP! In fact he was in the army for 20 years before being elected to parliament in 2007:
http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FHRI%22;querytype=;rec=0
Graeme Edwards, the previous MP for Cowan in W.A., a LABOR MP, volunteered (he wasn’t conscripted) to serve in Vietnam where he lost both of his legs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Edwards_(politician)
Whatever you think about Gough Whitlam, you can’t take away the fact that while study law at uni he joined the Army Reserve in 1939, and volunteered for the RAAF after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, where he served until 1945. Unlike many who used university study as a reason for not serving, Whitlam put his law degree on hold so he could serve our country as a bombardier.
Or what about Lionel Bowen, who died earlier this year. He was a minister in the Whitlam government and Deputy Prime Minister to Hawke from 1983 to 1990. He served in the Second Australian Imperial Force (that’s a volunteer force) from 1941 to 1945:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lionel_Bowen#Personal_life
It makes no sense to treat the “Left” as some homogeneous group that is all anti-military. There are numerous Labor MPs who have served our nation with distinction in the military. Just as there are many Liberal and National (or Country Party) MPs who did exactly the same.
00
OK Mister Tony!
When did I make such a “subliminal” suggestion? How is it even possible to make a subliminal suggestion via words on a screen?
It is really only appropriate to call a Ph.D. “Doctor” in an academic setting. But anyway, if that is really what you want to call me then go for it.
(Interesting stuff guys but let’s get back on topic about,Medieval Warm Period found in 120 proxies. Plus Roman era was similar to early 20th Century) CTS
00
Thank you Jo , but will this get to the voters via government subsidized “Free TV”? I suspect not.
00
Jo, agreed that this has gone off topic, but this comment from Smith:-
Is WRONG,,,
Clearly, smiffykins can’t find it in himto acknowledge the father of Campbell Newman, Lieutenant Colonel Kevin Newman.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Newman_(politician)
As can be seen, Kevin Newman won the Federal Tasmanian seat of Bass in 1975 in a massive swing.
Oh, but of course, 1975 is prehistoric according to our smiff!
00
Well, Doctor Smith, fancy you being caught out yet again, and Moderators, sorry to continue this after your polite mention. Doctor, you say here:
There is of course Stuart Robert, the CURRENT Coalition member for Fadden, who had a 12 year career with the Army, prior to his election to Federal Parliament in the 2007 federal election.
I didn’t need to go looking for this as Stuart is a friend, and was my local member when I lived on the Gold Coast, and in fact, presented me with one of my Service Medals as indicated in this image, with Stuart on the right.
Stuart Robert
See how one eyed you are Doctor.
Tony.
00
Hmm,
Airborne Warrant Officer on the left? With an aircrew brevet on his chest? Air Electronics?
You’re a bit of a dark horse, Tony.
00
Rereke,
that’s not me. I’m the lone RAAF guy surrounded by the Army. That’s the advantage of being ex Army. When Stuart saw my name on the list, he phoned and asked if I would like to be presented with the medal in a semi official setting, rather than have the Medal just posted to me.
He contacted his friends at Canungra and they sent down a Captain and WOff Costello.
Tony.
00
Hmm, Plausible deniability.:-)
00
I forgot about Stuart Robert. But of course he never served in any military campaign overseas whereas Dr Mike Kelly served in three.
Err what? Your the one that accused everyone in the Left of being anti-military whereas I wrote:
So let me get this straight. You are the say that no one in the Left supports the military. I propose that both Labor and Coalition MPs have served with distinction in the military, but you accuse me of being one eyed?
That is idiotic. You’re better than that mate.
00
What a pathetic line of argument.
You either choose to serve in the military, or you do not. If you choose to serve, you may end up overseas, or you may not. You may end up in action, or perhaps you don’t. You know the uncertainties when you join, and you accept the outcomes. The fact that somebody has served overseas, and has possibly seen actiont, is simply a matter of who is available with the appropriate skills, at the time. It is a matter of chance.
It is, or has historically been, part of the Labour Party Manifesto to reduce expenditure on the Military and to withdraw from military conflicts other than UN sanctioned peacekeeping operations.
00
That’s odd, Doctor Smith.
And I was just wondering. You mention the East Timor situation as a campaign.
Then, that being the case, Stuart served in a similar role with his time on Bougainville following the uprising there.
But then I suppose there are Doctor Smith campaigns, and, well, campaigns that, er , don’t count eh!
Come now Doctor Smith. You’re better than that.
Tony.
[Tony. CTS has already asked you to get back on topic – now would be good – Fly]
00
I used Dr Mike Kelly as an example of a CURRENT Labor MP with vast military service.
And he is the only MP of any party who has served in any overseas campaign.
Hence Mr Tony’s assertion that the left is anti military is completely wrong.
[Snip – You made your point without the need for a personal attack -Fly]
00
Saying that Tony demeans himself when he, by implication, attacks military veterans who happen to be left wing isn’t a “personal attack” it is just stating the bloody obvious.
I also note that I have been repeatedly called a “special education student” and a sufferer of “bipolar disorder” without those comments being moderated.
[We do not want to over-moderate the site, so we tend towards leniency, but you are pushing the bounds – Fly]
00
I suppose he’ll now parse his own comment to specify the particular service re Iraq etc. but we all know what he meant.
00
Why would I need to parse my own comment? Dr Mike Kelly has served overseas in three different campaigns which is three more than every other current MP in the federal parliament, including Stuart Robert.
Of course let’s not forget that this proves definitively that it is wrong to assert that the Left is anti-military when numerous Labor MPs have served with distinction in the military.
But why stop at Australia? Was FDR anti-military? What about JFK?
Saying that only the Right supports the military is jingoism at its worst.
00
Yes, He did not want to enter the Second World War. America was content to supply munitions to the European Allies, as their support.
It was the attack on Pearl Harbour that brought America into the war, and the primary focus of the American war effort was in the Pacific.
He was drafted into the navy during the Second World War – no choice there. But he resisted the confrontation with Russia over the Cuban missiles until he had unequivocal photo-reconnaissance of missile sites being built, and even then, he refused to authorise an attack on, or invasion of Cuba.
So now we have eliminated “Historian” from Adam’s potential list of PhD’s.
00
lol would you rather we’d gone to nuclear war with Russia?
00
Just as we all thought, smith. Rather than have the decency to admit you were wrong, you now seek to qualify your original comment. Then you throw in a canard about something I didn’t raise.
Keep it up though, it gives everyone a chance to see you for what you are: Beneath contempt.
00
Campaigns!!!!
Wow.
Next you’ll tell me Cessna 150 carrying a pilot with a nail file is a 5th gen fighter aircraft.
I’ll wager John Monash wished all his campaigns were like Timor, and Bougainville.
Tony.
The End. No more from me on this.Even when he’s wrong, he’s still right.
00
Ian Morris in his history entitled Why the West Rules – For Now makes reference to climate change as one of the horseman of the apocalypse (along with migration, state failure, famine and disease) that have continuously confronted human history with conflict and the need for innovation. His comment on p238 that ” The author of a standard textbook on paleoclimatology says of these years,’If such a disruption of the climate system were to occur today, the social, economic and political consequences would be nothing short of catastrophic.'” Our appalling education system has produced public commentators and policy makers of the “alarmist” persuasion who are incredibly infantile in their response to climate change. The years Morris refers to are all BC (BCE). Climate change is a fact of life on this planet and will always be so. To react fearfully and hysterically (and to incite fear and hysteria) is infantile and a return to primitive and uneducated practices of sacrifices (sometimes live and sometimes human) to appease the weather gods. Not a good sign for the continued and enlightened development of the human species.
00
I really do not understand why there is all this fuss about catastrophic man-made global warming. The reason is simple, and you do not have to be a scientist to prove what I am about to prove to you. It’s really just simple arithmetic.
First, let’s clear up one thing. There is common ground amongst scientists that the following points are true:
1. That CO2 is the most important anthropogenic [trace] greenhouse gas.
2. That a much more important greenhouse factor is the water naturally present in the atmosphere, which contributes some 95% to the total greenhouse effect.
3. That according to the IPCC’s 2007 AR4 report, 97% of the total annual emission of CO2 into the atmosphere comes from natural emissions of the land and sea; human beings adding a mere 3%.
The above points are generally accepted. They are not in dispute.
So here is the reason why there is no coming man-made global warming climate catastrophe:
1. 95% of the greenhouse warmth is due to water in the atmosphere and represents the overwhelming cause for heat retention in the atmosphere.
2. The remaining 5% is due to other factors. 5% is not statistically material.
3. Of the 5%, CO2 is just one of various greenhouse gases and other factors responsible for atmospheric warmth.
4. Taking a worst case scenario, let us assume that CO2, alone, is totally responsible for the 5% atmospheric warmth.
5. Based on IPCC claims, of this 5% warming CO2 component, 97% is due to natural CO2, which leaves 3% due to human factors.
6. This means, as a worse case scenario, the amount of warmth caused by ‘human activity related CO2’ is 0.15% (3% of the 5%).
7. So there you have it… at worst 0.15% of the total greenhouse warmth can be attributed to human activity.
So, to put in its real context:
1. 95% of the atmosphere’s warmth is due to heat retained by water in the atmosphere.
2. 4.85% of the atmosphere’s warmth is due to CO2 that originates from natural sources.
3. 0.15% of the atmosphere’s warmth is due to CO2 that originates from human activity.
How can any intelligent person believe that human activity poses any climate risk to the planet, when human activity is only responsible for, at worst, 0.15% of the warmth in the atmosphere?
The IPCC knows this. But it does not dare present this fact in its reports. It prefers to misrepresent the science, and push political propaganda to demonise CO2.
00
Many newspaper reports in the first half of the 20th century concerned a large scientific consensus that warming temperatures had been observed since around 1850, which ties in with this and numerous other studies identifying that as the end of the global cold snap … http://www.waclimate.net/climate-history.html
An entire generation of observations and media reports is being ignored to produce a fallacy that the climate and temperatures were flat until around the 1960/70s. The warmista retort is that the speed of warming has never matched that of the past 40 years, yet you can find meteorologists in the 1950s who estimated up to 1C global warming since 1850.
I can only assume that meteorology and the media got it wrong back then because they weren’t correctly adjusting the temperature records.
00
Just read this story today (linked). The scientists involved are saying this means man made CO2 is warming the atmosphere at 40 times the natural rate of warming when the last Ice Age ended. I’m genuinely interested what Jo and regular commenters here have to say about this?
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/aussie-antarctic-scientist-in-climate-studies-breakthrough/story-fncvk70o-1226434145677
00
Well Mr C, of curse if you ignore the reality that the ice melted because it got warm, because of orbital mechanics playing its periodic , periodic, periodic part.
It does repeat you know and when the repeated heating causes CO2 to be expressed from the oceans we have ; you guessed it Higher CO2 – outstripping anything we have aver seen, we are doomed, again.
Common man those people in the Antarctic are just looking after their jobs.
KK 🙂
00
Thanks KK, but the crux of this matter is not the cause of warming but the rate of warming. I understand the point about scientists looking after their jobs but I feel we should always debate the science if possible. Science is what the whole ship is built on. Without the scientific authority provided by the IPCC and most western university climate research departments Krugman could not write such things (and likely Australia would not have a carbon tax at all). Economics and politics just gives the alarmists funding, power and influence. People like Paul Krugman and Australia’s Ross Garnaut always fall back the the scientific consensus to justify their arguments in support of taking “action”.
00
Hey everybody
Team Smith is back!
just looky here at Cookie.
Then check out Merv at 32 above.
00
KK, okay so man made Co2 is an insignificant portion of total atmospheric co2 so it can’t be blamed – got it 🙂
Believe me I’m on your side. I’m just looking for answers – the same answers the politicians and every voter needs to be asking when they read or hear such stories. Sorry if they have been answered before here I don’t have the time to read back over previous stories.
00
KK did you actually read what Cookster wrote? He was saying that Krugman wrote what he did because of the crutch provided by the establishment.
00
Sorry GeeAye
I must be having a bad day.
Could you translate that question for me?
KK
ps GA
When Mr Cookster says “man made CO2 is warming the atmosphere at 40 times the natural rate of warming when the last Ice Age ended” I have no option as a scientist but to dump on that as a silly point.
The elephant in the room is his inclusion of the last ice age when ice was 1500 metres deep over New York’s Central Park.
The elephant is asking this.
If there were very few people around driving cars at that time what caused the necessary availability of energy needed to first, get the ice up to zero C, then to provide latent heat of transformation then to heat it up?
Was it perhaps that great unmentionable, NATURE/
KK 🙂
00
We shall see.
First. You need to do better than to link to a news report about a science paper. All sorts of afterthoughts and imbellishments can and do appear in news reports. Sensationalism comes to mind.
Having said that, the paper can be found HERE
You’ll note that NONE of the sensational claims that are in the news report appear in the paper.
The paper is about the lag time between a warming period and the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere. The authors claim, with some evidence, that this lag is somewhere around 400 years (and may be as short as a few decades) rather than the previously thought 800 or so years.
CO2 STILL LAGS TEMPERATURE. NOTHING HAS CHANGED REGARDING THIS FACT.
Thank you for bringing this conformation to our attention.
Perhaps you can enlighten us on where in the paper claims are made that match the sensationalist claims in the news article.
The author is a PhD candidate (not a doctor as claimed by the news report) with numerous other publications. His work seems quite robust (hate that word).
The publication is the Interactive Open Access Journal of the European Geosciences Union called Climate of the Past.
All the published papers can be accessed freely as well as the peer reviewers comments and authors responses. EXCELLENT.
Secondly: In the same journal and by the same author is another paper. This one titled “The last deglaciation: timing the bipolar seesaw.” Found HERE
You’ll note that this paper uses the VERY SAME ice cores used in the previous paper along with additional cores from Greenland.
What it finds is that when Antarctica warms, the Arctic cools and when the Arctic warms, Antarctica cools.
The funny thing about the above is that this is exactly what is happening now. There is some warming in the Arctic and the associated ice loss, and a cooling in the Antarctic with the associated ice gain.
here
and
here
This contradicts CO2s supposed global warming prowess.
I’m genuinely interested in what you have to say about this.
00
Baa, thank you! This is exactly the response I hoped for. I was not aware of fast acting inter-hemispheric coupling mechanisms before, I shall take note.
So is there an explanation why the Arctic is warming (and Antarctic cooling) so much faster now than in the last Ice Age according to the original story? Is it really 40 times faster now or are there shenanigans being played again? I know this won’t matter if the Antarctic is doing the exact opposite but it still helps to know why?
Sometimes being a “not too smart” sceptic the best way to get the answer you are looking for is to ask silly questions here. After all the stories we read and hear in the news are what shapes peoples opinions. In democracies opinions matter. I don’t have time to wade through scientific papers to get the truth which is why I frequent Jo’s blog (but don’t comment often).
00
The claim (in the news report) is that CO2 is rising 40 times faster than in the past. There is no support for this in the actual paper.
However, I draw your attention to the following in the papers abstract..
If CO2 causes temperature increase, according to the paper 80ppm has caused a 10DegC increase.
But now look at this chart here
there has been an 80+ppm increase in CO2 since 1960, but have temperatures increased by anywhere near that? Not even close, not even one tenth.
Clearly, something else caused/causes changes in temperatures. Whatever is the cause, it isn’t global, as the 2nd paper I linked to in my previous comment shows a polar cycle of warming and cooling.
Clearly, the science isn’t settled.
I think some effort on your part in at least locating the paper in question would have been helpful.
I happened to have found your comment interesting enough to hunt the paper down and take the time to read it. But this may not happen every time.
00
A correction to my comment above.
The paper does NOT claim an 80ppm increase in CO2 CAUSED a 10DegC increase in temps.
Badly worded on my part.
The paper claims a 10DegC increase in temps during a time when CO2 levels increased by 80ppm
00
Baa, thank you. I’ll try to spare some more effort next time. Guess the trouble is most everyone who reads these stories won’t spare the time to hunt the papers down either – in fact we shouldn’t need to. When we have media, government funded scientists and Economists like Krugman deciding what news we read it’s no wonder this is such a hard batttle to win.
00
Well Cookster, we both got lucky. Jo put up a new post about that Pedro paper news releases.
I think you should get a hat tip.
00
Here’s another one, this time in the Sydney Morning Herald re printed from Paul Krugman of the NYT. Krugman links the current drought in Midwestern USA to man made climate change. Seems there’s a long way to go before this ‘war’ is won when you still have academics of Krugman’s influence on the alarmist’s side?
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/loading-the-climate-dice-20120723-22jqp.html
00
Oh since when was Krugman a “climate expert”?
He’s nothing more than a mouthpiece for all things Leftist.
00
Mark, I didn’t say Krugman was a “climate expert” but he is someone of influence whether we like it or not. Our “job” is to to see that people like Krugman are seen for what they are and either loose influence or change their views on climate science and the resulting public policies.
00
Sorry, That wasn’t meant to be a personal jab and you are right we need to have things seen for what they are.
In case you need more ammunition for today’s “news” consider that the recent super-warm and drought in the USA has been seen before: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936_North_American_heat_wave
It was the principal cause of the “Dust Bowl”. http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2004/0319dustbowl.html Careful though, people love to criticize human activity (again) for causing the “excessive farming” and poor erosion control. While these certainly have something to do with the event, the lack of rain and high winds were not caused by the farmers.
Today’s hot dry weather in the USA is already being paraded around as “evidence” of AGW. Those of us that recall history know otherwise.
00
Cookster, often the problem is with spin and stunts. Those of what we might term the GetUp/Green Left are always looking for new ways to promote climate alarmism. For example, they might decide to buddy up to skeptics and ask earnest questions while suggesting links to certain articles of the alarmist persuasion. Some of these articles may be outrageously manipulative, with any-old pictures of any-old melting ice.The text may be the usual mish-mash of factoids and speculation.
I don’t know if you’ve encountered this kind of prob yet. Just thought I’d alert you to that possibility. These are tricky little kids we’re dealing with.
00
More here: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/drought/drght_paleo.html looking at the paleo precipitation graphics says there is nothing new here.
00
Thank you all for your responses. Per my reply to Baa I will try to find the time do some more research in future. I guess what this has taught me is that despite the still continuous flow of alarmist stories in the media and from our politicians there usually are sound explanations for our climate that don’t blame humanity. In hindsight I can see how my postings could have been misconstrued as one of those “tricky little kids of the GetUp/Green Left” as Mosomoso put it. Believe me those are the last people I’d wish to be compared to 🙂
My point stands though that the average “layman” shouldn’t have to independently research every alarmist story we come across.
00
Well Mr C, of course it’s in the SMH.
Who else would print that rubbish.
I didn’t read it. Can someone else confirm it was junk?
KK 🙂
00
Paul Krugman is not a scientist but a Left Wing economist who pontificates, in the New York Times on many subjects about which he knows very little including the Earth’s climate.
The thing that “consensus” climate scientists and economists have in common is their predictions are invariably incorrect in that they never eventuate.
00
Thanks for sharing!!
30
Joanne Nova says:
But the “website that shall not be named says:
CO2Science claim their analysis is legitimate because they use peer-reviewed science – let’s be clear about this. The papers listed in their analysis are peer-reviewed however CO2Science’s own analysis and conclusion are NOT peer-reviewed; they can and do make many mistakes.
CO2Science is not concerned with how much warming occurred Globally during the entire MWP, so long as some warming occurred during some part near 950 AD and 1250 AD, then they are happy to include that as a +1 for MWP evidence, even if the majority of the temperature indicates a colder MWP.
And if you examine any of the many graphs that were reproduce by thewebsitethatshallnotbename, then it appears that CO2Science is deliberately trying to fool the suckers that wander into their site, or are directed there by the like of Nova.
Poor form!
22
Mr/Ms/Mrs Nice, itsnotnova has over 80 mentions or links on my site and nearly 100 comments, including lengthy personal replies – (essentially about a non-point, until he/she refused to provide a name or provide an honest conversation and stop wasting my time). If he could only stick to being logical and show some judgement and he/she gave a real name, they’d be commenting. Ask them why they hide? Could it be because their reasoning is too embarrassing to connect it to their career and family?
E.G. 1. Look above, the first point he/she/you raises is a waste-of-time illogical ad hom. Why bother? Small minds focus on small things.
2. I’ve already explained that Ljungqvist, is peer reviewed, and used 120 proxies (on this very post, did you miss that?). If you can find 120 proxies that show equal cooling at the same time, you will have neutralized the warming. Good luck with that. If you’ve found a few graphs that you think don’t belong, as I said, write to Craig Idso, he’s very helpful. It doesn’t change the end result. Idso does include studies that show cold periods at the same time, he lists and counts them, as a scientist should. The warmer ones outnumber the cold ones.
Jo
PS: All your comments are now moderated, please self-edit. Low quality comments (illogical, baseless inflammatory content) by anonymous commenters fail the bar. I’m being generous, and let this through today.
12
Yes I did note Ljungqvist, [Not in your reply you didnt – Jo] did you note Chris’s comment (just above mine) about their research.
Here it is again …
[You didn’t acknowledge that my conclusion was based on peer reviewed research, but you thought it was worth raising a point that was not covered in the post, and which I had not written about as if it shows something useful? I’m writing in your comments here just to show how little value they have, and how dishonest the pattern of response is. Changing the topic? Yes, so? Perhaps it was unprecedented in 12 centuries which were mostly cooling ones. There’s no evidence in longer ice cores that this tiny warming in the last century was unusual. But it’s an entirely different topic to the issue of whether the MWP existed. – Jo]
You can ask them or read their About page. I have no interest in who the person is, but they seem very good at picking out the flaws in your arguments.
[And perhaps you will find one relevant example of “a flaw” instead of wasting our time? More bluster. – Jo]
Look above where exactly? Are you saying you won’t respond to the problem of CO2Science moving the MWP around, nor producing gridded analysis because somewhere else an ad-hom is written?
[This is what I mean by wasting time. It was obvious (for those who can spot an ad hom) that in the comment I replied to that you said this sentence below which implies Idso’s research is illegimate because it’s not peer reviewed:
That’s a cop out!
[No It’s a logical error, and a waste of time. – Jo]
Idso’s counting method is flawed for the very reason as posted in the first grap on you nemisis’ website.
http://itsnotnova.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/bad-analysis.png
Big deal if both samples were at some stage warmer. That doesn’t automatically mean the global average is warmer.
Perform Idso’s “counting” method and list those that show some part that is colder than today, again both samples would be included.
[Finally, yes we could discuss Idso’s counting technique. This is the only worthwhile point you have raised. When you have apologized for wasting my time responding to drivel, I’ll try to find time to do that. Do you want a scientific discussion, or are you just here to “point score” and waste my time? Up to you. – Jo]
PS: Ban away Nova – it seems to be the only way you can win an argument. You and I know you are avoiding answering the questions because you either don’t understand, or you do understand and don’t like to admit when you are wrong.
[I’ve not banned anything, though you seem to desperately want to use that term? Another dishonest remark. Demanding answers, then not acknowledging them, and changing the topic is a dishonest technique. – Jo]
20
Finally? It was listed in my original post and on the itsnotnova website.
Minor point? It entirely defeats Idso’s method. a sample could be 10 degrees lower for the entire MWP duration, except for one day when it was higher, and Idso would include it.
That is a flawed approach.
Drivel? Oh you mean like how Idso’s method is exposed and how it weakens your stance in this post?
Respond to the criticism Nova. Stop being a coward.
41
Idso’s technique is limited, and yes, there are better longer, more involved ways of doing things but:
1. His conclusion is similar to the better longer ways of doing things. Large multi-proxy peer reviewed results show the same pattern, but he did it years earlier by himself. A commendable effort.
2. His conclusions also match historical records, ice cores, and 6000 boreholes (Huang and Pollack).
3. He didn’t set out to create a detailed graph, he just wanted to show the MWP was global, supported by the empirical evidence, and to get a yes/no response to the question “Was it warmer or cooler, and can we tell?”
4. The 1000 year old proxies don’t register “one peak day” of temperatures. (You don’t know much about proxies do you?)
5. PLUS if there were 10 degree cooler dips for short periods it would show in this graph here. There weren’t. You are wrong.
6. It doesn’t defeat Idso’s approach at all. In the unlikely event the world was 1 degree average cooler, but 100 sites produced 2+ C hotter 20 year periods at different times over 200 years, his technique could produce a “spurious” warming signal (just as his technique could show spurious cooling if the generally warm period was filled with super cold multi-decadal snaps). But you already know that is not the case from the longer detailed studies. It would also be obvious from eye-balling the 100 or so graphs he used in his level one ranking. So you are point scoring and wasting time over a nothingness issue.
7. I happen to know (because I’ve spoken to him) that there are hundreds of other studies he has yet to finish compiling.
Time for you to show you are here for an honest conversation. I will ask the mods to [snip] completely anything less. You’ve accused me of banning things I don’t ban, of cowardice, sloppy work and intentions to deceive. You’ve wasted my time. No more until this is resolved.
35
Agreed.
Warm congratulations for using Ljungqvist et al. My issue is with CO2Science, not with Ljungqvist. I whole-heartedly and willingly accept their peer-reviewed science and conclusions. Unfortunately, for you, their conclusions are not quite the same as yours.
I reiterate that their studies were based on proxies in the Northern hemisphere, from 30degrees N and above. The Current Warm Period is known to be global.
Your conclusion: “They show that the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) existed, and was similar to current temperatures. These comprehensive studies suggest current temperatures are not unusual“.
This is not the same as Ljungqvist et al that say: “Understandably, the centennial resolution of this study precludes direct comparison of past warmth to that of the last few decades. However, our results show the rate of warming from the 19th to the 20th century is clearly the largest between any two consecutive centuries in the past 1200 yr.” (BTW: your graph of Ljungqvist 2012 is not the same as any of the ones in the paper. Where did you get yours from?)
And your conclusion differs from Christiansen & Ljungqvist who say: “The level of warmth during the peak of the MWP in the second half of the 10th century, equalling or slightly exceeding the mid-20th century warming, is in agreement with the results from other more recent large-scale multi-proxy temperature reconstructions by Moberg et al. (2005), Mann et al. (2008, 2009), Ljungqvist (2010), and Ljungqvist et al. (2012).”
So the MWP existed in the NH, and in some studies it comes close to today’s warming. CO2Science wishes to extend that to include the planet but their oversimplified approach is flawed – read on.
No you are writing here because you have Admin rights.
You posted about Ljungqvist and CO2Science. I responded about CO2Science as I had no qualm about Ljungqvist although as now noted above, your conclusions differ.
Once you’ve found one similar in rate, please let us know along with what caused the warming and how it is also causing the current one. You can be sure we’re not still coming out of an Glacial period.
Rather than blockquote each of your other comments, I will simply number them in like.
1.
This page lists reconstructions (peer-reviewed) from Briffa, Barnett, Bradley, Cook, Crowley, Datsenko, Harris, Holmgren, Huang, Hughes, Jones, Lowery, Karlén, Mann, Oerlemans, Osborn, Shiyatov, Schweingruber, Sonechkin & Tett.
Their studies disagree with Idso.
That Idso did it by himself is irrelevant, although doing it with others might have decreased the risk of using a flawed method. It’s not by accident that science uses the peer review process.
2.
Thank you again for using peer-reviewed papers. Like you, I am critical of time-wasters and I consider Idso’s MWP analysis to be just that.
I’m always happy to consider ALL data, not just the papers I have listed above. However I also recognise that I am no expert myself, I will always heed the advice of the experts no matter how this plays out. Science is about reducing the uncertainty by examining ALL data.
In the case of Huang I also read their more recent paper which explains the differences between some of their papers, including the one you cite. In their words:
The paper also states:
I’m sure that now you’ve read Huang & Pollack describe why Huang & Pollack 97 cannot be used as a comparison to the 20th century, you’ll no longer do that. I’m sure in future you will use their later work. Right?
3.
In order to show it was GLOBALLY warmer, you need to look at all proxy data at a given point in time. It’s useless to show that each was warmer at SOME point in time – all that proves is the climate was variable.
Idso looks for a Yes/no response to the question “was it warmer SOMETIME during the MWP” (and even then Idso is very loose with his labelling of when the MWP starts and finishes).
For example CO2Science’s Columbia Icefield, Canadian Rockies. Idso says “temperatures during the Modern Warm Period are no different from those observed during the Medieval Warm Period (11-12th centuries)”, whereas the actual paper says “for the first half of the eleventh century”.
Looking at the entire MWP period (as highlighted here) most was below the current warm period. The first half of the 11th century was about the same as todays temps, granted, but this is LOCAL temps. Only by looking at other proxies at that same point in time will you get an idea of global temps.
Looking at a second proxy, if you were to horizontally flip this and lay it over the previous example, then it’s obvious the peaks do not line up. The first peaks around 1150, the second at about 800AD.
None the less Idso ticks both as a +1 for evidence of a warm MWP because each at some point near the 950AD-1250AD mark had some local warming which was greater than today, and will slot this into the “MWP is warmer” bucket because he is only looking at the Peak of the LOCAL data.
Gridded reconstruction are ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY in order to understand what the GLOBAL climate was like because they avoid making this mistake.
4 & 5.
Obviously they don’t describe one day nor was the 10 degree figure based on any example. That was a hypothetical example to demonstrate the flaw in Idso’s method. See previous links in 3 for real examples.
5.
The text that goes with that graph says “degree by which peak Medieval Warm Period temperatures either exceeded (positive values, red) or fell short of (negative values, blue) peak Current Warm Period temperatures”.
As I said before, just because one LOCAL site PEAK is higher than the CWP, doesn’t mean it was GLOBALLY peaking at that point in time. You need to look at ALL samples at that point in time in order to tell if it was a global event.
Repeat Idso’s process asking “was it ever cooler in the MWP than today” and you’d get an opposite and equally useless graph.
6.
See explanation and example in point 3. Idso’s approach is NEVER used in any peer-reviewed research. GLOBAL reconstruction is required to see what the GLOBAL climate was doing at any given point in time. Numerous longer studies that perform a gridded reconstruction of the data do not currently support a GLOBAL MWP – see point 2 above.
7.
There may well be hundreds more studies, but if Idso continues to use the “did it contain some warming somewhere near the WMP” approach, with no regard for how the rest of the planet fared, then he is simply repeating the same mistake hundreds of times.
It’s not been a waste of time as far as I am concerned. Whilst gaining a deeper understanding of some topics, along the way I’ve:
– Accepted all peer-review research including your reference to Ljungqvist.
– Highlighted the difference between your conclusion and Ljungqvist et al.
– Shown that Ljungqvist also found similar results to other studies including Mann!
– Shown examples of why Idso’s method is flawed.
– Given reference to Huang’s explanation of the difference between their 97 work and later papers.
Has it been a waste of your time? I’m guessing you will say Yes because this saves you having to read or answer my comments.
Whilst I think you are smart enough to understand what I believe to be the simplest graphical explanation of why Idso’s method is flawed, I also doubt you have it within you to admit error and retract your posts that use Idso’s analysis as evidence. It’s a vested interest that I doubt you would relinquish.
On the chance that you genuinely still don’t understand why Idso’s analysis is flawed, then I expect you’ll repeat your previous statements and call me a time waster.
I have put a great deal of time into my response and if you are sincerely concerned for getting to the truth, then I hope you take the time to properly read, understand and respond.
I am forwarding a copy to itsnotnova as I think I’ve covered some good information that hasn’t had a mention on their site, and I also hope it gives you the impetus to respond in proper manner.
I look forward to your response.
102
Mr/Mrs Nice, I’m delighted you’ve stopped the name-calling and baiting and very much appreciate the improvement, and time and effort you have put into this.
In random order (sorry about the numbering).
1. Thanks for asking about the Ljungqvist graph. You are right, the one in the paper is a better representation. I’ve replaced it. That’s useful.
2. Yes, I’m aware of what Huang said in 2008. I wrote about that in an earlier post. No, for the reasons stated there I was not convinced. “Group-think”
3. This quote agrees with my conclusion, did you mean to say C&L support me?:
Thanks.
Does that apply to the Southern Hemisphere? At least one multiproxy study suggests yes, Loehle et al 2008 did an 18 proxy study which included some from the SH. In order to show that the “world average” was cooler than the present you’d need to show the SH was not just lacking a MWP, but that it was simultaneously colder in order to bring down that average. Good luck with that. From the graphs I’ve seen, the SH doesn’t show a mini ice age until … much later, roughly in coincidence with the NH.
4. As I keep saying, if you have questions about specific graphs in Idso’s publications. Why not ask him? If you seek the truth…
5. As for the studies that you claim disagree with Idso?
Steve McIntyre has shown that many of these use similar data sets.
6. “Repeat Idso’s process asking “was it ever cooler in the MWP than today” and you’d get an opposite and equally useless graph.”
No. Wrong. Idso didn’t ask that question. You are being sloppy. Quote him. Read my earlier reply to you again. I covered that there.
7. Ljungqvist said: “we find the amplitude and spatial extent of the 20th century warming is within the range of natural variability over the last 12 centuries,…” I made no comment about “unprecedented rate of warming”. As to the current rate being average in ice cores see here. It’s not “peer reviewed” you may sneer. But you can repeat it yourself.
8. Nothing you have said affects the conclusions I’ve made in the post. do let me know if you find the multiproxy southern hemisphere reconstruction that shows major cooling at the same time as the northern warming.
9. Your email is fake. More dishonesty. It’s a requirement that you give us your working daily email address. No more posts from you until you do.
410
It also makes me wonder, why did you display a manipulated graph without labelling it as such?
You also need to update your Loehle graph – the 2007 paper/graph you cite was corrected by Loehle in 2008. Is it purely a mistake that you’re not aware of this? You started blogging at the end of 2008, and your post using Loehle data was in December 2009, so I find it strangely curious that you use their old graph instead of the corrected one.
You don’t seem to have read the reasons stated in the paper. You say “Huang published another in 2008 where he discounts the meaning of his earlier work.” and then you suggest that did it to get published in the IPCC. But he doesn’t discount his earlier work, it’s still valid, you and many others have misinterpreted it. If you read the HP97 paper they state very clearly the reason why you would be wrong to use HP97 for a comparison of the MWP to today’s warming:
They reiterate this in the 2008 paper:
Nope. Read it carefully, I’ll even bold the part you seemed to miss so you don’t repeat the mistake a third time. “equalling or slightly exceeding the mid-20th century”.
Here’s the warming since 1950.
Yes Loehle published in E & E, (oh dear – this doesn’t bode well) and then Loehle had to correct his findings when
errors were discovered.
Loehle’s graph only goes to 1935, you need to append the recent warming of about 0.6 degrees to the end in order to compare.
You need to update your graph or risk being accused of deliberately misleading your readers.
I don’t have questions, I have statements. A the itsnotnova website showed, and I have reiterated here, his method is flawed.
Neither you or Idso have been able to counter this argument.
How interesting. Got a point to make?
You are the on being sloppy. I never said those were Idso’s words. I said, that if you were to repeat his method, but instead of looking for the peak, you look for the trough, then you’d discover samples would have point in time that is lower than today’s temperature somewhere within, or near, the MWP. Using Idso’s method you would mark it as a +1 for a colder MWP.
It’s flawed to be asking either of the following:
“How much did peak MWP temperatures exceed or fall short of the CWP?”
“How much did the lowest point in MWP temperatures exceed or fall short of the CWP?”
Because both will yield results that do not tell you what the PLANET was doing at a given point in time.
In order to gain global insight you need to ask, “What was each sample telling us at a given point in time”.
You say “These comprehensive studies suggest current temperatures are not unusual”, but Ljungqvist found the Temperature was unusual because the rate of change is NOT the same.
The fact remains, whether you wish to acknowledge it or not, Ljungqvist found “the rate of warming from the 19th to the 20th century is clearly the largest between any two consecutive centuries in the past 1200 yr”. That you wish to avoid confronting that fact and instead squirm out your statement, speaks volume about you. It suggests you lack the courage to face the facts. Psychologists have a term for that.
But even your claim that, were we to focus purely on the temperature value and ignore the rate everything is within normal ranges is a failure too. The next obvious step in this discussion would to be to talk about causes. Multiple studies attribute the current warming to man-kind’s activities. Where’s your evidence to show that whatever caused the MWP is also causing the temps today?
Sneering is not within my nature. Amateur web-blogger science are often so convoluted, it’s difficult enough just trying to understand them, seems any crazy nut can create a web page these days.
Peer-review science is where the experts eliminate the ridiculous – saves a whole lot of time.
But a quick glance I can spot several problems:
1. There is no error margin there. Proxies are approximate, the deltas will be too.
2. It’s local temp from Vostok Ice Core, not global temps.
3. Polar amplification might also be exaggerating the change in temperature.
4. It shows you failed to read my previous post carefully, specifically: “Once you’ve found one similar in rate, please let us know along with what caused the warming and how it is also causing the current one.”
5. Then explain why today’s rate of warming is harmless, given that previous rapid climates changes coincide with large extinction rates.
Apart from:
– Seeing you misunderstand Huang by 100 years and then wrongly claim he dismisses his work, when in fact he clarified that the 97 paper had very little modern data in it. Clearly you didn’t bother to read the paper otherwise you would have known the reason.
– You still have the incorrect graph for Loehle, despite it being corrected and available for years.
– Exposing that you have NO answer to the fundamental problem in Idso’s analysis.
– You’d rather avoid talking about Ljungqvist conclusions about Temperature Rate.
– You failed to respond to my previous comment: “Once you’ve found one similar in rate, please let us know along with what caused the warming and how it is also causing the current one. You can be sure we’re not still coming out of an Glacial period.”
There’s no need, you’ve yet to show that the NH was warmer. Mann, Moberg, Loehle, Ljungqvist, are all plotted here.
Dishonesty? I’m not the one manipulating graphs, or displaying graphs of old incorrect studies because they better agree with my ideology. The willingness to give away your email address doesn’t change the validity of an argument – refusing to debate on such grounds is yet another act of cowardice.
In any case, I have included my email address so no excuse now! Do not spam it or pass it on to others.
Again I look forward to your response.
53
1. I have manipulated nothing. Your sloppy language is a bore. Baseless inflammatory accusations would get you thrown off most blogs. The updated graph makes no material difference. I’m more tolerant of anon rude commenters than virtually any other blogger.
2. You quote HP97 as “still valid” except for last 100 years. HPS2000 found a 1C rise from LIA -year 2000. Combine the two and we get an MWP about the same as current temps. If you use other methods to compare the LIA low point in HP97 to modern temps the end result is similar. (You could try tree rings to compare 1700 to now, but if you don’t “hide the decline” after 1960 – how well does that work out for you? Not so hot eh?) I prefer the larger study from 97 with more boreholes rather than newer smaller subsets (*UPDATE: I see HP2008 appears to be a big reanalysis, unlike his other revisits post 97. I will comment below in a new comment). As it happens, the HP97 + HPS2000 results were supported (and then some) by other independent borehole studies in the NH eg: Majorowicz, et al. 1999. Dahl-Jensen, D. (1998); Bodri, L. and Cermak, V. 1999. Bodri, L. and Cermak, V. 2005
3. Your ad homs show you struggle to think. You complain that refusing to debate an impolite anon fake-email commenter is cowardice (which is all the more pathetic since I am debating you, and I’m one of the only bloggers who does debate anonymous chickens) but you denounce E&E because it’s E&E. A hypocrite. No I don’t “need” to add 0.6C to the end of the 1935 graph. It would be good to extend it with proxy data, and I have, eg Ljundqvist – see this post above). It has warmed since 1935 but surface temps are known to be exaggerated by UHI, adjustments and poor micrositing. The original raw data does not suggest it has warmed as much. I’d rather compare proxy to proxy, not proxy to air-conditioner-car-park-warmed-&-adjusted-thermometers. I have higher standards than Mann.)
4. Loehle et al 2008 made corrections but they didn’t change the results. (You don’t attack H&P for “correcting” their work? More hypocrisy.). Quote Loehle 2008: A climatic reconstruction published in E&E (Loehle, 2007) is here corrected for various errors and data issues, with little change in the results.” Arguably the 2008 graph makes the MWP look even higher in comparison to readers who only scan the text. While the post I presume you tried to link too was old, and the Ljundquist graph is bigger, longer, and newer, I’ve added the 2008 Loehle graph under the 2007 one. H/t to you for the minor improvement in an old post. It makes little material difference.
5. So you have no defense.
6. I answered this in #38.1.1.1.1 parts 4 – 6. You keep ignoring that.
7. You confuse and confound “temperature” with “rate of change”
8. You repeat everything unnecessarily.
9. You’re in denial of your dishonesty. Readers can judge your ability to “sneer” for themselves. A coward hiding behind anonymity. Most bloggers don’t allow anonymous commenters to post because they are time-wasters who throw baseless insults.
10. As for your demand: ““Once you’ve found one similar in rate, please let us know along with what caused the warming and how it is also causing the current one.”” Connect yourself to reality. I’m not asking you for thousands of dollars because I think I can change the weather. You are, so you can provide some evidence we need to give you the money. You and I both know that the models don’t work, and don’t know what drives the climate.
Almost all the links you provided are broken. I don’t know why. Everyone else manages to post links properly. No doubt you had real links in mind.
You’re in denial of hundreds of studies, not to mention historical documents, showing the MWP was real and similar to current temps in the NH.
SH studies are thin, agreed. I repeat: In order to show that the “world average” was cooler than the present you’d need to show the SH was not just lacking a MWP, but that it was simultaneously colder in order to bring down that average. Good luck with that.
54
Nicely Spaced nice one.
00
You’re quick to accuse others of “manipulation”. Now you’ve been found to use a different graph; it had been manipulated, I’m asking why? You could have provided a clear and reasonable answer like “to make it easier for people to understand” but instead you get all overly defensive.
So why did you have a graph that was different to that in the paper? You still have not answered that.
Please provide some peer-reviewed science that uses HP97 in this manner to support your claim. HP2008 found “The reconstructions show the temperatures of the mid-Holocene warm episode some 1–2 K above the reference level, the maximum of the MWP at or slightly below the reference level, the minimum of the LIA about 1 K below the reference level, and end-of-20th century temperatures about 0.5 K above the reference level.”.
“Hide the decline?” or “Hide the Incline of modern day thermometers, and satellites measuring atmospheric and surface temperatures?”. Do you really think the widths of tree rings of one species in one part of the planet are a more accurate measure of global temperature than the modern technology?
Or did you just see an opportunity to slip in the old ’hide the decline’ cliché rather than contribute to real debate?
You need to be specific. What about the other studies? Simply listing other papers that cite them is not an argument in itself.
Getting back to HP reports – as pointed out earlier, they do NOT support your claim. Please correct your posts, otherwise you are deliberately misleading people despite knowing full well they are incorrect. That is fraud.
You block my posts and others when it all becomes too hard. Still you have NOT addressed the original complaint, that Idso’s method is flawed.
Since then we’ve discovered that:
– Huang does not support your claim.
– Ljungqvist doesn’t not support your claim.
– You use Loehle 2007 instead of Loehle 2008 and adding the recent warming to the end does not support your claim.
No I denounce it because the editor thinks they should be able control the science published, in their words “I’m following my political agenda”.
If you had of read my previous post carefully I mentioned (here it is for a third time) that Ljundqvist said “The level of warmth during the peak of the MWP in the second half of the 10th century, equalling or slightly exceeding the mid-20th century warming”.
Proxy data is inaccurate, only an approximation – hence the whole name. The modern thermometer is far more accurate than trying to decipher temperature from tree-rings.
You’re still failing to provide evidence to support your claim of incorrect homogenisation or how siting issues have affected the global trend. You pick out one or two sites as evidence of poor citing, but then fail to follow on with how this has impacted global results. Were they even used in the “quality” set of data used for global analysis? You generate doubt, but provide little in the way of firm answers.
Why is it you would not correct raw data for TOB?
The BEST team, including well known skeptics, studied the effect to find: The confidence interval is consistent with a zero urban heating effect, and at most 337 a small urban heating effect (less than 0.14°C/100yr, with 95% confidence) on the scale of 338 the observed warming (1.9 ± 0.1 °C/100yr since 1950 in the land average from figure 5A).
Yes they did. As itsnotnova has recently pointed the conclusion changed from “MWP being approximately 0.3°C warmer than 20th century values” to “The warmest tridecade of the MWP was warmer than the most recent tridecade, but not significantly so.”, the most recent tridecade being the average between 1972 and 2006, rather than today’s temps. Recall the last decade has been warmer than all other recent decades.
I’m not attacking Loehle, I’m glad they corrected it as they should. Anyone that is really interested in the truth should also correct their posts about it.
You have not. You still display the old graph as if it is truth. That deliberately misleads your readers and it suggests to me that you don’t mind being dishonest; creating confusion and doubt seems to be your tactic.
I quote more of Loehle above. Yes, the result did change. Loehle’s “little” was enough that he could no longer call the MWP warmer than “20th century temps”.
The right thing to do would be to replace the old graph with the new one along with an explanation.
Thanks – you should also remove the older one or make it very clear that the science that produced that graph had to be corrected.
You still have not answered why you posted the old one in the first place when the newer report was readily available.
I don’t need a defence when you don’t make an argument. You state that studies use similar sets of data. Great, so what of it? Finish your argument.
No you didn’t.
4. was saying I should ask Idso.
5. said Steve McIntyre says they use similar datasets, but you don’t make any argument as to why any of them are incorrect.
6. You misunderstood me and thought I meant Idso said that. I further clarified the comment in my previous.
And still you offer no counter argument as to why Idso’s method is flawed.
Nope. Temperature = heat of an object. Rate of change = How much the Temperature changes over time.
So please stop misdirecting and address the original question.
Where’s your evidence to show that whatever caused the MWP is also causing the temps today?
It seems necessary when you fail to answer the question.
No, I’m quite open about not using my real email address to begin with. I don’t like spam and avoid it by rarely giving out my email. You have since written to my correct email address so you can no longer use that as an excuse to avoid answering the questions.
Actually most, if not all, allow anonymous comment. I just started going through the links on the right hand side of your site, the first ten (that allow any comments) ALL allow anonymous comments, that being:
ABCnewswatch
Americans for Limited Government
Andrew Bolt
Australian Climate Madness
Bishop Hill
Black’s WhiteWash
Cheifio
Climate Audit
Climate Conversation Group
ClimateChangeDispatch
Stop hiding behind this as an excuse not to answer the questions. You asked for my email, I gave it, you wrote, I responded.
Once again you fail to engage in the debate. Answer the question – stop misdirecting.
I’m more than happy to discuss models in a future post, but at the moment this is an attempt by you to avoid answering the question.
I apologise for that, I wrote the reply in word, it flipped the ending quote. Here they are again corrected.
Here’s the warming since 1950.
(oh dear – this doesn’t bode well)
errors were discovered
recent warming of about 0.6 degrees
itsnotnova website
Multiple studies attribute the current warming to man-kind’s activities
plotted here
I’m not in denial – I accept the hundreds of studies showing some warming at some point in time, What I don’t accept is Idso’s method. But (and I hate repeating myself as much as you seem to dislike me repeating it) that is not the same as determining a global temperature. Idso needs to calculate what all of these local temps were doing at the SAME point in time in order to determine the GLOBAL temp.
Idso does NOT do this. He finds some warming, labels it as the MWP even if it was at an entirely different point in time to other local records.
Despite having sufficient time and several posts, you have yet to rebut this point.
I’m not the one trying to prove it was different – I’m pointing out that Idso’s method is flawed. You say “there are hundreds of proxy studies showing it was as warm or warmer back then”, but all you have is hundreds of LOCAL studies showing it was warmer at some stage.
You have not shown that they were all warmer at the same time.
And if the MWP was warmer, so what? That’s evidence for high sensitivity and it still doesn’t rebut the science that shows current warming is being caused by man’s activities.
In addition, there were a few things you failed to address from the previous post (or perhaps you didn’t want to acknowledge?). Let me summarise:
– Loehle – why did you use 2007 graph when the 2008 one was available?
– HP97 excluded 100m depths, hence why it cannot be compared, not as you say because of “group think” or “because it agrees with the IPCC”.
– Huang 2008 research does not agree with a warmer MWP.
– C&L don’t agree with you because they compared the MWP to mid-20th century, not against todays temps.
– Steve McIntyre and data sets – so what? You need to make a point.
– Ljungqvist found the rate of warming unprecedented. It’s the rate of climate change that has scientists most concerned.
– Rather than sneer I pointed out that Frank Lansner’s analysis suffers from having no error margin, is a local temp, possible exaggerated by polar amplification. If you can address all of these problems, then please describe why you think similar sudden changes in climate today won’t be met with equally sudden changes to the ecosystem that is associated with previous large climate changes?
– Idso doesn’t perform global analysis so you can’t claim “there are hundreds of proxy studies showing it was as warm or warmer back then”. To do that you need to show it was warmer over the entire planet AT THE SAME POINT IN TIME.
I look forward to your response, hopefully you answer the original criticism regarding Idso’s methods.
Recent warming has been attributed to man’s activities, can you provide evidence to the contrary and show that whatever caused the “possibly warmer MWP” is causing the current warming.
Less “Merchant of Doubt”, more “Provider of Facts” please.
50
1. The graph was doing the rounds, it appeared to be a good representation of the complex one in the paper. You asked me about it, I searched and discovered that I’d copied a version with the degrees C in the axis but that the original was unitless. I had not noticed that til then. I fixed it that day and thanked you. So? -Jo
2.
No. I described the key problem with many hockey sticks, and documented unscientific, deceptive behaviour, and you missed it. Using tricks to hide declines is not a trick to get a photocopier to work, it’s a method to conceal something. Modern thermometers are accurate, but if the proxy isn’t accurate in 1990, why would it be accurate in 1200AD? itsnotnova has added in their own “modern temp” lines to graphs, which can be misleading. The adjusted surface records of thermometers next to airports and airconditioners and fermenting vats of sewage exaggerates the warming of the last century. The only modern temp line on a proxy graph should come from that proxy, or at least be specifically labelled as a line from a different data set, preferably described as such, was it GISS/Hadley/UAH and which version, and which year? – Jo
3. Regarding HP: the insults are baseless. Was HP97 “corrected”? The close up the boreholes graph comes from McKitrick and Essex’s book (2002) and PDF file — the data provided by Huang himself. HP2008 used a different technique and a different database. HP97 and HP 08 are different studies. Not only that, but I mentioned the HP 2008 study in an update on the post as soon as I was aware of it, I let readers know that HP dismissed their earlier study. I gave my reasons, and readers can make up their own minds. HP 2008 is tied to the “instrumental record” among other things – and the idea that boreholes are not so good for the top 100m kind of begs the question of why they would work for older deeper records. Resolution falls, not rises, with depth.
4. The minor change in HP curves made no difference to the two central points of the post. a/ the models are wrong, they can’t predict the warm period then, or tell us why it cooled to the LIA or started warming long before coal fired power stations. and b/ The hockeystick graphs were misleading and deceptive, unrepresentative of temperatures over the last millenia, even the new HP paper shows that. I’m looking at HP 08 and 97 again, I think its time to do a post on boreholes which is obviously better than rewriting old blog threads 🙂 I’m sure you’ll be pleased.
5. “You block my posts” No. Obviously I don’t. (Though I should since you provided a fake email). But I’m being nice… you do some useful proof reading. Thanks. Sorry my answers are not as fast as you’d like, (you can ask for a full refund eh? -Jo)
6. I answered your Idso point way back in #37.1.1.1.1 parts 4 – 6. (not #38.1.1.1.1 which was a typo, sorry, though an obvious one). That’s what you ignore (repeatedly).
7. I’ve added “corrected” to the old graph, which is straight above the new graph. Readers can compare and see exactly how corrected it was.
8. Do blogs allow rude inflammatory anonymous commenters? Skeptic ones might. Not so much these ones Lewandowsky, un-Skepticalscience, realclimate.
9. You’ll get faster replies if you write short concise polite comments without repetition, off thread diversions, and baseless insults. I”ll write more soon, but I’d rather write a post…
16
1. So? So I suggest you use the graphs from the actual paper instead of ones “doing the round”.
2. Re: “and you missed it”. Nope, I’ve read many claims and I’ve also read the summaries of the 9 independent enquiries into it.
Re: “but if the proxy isn’t accurate in 1990, why would it be accurate in 1200AD?”
Ahhhh. You’re starting to catch on now. Proxies aren’t accurate as thermometers, either today or in previous years.
In the case you discuss, the proxy data was obviously incorrect. Either way it doesn’t support your warmer MWP claim.
Re: “itsnotnova has added in their own “modern temp””. Be specific, which itsnotnova graph do you think is incorrect?
Re: “airports and airconditioners and fermenting vats” – I’ll have to repeat my previous statement which you have not addressed.
You pick out one or two sites as evidence of poor citing, but then fail to follow to show how this has impacted global results. Were they even used in the “quality” set of data used for global analysis? You generate doubt, but provide little in the way of firm answers.
Why is it you would not correct raw data for TOB?
3. Re: “HP: the insults are baseless. Was HP97 “corrected”?
Your understanding needs to be corrected, and your graph which is not from the paper. It doesn’t support your claim that “Boreholes Show it was warmer 700 years ago”. That is something you have wrongly added.
“The close up the boreholes graph comes from McKitrick and Essex’s book (2002) and PDF file — the data provided by Huang himself.
A BOOK!!!! Oh great, pictures from books and graphs that were “doing the rounds”. What happened to getting your science from the scientific papers?
The graph from the paper looks like this: http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4284/1095/1600/Huang4.jpg
It doesn’t support your warmer MWP claim. That’s your own misinterpretation.
“HP2008 used a different technique and a different database. HP97 and HP 08 are different studies.”
Agreed. And in HP08 he described why it is incorrect to use HP97 to compare against the MWP.
“I let readers know that HP dismissed their earlier study.”
Huang didn’t dismiss it, he explained why 97 couldn’t be used to compare MWP to today. See previous post where this was explained to you.
“I gave my reasons, and readers can make up their own minds.”
Your reasons are not based upon the data in the report, therefore your “reasoning” is wrong. Your readers are looking at a graph that was not produced by the paper, and on top of that graph are your words which were not supported by the paper. Hopefully they are reading my words now and can make up their own mind about your post.
“Resolution falls, not rises, with depth.”
That maybe so (and hopefully you can provide peer-reviewed information to back up your assertion in this particular instance), but for whatever reasons, HPS97 didn’t use the uppermost 100m; as specified in their paper. *Sigh* No 100m means no 20th century data.
4. Minor change? The original graph is nothing like yours. The HP results do not support YOUR claim that “Borehole show it was warmer 700 years ago”
I agree models don’t get everything right – what’s other method of projecting the future climate is there? At the moment the models still do a better job of forecasting when factoring in GHGs than without.
“I’m sure you’ll be pleased.”
Sure, so long as you stick to what the author find instead of embellishing like you’ve done in previous posts.
5. I don’t need fast answers, I would like you to admit and correct your mistakes. The HP97 graph is not from their paper. I can get access to a higher resolution one for you if you are genuinely interested in correcting your currently misleading post.
6. Yes, you do still ignore, because I answered that in the post that followed it (note the link I use avoids the typo problem).
37.1.1.1.1 p4 – Agreed I knew this, and that it’s an approximation.
37.1.1.1.1 p5 – As I said the 10 degrees is an example. The graph you display here is showing the peak of each sample, not the average or the troughs.
37.1.1.1.1 p6 – Whilst one maybe +2° higher another 5 at the same time only need to be 0.4° lower. Look at Loehle’s plot for example, at any given time some are higher than average, many around average and some are below. What matters, to get a global result is the average of all of those.
7. It’s still not correct. The data is incorrect (overlay with new one and you’ll see) and the “Today” label is misleading, the shaded area representing data beyond 1935 is still present. To be honest you should remove the graph or put a big X through it so it is clear that this is no longer valid.
8. Am I really rude and inflammatory? Or is this a by-product of exposing graphs that have been altered and conclusions that have been embellished? My language used to describe your misuse of other peoples work is no more inflammatory than your own posts. You called me a time waster, called me sloppy, said my writing was drivel.
9. I don’t need fast, just a response that answers the questions and addresses the problem with your graphs and labels. I notice you once again neglected to answer many points from the previous post, hopefully you can do better this time.
00
NiceOne, sorry about the delay. I will be posting whole posts soon that discuss anything worth discussing. Most of the rest is irrelevant as we end up with off-topic rather pointless details or circles like these:
1.If a committee tells you it’s “ok to hide declines — So What? Anyone reading the original quote knows it isn’t. And “Independent”? Oxburgh headed one and was “president of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association”. They weren’t even trying to pretend to be “independent”.
2. when you don’t read my blog and haven’t looked in the index accusing me of “generating doubt without providing evidence” is wrong and inflammatory. I’ve quoted many scientific papers on relevant threads. Your expectation that any blogger can answer every anonymous commenter on every thread with links to justify every phrase is unrealistic. Perhaps you could do some more homework before writing long comments with baseless insults?
3. This is a loaded not-too-honest question: “Why is it you would not correct raw data for TOB?” I’ve never said anything about TOB.
4. Huang himself provided the data in the McKitrick graph. So, Huang has not “corrected” the HP97 graph. Thanks. That study still stands, and even with Huang’s odd point about the top 100m, it still shows a curve which is nothing like the hockeystick. I’ll discuss boreholes in a post. Huang’s strange not-internally consistent research is interesting in itself. And the timing of the peak in the HP08 and 97 is significant, and an interesting indicator of limitations of boreholes. Thanks for drawing my attention back to that paper.
5. Re Boreholes: you ask for evidence that “Resolution falls, not rises, with depth.” It is self evident. It is basic physics that resolution could not possibly sharpen as heat travels down and spreads in all directions. Asking for a “peer review” paper means you either a/ know little science, or b/ do know science and are here to waste time. It’s up there with the suggestion that a 29 year smoothed proxies might be affected by one hot day.
6. Re Loehle’s correction. Since the post has stood for so long it’s better to keep the original and add the correction. that’s why I’ve posted the “Corrected” graph, mentioned the corrected study, quoted from it and linked to it, as well as labeled the old graph. Your ongoing complaints are irrational. Did you ask the IPCC to take down the Mann et al 98 hockeystick when it was shown the maths was so bad it could be generated with random numbers? No? I didn’t think so.
6.Re: Idso. We go on in circles. You accuse me over and over of ignoring your question, when I answered it, you responded, and I responded to that, and now we are discussing our discussion. Waste of time. Idso’s work is not a stand alone, his point was only that the MWP existed and was global, and if it were “spurious” based on a cooler average, we’d see that just by looking at enough graphs. But I’ve already said all this.
7. Inflammatory? You accuse Idso of “deliberately trying to fool the suckers” then pretend you are not here with inflammatory language. The difference between your accusations and mine is that I demonstrate why a point you made was drivel/time-wasting/or irrelevant, then I make the claim. You toss the accusation like “coward” and “merchant of doubt” before you’ve shown the point. That’s why what you write is for the most part, time wasting and impolite. Which is not to say you haven’t raised a couple of points that are worth discussion (and I thanked you when you did). But most of what I write is simply cleaning up the mess left due to sloppy reasoning and sloppy language. It’s slowing me down from dealing with more important points.
8. The low quality remarks, inability to self-edit, and baseless inflammatory language are enough to have tossed you off the blog several times over. Good quality critics make me stronger, and since I still haven’t found one, I’ll take what I can get. Thanks for visiting. Thanks for your patience.
13
Jo, Are you suggesting that Idso’s work only shows us that a MWP existed, but we can’t tell from his work whether it was warmer than today or not? If so, then I agree with you.
If you’re still trying to argue that Idso shows it was warmer than today, then no, you haven’t answered Nice One’s argument. Idso needs to look at what the temperature was doing right across all data to see what the planet was like at any given stage.
00
This is interesting……………
The IPCC claim man first began to affect the climate way back in 1750 and at that stage CO2 levels where a paltry 275 PPM today they are at about 390PPM so that is an increase of 115PPM in 263 years.
This may not sound like much but apparently this is stopping us from dropping into the next ice age, in fact the LIA was supposed to be the beginning of the next ice age but mans activities reversed that.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-08/human-carbon-emissions-seen-by-researchers-holding-back-ice-age.html
So James, if Lars Franzen is correct and i have no reason to doubt him then would it be wise to continue to produce CO2, would it be prudent to create a “carbon tax” with the sole intent of becoming/creating a “zero carbon” world?
Some claim by not limiting/reducing/removing CO2 we are condemning future generations to a warming world however if we stop we will be condemning them to an even more horrible fate.
What shall we do???????????????
01
Nothing Lars Franzen says is countering AGW – you do realise that right? He’s confirming that Carbon and Humans can affect the climate. As for current CO2 levels, we’ve gone well beyond countering a new glacial period.
00
James.
You get one shot at this, one shot to show the world you are more than just a simple internet troll, one shot to show the world that you have your own thoughts and ideas.
So here is your one shot.
Franzen is saying that if we (man) had not produced CO2 then we would be entering/in the depths of the next ice age. The reason why we are not is because our CO2 emissions are keeping the temps up and the next ice age at bay.
So my question is do we continue to produce CO2 emissions and suffer the fate of a warming world? or do we stop our CO2 emissions and suffer the fate of a freezing world?
Once again What shall we do????????????????
What shall we do James, what fate would you prefer?
10
“or do we stop our CO2 emissions and suffer the fate of a freezing world?”
Who is suggesting this will happen if we do stop? Other than Graham Bird?
01
Hi Matti
In answer to your question:
It is the IPCCCC which, or should that be who, is stating that if the earth cools our only hope is to
produce CO2 to keep us warm.
Of course that isn’t exactly how they are putting it but the statement is a direct corollary AND the very
real scientific projection that we will enter a new period of cooling relatively soon in geologic or
astronomic times scale.
I reckon that’s 100% for this response.
And I even checked the spelling, a bit.
KK 🙂
10
the IPCC would at least say it depends on how much cooling there is… as there is already warming in the pipeline.
02
Which pipeline would that be Matti?
Surely not that old joke about the new immigrant who had heard about the newspaper headlines that said
“Virginia Pipeline laid by Forty Men in Three days?
KK
ps. I know it’s not relevant but neither is your comment.
00
MattB,
Lars Franzen refer 42.1
00
he does not actually say that though.
I note that you, Crackar, don’t agree with even your manipulated interpretation of Lars Franzen. “No CO2 warming and No Ice age” would sum up your position yes?
00
Mattb,
He does actually say that though.
“We are probably entering a new ice age right now,” Lars Franzen, a professor of physical geography at the university, was cited as saying in an online statement today. “However, we’re not noticing it due to the effects of carbon dioxide.”
“The spread of peat lands is an important factor,” Franzen said. “If we accept that rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere lead to an increase in global temperature, the logical conclusion must be that reduced levels lead to a drop in temperature.”
00
No he doesn’t. he says “we’re not noticing it due to the effects of carbon dioxide.”
he makes no comment regarding how much longer the amount of CO2 currently emitted will continue to make us not notice it (not-notice = not happening, as opposed to it happening). He makes no comment relating to any likley outcome of an impending ice age cooling Vs AGW warming.
00
Correct Mattb,
He does not make any predictions regarding how much longer, or what any likely outcome might be. These are issues that you have just raised. Crakar did not raise them either. The only reason that you raise them now is as an ad hoc rescue for your argument.
Crakar’s question (which you objected to) was, “…do we continue to produce CO2 emissions and suffer the fate of a warming world? or do we stop our CO2 emissions and suffer the fate of a freezing world?
00
MaxL… so why does Crackar ask “or do we stop our CO2 emissions and suffer the fate of a freezing world?” given such a fate is not suggested by Lars Franzen?
Given there is no one suggesting that if we stop CO2 emissions we will suffer the fate of a freezing world, my answer to Crackar is that we stop CO2 emissions, and enjoy the climate that has enabled civilisation as we know it for as long as possible.
00
And please note MaxL that in #44 Crackar says “Lars Franzen refer 42.1” when I ask “Who is suggesting this will happen if we do stop?”.
So he did raise them, and unlike you he thinks Franzen said them.
00
Matt,
I can’t answer for Crakar, but I’d suggest that when Lars Fransen says: “We are probably entering a new ice age right now,” the concept of suffering “…the fate of a freezing world” seems quite a reasonable assumption.
You say there is no suggestion that “…if we stop CO2 emissions we will suffer the fate of a freezing world”. However, didn’t Fransen assert, “…the logical conclusion must be that reduced levels [of CO2] lead to a drop in temperature.”? This implies to me that were it not for the warming effects of CO2, we will likely be heading for a much colder future. (Assuming Fransen is correct with “…probably entering a new ice age…”.)
Certainly, if we are entering a new ice age, then one could also argue that whether we reduce our CO2 emissions or not, we can expect a devastating outcome. Crakar’s question is reasonable and I think deserves an answer from anyone who believes that CO2 can warm the planet.
00
Max – if we are accepoting AGW science all of a sudden then we are up for minimum 2C warming under the most optimistic of GHG reduction scenarios. This is why such GHG reductions would not plunge us in to an ice age.
In the absence of any evidence we are heading in to an ice age then the sensible path is to reduce GHG emissions (remembering here that this entire conversation is based on AGW science being fair dinkum). If at some stage in the future we indeed DO start to drop then yeah maybe it would be wise to pump some CO2 up there. no worries. but you’d be mad to do it without any indication that there is an ice age coming in the next 50 years or so.
So… I assume your camp’s position is that CO2 causes no warming therefore there is no ice age (if there was it would be a lot colder).
My position… CO2 causes warming therefore sensible reductions. If there was evidence of a genuine ice age it is handy to know we have CO2 to help us. But I don’t turn the heater on in the middle of summer, I wait until it is actually cold in winter.
01
The great thing about actual sciece of course is that we are learning about GHGs and we can monitor possible plunges to ice ages.
01
Matt, you say that we are up for a minimum 2C warming as a result of our CO2 emissions. I don’t know how many years it would take for the temperature to drop by 10C from current, but if by increasing our CO2 output we can delay (not belay) the onset of a devastating cold then surely it would be best to do so as soon as possible so that we can continue to grow the plants that we need to survive.
Such a delay, as I see it, would give us more time to develop solutions for the continued existence of humanity. I don’t know whether you think that the last 15 years shows no temperature increase or not, but that then leads to a question of when do you pull the trigger to ameliorate the effect of an ice age by pumping huge quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere which you have just spent many, many years reducing. Keeping in mind that by then we would have dismantled all of the coal fired power stations etc.
P.S. I’m not a camp, my opinions are my own. I try to understand all sides of an argument. I do not believe that ACO2 is causing any significant change in climate that is not already swamped by natural forces (which are out of our control). As such I also don’t think that reducing our ACO2 emissions is going to cause an ice age.
00
it would be pretty absurd to pump out 10C worth of CO2 just on the off chance that there was an ice age coming.
01
Matt, Lars Franzen says “We are probably entering a new ice age right now” he goes on to suggest that CO2 is ameliorating the effect of this ice age right now.
I’m not asking for enough CO2 to raise the temperature by 10C, I’m asking for your 2C to help delay the freezing, for as long as possible.
Franzen appears to be one who believes that CO2 can increase the temperature and that a new ice age is probably upon us right now. So he is clearly not an AGW sceptic.
Are you suggesting that I should not listen to him? Should I just ignore the bits he says that I don’t want to hear? Do you think he is right that CO2 can warm the planet but he is wrong that an ice age is imminent?
Do you have any evidence that there is just an “off chance” that an ice age is coming? Should I listen to you or Prof. Franzen?
00
Temps are currently now more than 1 degree higher than in the LIA. We over did it a bit.
01
you should listen to Franzen. You should try it some day.
00
Also MaxL – “I’m asking for your 2C to help delay the freezing, for as long as possible.”
THAT’S THE POINT – it would be quite incredible, according to AGW science, to avoid that 2C. THAT is why Franzen is not saying that if we reduce GHGs we’ll “suffer the fate of a freezing world”.
btw a non-provable entry to an ice age would be a damn convenient smokescreen for a lack of warming… yeah?
01
Matt, you are regressing.
Franzen did not mention anything about a 2°C expected rise. That was/is your assertion. You are trying to put words into Franzen’s mouth so that you can continue your ad hoc rescue.
“…smokescreen for a lack of warming”. A smokescreen implies that someone is trying to cover up or conceal “a lack of warming”. Now who would do such a thing? Who would benefit from concealing a lack of warming? Certainly not sceptics.
As for “a non-provable entry to an ice age…”, which of us (you or I) is now suggesting that an imminent ice age may not be upon us? Franzen says that we are probably entering a new ice age right now. Do you have evidence to refute his research? It seems as though you are being selective as to which evidence he presents, you choose to accept. Worse still, you simply dispose of it as “non-provable” or as an “off chance” event.
“It’s certainly possible that mankind’s various activities contributed towards extending our ice age interval by keeping carbon dioxide levels high enough,” Franzen said. “Without the human impact, the inevitable progression toward an ice age would have continued.”
“you should listen to Franzen. You should try it some day”.
00
Sigh – the whole basis of Crackar’s initial post, surely, relies on Franzen being a warmist… otherwise he would not think ice age cooling was being masked by AGW… would he?
The rest of your post is meaningless… you are just repeating random bits of Franzen that I have no reason to disagree with, in an effort to somehow demonstrate I’m wrong about something else?
I have no opinion on the immediacy of an impending ice age… however I WOULD suggest that there is nothing in the temperature record that indicates we’d be well on the way if it were not for AGW.
00
Crakar’s question directly related to Franzen’s statements, which you initially failed to recognize.
The rest of my post related to your comments. If you find those comments meaningless then I’ll not argue with you. I’ll just have to assume that you are unwilling to justify or elaborate on your argument, that you simply wish to make statements without any criticism.
I will trouble you no further.
10
Sorry??? Just what did I initially fail to realise?
This whole discussion is about this from Crackar:
“do we stop our CO2 emissions and suffer the fate of a freezing world”
I just want to know who is saying this would happen. he says Franzen, but Franzen hasn’t said that. It really is that simple.
Franzen: ““We are probably entering a new ice age right now,” Lars Franzen, a professor of physical geography at the university, was cited as saying in an online statement today. “However, we’re not noticing it due to the effects of carbon dioxide.””
Which is completely different to making any sort of prediction about what would happen if we stopped emitting CO2.
00
I agree with you Matt as to averting the next ice age.
” the temperature record indicates we’d be well on the way if it were not for AGW “.
This is exactly the sort of dopey convoluted comment coming from the IPCC and clones.
KK
00
See KK you get what I mean about smokescreen yeah?
00
http://www.mires-and-peat.net/map10/map_10_08.pdf
Nowhere is his paper does Lars suggest emitting more CO2 to prevent us from another glacial period.
His words are: “We are probably entering a new ice age right now. However, we’re not noticing it due to the effects of carbon dioxide“
00
James: “Nowhere
is[in] his paper does Lars suggest emitting more CO2 to prevent us from another glacial period.”Correct!
James: “As for current CO2 levels, we’ve gone well beyond countering a new glacial period.” and,
James: “Temps are currently now more than 1 degree higher than in the LIA. We over did it a bit.”
It seems as though only you are suggesting that we’ve prevented another ice age because of the CO2 we’ve already emitted.
Franzen writes: “The P/IAH postulates that, due to progressive lateral growth during an interglacial, peatlands may become such a large carbon sink that critically low atmospheric carbon concentrations result, and this in turn may lead to a new Pleistocene ice age.”
If, as you assert: “He’s confirming that Carbon and Humans can affect the climate.” Then our best course of action would be to increase the carbon concentrations, thereby delaying (as much as possible) a “critically low atmospheric carbon concentrations result”.
At least Mattb had the decency to answer the question (in part) by saying: “If at some stage in the future we indeed DO start to drop then yeah maybe it would be wise to pump some CO2 up there. no worries.”
Only a warmist can answer Crakar’s question, because only a warmist would claim that “…Humans can affect the climate”. I note that even though the question was directed at you, you have as yet, failed to answer.
00
I did answer his question although perhaps you missed the obvious. Temperatures are still rising, therefore there is no need to react to the “cooling” that is not happening.
Read it carefully. Right before those words he says “Other environmental forces must amplify the climate change that the Milankovitch Cycles initiate.”.
He is suggesting Peatland changes are a feedback which affects the amount of CO2 in the air, and therfore, by absorbing CO2 they create a cooling effect.
Considering Atmospheric CO2 levels are still climbing and temperatures are still increasing I consider the need to react to a Milankovitch initiated forcing the least of our problems. Co2 is currently winning the battle against the peatlands.
00
No, James. Temperatures are not rising over the last 16-17 years. And yes, James. CO2 is rising over the same period.
Hypothesis falsified. Game over for you. Time to shift the goal posts again.
Why don’t you just admit it James? Nothing would ever convince you that your ‘religion’ is BS. Shifting goal posts is all you lot ever do.
10
“Only a warmist can answer Crakar’s question, because only a warmist would claim that “…Humans can affect the climate”.”
No actaully, anyone can answer Crackar’s question as it is framed in a manner that CO2s impacts are a given. Anyone can role play a situation where they were choosing a course of action based on a set of assumptions.
It is like a fire drill. You don’t have to believe the building is on fire do go down the escaps.
00
Franzen says: “Other environmental forces must amplify the climate change that the Milankovitch Cycles initiate.”
James says: “He is suggesting Peatland changes are a feedback which affects the amount of CO2 in the air, and therfore, by absorbing CO2 they create a cooling effect.”
Franzen also says: “…peatlands may become such a large carbon sink that critically low atmospheric carbon concentrations result, and this in turn may lead to a new Pleistocene ice age.”
Franzen further says: “We are probably entering a new ice age right now, however, we’re not noticing it due to the effects of carbon dioxide.”
You may notice that I’ve quoted the above sources and I’m willing to temporarily suspend my personal beliefs and accept them as statements of merit. I have not and will not divert your attention to any other sources.
So, if we put all of the above together, we get:
1) The Milankovitch Cycles initiate a change in climate (a lowering of temperature).
2) We are probably entering a new ice age right now, but we’re not noticing it due to the (warming) effects of carbon dioxide.
3) Other environmental forces must amplify (“by absorbing CO2 they create a cooling effect”) the climate change.
4) I would add that by reducing the ACO2 emissions, the temperature will drop. (See, I’m willing to consider the AGW position)
5) There may be a level where “critically low atmospheric carbon concentrations” will lead to a new ice age (the temperature will continue to drop).
You won’t like my answer, so I’m asking you; At what stage in the above process would you start pumping CO2 into the air in an attempt to offset an on-coming ice age?
There is nothing to be gained by pointing to current temperatures and saying – But we’re alright now Jack!
We are discussing an hypothesis put by Franzen that we are probably entering a new ice age and that it’s only because of the high level of CO2 that we don’t notice.
00
Max – it actually needs to start cooling to get your (3) happening. To my knowledge the peat has no knowledge of Milankovitch cycles. So we only need enough CO2 to counter the cycle, not the feedbacks as the feedbacks would not be happening.
The question “At what stage in the above process would you start pumping CO2 into the air in an attempt to offset an on-coming ice age?” is a tricky one though I’ll grant you that.
It assumes adding CO2 would actually make a difference so one would have to balance pumping enough CO2 out there to avert an ice age vs the risk of it only being a short term LIA type cooling – because then in 100 years it could be naturally warmer and you’d then have the warming of all the extra CO2 you’d put up there.
If it was up to me I’d monitor the temperature and make a decision based on the best available science of the day. My gut tells me you only need enough to counter the cycle not the feedbacks and we’ve arguably already done that.
00
Matt,
I hope these comments will be meaningful.
In point 3), I made reference to James’ interpretation. That was a mistake. What I should have done (in hindsight) was to quote further from Franzen’s paper. “However, Frolking & Roulet (2007) consider it likely that peatlands caused net warming in the early Holocene due to high emissions of CH4, but that they have caused net cooling for the past 8000−11,000 years.”
I draw your attention to my point 4), as an additional (and current goal of AGW theory) reduction in temperature.
I accept your answer and (while I’m still wearing my AGW hat) I would concur with your suggestion to monitor the temperature.
However, (yes, there had to be one) if we proceed to dismantle the coal fired power stations then how would we in the future, restore and in fact exceed our current levels of CO2 input?
James may think that the LIA was an ice age, but I’m sure you know that in a full ice age the temperatures will drop to -10°C or lower. Furthermore, should this eventuate, we are gunna need bucketloads of cheap power just to survive. Windmills, solar cells and hydro would be useless under metres of snow/ice.
00
Every single measure of surface temp disagrees with you.
Ocean Heat Content disagrees with you.
The relationship between Co2 and Temperature will not be linear over short timescales because of other natural variations. Your expectation is a strawman argument.
00
1) The Milankovitch Cycles initiate a change in climate (a lowering of temperature).
Agreed, although most scientists say this won’t happen for another ~20,000 years.
2) We are probably entering a new ice age right now, but we’re not noticing it due to the (warming) effects of carbon dioxide.
Yes, very very slowly over thousands of years we HAD been.
3) Other environmental forces must amplify (“by absorbing CO2 they create a cooling effect”) the climate change.
Correct.
4) I would add that by reducing the ACO2 emissions, the temperature will drop. (See, I’m willing to consider the AGW position)
You’re almost right. By reducing the level of atmospheric CO2, the temperature will drop.
5) There may be a level where “critically low atmospheric carbon concentrations” will lead to a new ice age (the temperature will continue to drop).
I agree.
You won’t like my answer, so I’m asking you; At what stage in the above process would you start pumping CO2 into the air in an attempt to offset an on-coming ice age?
Based on previous glacial periods I would suggest when CO2 gets around 280ppm. It’s currently about the 390ppm and rising.
The Milankovitch cycles work on very large timescales. Our land use and emissions of GHGs occur much faster. We are not in danger of a Milankovitch induced, Peatland feedback cooling.
01
The last 16 years stands for what it is James and nothing you can say can contradict it. Nobody on your side predicted it outside of those who predict everything after the fact. Good ole Phil Jones is befuddled by it and did what every warmist does when faced with awkward data – he moved the goal posts ie ‘just keep waiting folks….and keep sending us money in the meantime.’
Your ocean heat is a work in progress. Nobody really understands what it means, not even ‘travesty Trenberth’. The paucity of data at deeper levels makes a mockery of your efforts to impute disaster scenarios. The arbitrary removal of ‘cold’ sondes without satisfactory explanation further illustrates that panic is setting in.
Cut out the crap James and just tell us what has to happen for you to admit that your religion is BS. Oh, you’ve already been asked that a couple of times, haven’t you, yet you obstinately refuse to do so.
10
I’m not contradicting the last 16 years, the data shows warming.
I, and others know exactly what the data means. The oceans are gaining heat.
For science to provide an alternative answer. Currently the science shows that man causes the warming – as Nice One pointed out –
http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-comprehensive-review-of-the-causes-of-global-warming.html
When science, not web bloggers, can show something else is causing the warming, then I will believe that. Huff and puff all you like.
00
And what would that science be, James? What is the definitive causal relationship. What is the chain of mechanism? Where has each link in that chain been empirically demonstrated? On what grounds, has every alternative potential cause, been rejected? And in what peer reviewed papers, in which journals, was all of this good, solid, repeatable science published?
Sounds like a lot of hot air to me.
(Oh, and for your information, skepticalscience is a blog, written by web bloggers – in case you hadn’t noticed)
10
Max L – thanks for the friendly discussion. I think the main point of difference between us is you say:
“I’m sure you know that in a full ice age the temperatures will drop to -10°C or lower”
While this is true, the -10C is caused by a combination of external forcing (eg Mlnkvch cycles) plus feedbacks (eg whatever else happens as a flow on effect.
So we would not need to pump up enough CO2 to stop 10C cooling, just enough to counter the initial forcing as this would in turn prevent the feedbacks (as there is nothing triggering them).
It is worth noting I think that the 10C is based on a forcing and a lot of feedbacks. And it is demonstrated in the temp record. You often hear from skeptics (here included) that feedback is negative so temps will not “run away” in a warming, and yet here we are looking at 10C cooling based on positive feedbacks (to a point – at least enougn to make things v. uncomfortable).
00
The studies listed on that page are published in peer-reviewed journals.
You need to find another excuse not to look.
00
James,
I don’t need to look in the first place. It is you who is trying to convince me of a proposition. You can do that by answering my previous questions, in your own words.
Those questions were:
If it is easier for you, just explain it lay terms, but don’t forget, you are trying to convince me, so obfuscation will not do.
I also added, “And in what peer reviewed papers, in which journals, was all of this good, solid, repeatable science published?”. But we can ignore that for now, although I may ask for some specific references, if some of your points look especially interesting.
00
Nah, I’m not trying to convince you or pander to your requests – that would be a pointless exercise. Instead I am content to point out your unreasonable refusal to view the number of scientific papers that are listed on the skeptical science page.
You refuse to look. That’s your “excuse”.
00
Ah, well at least we have now established that you don’t actually know the answers to my questions, and you have probably not read the papers you are referring me to.
You therefore fall into the category of Troll, and I will report you as such.
Have a nice day.
10
No. We’ve established that I am not stupid enough to go hunting and responding to more of your questions when your patheic excuse for not looking at my previous response was because the studies were listed on skeptical science.
Try reporting yourself at the same time.
00
Matt, I threw away my AGW hat after reading James’ responses. It seems obvious to me that I’m not going to be able to have a reasonable discussion with him.
Thus far I have asked two simple questions. (Afterall, I am just a simple man)
You have answered the first, which I asked primarily to ascertain whether a warmist would ever condone pumping CO2 into the air.
The second relates to the following scenario:
1) Assuming Franzen is correct that we are probably entering a new ice age.
2) Assuming we stop all coal fired power stations from emitting CO2 now, and we dismantle them.
3) Assuming that Milankovitch forcing is still acting to lower the temperature.
4) Assuming that the cooling oceans are absorbing CO2.
5) Assuming the atmospheric CO2 levels have dropped to say 290ppm.
6) Assuming we now decide to increase the CO2 levels to compensate for the drop in temperature.
(Please note that I’ve included a couple of feedback mechanisms there.)
We are now 100ppm behind the “eight ball”. We now need to produce CO2 at a greater rate than we have ever achieved previously irrespective of the new current temperature.
My final question (which I hope will induce a straightforward answer) is:
If we proceed to dismantle the coal fired power stations then how would we in the future, restore and in fact exceed our current levels of CO2 input?
00
The only thing that’s been established James is that you’re just another drive-by troll, scuttling around like a cockroach looking for tid-bits of garbage to its liking.
You can’t cope with the reality that there has been no warming now since 1995 and the even more discomfiting fact that not one of your ‘prophets’ predicted this turn of events nor how long it might last. Those of your ilk were impatient for this year’s El Nino to send the thermometers into the stratosphere. What happened? It fizzled. That’s what happened. Climate’s a real bugger when it won’t cooperate with the models, ain’t it?
Instead of questioning your religion, you continue to scuttle and scarper about searching in vain for minutia to bolster your beliefs. You still refuse to lay down the criteria of falsification. Like all warmist trolls, you don’t like being pinned down do you, James.
But keep huffing and puffing, your efforts at climatological obfuscation are mildly amusing, at least for the moment.
[typo fixed] ED
10
James.
I agree with you about ACO2 but maybe you are not aware of the latest research that could remove all the concerns about the operation of CO2 as an amplifier.
Physicists at Huntsville Alabama have been able to replicate a known allotrope of carbon in a new rearrangement of the CO2 molecule.
Effectively what happens is that a double CO2 super molecule, atomic mass of the included carbon atoms
is 47.044, has been created where one neutron is removed from the four carbon atoms.
The chemical reactivity is essentially the same as ordinary CO2 but because the super molecule: {(CO2)2} is 2% lighter than the standard atomic mass of 4 carbon atoms ( 48.044 amu ).
The lighter CO2 floats high into the magnetosphere where the galactic particles are stronger and can break the CO2 down into 4C and 4O2 atoms.
Normal UVE and UVF interaction brings the O2 into the ozone cycle and the pure carbon drops harmlessly as dust.
While the current experiment is lab scale only it is believed that a solar powered facility for
producing the light CO2 could be in use inside 3 years and that it would be a relatively cheap way of
dealing with ACO2.
KK.
10
@MaxL, So instead of a rebuttal you run away. Fine. I hope one day you learn the science but if running away from facts you don’t like is your mechanism for coping, then I doubt you ever will.
@Mark, LOL!! A new level of “skepticism” has been reached. Please provide evidence for “no warming now since 1975”.
The data disagrees with you.
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/07/medieval-warm-period-found-in-120-proxies-roman-era-similar-to-early-20th-century/#comment-1178786
01
@KinkyKeith,
Jeepers, is this the first potential real post from you that isn’t just an attempt to ridicule?
I’ve heard of many possible geoengineering techniques, but no, not the one you mention. My googles skills failed me too, link?
00
Yup. Typo, should have read 1995.
Make of it what you will, the rest of the comment and the challenge still stands.
Your last comment still indicates a hubris beyond belief. You really should desist in speaking of “the science” as if it were a bible that only your type can understand.
10
OK, James,
To follow on from my previous comment, I have actually looked at the papers. None of them present empirical evidence to support the belief (for that is what it is) that CO2 has a major effect;
They rely entirely on computer models, which never reflect reality, and will not be accepted in a court of law as “truth” (I am a modeller, so I should know), and not only that, the associated prose relies on “arguments” from ignorance, a basic logical fallacy.
Is that really the best you can come up with, dweeb?
10
Mark
With all due respect.
I think you are mistaken there.
Cock roaches may squirm and scratch at the newspaper you have them pinned to with a needle.
But they don’t “huff and puff”.
KK 🙂
ps. Apologies to James for starting a sentence with but.
00
James says in reply to Mark,
“Your expectation is a straw-man argument.”
Well Jimmy, I think we all know that if you leave a Straw man out in the weather he could eventually be covered with Snow.
KK
00
Hey KK .
I ‘ll take that on board for my upcoming paper on cockroaches!
10
James Says.
“The studies listed on that page are published in peer-reviewed journals”.
lets look at some?
“The Economics of climate is critical to our understanding of how best to address this difficult issue. Prof. Mendelsohn has been in the vanguard of developing useful insights in this area for economists, regulators, and legislators.”– Robert HahnFormer Resident Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) for Public Policy Research and Executive Director of the AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies”
Economists critiquing Science is just about right for Klimate catastrophists.
KK 🙂
10
Of course they use computer models, how else are you going to calculate the forcings? On an abacus?
Where’s your science for attribution of recent warming? Still pushing the slide rule about, or are you waiting for the tea leaves to settle?
Bahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahah! Bulldust.
02
That’s easy James.
GIGO.
When are you going to accept that your ‘scientists’ predetermine the output. That’s why they’ve been so abysmally wrong about the last 17 years, James.
You can’t carry on claiming that all possible outcomes confirm the AGW hypothesis, you’ll finish up being an object of ridicule, James. Oh, wait. You already are!
Not long back you credited yourself with taking the wind out of the sails of certain commenters here. James, you couldn’t take the wind of a gnat’s wings. Talk about being “up one’s self”!
20
Mark you seemed to have missed the opportunity to provide science countering the studies of attribution.
Care to try again or are you happy being in the dark?
01
Jimmy
When I was a boy, at least for the first few years, we used slide-rules for our modeling work.
later we graduated to hand calculators but all of the work is done in setting up the model and sorting out known from unknown parameters and testing against the actual system being modeled.
The Klimate models are not actually models because they do not Run In Parallel with an existing physical system that is being modeled.
KK
10
James, blind and drunk Harry riding a galloping horse on a moonless midnight could see more clearly than you with all your models, attribution studies and assorted SkS bilge. What can any sane person think of models that ‘predict’ all possible outcomes. Here’s a clue: Your beloved models are crap.
Did I miss something James. Oh no, I didn’t. You still can’t falsify the null hypothesis so instead you cast snarky and irrelevant comments.
You’re a gigantic yawn, James.
10
And still we wait so I ask politely once again. Where’s your science for attribution of recent warming?
01
Pompous can now be an attribute of our warmist friend James.
James, I attribute almost all of any warming to natural variation. Now, please demonstrate with empirical* evidence why this isn’t so.
*without using models, model derived data, simulated data, adjustments or adjusted data.
PS good luck.
10
1.Anyone reading the original quote in its context knows the truth. I think you’re confusing Independent with Vested Interest, but anyway – 8 more to go (assuming you prove corruption in the one case).
I notice you skip discussing why proxy data is less reliable than modern thermometer records – so I repeat:
In the case you discuss, the proxy data was obviously incorrect. Either way it doesn’t support your warmer MWP claim.
Re: “itsnotnova has added in their own “modern temp””. Be specific, which itsnotnova graph do you think is incorrect?
Re: “airports and airconditioners and fermenting vats” – I’ll have to repeat my previous statement which you have not addressed.
You pick out one or two sites as evidence of poor citing, but then fail to follow to show how this has impacted global results. Were they even used in the “quality” set of data used for global analysis? You generate doubt, but provide little in the way of firm answers.
2. You’ve cited papers but you’re also misrepresented them. The previous point is a perfect example of Producing Doubt without backing it up with proper evidence.
I’ve clearly done my homework because I’ve found numerous flaws in your MWP theory. My expectation is that you should correct your errors and not make unsubstantiated claims regardless of whether you reply personally to me or not.
Your graphs are inaccurate and your conclusions are different from that of the science you are quoting, so yes, I expect you to do the honest and decent thing and correct your post.
3. This is a loaded not-too-honest question: “Why is it you would not correct raw data for TOB?” I’ve never said anything about TOB.
Great. So you understand adjustments are necessary in order to produce a more accurate continuous temperature record. Now address the rest of my point:
“You pick out one or two sites as evidence of poor citing, but then fail to follow to show how this has impacted global results. Were they even used in the “quality” set of data used for global analysis?”.
Casting doubt on the record should be followed up by showing the impact this has. You have not done this and THAT is why you get labelled as a “Merchant of doubt”.
4. Providing the data is not the same as constructing the graph. Huang is not responsible for errors made by McKitrick, just as you’re not expected to correct McKitrick. We do expect you to correct your own posts.
I agree it looks nothing like other hockeysticks, especially since the real graph covers 20,000 years and most hockeystick graphs are between 1,000-2,000 years. In any case it certainly doesn’t support your conclusion.
Make sure you stick to the science and don’t go drawing your own personal conclusions based on other people’s books and pdfs.
5. Ahhh, the old I know better than the experts argument. Many things in science turn out to be counter intuitive; I’ve witnessed enough to be wary of making such assumptions, especially in a field that is not my area of expertise. I can imagine several possible causes for Huang to say “the uppermost 100 meters is the depth range most susceptible to non-climatic perturbations”.
So yes I’ll continue to request peer-reviewed science on the topic because that is certainly more reliable than “web blogger physics”.
6. You mistake your post with peer-reviewed science. At least in peer-reviewed science when a mistake is made the paper is either retracted, or newer science replaces it.
On your blog we’re left with a poor attempt to “correct” instead of removing it and replacing it with the correct graph, a task which is quite easy. I suspect the hard part for you is the ego.
Good luck with that assertion. Most of Mann’s proxy reconstructions agree with the ones we’ve been discussing (see above).
6. No. You go backwards.
You go further than that when you claim “The bottom line is that there are a mass of studies that show it was warmer in medieval times, and that it was global.”
But as repeated (unfortunately) numerous times, he’s not achieving that because Idso needs to calculate what all of these local temps were doing at the SAME point in time in order to determine the GLOBAL temp.
Idso’s work is next to useless, except for being a port for disinformation.
Yes you said it, but you neglected to respond to my reply, instead you repeating yourself. Your response is “Idso only wanted to show the MWP exists and that it was warm”, but he (and you) attempt to do more by suggesting it was warmer than today.
As I pointed out, unless you do a proper global reconstruction, and stop simply pointing out the peaks somewhere near the MWP, then you will continue to mislead your readers.
The temperature reconstructions that we’ve been discussing, which have properly aligned the different data sets, do not support your claim.
7. Inflammatory? Wrongly labelling graphs in order to fool the unwary; I would be well justified to use far stronger language.
And, yet you’ve failed time and time again to respond to a number of questions – I’ll list them in a moment.
It’s concerning (and enlightening) that you believe production of more posts is more important than being accurate.
You’re welcome. My patience is matched by my persistence. To make you “stronger” you still need to address.
1. Where’s the evidence to show that badly sited weather stations are corrupting the global temps?
2. Where’s your reasoning to show why bad proxy data should have been used instead of modern thermometer data?
3. The MWP existed, yes, but Idso’s method needs to align all data so as to get a GLOBAL temp at a given point in time in order to evaluate the MWP against CWP.
4. Loehle’s work only goes to 1935. His estimate has it about the same as 1978 to 2006. Today is warmer than that average.
5. Ljungqvist’s work to the mid 20th century doesn’t support a warmer than now MWP.
6. Huang’s boreholes don’t include the last 100 years and doesn’t support a warmer than now MWP.
7. Huang’s later work also doesn’t support your claim.
8. Where’s your evidence to show that whatever caused the MWP is also causing the temps today?
Multiple studies attribute the current warming to man-kind’s activities
There may well have been a MWP, but none of the studies you list support it being globally warmer than today.
72
Nice One
Jo has written extensively on this, all you need to do is use the index, as she has suggested previously. I presume you know how to use an index?
I am not going to try to second guess Jo’s reasoning, I will leave that question for her to answer.
No. Idso’s method does what he set out to do, as Jo has described previously. It was very convenient for the CAGW crowd to do a lot of hand waving, and pretend the MWP was a local phenomenon. Idso flattened that myth. Nowhere to run, nowhere to hide.
I will leave that for Jo to answer. I am not familiar with the context.
I wasn’t aware that Jo said that it did. She used it to make the point that Mann’s hockey stick had been manipulated to remove the MWP from history. It is a standard propaganda technique; you don’t try to change what people observe today, instead you alter the way they interpret it, by changing their frame of reference.
Huang ’97 data still does.
I seem to remember that Jo said that she would discuss his ’08 paper, in a later piece.
Oh dear, and just where is your evidence that CO2 causes the warming (such that it is) today? Correlation does not show causation, and even the correlation is looking a bit shonky, as things currently stand.
All said and done, Governments want to take our money, based on the feeble advice they have been given by Climate “Scientists”, through the medium of the IPCC, These Climate “Scientists” fail to mention that they have nothing to back up their case, other than activism, and yet take volunteers in related fields to task and hold them to standards that they don’t adhere to themselves. Mann’s 98 work was so awful that random numbers would generate his hockeystick. The IPCC has received millions of dollars from taxpayers around the world, based upon the worst pieces of statistical analysis in the history of science. And yet you, and the other acolytes still defend Mann’s junk science. But be warned, you cannot expect the IPCC to cover all of the evidence, and don’t expect the IPCC to stand behind you in support, when people start to realise that they have been conned. The IPCC, being political, will hang the “Scientists” and their acolytes out to dry in order to save themselves. It will not be pretty.
31
I did, she hasn’t.
[Didn’t think to look under “surface stations”, or “temperature records”, or “Australian temperatures”.? How unfortunate for you. – Jo]
So why bother even writing this?
So demonstrate how the above criticism is incorrect.
Then start paying better attention. I suggest you read our conversation before commenting further.
Not according to Huang. Again, read the above conversation where I have quote Huang saying that it does not.
Given the number of problems listed in her current posts on the topic of the MWP, I don’t expect much to improve.
Listed in the link right after the sentence you quoted.
Please do some reading before your next reply.
21
Gotta Pay that one Noice.
Beautifully symmetrical Spacing
KK
Perfect shape.
I’ll come back and read it later if I ever have nothing to do.
KK
00
Funny how “evidence” for CO2 induced warming is always in a handy “link”.
It’s never in front of thee reader where he can read it and the link is usually to SkS which is an arm of GreenPiss.
KK
00
‘O Oysters,’ said the Carpenter,
‘You’ve had a pleasant run!
Shall we be trotting home again?’
But answer came there none —
11
My previous comment should have continued: –
Subject does not know how to use an index, nor how to devise a site search strategy.
Subject is not aware of the etiquette of giving a null response rather than just ignoring the question.
Idso showed that the event of the MWP occurred globally. But quantifying the MWP such that it could be correlated with the current calculation of the CWP, would require access to information that has not been published. (Arcane Knowledge)
That is the Pot calling the Kettle black. Had you read the series of posts about Idso, you would not have needed clarification again.
But at least I am quite able to admit that there are things on this blog that I am unaware of. It is another way of politely giving a null response.
Politeness, now there is a concept … perhaps I have less testosterone than you … or perhaps I prefer to let people demonstrate how rational they are, in the way they respond.
I will read it again. And I will be very careful to read it in two ways: a) I will read it to try and discern exactly what the author intended; and b) I will read it to better understand how somebody with a preconceived agenda would interpret what was written. Very often, these are not the same thing.
Well, that is hardly being polite, given that you are a guest on her blog. Are you normally that rude to people whom you have never met, and who might have some opinions that are different to your own? I am truly sorry for you, if you feel that insecure.
My original question was, “Where is your evidence that CO2 causes the warming?”. When I use the word “evidence” I imply “empirical evidence”, with a demonstrable unidirectional relationship between cause and effect. “Opinion pieces”, no matter how well written and well intentioned are not evidence. The link was to septicalscience, and that contains opinion pieces.
So where is your empirical evidence that CO2 causes all of the warming, and as a secondary question, where is your empirical evidence that the increase in CO2 is entirely caused by man? I ask this, because one of my Geology colleagues claims that the amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere from volcanic eruptions (including sea vents) is several orders of magnitude higher than that produced by mankind on a regular basis.
34
Subject doesn’t know how to paste a link, instead prefers to send others on wild goose chase.
At “some point in time”, not all at the same time.
Politeness would be reading the prior conversation instead of simply just chipping in your 2 cents worth with noregard for the discussion so far.
When you do come back to post, please make sure you’re not just repeating prior arguments. Nova’s gone backwards on numerous occasions and it’s rather disappointing.
And I answered it.
How cute, your own personal definition.
No, the links were to peer-reviewed papers.
Tett et al. (2000)
Meehl et al. (2004)
Stone et al. (2007)
Lean and Rind (2008)
Stott et al. (2010)
Huber and Knutti (2011)
Foster and Rahmstorf (2011)
Gillett et al. (2012)
Sounds like you get your “facts” from the book of Ian Plimer http://youtu.be/iEsygjXunTs?t=7m50s
For actual facts, http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php
[This comment is in moderation.] Fly
52
NiceOne, politeness would be NOT turning up to a large blog tossing insulting accusations without checking the facts. You know, like claiming the author is out to deceive and pour doubts “without evidence” when said anonymous name-tosser has not done the basic search to see that the author has indeed written many times and at length with evidence on the topic. It’s a tad narcissistic and unrealistic to think bloggers have to leap to do research to disprove baseless insults thrown by any anonymous commenter who turns up.
Hypocrisy? According to you a commenter has to read all the previous conversation, but you don’t even have to do a 2 minute search of the INDEX or by google before you declare you know the authors intent and motivation.
Still can’t provide evidence to support your faith in catastrophic warming? The papers you link to appear to be based on models — which are not empirical evidence at all. It’s not his “personal definition” — it’s a tenet of science that predictions are supposed to predict observations.
As for “Nova’s gone backwards” — you mean, Nova had to repeat her answers because you kept saying she “ignored” your point, when she’d answered it.
Jo
24
I don’t have faith, I’ll go along with the peer-reviewed scientific concensus. If it were to change, so too would my views. I have no vested interest in my posts, no ego to protect, and no corner I’ve painted myself into.
The models use empirical data to hindcast and the known laws of physics to simulate the planet as well as hardware/software allows.
Here’s another one:
Wigley, Santer (2012) – A probabilistic quantification of the anthropogenic component of twentieth century global warming
The papers have used computers to do many calculations. As others have pointed out, you’ve not provided anything. The closest you come is some guy and his laptop trying to prove the SOI is responsible for temps. Given his lack of consideration for both solar and aerosols, I don’t like his chances of peer-review.
Your “I don’t know what caused it, but the models aren’t 100% correct” approach is not scientifically sound.
Please do tell which facet of science predicted the lower and longer than usual solar cycles? Or the increase in aerosol use? Past predictions will never be 100% correct, partly because of this lack of knowledge, and partly because they are an approximation of what the planet will do.
Guess what? None of them come close to getting it right without the known forcing of GHGs.
I noticed you haven’t provided any science for the Attribution of recent warming.
Yes, you’ve gone backwards. Here’s how it has played:
1. You say: MWP > CWP.
2. I say: Idso isn’t performing a reconstruction because he doesn’t align graphs.
3. You say: But he “he lists and counts them”.
4. I say: That’s not a reconstruction. And further clarify that if you did the same thing, but count +1 for each sample that has a colder than CWP, then you would (also erroneous) conclude the MWP was colder. His method doesn’t work.
5. You say: Finally, yes we could discuss Idso’s counting technique.
6. I say: Finally? It was listed in my original post and on the itsnotnova website.
7. You say: This is the only minor but worthwhile point you have raised.
8. I say: Minor point? It entirely defeats Idso’s method.
9. You say: His conclusion is similar to the better longer ways of doing things. Large multi-proxy peer reviewed results show the same pattern … there are hundreds of other studies he has yet to finish compiling
*** at this point there was a breakdown in communication where my hypothetical was mistaken for a litteral example. For brevity, I’ll skip.
10. I say: Large multi-proxy peer reviewed results don’t conclude that the MWP > CWP. There may well be hundreds more studies, … then he is simply repeating the same mistake hundreds of times.
*** Regarding reconstructions, we found several errors either in your graphs, that you had old paper rather than corrected paper, or that you hadn’t realised the reconstructions didn’t go to the current day.
11. You say: PLUS if there were 10 degree cooler dips for short periods it would show in this graph here. There weren’t. You are wrong.
12. I say: Repeat Idso’s process asking “was it ever cooler in the MWP than today” and you’d get an opposite and equally useless graph.
13. You say: No. Wrong. Idso didn’t ask that question. You are being sloppy.
14. I say: I never said those were Idso’s words. I said, that if you were to repeat his method, but instead of looking for the peak, you look for the trough, then you’d discover samples would have point in time that is lower than today’s temperature somewhere within, or near, the MWP.
15. You say: I answered your Idso point way back in #37.1.1.1.1 parts 4 – 6. (not #38.1.1.1.1 which was a typo.
16. I say: Yes, you do still ignore, because I answered that in the post that followed it. And I reiterate with an example “Look at Loehle’s plot for example, at any given time some are higher than average, many around average and some are below. What matters, to get a global result is the average of all of those.”
17. You say: Re: Idso. We go on in circles. … his point was only that the MWP existed and was global
Ahhaaaa: “MWP existed and was global” is different to “MWP existed, was global AND warmer than today”, which is what you are claiming.
18. I say: You go further than that when you claim “The bottom line is that there are a mass of studies that show it was warmer in medieval times, and that it was global.”
You’ve yet to reply.
102
6 days ago i wrote this comment
63 comments later James et al still has not answered the question, oh they have dodged, weaved, bullshitted, employed some sort of weird linguistic gymnastics and the obligatory attempts to drag the discussion off on a tangent but still they failed to answer the question.
If you watch “Snow White and the huntsman” you will see them, when Snow White and the Huntsman leave the dark forest they encounter people like these big ugly things.
Oh and a big thanks goes out to MaxL for keeping them entertained in my absence.
Cheers all
Crakar24
30
I answered already. You need to show why the is cause for action first.
21
James,
Franzen claims we are now entering an ice age but due to CO2 levels we dont realise it.
Judging by your response you are questioning Franzens theory by claiming that we are not entering an ice age.
This is very convenient……………in an effort to not answer my very simple question you have completely removed the point of asking the question.
Rather than address my question you question the theory of ice age cycles thus relegating Franzen to a kook and a founding member of the Flat Earth society.
Bravo to you James, bravo.
33
Maybe there’s a lesson there for you. Think hard. 😉
32
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm…thinking……………..thinking……………..thinking………….oh i got it….i think?
Never, never, never ask someone who lacks the ability of critical independant thought a question.
33
Nope. Keep trying.
33
Nope i dont play games with Trolls.
11
Ironic given that it was you exhibiting Troll-like behaviour back here.
Rather than contribute to the discussion on Idso flawed method with regard to the MWP, you wanted to derail the discussion.
31
Rather than contribute, My Astrolabe!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I kicked all this off by asking you a simple question, you contribute by spearing off in another direction in an attempt to not answer my simple question then you have the audacity to claim i want to derail the conversation.
I have never ever encountered someone so stupid as you.
Do not bother me again you fool.
02
No, you replied to my comment on Idso and the MWP, which this topic is about.
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/07/medieval-warm-period-found-in-120-proxies-roman-era-similar-to-early-20th-century/#comment-1175733
30
James,
I dont understand the point of your never ending comments.
I asked you a simple question, based on Franzens work do we do we continue down the path of CO2 reduction or not. Rather than answer this simple question you denigrate Franzen by claiming we are not entering an ice age therefore there is no need to answer my question.
If that is your answer then so be it, pathetic as it is it is still technically an answer.
There is nothing more to discuss, your awkward and at times amatuerish attempts to save face are not needed nor are they welcome.
13
Less ad-homs, more facts please.
Currently the science shows that man causes the warming –
http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-comprehensive-review-of-the-causes-of-global-warming.html
Your response to this has been simply to call me names and Rereke Whakaaro is waiting for his tea leaves to settle.
20
Well that’s just not true now is it James.
The studies in the link you provided are almost all of CLIMATE FRIGGING MODELS.
Computer models are NOT EVIDENCE especially when they are played around by a bunch of rent seeking enviro activists.
So James, either you’re a liar or you are an incompetent lemming. Which are you?
22
I’m looking forward to seeing your abacus based calculations on attribution.
[snip]
[Mindless posts are exactly the kind we moderators are happy to remove. Linking to another mindless post? Really? James, have your master adjust your troll-bot settings.]ED
20
[snip] Oooh sorry, wrong attitude. Try contrite
ED
20
Dear ED, could you please be consistent.
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/07/medieval-warm-period-found-in-120-proxies-roman-era-similar-to-early-20th-century/#comment-1184012
(Please stop making off topic comments) CTS
[Dear James, could you please explain why I should do anything to please you?] ED
20
What??????????????
02
Why is my comment still waiting moderation?
——————————
I think the mod realized that I was not aware you were commenting on an old unwatched thread. – Jo
20
[…] end of the twentieth century. However, due to time schedules for acceptance into AR5, they ignore Christiansen and Ljungqvist April 2012 and Ljungqvist et al 2012. The later, despite including discredited proxies such as Briffa’s […]
00
[…] a new paper confirms the Medieval Warm Period was actually warmer than today, and not just in Europe and not just on land: We show that water masses linked to North Pacific and Antarctic […]
00