JoNova

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


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

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



Archives

Nature paper pushes wild exaggeration of 7-13C “climate sensitivity”! Even Gavin Schmidt calls them out.

Lordy. Lordy. How did Snyder 2016 get past rigorous peer review and into a supposed “top” journal like Nature?

Carolyn Snyder did a 2 million year temperature reconstruction then assumed that all the warming in the whole record was caused by CO2, she then carried that correlation right through to reach the absurd conclusion that climate sensitivity is not 2 – 4C, but 7 to 13 freaking degrees. (Did she study climate science by watching Al Gore?)

Normally we’d expect a climate expert to know that orbital mechanics drive most of the changes.

Don’t look now, but Gavin Schmidt has done the right thing and pointed out a very silly conclusion that Nature and all their reviewers missed. (If only Nature had asked bloggers to review it …)

This obvious mistake has caught out a lot of the press. It was also missed by The ABC, The Conversation, Andrew Glikson etc etc.  The Daily Mail (UK) published a version by Associated Press, and they at least asked Michael Mann who said he “remains skeptical until more research confirms it” (as if!), and  Jeremy Shakun, who said it “seems too high”. Though AP buried those weak warnings and still went with the apocalyptic headline: Earth is warmer that it has been in 120,000 years – and is ‘locked in’ to hit its hottest mark in more than 2 million years, study claims. (Who forgot the Holocene? )

Andrew Glikson is an Earth and paleo-climate scientist at Australian National University, but he’s not expert enough to spot this gaping flaw. (Which is probably why he did so badly against a mere blogger in an epic five-round debate.).

As Gavin Schmidt says:

The paper claims that ESS is ~9ºC and that this implies that the long term committed warming from today’s CO2 levels is a further 3-7ºC. This is simply wrong.

The original study estimated a climate sensitivity of 7 – 13C:

Two million years of records show emissions could already warm world to dangerous levels

The Conversation. By Andrew Glikson, Australian National University

More sensitive than we thought

The new paper recalculates this sensitivity again — and unfortunately the results aren’t in our favour. The study suggests that stabilisation of today’s CO2 levels would still result in 3-7C warming, whereas doubling of CO2 will lead to 7-13C warming over millennia.

The research uses proxy measurements for temperature (such as oxygen isotopes and magnesium-calcium ratios from plankton) and for CO₂ levels, calculated for every 1,000 years back to 2 million years ago.

The ABC copied The Conversation but word spread pretty fast and only 4 hours later it added a new story with the very sedate title:

Climate change study accused of erring on rising temperature predictions

Prominent climate scientists have issued a warning that a paper published in the influential journal Nature sensationalised climate change predictions and used an “incorrect calculation”.

“The ratio that gave that, which was the very high sensitivity that she calculates, comes from a correlation between temperature and the carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from the ice cores, but as we all know, correlation does not equal causation.

“And in this case, the causation is the orbital wobbles of the Earth’s climate that are controlling both the temperature and the carbon dioxide at the same time and so that’s giving you an exaggerated view of how carbon dioxide affects temperature directly.”

Dear Dr Glikson — you asked to write part 6 in our debate –  you’re still welcome. :- )

h/t Colin, David B, Original Steve, Analitik

REFERENCE

Carolyn W. Snyder (2016) Evolution of global temperature over the past two million years, Nature, 00 MONTH 2016 | VOL 000 | NATURE | 1 LETTER doi:10.1038/nature19798
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 8.9/10 (57 votes cast)
Nature paper pushes wild exaggeration of 7-13C "climate sensitivity"! Even Gavin Schmidt calls them out., 8.9 out of 10 based on 57 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/jjjqf36

179 comments to Nature paper pushes wild exaggeration of 7-13C “climate sensitivity”! Even Gavin Schmidt calls them out.

  • #
    toorightmate

    Carolyn W Snyder will be a real force to be reckoned with when she finds out what 4/3pir3 is.

    72

    • #
    • #
      Analitik

      Well, she was a White House fellow from 2012-2013, just 2 years after receiving her PhD. So what a star!

      http://carolynsnyder.com/Snyder_Resume.pdf

      And she has “Analyzed the legal and economic implications of energy policies” as part of her PhD so she will be able to produce papers on renewable energy, too.

      51

      • #
        RobbertBobbertGDQ

        Analitik
        “Analyzed the legal and economic implications of energy policies” as part of her PhD.
        Doesn’t that mean that she knows how to apply for,and get,all the right grants for all the right thinking people, Business and organisations. And everyones backside is covered.
        Each Year. Every Year.
        Have gone over to a few of the Climate GLOOM Cheerleader Sites and have asked some hard Sciency Questions based on this temperature forecast for …a few millenia.
        Who will be around to check out if it is accurate?
        Meet George Jetson.Jane his wife. Daughter Judy. His son Elroy. Astro the dog and Rosie The Robot Maid.
        Another asked of any ‘Back to the Future’ fans if Professor Emmett Brown and Mr Marty McFly were Co Authors.
        Cats seem to have got their tongues.
        My question to JO and Posters is to please, please tell me that Ms Snyder is gonna come out and explain that it is just one itty bitty mistake as a result of a little TYPO and she will, with the help of her peer friends,Gergis and Karoly,fix it very,very soon.

        10

  • #
    crakar24

    I bet you all the tea in China the paper gets a gig in the next ipcc report

    192

    • #
      TinyCO2

      As part of a mix of studies and then averaged so it doesn’t stick out.

      152

    • #
      Mari C

      Maybe. Gizmodo gave it a thumbs down, and they tend to be a bit on the green side

      http://gizmodo.com/dont-worry-the-earth-is-not-locked-into-ten-degrees-of-1787058579

      42

    • #
      John in Oz

      Doesn’t it HAVE to be included, otherwise the IPCC would have to produce a similarly long report explaining why they cherry-picked the papers they do use?

      Not including ANY peer-reviewed (for what that is worth) paper requires proof of its errors. Conversely, any included papers should similarly be proven to be correct, a seemingly impossible task given the lack of empirical proof of what controls climate.

      62

      • #
        toorightmate

        The peers need to be reviewed.

        82

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Indeed,

          I am looking for a bunch of folks who are as inadequate as I am, so I can get all of my stuff published in the peer reviewed literature.

          I will return the favour, if anybody is interested in playing.

          52

          • #
            RobbertBobbertGDQ

            Rareke,
            Like Dear Prospective Employer,
            Like for the right price I can be as inadequate as you like.
            Like in fact if the price is even more right, and then some,
            I can be as inadequate as it is possible to be.
            Like however if you still have some currency left over I will someway, somehow find it in me to be even a tad more inadequate again.
            Like My Profs used that term a lot like whenever i handed in work stuff like.
            Like regards.
            A recent Honours Graduate from Climate Science.
            Like sorry about the funny, correct like spelling stuff and like things but Mom insists on spell checking all my applications.But the rest is all my own original inadequate stuff like.
            Like who knows Olds hey? Right.Like.Dude.

            20

          • #
            Craig Thomas

            (SNIPPED) CTS

            (Get back on topic and drop the insulting overtones in your comments) CTS

            03

    • #
      Mark D.

      You have stock in tea then?

      Smart money. More and more people drink tea.

      Just sayin…..

      22

    • #
      Craig Thomas

      What “paper”, Crakar?

      Have you actually read what is being discussed and not understood it? Or have you not even read it?

      210

      • #
        crakar24

        Craig,

        Your comment makes no sense, the document was peer reviewed and published ergo ut is now called a “paper”. I appreciate for an AGW believer it is rather embarrassing but really do you think denying it actually exists will make it go away?

        Perhaps when people like you see this type of rubbish as a reflection of ones self? If you are intelligent enough to see just how bad these “rent-a-scientists” are then perhaps you yourself are just as stupid hence the need to pretend it does not in fact exist?

        91

        • #
          Craig Thomas

          If you were sceptical – like I am – you would ignore what other people assert and you would notice that it is as “letter” to Nature, not a “paper”.

          06

          • #

            Nature CALLS it a LETTER. This sounds like their own nomenclature, perhaps meaning the length, or perhaps it means it is a 17 page summation of a longer work. Or maybe regular authors receive different labels. But I don’t think the word “letter” changes the fact that this is a scientific study and it was published.

            10

      • #
        Heywood

        Craig,

        I’ve asked (politely) before but you either missed it or ignored it but I’ll try again.

        Apart from posting on this blog, what steps have you taken personally to help prevent this climate catastrophe that you keep talking about?

        50

    • #

      Nature is now publishing Articles of Faith.

      … at some point they will change the name of the journal to Gaia.

      It’s got nothing to do with science, and everything to do with a new religion of Socio-Political Scientism (empirical evidence replaced by a policy echo chamber), where being pious, requires one to constantly beat ones peers with scary predictions and vociferous attacks on ‘climate’ heretics.

      I am a proud heretic! Galileo has passed the baton to JoNova, and we have to run with it I guess. Vive la JoNova!

      10

  • #
    TinyCO2

    I think Dr Lew should be alerted to this paper. I’m sure he could weave it into one of his learned papers. Think how silly estimates of 1.5C would look against it.

    62

    • #
      Craig Thomas

      What “paper”? Where?

      19

    • #

      Yeah … and the next 97% ‘consensus’ ‘study’ can now include this paper in the footnotes as one of those papers that is ‘peer reviewed’, and which passed all of the terms-of-reference (ie, agrees with CAGW) required to count towards the statistic.

      “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.”
      - Benjamin Disraeli

      00

  • #
    Konrad

    “Lordy. Lordy. How did Snyder 2016 get past rigorous peer review and into a supposed “top” journal like Nature?”

    Err… “Nature” is the journal where editors are on permanent record as referring to AGW sceptics as [holocaust] deniers. They have form.

    Of course, none of nature editors or approved contributors are better at radiative physics or fluid dynamics than I. (You can tell. These drivelling morons believe in AGW. Dead give away.)

    204

    • #
      jorgekafkazar

      These drivelling morons believe in AGW.

      While it’s true that belief in AGW is ordinarily a form of IQ test, perhaps you are attributing to stupidity something that could be reasonably explained by self-interest, laziness, oversight, peer review failure, or even sarcasm. After all, how could anything that Gavin dislikes be totally bad?

      In fact, this Snyder paper represents a microcosmic example of the ubiquitous refusal to believe that natural variations could be responsible for one iota of global warming; thus it is a veritable reductio ad absurdum. Perhaps the paper is actually brilliant, and Nature, in their deep wisdom, have recognized that and held it up for the world to see. Bravo, I say. Encore!

      51

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        I think you make a good point there, Jorge.

        When the climate charade started, there were sufficiently few “climate scientists”, for them to correlate their published output.

        Now we are at the point in the charade, where writing scary papers about climate matters is seen as being a sure, “route to the loot”.

        In consequence, the structure and consistency of the message has become so dilute that we are witnessing some very odd results indeed.

        If there were less politics riding on this, it would be quite farcical.

        20

  • #
    Leonard Lane

    Wow!
    Reminds me of the old Soviet Union claims: whatever was invented in the west had been invented in the USSR years before–and the Soviet version was much bigger, better, etc.!
    Sadly, this paper will stay in the climate change/global literature and be sited by many loony warmunists.

    112

  • #
    Leonard Lane

    cited, sorry.

    22

  • #

    Glikson responded in comments at The Conversation after someone pointed out the RealClimate link.

    Andrew Glikson
    Earth and paleo-climate scientist, Australian National University
    In reply to Mike Hansen
    CO2 forcing during the end-glacial and inter-glacial periods constituted an important feedback to solar radiative maxima in mid-latitudes (in the range of ~40-60 Watt/m2), controlled by the Milankovic cycles. During these periods warming of the oceans led to decrease in CO2 solubility as feedback effects. Thus Earth-sun orbital parameters constituted a primary energy forcing. It is of course a totally different situation with anthropogenic Carbon emission of near 600 GtC since onset of the industrial age, constituting the primary driver of global warming, amplified by feedback release of CO2 from land and oceans.

    Word-salad and waffle — no honest admission of how large this flaw is and the big difference it makes. Seemingly still unaware that there is no evidence for large positive feedbacks from CO2 at all, either in the ice cores or in water vapor feedbacks. No mention of the 800 year lag between temp and CO2 and the the reason for the “correlation” is just the ocean releasing CO2 (which means it would be amazing if there were no correlation between Temp and CO2.)If the feedbacks were so strong why do the ice cores not show consistent increases in temp after higher CO2? Why do they show temp falling when CO2 is higher?

    The models assume all feedbacks act through the surface, completely forgetting the possibility that water vapor could respond (a feedback) to the extra CO2 by emitting extra infra red and decreasing in the upper troposphere. That’s exactly what the weather balloons show. The extra energy trapped by CO2 just escapes through the water vapor window. (See David Evans model).

    342

    • #
      John in Oz

      “amplified by feedback release of CO2 from land and oceans”

      While, at the same time, absorbing CO2 to make the oceans more acidic.

      38

      • #
        StefanL

        Don’t you red thumpers recognise sarcasm when you see it ?

        00

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Not more acidic – less alkaline, but not by much.

        I take it that you do understand that there are two scales – neutral to acidic, and neutral to alkaline? Chemistry does not move directly from one to the other.

        It is like having a railcar, with an engine at both ends. The railcar can be driven north, or south, but not both at the same time. The driver has to get out, and go to the other end of the railcar, to drive the railcar back, the way it came.

        00

    • #
      ianl8888

      … anthropogenic Carbon emission of near 600 GtC since onset of the industrial age, constituting the primary driver of global warming …

      From Glikson’s Conversation response.

      Assuming that which is to be demonstrated with empirical evidence. The circularity is now irretrievably ingrained.

      72

    • #
      Glen Michel

      Is he really that ignorant? What unbelievable waffle from a person of his position.I know,I know.

      52

    • #
      Craig Thomas

      How about an honest admission about that even worse paper on climate sensitivity by Richard Lindzen?

      (Does this mean,you have nothing against Jo’s post about an overblown paper?) CTS

      214

      • #
        AndyG55

        Each new study pushes the climate sensitivity lower and lower. (except this clown driven paper)

        Not long until they get to the real value of basically ZERO warming from increased atmospheric CO2. :-)

        90

  • #

    Poor readers at The conversation are taking this study seriously.
    https://theconversation.com/current-emissions-could-already-warm-world-to-dangerous-levels-study-66040

    Anita Spinks
    The study suggests that stabilisation of today’s CO₂ levels would still result in 3-7℃ warming, whereas doubling of CO₂ will lead to 7-13℃ warming over millennia.
    Am I right in thinking that human beings wouldn’t make it, at these levels? Apart from SLR, I can’t imagine any nooks suitable for human habitation.

    Georgina Byrne, farmer
    In reply to Anita Spinks
    No they would not make it…any of them given their reliance on suitable plants and animals for sustenance, quite apart from coping with the extraordinary temperatures both high and initially low in most of their best agricultural areas. The oceans in those conditions would be empty of pretty much anything but jellyfish too…although so few humans would survive the initial cataclysms that they might be glad of a raw jellyfish lunch. suitable for human habitation.

    222

    • #
      tom0mason

      I wonder what Climate Audit would make of this catastrophe in ‘climate science™’?

      82

    • #
      Bulldust

      It’s somewhat sad to see these denizens of the supposed ivory tower of learning are quite ignorant and lacking basic common sense. I guess their minds are too highly trained…

      62

      • #
        john karajas

        I have seen Andy Glikson cop flack at a geological conference from one of his research peers. It was not complimentary and I would say that this is a guide as to the worthiness of his scientific ideas.

        82

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Ninety eight percent of “ivory” artifacts on the world’s markets are not ivory at all, but cheap simulations. Perhaps that also extends to ivory towers of learning, do you suppose?

        20

      • #

        “their minds are too highly trained…”

        Does this mean they held their head up while being run over by a train?

        30

    • #
      sophocles

      Both Anita Spinks and Georgina Byrne obviously haven’t heard of the Cretaceous era. There was a lot of animal and plant life living, reproducing and thriving in temperatures as high or higher than they have discussed. T-Rex, for one. The plants survived very well, too. Otherwise Argentinosaurus, the 45m long, 8m tall, 96 tonne self-propelled ‘Forest Mower’ was around then.

      The oceans of the Cretaceous were home to critters which would find a Great White Shark a mere tasty snack. Jaws would look like a sprat alongside those. I wonder at how those two can be so sure humans couldn’t survive. Life is tenacious and the planet has been there before. Only Jelly fish? Hah! I guess ignorance is as ignorance does.

      It took a Big Bolide 65MYA to make most of the dinosaurs extinct. Even that didn’t get them all. The birds are still with us.

      92

      • #
        Craig Thomas

        Complete non-sequitur, Sophocles.

        The mass extinction they mention is related to the rate of change in the temperature. As they clearly state.

        113

        • #
          sophocles

          I’ll be a gentleman and hold the door for you Craig. You first …

          50

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Would you care to elucidate what you mean by non-sequitur, Craig?

          I am aware of at least four definitions of the term, all of them different, and none with a hyphen. I exclude the comic strip, called Non Sequitur, even though it as won many awards.

          30

        • #
          Glen Michel

          Sooo,what do you think Craig? Does this alarmist projection seem realistic?

          20

        • #
          Andy Richards

          The mass extinction they mention is related to the rate of change in the temperature?
          Seriously Craig?
          What, you mean like the rate of change in temperature during say a 12 hour period eg. midnight to midday, recorded at almost any place in the temperate regions on the face of the Earth?
          Now you got me all worried!

          10

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Poor Craig,

          He can present no answers to the questions posed in response to his one-dimensional statements.

          This is because he is a PR wonk who has been inadeqately briefed. I actually feel sorry for him.

          10

    • #
      RobbertBobbertGDQ

      Jo and Readers
      Alice Kelly is another Friend of The Conversation and on this topic she includes a comment that suggests she may not qualify as a Friend of Humanity’

      …In reply to Graeme Bennett.
      When I was younger Graeme I thought a pandemic was the best solution, but really, the planet cares less about population than it does about emissions…
      So Alice once was a cheerleader for the Spanish Flu and the Bubonic Plague but now realises that Emissions are even a bigger threat.
      I was going to respond and ask Alice to give me a list of her
      Top 10 of all The Pandemics and, particularly, which ones she favoured in regards to the Agonising Death of Infants and Toddlers.
      Unfortunately the Moderator had closed that Topic for comments within a short time.
      That means they are aware that the paper by Snyder is Garbage and they do not want the posts to reflect this.
      The Misanthropy or vile bile of Kelly in this post is clearly above average even for The Conversation but it is by no means uncommon at that site.It was also a feature of the Old Drum Site.

      This post by Kelly is not moderated so barracking for a Pandemic passes The Conversation Muster.

      ————-
      Nicely spotted. Thanks. – Jo

      20

  • #
    John F. Hultquist

    Nature, the journal, is from a privately-held Stuttgart-based company, Holtzbrinck Publishing Group, that owns Scientific American.
    The owners must be friends of “one world government” types — Soros, the UN, and fellow travelers. Endorsed B. O. in 2008, so took themselves out of science and jumped into opinion journalism.
    I was a long time subscriber to SciAm but dropped it when it lost its way.

    162

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      I used to enjoy National Geographic while they did what they were founded to do, document the world as they found it. Then suddenly I’m reading advocacy instead of what I was used to. They’re sometimes subtle about it and sometimes it’s very obvious. I haven’t picked up a copy since unless I was bored silly in some waiting room and Nat Geo was all here was.

      What has happened to honesty?

      112

  • #

    The current average surface temperature is 288K which emits about 390 W/m^2 per Trenberth. If we increase the surface temperature by 13C, those emissions increase to 465 W/m^2 for a 75 W/m^2 increase. For the surface to emit that much more, it must be absorbing that much more, otherwise, the surface will cool.

    The fact that anyone can think that this much change from the 3.7 W/m^2 of CO2 ‘forcing’ is even remotely possible, illustrates what can only be characterized as the insane belief that Conservation of Energy need not apply to the climate. That this insanity showed up in a main stream journal is the clearest indication yet that peer review is horribly broken.

    This absurd claim takes the obfuscation of specifying sensitivity in the non linear units of degrees per W/m^2 of forcing, rather than the mostly linear units of W/m^2 of surface emissions per W/m^2 of forcing, to a place so far beyond reason it’s absurd.

    The measured sensitivity is about 1.6 W/m^2 of surface emissions per W/m^2 of forcing which is less than 0.3C per W/m^2. The consensus sensitivity of 0.8C per W/m^2 sounds plausible enough until its expressed as 4.3 W/m^2 of incremental surface emissions per W/m^2 of forcing where you must ask where are the extra 3.3 W/m^2 coming from?

    Claiming a sensitivity of 20 W/m^2 of incremental surface emissions per W/m^2 of forcing is so insane, even Gavin Schmidt rejects it. Too bad he can’t apply the same logic that makes 20 W/m^2 of surface emissions per W/m^2 of forcing wrong to the equally absurd claim that 1 W/m^2 of forcing will increase surface emissions by 4.3 W/m^2.

    92

    • #
      tom0mason

      “…390 W/m^2 per Trenberth.”

      I know what you mean by it but …

      I now have an image stuck in my mind of a breathless Kevin Trenberth furiously running around try to dissipate 390W/m^2.

      42

      • #

        I would say he’s releasing 390 W/m^2 of hot air.

        22

      • #
        jorgekafkazar

        I took it as a new unit, the Trenberth, with emissions measured in (W/m^2)/Trenberth. Based on historical precedent, the Trenberth would be a measure of travesty.

        42

        • #
        • #
          john karajas

          I thought a Trenberth was a unit of missing heat residing in the deep ocean.

          20

        • #

          Oddly enough, the 390 W/m^2 of surface emissions he cites is about the only thing about his radiative balance analysis that’s correct. Most of his hot air is in the form of ‘back radiation’, much of which has nothing to do with radiant energy or the planets radiant balance. It’s this conflation of EM energy transported by photons (solar input, surface/cloud/GHG emissions) with non EM energy transported by matter (thermals, latent heat, etc.) that has contributed to breaking climate science, moreover; he includes a significant amount of solar input power as ‘back radiation’ all in a lame attempt to make ‘GHG’ energy returning to the surface from the atmosphere seem much larger than it actually is.

          10

    • #
      bobl

      Yes, interesting isn’t it – You can express this in conventional terms – coefficient of performance. For each meter squared getting 20W of surface emissions for each watt of surface forcing represents a COP of 20. Interestingly this is also the approximate COP of the calorific value of the fossil fuel to the atmospheric warming they claim for the oxidized carbon vapour.

      Our best high volume heat pumps get a COP of 5 and only in situations where the hot air can’t mix with the cold yet we blithely accept that mother nature can do COP 20 in an environment where cold does mix with hot AND the driving temperature difference is less than 1 degree.

      Nuts…

      62

  • #

    Amazing that Earth manage to survive a time over 300 million years ago of CO2 levels between 4,000-7000 ppm levels for millions of years. Heck even got an ice age during the middle of it.

    http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif

    (the image button,no longer works properly)

    Notice that an obvious 150 million year ice age epoch cycle,shows up in the chart?

    A cycle that doesn’t care about what level of CO2 is at,since it is caused by something far more powerful than a weak warm forcing power of a trace gas.

    132

    • #
      sophocles

      Sunsetttommy said

      Notice that an obvious 150 million year ice age epoch cycle,shows up in the chart?

      That’s ball park. Shaviv (Jerusalem University) found an average cycle length of 143 Million Years from his research. Ice ages mark the Solar System’s orbit of the galactic Centre with regularity.

      92

      • #
        el gordo

        From that ScienceBits link, beautiful concept and should be an easy sell.

        ‘Cosmic Ray Flux variations explain more than 2/3′s of the variance in the reconstructed temperature. Namely, Cosmic Ray Flux variability is the most dominant climate driver over geological time scales.’

        22

        • #
          sophocles

          el gordo quotes shaviv.

          Of course. The Milky Way is firmly in control of our climate. At present, mankind (or some of it) is running around trying to measure trends in unicorn breath and phantasms of sprites exhalatons of methane in the statistical noise.

          42

      • #
        Peter C

        Ice ages mark the Solar System’s orbit of the galactic Centre with regularity.

        What? Who says that?

        10

  • #

    Here is one from Climate 4 you:

    http://climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif

    Notice that CO2 levels in the atmosphere barely changed for the 11,000 years of the Holocene,which there were a couple of degree C temperature changes going on.

    Even better is that since the Minoan peak 3,400 years ago,it has been on an obvious long cooling tend while CO2 went UP around 10 ppm during that time.

    A TWO DEGREE C drop against a 10 ppm increase.

    Sensitivity is clearly between small to zero. CO2 above 100 ppm in the atmosphere quickly becomes a teeny weeny player in the climate system.

    92

  • #

    Here is one from Climate 4 you:

    http://climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif

    Notice that CO2 levels in the atmosphere barely changed for the 11,000 years of the Holocene,which there were a couple of degree C temperature changes going on.

    Even better is that since the Minoan peak 3,400 years ago,it has been on an obvious long cooling tend while CO2 went UP around 10 ppm during that time.

    A TWO DEGREE C drop against a 10 ppm increase.

    Sensitivity is clearly between small to zero. CO2 above 100 ppm in the atmosphere quickly becomes a teeny weeny player in the climate system.

    82

    • #
      Craig Thomas

      Gosh, Tommy, imagine if you

      “assumed that all the warming in the whole record was caused by CO2, … then carried that correlation right through to reach the absurd conclusion that climate sensitivity is” whatever.

      “Normally we’d expect a climate expert to know that orbital mechanics drive most of the changes.”

      Thanks, Tommy, best unintentional comedy for the day.

      115

      • #

        Gosh Craig,

        your reply is a total failure, since you posted nothing in the way of an actual counterpoint to the data based comment,I made showing that since the Minoan warm peak,it has been COOLING for more than 3,400 years, while CO2 level in the atmosphere went UP.

        The Data used for the chart was GISP2 Greenland,Epica Dome C

        You can’t be that dumb……

        101

        • #
          AndyG55

          “You can’t be that dumb……”

          He most certainly can… and spends all of his time trying to prove it.

          100

        • #
          Craig Thomas

          Gosh Tommy, just imagine if somebody were to compare temperature and CO2 during some or other period in history and they

          “assumed that all the warming in the whole record was caused by CO2, … then carried that correlation right through to reach the absurd conclusion that climate sensitivity is ….”

          You’d have to be fairly critical of somebody who did that, wouldn’t you?

          04

          • #

            It is hard to be critical of you,when you offer nothing rational.I showed you 3,400 year long history of Temperature and CO2 changes,from the Minoan peak onward that you skirt it, knowing you have nothing to counter with.

            over a 3,400 year time frame temperature went DOWN, while at the same time CO2 went UP.

            Your juvenile replies, have done nothing to address what I point out,thus you are now a waste of time.

            40

      • #
        AndyG55

        Your reply, is quite non-funny, in an EMPTY kind of way.

        40

        • #
          Peter C

          You helped him out with a funny rejoinder.

          Actually Craig’s quotes are from Jo’s main post. I am trying to understand how they relate to what sunsettommy said.

          40

  • #
    Gordon

    YOU WANT SCIENCE???!!!!
    Here ya go.
    First we take the all the climate changers/ warmers or whatever you want to call them. Way up to the North Pole. We then push them down the side of the earth. They will gather momentum and pass over Canada, USA, Mexico, Central America and finally South America. If my calculations are correct, this giant snowball will come to rest in Antarctica, which means it will be hanging at the bottom of the earth.
    A simple cut of the ice that which attaches them to the earth shall set it in a free fall into space.
    Problem solved.

    42

  • #
    Ruairi

    To double all Earth’s CO2,
    Couldn’t multiply warming by two,
    With such drastic potential,
    Of heat exponential,
    And logarithmically wildly askew.

    162

  • #
    grahamd

    Oh Lord Christopher Monckton of Brenchley – presentation at the London conference.

    Have you seen this presentation? I was listening to a live audio broadcast of the London conference, but unfortunately fell asleep and Lord Christopher Monckton was the last speaker.

    However, In- https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/26/political-science-a-response-to-375-concerned-members-of-the-national-academy-of-sciences/

    It contained a link to his presentation

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58MEotH79rg.

    A big breakthrough!

    (SIC)It is now clear that the central error – which was about to be revealed in the Feet of Clay series – is indeed an error. Several electronic engineers who were present have confirmed its seriousness. I have been advised that, although it was permissible to discuss the error at a scientific conference, publication in a learned journal would be prejudiced if I were to post a detailed consideration of the error here at WUWT.
    However, readers can obtain an idea of the nature, scope and effect of the error by going to the following YouTube link to the full broadcast of my talk at the London conference: (EQ)

    72

    • #
      LevelGaze

      Thank you for that link Graham, it was fascinating.
      If you gave me a free week or two, I reckon I could follow this purely mathematical argument and find it correct.

      I still can’t understand those people (and many are on the skeptic side) who persist in trashing Monckton. The man is a skilled mathematician and a talented presenter. It makes me sad.

      40

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        The shallow “post-millenia” generation judge most things on their appearance.

        They don’t understand, and cannot follow, what Christopher Monckton is talking about, because their education is inadequate to the task. But even overriding that, is the fact that he doesn’t meet their expected standards of what a brilliant man should look like.

        For the same reason, they trash what Stephen Hawkins has to say; so Lord Monckton is in very good company, it would appear.

        00

  • #
    Mari C

    Interesting bit here on who gets called to report on “News” – I’m certain I’ve heard about this before, but never realized it extended to more than a few institutions.

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-fda-manipulates-the-media/

    “The press corps is primed for manipulation by a convention that goes back decades: the embargo. The embargo is a back-room deal between journalists and the people they cover—their sources. A source grants the journalist access on condition that he or she cannot publish before an agreed-on date and time.

    A surprisingly large proportion of science and health stories are the product of embargoes. Most of the major science journals offer reporters advance copies of upcoming articles—and the contact information of the authors—in return for agreeing not to run with the story until the embargo expires. These embargoes set the weekly rhythm of science coverage: On Monday afternoon, you may see a bunch of stories about the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA published almost simultaneously. Tuesday, it’s the Journal of the American Medical Association. On Wednesday, it’s Nature and the New England Journal of Medicine. Science stories appear on Thursday. Other institutions have also adopted the embargo system. Federal institutions, especially the ones science and health journalists report on, have as well. Embargoes are the reason that stories about the National Laboratories, the National Institutes of Health and other organizations often tend to break at the precisely same time.”

    62

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Well, even Gavin Schmidt sticks at something. So here’s a little praise his way from me when praise is due. Now if he could just get onboard with a more realistic point of view…

    Wouldn’t it be nice if Al Gore, James hansen, Naomi Oreskes and John Cook, just to name a few could find a sticking point closer to reality?

    42

    • #
      tom0mason

      Hansen has given his verdict on Realclimate.

      Snyder’s empirical inference of climate sensitivity, using the magnitude of the global temperature oscillations, depends especially on the selection of data records. The essentials of the climate sensitivity story can be boiled down to finding the single best-documented glacial-interglacial oscillation. So far, that is the oscillation form the LGM (Last Glacial Maximum, 20,000 years ago) to the Holocene (present interglacial period, 11,700 year period that we live in) …

      [my bold]

      He recognizes that the ‘climate sensitivity story’ is the warmist weak point (among many others).

      But he leaves the kicker till last…

      Its a useful paper, but disappointing in that it does not point out the need for the scientific community to focus on getting a precise measure of the glacial-interglacial global temperature change. A little strange that she does not mention the Schmittner et al paper, which includes some of the top paleoclimate researchers. Also there should be a recommendation of what needs to be done to make more progress on accurately defining climate sensitivity — there has been little progress in the past few decades. In our 2013 paper, we recommend a concerted attempt to determine the magnitude of the glacial-interglacial temperature change, suggesting that the penultimate glacial-interglacial change (going into the Eemian) would have some advantages over LGM-Holocene, because humans probably influenced the Holocene. At any rate, it would be worth doing both of these last two transitions very carefully. I sometimes wonder if anyone really reads my papers.
      Jim

      [my bold]

      So Hansen want more coordination between the scientists in referencing each other more intensively — an artificial method to big-up the credibility of the warmist researchers.

      By the way if you want a good laugh have a quick look at the comment. For instance some says

      “Just one word from a nobody, please:

      RESPECT to James Hansen for everything he has done for climate science and for what he is still doing for the youth of planet Earth!”

      There is a lot of adoration for Hansen’s comment!

      41

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Forgive me, Tom. But Hansen sounds like the usual obfuscation I see so often, whether climate or politics. Perhaps he’s making a point but there are too many words there…

        That’s the kind of thing that turns me off when I encounter it.

        10

  • #
    Mark M

    Michael Mann: It’s tough to untangle CO2′s role in the past, but CO2 “is the major driving force” now!

    One problem with the study, Mann said, is that the sensitivity estimate is dominated by glacial and interglacial cycles during the past 800,000 years, and its tough to untangle the roles played by carbon dioxide in such variations.”
    ~ ~ ~
    Q. If CO2 wasn’t the climate control knob before 1850, why would it be the climate control knob after 1850?

    162

    • #
      Alan

      Mark M you ask “If CO2 wasn’t the climate control knob before 1850, why would it be the climate control knob after 1850?”
      I think I’ve found the answer. According to Wikipedia …

      ‘The McClure Arctic Expedition of 1850, among numerous British search efforts to determine the fate of the Franklin’s lost expedition, is distinguished as the voyage during which Robert McClure became the first person to confirm and transit the Northwest Passage by a combination of sea travel and sledging.’

      Poor CO2 has never been the same since (nor has the NW Passage) and now as O-C-O it takes the blame for everything.

      41

      • #

        It’s interesting. Mid-19th century explorers consulted with locals who claimed much less ice and easier boating in the time of their grandparents, which rather chimes with Banks’ and the Royal Society’s reporting on an open Arctic in the years immediately following the Napoleonic Wars. After a high point around 1900 there had been a major reduction of Arctic ice by the early 1920s, clearly reported.

        But how do you point out to a climate change alarmist that climate really does change?

        10

    • #
      Craig Thomas

      “If running out of petrol wasn’t the reason you were late to work last week, why would it be the reason you are late to work today”?

      Mark, I strongly advise you to leave logic to those who can do it.

      (Then you have nothing to complain about in Jo’s post,since you never address it) CTS

      113

      • #
        AndyG55

        Not you, then.

        60

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Craig, in his desperation to say something, anything, that might appear relevant, as himself fallen into a logical fallacy.

        20

      • #
        Craig Thomas

        I’m responding to Mark, not Jo.

        Is it the moderator’s function to inject obfuscatory nonsense into people’s posts?

        (A sample of your pointless comments that people here are having to endure,since you are here to muddy the thread:
        “Mark, I strongly advise you to leave logic to those who can do it.”
        “Yeah, the people who accept the results of the scientific process are so “hysterical” that they hang out on blogs accusing others of belonging to a “sect”.”
        “Hilarious. I guess I was too close to the bone responding to Rereke’s pathetic insult.”
        “How about an honest admission about that even worse paper on climate sensitivity by Richard Lindzen?”
        “What “paper”, Crakar?
        Have you actually read what is being discussed and not understood it? Or have you not even read it?”
        “If you were sceptical – like I am – you would ignore what other people assert and you would notice that it is as “letter” to Nature, not a “paper”.

        “Yet again, the moderator hijacks *my* post to inject his non-understanding of science.

        A model’s purpose is to test the information produced by data collection, research and analysis.

        Climate sensitivity is tested by models, not determined by them.

        Maybe the moderator should stick to moderating if he doesn’t have a handle on the actual topic?”

        You have yet to address the topic Jo posted about,you spend your time here with low grade insults,off topic complaints,failure to answer questions,etc) CTS

        04

  • #
    Graeme No.3

    Hilary got hysterical because she wasn’t 50 points ahead in the race. The AGW sect is hysterical because they are losing the debate.
    Hence nonsense like this and the XKCD graph is published to try and gain traction.

    O/T there are some (50) graphs that might interest readers; except the trolls who don’t want to know.

    52

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Sorry, haven’t had my coffee yet. Link here

      http://notrickszone.com/#sthash.X4UZDFhB.dpbs

      52

    • #
      Craig Thomas

      Yeah, the people who accept the results of the scientific process are so “hysterical” that they hang out on blogs accusing others of belonging to a “sect”.

      (Climate models for year 2100, are not part of the scientific method) CTS

      29

      • #
        AndyG55

        That was a good empty post, CT.

        Giving you a thumbs up for continuing your tradition.

        50

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Craig,

        The climate model algorithms are not published and accessible to other scientific disciplines. The papers are mutually peer reviewed within a tight-knit group of people. The homogenization of the raw data, is designed to produce – “something that is more accurate” – say, what? And there are other “common practices” within the discipline, that are rarely, if ever, known outside of Climate Science.

        That looks a lot like a religious cult to me. And it also looks nothing like the scientific process that we, “little people”, who are outside of the cult, apply it in our daily work.

        But you are obviously a flag bearer for the cult, so why should I criticise what you choose to do in your inconsequential unproductive time.

        20

      • #
        Craig Thomas

        Yet again, the moderator hijacks *my* post to inject his non-understanding of science.

        A model’s purpose is to test the information produced by data collection, research and analysis.

        Climate sensitivity is tested by models, not determined by them.

        Maybe the moderator should stick to moderating if he doesn’t have a handle on the actual topic?
        [Firstly, you did not "post" anything, you merely made a comment. And secondly, you seem to ignore all requests to expand on your typical one-line comments, i.e. you do not engage in a bona fide conversation, other than to respond with ad hominem statements. In short, you are not being honest] Fly

        03

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Computer models do not “test” information. They merely produce the results they are designed to produce, given the data supplied.

          Computers are not sentinent, they either work or they do not. I presume that the models are used with different sets of data, that are “collected”, or created by “research and analysis”, to see how close the output can come to the desired political position.

          Don’t be shy about admitting it Craig. It happens all the time in the fields of Financial Investment, and Economics. In fact, that is probably where Climate Science got the idea from, in the first place.

          20

        • #
          tom0mason

          Craig
          .
          Models do not test, observations are the test.

          00

  • #
  • #
  • #

    People think the ABC and The Conversation are just slobby activist rags which will mouthe any junk on climate if it’s gang-reviewed and on-message. The sciency-sounding Nature isn’t far behind for them for bias and hysterics. (And when I said “hysterics” I meant to be sexist, Carolyn.)

    The bad news is that the NCGIUPGL (New Class Globalist Innner Urban Posh Green Left) has got control of all the main control points of our society. The good news is that the rest of us have totally stopped listening.

    Chatter away, warmies. Not long to go now.

    103

    • #
      Craig Thomas

      So….what are you saying? You would like the ABC to only report on the opinions of scientists whose views you agree with?

      Lysenkoism, much?

      110

      • #

        What I’m saying is right above your own comment, and in English, so you should have no trouble reading it.

        As to your next question, I don’t want the ABC to exist, but while it exists it can report on the opinions of scientists whose views I do not agree with. But not just the Lysenkoists (which kind of answers your last and purely rhetorical question).

        If the ABC is fully and genuinely privatised it can, of course, bang on about whatever it likes. I’ll even defend its right to do so. My TV only gets turned on for footy and cricket, so no biggie.

        41

      • #

        You that daft, Craig?

        ABC doesn’t even address the opinions of skeptics at all,just the warmists only. Where have you been lately, to miss the obvious omissions of skeptics viewpoints from their biased programming?

        By the way you make clear you misunderstood Trofim Lysenko vast contribution to science.

        40

        • #
          Craig Thomas

          Which opinions should the ABC be reporting on?
          For example, Ian Plimer’s “iron Sun” opinion?
          Why would they do that?
          If you have an opinion that’s backed by some actual research, then no doubt you might find that research reported on in the media.
          If the sceptics fail to do any research to back their opinions, that’s not the media’s fault.

          05

      • #
        AndyG55

        ABC has a duty to be unbiased..

        You know what that means, don’t you CT?… or maybe you don’t.

        40

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        We already have one Pravda, we dont need an australian version.

        Nuff said.

        10

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Actually Pravda is looks depressingly centerist, when compared to the ABC and a lot of newspapers in the West.

          00

  • #
    OriginalSteve

    I’ve renamed this paper the Chicken Little paper…

    THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    The ancient druids and this lot appear to have a lot in common…..

    Reminds me of the scene in Shakespeares’ “Macbeth” where Macbeth goes to see the witches…..same out come ultimately I think….

    52

  • #
    Mark M

    Glikson is a protected species @thecon. Part 6 by Glikson@jonova? Ha ha!
    Thecon moderation is a joke. Enjoy this one:

    Are we finally about to get a global agreement on aviation emissions?

    First comment: “Perhaps when Al Gore or Leo DiCaprio fly in with their private jets to see the bleached Great Barrier Reef they will offset.”

    Regular in-house troll Mike Hansen’s comment is left up surrounded by deleted inconvenient comments. Hansen defends his climate hero’s hypocrisy as if it is a virtue.

    How dare anyone question the people demanding the end of fossil fuels, go first. The outrage!

    82

    • #
      tom0mason

      Hansen is doing the rounds on the blessed blogs.
      He’s been preaching to the faithful over at Gavin’s realclimate place, and the kiddies have been genuflecting in adoration.

      The comments there are a hoot!

      42

  • #
    • #
      Horace Jason Oxboggle

      Might that be in South Australia, where submarines will be built, and maybe powered by, solar and wind?

      00

  • #

    Nature Journal is not a ‘top’ Journal, it is not even a ‘supposed’ Top Journal. It is an ideal place to publish wild exaggerated claims like this.

    82

  • #
    pat

    for such nonsense, so much airtime, so many pages… at “theirABC”:

    jo’s ABC “The World Today” article has link to separate page just for the pic included in the above:

    A drone casts a shadow while flying over sea ice in Antarctica.
    Posted yesterday at 5:34pm
    A study published in the journal Nature reconstructed 2 million years of global average temperatures.

    even tho “The World Today” article includes all the criticisms, ABC nonetheless provides a “related article” link, posted some hours after World Today program, to Glikson’s totally uncritical Conversation piece.

    ABC Glikson page photo caption links to separate page, simply to repeat the photo with the following:

    27 Sept: ABC: Icebreaker ship moving through Antarctic sea ice
    Posted Tue at 7:32am
    PIC CAPTION: A fast “amplifying feedback” of warming is indicated by melting sea ice.
    Supplied: Dr Jan Lieser

    Glikson’s ABC page also links to audio of Will Steffen with Fran Kelly on “Breakfast” Monday morning (ABC’s first coverage) – with both lapping up the 2-million-year nonsense, and not a sceptical moment from either of them.
    http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/long-term-climate-heading-into-territory/7879672

    more “related articles” on Glikson page:

    Most Australians believe climate change is occurring, survey finds

    Record sea ice retreat has Antarctic experts worried for wildlife, climate

    Catastrophic’ global loss of 10pc of wilderness over past two decades

    NO OTHER MSM IN THE WORLD WOULD BE ALLOWED TO SUBJECT ITS AUDIENCE TO THIS AMOUNT OF CAGW PROPAGANDA. WHAT A DISAPPOINTMENT NEW ABC BOSS MICHELLE GUTHRIE IS.

    52

  • #
    gnome

    Chicken Little- call home – the henhouse is questioning your activities.

    32

  • #
    Geoffrey Williams

    One assumes that Carolyn Snyder will be refunding her study grant!
    GeoffW

    32

  • #
    Alice Thermopolis

    http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2016/s4546307.htm

    ABC RN’s Colin Cosier reported this story on Tuesday, September 27, 2016 12:08:37

    ELEANOR HALL: Now to the warnings that a paper published in the influential journal Nature has sensationalised climate change predictions.

    The research reconstructs two million years of global average temperatures and says the temperature could rise by between 3 to 7 degrees over the next thousand years.

    But that prediction’s come under fire from prominent climate scientists as Colin Cosier reports.

    GAVIN SCHMIDT: So the ratio that gave that which was the very high sensitivity that she calculates comes from a correlation between temperature and the carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from the ice cores but as we all know, correlation does not equal causation and in this case, the causation is the orbital wobbles of the Earth’s climate that are controlling both the temperature and the carbon dioxide at the same time and so that’s giving you an exaggerated view of how carbon dioxide affects temperature directly.

    But note how ABC RN ends the clip with another chap throwing a dodgy “probably” prediction of his own into the mix/mess.

    COLIN COSIER: Jeff Severinghaus is a Professor of Geosciences at the Scripps Institute of Oceanography at the University of San Diego.

    He also found a problem with the study.

    JEFF SEVERINGHAUS: She made a very, very basic logical error. Climate sensitivity is essentially the change in temperature divided by the change in CO2 and the important part about that is that if you want to infer that from an actual situation in the Earth, you know, what the Earth did in the past, you have to make sure that temperature change is only due to an increase in CO2 whereas the ice ages, we know very well the temperature change was due to a combination of increasing CO2 and changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun.

    In fact, it’s probably something like two-thirds of the temperature change is due to the orbit and only one-third to the CO2.”

    It would be most interesting to learn how he arrived at this conclusion. Perhaps someone should ask him?

    42

  • #
  • #
    Mark D.

    The word is Hyperbole. A rhetoric (propaganda) technique whereby you push something way past reality so that it settles back conveniently and progressively in your favor. This proves to me that Nature is controlled by people not interested in science.

    32

  • #
    J.H.

    LOL…. Gavin Schmidt has just become a “Climate Skeptic”. Oh, the irony.

    52

  • #
    TdeF

    It is annoying but could someone please find Andrew Glickson’s CV? Is he really a scientist or is he a self appointed Paleo Climatologist like Flannery?
    Does he have real hard science qualifications, not just a degree? If a degree, from where?

    11

    • #
      TdeF

      There are few real scientists in any discussion. Few of these know any physical chemistry. What is puzzling is Will Steffen who is an industrial chemist. I wrote to him about Henry’s Law and also the proof that there was no fossil fuel CO2 in the air and he just referred me to the body of IPCC work without any direction. As 98% of all CO2 is in the ocean and directly sensitive to temperature, I thought is pretty obvious why CO2 increases with the surface temperature, but Steffen said nothing. As for the astro physicists, they seem more concerned with radiation. So I find it very interesting when someone is called Dr., what their PhD means and how relevant it can be. The real scientists who necessarily require the right skills in forensic climate are actually geologists like Plimer and the late Bob Carter, not career jumpers like Steffen.

      41

    • #
      Craig Thomas

      Dr Glikson has a PhD and an extensive publication record in Geology.
      Prof Flannery has a PhD in Palaeontology and also has an extensive publication record.
      Both these people are well-respected and highly-qualified practising scientists.

      Your assertion about the provenance of atmospheric CO2 is flat-out wrong, it has been demonstrated via isotopic analysis that the increase is down to fossil-fuel emissions.
      The CO2 budget is well understood, and it is a well-known fact that human emissions are double the total atmospheric CO2 increase.
      If you don’t understand the implication of this fact, you really shouldn’t be holding views on this issue which you clearly do not understand.

      (How come you keep avoiding addressing Jo’s post?) CTS

      19

      • #
        el gordo

        ‘…it is a well-known fact that human emissions are double the total atmospheric CO2 increase.’

        Link?

        51

        • #
          Craig Thomas

          ref.: the Earth carbon budget. Look it up. The quantity of CO2 emissions from fossil fuel use is a known, and the quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere is a known.
          The first known is on an annual basis twice as large as the upwards delta of the second known.

          As the amount of CO2 being emitted by humans is less than the amount of CO2 being added to the atmosphere, this tells you the increased CO2 in the atmopshere is having a forcing effect on the carbon cycle, causing more CO2 to be fixed by the carbon sinks.

          In other words, natural carbon sinks are very clearly a net *sink* of CO2, not a source.

          02

        • #
      • #
        AndyG55

        “are double the total atmospheric CO2 increase.
        If you don’t understand the implication of this fact”

        Very much we do,

        World wide increased crop yields, large increase in the worlds bio-matter.

        More LIFE for everyone and everything on the planet.

        50

      • #
        AndyG55

        You do know that over the very fastest period of China’s development, there wasn’t even a trace of any acceleration in the general beneficial rise in atmospheric CO2.. Don’t you ?

        40

      • #
        TdeF

        Professor Flannery’s first degree was in English at LaTrobe in 1974. How does that make him qualified to speak as a scientist? So no physics, no chemistry, no mathematics, no IT or mathematical computer modelling, no electronics, no engineering. English. Just because a degree is in the Science department does not make you an expert in all science or in fact in any science. Zoology, botany even psychology are Science departments. None make you qualified to comment but this seems to stop no one. Half the commentators are economists. Flannery would be better categorized as a science fiction writer and yes, he has written a lot of books. So far every prediction he has made is dramatically wrong and he lives at the beach at sea level. Perhaps he can tell us about those dramatic sea level rises in the last thirty years?

        40

      • #
        TdeF

        Craig “it has been demonstrated via isotopic analysis that the increase is down to fossil-fuel emissions”

        Please cite any reference at all. The exact opposite is true. You can demonstrate that the fossil fuel CO2 is under 2%. Forget the corrupted Wikipedia entry.
        Try this

        and the quote “The atmospheric radiocarbon signal has, in effect, been diluted by about 2%. Hans Suess (1955) discovered the industrial effect (also called after him) in the 1950′s.”

        40

        • #
          TdeF

          You can also demonstrate simply that the half life of industrial CO2 in the atmosphere is only 14 years. C14 cannot be destroyed and it is not in the biosphere because that was in equilibrium already, so 50% of the CO2 created in 1965 has vanished every 14 years. This means industrial CO2 not only does not increase CO2 much at all, but that it all vanishes rapidly into the vast oceans. That is simple science, discovered 60 years ago with the birth of radio carbon dating.

          40

        • #
          Craig Thomas

          er…except isotopic analysis of atmospheric CO2 to determine its source has *NOTHING* to do with radiocarbon.

          I am pretty sure I’ve highlighted this mistake of yours previously. Can you not learn?

          03

          • #

            Craig, you are shooting your foot with evasive gibberish since TdeF,posted a link that you obviously ignored. Go ahead and read it and LEARN!

            You also failed to provide support for your claim,as requested by him.

            10

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        Ah yes, and the much learned prof flannery said our dams would never fill again due to climate change…ouch….

        20

      • #
        Peter C

        Dr Glikson has a PhD and an extensive publication record in Geology.
        Prof Flannery has a PhD in Palaeontology and also has an extensive publication record.
        Both these people are well-respected

        LOL

        20

      • #
        Horace Jason Oxboggle

        So that’s why my taxes contributed to a non-functioning desalination plant!

        30

        • #
          TdeF

          4 non functioning desalinations plants. Adelaide, Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane. About $100Bn of debt including interest. Tim Flannery could offer to help defray the cost of his predictions by donating income from his Climate Council and book sales.

          00

          • #
            TdeF

            I would suggest even the cost of keeping them mothballed is running around $20Million a year in maintenance costs and wages.

            00

      • #
  • #
    Craig Thomas

    Almost as silly as believing sensitivity is around 1 degree.

    19

    • #
      AndyG55

      I agree, its much, much lower, basically ZERO.

      61

    • #

      Craig,

      are you seriously saying that 7-13C sensitivity is better supported than sensitivity of 1C?

      If so, go ahead and explain to us, WHY you believe that.

      50

    • #
      AndyG55

      Lets sum up the facts,

      1. No warming in the UAH satellite record from 1980 to 1998 El Nino

      2. No warming between the end of that El Nino in 2001 and the start of the current El Nino at the beginning of 2015.

      3. No warming in the southern polar region for the whole 38 years of the satellite record.

      4. No warming in the southern ex-tropicals for 20 years.

      5. No warming in Australia for 20 years, cooling since 2002

      6. No warming in Japan surface data for the last 20 years, No warming from 1950-1990.. ie, a zero trend for 40 years through their biggest industrial expansion

      7. No warming in the USA since 2005 when a non-corrupted system was installed, until the beginning of the current El Nino.

      8. UAH Global Land shows no warming from 1979-1997, then no warming from 2001 – 2015

      9. Iceland essentially the same temperature as in the late 1930s as now, maybe slightly lower

      10. British Columbia (Canada) temperatures have been stable, with no warming trend, throughout 1900-2010

      11. Chile has been cooling since the 1940s.

      12. Southern Sea temperatures not warming from 1982-2005, then cooling

      13. Even UAH NoPol shows no warming this century until the large spike in January 2016.

      That is DESPITE a large climb in CO2 levels over those regions and time periods.

      There IS NO CO2 WARMING effect in the WHOLE of the satellite temperature data.. NONE.

      The ONLY warming has come from regional El Nino, and ocean circulation effects such as the PDO and AMO.

      10

  • #
    thingodonta

    And yet one can’t get corrections or failed replications published in these same journals, shows there is something seriously wrong with science publication.

    21

  • #
    crakar24

    OT I know but……SA is once again in a blackout. A severe thunderstorm has swept the state and now Adelaide and many surrounding suburbs are without power. Its basically state wide but why?

    The word is we once again lost the interconnect to Victoria, SA relies on sun and wind with gas backup it is currently overcast and very, very windy so what happens when we loose the interconnect? Its welcome to third world.

    40

    • #
      Another Ian

      crakar24

      How many citizens of Adelaide do you reckon are tonight pontificating on the value of climate sensitivity v/s those pontificating on political sensitivity?

      00

  • #
    crakar24

    LOL electric trains don’t work in a blackout my phone will stop working when the station batteries go flat

    30

  • #
    Ted O'Brien.

    ABC News footline: “Entire state of South Australia without power.”

    20

  • #
    crakar24

    Airport shutdown no flight’s out what a s%&££#t fight

    20

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      I vote the next recipients of Tasmanian “The Burnt Cable Award” to SA politicians, for outstanding services in furthering fuedal and financially suicidal green policies…..

      00

  • #
    crakar24

    Confirmed by Sa power, issue is with Victorian interconnect, no power, no heating, no communication until at least 4 am. Adelaide is in grid lock.

    I do not like the third world, for I have seen it, what I saw horrified me.

    Crakar24

    31

  • #
    pat

    i see mention of this, but there’s a link just up:

    more info at link about the interconnector, transmission lines:

    28 Sept: ABC: Live: South Australia loses power as wild weather lashes state
    All of South Australia is without power as a storm front lashes the state, with homes, businesses, hospitals and airports affected.
    It could be several hours before power is restored…
    What we know:
    …It appears the storm has damaged power infrastructure near Port Augusta and the power network has shut down to “protect itself”, the Premier says….
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-28/south-australia-without-power-live-blog/7885972

    10

  • #
    crakar24

    The interconnect runs through port Augusta as that was where our only coal fired power station was, I say was because we shut it down.

    21

  • #
    Analitik

    Watch for the blame to be place on the interconnector, just like last November

    20

    • #
      Analitik

      Here’s hoping no one gets injured or sick as a result of the blackout (the storm itself will hurt enough people)

      00

  • #
    Andy Richards

    I suspect Gavin Schmidt’s concern over these estimates stems from his likely exasperation at the thought of having to ‘cook’ this extra warming into the GISS historical temperature records…

    00