Professor Matthew England
The debate that Senator Steve Fielding started continues, this time between heavyweights in Australian climate science. Yet again, the side with the funding, the power, and the large claims is unable to answer basic polite science questions. The pompous arrogance is evident. Why not just answer the question?
Professor Matthew England’s research teams have received nearly $2.5 million in funding from the Australian government, much of it for studying oceans and climate change. So when we need good answers on the topic, he would be the man. If a school student asked for help, we might expect only a two line reply passing on a link. But when the question comes from one of the most informed climate scientists in the country, with 12 years as head of Australia’s National Climate Centre, and it’s about a graph at the centre of legislative negotiations, it’s inexcusable that the reply was vague, poorly reasoned and didn’t answer the question. All this, in a conversation that England himself started.
If indeed “a Nobel Prize is there for many of the ideas the skeptics champion if only they were true” as England claims, then opportunity is knocking, and England is not answering the door. Instead of pursuing the query with logical analysis, he dismisses it out of hand, with a patronizing appeal to authority. Effectively he says “it can’t be right because the IPCC, or one of my post-docs, would have noticed”.
William Kininmonth
How could a consensus ever be proven wrong if the main funded analysts start with the assumption that “the consensus must be right”? The only thing England proves is that Australian science is in need of a shake-out.
Four independent scientists recently went with Fielding to Parliament to ask Minister Penny Wong “where’s the evidence”. Professor Matthew England, Co-Director of the Climate Change Research Centre at the The University of New South Wales, felt he needed to let the skeptics know that the question had been answered, so he emailed them a couple of links. One of the scientists, William Kininmonth, a climatologist for 45 years (and as mentioned, 12 years as head of Australia’s National Climate Centre), took the opportunity to ask about the extent of ocean warming, in a graph within the answer, pointing out that a simple back-of-the-envelope calculation using the Minister’s data implied that ocean was warming at the blistering rate of around 0.003° C/year.
Peer review is important, but it’s not the exclusive—or even guaranteed—forum for intelligent discussion. England wields it as a weapon to cut off debate.
But the discussion quickly dissolved when England withdrew into meaningless ad hominem attacks, and bombast of how important and rigorous the IPCC is. He resorted to saying: Go publish it in a peer reviewed paper, cutting off any discussion of problems in his area of expertise with someone who has four decades of experience in a related area. There is no natural law that decrees that valid scientific criticisms are only found in “Peerous-Papieri”. Peer review is important, but it’s not the exclusive—or even guaranteed—forum for intelligent discussion. England wields it as a weapon to cut off debate.
In other words, when England couldn’t answer Kininmonth on the science he resorted to picking out irrelevant points; hand waving about how important his own paper-publishing record was; vague references to long pages of calculations; and pompous text describing how much faith he has in the peer review system, the Nobel prize awards, and the infallible nature of large government bureaucracies. (The UN after all has an impeccable record: Think Rwanda, Srebrenica, Congo, Darfur, Somalia. And who else would the UN put in charge of human rights: Colonel Gadaffi. Of course.) Argument-by-authority is the cheap lazy shortcut for those who don’t know the real answer.
The full exchange is here. These are my favorite examples of bluster from the evasive Professor England:
“…science is a wonderfully vigorous and engaging process where scepticism, scrutiny, and debate thrive. All of my very best PhDs and postdocs question conventional thinking and are out to make the next big discovery that displaces mainstream thinking. So please consider putting forward your ideas for this form of scrutiny in the journal review process.”
Look out for the patronizing put down:
“I had the impression you were not a scientist? I had been told you had little in the way of published work from your career (somebody mentioned you co-authored a paper once?). Forgive me if this is wrong. If you have had a career marked by scientific publications you will understand the competitive nature of science.”
(Forgive us, Dear Prof, we had the impression you were a scientist? If having a career marked by scientific publications meant something, you would know that your papers, numerous though they may be, have little effect on heat content of the global oceans.)
Then there’s that line again:
“A Nobel Prize is there for many of the ideas the sceptics champion if only they were true.”
Dear Professor, don’t you know, a Nobel prize is there for anyone who is pro-AGW, for bureaucrats and web-designers at the IPCC, and for non-scientists who create peace by producing documentaries that interview no scientists and misrepresent the evidence. Since Nobel prizes are so worthless these days, we skeptics have higher aims.
As Kininmonth says: I would hope that the public defence of the IPCC claims can be lifted to a higher level of scientific rigour.
The graph from Penny Wong’s answer that they refer to:
UPDATE OCT 16 – Wongs department have moved or deleted this page with their answer and graph. Here is the graph reproduced from caches.
Diagrams showing the rise in ocean heat content and thermosteric sea level over 35 years
England makes big claims about the accuracy of IPCC projections:
“Interestingly, _many of the IPCC projections from past reports are below the observed trends – for Arctic sea-ice, global air-temps, sea level, atmospheric CO2, etc.”
When the warming trend slows down for five to eight years, that’s not the kind of positive feedback that the rest of us find scary. Indeed that’s the kind of ‘positive’ feedback that’s … negative.
Where is the evidence? He strategically avoids mentioning Antarctic sea ice, which has grown as fast as the Arctic has shrunk (what was that about honest debate?). Nor does he refer to the more important global sea-ice, which has stayed constant. Where are the projections from 2001 that said temperatures would stay flat or fall from 2001 to 2009 (as can be seen on UAH, RSS, Hadley), or that the oceans would cool from 2003 to 2009 (see below)? When the warming trend slows down for five to eight years, that’s not the kind of positive feedback that the rest of us find scary. Indeed that’s the kind of ‘positive’ feedback that’s … negative.
By the way, ocean temperature can only be adequately measured by the Argo buoy network, which only started in late 2003. The Argo buoys show that the ocean temperature since 2003 has been slightly down, and definitely below the rising rate projected by the IPCC. In contrast, the Minister’s graph above implies ocean temperatures have been rising since 2003.
Finally, with all that training, and all that funding, England writes:
“An overseas Nobel Prize winner told me the other day that he thought part of this whole phenomenon was the dwindling career trajectory that most of the sceptics have”
Ahh yes, the old “I’m right: You’re wrong” because you’re retired and did I mention I know a Nobel prize winner? Don’t you feel humbled and insignificant?
Ocean research is vital. But if the Australian Government catches on that carbon is almost irrelevant and human effects on the climate are minimal, it’s unlikely that England’s funding would increase. Does he have any reason to investigate skeptical claims, or are there 2.5 million reasons to ignore them?
The full email exchange is here.
[The full set of official and unofficial documents arising from the meeting are all listed and linked to here.]
Interesting exchange.
The condescension about retirees — “I know many retirees as sharp as tacks….” — is a little galling, like one becomes dull and ignorant once one leaves the academic or work environment.
20
I can see how we come to different conclusions of the science Jo. I can’t even agree with your interpretation of these emails as you seem to suggest that England’s emails are anything other than a polite email to Stewart Franks, followed up by a grumpy email from Kininmonth, a reply that points out where England thinks Kininmonth has made some errors, followed by an accusation of being evasive from K, and an “I give up” from England.
“My great preference is simply that those with these various loose ideas would bother to try to formalise them and get them published”…. is it that unreasonable a request?
20
Matt, from your reading of Englands response, tell us what the answer to Kininmonths rough calculation should have been. How much more than 0.003° C/year of warming has occurred in the top 700m? Remember the nation is depending on you to figure out why we should bother putting this graph in front of our legislators–and why we should tax everything that moves.
Wong’s response: “Most of warming since 1960 (about 85 percent) has happened in the oceans. Thus, in terms of a single indicator of global warming, change in ocean heat content is the most appropriate.”
20
The “peer review” process was taken to it’s ultimate when the IPCC commissioned Dr. Michael Mann to review his own work on the infamous “Hockey Stick” graph and supporting work.
They were up to their eyeballs together in that great fraud.
So much for the “peer review” process as it is used within the AGW Industry.
10
You now know Joanne why Al Gore steadfastly refuses to debate the issue with anyone. If this is an example of the debate that is likely to occur, Al Gore knows that he is outgunned by the lowliest of real scientists and in a debate with anyone of the calibre of Ian Plimer would not stand a chance. Lord Monckton would crucify him.
20
Congratulations Joanne and David for publishing this exchange. You are correct, the supercillious tone and lack of definitive information on the part of Professor Matthew England is very distressing. Bills “back of the envelope” calculations are entirely reasonable and standard engineering practice. All non linear effects tend to linearity for small enough changes and the changes being computed here are small. Thus at best the non linearities are likely to small second order effects. I see Prof England’s claim that the calculations are wrong for this reason as simple diversion by appeal to pedantic sceintific exactitude.
The first graph above is labelled ocean heat content. Yet for the period from 1960 to 1975 it shows 0. The ocean heat content cannot be zero or it would all be solid ice at 0 Kelvin. Should the title be “change in ocean heat content”? Presumably. Is this over the entire ocean or just the surface layer down to the thermocline. From the exchanges I assume that the additional heat content is all in the top layer as W Kinninmounth assumes. Is it uniformly spread over the full 70 metre depth? Serious issues? No but they show a lack of rigour (especially for someone so concerned about scientific exactitude) and would most certainly be commented on if made by a skeptic.
With regard to the second graph of ocean expansion, to me an increasing rate of change means a non zero second derivative (ie: an accelerating trend) and I think that is how most technical people would interpret the claim. A constant value followed by a constant slope does not give a non zero second derivative (other than at the transition)so I do not agree with Prof England’s claim.
Here is an interesting calculation. The stated increase in ocean heat content of 15*10^22 is a large number but how does it relate to the amount of energy the earth received from the sun over that time. Well the surface area of the Earth is 5.1*10^8 sq km (Wikipedia reference uder Earth) 5.1*10^14 sq metres. The energy received averages to 240 watts/sqM ie: 240 joules per sqM per second = 240 * 3600 * 24 * 365 joules per sq M per year= 7.6 * 10^9. But the energy content rise is over 30 years and the total solar energy influx over this time = 7.6 * 30 *10^9 joules/sqM = 2.3 * 10^11 joules/sqM. For the entire Earth the energy influx is 2.3*10^11 * 5.1*10^14 = 1.2 *10^26. What fraction of this is the claimed increase in ocean heat content? It is 1.5 * 10^23/1.2 *10^26 or 0.0013. So what you justifiably cry?
It means that on average the oceans are absorbing 0.0013 or 0.13% of the energy received from the sun. Averaged over the Earth this corresponds to about 0.3 watts/sqM. Since the graph of ocean energy versus time looks like it is linear to me this is constant over the last 30 years. Thats a small fraction of the total claimed greenhouse effect yet the AGW advocates now claim ocean heating is the dominant AGW signature. Presumably the rest (ie: most) must be going into the land and atmosphere but the atmosphere has not beeen warming now for 10 years so where is the additional heat going. Issues like this are swept under the carpet by the AGW advocates but they are fundamental to the hypothesis.
10
Joanne; if your comment is correct that according to Penny Wong 85% of the warming since 1960 has occured in the oceans and Prof Englands figure of 12*10^22 is also correct then it follows that the average increase in retained heat due to AGW according to my calcs above is 0.3 watts/sqM which if all in the atmosphere would contribute about 0.06C temperature rise. Since only 15% is in the atmosphere the warming is correspondingly less. Clearly something does not tie up here. This is not trivial, it is fundamental.
10
[…] Jo Nova, June 30, […]
10
Thanks Michael Hammer, You’ve hit the nail… the figure of “85% if the warming” comes as a quote from Wongs site. The whole page deserves analysis.
http://www.environment.gov.au/minister/wong/2009/tr20090624c.html
If we collect some thoughts here I’ll pull them together into a post.
As you said “This is not trivial, it is fundamental.”
This is THE page in Australia that contains the evidence to justify a carbon trading scheme.
If it doesn’t make sense we should take it apart and expose the flaws.
10
“Ocean Surface Layer” not “in the oceans” Michael.
10
Michael I – You are spot on about Al Gore dodging debate. We can’t even pay him $200,000 to do it. And Ian Plimer has a lot of valuable things to say.
You may not have heard much from Kininmonth but don’t underestimate him. He has a deep understanding of the climate that’s been honed by years of work. He’s a very hard man to trip up.
10
“Peer review is important, but it’s not the exclusive—or even guaranteed—forum for intelligent discussion. England wields it as a weapon to cut off debate.”
———————-
Joanne
You can’t blame the poor professor England for hand waving, argument by authority and ad hom because that’s all he has to defend his cherished AGW theory. Each and every time there is a scientific debate, AGWers lost against the skeptics. Remember the last January debate on I2Q : http://intelligencesquaredus.org/Event.aspx?Event=32
Or another debate in march 2007 by I2Q in the same format. Or last year radio debate between Monkton and Desmogblog’s Richar Littlemore : http://libertynewscentral.blogspot.com/2008/08/monckton-vs-littlemore-debate-audio.html (this one is highly entertaining and exemplifies well why AGWers are running for cover when pressed to debate).
AGWers know they have lost all the public debates and they know they can’t win any public debate, just look at archalarmist Steven Schneider (the ex global cooler converted to global warmer) who recently touted he’ll “crush” skeptics but, when challenged by Pielke to debate, pitously retreated.
No wonder why alarmist keep claiming and hoping “the debate is over”.
10
Dear Joane,
I just want to nitpick a little on the science in Englands last email .. maybe some reader can evaluate a bit more. I think it is important to clarify all scientific statements on both sides and their flaws.
– For example an inhomogenous temperature distribution in the oceans results in an overall lower expansions coefficient (and of course the difference is bellow 5%), so that back of the envelope calculation is a worst case szenario.
– Most of the older IPCC reported predictions did not become true (however still many did there is an almost endless number of predictions partially contradicting each other).
– Steve McIntyre had given examples that paper were omittet from the IPCC procedure and other included beside not fullfilling the criteria (deadline)
– 1998 was indeed a hot year and is not a fair starting point, but there is cherry picking on both sides and “Lucia” has done some math on this.
– the statement 4 is clearly wrong as a linear (=steady) rise has an accerlation of 0 (which is very much the definition of a linear rise)
Mike comment 6: Shouldn’t it be the oceans absorb about 0.13% MORE nowadays . .
The fact that you don’t have to be retired and unbeliever of the law of gravity to be a sceptic is actually to silly to be discussed with any seriousity. However it should be mentioned as an example for the wrong tone England is using as well as his atempt to teach from high above without resting on a firm scientific base.
All the best and keep up the good work!
(Let em talk, they are ther worst enemy)
LoN
10
Law of Nature:
As an aside, you are of Hungarian origin, am I right?
Some of the spelling you have used, and the grammatical construct of your sentences, point to that conclusion exactly.
Recall that 1998 was the peak of an El Nino event. There is nothing within 20 years of that to compare it with.
None of the IPCC predictions, neither new nor old, proved correct. Seeming evidence to the contrary limited the scope of the observations in the first place.
10
This is fascinating stuff. If only the media would try to find the truth instead of going for scary headlines. The climate water is now so muddy that it is very hard to see the truth. Lies, damned lies and statistics – these are the stock in trade of the propagandists. Do the Argo buoys show temperature is falling, or is it rising at below the IPCC projected rate? We must be sure.
10
Why the outrage? If everything humanity touches is defiled, and history is full of this fact, then arrogance and incompretence like this is to be expected. Look artound you. There are corruption scandals in the polics, the politicians, big business, everywhere. And you expect science to be exempt?
Is this the rage of a jilted lover? I cease to hope for or even want science to solve the brokenness and misery of the human condition. I am not surprised that they still peddle latter day equivalents of phlogiston and se that their internecine wrangling is only what is to be expected from a priesthood: a new priesthood with white coats instead of black robes
10
Steve,
Its not the humans who are trying to be humans that are the problem. Its the ones who deny the distinctive quality that makes a human, human: reason.
Quoting myself from another blog:
Evil is not a property of the universe at large. The universe simply exists. Good and evil ONLY applies to creatures who have a choice to think or not to think – ie man. Evil comes from the choice to not think. If there is no choice, it may be unfortunate but its outside the realm of good or evil.
Clearly, think here means far more than simply having some fleeting image, feeling, whim, wish, fantasy and the like. Those are mental processes but they have little or nothing to do with actually thinking.
To think MEANS to process mentally the evidence of your senses in as full context as possible without evasion or contradiction. To the degree this is not done is the measure of the evil involved.
If one thinks and makes a mistake, the result is not good but it also is not evil. However, if the mistake is evaded and no attempt is made to discover and correct it, that constitutes a choice not to think and is evil.
10
Within the margins error of the measurement techniques,
the Earth hasn’t warmed and it hasn’t cooled
There has been no net snow loss or gain
No net loss or gain of glacier
No sea level rise or fall
in a decade.
Anybody who tells you anything different is lying or they don’t know what they are talking about.
Period.
[The older I get, the less equivocation of any sort appeals to me]
10
If I am to understand the updated position of the Australian Climate Clergy, as outlined in the response to Fielding’s questions, it is no longer the air temperatures that are the yardstick by which global warming is measured, it is now the ocean heat content. One of the advantages of ocean heat content is that it is less prone to variability than air due to its much higher thermal mass.
Jennifer, you are very good at the science of Argument, so I suggest you pick up on this. Pose the question – how many years of no warming of the oceans would be needed for the climate clergy to agree that global warming is over.
As I understand it, the two most recent studies, one by Willis and the other by Loehle both showed no warming, and indeed cooling over the last five years. There is a good post on WUWT discussing this which is referenced below.
Funny that. Ever since they instaled some decent thermometers, the ocean has cooled…?
Shane
References
WUW article
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/06/the-global-warming-hypothesis-and-ocean-heat/.
Loehle, Craig, 2009: “Cooling of the global ocean since 2003.″ Energy & Environment, Vol. 20, No. 1&2, 101-104(4).
Willis, J. K., 2008: “Is it Me, or Did the Oceans Cool?”, U.S. CLIVAR, Sept, 2008, Vol. 6, No. 2
10
AGW proponents have been brainwashed so intensely by the doctrine of AGW belief, that arrogance arises from this conditioning. For those with a limited grasp of the science, it’s driven by a better safe than sorry justification. Those who have a grasp of the science tend to believe that even though the data isn’t conclusive, such data will eventually arise. In all cases, the underlying rationalization for being stupid is that the ends justify the means.
Those receiving funding for AGW research have the same incentives as anyone receiving funding for research. If the reason for their research evaporates, so does their funding. Fudging data and results to keep the coffers full is not evil or even illegal, just unethical.
Evil would be a purposeful fudging of the data to justify trillions of dollars in expenses for the purpose of sending the worlds economies into a death spiral. While it’s becoming more likely that this will occur, I doubt it’s the intent of the warmists.
George
10
Within the MOE, the Oceans haven’t COOLED and they haven’t WARMED in ten years.
There is just NO TELLING one way or another.
People try to COOK IT UP to make it go one way or another.
But this is impossible – the data JUST AREN’T THERE to DRAW any conclusions AT ALL
10
Brian,
If (a) Penny Wong is right when she says “Most of warming since 1960 (about 85 percent) has happened in the oceans”, (b) you’re right that as far as ocean temperature changes are concerned “there is just NO TELLING one way or another” (i.e., we don’t know whether the oceans have warmed or cooled), and (c) other than computer models, there is no evidence that man’s release of CO2 into the atmosphere has a significant warming impact on the oceans’ temperatures, then would someone please tell me why other than for personal gain any reasonable scientist, or for that matter any reasonable person, would advocate drastic reductions to energy production via fossil fuels?
Reed Coray
10
Because:
1. Their “intuition” tells them something “has happened” because of human activities, and people with ulterior motives have “filled in the blank” for them about what that “something” was
2. Their political affiliations have underscored (and demanded) their unquestioning acceptance of what they have been told, as well as demands to “do something about it”
3. The very thought that they have been WRONGLY told of what “has happened” by persons whose beliefs and affiliations they admire is unfathomable to them
4. All to many people are basically uneasy and distrustful of the concept of “freedom,” and they need guided, structured, and directed lives. Many people are quite content to have other people do their thinking for them, and indeed there is no paucity of manipulators in this world who are all too glad to find people who need that and then to fill that role, with enthusiasm!
10
The Nazis did not carry out their reprehensible programmes with inanimate objects, they carried them out with people, and for whatever the Nazis are to be condemned for, what they MUST be remembered for, is their understanding of human nature.
10
I see from the 20 pages of Australian Research Council grants at the website referred to by David Evans – http://www.climatechange.gov.au/science/faq/question2.html – that Mr England has been the primary recipient of $2,475,625 in grants over the past 5 years. Rather puts his comments into context.
10
Woops. How embarrassing. Now that I have read the head post….. Oh well. A senior moment.
10
First of all that it is noeworthy that William Kinninmonth had the confidence to maintain his dignity to the end, providing clearly worded answers to the questions without any personal criticism of his adversary. On the other hand, England demonstrated his lack of knowledge in three ways –
(i) His inability to even attempt a scientific answer to the questions, hiding always behind the presumed complexity with the introduction of second order effects, which Mike Hammer has already correctly pointd out must be small. His obvious lack of understanding of the errors in measurement of ocean temperatures as clearly explained by Wiliam would appear to almost disqualify England from making a useful comment on that subject.
(ii) His immediate appeal to peer review which is a ploy used by many, if not most, to avoid having to try to provide an answer. From my experience, competent scientist tend to attempt answers to questions even in areas in which they are less experienced as it is a means to gaining knowledge. After all, surely one’s own pride tends to make one feel to be at least as competent as any other reviewer. England clearly does not have the confidence to speak on the matters William has raised.
(iii) By resorting to comments with which he hopes to belittle William, England provides the clearest evidence that he is not on top of his subject but obviously feels he should be, a sentiment with which I fully agree. However, it is unfortunate that England is not alone in his inability to answer in clear tones, the simlest of questions, or to debate with his scientific equals, in this case his superior, a matter of scientific importance which William has points out, requires only a simple calculation to obtain quite sufficient accuracy.
10
All of this reminds me that the Hawke government put Neville Wran, the national president of the ALP, in charge of the CSIRO. He was the first non-scientist to hold that position. (His “science” was left wing politics).
And there is more to Professor England than $2.5 million of government money. His UNSW is long renowned for its left wing political views. There he is in the company of other academic fossils such as Mike Archer.
And I have met Bill Kininmonth maybe 30 years ago.He was building rural weather stations, so his expertise in weather science covers the full spectrum. He was too busy working on the real weather to publish papers for the Matthew Englands. More is the pity, though in those days our academics were thorough scientists whose judgement could be relied on.
His tales of places further out were well worth hearing.
And I ask this question. Who are the reviewing peers? It appears very much that the IPCC is a club of peers.
10
Australia is very fortunate to have William Kininmonth, as well as Bob Carter and David Evans, to represent the interest of the PEOPLE, rather than the special and very narrow interests of Rudd’s government and a handful of International interest groups that attempt to foist their very harmful agenda on an unwitting Nation.
Bullies and condescending representatives of these “environmental” interests pose in self confidence and arrogance, and when they are pressed for facts to back up their claims and demands, prove to be absoltely clueless every single time.
Without fail.
This is the only thing the Public can depend on these interest groups for.
Time to get wise to them, maybe?
10
The value of the Nobel Prize? Didn’t Yasser Arafar get one, and then go on to continue preaching Jihad?
10
If ocean heat content is to be so central, is it worth mentioning / remembering geothermal (and volcanic !) inputs.
The Arctic ice loss of 2007 may well be understood better if the Gekkel Ridge is taken into account for example.
The AntarcticRoss Ice shelf collapse is another example, and the warming of the oceans around Antarctica due to the probable “containing” of such warmed waters by the circumpolar currents.
To a skeptical view the oceans being brought into play (as they should be) in the way that they are seems an excellant oppotunity to obfusicate by the AGW crowd.
We still have very little knowledge of oceanic currents and phases, even if there is a THC circulation.
The PDO was not discovered untill 1997, and the basics are only just beginning to be unravelled.
Does the moon influence / control some / most / few of the known and intermittent circulations.
Is it the solar (at 3um penetrates and warms the oceans) input / cloud cover that causes oceanic phases. ?
Then there is the nub of the “ocean” question, how does AGW’s “back radiation” of CO2 at 15um heat the ocean or it’s “skin” if it only penetrates a few um into the water. ?
Surely it mostly causes more evapouration, contributing to the atmospheric water vapour latent heat pump.
Oh yes, it is a good time to suggest the missing AGW heat is in the oceans,
a great potential for years of obfusication, given our current level of understanding.
But, of course it will be suggested oceanic science is beyond doubt a “settled (UN / IPCC) science” as well.
NOT.
10
The way I see it, Prof. England has missed a golden opportunity. For a short time he held in his tender hands the chance to put a stop to all this silly bickering once and for all. All he had to do was explain, in a straightforward way, the concept of why the Earth is in critical danger of cooking, while the thermometers say it’s not getting any hotter. Obviously Prof. England has the knowledge and the ability to put our little minds at rest on this matter, but he blew it. He let the moment go by. Oh well, I guess we’ll just have to keep on asking, until someone else comes along who can be bothered to enlighten the plebs.
10
England’s posturing and claim to have “precious little time” to defend his weak position are a trademark of alarmists.
Penny Wong’s response fails on many fronts and contains inaccurate boilerplate from the alarmist camp (“globally 13 of the 14 warmest years on record have occurred since 1995”). Current climate change is indistinguishable from repeated warming/cooling cycles of the past 5000 years and is but a blip when compared with climate history over millions of years.
More Wong misinformation: “Since 1998 there has been continued decline in Arctic sea ice” … in fact, minimum ice extent in summer of 2008 was at a level of 9% more than a year earlier! The Arctic sea-ice thickness survey competed earlier this year found much of the ice was twice as thick as anticipated. Snow pack in the US Rockies has been increasing in recent years after a long term decline. Most of the northern tier of states in the US have experienced record winter snowfall accumulations and/or persistence over the past few years. Blizzard frequency, extent, and southern penetration has steadily been increasing in the UK over the past five years.
Where is Wong getting her counsel? Obviously not from an accurate source.
I defy anyone to find a human component to the data shown in Wong’s response to Question 2 (http://www.environment.gov.au/minister/wong/2009/images/fig2.gif).
10
If one can believe the results of the Vostok ice core samples, we will not stop the temperature rising another 4C+ regardless of CO2 levels. There have been four distinct glacial and interglacial periods over the past 400,000 years and this fifth interglacial seems to have the same upward pattern as the last four. In all the previous periods, CO2 does not appear to be a factor in the warming cycle and only reached levels of 280-300ppm at the warmest peak of the interglacial cycle.
So even if we reduce CO2 levels back to 280ppm, it will not stop the rise in temperature over the next 5000 to 20000 years.
If you look at the results, you may come to another conclusion, but the cyclical evidence of temperature and climate change is apparent.
And there ain’t nothin’ we can do to stop it.
Of course, the ice core record could be a lot of bunkum.
10
Kasphar,
If you look carefully at the ice core data, you will see that the current interglacial has been longer and cooler than the others seen in the Vostok cores. This seems to be due to the relative phase relationships of the orbital and axis forcing influences, which also seems to be why about 500K years ago, the glaciation period shifted from about 40K to 100K years (this can be seen in other cores, like DomeC). It also seems that we are likely to be returning to the 40K glaciation period of the past.
You are definitely correct in noticing that prior interglacial periods have had multi century average temperatures 2-3C warmer than today’s yearly means, even though CO2 levels were far lower than today. While still possible, it’s not very likely that the current interglacial will reach that peak, as the current peak is consistent with the peaks of the 40K glaciation intervals seen 500-1000K years ago. moreover; peak temperatures tended to occur earlier in the interglacial periods and we are nearing the end of the current one.
Many anthropologists attribute the rise of civilization to the global warming that we have experienced over the last 12K years or so. The idiocy of Cap and Trade could even lead to the downfall of civilization, which ironically will be caused by the same warming that resulted in the rise of civilization in the first place.
George
10
CO2isnotevil
I hope you’re right in that we might be going back to a cycle more consistent with the period prior to 400,000 years ago than the past 400,000 years. The temperatures in the last four interglacials have peaked fairly quickly in the cycle (as you point out) and then appear to slowly drop away to an ice age. You would think that if CO2 was the driver of GW, the temps would be much higher than they are now.
10
Dr England (and probably everybody else present) can be thankful that I was not in attendance at said meeting
– because, (to the surprise of no one here I am sure) I become extremely confrontational (nay – combative) when in the presence of global warmers, and politeness simply evades me when I hear things about the natural climate that I don’t like (= lying or deception).
I have reached the point, where I have found, that no other approach works so as alarmists will hear anything.
Not everybody’s favourite – but then again, this is the only subject on which I have an extremely short fuse.
For that reason, I am infrequent guest of some meetings.
Like Joe Pyne, here (American television, ca 1964)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLYYIh8uEo0&feature=related
10
Brian: “…I become extremely confrontational (nay – combative) when in the presence of global warmers…”
Don’t be so hard on yourself, Brian. Personally, I have found you to be unfailingly patient and polite in your dealings with me.
And that’s how it should be. At the end of the day, we are all in this together, and I know that in time you too will find peace and serenity in the brave new world of clean, green technology.
“For that reason, I am infrequent guest of some meetings.”
You’re not Hungarian by any chance?
10
Now tell me, Brendan – why would you want endless landscapes of useless wind turbines and kilohectares of flat blsck solar panels to deface the countryside of your flat Earth?
Compared with me, the Hungarians have terperaments comparable to Tibetan Monks
10
Brian: “…endless landscapes of useless wind turbines…”
Well, I think wind turbines can be pleasing in both an aesthetic and engineering sense:
http://www.nunukphotos.com/Industry-photos/wind-turbines
They can also be more homely and animal-friendly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wb_deichh_drei_kuhs.jpg
“…kilohectares of flat blsck solar panels…”
Are you absolutely sure Hungarian doesn’t feature somewhere in the gene pool? Solar towers can also be aesthetically pleasing as well as powerfully evocative:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PS10_solar_power_tower_2.jpg
10
The availablity of reliable electric power defines modern civilisation.
Why anyone would reject coal and nuclear electricity in the favour of relying on chaotic weather patterns to provide such a commodidity defies my imagination.
Although not really, as I get into the mind of the Environmentalist.
The solar tower is an erotic tribute to some god or other, who, when angered, will cause sea levels to rise, deathly typhoons, snow in mid summer, glaciers to form and recede, polar bear angst over having more to eat, penguin displeasure with ozone holes, acne, and Tooth Decay.
No discussion of Global Warming in complete without mentioning that it causes Tooth Decay.
The solar tower wonder of power described therein produces a TENTH of the power of an ordinary coal electricity plant, using TWENTY FIVE TIMES the land space, and results in elecricity FIVE TIMES the cost of electricity from coal in the BEST sunlight conditions.
Quite a bargain.
Although necessary to please the god of Global Warming, and I sincerly hope this god doesn’t find you pathetic
as I do
10
Speaking of Hungarians, the American mathemetican originally from Budapest, John von Neumann (or Neumann Janoś in his homeland) had the habit of shouting “fekete pestis!” (Black Plague!) at things he didn’t like.
For my own use, I have modified this to zöld pestis
(zöld means green)
10
By the way if you took a typical Hungarian critical approach to the examination of your beliefs in the context of the real world
(= world that others will describe in quantitative terms regardless of who is doing the measuring)
you would take your green-hued rose-tinted glasses off and realise pretty rapidly that
the entire basis of “green environmentalism,” together with commonly accepted responses to it, are consistent with the foundation of ALL psychopathic disorders, and probably deserves recognition of a behavioural disorder of its own classification
10
Ed Teller, by the way, was Hungarian and a “denier” of such forcible conviction that “environmentalists” were far more objectionable to him than Communists.
So, in answer to your question – yes indeed, if Ed Teller is Hungarian, then I am Hungarian too.
10
[…] Funded Arrogance […]
10
This is way off topic, but Wind Power leaves me incredulous- how could anyone responsible for power generation decisions choose such an appallingly wasteful scheme? The only place I can see this it appropriate is where the alternatives are worse – as they are in Antarctica.
But not in any country with access to any other source.
A windfarm needs to be 3.5 times the capacity of a conventional station to deliver the same amount of power to the grid. It also requires on-line conventional back-up of 80-95% of the capacity of the conventional power station it is purportedly replacing. Otherwise the grid can be destabilised by the fluctuations in power generated. Not much carbon saved there!
It uses at least 70 times the amount of land – of this about 20 times is for the safety perimeter (when the blades come off they travel a long way).
What a crock! Only the Brain-Dead or Venal would think this a good idea.
10
Well, in the best of circumstances wind has a capacity factor of 1/3 – meaning, the best you can expact is for the thing to supply rated power of the operation is one third of the time.
Obviously over large distances the phase of the wind turbines cannot be dictated any more than the wind can, meaning that if turbines in one area are out of phase with the turbines in another area one of them will have to go off grid, and otherwise destabilise the grid.
These marvels of 21-st century thinking using 14th century technology have no use anywhere.
A True Story from the Annals of the US Department of Energy
A villiage in Alaska was eligible for Federal assistance to supply electric power.
Recommendation from the villiagers: Diesel power.
Recommendation from DOE: Diesel power.
Recommendation from Environmentalists: Wind turbines.
Somehow (don’t ask me how) the Environmentalists prevailed.
The town was supplied 20 500-kw wind turbines. Construction was completed over the course of one year.
On the average, 2MW of electric power was available from this escapade.
In late December of the year these were completed, there was a not unusual event – a “herbie,” or hurricane force blizzard.
The turbines were of course moved into stow position as a result of such wind.
Nothing could be seen the night and the day that the herbie carried on, but when visibility returned there was not a trace of any of the wind turbines nor their supporting columns.
No pieces of them were located for a year
10
Well, I think wind turbines can be pleasing in both an aesthetic and engineering sense … – Brendan H
… but unfortunately cannot supply reliable electric power anywhere excepting for the dream world of the psychotic.
10
I am sorry for being so strident with you Brendan, and seemingly so arrogant and dismissive,
but in all honesty, do you still think that “going green” is a good idea?
10
Brendan H, words to the effect that wind turbines are,
“pleasing in the aesthetic and engineering sense.”
Aesthetic sense – they look ugly, they do ruin the view, they will ruin marine and land environments, they “create” a lot of bird pate..
Engineering sense – Most of the time they do not work (the wind is not the “right” speed, or constant, or reliable..), and they need replacing very regularly, more regularly than is economically viable.
Weird sense of aesthetic and engineering sense seems to be required to “appreciate” wind turbines as Brendan H suggests.
IF, they were are so good, let the market decide, not for politicians and bueaocrats to create a false (and very, very expensive) “market” doomed to failure. We will all both suffer the failings of this false market, and have to ultimately pay the bill for it.
Sense is the one word missing in all of this wind turbine / generation false market.
I do not like bird pate either.
10
What does ‘going green’ mean?
The world is measurably greener now because atmospheric CO2 is higher.
To help feed the trees and plants of the planet we should increase CO2 levels.
10
What does ‘going green’ mean?
I regret to be the first to inform you that it is symptomatic of a seriously debilitating psychosis.
10
Won’t somebody think of the trees and plants of the planet!!!
10
Matt (#53) I think Joanne (#51) is!
We should be putting as much CO2 into the atmosphere as possible. That way we can have more food, more trees and more fish.
If we go the other way we end up with famine
10
I agree, Colin & Joanne, we need more CO2. Forget “Human Rights” – let’s talk about Plant Rights (The Swiss government have actually written that into their constitution, and no, it’s not a joke!)
The wonders of clean, green, and most of all SAFE wind energy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqEccgR0q-o
Don’t get me wrong, I am by no means against R&D into cheaper, renewable, more efficient energy sources.
I’m with Sheik Yamani, one-time head of OPEC, when he said this: “The oil age will not end because we run out of oil, it will end because we find better, cheaper, more efficient ways to produce energy”.
Does anyone really think that in another 100 years the human race will still be using hydrocarbons for energy? And this move to more efficient energy sources will happen quicker WITHOUT government intervention.
But the fact is, at this point in history, wind, solar, wave and other forms of renewables just ain’t economical yet.
And yes, Denmark gets about 30% of its domestic electricity from wind power, BUT Danish electricity costs 43% more per megawatt hour than in the United States, AND the top marginal tax rate (starting at $70,000 annual income!) is 63%!
Any takers?
10
I think that comment was from Sheikh Yerbouti, Anne Kit, not Sheikh Yamani
10
Ahhhh, baby boomer joke 🙂
Totally off topic but quirky: Frank Zappa as a shy young 22-year old:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8e3I0iagWXU
10
Who you jivin’ with that Cosmik Debris?
10
Zappa appears quite mature, actually, at the age of 22.
He assumed a somewhat profane persona somewhat later – anger directed at what, I am not sure.
Steve Allen stretches a bit too far to find humour in all of this with Zappa, but one thing does come through at this appearance with Steve Allen
(and those with musical talent will recongnise it immediately) –
Zappa does, in fact, have authentic musical talent.
Zappa’s scatalogical bent put me off, and I’m not sure he realised that he didn’t need it to make himself heard
10
Where is Brendan?
Where are all the hot headed global warmers???
Come on, I’m getting bored, I need someone to provoke into a fight …
10
Going green is fine as long as it’s done rationally. Solar sources like photo voltaic and wind are non starters until energy storage technology is improved by an order or magnitude or so. The most successful solar source is hydroelectric, largely because we figured out how to store solar energy behind dams. Nuclear is the greenest power we have, yet ignorance and fear results in opposition, just as it does for CO2. If you want to see what going green does, come to California. We have the among the most renewable sources and the highest electric rates in the country. My incremental KW hours cost more than $0.37 each (about $34/gallon equivalent @ 121 MJ/gallon_of_gas)! Once the cap and tax regime is imposed, this will go up even more. Maybe I should change my line of work and get into carbon trading. This seems to be poised as the growth industry of the future.
George
10
Hydro is going nowhere for the same reasons nuclear isn’t.
Ten salmon caught in a hydro turbine is enough to shut the thing down.
California is right off the wall. Unfortunately for the US, the whole country is getting Californicated because of Obama’s adulation of creeps like Waxman and Pelosi.
To be fair, I’m not certain if Obama himself has as much professed esteem for those two profound losers as his media persona would suggest, or if it is just Democrat Party manipulation of his agenda and persona as his own reward for getting Obama where he is in the first place
10
Brian: “Where is Brendan? Come on, I’m getting bored, I need someone to provoke into a fight…”
But Brian, as I intimated earlier, I don’t want to fight. I want the world to live in peace and harmony, and yes, that means you. Here is a link to a page that I think you will enjoy. Don’t worry, it’s not just about the dawning of the new age of green power, it’s also got lots of numbers.
http://www.meridianenergy.co.nz/OurProjects/WestWind/
10
Derek: “Aesthetic sense – they look ugly…”
Well, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
“Engineering sense – Most of the time they do not work…”
Where I live, the first stage of a wind project has been switched on. I think the mistake many people make is to suppose that wind power should be the sole provider of electricity. As far as I understand it, wind power is an adjunct to power produced by other means.
10
Branden: “I want the world to live in peace and harmony”
That doesn’t make you different from anyone else. What might make you different from most is that others want the world to live within its means, which eliminates “green” energy sources that are vastly more expensive per KWH than readily-available market (fossil fuel) sources.
Can anyone seriously maintain that cost-effective alternate energy sources will not be developed by the time fossil fuel prices begin to climb as supplies naturally diminish over the next several hundred years? Look at the technology improvements in each 20-year increment over the past 100 years. Innovation in a free market will provide solutions that government czars impede (at great cost).
Sane government policy would allow market forces to work to provide for our energy/fuel supply. Market forces dramatically lower energy and fuel costs which, in turn, would create real jobs, real economic growth, and real recovery from the worldwide recession/depression. “Green” jobs supporting fuel and energy production that is not cost-effective are counter-productive and merely sap the market economy through higher taxes/costs.
10
But Brendan – you don’t understand.
I am not going to live in global warmer’s green Utopia without a fight.
And a rather scrappy one, at that!
10
Global Warmers want the public to lie down and take it when they want to [expletive] the Public over
Then they want the pubic to ask for some more!
Well guess what. On behalf of the Public that would be severely harmed by these acts of depravity and moral turpitide by Al Gore fawners and other criminals, I will fight that off with everything I have
10
Brendan H:
July 6th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
” I think the mistake many people make is to suppose that wind power should be the sole provider of electricity. As far as I understand it, wind power is an adjunct to power produced by other means. ”
OK, so let us take those damned silly road signs as an example, the ones that have to be solar or wind powered.
They cost (in the UK I believe) 10 to 15 THOUSAND pounds each, AND have to have a conventional sign with EXACTLY the same sign as well, in case the “renewable” powered sign does not work.
So, that is the cost of the standard sign, AND the cost of the ridiculously expensive “green”, “renewable powered”, call it what you will sign.
Does this strike anyone else as complete lunacy, AND damned expensive to US ALL.
Here is the rub.
Obama – “Energy prices will necessarily skyrocket”.
Why.
Because when a wind farm is “built” (using our taxes as subsidies – because they are NOT economic in a free market) then a conventional backup station / supply also has to be built. Usually the “back up” has to have a capacity of about 80 to 90% of the HOPED FOR output of the wind farm. Furthermore the “back up” has to be able to react quickly when the wind stops blowing, so, a) it has to be kept running on at least standby permanently, and b) it has to be able to react rapidly, so will probably be a gas powered “back up”. Gas is not the cheapest way to generate electricity, but it is responsive, as long as the Ruusians (or whoever) keep supplying it..
Where does this all leave Brendan H and his soon to be completed wind farm. ?
Well, he like the rest of his countrymen will notice that,
a) A lot of land has been used up to build a “wind farm”.
Yees, they are ugly, take the green spectacles off and really look at what you’ve done to the environment, the sqelch under your shoes was probably once a bird.
b) Most of the time the wind will not be “right” for power generation, so the wind turbines will rarely generate the amounts hoped for.
c) The gas powered “back up” will be running quite a lot of the time, but also keep powering up and down, incurring extra costs.
d) In the not too distant future (8 to 10 years at most usually) the turbines will need replacing, which is to put it politely DAMNED EXPENSIVE.
e) More people will be unemployed as “green jobs” cost ordinary jobs, check Spain out.
f) Brendan H and all the rest of us will be paying for, a conventional power generation plant (not a particularly cheap one either), the wind farm and it’s upkeep, more unemployed people, and improvements in the power grid to loose less of the small amount generated by wind.
Add all these up and “power” will cost somewhere in the region of
2 1/2 to 3 times more than it used to.
NOT a clever thing to do in a recession.
There are many more points that could be made, but let the above suffice for the present.
Wind farms are not good looking in any sense whatsoever,
they are an abomination, that only an ill informed and brain washed lunatic could appreciate.
BTW – In a recession I would suggest getting coal miners to mine coal to earn wages, whilst enabling cheap power generation for all is a far more obvious and sensible route to take.
People earning money, industry being more competitive due to cheaper energy,
or,
more unemployed (see Spain), and vastly more expensive power (check your near future power bills..).
It really is a no brainer.
The kicker to all this “wind farm” diatripe,
the globe has been cooling for the best part of a decade now,
whilst (for whatever reason) CO2 levels have been increasing.
Whatever is driving global temperature, it sure is NOT man’s CO2 emissions.
NB – Love the preview button, it works great.
10
Brian: “I am not going to live in global warmer’s green Utopia without a fight.”
Fair enough. What do you want to fight about? Nothing with numbers; they’re not my strong suit.
10
[snip insults aimed at Derek. Cool it – please.]
10
The sort of response Brendan H I have come to expect of a true “believer”.
Painful isn’t it learning the earth is not flat.
10
Joanne: “[snip insults aimed at Derek. Cool it – please.]”
Here’s what Derek aid: “Wind farms are not good looking in any sense whatsoever, they are an abomination, that only an ill informed and brain washed lunatic could appreciate.”
So why is it OK for Derek to call me a brainwashed lunatic, but not OK for me to call him an arsehole?
10
I’m late into this debate I know, but the arrogance of England is typical of those who have spent their life cossetted in the cloistered corridors of academia. They believe one can only be a scientist if they seek numerous academic qualifications and attach their name to a multitude of publications, no matter how minor their contribution. They heap distain on those with scientific training who have the temerity to actually use their expertise in the “real world” where the wealth that allows England and his ilk to pursue their academic life is generated. England needs to be cognisant that his grants are purlioned from the hard earned income of those he derides. The government has no money – it all comes from other’s tax. Clearly a member of the pompous, arrogant, self-annointed intellectual elite. England should remember one often learns more from the common man than a phalanx of PHD’s.
Kinninmoth’s question is a good one – how far wrong can his broad brush estimate be – 5%, 50%, 100% or an order of magintude? Pretty easy to answer Dr England – you’re the self appointed expert. If you don’t know just say so!
10
Brendan, Derek backed up his accusation with a long line of reason.
Throwing a one line insult with swearing in reply is worthless.
If you disagree with him. Give us reasons.
10
Where did I call Brendan H anything. ?
This is an intentional deflection by Brendan H to avoid answering the questions, or rather reasons I gave.
I will respond to reasons but nothing else, raise your game Brendan H.
Numbers are not Brendan H’s self confessed “strong suit”,
niether is reason apparently.
BTW – Brendan H your ad hominems aint up to much either..
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Ad-Hominem-Attacks-by-Rady-Ananda-090106-173.html
“The abusive ad hominem is not just a case of directing abusive language toward another person. . . . The fallacy is committed when one engages in a personal attack as a means of ignoring, discrediting, or blunting the force of another’s argument.”
On second thoughts given Brendan H’s obvious and self confessed not strong suits, he is not left with much to reply with really..
At times like this you have to pity some people really.
10
I regret having sought Brendan earlier for debating.
Brendan simply doesn’t have very much to offer in the way of resistance to keep me occupied for very long.
10
Sorry Brendan – you can join up with the global warmers, but you will have to rely on others to defend it (for you)
10
Brenden
Can you satisfactorily explain to us how CO2 is a pollutant?
10
I’ll save Brendan the effort of a long-winded and meaningless discourse: CO2 is a pollutant, because other people told Brendan it was.
Cut right to the chase, right, Brendan?
10
Derek
Since these true believers use the fallacious scientific consensus argument, wasn’t it Mark Twain that said “When you find yourself in the majority, it’s time to pause and reflect.”?
You’ll never get these people to understand that anthropogenic global warming/climate change/ocean acidification (and whatever else they decide to call it later)is a hoax perpetrated by James Hansen in 1988.
Never mind that current satellite data shows that there has been no warming for about a decade now, which tends to prove that warming and cooling is cyclic.
10
I know, Brian but he may just surprise us.
10
I expect surprises from him all right, but not of the welcome variety.
10
I noticed that from perusing the comments
BBL. Got to go fix someone’s laptop.
10
I’ve been reading Joanne’s articles and the ongoing comments for a few weeks now. I’ve finally decided to weigh in on the side of the “Skeptics”.
What no one is saying is that SOME of the changes that are touted by the AGW community will be good for all of us. Weening us off foreign oil will be GOOD, reducing emissions of REAL pollutants will be GOOD, diversifying and modernizing our energy sources will be GOOD, increasing the economy of our vehicles and increasing the use of fuel alternatives will be GOOD. But let markets drive the change!!! The costs that the AGW-ers are asking ALL of us to wear are horrendous, crippling and profoundly unnecessary!!! I CAN’T STAND being LIED to by the AGW priests and their acolytes – and YES, AGW IS (!!!!!!!) a religion. It requires more faith and suspension of belief than almost any other religion out there.
10
About 100 years ago we had the Eugenics religion sweep the world leading to WWII and the deaths of 100’s of millions of people. AGW is on par with that and possibly worse. How long do you think it will take for the AGW-caused WWIII happen???
10
The problem with WWII was, bad things were allowed too continue for too long, before people in their right minds decided to “do something about it.” In this case, there are plenty of people ready and quite willing to “do something about it” before the problem becomes “out of hand.”
Very few people in their right mind, of both the Axis and Allied countries involved in WWII, are displeased with the ultimate outcomes of the whole thing.
Today, people in their “right mind” will steer the course of history so as to minimize the catastrophic damage possible from lunatics who have convinced themselves of the inevitable end of the world unless fossil fuel use is ended
– and these right-minded people will do so, in posthaste.
Mr Brendan is iconic of the following intrepid (and hapless) visitor to Joanne’s website:
– Statements are made to correct Joanne, who became a “denier” the day before yesterday, of the obvious fallacies she has committed
– These statements “correcting” Joanne are demonstrated to be of marginal meaning
– Additional “evidence” of AGW, supposedly unknown to Joanne the naïve, is offered in support of AGW
– The additional “evidence” is demonstrated to be as meaningless as the original musings of the interloper
– Temper of the intrepid becomes elevated, and name-calling ensues
– The visitor is shown that nothing the visitor has offered said has contributed anything
– The visitor departs, evidently in a worse mood than when they arrived
– The visitor reappears again sometime later, to display their ignorance of another topic
10
May I suggest we have covered the main points regarding this slight “off topic” excursion well enough…
No doubt a thread more suited to the wind turbine / bird pate / crippling expense to our economies topic will arise soon anyway.
Is it time to go back to Freddo’s excellant comment above.
Freddo:
July 8th, 2009 at 6:35 pm
I’m late into this debate I know, but the arrogance of England is typical of those who have spent their life cossetted in the cloistered corridors of academia. They believe one can only be a scientist if they seek numerous academic qualifications and attach their name to a multitude of publications, no matter how minor their contribution. They heap distain on those with scientific training who have the temerity to actually use their expertise in the “real world” where the wealth that allows England and his ilk to pursue their academic life is generated. England needs to be cognisant that his grants are purlioned from the hard earned income of those he derides. The government has no money – it all comes from other’s tax. Clearly a member of the pompous, arrogant, self-annointed intellectual elite. England should remember one often learns more from the common man than a phalanx of PHD’s.
Kinninmoth’s question is a good one – how far wrong can his broad brush estimate be – 5%, 50%, 100% or an order of magintude? Pretty easy to answer Dr England – you’re the self appointed expert. If you don’t know just say so!
10
#80 Steve LeMaster:
July 9th, 2009 at 10:18 am
wrote,
” Derek – You’ll never get these people to understand that anthropogenic global warming/climate change/ocean acidification (and whatever else they decide to call it later) is a hoax perpetrated by James Hansen in 1988. ”
Thanks for the reminder Steve, I’ll have a damned good go at it.
My weekend is now planned. 😉
Piece to be posted at GWS forum when finished.
10
I find it interesting that this post attacks Matthew England for not being nice to William Kinninmoth – and then goes on to quite viciously attack England’s research and funding record.
I haven’t seen anyone in these posts or comments who has actually bothered to investigate the validity of England’s central point: that Kinninmoth got his sums wrong, both empirically by not using real-world oceanographic data, and mathmatically, by not using the non-linear equation of state for sea water – which I tracked down for you all by the way – see at this link and note that England is right when he asks Kinninmoth to “note the non-linear terms” – http://stommel.tamu.edu/~baum/reid/book1/book/node66.html
Jo-Anne and all the other sceptics on this site, I have to ask if you really believe an email exchange is a more appropriate, transparent and contestable form of scientific communication than publishing data in peer-reviewed journals? Isn’t telling someone to “go publish it in a peer reviewed journal” a pretty reasonable argument, given that peer-reviewed scientific journals have formed the basic foundation of scientific communication for the past 100 years and longer?
A peer-reviewer in a scientific journal would know, for instance, that Kinninmoth didn’t use the right data or equation for his calculations, and point this out in his review for the journal’s editors. But all you have done, Jo-Anne, is attack Matthew England.
10
B-en: you “viciously attack England’s research and funding record. ”
Nope. I attacked his logic, manners, and ability to answer a straight question. I did not say “the man shouldn’t be funded”. I said since he is funded – he should answer the question.
He didn’t. Nor have you. The details you repeat don’t change the order of magnitude of Kininmonths calculation. His point still stands. You point to minor details.
Insisting that all scientific discussion must pass through the gates of unpaid, unaudited, non-independent, untransparent peer-review is a ridiculous hurdle. The world is under a crisis mate, don’t you know? Who made the rule that two top experts can’t discuss it via email? How will the science be resolved faster if we ban discussion, or insist every exchange takes three months and must be published in a paper article before it is answered?
Exactly how many degrees warmer will 15 x 1022 Joules make our oceans?
10
Dear Ben (Eltham),
I have just read your comments on the very dignified scientific approach adopted by the well known gentleman, Bill Kinninmonth in his brief exchange with Professor England. Bill is a man whose experience in climate research and practical understanding of the atmosphere far exceeds that of most if not all Australian academics who may never the less, have a string of papers to their name. As a retired academic, I can assure you that while numbers of papers published are required for promotion in that system, the quality of those papers is all too often overlooked. Peer review is not the be all and end all for the recognition of a competent scientist. How many papers had Einstein published before special relativity which was directly responsible for his Nobel prize, even though the citation referred to the photoelectric effect, because relativity was in a somewhat similar situation to current scepticism on global warming, even to the point where most Universities refused to teach it. Sound familiar?
England’s suggestion that Bill should publish his work in peer reviewed journals demonstrates his lack of appreciation of what Bill is saying and shows that he does not have the confidence to carry on a debate in public on a topic in which he feels less competent. Such a comment is often/usually made by people who realise that they themselves are not capable of reviewing and understanding the science and want to hide behind a review panel. The manner in which he withdrew was also inappropriate when as a publicly employed and paid scientist he has a morel responsibility to open up his understanding of the subject to the public. The fact that he is not prepared to do this is unfortunately also a feature of the closed shop approach of CSIRO.
However, the main reason for my letter is to point out that the web site you have given us provides a general equation to the variation of sea water density with three parameters in the form of a linear partial differential equation in which the coefficients as shown there are very small and also as mentioned, the changes are important only in relation to the velocity of sound where the speed depends on the ratio of the elasticity, not given there, and the density, which is. I would appreciate a refernce to the non-linear equation to which you refer.
John Nicol
10
Joanne: “Brendan, Derek backed up his accusation with a long line of reason. Throwing a one line insult with swearing in reply is worthless.”
I think it was two lines. That aside, you seem to be saying that it’s OK to personally attack a poster as long as you can give reasons for doing so.
In that case, does the justification have to be “a long line of reason” or will a short one do, such as: “…unfortunately cannot supply reliable electric power anywhere excepting for the dream world of the psychotic”.
You chose not to snip that comment. So is it one-line insults you find offensive? Swear words? Unsupported one-liners? Just trying to get a handle on the rules.
Steve: “Can you satisfactorily explain to us how CO2 is a pollutant?”
A pollutant can be defined as waste material that is harmful to the environment and/or human beings. Since the effects of the 35 percent rise in atmospheric CO2 over the past 150 or so years are likely to harm the environment that sustains human beings, CO2 can rightly be included within the category of pollutant.
10
Brian makes fair point that we breath out this pollution. [snipped personal attack though.]
10
[ reasoning… please! ]
10
Brendan, which encyclopedia did that definition come from, or did you just make it up yourself?
10
[snip… please stick to reasoning]
10
Cmon guys. Get real. Brendan’s definition is reasonable. All he has to do is find THAT mystery paper with empirical evidence that “the effects of the 35 percent rise in atmospheric CO2 over the past 150 or so years are likely to harm the environment.”
We all know that more CO2 feeds plants and that biomass has increased worldwide measurably as CO2 rose. We know that people who have greenhouses pump CO2 into the greenhouse to increase their yields. So farmers pay money to pump this pollutant around their crops, and it’s not a case of dosage – the atmosphere is nearly 400 ppm. Farmers debate whether 800, or 1000, 1800 ppm is better.
CO2 could be the only pollutant on the planet that helps plants grow, but at the same time ‘harms’ the environment. It is possible.
So where’s the evidence?
10
“A pollutant can be defined as waste material that is harmful to the environment and/or human beings. Since the effects of the 35 percent rise in atmospheric CO2 over the past 150 or so years are likely to harm the environment that sustains human beings, CO2 can rightly be included within the category of pollutant.”
Then if it’s a pollutant, why is it a required nutrient in photosynthesis? Why is CO2 necessary to sustain life on this planet if it’s a pollutant?
10
The pollution is in Brendan’s understanding of atmospheric warming and the miniscule role humans play in it.
The AGW theory is mind pollution.
10
“Wind farms are not good looking in any sense whatsoever,
they are an abomination, that only an ill informed and brain washed lunatic could appreciate.”
Brendan this is the last on this petty point. Derek #68 wrote a long passionate piece but with reasoning. You swore with no attempt to explain your ‘opinion’. The rules are that if you waste my time being rude, illogical, or inane I snip more. (And it’s exponential).
If you want a refund, you can have 200% of your money back anytime.
10
Cmon guys. Get real. Brendan’s definition is reasonable
regret I have to go tête-à-tête with you over that, Joanne, and you are the master of your own content, so you can dispose of me as you wish
BUT
When we start accepting Brendan’s definition as “reasonable” and all he needs to do is to come up with the “paper” that so “proves it” – then
we are at the position society was over eugenics:
“eugenics as a theory is reasonable, but advocates of this theory need to produce a scientific study which proves it.”
meanwhile we’ll just keep promoting eugenics as if it was reasonable, and we’ll produce the proof later [if we need to and we might not need to].
Sorry Joanne, but, as they say, I just can’t hack it
and I won’t.
10
I am trying to get these true believers to recognize that they can’t have it both ways.
On the one hand they say CO2 is a pollutant, on the other it is an absolute fact that CO2 is a nutrient and without it, none of us would be here making with the klakity klack on the keyboards.
They are committing post hoc, ergo proptor hoc when they try to make this claim that CO2 is causing temperatures to rise.
10
Joanne, you are most assurendly not going to get pushed into THAT corner, are you?
Come on, Joanne – if some theory is no good, we don’t “play along as if it is OK until we wait for someone to actually come along and prove it is OK”
Burden of proof is on somebody else, if they want to advance some “theory” or other.
We don’t “accept their theory whilst we wait” for some verification.
Everybody and their cousin would jump on THAT concept if they could
10
Who said I accepted his theory? The only thing I accepted was a definition of a pollutant. “A pollutant can be defined as waste material that is harmful to the environment and/or human beings.” Like I said, it’s reasonable. It’s not good, because of the slop in defining ‘waste’. And since there is no mention of dosage, everything, including oxygen, water and cups of coffee qualifies. Lets assume he means that ‘at concentrations found in nature it causes harm…’. OK.
So? The burden is still on Team AGW. My question is the same as always “where’s the evidence”.
10
So you’re agreeing to his definition of a “pollutant” if I am not mistaken, and you reject his assertion that CO2 falls under the category of his definition of a polutant?
I am not going to hurl insults at individual who provides said definition of “pollutant” – but the the individual who makes the connexion of that with CO2 most assuredly IS going to be the target of my insults – and then some
10
The onus, or burden rests on the person making the assertion.
And I am still waiting for Brenden to answer my initial question I put to him.
10
Happy waiting. Enjoy the answer.
I personally don’t care one bit WHAT his answer is.
10
I just like hearing the multitude of spin and non answers I get when I ask that question.
10
Isn’t watching clothes spin around in a washing machine more entertaining?
That activity is sure a lot less stressful
(on me, anyhow.)
10
LOL! Yup, but, my question ranks right up there.
10
Joanne: “All he has to do is find THAT mystery paper…”
That reminds me of evolution sceptics who demand to be shown The Missing Link. When you point to transitional forms, they say: “All very well, but where’s The Missing Link?”
The only realistic response is to gently direct them back to the transitional forms.
“It’s not good, because of the slop in defining ‘waste’.”
The phrase “that is harmful to the environment and/or human beings” covers dosages, effects etc.
10
Steve: “Why is CO2 necessary to sustain life on this planet if it’s a pollutant?”
CO2 is necessary to sustain life because carbon is an essential element for plant growth.
I think the question you are trying to ask is: if CO2 is necessary to sustain life on this planet, why is it regarded as a pollutant?
– Nitrogen is an essential element for plants, but nitrate run-off is regarded as pollution.
– Vitamin A is an essential trace element in humans, but too much damages the body.
– Water is essential to most life as we know it, but when too-heavily concentrated can cause destruction on a massive scale
– Sunlight is essential to most life, but too much can be harmful.
– Plants are beneficial to man, but growers ruthlessly exterminate plants they regard as ‘weeds’.
And so on. Whether or not an element or substance or entity is beneficial or harmful depends on the context: location, concentration etc.
10
@Brendan:
But why don’t you answer the question? What evidence do you have that CO2 is a pollutant?
Are you not aware of the miniscule amount of CO2 generated by humans (in comparison to annual natural production/emission of CO2?
Any serious review of climate within the current interglacial will make obvious the proposition that current climate is well within normal climate variation. Looking beyond to the past four ice age cycles and their interglacials, the only characteristic of the current interglacial is that it possesses a plateau at its peak, which is lower than the peaks of the previous four interglacials (according to Vostok core data).
So where is the evidence of any significance to whatever infinitesimal impact human activity has on climate?
AGW theory has failed miserably and is little more than an exercise in hubris.
10
It’s yet another convoluted non answer. These true believers and flat earthers can’t seem to reconcile between the two.
10
Well Steve, to get some more, simply ask him for it.
He will provide more of it than you could possibly stand
10
Nah, I think I’m done.
Brenden
You are no different than other AGW believers and environmentalists; you are a victim of your own willful ignorance. You, as well as others like you, do things without thinking about the long term consequences to others because it feels good. Well, sex feels good, but, you won’t see me running around the world hopping into bed with every woman I meet.
When you are presented with an opposing point of view or facts, you automatically jump to ad hominems and vitriol; you do this because you can’t cogently respond to a counter view and this destroys your credibility. In short, you don’t want to read or hear what another has to say when it runs counter to your religion, which is what it really is.
I presented a question to you and you responded with a long and convoluted non answer. Now, why is that? Because you and others in your religion can’t reconcile the issue of your assertion that CO2 is a pollutant and the fact that it’s a trace gas nutrient that is required to sustain life on this planet, it’s a sort of dichotomy that you have gotten yourself into.
You don’t ask questions to members of your church because you know that by doing so, you risk being ostracized. You can’t convince the masses so your religion infiltrates politics and then metastasizes like a cancer, then the next thing we know politicians have found a new way to tax people and bring down corporations (hence the consequences that were never thought about).
You shout the “debate is over…scientists are in a consensus!”. However, when it is explained to you that science does not work in a consensus fashion, you scoff. When we try to play your game and note that over 31,000 scientists don’t agree with anthropogenic global warming/climate change/ocean acidification, you claim that they are fakes and have not had any peer reviewed papers published or some other twaddle.
In short, you make it up as you go along. You are like a cancer, however, unlike cancer where there is no cure, people like us are the cure and will continue to expose you people for what you really are.
10
Well said, Steve. Right on point and a very accurate description of alarmist modus operandi.
10
That’s why they don’t like me. I tend to go right for the carotid artery.
10
Brendan H:
July 9th, 2009 at 8:01 pm
Joanne: “Brendan, Derek backed up his accusation with a long line of reason. Throwing a one line insult with swearing in reply is worthless.”
I think it was two lines.
——————
End of quote.
Brendan H, in your answer to your own quote of Joanne, you have replied
“I think it was two lines.”
I will point out to readers here that you are referring to
my post numbered No. 68 above.
If that is what you think two lines look like, then you are sadly deluded.
.
Steve LeMaster above accuses you of providing non answers.
You have already several times in this thread alone,
on several different subjects (comprehensively) proved him correct.
.
I, despite your false accusations, have not directly called you anything,
you however have directed (by name) ad hominems at myself.
.
Brian G. Valentine has aready apologised for bringing you here to “discuss”.
As he acknowledges, you are not capable of reasoned discussion, or debate.
.
As Steve says (above) you need exposing for what you are,
what you represent, and what you with obviously so little
knowledge and comprehension try to “defend”.
Given the title of this thread, I sincerely hope you are not “funded”,
(If you are they’ll be coming for a refund soon enough…)
I know, and here state, I am not funded to write what I write.
.
Earlier I asked you to raise your game, you have not.
Seemingly because you are beyond your capabiltiy, knowledge,
understanding, and / or ability.
You have already said figures are not your strong suit,
reasoning and discussion are patently also beyond your remit.
.
I said earlier I would not respond to anything other than
reasoning from yourself, you as yet, have provided
absolutely none in repsonse to my post number 68.
Or most others I have skimmed afterwards.
However given your entrenched position, I feel it reasonable to respond now
to help illustrate some of your tactics / methods.
.
You patently (in my opinion) have already done more than enough to have
earned a ban from this blog, by your actions and “reasoning” so far.
However you are doing far more good by being allowed here,
hence I have not reacted to your ad hominems.
I find that sometimes the best way to show someone plainly for what they are,
is to give them a enough rope to hang themselves.
In all fairness, I have to congratulate you on a job extremely well done.
Best Regards,
Derek.
10
Bob: “But why don’t you answer the question? What evidence do you have that CO2 is a pollutant?”
The question was not addressed to me. But since you ask, in 2007 the United States Supreme Court declared CO2 as a pollutant, as per this ruling:
http://www.nrdc.org/media/docs/070402.pdf
“So where is the evidence of any significance to whatever infinitesimal impact human activity has on climate?”
If the impact is “infinitesimal” then, clearly, the evidence will not be measurable.
10
Steve: “…you are a victim of your own willful ignorance.”
Instead of attacking me, Steve, address the argument. The conclusion to my argument was:
“Whether or not an element or substance or entity is beneficial or harmful depends on the context: location, concentration etc.”
“I presented a question to you and you responded with a long and convoluted non answer.”
So you say. Show me where I am wrong.
10
Derek: “I will point out to readers here that you are referring to my post numbered No. 68 above.”
No, I was referring to my post #70, now sadly deleted.
10
“The question was not addressed to me. But since you ask, in 2007 the United States Supreme Court declared CO2 as a pollutant, as per this ruling:
http://www.nrdc.org/media/docs/070402.pdf
“So where is the evidence of any significance to whatever infinitesimal impact human activity has on climate?”
If the impact is “infinitesimal” then, clearly, the evidence will not be measurable.”
LOL! Are you kidding me!? The Supreme Court is all you got? Since when does the Supreme Court have any authority to change the chemistry of photosynthesis?
10
No, I was referring to my post #70, now sadly deleted.
Quanto triste, effettivamente! Piange, piange, piange.
10
“Steve: “…you are a victim of your own willful ignorance.”
Instead of attacking me, Steve, address the argument. The conclusion to my argument was:
“Whether or not an element or substance or entity is beneficial or harmful depends on the context: location, concentration etc.”
“I presented a question to you and you responded with a long and convoluted non answer.”
So you say. Show me where I am wrong.”
Your willful ignorance shows all over the place. I have shown you where you are wrong because of the fact that CO2 is required for photosynthesis to occur.
What part of photosynthesis do you not understand? Do you even know what it is?
10
You are obfuscating, Brenden. You know damn well you can’t reconcile the fact that CO2 can’t be a pollutant if it needed to sustain life.
10
Since you can’t answer my question, Brenden, then I’ll ask you another:
What’s the ppmv of CO2 that is currently in the atmosphere?
10
I’ll answer:
The answer is, too much. Way too much. Way way WAYYYYY too much.
Humans have been overheating the atmosphere for 150 years. – Susan Solomon, NOAA
10
LOL! Susan Solomon is an activist like James Hansen.
I’m still laughing at the Supreme Court gaffe Brenden cited as an authority.
Ever heard of the term argumentum ad verecundiam?
10
Susan Solomon has rocks in her head. She’s too dumb to know it because of her own arrogance.
Susan Solomon has been given “awards” as a “role model for women in science.”
She’s every bit the role model of a Leona Helmsey.
Or Martha Stewart.
10
I’m going to fade into obscurity on this topic. Brenden is nothing more than a Gorebot.
If you want, you can read my dissertation on the Sierra Club and its tactics.
http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/?p=1963
10
I think the attack on peer review in these comments is pretty amusing. Peer review has its faults, biases and weaknesses but its surely a more rigorous method of scientific assessment than the pages of a blog or an email correspondence between an expert and a non-expert.
John Nicol – Einstein’s prestige in science is almost completely related to the fact that his predictions about the physics of the universe were later shown by observation to be accurate. Climate change is not a prediction, it’s a physical observation, despite the cherry-picking that Jo Nova and the other commenters here like to engage in.
Jo – who made the rule that someone who receives funding should be required to answer, at length, all correspondence? Since when did public funding oblige a scientist to do anything but fulfill the conditions of his or her research grant? It’s not Matthew England’s job to engage in an email debate with climate skeptics, just as it isn’t the High Court’s job to answer emails from every bush lawyer in the country. Is you want to challenge the constitutionality of a law in this country, take it to the High Court in the usual manner. If you want to present new evidence about oceanography, send it to an oceanography journal, where your data and methods will be free for everyone to judge.
The attack on peer review here is nothing more than a slightly dressed up conspiracy theory advanced by those who can’t get their observations published, and those thatt support them.
10
Steve: “LOL! Are you kidding me!? The Supreme Court is all you got?”
On the assumption that the Supreme Court doesn’t make decisions in a vacuum, it is reasonable to suppose that its decisions are supported by at least some evidence. And so it is in this case. The ruling has extensive references to scientific research, including IPCC reports.
For example, on page 18 of the opinion, there is a reference to the National Research Council report from 2001, which refers to existing harms: “…the global retreat of mountain glaciers, reduction in snow-cover extent, the earlier spring melting of rivers and lakes, [and] the accelerated rate of rise of sea levels during the 20th century relative to the past few thousand years.”
Further evidence of harms due to global warming are included in the recent report, Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States, from the United States Global Change Research programme.
The report details existing impacts in the United States: “…heavy downpours, rising temperature and sea level, rapidly retreating glaciers, thawing permafrost, lengthening growing seasons, lengthening ice-free seasons in the ocean and on lakes and rivers, earlier snowmelt, and alterations in river flows.”
http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts
The full report has an extensive list of references to scientific papers supporting the various claims.
A more popular presentation can be found on this site, also outlining existing impacts of global warming, although sans references:
http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/gw-effects.html
“I have shown you where you are wrong because of the fact that CO2 is required for photosynthesis to occur.”
And as I have shown, demonstrated benefits do not rule out harms. Therefore, you are mistaken to assume that because CO2 can be shown to be beneficial, it cannot also be harmful.
10
Who are these “peers” doing the reviewing? The manner in which the AGW brigade attack their critics gives them the appearance of a club of “peers”. No critic is admitted as a peer.
If you stand back and look at this whole business we see among other things:
1. People who can’t tell us with certainty what the weather will be next week telling us with certainty what the weather will be in a hundred years.
2. Reporters commentators and politicians compounding worst case scenarios,
3. Politicians leading this “science”
4. Politicians funding this science towards a preferred finding,
5. Changes to the rules every time the data runs contrary to the preferred outcome,
6. Attempts to excise history.
To an intelligent observer this science is deficient in integrity.
When Bill Kininmonth points out quite correctly that a simple calculation shows that a particular claim is outlandish he is attacked.
We used to have rules for science. Twenty or more years ago the politicians declared themselves scientists and changed those rules to suit themselves. The integrity of science has suffered as a result.
20
Ben Eltham,
This little discussion takes us away from the topic of Global Warming but it is relevant in that it represents a typical discussion which has been an important characteristic in the long history of scientific debates, but so obviously missing in the case of this most recent controversy. By the way, Einstein’s prestige and fame was established long before he had produced the General Theory of Relativity, and a very long time before experiments showing the gravitational effect of the sun on the light from a distant star, the first to confirm his theory, which showed the bending to be about twice that predicted from the basic correspondence principle on which the general theory was in fact based. Actually this was a theory of gravity but was defined by Einstein himself as GTR – which was developed in terms of the four-vectors, first defined by Minkowski and the general assumption that physical laws must be covariant. Special relativity, the photoelectric effect, the theory of the Brownian movement and other unique physics including I believe, stimulated emission, the basis of the laser, all preceded the General theory. Some were explanations of the already known results of experiments while others required subsequent proof before being accepted as main stream. As late as the mid 1960s, many people were still arguing over the twin paradox from special relativity including the well known and very long contest between Dingle and McRea. In the 1970s people were still carrying out experiments with the purpose of disproving some of the accepted “truths” from the special theory, in particular the Ives and Stilwell experiment in relation to the second order Doppler effect. Other areas of science have equally significant periods of scepticism which has previously been welcomed by all true scientists as a means of cementing the truth as far as is possible. The famous story of N-rays about 1916, the so-called “fifth” force relating to the inverse square law of Newtonian gravity in the late 1980s are other examples of debates, as was the classification of optical coherence following the Nobel Prize winning discovery of a new means of measuring stellar diameters by Hanbury-Brown and Twiss. All controversial, all debated openly between believers and sceptics. These were very healthy times for science.
Unfortunately as you will be aware, all of the great challenge of seeking to find an error or an alternative interpretation of some new or even long standing theory, has been quashed in the case of Global Warming by the claims of an overwhelming consensus which one might challenge at one’s peril. The science is “in”!
Having written my own simple theory of the green house effect, which has not been yet fully completed or peer reviewed, I have received complementary comments from many fellow physicists who understand its implications, but as yet I have only been subject to insults from those who seek to argue against it but have not yet provided me with a counter argument against any of its parts, even though I have openly invited criticism (scientific of course) and am disappointed that not one has so far been forthcoming. Similar comments have been made about Ian Plimer’s book and about the much earlier work by Jack Barrett, Heinze Hug others who have taken a different approach to Global Warming from the mainstream. Again, I have not yet seen any argument put forward attempting to show why Barrett’s or Hug’s work is wrong, but there are a plethora of comments which openly denigrate the authors. Why is this so. Why can’t Ian Plimer, Hug, Barrett… present an argument against which others who disagree might firmly but always politely present a scientific counter argument.
The debate to which I refer here, is specifically about whether carbon dioxide is the responsible agent for recent changes in climate. It is not whether ice is melting, areas are warming or cooling, droughts are increasing etc. which is really part of a quite different scientific argument, which seeks to distinguish between scientific observations of what is happening and whether these observations show that the climate is changing outside the “norm” as indicated by historical records from thousands of years. This is an important part of the process in understanding changes which take place in our climate, but it is not the most serious aspect of the problem, which is tofind a cause for the observed changes.
Also, in order to determine whether we can forecast what the changes will be in the future, these observations are not at all helpful unless we can show that they are caused by another process over which we may or may not have control, or one which we can even use as a forecasting tool. In this, both geological records and the work of many physicists indicate that the sun and its myriad of variable characteristics, its flares, its magnetic field frozen in plasma, its gravitational effects, its control of charged particle fluxes (cosmic rays) from outside the solar system, as well as the orbital characteristics of the earth show strong evidence of being the cyclical driving forces behind changes seen in climate over time. In the view of many who have studied the physics of carbon dioxide’s behaviour in the atmosphere, it cannot be responsible for changes in climate, inspite of its absorption of radiation, which is well known but not always understood.
If the IPCC and CSIRO can show that carbon dioxide is responsible, why do they not do so publicly? Why do they not quote publications which clearly demonstrate the physics which clarifies the errors in Barrett’s and Hug’s analyses? Why do they simply continue to quote the 113 year old hypothesis of Arrhenius and state that:
“Most of the increase in Global temperatures over the last 50 years is very likely due to increase in carbon dioxide”. This, Ben, is not a scientific statement as I am sure you will agree. But this is the only justification provided by CSIRO on being asked to provide papers demonstrating the responsibility of carbon dioxide.
So its over to you Ben. I have done my best here to indicae references and reasons why I am not yet convinced that carbon dioxide is the cause of the warming we have seen, at least from 1978 to 1998 with some quite recognisable cooling since, while carbon dioxide continued to rise and the models of the atmosphere continued to predict, incorrectly, that the world would be warming.
Can you provide a scientific argument which will contradict my paper and the work of Barrett, Hug and Plimer? Can you explain to me why my questions to Penny Whetton, head of CSIRO’s climate group, resulted in no more than the quotation I have given above, which is also in their major report “Climate Change in Australia”? I look forward to hearing from you. We could have an interesting discussion and you may cause me to change my mind.
John Nicol
10
John Nicol
Eddington derived (then directed eclispse experiments to show) that the the bending of sunlight from a distant star (= point at infinity) a little round the Sun (amd thereby apparently a little away from the Sun from an observer on Earth) from Einstein’s conjecture about the curvature of spacetime (the components of the 4-vector gravitational potential satisfy the Christofel contraction condition of Riemann’s curvature tensor in Minkowski spacetime), showing this was twice the value of a gravitational potential that satisfied Laplace’s equation in a 3+1 dimensional world (which Eddington calls “Newton’s Theory of Gravity”).
It is interesting that all perturbative solutions to Einstein’s equation of gravity (vanishing of all components of the contaction of Riemann’s curvature tensor) were carried out by others (Eddington, deDonder, deSitter chief among them), and that Eddington postulated the existence of gravitational waves as a method of solution of the 2-body problem for Einstein’s field equations (the 2-body problem in these conditions is still unsolved).
Relativity theory would not have taken on any significance without the contributions of an astronomer of Eddington’s magnitude.
Eddington understood very clearly what the consequences of Relativity theory were, and of all other theories of today, the problem is, there is no Eddington to do anything with them.
10
Ben Eltham, you appear to be clueless about what constitutes “observational evidence that supports a theory.”
You’re not alone.
10
Brendan, you’re archetypal of what gets me so angry.
You’re a blockhead.
10
Note that Eddigton assumed that Newton would have made the correction for the FitzGerald contraction had Newton been made aware of it.
10
At 120, Brendan replies:
Bob: “But why don’t you answer the question? What evidence do you have that CO2 is a pollutant?”
The question was not addressed to me. But since you ask, in 2007 the United States Supreme Court declared CO2 as a pollutant, …
Actually, the question was asked of you. I thought that fairly obvious. But that’s not important since you responded anyway.
In point of fact, the Supreme Court did no such thing (“declared CO2 as a pollutant”). What it DID do was to rule (5-4) that the EPA had authority to declare CO2 a pollutant, provided it could muster the evidence to demonstrate that emissions EPA can regulate would be sufficient to cause the consequences claimed by the State of Massachusetts.
In a brilliant minority opinion summary (actually rooted in common sense and law), we discover that in order for the Supreme Court even to make THAT ruling, they had to acknowledge that the State of Massachusetts had standing to bring the suit against the EPA. In point of fact, they did not demonstrate that because in order to do so they had to demonstrate a clear connection between emissions the EPA could regulate and a clear and present danger to the people of Massachusetts. It is absurd to claim that anyone could make that case and it certainly wasn’t made in Court. The decision was clearly political and based on insufficient evidence. A great weakness of the Court is that it depends upon the character and integrity of those sitting on the bench.
Brendan then offers in 133:
… a reference to the National Research Council report from 2001, which refers to existing harms: “…the global retreat of mountain glaciers, reduction in snow-cover extent, the earlier spring melting of rivers and lakes, [and] the accelerated rate of rise of sea levels during the 20th century relative to the past few thousand years.”
This is laughable because at any given time there are glaciers in retreat and glaciers advancing somewhere on the planet. It means nothing. And all the list of items as evidence of warming tell us absolutely nothing of the cause of that warming and certainly do not relate back to anything the EPA can regulate. Furthermore, citations of the consequences of global warming are no more appropriate than citations of the consequences of global cooling (far worse, by the way) when searching for a connection between what the EPA can regulate and significant causes of climate change.
Not one truly scientific paper has ever managed to decipher a meaningful human impact on climate change. What has been offered thus far by the IPCC (and the host of papers that are merely based on now out-dated IPCC findings) is merely conjecture based on flawed hypothesis supported by computer simulations and shoddy analytical work (e.g., “Hockey Stick”, Antarctic “warming”, wind proxy for “discovering” a non-existent greenhouse fingerprint in the tropical mid-troposphere). The discredited “theory” of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is rooted in an unrealistic and demonstrably incorrect assumption of significant positive feedback from water vapor as a consequence of a postulated slight CO2 warming that itself hasn’t been demonstrated.
There is a lot more to climate than theory, conjecture, and assumption.
Over the best histories we can compile of Earth’s global temperature there are two things that are readily apparent:
1. Climate changes dramatically from natural causes. “Typical” climate (based on preponderance of time) is much warmer than at present (Earth is in an Ice Era at present), up to 10°C warmer. During ice eras, ice age cycles drive climate considerably colder than at present, roughly 8°C colder. Over the relatively short time scale of hundreds of years, a fairly regular cycle of warm and cold periods is apparent. Over hundreds of thousands of years revealing ice age cycles, a longer-term cycle of cold and warm is apparent. Over hundreds of millions of years, Earth’s typical climate is interrupted by ice eras whose depths of temperature generally fall to what is typical for an ice age.
2. Whatever set of natural conditions drive climate excursions, the climate tends toward stability when external conditions stabilize for that climate regime. This is evident in the temperature profile over the past 600 million years and even in the nature of temperature changes during ice age cycles. Clearly, there are regular external forces that significantly alter climate. The character of long-term global temperature history strongly suggests the climate system works to become stable within whatever conditions prevail within a given climate regime. The most extreme climate regimes are roughly bounded by temperatures about 10°C warmer and 8°C colder than at present. This suggests the Earth climate system tends to stability even under the most severe conditions of change.
A small stimulus to warm will produce an opposing cooling stimulus to maintain stability. If this were not the natural feature of climate, Earth’s climate would have long since spun out of control to some hellish hothouse or permanent frozen snowball.
Yet the fundamental assumption of the IPCC’s flawed AGW theory is that a posited slight warm stimulus from additional CO2 will be magnified by greater warming from water vapor based on the absurdly simplistic notion that just because a slightly warmer atmosphere will hold more water vapor that the consequence of that additional water vapor will be greater “greenhouse” warming from the additional water vapor and nothing else. Of course, to reach this positive feedback, the IPCC has to ignore, among other things, the consequences of additional cloud formation and precipitation that would likely result from greater atmospheric water vapor.
It will take a far greater force than anything humans can produce from their puny activity to overwhelm the natural tendency to stability in the climate system.
So here is a fresh question for Brendan to ponder: Let’s accept the IPCC’s flawed AGW theory for the sake of discussion. Then, accepting that the AGW theory is accurate and alarmist claims that current global temperatures are “unprecedented”, how do you explain that (with one exception) each of the eight continental all-time high temperature records was set on or before human emissions of CO2 were sufficient to impact global climate?
Africa’s all-time record high was set in 1922.
North America’s all-time high set in 1913.
Asia’s all-time high in 1942.
Australia’s all-time high in 1889.
Europe’s all-time high in 1881.
South America’s all-time high in 1905.
Oceania’s all-time high in 1912.
Antarctica’s all-time high in 1974 (when scientists were worried about a human-caused ice age!)
Doesn’t it strike you as a bit odd, that recent warming is so “unprecedented” … except it’s not sufficiently warm to erase long-standing high temperature records?
10
As I see it, 5 of 9 Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States had no clue what “pollution” was or wasn’t, adding Brendan, that makes six people,
and in the great scheme of things, six clueless people doesn’t mean anything.
10
How do you “fix” a Soci – O – Path?
You don’t. The best you can do is try to mitigate possible damage from them.
10
Brian: “Brendan, you’re archetypal of what gets me so angry. You’re a blockhead.”
Careful, Brian. Joanne requires a “long passionate piece but with reasoning”. You get a pass for the passion, but fall somewhat short in the length and reasoning departments.
Brace yourself for the snip. Ouch!
10
Won’t be the first time.
Or the last.
10
Bob: “In point of fact, the Supreme Court did no such thing (”declared CO2 as a pollutant”).”
Fair enough. I was speaking shorthand. As you say, the ruling made provision for the declaration of CO2 as a pollutant.
“This is laughable because at any given time there are glaciers in retreat and glaciers advancing somewhere on the planet.”
As this article shows, glaciers worldwide are in retreat, barring some exceptions. And of course, even glaciers in decline will sometimes advance. What matters is the general direction of retreat and its global character, as this article demonstrates.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/03/worldwide-glacier-retreat/
“Not one truly scientific paper has ever managed to decipher a meaningful human impact on climate change.”
The phrase “truly scientific” is merely a rhetorical device that allows you to reject any evidence you don’t like by claiming that it is not “truly scientific”. Semantics aside, you admit there are a “host of papers” supporting the AGW position.
“The most extreme climate regimes are roughly bounded by temperatures about 10°C warmer and 8°C colder than at present. This suggests the Earth climate system tends to stability even under the most severe conditions of change.”
Eventually. But the existence of both glacial and interglacial periods is incontrovertible evidence of past runaway cooling and warming. Equally importantly, warming or cooling well within the limits you cite would provoke climate changes that would be a threat to human well-being and survival.
“Then, accepting that the AGW theory is accurate and alarmist claims that current global temperatures are “unprecedented”…”
It’s the rate of change that is unprecedented, not current temperature levels. As for temperature records, temporary temperature spikes in the recent past say nothing about climate, which is the long term, and long-term global conditions show an overall rise in temperatures.
10
It is suggested above that publicly funded research needs only fulfil the obligation laid down by the granting body supporting that research. However, Professor England also holds a publicly funded University position the mission statement of which will include something to the effect that staff will engage in providing advice to the public which funds the institution and of course pays its staff salaries, assuming they will follow that age old tradition. All universities now have mission statements gathering dust on the top shelf of the big store room! England did have a moral and from his appointment, an applied obligation to advise the public as far as he could. Not pick up his marbles and go home as he did.
John Nicol
10
Well, it appears that the Congress of these United States draws a salary from taxpayer money not merely to demonstrate arrogance, but to harm people, as well.
10
Branden:
Alaskan Glaciers are in advance for the first time in a century. Odd, considering polar regions are claimed to be warming so fast.
Evidence of warming provides no information about the source of warming. The giant leap by alarmists is to conclude that a trivial increase human activity to a minor atmospheric warming gas (CO2) will somehow produce dramatic changes in climate. Yet neither you nor any scientific paper has been able to decipher the human component. One reason is because they haven’t bothered to understand the natural factors for climate change, consequently, there is no way to separate or determine a human component.
Since you don’t even suggest a paper (and don’t point to the IPCC … I’ve looked and cannot find anything that identifies a human component to the global temperature record. I fail to understand how you can claim that I admit a “host of papers” support the AGW theory! That’s nonsense. I don’t use rhetoric to hide, because I have nothing to hide. On the other hand, you cannot identify the scientific work that can identify the human component of global temperature. Because it doesn’t exist. If you think the IPCC documents contain such a paper, then point to it specifically, because I haven’t been able to find it, and I’ve looked (in vain).
No past climate change was ever “runaway” (denoting something happening or done … uncontrollably) … the very term suggests out of control change without end. Every change has come to stability and eventual return to the other extreme of the scale, so something has grabbed control of the process. Humans have never known Earth’s typical climate because we’ve always existed within an ice era. More specifically, the entirety of recorded history is within the current plateau of an interglacial. Consequently, humans have known neither the typically very warm climate (no permanent ice at sea level) nor the extreme cold of an ice age (continental glaciers) within an ice era. And you worry about the temperature change that a trivial increase in CO2, a minor contributor to atmospheric warming, will bring to climate? It is the stability of the climate system that prevents any runaway climate change from occurring.
Humans need to learn to adapt to the changes that will come, both severe cooling and severe warming. They are inevitable and, on a climate time scale, imminent. The notion that things should stay the way they were over any 30 or 50 year average is an unrealistic expectation based on ignorance of climate change history.
There is absolutely nothing unusual about the rate of change. That is another myth of the alarmist camp. When the lie is put to the claim (based on the “Hockey Stick” fiasco) of “unprecedented” warming, the chant becomes, “oh, it’s the rate of change, not the temperature” … sorry, that won’t fly. Look at the history over the past 50,000 years (includes current interglacial with low rates of change and a portion of the most recent ice age with greater variability in rates of change) at http://www.webcommentary.com/images/climate/rate1.jpg (sorry, don’t have the original source link).
So if temperatures aren’t really warming, then what is all the concern about? It would seem reasonable that if the theory of Anthropogenic Global WARMING is actually true, then temperatures should be rising with increased atmospheric CO2, but they aren’t. Any you cannot even comment on the high temperature records not supporting your flawed theory.
Can’t you see how absurd the AGW position is in the face of all the contrary evidence? Or doesn’t that matter?
10
Of course it doesn’t matter to Brendan, the only thing that matters to Brendan is his own sick little arrogance.
And by “sick” I mean SICK. REALLY “sick”.
10
“Joanne! Brian’s picking on me! Come on, make him stop, will you? When I call people names and use dirty words, you erase them! Why don’t you do the same to HIM? Come on Joanne this is unfair!”
Life is full of unfair things, Brendan. When you become an adult, you will realise that.
10
Bob: “Since you don’t even suggest a paper (and don’t point to the IPCC … I’ve looked and cannot find anything that identifies a human component to the global temperature record.”
This chapter from the latest IPCC report discusses the concept of radiative forcing in relation to atmospheric constituents.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter2.pdf
From the executive summary: “Radiative forcing (RF) is a concept used for quantitative comparisons of the strength of different human and natural agents in causing climate change.”
And: “The combined anthropogenic RF is estimated to be +1.6 [–1.0, +0.8]2 W m–2, indicating that, since 1750, it is extremely likely that humans have exerted a substantial warming influence on climate. This RF estimate is likely to be at least five times greater than that due to solar irradiance changes. For the period 1950 to 2005, it is exceptionally unlikely that the combined natural RF (solar irradiance plus volcanic aerosol) has had a warming influence comparable to that of the combined anthropogenic RF.”
The chapter contains extensive references to papers, including those that that discuss radiative forcing due to greenhouse gases
“No past climate change was ever “runaway” (denoting something happening or done … uncontrollably) … the very term suggests out of control change without end.”
The term denotes unstoppable change until a new point of equilibrium is reached. It doesn’t mean change without end.
10
May I just add to the rate of change point raised.
Sometime ago now I looked at the publicly available 49,000 year Greenland Ice Core measurements.
Amongst other plots I also plotted the century to century rate of change.
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/DerekJohn_photos/stuff/GreenlandRoC.jpg
OK, all done on an unpaid amateur basis, but the picture that plot depicts is dramatic and undeniable.
The Holocene has been a lot more stable than the previous ice age.
Present variations are well within perfectly natural variations already seen within the holocene.
During the Holocene temperatures have been cooling, and infact where a lot higher in the recent climatic past, within the last 10,000 years.
Human civilisation was greatly helped to develop during the warmer past of the Holocene,
and warming that is “projected” (but most likely will not happen) will be a benefit to human civilisation, not a danger or hinderence.
Cooling is a far bigger and more immanent danger than warming, the climate’s and our history shows us this. Undeniably.
To paint any other picture is to fly in the face of climate and human history.
To help clarify a little better here is the plot of temperature over the last 49,000 years of the Greenland ice core data set.
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/DerekJohn_photos/stuff/49981Greenlandtemp2.jpg
Please note the amount of change over the last few decades that the alarmists are so “worried” about.
This is why the term alarmist is so relevant to them and the AGW none sense.
10
Derek:
Well done! Nothing amateur about looking at really inconvenient (for alarmists) temperature histories.
Bob W.
10
And for this 250 year blip it appears that it is now going back to where it was faster than it got there (Svensmark knows exactly how fast this “faster” means).
Rationale of Global Warmers:
“People may be wondering whether ‘global warming’ is valid. They don’t realise that ‘global warming’ takes place on a century basis.” – TV weather lady, explaing to viewers why Chicago, USA saw no summer weather in June.
“We need to act right now. Greenland ice is disappearing almost overnight.” – Al Gore, beseeching the US Congress to “act” to fix the weather
10
“The term denotes unstoppable change until a new point of equilibrium is reached. It doesn’t mean change without end.”
Brendan, for the edification of all involved, would you mind explaining what the Earth is “in equilibrium” with?
On second thought, don’t bother. In all probability this will simply lead to more meaningless statements.
Brendan, suggest you go petition Eli or somebody to fight your battles for you? You’re not doing very well at it, maybe Eli can prevent your disaster?
10
Brendan, for the sake of your own intellectual honesty, why don’t you just admit to yourself – “this AGW stuff really makes no sense.”
That is a lot easier than trying to hold a bunch of ideas together that collectively, don’t have any meaning.
If you refuse you’re lettting your emotions get in the way. Ties to some people, admiration of their ideas and ideals, which are clouding your judgment.
Just be honest with yourself, man, and admit it – just admit it to yourself!!!
10
So, “unstoppable” doesn’t really mean …. well, “unstoppable” in that case, does it? If something is only unstoppable until something (equilibrium, in this case) … stops … it … then it isn’t unstoppable, is it?
(It’s getting late, I need some sleep)
10
Advocates of “reason” – pure “reason” – everyone is all in favour of “reason,” it seems
– until we reach this point
10
That point is defined as, the point at which contradictory ideas must be (simultaneously) held as equally true in one’s mind, and at that point, “reason” must be superseded by “belief”
10
Brian: “Brendan, for the edification of all involved, would you mind explaining what the Earth is “in equilibrium” with?”
I was referring to the climate, and “in equilibrium” refers to a situation where inputs equal outputs. Let me explain with a homely metaphor.
There you are, sitting at your breakfast table, enjoying a healthful American repast of fried Twinkies and Coke. You begin reading the mainstream morning newspaper and your eye catches an item about President Obama’s courageous efforts to educate the American people on the dangers of global warming.
Your eyebrow twitches, your synapses begin to crackle. You are now in a state of radiative imbalance. You hurl the mainstream rag across the table, followed by a stream of oaths and imprecations. Your heated words and steaming ears equal the excitation within your brain. You are now in a state of equilibrium.
An uncomfortable equilibrium to be sure, but Obama never said the fight against global warming would be a picnic, now, did he, mmmm?
10
Most peculiar metaphor. I don’t think you made your point about equilibrium. Your analogies leave a lot to be desired, Brendan.
10
Brendan, you seem to have trouble understanding the difference between assumption and reality.
Climate change is vastly more complex than simply theorizing about “radiative forcing [as a] concept used for quantitative comparisons of the strength of different human and natural agents in causing climate change.” Climate is not that simplistic. The IPCC conclusions are. Which is why they are wrong.
The IPCC does a lot of theorizing (some of it deeply flawed by incorrect assumptions) and then uses computer simulations to try to validate its hypotheses. But one can only validate with real world observation/evidence. Uh-oh! That won’t work because real world data refutes the AGW theory. Oops! Now what? The answer is clear. Obfuscate. Legislate. Regulate. Claim “consensus”. Stifle debate. Belittle opponents. Which brings us full circle back to funded arrogance.
You concluded with this gem: “The term (runaway) denotes unstoppable change until a new point of equilibrium is reached. It doesn’t mean change without end.”
I don’t believe a better response can be made than that of Anne-Kit Littler at 157 … a gem of clarity in response to a mountain of foggy illogic.
Echoing Littler, I submit “unstoppable” means “unstoppable” … by anything. The term doesn’t come with caveats. Check a dictionary: “unstoppable: (adj.) impossible to stop or prevent” … see, no exceptions! Quite honestly, it would have been more prudent of you to ignore the point.
My original request of you to identify a single paper that has ever definitively shown the human component to climate change was a trick. Because you cannot produce something that doesn’t exist. Citing an IPCC document that is based on a mountain of conjecture and assumptions about climate change theory and its hypothesized relationship to radiative forcing is not proof of anything.
Well, it does prove something, but I’ll be gracious and refrain from stating the obvious.
10
Brendan, for the sake of your next lectures on thermodynamics to any audience that happens to be present, here is the definition of equilibrium:
a system is in EQUILIBRIUM with its surroundings if, and only if, the system can be isolated from its surroundings (= no exchange of energy or mass) and there be no change of any state variable defining the system observed over time.
This is provided gratis, Brendan, but I think Joanne is going to start charging you for false speculations that you make on her website
10
Brendan, as I suggested before, you would do well to solicit the aid of a knowledgeable alarmist (such as Eli) in your one-sided battle because, you simply lack the ability to carry on such a battle on your own.
10
Brendan:
I recommend to you: “Global Warming False Alarm: The Bad Science Behind the United Nations’ Assertion that Man-made CO2 Causes Global Warming” by Ralph B. Alexander.
From a review of that book:
… unlike the case of many other books, you will see that Dr Alexander is actually a mainstream scientist (and an applied scientist in the environmental sector) who cares about the good name and functioning of science. Years ago, he was inclined to believe the “general wisdom” about the problem. His diametrically opposite conclusions are a result of his long research of the problem. And his pride of a scientist has been hurt. Climatology has become an ugly example of a scientific discipline that has largely ceased to be scientific.
Dr Alexander determines that the “ring” and the international character of the IPCC, the climate panel of the United Nations, are the main drivers of the hysteria so the IPCC, its process, and its reports are the main players investigated by this text. He analyzes the history and structure of the IPCC and finds out that this panel is just a particular and heavily funded group of loud partisans and activists that is meant to defend a predetermined conclusion and that doesn’t reflect the scientific opinion of the world’s scientific community, at least its financially and otherwise unbiased part, and certainly not the available body of data. Lots of numbers about the percentages of the scientist who agree and disagree with various statements are included.
The following chapters are dedicated to the standard topics in this debate: an introduction to the enhanced greenhouse effect and why it cannot account for most of the climate variability; computer models as the main basis underlying the alarm and their flaws; the CO2 and temperature records and reconstructions, their comparisons, and their flaws (including the urban heat effect); cherry-picking in various “concerned” studies; the interactions with politics (in both directions); corruption of the conventional peer review process; the biased IPCC evaluation of the climate sensitivity (warming from CO2 doubling); the lag in the correlation showing that the temperature is a driver, not an effect, of trace gas concentrations; solar, oceanic, cosmic, and other natural drivers that have to be crucial (even though the author honestly says that science doesn’t yet understand their precise and separate effects); the high possibility of a cooling in the 21st century.
A significant portion of the text is also concerned with the economic consequences of the alarm; the failures of the cap-and-trade systems in the past, the differences between various countries; and the false hopes in green, luxurious sources of energy.
And, if that isn’t enough, this observation about the inconsistencies between Hansen projections and reality, from Norm Kalmanovitch:
In 1988 global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels were increasing at a rate of about 0.37Gt/y (gigatonnes of CO2 per year). It was assumed that CO2 emissions from fossil fuels were the prime contributor to the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 that was used in climate model projections for global warming.
On this basis Hansen et al 1988 predicted a scenario “A” for global temperature if this rate of emissions was maintained, and a scenario “C if emissions were controlled and levelled off.
In 2000, China began rapid industrial expansion rapidly increasing emissions, and by 2002 the global rate of CO2 emissions increase jumped to a new rate of increase of over one gigatonne of CO2 per year. Remarkably this increase in emissions rate of over two and a half times had no identifiable effect on the rate of atmospheric CO2 concentration increase which remained constant at just under 2ppmv/year.
…
Remarkably with CO2 emissions far in excess of those used for the model projections, in 2002 the global temperature was not only below the projected temperature for scenario “A”, it was actually below the scenario “C” which represented what Hansen would consider a complete stop of global warming.
I don’t suppose you’d care to explain all this away.
(Thanks and a tip of the hat to Benny Peiser and his newsletter for the above information)
10
Bob: “I don’t suppose you’d care to explain all this away.”
I’m not in the habit of “explain[ing] things away”.
“Remarkably this increase in emissions rate of over two and a half times…”
There was a spike in CO2 emissions in 1990, which could be where you get this figure, but total human emissions in 2003 were around 20 percent higher than in 1990, so the rate increase you speak of must have been short-lived.
http://www.statcrunch.com/5.0/viewreport.php?reportid=6958
“…it was actually below the scenario “C” which represented what Hansen would consider a complete stop of global warming.”
This graph shows that in 2006 Hansen’s scenario B came closest to his original projection, and in 1988 Hansen identified scenario B as the most likely outcome.
http://www.realclimate.org/images/Hansen06_fig2.jpg
10
Brendan:
First, they aren’t my figures and they are clearly identified as the figures for 2002. Read it again:
… by 2002 the global rate of CO2 emissions increase jumped to a new rate of increase of over one gigatonne of CO2 per year[from about 0.37Gt/y in 1988]. Remarkably this increase in emissions rate of over two and a half times had no identifiable effect on the rate of atmospheric CO2 concentration increase which remained constant at just under 2ppmv/year.
…
Remarkably with CO2 emissions far in excess of those used for the model projections, in 2002 the global temperature was not only below the projected temperature for scenario “A”, it was actually below the scenario “C” which represented what Hansen would consider a complete stop of global warming.
Those are the points that you cannot explain away.
Straightforward questions:
(1) Why is it that accelerating emissions of CO2 have not led to accelerating atmospheric concentrations of CO2?
(2) Why did global temperatures in 2002 fall below Hansen’s best-case scenario “C” (no global warming) despite the acceleration of CO2 emissions to ever-higher levels?
Let me suggest a therapy: http://www.isthereglobalwarming.com
That site contains a most comprehensive overview of climate change, with many, many, links to underlying material. It includes links to NOAA, NASA, and IPCC material as well, so you can look at it all. If it is possible for you to be objective, then try to keep an open mind while visiting the site.
I maintain that no truly objective viewer of that material can continue to believe the IPCC/Hansen/RealClimate/Gore position.
I promise this therapy will not hurt and will be rewarding for you, if you have the courage to take it.
10
On another topic, I find many global warmers to be arrogant, rude, and mean.
Many persons describing scientific methodology (such as David and Bill Kininmonth) to others with global warming views typically do not approach people with arrogance and rudeness.
Well, I have had it with global warming arrogance.
Thus, global warmers who give me (or anybody else within my cognisance) any arrogance will get forcible arrogance twicefold (or more!) in return from me.
“Wrong approach,” my wife tells me.
Perhaps. But as I see it, enough of their arrogance, is just plain enough, for me.
Global Warmers will foist a whole lot of unwelcome (and harmful) ideas and propositions on innocent people – UNLESS PEOPLE STAND UP TO THEM
10
In the words of Joe Pyne, I’m an “overcompensating introvert”
10
Bob: “…by 2002 the global rate of CO2 emissions increase jumped to a new rate of increase…”
Beg pardon. I should have said there was a spike in CO2 emissions in 2000, not 1990.
“(1) Why is it that accelerating emissions of CO2 have not led to accelerating atmospheric concentrations of CO2.?”
There was a jump in the emission rate from 2000, but this was followed by a rise in the increase of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere to more than 2 ppm per year for the next few years. So I don’t think it’s correct to say that the increase remained under 2ppm.
(2) Why did global temperatures in 2002 fall below Hansen’s best-case scenario “C” (no global warming) despite the acceleration of CO2 emissions to ever-higher levels?”
In 1988 Hansen thought scenario B would be the most likely outcome.
Not all the data in fact fell below Scenario C. And picking out a single year is not a valid method of comparison for climate. Over the period 1988-2006 Hansen’s projection has been remarkably accurate, and certainly the sign is in the right direction.
10
and certainly the sign is in the right direction.
BWAHAHAHA
Brendan, you’ve got a VERY big mouth and VERY little ability to do ANYTHING with it.
10
Brendan:
I’ve come to the conclusion that you are incapable of staying on point. You pick out tangential tidbits from the main point and pick away at insignificant minutia that are not relevant.
Trying to keep you on point is like trying to get Al Gore or James Hansen to debate climate change. It’s just not possible. Kinda like AGW.
In case you actually were not already aware, your responses are again non-responsive to the points made. That seems to be the only avenue you have for “responding.”
Let me spell it out in simple terms:
1. The rate of human CO2 emissions has risen dramatically from about 0.37Gt/y in 1988 to over 1 Gt/y by 2002.
2. The rate of increase in atmospheric concentration remains fairly stable at about 2 ppm per year.
If human emissions of CO2 are so damaging, why is it that a nearly threefold increase in rate of emissions has little discernible impact on atmospheric concentration?
I will note that you managed to dodge the following inconvenient question entirely:
Let’s accept the IPCC’s flawed AGW theory for the sake of discussion. Then, accepting that the AGW theory is accurate and alarmist claims that current global temperatures are “unprecedented” (due to barely discernible increases in atmospheric CO2 from human emissions), how do you explain that (with one exception) each of the eight continental all-time high temperature records was set on or before human emissions of CO2 were sufficient to (as alarmists claim) impact global climate?
Africa’s all-time record high was set in 1922.
North America’s all-time high set in 1913.
Asia’s all-time high in 1942.
Australia’s all-time high in 1889.
Europe’s all-time high in 1881.
South America’s all-time high in 1905.
Oceania’s all-time high in 1912.
Antarctica’s all-time high in 1974 (when scientists were worried about a human-caused ice age!)
I’ll ask again, doesn’t it strike you as a bit odd that if recent warming is so “unprecedented” long-standing high temperature records remain intact?
Terribly inconvenient facts.
10
Bob: “I’ve come to the conclusion that you are incapable of staying on point.”
Your posts tend to flit from subject to subject. I have remained focused on your two “straightforward questions”, which I have answered.
“1. The rate of [increase of] human CO2 emissions has risen dramatically from about 0.37Gt/y in 1988 to over 1 Gt/y by 2002.
2. The rate of increase in atmospheric concentration remains fairly stable at about 2 ppm per year.”
If human emissions of CO2 are so damaging, why is it that a nearly threefold increase in rate of emissions has little discernible impact on atmospheric concentration?”
The argument you appear to be making is that a dramatic rise in the rate of increase in CO2 emissions should translate into a similar dramatic rise in the rate of increase in atmospheric concentrations.
If that is your argument, the figures you cite provide insufficient information to support the claim. Nor can the claim be supported by figures for the actual change in the total amount of emissions. As the link I provided shows, emissions rose from 5021 million metric tons in 1990 to 6022 million metric tons in 2007, about a 20 percent rise.
Clearly, the effect of the rate of increase in emissions on the rate of increase in ppm will depend, among other things, on the rate and amount of change in annual CO2 emissions relative to the total amount of annual emissions. The figures you cite don’t provide that information.
In addition, as I have pointed out, in the early 2000s the annual increase in atmospheric concentrations of CO2 rose above 2ppm, in fact up to 2.5ppm.
As for record temperatures, the highs you refer to are the result of specific and localised weather conditions and say nothing about long-term trends in the average global temperature.
10
It’s a simple question. You can’t answer it. So you claim it isn’t a simple question, then substitute your own view of what I said, vs. what I really said.
For example, you write: “The argument you appear to be making is that a dramatic rise in the rate of increase in CO2 emissions should translate into a similar dramatic rise in the rate of increase in atmospheric concentrations.” I never questioned the lack of a “similar dramatic rise” … I merely questioned that lack of any significant change in the steady upward trend that began long before greenhouse gases emitted by humans became an issue.
It is a classic tactic to mischaracterize an opposing statement and then attack the mischaracterization. But not very effective to anyone paying attention.
If I rephrase the same questions differently, I am not flitting from subject to subject, I am just trying to find a simple enough construction for you to comprehend. You’ve strayed afar from the original, flitting from time frame to time frame, measurement to measurement, point to pointless.
Perhaps you should take this up with Norm Kalmanovitch.
Here is his original observation about the inconsistencies between Hansen projections and reality (that I had quoted at 165):
In 1988 global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels were increasing at a rate of about 0.37Gt/y (gigatonnes of CO2 per year). It was assumed that CO2 emissions from fossil fuels were the prime contributor to the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 that was used in climate model projections for global warming.
On this basis Hansen et al 1988 predicted a scenario “A” for global temperature if this rate of emissions was maintained, and a scenario “C if emissions were controlled and levelled off.
In 2000, China began rapid industrial expansion rapidly increasing emissions, and by 2002 the global rate of CO2 emissions increase jumped to a new rate of increase of over one gigatonne of CO2 per year. Remarkably this increase in emissions rate of over two and a half times had no identifiable effect on the rate of atmospheric CO2 concentration increase which remained constant at just under 2ppmv/year.
…
Remarkably with CO2 emissions far in excess of those used for the model projections, in 2002 the global temperature was not only below the projected temperature for scenario “A”, it was actually below the scenario “C” which represented what Hansen would consider a complete stop of global warming.
Let me simplify it even further for you.
Q: If Hansen didn’t have it straight in 1988 (and he didn’t), what assurance does anyone have that he has it straight today?
A: None.
Q.E.D.
10
I knew of Hansen’s claims in Congressional testimony, Summer of 1988.
I told my manager at the DOE at the time: “Hansen is misconstuing an El Niño event for a global change in weather due to CO2 in the air.”
“Don’t worry,” I was told, “if Hansen is wrong, the truth will win out.”
I didn’t speak up forcefully enough then, and I regret it now.
10
Brian,
The science will eventually win as even Gore can’t change physics. Unfortunately, the way the administration is talking, by the time science wins, we will have already wasted trillions of dollars on a useless experiment in climate control, undermining our global competitiveness in the process.
We need more than just to bash AGW believers to win (Yea, I know, it’s way too easy since the physics and data is in our favor), we need alternatives to AGW before it can be solidly displaced.
George
10
Please elaborate.
10
This is what I’ve been working on. A long tern climate model which explains climate change without AGW. To me this is Milankovitch forcings modulated by the asymmetric response of the Earth to solar energy. This was the mainstream theory before AGW and even today, is the theory that has the most support from the physics and the data. The biological connection is why there are delayed CO2 changes after temperature changes and not the other way around. Being able to explain the relationship between CO2 and temperature seen in the record goes a long way to discredit AGW forcing.
George
10
Me too, something similar.
My results show that no forcing can be considered an independent entity, the interactions must be considered, when they are, the predictions are much different, and in some cases, there is a damping (overall limitation of any forcing).
The objective is to explain the long-term stability of the climate, which must certainly be its most distinguishing characteristic.
OK, science is all well and good, meanwhile, we have mutton heads attempting to foist wasteful laws everywhere, I feel like I’m exercising on a stationary bicycle, going no where
10
Yes, it’s a non linear system, so you can’t treat aspects of it in isolation. The feedbacks themselves are non linear. For example, ice feedback goes to zero once there is no more ice to melt.
I’ve also been working on the stability question and think I have a reasonable handle on it from a thermodynamic point of view. Life improves the stability by broadening out it’s own sweet spot. As it gets warmer, more life consumes more energy and cools the planet.
BTW, I posted the 10/01 anomaly data on a realclimate blog. Will it get past the censors …
George
10
In the case of ice and water, that is simply removing part of the def of thermo equilibrium: ice, and water, must simultaneously be present for phase equilibrium.
Thermodynamic stability (strictly, “thermostatic stability”) is related to the second derivative of the (Gibbs) free energy with respect to (pressure, or temperature, holding one or the other fixed).
True thermodynamic stability (nonequilibrium thermodynamics of some terminology) is related to the Euler condition on the local potential defined by Prigogine and DeFay, and related in some sense to the “entropy” of the system
(nec but not suff condition for stability)
I am actually referring to something a bit different: “forcing”, as interpreted w.r.t an SHO, for example (or l and c reactance electric circuit) refers to time dependent term on the RHS of the (second-order) eqn. defining the motion (or current in the circuit)
“Damping” refers to a term involving the 1st derivative of the motion (or voltage), and we have a similar situation here.
I’m not going to waste everybody’s time here with all this, write me personally if interested in discussing
B
10
A few inconvenient charts for Brendan:
Hansen’s “crystal ball” not so clear:
http://theresilientearth.com/files/images/hansen_forecast_1988-no_title.jpg
CO2 has little to offer for future warming:
http://theresilientearth.com/files/images/co2_temperature_curve_saturation.png
10
I think these would be looked at by Brendan only if they appeared on Real Climate DOT org – on which they never will appear.
10
Brendan,
Since you seem to like links and ignoring REAL data, why not have a look at http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/changes_in_the_ocean.pdf
I’m sure you will find some obscure reason to ignore objective fact to further your belief in AGW.
10
The reason isn’t “obscure” – it’s obvious
– Brendan considers only what is consistent with his pre-established beliefs.
(They aren’t called “deniers” for no reason!)
10
Bob: “So you claim it isn’t a simple question…”
It’s not a simple question because other factors need to be known. Specifically: the rate of change in annual CO2 emissions over the period; the amount of change in annual emissions; the total amount of emissions per annum; the increase in total emissions over the period.
“…then substitute your own view…”
I said “The argument you appear to be making…” because you haven’t clearly stated your argument.
“I merely questioned that lack of any significant change in the steady upward trend…”
And as I have shown, the accumulated amount has in fact changed over the period. Is that change significant? To know that, you would have to have more information about the subject, as I specify above and in previous posts.
“On this basis Hansen et al 1988 predicted a scenario “A” for global temperature if this rate of emissions was maintained…”
Hansen’s scenario A stipulated a continuing increase in emissions.
“Remarkably with CO2 emissions far in excess of those used for the model projections…”
If this comment refers to Hansen’s scenarios, it is clearly incorrect. The projected level of CO2 concentrations for his scenario B for 2008 was 385ppm, pretty close to the actual level of 387ppm for that year. So it is not correct to say that CO2 levels are far in excess of those used by Hansen in 1988.
“…in 2002 the global temperature was not only below the projected temperature for scenario “A”, it was actually below the scenario “C”…”
One cherry-picked year is meaningless. Hansen’s scenario B, the one that in 1988 he identified as the most likely scenario, tracks the actual overall temperature record reasonably well.
http://www.realclimate.org/images/Hansen06_fig2.jpg
10
I guess it really doesn’t matter right now, because Kyle at Real Climate says we’re in for “not warming” until 2020. Kyle “hypohesized” it.
[Nouns posing as verbs sound terrible, don’t they. It’s called “nounizing.”]
10
Brendan:
I get the impression I’m listening to a record that keeps skipping to the same spot, over and over.
Clearly, you cannot engage and stay focused on a point without snipping out pieces of a paragraph, place snips completely out of context, then create your own convenient scenario to substitute for my context, and then attack your own construct.
Its a classic tactic when direct a response isn’t possible without having to admit something inconvenient.
I presented a clear complete statement. You picked portions of it and replied in ways that either suggest you really have a reading comprehension problem, or you think that by so distorting the clear question you can make it go away.
I must agree with Brian’s assessment of the futility of keeping you focused.
Clearly, it is pointless to try to engage you in an intelligent discussion because you evade the things you don’t like and obfuscate the snippets you choose to reply to.
I believe it would be easier to teach a rock to speak than it would be to get you to stay focused on a straightforward question.
I’ll leave you to ponder the many questions you’ve simply ignored.
10
More inconvenient truth: Deroy Murdock’s July 13 column, Global Cooling Chills Summer 2009 at http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=NTlhOTNiOWFlMmMzNmJkOWM3ZTk5NWJkNTU2Nzk5NWI=
10
Bob,
Here’s some direct observational evidence for cooling. I was in the back country of the Sierra Nevada Mountains last weekend and the snowpack is as big as I’ve ever seen it at this time of year. One of the chutes I like to ski was a wide open bowl. People who have skied this for 20+ years tell me that it’s never been like this. What makes this all the more remarkable, is that last winter had somewhat below normal precipitation. It had also been freezing at night (yes, it’s over 10K feet, but this is July!) so the corn snow was just about as good as it gets.
George
10
Bob: “I get the impression I’m listening to a record that keeps skipping to the same spot, over and over.”
Let’s cut to the chase. This is the claim I have been addressing:
“Remarkably this increase in emissions rate of over two and a half times had no identifiable effect on the rate of atmospheric CO2 concentration increase which remained constant at just under 2ppmv/year.”
Most recently, you have rephrased this claim as:
“I merely questioned that lack of any significant change in the steady upward trend that began long before greenhouse gases emitted by humans became an issue.”
Not precisely the same claim, but nevertheless it will have to do. All you need do is offer evidence for this claim, or if you have a better claim, state it and offer evidence for that claim.
10
George (co2isnotevil):
I had read about the increasing snowpack in the western mountains and recall when the alarmists were predicting the imminent demise of the snowpack entirely (as with Arctic Sea ice) that would cut off the water supplies of westerners dependent during summer for melting winter snow accumulations. All quiet on both fronts after numerous hysterical alarmist articles. Typical.
We spent several weeks up in the northeast in June (New Jersey and Massachusetts). Saw the sun one day in New Jersey, never saw it in Massachusetts, rained just about every day. Temps mostly in the 60s. As Murdoch’s piece documents, unusually cold not only in the northeast, but upper midwest and the southwest.
While these individual cool spells don’t individually justify claims of global cooling, when added all together over at least a decade of significant regional cooling all over the globe, at the very least it makes a mockery of claims by climate alarmists of human caused global warming. Amazing how the alarmists could point to one hot year in Europe where many died for lack of A/C as “proof” of global warming, but when climate naturally changes again, they refuse to accept cooling as even an indication that their theory is simply far too simplistic and horribly flawed.
Thanks for your interesting personal observation.
Bob
10
Brendan:
I didn’t “rephrase” anything.
I quoted Canadian Norm Kalmanovitch:
Remarkably this increase in emissions rate of over two and a half times had no identifiable effect on the rate of atmospheric CO2 concentration increase which remained constant at just under 2ppmv/year.
I merely tried to put it in more simple terms for you to grasp the serious problem with the AGW theory.
Let’s make it even more simple. Explain away this chart:
http://www2.nationalreview.com/dest/2009/07/10/lobalwarmingco2uptemperaturesdownii.jpg
Note the steadily rising CO2 and the more than 7 year downturn in global temperatures.
If AGW theory were correct, this would be impossible.
Look also at: http://www.webcommentary.com/images/climate/co2-levels-over-time1.jpg
So you’ve got a 7+ year history and a 560 million year history that both fly in the face of the AGW sophistry you support. Even the Vostok ice core data refute the contention that CO2 is responsible for climate change.
There is no identifiable period of significant climate change in Earth’s climate history that has been definitively caused by changes in greenhouse gas concentrations. Not one.
Bob
10
Brendan, more to the point with this column, I note that you didn’t comment on the excellent job Joanne did reporting on an important exchange between Bill Kininmonth and a Government-supported investigator, who is representative of numerous others.
Now surely you can step back and appreciate Joanne’s contribution, can’t you, Brendan?
10
Am I correct that most professional greenhouses believe that optimum plant growth is at approx. CO2 of 1000 ppm v? If this is correct, then I assume the future is bright for world food production as long as we can keep statists in check.
10
Stuart:
Brilliant observation.
Couple that with the “greenhouse” potential of CO2 as represented by:
http://theresilientearth.com/files/images/co2_temperature_curve_saturation.png
and the hysteria over CO2 is almost laughable if it weren’t so dangerously ill-founded.
The notion that a small warming stimulus to the climate system would produce a large warming feedback runs counter to principles of stable systems. While climate can change dramatically, the record strongly suggests that it always seeks stability in response to dramatic forces external to the climate system (i.e., orbital, solar, galactic dust, astronomical impacs, plate tectonics, etc.). The case for a “runaway” greenhouse effect simply doesn’t hold water.
Christopher Monckton’s excellent paper for the APS (Climate Sensitivity Revisited) exposes the weak assumptions underpinning the deeply flawed AGW theory. The paper, complete and without unauthorized preliminary warning attached by alarmists at the APS, appears at http://www.webcommentary.com/climate/monckton.php
Bob
10
Bob: “I merely tried to put it in more simple terms for you to grasp the serious problem with the AGW theory.”
Fine. But you have yet to offer your supporting argument and evidence.
“Let’s make it even more simple. Explain away this chart:”
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/guide/bigpicture/fact2.html
Quote: “A simple mathematical calculation of the temperature change over the latest decade (1998-2007) alone shows a continued warming of 0.1 °C per decade.”
More to the point, you are switching arguments.
1. Your original argument queried the relationship between the rate of change of CO2 emissions and the change in ppm concentrations. I offered counter-arguments and evidence, which you chose to ignore.
2. You have now changed the argument to querying the relationship between CO2 levels and temperature.
I want to clarify (1) before moving on, because you have given no satisfactory explanation for abandoning that argument.
10
Brian: “Brendan…I note that you didn’t comment on the excellent job Joanne did reporting on an important exchange between Bill Kininmonth and a Government-supported investigator…”
I think Joanne has created a hard-hitting polemic, which is an art form in itself.
10
I think she’s a good essayist, then.
10
Brendan:
I have to wonder if you’re as dense as your postings suggest. I mean, it takes talent to be so far off the mark.
You seem to enjoy cherry-picking to fabricate your tales. The chart you reference ends in 2007. I gave you references to two charts, one from 2002 to 2009, the other over the past 560 million years. Pick uncontroversial records of temperature vs. CO2 for hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of years or more and there is no causal relationship between atmospheric CO2 and global average temperature.
So what do you use? Old data with a cherry-picked 10-year change. I’m suggesting you look at the most recent data. It is evidence that temperature is not responding to CO2 as AGW climate alarmists have claimed. If something as routine as ocean current and atmospheric shifts can overwhelm the AGW theory, then just how powerful can AGW be?
One thing you AGW true-believers continue to ignore is the the long term warmng trend that began at the depth of the recent Little Ice Age. The depth of any cooling period will be the start of a long-term warming trend, just as the peak of any warming trend will be the start of a long-term cooing trend.
Any intelligent attempt to find a human component to temperature change from any source (not just CO2) would require that the long term trend be removed from the temperature record. That would leave the oscillating cycles of multi-decade warming and cooling that Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu describes in “Two Natural Components of the Recent Climate Change” (1.9 Mb PDF) at http://www.webcommentary.com/docs/2natural.pdf
Once again: http://www2.nationalreview.com/dest/2009/07/10/lobalwarmingco2uptemperaturesdownii.jpg
How do you explain that while CO2 rose (fairly steadily, as it has been for several hundred years since well before human activity had any meaningful output) by 13 ppm (374 ppm to 387 ppm), temperatures dropped 0.4°C (trend line dropped 0.19°C)? AGW says more CO2, greater warming. But here we se more CO2, greater cooling. Is it possible for you to deal with just this data? Shouldn’t you be able to put a cogent argument together to explain how the AGW theory accounts for results exactly the opposite of what it predicts? Like the missing tropical mid-tropospheric warming and non-rising sea levels, this is just another example why AGW is deeply flawed. It is a flawed theory and you cling to as if it were fact.
Even the chart you referred to shows a definite cooling from 2002 to 2007.
You claim I changed the argument when, in fact, I didn’t. I offered additional, more obvious, evidence why AGW is flawed with the hope that you could respond without obfuscating. But all you did was to use that attempt to provide some simple clarity to you as an excuse to claim I was changing the subject.
Well here we are where we started:
Originally, I quoted (as you should have noted) this observation about the inconsistencies between Hansen projections and reality, from Norm Kalmanovitch:
In 1988 global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels were increasing at a rate of about 0.37Gt/y (gigatonnes of CO2 per year). It was assumed that CO2 emissions from fossil fuels were the prime contributor to the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 that was used in climate model projections for global warming.
On this basis Hansen et al 1988 predicted a scenario “A” for global temperature if this rate of emissions was maintained, and a scenario “C if emissions were controlled and levelled off.
In 2000, China began rapid industrial expansion rapidly increasing emissions, and by 2002 the global rate of CO2 emissions increase jumped to a new rate of increase of over one gigatonne of CO2 per year. Remarkably this increase in emissions rate of over two and a half times had no identifiable effect on the rate of atmospheric CO2 concentration increase which remained constant at just under 2ppmv/year.
…
Remarkably with CO2 emissions far in excess of those used for the model projections, in 2002 the global temperature was not only below the projected temperature for [Hansen’s 1988] scenario “A”, it was actually below the [Hansen 1988] scenario “C” which represented what Hansen would consider a complete stop of global warming.
I don’t suppose you’d care to explain all this away.
Kalmanovitch lays out pretty clearly the problem:
1. With dramatic increases in the rate of annual emissions from Chine, “this increase in emissions rate of over two and a half times had no identifiable effect on the rate of atmospheric CO2 concentration increase which remained constant at just under 2ppmv/year”,
and,
2. Remarkably with CO2 emissions far in excess of those used for the model projections, in 2002 the global temperature was not only below the projected temperature for [Hansen’s 1988] scenario “A”, it was actually below the [Hansen 1988] scenario “C” which represented what Hansen would consider a complete stop of global warming.
Most people can grasp the points Kalmanovitch is making.
10
Bob: “Well here we are where we started:”
Bob, thanks for returning your focus to these issues, which remain unresolved. I will take both claims and summarise my previous arguments and evidence for each.
1. With dramatic increases in the rate of annual emissions from Chine, “[a] this increase in emissions rate of over two and a half times [b] had no identifiable effect on the rate of atmospheric CO2 concentration increase which remained constant at just under 2ppmv/year”
(a) CO2 emissions rose from 5021 million metric tons in 1990 to 6022 million metric tons in 2007, about a 20 percent rise.
http://www.statcrunch.com/5.0/viewreport.php?reportid=6958
Therefore, the change in the rate of emissions cited is misleading over the longer term.
(b) The average ppm rise in atmospheric CO2 between 1988 and 2002 was around 1.55. From 2002 until 2008 the average increase rose to just above 2ppm. Therefore, 1 (b) above is incorrect.
2. Remarkably with CO2 emissions [a] far in excess of those used for the model projections, in 2002 the global temperature [b] was not only below the projected temperature for [Hansen’s 1988] scenario “A”, it was actually below the [Hansen 1988] scenario “C” which represented what Hansen would consider a complete stop of global warming.”
a) Cherry-picking one year from a projection is meaningless. Even so, Hansen’s scenario B, which he identified in 1988 as the most likely scenario, is based on a projected level of CO2 concentrations of 385 ppm in 2008, close to the actual level of 387 ppm for that year.
b) Again, cherry-picking one year is meaningless. Taken over the period of the projections, Hansen’s scenario B has proved remarkably close to the actual record.
http://www.realclimate.org/images/Hansen06_fig2.jpg
10
Brendan H,
Regarding post 201.
1) CO2 emissions data, how is this “figure” calculated. Is it an empiracal measurement, or a burocratic adding up of economic activity for future taxing purposes. ?
I strongly suspect it is the latter dressed up as “empiracal measruement”, when that is exactly what it is not.
2) CO2 atmospheric coccentration figures, where are these from, is the raw data available, are the algorithms used known. Certainly in the case of MLO that is definately not the case.
3) In the lniked to Hansen06 figure which or what temperature record is used. ?
Is it GISS, if so at which time is the data set from. If GISS for example was it before or after the recent “corrections” for the urban heat island effect.
This would mean the temp being lower, so ruining the Hansen predictions “correctness”…
I ask because if you are going to summarise your main points so far,
we should know what you are basing your points on.
Dodgy data (in some cases no raw data), unknown algorithms used, and falsified assumptions are apparently prerequisites “behind” your main points.
10
As far as World politics goes, China, India, Russia are never going to sign on to anything, neither is Japan.
So that makes “global governance” meaningless, and I don’t know why the US, UK, and Australia go through the motions as if it had meaning.
How much money has been wasted on this anyway?
On another matter, have you looked at the Zeitgeist of typical alarmist web sites lately?
It’s all about “explaining” why the World is presently “so cold.”
It’s come to this, these fools are busy trying to maintain any sort of credibility (treading water) with trash like THAT.
How did we get to this point, anyway.
10
Aren’t you glad we didn’t have this weather AFTER we had a Copenhagen Protocol etc?
Try to get rid of global governance in THAT situation.
“Look, you fool, look at global temperatures. See? These emission programmes are working!”
10
Brendan:
Thank you for agreeing that point 1 was correct. That is, despite significant increases in human emissions (primarily from China) of CO2 [1(a)], there was little impact on overall atmospheric CO2 [1b].
The obvious question is, if CO2 emissions from human activity are so critical, why doesn’t atmospheric concentration reflect that? Take away the long term upward temperature drift that began at the depth of the recent Little Ice Age, and the temperature profile looks quite ordinary. Take away the corresponding drift upward in atmospheric CO2, and the human component must still be assumed from what is left, based on lack of knowledge of the exact amount of natural sequestration and emission.
There simply is no case that can be made (that is worth anything) that human emissions of CO2 constitute anything remotely approaching a significant climate change force. Certainly, any such case must necessarily address historic natural profiles for both temperature and atmospheric CO2 and provide sound scientific evidence of what drove those changes.
Regarding point 2: Nobody is “cherry-picking” anything. We’re simply looking at Hansen’s 1988 projections and asking, “well, how did he do?” … and the answer is, “not very well.” Do you prefer to compare to 2009 temperature data? I wouldn’t think so, given the continued dramatic cooling.
If Hansen’s 1988 temperature projection for the BEST CASE scenario was actually higher than the actual observed temperature (given, as you observe, that the CO2 projection was accurate), that suggests Hansen was grossly wrong with his AGW theory. The fact that climate alarmists keep tweaking their projections to try to account for recent cooling simply illustrates that they really don’t have a good handle on what is driving temperature and never really did.
And, regarding this point, still waiting for you to explain the related chart: http://www2.nationalreview.com/dest/2009/07/10/lobalwarmingco2uptemperaturesdownii.jpg or any other historic record of temperature and CO2 that belies the claim of CO2 driving temperature change, e.g., http://www.webcommentary.com/images/climate/co2-levels-over-time1.jpg
Note that I have not drifted from the original point regarding climate alarmist claims not being borne out by real world observations. These charts are right on point.
10
I don’t suppose I should be surprised anymore by what the AGW scaremongers will do or say to frighten the gullible general public, but this one is one of the best I’ve seen….
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090720/sc_afp/scienceusfranceclimatewarmingfish;_ylt=Anw1GBOP0cjblnpfLej3_EAPLBIF;_ylu=X3oDMTM3ZzVkMGVmBGFzc2V0A2FmcC8yMDA5MDcyMC9zY2llbmNldXNmcmFuY2VjbGltYXRld2FybWluZ2Zpc2gEcG9zAzEEc2VjA3luX2FydGljbGVfc3VtbWFyeV9saXN0BHNsawNmaXNoYXJlc2hyaW4-
Completely amazing is an understatement. Don’t you think that JUST MAYBE (!!!!!) it might be due to overfishing???? HMMMM????
10
It isn’t like YAHOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! isn’t well-noted for promoting climate change hysteria
10
I’ve always considered Pachauri as an agent of the Indian government who’s job it is to cripple the economies of the developed world under the guise of climate change so that India can gain a competitive advantage. Isn’t his real beef with CH4 and cows because of his veganism?
George
10
Yeah, but I’m sure that Brendan and his ilk will buy into this and the other ridiculous AGW statements that are out (“this cold snap is a result of global warming…. oh sorry, “climate change)and other just as stupid comments.
10
Derek: “1) CO2 emissions data, how is this “figure” calculated.”
I used the figures from this site: H:\Per\StatCrunch – Data analysis on the Web.htm
“CO2 atmospheric coccentration figures, where are these from…”
I used the figures from this site: ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_gr_mlo.txt to calculate average concentrations before and after 2002.
“In the lniked to Hansen06 figure which or what temperature record is used?”
Pass. But if you believe that the data used by the various climate agencies is fraudulent, you would be best to gather your evidence and place it before the proper authorities.
10
Bob: “Thank you for agreeing that point 1 was correct.”
I am not agreeing that point 1 is correct. I am saying that point 1 is incorrect.
Your claim was: “…this increase in emissions rate of over two and a half times had no identifiable effect on the rate of atmospheric CO2 concentration increase…”
You now say: “That is, despite significant increases in human emissions (primarily from China) of CO2 [1(a)], there was little impact on overall atmospheric CO2 [1b].”
So, “no identifiable effect” becomes “little impact”. You’re changing your story as you go and then claiming you were correct all along. Whichever story you choose, an average of 1.55ppm is a long way from an average of 2ppm.
10
Brendan H:
July 21st, 2009 at 6:15 pm Post 210.
Brendan H,
you have not answered a single point / question I raised.
1) HOW is the figure “calculated” – plainly it is a burocratic guess, probably for future taxing purposes.
If you can show differently then please do, so far you have completely avoided doing so.
2) So it is MLO CO2 “record”, OK, where is the RAW DATA, for the 60 year data set. ?
No one ANYWHERE has produced it so far.
Furthermore NO ONE has produced the algorithm/s used to calculate the quaintly referred to “raw hourly averages”….
Or, explained how a raw hourly average can be described as RAW. It can not be, because it is an average and therefore processed…….
3) Which temperature data set, you admit to not knowing which it is.
As for the GISS temperature “record” there was the recent downward correction for the urban heat island effect, and the earlier downward correction for the loss of Russian (mainly cold) stations introducing a warming bias after the wall came down, and the economies went into a severe downturn in the communist block and Russia.
These and more problems with that particular “data set” (a data set under the wings of one James Hansen of NASA….) are all in the public domain, try WUWT.
No Brendan H you have not addressed one point yet I have asked you concerning the basis of your main points so far.
So, your points are based on,
” Dodgy data (in some cases no raw data), unknown algorithms used, and falsified assumptions are apparently prerequisites “behind” your main points. ”
If you ever fancy attempting to answer some of the concerns from post 68 (namely points a to f) that would also be appreciated.
I do not expect you can answer or respond reasonably to either sets of questions I have asked of you.
Just like you will never provide the frequently asked for (by many on this thread ) one scientific paper that you suggest “proves” AGW…
I thought it worth making clear to casual readers here how large are the relevant subject areas you refuse to answer that “underpin” your main points so far….
10
Folks, by his own admission Brendan isn’t strong on numbers.
That is a large part of the problem. If you can’t put numbers on something and understand what they mean you don’t have a handle on the problem.
Anyway, it’s all about “feelings” not facts for poor Brendan.
Politicians think facts are amenable to Acts of Parliament hence we get the Penny Wongs and Peter Garretts,lawyers who are used to dealing with issues that *are* merely opinions and “laws” that *are* Acts of Parliament.
Unfortunately the Matthew Englands have got the ear of the politicians. I knew somebody once who had a fair bit to do with politicians told me that they were like little children who will be immensely attracted to shiny new toy. They are always on the lookout for some issue which will get them publicity so that they can be “seen to be doing something about it”.
10
The post-modern Rousseau-style “Romanticism,” mixed with a misanthropy bordering on nihilism, styled “environmentalism” and some sort of answer to the Atomic Age of the 1950’s, has resonated with a lot of people
– and if someone gave me a thousand dollars, I couldn’t say why
10
Derek: “HOW is the figure “calculated”
CO2 emissions are calculated from information about fossil fuel burning, land use changes and farming practices.
“So it is MLO CO2 “record”, OK, where is the RAW DATA, for the 60 year data set?”
This web page provides an explanation of the measurement processes at Mauna Loa.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/about/co2_measurements.html
The process appears to be quite complex. For example, the site says: “We turn the detector signal, which is registered in volts, into a measure of the amount of CO2 in the cell through extensive and automated (always ongoing) calibration procedures.”
Presumably, the raw data is an electrical signal. I’m not sure how that would be stored, but there are several papers at the bottom of the above web page that may help. Otherwise, you could contact the observatory directly to ask your questions.
Note that the observatory regularly sends air samples to an independent laboratory for analysis. In addition, the Scripps Institution of Oceanography also conducts its own CO2 analysis, and results are very close to Mauna Loa.
“Which temperature data set, you admit to not knowing which it is.”
Hansen used a combination of surface air temperature measurements over land from meteorological stations and ocean temperature measurements from satellites.
In a supplement to his 2006 study, Hansen makes this comment about the datasets used.
“Analyses of global temperature change by different groups, particularly, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), the NOAA National Climate Data Center (NCDC), and the combination of the British Meteorological Office and the University of East Anglia (BMO/UEA), are generally in close agreement.”
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/supplement/2006_Hansen_etal_1/
“If you ever fancy attempting to answer some of the concerns from post 68 (namely points a to f)”
Your #68 was a rant interspersed with shouting and many questions. Focus your efforts on one or two well-constructed arguments and you will have more luck in getting a reply.
10
OK Brendan, 2 simple, well constructed questions for you.
1. Where is the incontrovertible PROOF for GLOBAL warming? Not observations in isolation…. PROOF
2. Where is the incontrovertible PROOF that a rise in CO2 concentrations is the MAIN CAUSE of the afformentioned GLOBAL warming?
I don’t expect you to respond as there IS NO PROOF!!! If there were it would be in the news, on the TV, on the web, but it’s not. IT DOESN’T EXIST BECAUSE IT’S ALL A LIE TO FORCE RICH COUNTRIES (AND PEOPLES) TO “MORE EQUITABLY” DISTRIBUTE THEIR WEALTH!!! It has NOTHING to do with so called “environmental” issues!!
I’m sorry to be so strenuous, but if no one says anything about lies and injustice, then we only have ourselves to blame for the consequences of inaction.
10
Brendan:
At 201, your cited charts (via link) do not address the point. They deal with emissions, not atmospheric concentrations, specifically, changes in concentrations.
The long fairly stable increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations over the past several hundred years are insignificant to climate since no causative linkage exists other than CO2 concentration responding to temperature change, courtesy of ocean temperature change. No clear demonstration of global temperature responding to miniscule changes in the very minor greenhouse gas, CO2, can be found in any meaningful climate span going back as far as we can in climate history. Quibbling over the degree of change of CO2 concentration (small) resulting from unknown sources (assumed by alarmists to be human) is entirely beside the point. The potential of CO2 to affect climate is pretty limited, as you’d know if you had bothered to look at http://theresilientearth.com/files/images/co2_temperature_curve_saturation.png
The real question remains, does it matter what CO2 is doing?
The best information we have tells us it does not (provided it stays high enough to support healthy plant growth).
There simply is no good case that can be made that human emissions of CO2 constitute anything remotely approaching a significant climate change force. Certainly, any such case must necessarily address historic natural profiles for both temperature and atmospheric CO2 and provide sound scientific evidence of what drove those changes. That has not been done. Instead, the “precautionary principle” is evoked by alarmists who claim every harmful thing is due to “global warming” and we must “do something” even if we have no assurance that what we’ll be doing at enormous cost will have any significance! It is a purely emotional response to a scientific question.
I note you continue to ignore:
http://www2.nationalreview.com/dest/2009/07/10/lobalwarmingco2uptemperaturesdownii.jpg
and,
http://www.webcommentary.com/images/climate/co2-levels-over-time1.jpg
Now, if YOU have evidence that greenhouse gases (from any source) are now or ever have been a significant climate change force, then please present them.
10
What a wonerful day!
Rejendra Pachauri, who is the President of the IPCC, and frequently misdentified as IPCC Chairman, yesterday blew himself right out of the sky and can no longer be trusted by anyone to rant and rave about “The Climate”.
Good Job, Rajendra, people have been trying to end your lousy and stinking foolishness for years now, and you have now done it to yourself.
HA HA HA
10
It seems that Pachauri is hypocrite complaining about the hypocrisy of others. More evidence that his agenda is to fabricate a competitive advantage for India.
George
10
Brendan,
I suggest you brush up on anomaly analysis. When merging data from difference data sets, even a small mismatch at the boundary between data sets will appear as an anomaly, which is indistinguishable from an anomalous trend. This is precisely why Hansen likes to use anomaly analysis, so the underlying data and the mismatches across data set boundaries can be obscured, and in fact tailored, to achieve whatever result you are looking for. The only valid way to use anomaly analysis to spot trends is to apply it on a single data set, where the relative precision and accuracy of the data points in the data set is smaller than the anomalous trend you are trying to spot.
When we’re talking about merging data sets with 1C or more of relative uncertainty, the certainty that an anomalous trend of only a few tenths of a degree is real, is approximately zero.
Of course, you seem blinded by AGW guilt to the realities of science and math, so I’m sure you will try and hand wave some kind of argument to support your flawed understanding.
George
10
Brian.
“if someone gave me a thousand dollars, I couldn’t say why”…
This has got to be driven by what they called Original Sin. An innate sense of guilt. It never made sense till now.
10
Brendan H Post 215.
” CO2 emissions are calculated from information about fossil fuel burning, land use changes and farming practices. ”
It is a guess. Plain and simple. Thanks for confirming.
Regarding MLO raw data, I have searched quite a few sites, including the one you link to.
A brief post on the below thread covers some of the issues regarding MLO, and a lot more about the CO2 / human emissions relationship…
http://globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/index.php?topic=105.new;topicseen#new
My fourth post.
When or if ever there is an independent audit of the MLO technique, and the calibration gases (“all inhouse”…….) then, just maybe, (but I can not see that happening), the MLO might have some credability.
Untill then it is nothing better than the original “Hockey Stick”.
YOU HAVE NOT SHOWN THE MLO RAW DATA.
I have emailed many, including Dr. Tans, regarding the raw MLO data, whatever that is.., and the algorithm used niether are NO WHERE TO BE SEEN.
AND, if it were suddenly now made available, would we know that is the real, original raw data.
NO.
It is that simple, no raw data for the 60 year record.
No algorithm produced, or released that was and is still (presumably) used to process the raw data.
Hansen used which dataset, you still have not named it,
it would appear it is Hansen’s GISS “record”.
Again see Anthony Watts WattsUpWithThat?, WUWT blog,
http://wattsupwiththat.com/
ie,
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/20/and-now-the-most-influential-station-in-the-giss-record-is/
(and that is just a recent link, there are many, many, many more)
regarding the GISS temp data set record, whatever it is, or is made up of, or has been adjusted yet again to today…..
I repeat you have not answered a single question yet, whether it be the above three points, or points a) to f) regarding wind turbines from post 68.
But most importantly you still have not provided one paper that proves AGW.
I said you will not answer the questions your main supposed “points” raise,
so far you are proving me and many many others here right.
Many thanks, and,
“best regards”,
Derek.
10
Brendan H Post 215.
” CO2 emissions are calculated from information about fossil fuel burning, land use changes and farming practices. ”
It is a guess. Plain and simple. Thanks for confirming.
Regarding MLO raw data, I have searched quite a few sites, including the one you link to.
A brief post on the below thread covers some of the issues regarding MLO, and a lot more about the CO2 / human emissions relationship…
http://globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/index.php?topic=105.new;topicseen#new
My fourth post.
When or if ever there is an independent audit of the MLO technique, and the calibration gases (“all inhouse”…….) then, just maybe, (but I can not see that happening), the MLO might have some credability.
Untill then it is nothing better than the original “Hockey Stick”.
YOU HAVE NOT SHOWN THE MLO RAW DATA.
I have emailed many, including Dr. Tans, regarding the raw MLO data, whatever that is.., and the algorithm used niether are NO WHERE TO BE SEEN.
AND, if it were suddenly now made available, would we know that is the real, original raw data.
NO.
It is that simple, no raw data for the 60 year record.
No algorithm produced, or released that was and is still (presumably) used to process the raw data.
Hansen used which dataset, you still have not named it,
it would appear it is Hansen’s GISS “record”.
Again see Anthony Watts WattsUpWithThat?, WUWT blog,
ie,
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/20/and-now-the-most-influential-station-in-the-giss-record-is/
(and that is just a recent link, there are many, many, many more)
regarding the GISS temp data set record, whatever it is, or is made up of, or has been adjusted yet again to today…..
I repeat you have not answered a single question yet, whether it be the above three points, or points a) to f) regarding wind turbines from post 68.
But most importantly you still have not provided one paper that proves AGW.
I said you will not answer the questions your main supposed “points” raise,
so far you are proving me and many many others here right.
Many thanks, and,
“best regards”,
Derek.
10
Derek, you’re more likely to get a sensible answer browbeating the floor.
10
Overseasinsider: “Where is the incontrovertible PROOF…”
Science doesn’t deal in proofs, rather in explanations and evidence, ie the best explanation for the available evidence. And there’s no need to shout.
George: “Of course, you seem blinded by AGW guilt to the realities of science and math, so I’m sure you will try and hand wave some kind of argument to support your flawed understanding.”
Speculating about my state of mind has nothing to do with climate science. If you have a case to make against Hansen’s use of anomaly analysis, write it up in a paper and submit the paper to a journal.
10
Bob: “At 201, your cited charts (via link) do not address the point. They deal with emissions, not atmospheric concentrations, specifically, changes in concentrations.”
The chart I cited dealt with changes in the annual levels of emissions over time. In effect, your claim was that a supposed relationship between emissions and the ppm concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere broke down on account of an almost three-fold increase in the rate of change of emissions.
Clearly, there will be a relationship between any increase in the rate of change of emissions and the overall change in the level of emissions over time.
My contention is that the three-fold increase in the rate of change of emissions that you cite is not unduly significant in terms of the longer term (ie 1988-2007) increase in emissions. However, as I have shown, an increase in the rate of emissions post-2002 had an effect on the more recent increases in the annual ppm concentrations of CO2.
“No clear demonstration of global temperature responding to miniscule changes in the very minor greenhouse gas, CO2, can be found in any meaningful climate span going back as far as we can in climate history.”
The current increase in CO2 concentrations is more than a third over a couple of hundred years. That is not miniscule.
The AGW claim is that the additional CO2 is currently acting as a forcing on the climate. It does not argue that CO2 has caused climate changes before, and therefore will again. The difference is subtle, but important.
For example, any evidence to support this contention will be wide-ranging and cover areas such as the atmospheric and ocean temperatures, sea levels, sea ice levels, growing seasons, as well as the paleoclimate record. In addition,
That said, there is a very strong correlation between CO2 and global temperatures across a variety of time periods.
http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/paleoclimate.htm#600,000,000years
http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/500millionfig.htm
10
Derek: “It is that simple, no raw data for the 60 year record.”
Judging by the link, you have clearly done a lot of work on this issue. I’m not qualified to offer an opinion, so I can only echo Richard Courtney’s words of encouragement to arrange your thoughts for publication.
“Hansen used which dataset, you still have not named it, it would appear it is Hansen’s GISS “record”.”
Hansen used GHCN data obtained from the National Climate Data Center, plus ocean satellite data which I think is from NOAA, and some data obtained from the Antarctic. It’s a bit of a stretch to call this Hansen’s GISS “record”, but again you appear to be implying skullduggery. All I can suggest is that you gather your evidence and make a case.
“But most importantly you still have not provided one paper that proves AGW.”
Follow the link below to a report that provides the latest information on climate science, with references to papers dealing with many aspects of climate change.
http://climatecongress.ku.dk/pdf/synthesisreport
10
Brendan,
It shouldn’t be necessary to publish a paper to point out problems in other papers that basic peer review should have caught. This just illustrates how hopelessly broken the peer review process is relative to climate research papers.
George
10
Brendan H:
July 23rd, 2009 at 6:02 pm
Derek: “It is that simple, no raw data for the 60 year record.”
Judging by the link, you have clearly done a lot of work on this issue. I’m not qualified to offer an opinion, so I can only echo Richard Courtney’s words of encouragement to arrange your thoughts for publication.
End of quote.
Thanks, and yes it is something that is being considered, but given the importance of the data set, and how often what it supposedly depicts is quoted / referenced / used as “proof” just like you have done many times on this thread alone Brendan H, I’m frankly amazed at your comment,
” I’m not qualified to offer an opinion, “.
Or that such critisisms of MLO are not already published by recognised scientists.
Simply where is the MLO raw data, and where is the algorithm used. ?
No paper is really needed, but there again the record should not be used or quoted untill it’s credability is known.
Which at present it is not. Unless processed only “raw” hourly averages are considered reliable and known quantities without knowing, or being able to have checked how they were calculated.
Furthermore, any work or assumptions based on the present MLO “record” are equally based on dodgy assumptions rather than empiracal measurements / data / evidence, untill the credability of the MLO record is known.
James Hansen is a well known scientist from NASA, quite a senior one as I understand. He effectively “controls” the GISS temperature record, so it would not be surprising if that one or some variation of it is the one he used.
It would seem peculiar if he had to come up with a totally new temperature record just for the plot you linked to.
Why. ?
Brendan H wrote,
” Hansen used GHCN data obtained from the National Climate Data Center, plus ocean satellite data which I think is from NOAA, and some data obtained from the Antarctic. It’s a bit of a stretch to call this Hansen’s GISS “record”, but again you appear to be implying skullduggery. All I can suggest is that you gather your evidence and make a case. ”
End of quote.
I appear to be linking to another website that has many times questioned many and basics problems with the “hottest” temperature record of them all, GISS.
The urban heat island effect is but one problem introducing a warming bias to the record.
I imply nothing more than there are many and already shown problems with the GISS record, all of which so far have resulted in the GISS record being invariably “lowered”.
co2isnotevil:
July 24th, 2009 at 4:07 am
” It shouldn’t be necessary to publish a paper to point out problems in other papers that basic peer review should have caught. This just illustrates how hopelessly broken the peer review process is relative to climate research papers.”
I could agree more, well said.
It might well be said that,
What is the peer review process ? Seemingly at present it is,
the consensus’s view approving the consensus’s “science”,
despite the empiracal data.
10
Apologies, I meant,
I could not agree more, well said.
10
A quote taken from the Executive Summary section of Brendan’s one proof of AGW paper provided above.
” During the stable climate conditions of this period, humans discovered
how to cultivate plants and domesticate animals. These discoveries,
which occurred about 10,000 years ago and ultimately led to modern
agriculture, dramatically changed the relationship between humans and
the planet. They broke an early natural constraint on human numbers,
and enabled many more people to thrive simultaneously on Earth than
was possible without control over food availability. ”
” During the stable climate conditions of this period “…….LOL.
Relative to the preceeding ice age yes, but stable, no.
http://s53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/DerekJohn_photos/Hockey%20stick%20-%20yellow/?action=view¤t=Slide277.jpg
The recent rise in global temperatures over the 20th Century hardly show on the scale of the above plot……….
Infact over the “stable” period that is mentioned it HAS been a good deal warmer for most of the (11,500 years) period in question.
On this most basic of points the Synthesis Report falls flat on the untrue, disproven assumptions and dodgy evidence (ie the Hockey Stick and MLO) it is all based on.
Brendan H the UN and the IPCC do NOT produce science papers or “proofs” of AGW,
in whatever guise you try to link to them as.
10
George: “It shouldn’t be necessary to publish a paper to point out problems in other papers that basic peer review should have caught.”
You’re assuming that a) problems exist; b) are significant; c) haven’t been acknowledged and allowed for. Anyone can make assertions. Doing some research enables you to check out the facts, while producing a paper requires you to marshall your arguments and evidence, and make them available for judgment.
10
Derek: “Unless processed only “raw” hourly averages are considered reliable and known quantities without knowing, or being able to have checked how they were calculated.”
It may help you to clarify your understanding of the terms “data” and “processed”. In one sense, all data is processed, in that even the most basic measurement taken is not the actual phenomena and requires some human judgment.
In the case of the Mauna Loa measurements, as I mentioned, the basic data appear to be electrical signals. Are these comprehensible in their “raw” state? I don’t know, but there seems to be some confusion over this issue, and it may pay to clarify your understanding of it.
“It would seem peculiar if he had to come up with a totally new temperature record just for the plot you linked to.”
Hansen specifies the data that he uses. Do you have any evidence that he used other data?
“Relative to the preceeding ice age yes, but stable, no.”
There are number of estimates of global temperatures over the past 12,000 years. An average of these estimates shows very little variation in temperatures, little more than 1 deg C separating the highs and lows.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
10
Brendan H, your Wiki link is to a spaghetti version of the Hockey Stick……
I asked you which temp record Hansen used in the plot YOU linked to,
you as yet have not answered that question.
Raw Data means that, raw unprocessed data. The electrical measurements you refer to are ppmv “figures” taken at ten second intervals. Not that they are expressed as CO2 ppmv figures, just electrical voltages.
The next figure that is available is the “raw hourly average CO2 ppm” figure however you phrase, or try to describe it, that is not raw data…..
It is highly processed / “corrected” / interpolated. AND it has been changed / corrected from ppmv (means dry) to ppm (means including water vapour),
there IS quite a difference…
Not even close to “raw data”, or measurements.
BTW –
Where is, or are, the “raw” ten second ppmv figures. ?
Where is the algorithm used. ?
Where is the corrections used. ?
Where is the data excluded. ?
Where is the data interpolated (means invented and filled in for data removed becuase it was not deemed “correct”). ?
THERE IS NO PUBLICLY AVAILABLE RAW DATA FOR THE 60 YEAR SUPPOSED MLO RECORD.
THERE IS NO WAY OF KNOWING HOW THE MLO FIGURES OFTEN QUOTED AND FREQUENTLY RELIED UPON WERE CALCULATED.
10
My apologies, obviously,
” The next figure that is available is ” above should of read.
The first actual CO2 figure provided by MLO, whether ppmv or ppm that is available is “
10
Derek: “Brendan H, your Wiki link is to a spaghetti version of the Hockey Stick…”
No it’s not. It’s a graph of estimates of Holocene temperatures.
“I asked you which temp record Hansen used in the plot YOU linked to, you as yet have not answered that question.”
I have provided the information. This link is to the Hansen et al 2006 paper, with the journal title “Global Temperature Change”:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2006/Hansen_etal_1.html
This is the link I cited:
http://www.realclimate.org/images/Hansen06_fig2.jpg
and this is supplementary information to the above paper:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/supplement/2006_Hansen_etal_1/
In this supplementary information Hansen says he used GHCN data obtained from the National Climate Data Center, plus ocean satellite data and additional data obtained from the Antarctic.
“Where is, or are, the “raw” ten second ppmv figures. ?”
I don’t know. My best advice is to address your questions to the observatory.
10
Brendan H:
July 25th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
Derek: “Brendan H, your Wiki link is to a spaghetti version of the Hockey Stick…”
No it’s not. It’s a graph of estimates of Holocene temperatures.
OK, so Brendan H, you linked to,
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
I followed one of the references sited used in the plot.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2004/2003RG000143.shtml
And did a quick google on M E Mann.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._Mann
Bingo the Hocket Stick author………
10
Brendan H.
Re Hansen figure, why did Hansen have to come up with a “new” temperature data set then for his plot. ?
Would it not of been so much easier to use an already available data set,
specifically one he is in “control” of. ?
Why did he “invent” a new data set as you seem to suggest, or not admit the name or the data set he used…..
10
Brendan H:
July 25th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
“Where is, or are, the “raw” ten second ppmv figures. ?”
I don’t know. My best advice is to address your questions to the observatory.
End of quote.
That has been done numerous times, by many, many people,
to date the answers have been, at best, somewhat lacking..
Hence my “Where is” questions above in post 233.
We should note you avoid answering them (except by referring to a higher authority..)
in any way whatsoever.
There are numerous other “Where is” questions that have been asked and raised of MLO mostly with no adequate response to date. For example, frequently the “data” sets are “corrected” for wind direction, this is supposedly for the nearby volcanoe and it’s CO2 emissions. The wind direction is not given with any accuracy (direction or strength would be nice for example), so what is corrected for, is not specified. This applies to several different “factors” corrected for by MLO, but the actual measurements are not given specifically…,
only the amount used to correct is specified…….
Amazing, but true, or rather unspecified and untrue, if you see what I mean…
NAMAS acreditation would help obviously, preferably vertically through the MLO technique / method / instruments / calibrations, but that does not appear likely to happen. (Sometimes I do understate things…)
Then there would be little need to ask questions of MLO, and it’s credability would be known………
Given there are genuine concerns and questions regarding the credability and accuracy of the MLO “record” I suggest it is apparent ANYTHING based on the MLO record, is on unknown ground, at best.
Please stop quoting unreliable sources Brendan H, (however you have tried to disguise them) and return to justifying your main points earlier that so far you have provided no support of,
except, largely relying on dodgy data sets (with no raw data), falsified assumptions, and arguements from a supposed position of authority.
Brandan H please make your main points again in a credable way,
so far you have not.
10
Brendan:
No matter how simple we try to make this for you, your evident discomfort with numbers (self-admitted) seems to spill over to your grasp of logic.
In your last reply, you wrote:
“The chart I cited dealt with changes in the annual levels of emissions over time. In effect, your claim was that a supposed relationship between emissions and the ppm concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere broke down on account of an almost three-fold increase in the rate of change of emissions.”
No, that was not my contention … it’s your misinterpretation of my contention.
My point (made time and again) was that the change in atmospheric concentrations did not reflect the dramatic increases in emission rates. And, as I’ve pointed out before, I was quoting another person (with whom I agree … I don’t want to take credit for another’s observations that I share).
Then you continued:
“My contention is that the three-fold increase in the rate of change of emissions that you cite is not unduly significant in terms of the longer term (ie 1988-2007) increase in emissions.”
Regardless of the meaning or purpose of your contention, it’s irrelevant to the point. You seem to be suggesting a 3-fold increase in the CO2 emissions rate within a portion of the 20-year span you cite is not significant. If so, then why all the fuss over increased rates of CO2 emissions? I mean, if a 3-fold increase in the rate of CO2 emissions is no big deal, then who needs “cap and trade” schemes, or any regulation of CO2 emissions?
Getting back to the point: If science cannot definitively understand what happens to CO2 emissions (how much is taken in by warm oceans?, how much is lost in plant life development?, how much is lost to other processes?, how much has any impact on atmospheric temperature?, etc.), then there is no real basis for making a valid claim of the impact on atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and what miniscule impact they may have on climate change. The problem is, science really does not have a good grasp of where all the CO2 is coming from and where it is going in the annual cycle of absorption and emission of CO2.
Yes, I’ve seen the charts based on estimates of annual production/absorption of CO2. But those estimates are based on assumptions and theories that have errors and the small changes in CO2 we’re looking for are muddled by or lost in the estimation error bounds.
You continued: “However, as I have shown, an increase in the rate of emissions post-2002 had an effect on the more recent increases in the annual ppm concentrations of CO2.”
You don’t KNOW that. You’re assuming. While there may have been some contribution from human emissions, how much of the total change is due to natural emissions that would have occurred if there were no humans? You cannot answer that, therefore, you cannot state with any certainty how much of the change in concentrations is due to human activity. It just isn’t that simple a process.
You then claim:
“The current increase in CO2 concentrations is more than a third over a couple of hundred years. That is not miniscule.”
1. It IS miniscule on the scale of historic concentrations of CO2 that have ranged well over 20 times current levels.
2. It is a huge assumption to pin all the changes in CO2 on emissions from fossil fuels. There are any other number of natural forces that could be responsible (and likely are) for most of the change. As the planet warms from the Little Ice Age, the oceans warm and, on balance, will continue to outgas more than they absorb as the warming continues. At some point, the modern warm period will peak and the trend will reverse again. The important fact is that CO2 changes follow temperature changes, they do not precede them. Can you definitively extract what portion of CO2 increases over the past 200 years are due to fossil fuels being burned by humans? In order to do so, you will need to know what other changing natural forces have contributed to the increase (increased ocean warming & outgassing, increased volcanic activity, etc.) so that you can eliminate all those change factors so that the human component can be isolated. It isn’t as simple as just estimating human emissions.
If I handed you five tablets, each with a number on it, and asked you to tell me the sum of the numbers, but then you dropped four of the tablets over a cliff before you could read the numbers. Would you be able to give me the sum? Of course not. You need all the information to get a complete picture, or nothing will add up.
You continued:
“The AGW claim is that the additional CO2 is currently acting as a forcing on the climate. It does not argue that CO2 has caused climate changes before, and therefore will again. The difference is subtle, but important.”
You miss the point. One looks to history to see if current theory makes sense. If CO2 has never been a significant climate change force in the past, why should atmospheric science change to allow it to become a significant climate change force today? Science doesn’t work that way.
You cannot just flippantly say the equivalent of, “Yeah, well, it didn’t work that way in the past, but now it will because humans burning fossil fuels are adding a small fraction to the total annual CO2 emissions” without providing some rationale why atmospheric science is suddenly changing from what governed climate change in the past.
You don’t seem to understand the AGW theory, either. It claims a small increase in temperature by a doubling of CO2 will yield much greater changes (3X) due to the water vapor increase (warmer air will hold more water vapor). But the AGW theory has it all wrong. But to understand that well, you need to be good with numbers, which you admit, you are not. So to put it simply for you, AGW claims the warmer air will hold more water vapor and water vapor, being the overwhelmingly dominant “greenhouse” gas, will then produce a threefold increase in temperature compared to what CO2 will produce. But the problem with that simplistic theory is that it doesn’t account for the complexity of atmospheric dynamics that include the cooling effect of more clouds (greater albedo, reflecting more sunlight back to space, reducing warming) and greater precipitation (another cooling effect), to name just a few. The best analysis of the net change is that there will be zero temperature change or even a slight cooling resulting from water vapor’s response to the increased CO2 in the atmosphere. This is consistent with the overall stability of the climate system. Earth’s climate system is a complex dynamic that produces a stable climate so long as major natural forces do not alter the stability point (of temperature). That is why we’ve never had (and cannot have) a runaway “greenhouse warming” or a runaway “snowball Earth” ice era. Until the sun evolves to a point where it blasts away or otherwise significantly changes Earth’s atmosphere, climate will continue to seek stability.
It is worth noting that “greenhouse” gas warming of the atmosphere merely provides a baseline or background warming from which significant departures are produced by other natural forces, many of which are external to Earth, some are internal. Such “greenhouse” gases are not, never have been, and never will be significant climate change forces.
You then claim:
“… there is a very strong correlation between CO2 and global temperatures across a variety of time periods.”
And cite several records of atmospheric CO2 changes. Very little compares temperature changes to CO2 changes, but those that do ALWAYS show that the temperature change PRECEDES the change in CO2! This is dramatic and obvious in the Vostok record if you look at it with the right resolution.
Nothing you’ve shown disputes the 600-million year record of:
http://www.webcommentary.com/images/climate/co2-levels-over-time1.jpg
… which presents a clear picture of both temperature (not delta T) vs. CO2 (not delta CO2) over the past 500-600 million years. Note the stability of temperature at the peak warming and at the coldest temperature regimes.
You cannot refute the clear evidence and, in fact, some of which you’ve linked to refutes your own contention. It has always been an assumption that temperature responds to CO2, but with oceans covering 70% of the Earth’s surface, it is much more likely to be as observed. Temperature leads, CO2 follows.
I know this is terribly inconvenient to you, Al Gore (who lies about it in his video), and the AGW alarmist camp at RealClimate, but that’s the way it is with reality. It can slap you pretty hard when you acknowledge the truth.
Frankly, I’ve had enough of beating the dead horse of AGW. The fact that you cannot smell the carcass probably won’t change. You can have your last words because, frankly, I’ve come to the conclusion that you are, indeed, a lost cause whose difficulty with numbers and logic make it impossible for anyone to get through to you. I really have better things to do.
10
Derek: “Re Hansen figure, why did Hansen have to come up with a “new” temperature data set then for his plot.”
I assume it was to ensure the best possible global coverage.
“Bingo the Hocket Stick author…”
Now you’re changing the goal posts. You claim was: “your Wiki link is to a spaghetti version of the Hockey Stick…” A graph of Holocene estimates is not a version of the hockey stick, spaghetti or otherwise.
“There are numerous other “Where is” questions that have been asked and raised of MLO mostly with no adequate response to date.”
I’m not privy to either those questions or the responses, so cannot judge either way. Have you tried a Freedom of Information enquiry?
10
Bob:
“BH: “The chart I cited dealt with changes in the annual levels of emissions over time. In effect, your claim was that a supposed relationship between emissions and the ppm concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere broke down on account of an almost three-fold increase in the rate of change of emissions.”
BW: No, that was not my contention … it’s your misinterpretation of my contention.
My point (made time and again) was that the change in atmospheric concentrations did not reflect the dramatic increases in emission rates.”
And the difference is?
“You seem to be suggesting a 3-fold increase in the CO2 emissions rate within a portion of the 20-year span you cite is not significant.”
I’m suggesting that your claim of a three-fold increase is misleading. Take a look at the graph of global emissions 1990-2007, and you will see that increases in emissions are varied, and do not support an implied claim that the increase applies to all the years post-2002.
http://www.statcrunch.com/5.0/viewreport.php?reportid=6958
From the site:
http://www.statcrunch.com/grabimageforreport.php?reportid=6958&image_id=418097
Nevertheless, ppm concentrations per annum have increased over the period 1988-2007.
“While there may have been some contribution from human emissions, how much of the total change is due to natural emissions that would have occurred if there were no humans?”
The difference is calculated from the changing ratio of carbon isotopes over time, as this article explains.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/
Importantly, there are several lines of complementary evidence in relation to CO2 levels and composition:
• Estimates of CO2 from human and natural sources
• Measurements of atmospheric CO2 levels
• Measurements of carbon isotope ratios.
Together, these estimates and measurements paint a consistent picture of rising CO2 levels from human activities.
“You cannot just flippantly say the equivalent of, “Yeah, well, it didn’t work that way in the past, but now it will because humans burning fossil fuels are adding a small fraction to the total annual CO2 emissions”
That’s not my argument. I am saying that the AGW claim is that the recent increase in CO2, primarily from human activities, is causing atmospheric warming. In that sense, the past behavior of CO2 and atmosphere form part of the evidence for AGW theory. But the claim “CO2 has caused climate change before, and therefore will again” is not how the AGW theory is stated.
10
Brendan H:
July 26th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
“Bingo the Hocket Stick author…”
Now you’re changing the goal posts. You claim was: “your Wiki link is to a spaghetti version of the Hockey Stick…” A graph of Holocene estimates is not a version of the hockey stick, spaghetti or otherwise.
End of quote.
I thought the image you linked to was not clear enough Brendan H,
ie,
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/DerekJohn_photos/stuff/Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
so I have “flipped” it,
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/DerekJohn_photos/stuff/FlippedHolocene_Temperature_Variati.jpg
If it looks like a bird,
flies like a bird,
cheeps like a bird,
and no doubt defacates like a bird.
Then it is a bird.
In this case it agrees with the Hockey Stick and has at least one of the same authors, whose “contribution” no doubt used the same “statistical techniques” as the Hockey Stick.
Let me expand on the “techniques” Mann et al used (that pasted peer review with flying colours…..) in the Hockey Stick, and why I do not see anything he has done since, or been involved in, as in the slightest way reliable. Infact the lengths he went to for the Hockey Stick alone should be fair warning of his intent and methods he will employ to show the correct “Team AGW” picture.
I would also note that the Hockey Stick got past peer review unchallenged and then became the main stay of the UN / IPCC AR3 report, that alone says all that needs to be said regarding the UN, the IPCC, and Mann’s “science credentials”, to name just a few of the people involved in this episode.
Below in my next post is a 3 Part slide show I have put together regarding the Hockey Stick.
Is there a connection between the Hockey Stick, Mann, and realclimate.org.nonsense that Brendan H has been so fond of quoting. ?
Errr, yes.
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/DerekJohn_photos/Hockey/GHSP%20White%20Part%201/Slide140.jpg
10
OK, a slide show in three parts concerning the Hockey Stick whose author’s website Brendan H is so fond of quoting and relying upon..
Part 1
http://s53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/DerekJohn_photos/Hockey/GHSP%20White%20Part%201/?albumview=slideshow
Part 2
http://s53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/DerekJohn_photos/Hockey/GHSP%20White%20Part%201/GHSP%20White%20Part%202/?albumview=slideshow
Part 3
http://s53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/DerekJohn_photos/Hockey/GHSP%20White%20Part%201/GHSP%20White%20Part%202/GHSP%20White%20Part%203/?albumview=slideshow
My apologies in advance, this slideshow seems to keep on “disappearing”,
the slides appear to have been deleted off photobucket in the past….
10
Brendon, RE 232
I seems like you’re assuming a) that CO2 drives the climate, b) that it’s a significant effect and c) that the recent climate can’t be explained by anything else. I suggest that you research a few things yourself. Here’s a start: quantum mechanics and atmospheric absorption, thermodynamics, the relationship between temperature and energy, the Sun and sunspots, orbital mechanics, nonlinear feedback control systems, weather, cosmic rays, ocean currents, data capture and analysis methods, basic statistics and basic first principles physics. Once you can demonstrate some proficiency in these subjects, then we can have a rational discussion about how the climate works.
George
10
Derek: “In this case it agrees with the Hockey Stick…”
You’re evading the issue. Here is your original comment: “…your Wiki link is to a spaghetti version of the Hockey Stick…”
My link was not to a spaghetti version of the hockey stick. It was a link to various estimates of Holocene temperatures.
“In this case it agrees with the Hockey Stick and has at least one of the same authors, whose “contribution” no doubt used the same “statistical techniques” as the Hockey Stick.”
So the argument you’re trying to make is:
• hockey stick unreliable
• hockey stick shares some authors and techniques with the Holocene reconstructions
• therefore, Holocene constructions unreliable.
The logical fallacy here is called composition.
10
As I last wrote, I’ve given up trying to get Brendan H. to focus on inconsistencies in AGW. Once again, at 242, he mischaracterizes the side issue that he decided to focus on (to divert attention from major questions which he never addresses). He even mischaracterizes the point I made about the historic lack of relationship between CO2 and climate change. Trying to get Brendan to focus on a serious point and then respond by not first mischaracterizing appears impossible. Almost like trying to teach a rock to talk … no matter how hard you try, the rock will just sit there and be non-responsive.
Then I came across this interesting characterization by Christopher Monckton of how Gavin Schmidt (RealClimate) plays the same game as Brendan:
“… Sherlock Holmes once cracked a case by noticing that a dog did not bark in the night-time when, on the facts as at first presented, any dog would have been likely to bark. Schmidt’s usual approach in his blog, to which I [Monckton] have been unreasonably subjected before, is to cherry-pick — or, rather, nit-pick — his way through a few points that he (unwisely) thinks he [can] get away with attempting to rebut in someone else’s substantial paper, while carefully avoiding all reference either to the main thrust of that paper or to the overwhelming majority of points in the paper of which he is altogether unable to attempt rebuttal.”
Of course, Gavin has the added advantage of being able to purge any post (before it is seen) that is so devastating that even his usual tactics cannot obfuscate the overwhelming refutation of his beliefs. There is also the huge financial and professional stake Gavin and many of his cohorts at RealClimate have in the acceptance of their fraudulent AGW theory. The motivation is more than just ego.
Those who do not have a professional or financial motivation are usually just dupes of those who do — or else they are just monumentally ignorant and rely on blind faith in AGW theory.
I’ve observed this same tactic before by blind faith AGW true-believers. Evidently, those who worship at the church of AGW feel they have to respond in some way to observations that completely debunk their beliefs in order to either (1) project an air of superiority (a painfully obvious misfit), (2) or regurgitate snark, (3) or dart from the main point to some mischaracterization of a detail of a side issue in an effort to obfuscate or dodge the main point, (4) or indulge in ad hominem … or any combination or all of the above.
Which brings us, in a way, back to the original point of funded-arrogance. England employs the whole lot of these diversions. Brendan practices (3) to excess.
So why waste time with these people who cannot admit they are wrong no matter how much evidence is put before them?
10
Bob: “So why waste time with these people who cannot admit they are wrong no matter how much evidence is put before them?”
Good question. For example, at #201 I addressed your question by placing some evidence before you:
“’1. With dramatic increases in the rate of annual emissions from Chine, “[a] this increase in emissions rate of over two and a half times [b] had no identifiable effect on the rate of atmospheric CO2 concentration increase which remained constant at just under 2ppmv/year’
(a) CO2 emissions rose from 5021 million metric tons in 1990 to 6022 million metric tons in 2007, about a 20 percent rise.
http://www.statcrunch.com/5.0/viewreport.php?reportid=6958
Therefore, the change in the rate of emissions cited is misleading over the longer term.
(b) The average ppm rise in atmospheric CO2 between 1988 and 2002 was around 1.55. From 2002 until 2008 the average increase rose to just above 2ppm. Therefore, 1 (b) above is incorrect.”
You have subsequently hopped, skipped, jumped and tap-danced your way around this evidence. The one thing you have failed to do is support your own assertions with evidence. Now is your opportunity.
10
I’m kind of coming to the conclusion that we should build some standard answers presented in a nice cross-indexed website to enable the cite of a magic number rather than repeat the entire same arguments again and again.
Then we only need to respond to genuinely new material which in turn can be added to the index. Seems that the primary purpose of many of the AGW support positions is time wasting.
It’s just such a massive project to debunk each and every silly little detail that gets thrown up. As if all those tiny details actually fixed the fundamental problem that there is no evidence.
10
Brendan, while attempting to stay on topic I re-read the above article and noted that it said:
“In other words, when England couldn’t answer Kininmonth on the science he resorted to picking out irrelevant points;”
I assume you are just “keeping with the thread” by picking out your own “irrelevant points”??
Bob’s post had significantly more to it than what you have “cherry picked” and you have ignored ALL of it once again. I must agree with Bob and will commence ignoring your posts as “irrelevant”!
10
At 248 Brendan is still having trouble with my quote from Norm Kalmanovitch (at 165):
In 2000, China began rapid industrial expansion rapidly increasing emissions, and by 2002 the global rate of CO2 emissions increase jumped to a new rate of increase of over one gigatonne of CO2 per year. Remarkably this increase in emissions rate of over two and a half times had no identifiable effect on the rate of atmospheric CO2 concentration increase which remained constant at just under 2ppmv/year.
Brendan’s real problem is that he cannot explain away the above while acknowledging that over the period from 2002 to the present, the trend in atmospheric CO2 remains linear “at just under 2 ppmv/year”, it is not accelerating:
http://www2.nationalreview.com/dest/2009/07/10/lobalwarmingco2uptemperaturesdownii.jpg
The Chinese continue to build new coal-fired power plants at a staggering rate as a 2004 report in the Christian Science Monitor states at http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1223/p01s04-sten.html, China “… is on track to add 562 coal-fired plants – nearly half the world total of plants expected to come online in the next eight years. India could add 213 such plants.” By 2012, China alone is likely to be producing nearly 2 Gtonnes of new CO2 emissions.
If continuing dramatic increases in the rate of worldwide emissions of CO2 do not produce an accelerating presence of CO2 in the atmosphere, then why all the fuss about CO2 emissions?
The above chart clearly displays the steady linear trend of atmospheric CO2 over the period during which Chinese emissions overtook and raced ahead of US emissions and continue to accelerate. Yet, observing the continued linear trend since 2002, the acceleration of emissions is not reflected in a corresponding acceleration in atmospheric volume of CO2, which maintains a linear upward trend that began several hundred years ago. This is not a difficult observation to make.
If the proponents of the AGW theory really believed their theory (that relatively small human emissions of CO2 will overwhelm climate and bring about a “hothouse” Earth), they would never agree to treaties allowing the worst CO2 emitters to continue their rapid expansion of emissions.
I note that Brendan never touched the following (much like many other awkward questions he’s ignored), originally raised at 140, long before I quoted Kalmanovitch at 165:
So here is a fresh question for Brendan to ponder: Let’s accept the IPCC’s flawed AGW theory for the sake of discussion. Then, accepting that the AGW theory is accurate and alarmist claims that current global temperatures are “unprecedented”, how do you explain that (with one exception) each of the eight continental all-time high temperature records was set on or before human emissions of CO2 were sufficient to impact global climate?
Africa’s all-time record high was set in 1922.
North America’s all-time high set in 1913.
Asia’s all-time high in 1942.
Australia’s all-time high in 1889.
Europe’s all-time high in 1881.
South America’s all-time high in 1905.
Oceania’s all-time high in 1912.
Antarctica’s all-time high in 1974 (when scientists were worried about a human-caused ice age!)
How annoyingly inconvenient these climate realities are for the AGW true-believers!
10
Hi All,
Below is a question Richard S Courtney has asked on many an occasion, and
as yet has not recieved a cogent answer.
.
.
” Why is 0.4% increase to radiative forcing from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide thought to threaten catastrophe when about 30% increase to radiative forcing from the Sun has had no discernible effect? ”
.
.
As Brendan H is avoiding answering so many other questions asked here,
I hope the simple maths and logic of this question is not beyond his abilities to understand, and maybe even provide a cogent answer.
Shall we hold our breaths, I doubt that is a good idea, however much he’d like us to..
I must admit I can not see an answer that would be in line with AGW to Richard’s question. My attempt at an answer would be something like.
“It would seem to show that negative feedback processes are dominant in global climate, regardless of CO2 levels (tens of times higher in some periods) experienced over the last millions to billions of years.”
ie, the earth is perfectly naturally capable of cooling itself by much more than we could possibly increase it’s temperature (even as supposedly “projected” by the worst AGW climate models..) with what little CO2 we actually do add to the atmosphere, whether or not that is the reason , or even contributes noticably to the changing atmospheric level of the trace life giving gas that is CO2.
10
Bob: “In 2000, China began rapid industrial expansion rapidly increasing emissions, and by 2002 the global rate of CO2 emissions increase jumped to a new rate of increase of over one gigatonne of CO2 per year.
Remarkably this increase in emissions rate of over two and a half times had no identifiable effect on the rate of atmospheric CO2 concentration increase which remained constant at just under 2ppmv/year.”
As the figures show below, 2002 saw a jump in the increase in ppm concentrations of CO2 to 2.56, which by any measure is not “just under 2ppmv/year”. Your source is simply wrong, as I have already shown.
1988 – 2.09
1989 – 1.27
1990 – 1.31
1991 – 1.02
1992 – 0.43
1993 – 1.35
1994 – 1.90
1995 – 1.98
1996 – 1.19
1997 – 1.96
1998 – 2.93
1999 – 0.94
2000 – 1.74
2001 – 1.59
2002 – 2.56
2003 – 2.29
2004 – 1.56
2005 – 2.55
2006 – 1.69
2007 – 2.17
2008 – 1.66
Link: ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_gr_mlo.txt
Let us agree that your source is wrong on this point. Then we can move on.
10
Brendan,
Even though I promised to ignore your “irrelevance”, I can’t let your comment at 253 to go unchallenged. The average of years 2003 to 2008 is 1.986666667, which by my math (and I know numbers aren’t your strong suit) is just UNDER 2 ppm. Once again you haven’t answered ANYONE’S key questions and have picked on small portions of the whole argument. Try REAL HARD to focus on the meat of the matter!!
10
And Brendan, Can you PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE (!!!!) tell me if anyone can explain the vast variation per year of the change in CO2 concentration and what causes it??? Didn’t think so!!
10
Bob: “The average of years 2003 to 2008 is 1.986666667, which by my math (and I know numbers aren’t your strong suit) is just UNDER 2 ppm.”
Now you’re both cherry-picking and changing your story. Remember the original quote:
“In 2000, China began rapid industrial expansion rapidly increasing emissions, and by 2002 the global rate of CO2 emissions increase jumped to a new rate of increase of over one gigatonne of CO2 per year. Remarkably this increase in emissions rate of over two and a half times had no identifiable effect on the rate of atmospheric CO2 concentration increase which remained constant at just under 2ppmv/year.”
The year in question is 2002, which saw a jump in ppm to 2.56. So it is simply not the case that the rate of atmospheric CO2 concentration increase “remained constant at just under 2ppmv/year”.
In addition, the rate for previous years had not been a constant 2ppm, but rather a range, with an average less than 2ppm. And post-2000 the annual ppm level on average rose, as this study shows: http://www.pnas.org/content/104/24/10288.full.pdf
Quote: “However, the dominant factor accounting for the recent rapid growth in atmospheric CO2 (>_2 ppm y_1) is high and rising emissions, mostly from fossil fuels”.
The claim is supported by this site: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20080423_methane.html
Quote: “The rate of increase in carbon dioxide concentrations accelerated over recent decades along with fossil fuel emissions. Since 2000, annual increases of two ppm or more have been common, compared with 1.5 ppm per year in the 1980s and less than one ppm per year during the 1960s.”
Why is this issue relevant to AGW? Your source is parsing some statistics in order to claim that CO2 emissions from human activities have little or no relation to atmospheric levels. Hence the juxtaposition of the shock statistic of “two and a half times” with the claim “remained constant” However, an examination of the actual figures shows that this juxtaposition is simplistic.
10
Overseasinsider: “…tell me if anyone can explain the vast variation per year of the change in CO2 concentration and what causes it???”
As I understand it, ENSO-type oscillations probably play a large part in annual variations of CO2 concentrations. That makes sense, since the oceans will absorb less CO2 in warmer el Nino years, and more in la Nina years. Forest fires and volcanic eruptions may also influence annual variation.
10
At #256 Brendan, responding to “Overseasinsider” seems to think he is responding to me! Since I could easily have written the same, I’ll comment on that and much more from the hapless Brendan.
Brendan seems to think if he keeps beating a dead horse (his), that somehow it will come to life.
Well, it won’t.
Comparing his tactics to those of Gavin Schmidt, Brendan continues focusing on mischaracterizing side issues rather than responding to any of a number of main points. Confusing emissions rates with atmospheric concentrations Brendan continues with his latest regurgitation of irrelevant tenuously related material.
Evidently, staying focused on (or even understanding) primary questions is a problem for Brendan.
The statements I quoted referred to average annual changes over a number of years and concluded the rate of increase remained at about 2 ppm/year in 2002.
Checking in on changes since 2002:
1/1/2002: CO2 was 373 ppm
1/1/2009: CO2 was 387 ppm
Difference: 14 ppm
Avg. change per year: 14 ppm/7 years = 2 ppm/yr.
Q.E.D.
Now that the side issue is disposed of, wouldn’t it be nice if Brendan could address some of the primary inconveniences I posed to him?
1. From #140:
So here is a fresh question for Brendan to ponder: Let’s accept the IPCC’s flawed AGW theory for the sake of discussion. Then, accepting that the AGW theory is accurate and alarmist claims that current global temperatures are “unprecedented”, how do you explain that (with one exception) each of the eight continental all-time high temperature records was set on or before human emissions of CO2 were sufficient to impact global climate?
Africa’s all-time record high was set in 1922.
North America’s all-time high set in 1913.
Asia’s all-time high in 1942.
Australia’s all-time high in 1889.
Europe’s all-time high in 1881.
South America’s all-time high in 1905.
Oceania’s all-time high in 1912.
Antarctica’s all-time high in 1974 (when scientists were worried about a human-caused ice age!)
Though posed at #140 and repeated at #172 and #251, why does Brendan continue ignoring this question?
I believe we’d all like to know why “unprecedented” global warming hasn’t managed a new non-polar continental high temperature record since 1942.
2. From #174:
Remarkably with CO2 emissions far in excess of those used for the model projections, in 2002 the global temperature was not only below the projected temperature for scenario “A”, it was actually below the scenario “C” which represented what Hansen would consider a complete stop of global warming.
To which conclusion I added:
Let me simplify it even further for you [Brendan].
Q: If Hansen didn’t have it straight in 1988 (and he didn’t), what assurance does anyone have that he has it straight today?
A: None.
Q.E.D.
The best Brendan could do with this is refer to other Hansen forecasts, essentially trying to recast the question (the “Gavin Dodge”).
3. From # 205:
… still waiting for you [Brendan] to explain the related chart:
http://www2.nationalreview.com/dest/2009/07/10/lobalwarmingco2uptemperaturesdownii.jpg
or any other historic record of temperature and CO2 that belies the claim of CO2 driving temperature change, e.g.,
http://www.webcommentary.com/images/climate/co2-levels-over-time1.jpg
Note that I have not drifted from the original point regarding climate alarmist claims not being borne out by real world observations. These charts are right on point.
And remain unaddressed by Brendan.
4. From: #217:
… Quibbling over the degree of change of CO2 concentration (small) resulting from unknown sources (assumed by alarmists to be human) is entirely beside the point. The potential of CO2 to affect climate is pretty limited, as you’d know if you had bothered to look at:
http://theresilientearth.com/files/images/co2_temperature_curve_saturation.png
The real question remains, does it matter what CO2 is doing?
The best information we have tells us it does not (provided it stays high enough to support healthy plant growth).
There simply is no good case that can be made that human emissions of CO2 constitute anything remotely approaching a significant climate change force.
To this last inconvenient question, Brendan made an effort to answer at #226, but again by revealing his lack of understanding which I exposed at #240. I still find it hard to believe Brendan tried to pull an “Al Gore” on this group by claiming the Vostok record proves CO2 drives temperature changes! That’s pure chutzpah!
At #242 Brendan attempts damage control with:
[quoting from my post at #240]: “You cannot just flippantly say the equivalent of, “Yeah, well, it didn’t work that way in the past, but now it will because humans burning fossil fuels are adding a small fraction to the total annual CO2 emissions”
[Brendan at #242]: That’s not my argument. I am saying that the AGW claim is that the recent increase in CO2, primarily from human activities, is causing atmospheric warming. In that sense, the past behavior of CO2 and atmosphere form part of the evidence for AGW theory. But the claim “CO2 has caused climate change before, and therefore will again” is not how the AGW theory is stated.
Once again, the classic “Gavin Dodge”. This prompted my post at #247 in which I quoted Christopher Monckton’s typically astute observation about Gavin Schmidt’s tactics — tactics I’ve seen used by AGW-believers again and again (… and again and again … when it comes to Brendan).
Is it possible that Brendan doesn’t actually realize that my characterization of his argument was exactly what he is claiming? He alludes to “AGW theory” using “past behavior of CO2 and atmosphere form[ing] part of the evidence for AGW theory.” But that is simply not true. The IPCC tried to use Mann’s infamous “Hockey Stick” fiasco to “prove” that current temperatures were “unprecedented” (but they aren’t) and that the inconvenient Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age never happened (but they did). Why would they use such obvious nonsense that contradicted their own previous record of past climate? Answer: Because they were desperate to create an atmosphere of alarmism by claiming that things were now happening that had never happened before, and pinning the blame on human activity.
What Brendan doesn’t understand is that, yes, most climate realists will agree that humans are adding greater amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere than humans have added in the past. And most will also acknowledge that these emissions are likely to have some impact on climate. However, what he doesn’t seem to be able to grasp is that the magnitude of the impact on climate is so miniscule that it cannot be deciphered from the natural background climate variability that has been ongoing since the beginning of climate!
It’s a simple point lost Brendan.
The other obvious point lost on Brendan is that CO2 cannot possibly bring about catastrophic warming because of the inherent limitations of any so-called “greenhouse” gas to warm the atmosphere. Brendan never addressed that point. Evidently, Brendan is unaware that today’s atmosphere is CO2-starved by historic measures. Most of the past 600 million years have had atmospheric concentrations well above 1000 ppm (which Brendan would see if he bothered to address yet another chart I’ve offered repeatedly):
http://www.webcommentary.com/images/climate/co2-levels-over-time1.jpg
and
http://theresilientearth.com/files/images/co2_temperature_curve_saturation.png
Which is why Brendan doesn’t have anything to say when his attempt to “Al Gore” the Vostok data is so easily refuted? It’s also why he cannot deal with the straightforward questions cited above and as reiterated at #252 by Derek:
[originally posed by Richard S. Courtney] ”Why is 0.4% increase to radiative forcing from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide thought to threaten catastrophe when about 30% increase to radiative forcing from the Sun has had no discernible effect? ”
It is clear that the “Gavin Dodge” is much more pervasive than “Global Warming” … it affects all climate alarmists. It is precisely what Monckton noted and includes an arrogant refusal of alarmists to respond directly to key questions that skewer the AGW theory. Gavin Schmidt invented it. Matthew England uses it. And Brendan practices it.
Which is why Brendan only “replies” but does not “respond” to any difficult questions. His replies are non-responsive.
Bob Webster
10
Bob: “At #256 Brendan, responding to “Overseasinsider” seems to think he is responding to me!”
Weren’t you the person who once called me “Branden”? That said, my bad, but in my defence I was concentrating on issues rather than personalities.
“Since I could easily have written the same…”
Now that you mention it, you share a certain stylistic similarity with other climate sceptics. You weren’t the inspiration for this site, by any chance?
http://www.angryflower.com/atlass.gif
“…concluded the rate of increase remained at about 2 ppm/year in 2002.”
Except that the rate of increase was 2.56, as shown at #253 above.
“Avg. change per year: 14 ppm/7 years = 2 ppm/yr.”
1988-2001 Avg. change per year: 21.7 ppm/14 years = 1.55 ppm/yr.
QED.
“…all-time high temperature records…Though posed at #140 and repeated at #172 and #251, why does Brendan continue ignoring this question?”
Dealt with at #173.
“Remarkably with CO2 emissions far in excess of those used for the model projections, in 2002 the global temperature was not only below the projected temperature for scenario “A”.”
Answered at #186.
“…essentially trying to recast the question (the “Gavin Dodge”)
I’m flattered to be included in such august company, but I must demur. Nevertheless, if a question is badly phrased or misses the point, I make no apology for bringing clarity to the issue.
“…still waiting for you [Brendan] to explain the related chart: http://www2.nationalreview.com/dest/2009/07/10/lobalwarmingco2uptemperaturesdownii.jpg”
Dealt with at #226.
“He alludes to (1) “AGW theory” using “past behavior of CO2 and atmosphere form[ing] part of the evidence for AGW theory.” (2) But that is simply not true. The IPCC tried to use Mann’s infamous “Hockey Stick” fiasco to “prove” that current temperatures were “unprecedented”.”
You’re confusing two separate issues:
1. The AGW claim is: increasing levels of human-produced CO2 are causing (forcing) potentially dangerous levels of atmospheric warming, and will continue to do so in the future.
This claim is supported by various lines of evidence, as well as physical laws and our understanding the way climate works. The AGW claim is not: “Yeah, well, it didn’t work that way in the past, but now it will because humans burning fossil fuels are adding a small fraction to the total annual CO2 emissions”.
2. The Hockey Stick shows temperatures over the past 1000 years. But the Hockey Stick is not identical to AGW theory. Rather, it is evidence in favour of AGW.
And the fact that you dispute the Hockey Stick does not show that the AGW claim is: “Yeah, well, it didn’t work that way in the past, but now it will because humans burning fossil fuels are adding a small fraction to the total annual CO2 emissions”.
“Why is 0.4% increase to radiative forcing from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide thought to threaten catastrophe when about 30% increase to radiative forcing from the Sun has had no discernible effect?”
I’m not sure which study you are referring to. Do you have a link?
10
Brendan,
Yes, you have the AGW claim right. Your claims this is supported by various lines of evidence, physical laws and your understanding of how the climate works is vacuous. There is far more evidence which suggests otherwise (i.e CO2 follows temp, predicted temperature rises haven’t happened, etc,), physical laws dispute AGW (thermodynamics, COE, atmospheric absorption, etc.) and it is clear that your understanding of how the climate works is flawed.
The hockey stick is not evidence of AGW, but a way to present data in a misleading way in order to back up a hypothesis that’s clearly wrong.
Relative to your last point, the evidence is that even the 80 W/m^2 difference in the incident solar energy between perihelion and aphelion
(20 W/m^2 average across the surface) is almost 10 times the forcing attributed by AGW to mans CO2 emissions so far. Based on the 0.8 climate sensitivity, this should result in a 16C difference, which clearly isn’t evident. If you insist that a study is required to establish the 80 W/m^2 difference or the lack of a 16C temperature difference, then your basic understanding of the data and physics regarding the climate is so fundamentally flawed that any opinion you might have regarding the climate is meaningless.
George
00
Brendan H:
July 31st, 2009 at 5:37 pm
Post 259
“Why is 0.4% increase to radiative forcing from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide thought to threaten catastrophe when about 30% increase to radiative forcing from the Sun has had no discernible effect?”
I’m not sure which study you are referring to. Do you have a link?
Brendan H – please refer to post 252.
Also from Brendan H’s post 259,
” 2. The Hockey Stick shows temperatures over the past 1000 years. But the Hockey Stick is not identical to AGW theory. Rather, it is evidence in favour of AGW. ”
Please refer to Post 244.
00
Derek: “Brendan H – please refer to post 252.”
Sorry, the slide-show is inoperative. Do you have a text document?
“Please refer to Post 244.”
The main claim at Post 244 is this:
” Why is 0.4% increase to radiative forcing from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide thought to threaten catastrophe when about 30% increase to radiative forcing from the Sun has had no discernible effect? ”
Which is repeated at #261. Repeating a claim doesn’t constitute an argument or evidence.
00
Brendan H:
August 1st, 2009 at 9:17 am
wrote,
” Repeating a claim doesn’t constitute an argument or evidence. ”
Repeating a question to you, not a claim.
Nor an answer from you either apparently.
It does highlight however what you avoid.
Also Brendan H quoted myself and “answered”,
Derek: “Brendan H – please refer to post 252.”
Sorry, the slide-show is inoperative. Do you have a text document?
I have been and checked the slide show linked to in post 252,
it appears to work.
Has anyone else tried the slideshow, does it work for them please.
Thanks
Derek.
00
Arrr, Brendan H, you meant Post 244 didn’t you,
that one does appear to work.
There is no linked to slide show in Post 252.
00
BTW – Regarding the Hockey Stick slide show, there is a Power point presentation, or a jpeg folder version freely available, as well as the accompanying excel sheet I compiled to produce the figures / plots from, from me, please see,
http://globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/index.php/topic,141.0.html
00
Before commenting on #259, there is a very interesting paper linked to and briefly quoted at the end of this post and it probably deserves some attention and discussion in its own right as it goes to the heart of the so-called “greenhouse” effect and CO2 as warming agents.
At #259 Brendan, after engaging in silliness, continues his insistence that there is a huge distinction between a 1.55 ppm/yr change in CO2 and “just under 2ppmv/year” (as stated by Norm Kalmanovitch in the quote I offered much earlier). While Brendan doesn’t realize it, he has burrowed into the minutia of an irrelevant set of data and continues to defend a distinction with little difference.
At the risk of wasting even more time with this, I think it worth illustrating the following. At NOAA’s ESRL site is this chart: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/images/obsmm.png which shows recent CO2 levels from four different sites covering 1974-2007. Let’s take three 10-year sections of that fairly linear history, 1975-1985, 1985-1995, and 1995-2005. Now it’s fairly easy to estimate the average of the four CO2 measurements right from the chart for each of the years defining these 10-year segments:
1975 ~330 ppm
1985 ~345 ppm
1995 ~359 ppm
2005 ~377 ppm
Which gives an average for each 10-year period of ~1.5 ppm/yr, ~1.4 ppm/yr and ~1.8 ppm/yr. Not exactly earth-shakingly different from either 1.55 ppm/yr or “just under 2ppmv/year” (as stated by Norm Kalmanovitch).
Using the data cited by Brendan from NOAA ESRL, I’ve plotted the atmospheric CO2 in ppm at:
http://www.webcommentary/images/climate/noaaesrl19602008.jpg
But that’s just a snippet of recent history. The following chart shows CO2 in the atmosphere (A Primer on CO2 and Climate, 2nd Ed., Howard C. Hayden, 2008, page 8.) based on 11-year averages from 90,000 measurements since 1812 as reported in 180 Years of Atmospheric CO2 Gas Analysis by Chemical Methods by Ernst-Georg Beck in “Energy and Environment” Vol 18, No. 2, 2007:
http://www.webcommentary/images/climate/co2history-ext.jpg
I’ve shown the NOAA ESRL data on the Hayden chart, extended. BTW, the 11-year averages of the NOAA ESRL data (1965-2003) are virtually indistinguishable from the basic yearly data, a tribute to the near linearity of the data over the span provided (1959-2008).
Brendan seems convinced that the slight differences between his figures and those referred to by Kalmanovitch are somehow significant to the AGW question. Yet somehow he cannot produce any evidence that any amount of CO2 makes much difference in terms of it being a climate forcing.
Then Brendan claims that at #173 he explained the lack of any continent-wide new high temperature records since human emissions of CO2 have, as claimed by AGW alarmists, been sufficient to cause climate warming. This is ALL he said on that:
“As for record temperatures, the highs you refer to are the result of specific and localised weather conditions and say nothing about long-term trends in the average global temperature.”
You can excuse me for failing to recognize this as a meaningful response. Evidently, Brendan cannot grasp the significance of continent-wide high temperature records. Nobody suggested the records had anything to do with “long-term trends in the average global temperature” as Brendan implies. Ever notice how climate alarmists can jump on every heat wave (remember the one that killed so many in France several years ago … because they didn’t have enough air conditioning?) as an example of human-caused global warming. Polar bear swimming in summer (perfectly natural), an ice fields collapsing in Antarctica (perfectly natural), and every mild spell in winter are always somehow linked to human emissions of CO2 by climate alarmists and that is being “a responsible good citizen” — but let a climate realist (AGW skeptic) ask, “Ah, gee, if the planet is heating up so much, why don’t we have any new continental high temperature records being set?” and that’s merely scoffed at.
I hadn’t bothered to point out that in the US during the last century, far more local high temperature records were set in the first half of the century and the record decade (by far) for high temperatures was the 1930s. All that before human emissions of CO2 were deemed significant enough even by AGW-believers to have caused a discernible climate impact. I’m sure Brendan would also ignore that inconvenient contradiction to “unprecedented global warming” during the last two decades of the 20th Century!
Brendan then claims he “answered” at #186 the example that indicates Hansen’s 1988 projections were grossly in error, when, in fact, he didn’t. He did employ the “Gavin Dodge” by recasting the point and questioning an irrelevant facet.
The point lost on Brendan is that Hansen’s 1988 best case scenario still over-estimated 2002 global temperatures (which since have dropped even more!) as Kalmanovitch observed, it was actually below the scenario “C” which represented what Hansen would consider a complete stop of global warming.
Of course, Hansen has since revised projections with still more projections that are not likely to be reflected by reality since the fundamental basis for the AGW theory is deeply flawed.
Brendan goes on to claim that at #226 he “dealt with” this (updated) chart:
http://www.webcommentary.com/images/climate/co2-levels-over-time1.jpg
But his idea of dealing with that chart is to produce one page that contains somewhat altered versions of the GEOCARB CO2 data shown in the above chart and temperature measurements that predate the basis of the temperatures shown in the above chart.
The temperature history comes from the Paleomap Project at: http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm
A rotated view of that chart is easier to view and I’ve put it at:
http://www.webcommentary.com/images/climate/globaltemp-rotate.jpg
(Note that the updated co2-over-time chart linked above includes the 600-million year portion of this temperature history)
The original of the co2-over-time chart is from http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
While the large error bounds for the CO2 estimates allow for varying views of this data (e.g., what Brendan cited), nevertheless, even the most creative data manipulator cannot reconstruct the CO2-Temperature data to demonstrate that CO2 changes climate. Ironically, the hypothesis that major long-term changes in atmospheric CO2 are more likely to be the result of climate than the cause of it can be asserted easily from any of the sources cited by Brendan.
Brendan’s reference to the 600,000 year record (a la Al Gore) is laughable, given it is well-established that a close look at the details shows that temperature changes lead CO2 changes. One has to believe in magic while suspending rational process and logic to maintain that the 600,000 year Vostok ice core record supports AGW theory.
Finally, Brendan tries to dismiss the inconvenient truth that past climate simply doesn’t support AGW theory when it comes to atmospheric CO2 and temperature histories. If CO2 forcing climate change hasn’t happened in the 3.5 billion years of climate since first life forms emerged, what are the chances that the relatively miniscule portions added to the atmosphere by fossil fuel consumption will suddenly change that relationship? It has nothing to do with the Hockey Stick, but that infamous (and incorrect) chart is the best the AGW climate alarmists could come up with as their centerpiece for their IPCC 2001 TAR.
Now, to blow Brendan’s mind completely, I’ll provide a link for him to this study (it’s translated from the German and is, at times, quite technical, but it still contains much useful information for non-scientists):
“Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics” Version 4.0 (January 6, 2009) replaces Version 1.0 (July 7, 2007) and later
Link: http://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.1161
Authors:
Gerhard Gerlich
Institut für Mathematische Physik
Technische Universität Carolo-Wilhelmina zu Braunschweig
Mendelssohnstraße 3
D-38106 Braunschweig
Federal Republic of Germany
[email protected]
and
Ralf D. Tscheuschner
Postfach 60 27 62
D-22237 Hamburg
Federal Republicof Germany
[email protected]
Abstract
The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature
of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33° C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f ) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.
— end abstract —
And the study’s conclusions at pp 90-91:
…
Thus there is simply no physical foundation of global climate computer models, for which still the chaos paradigma holds: Even in the case of a well-known deterministic dynamics nothing is predictable. That discretization has neither a physical nor a mathematical basis in non-linear systems is a lesson that has been taught in the discussion of the logistic differential equation, whose continuum solutions differ fundamentally from the discrete ones
Modern global climatology has confused and continues to confuse fact with fantasy by introducing the concept of a scenario replacing the concept of a model. In Ref. [N. Nakićenović et al., Emission Scenarios – A Special Report of Working Group III of the IPCC] a clear definition of what scenarios are is given:
Future greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are the product of very complex dynamics systems, determined by driving forces such as demographic development, socio-economic development, and technological change. Their future evolution is highly uncertain, Scenarios are alternative images of how the future might unfold and are an appropriate tool with which to analyze how driving forces may influence
future emission outcomes and to access the associated uncertainties. They assist in climate change analysis, including climate modeling and the assessment of impacts, adaptation and mitigation. The possibility that any single emissions path will occur as described in scenarios is highly uncertain.
Evidently, this is a description of a pseudo-scientific (i.e. non-scientific) method by the experts at the IPCC. The next meta-plane beyond physics would be a questionnaire among scientists already performed by von Storch or, finally, a democratic vote about the validity of a physical law. Exact science is going to be replaced by a sociological methodology involving a statistical field analysis and by “democratic” rules of order. This is in harmony with the definition of science advocated by the “scientific” website RealClimate.org that has integrated inflammatory statements, personal attacks and offenses against authors as a part of their “scientific” workflow.
4.3.3 Conclusion
A statistical analysis, no matter how sophisticated it is, heavily relies on underlying models and if the latter are plainly wrong then the analysis leads to nothing. One cannot detect and attribute something that does not exist for reason of principle like the CO2 greenhouse effect. There are so many unsolved and unsolvable problems in non-linearity and the climatologists believe to beat them all by working with crude approximations leading to unphysical results that have been corrected afterwards by mystic methods, flux control in the past, obscure ensemble averages over different climate institutes today, by excluding accidental global cooling results by hand, continuing the greenhouse inspired global climatologic tradition
of physically meaningless averages and physically meaningless applications of mathematical statistics.
In conclusion, the derivation of statements on the CO2 induced anthropogenic global warming out of the computer simulations lies outside any science.
If Brendan has trouble with that, I suggest he contact the authors by email and take it up with them.
00
Derek: “Arrr, Brendan H, you meant Post 244 didn’t you, that one does appear to work.”
That’s right. When I say it’s inoperative I mean it’s very slow to load and the result is thumbnails. Text would be preferable.
00
Derek,
Had no trouble with your interesting slideshow at 244! Slides and thumbnails worked fine.
I’m using DSL, not higher-speed cable.
I’m going to add your links to WEBCommentary’s Climate/Climate Change page.
Best,
Bob Webster
00
I’ve covered this elsewhere but check it yourself against the GIS Temp graph. If you use the decade around 1988 as the reference temperature (i.e. the year the prediction was made) then Hansen predicted 0.7 degrees of warming by 2010, to date we have seen 0.2 degrees of warming. Hansen also estimated 0.4 degrees of random unpredictable fluctuation in the model, not quite enough to cover the failure of his prediction. This is more than one “odd” year, I’m talking about bringing up the GISTemp graph and poking you finger into the middle of the spread.
More importantly, actual measurable warming in the past two decades has been smaller than the estimated random fluctuations in the model — implying it is too small to be representative of anything in particular.
The IPCC (and various others) have predicted three degrees of warming by 2100 (as referenced to the years around 1960 / 1970) on the “business as usual” scenario. If you thumb back a few pages to the “bull or bear” graph on this website you can see that it would take an exceptional burst of warming to meet this prediction.
Could be we get a decade of intense warming coming up, then the AGW predictions will be back on track, has not happened yet.
00
Bob Webster:
August 2nd, 2009 at 7:35 am
Derek,
Had no trouble with your interesting slideshow at 244! Slides and thumbnails worked fine.
I’m using DSL, not higher-speed cable.
I’m going to add your links to WEBCommentary’s Climate/Climate Change page.
Best,
Bob Webster
THANK YOU Bob. For confirming the slideshow works as it should acording to photobucket and bandwidth / user restrictions.
But a bigger THANK YOU also for adding the links at WEBCommentary’s Climate/Climate Change page,
I am honoured.
If you want a copy of the slide show, or excel sheet, etc, just email me.
I think we both recieved an email recently where both our email adresses were listed.
00
Bob: “The following chart shows CO2 in the atmosphere (A Primer on CO2 and Climate, 2nd Ed., Howard C. Hayden, 2008, page 8.) based on 11-year averages from 90,000 measurements since 1812…”
The link is not working. The record for carbon emissions since 1850 is:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Global_Carbon_Emission_by_Type.png
“Brendan seems convinced that the slight differences between his figures and those referred to by Kalmanovitch are somehow significant to the AGW question.”
As a matter of fact, it was you who offered the contrast between the rate of change in emissions and the increase in concentration as being worthy of note. You have yet to explain why this contrast is significant.
“Nobody suggested the [continent-wide high temperature] records had anything to do with “long-term trends in the average global temperature”.”
Including me. If you are arguing that the media and bloggers overstate the significance of individual warming events, I agree, and climate scientists caution against those sorts of claims.
That said, if the atmosphere is in a warming trend, the events you mention, such as the collapse of ice fields, have some significance in terms of indications of warming, since in a warming world these sorts of events will increase over time.
In that sense, a catalogue of warming events, such as lengthening growing seasons, will have more significance than one-off records, whether high or low.
“The point lost on Brendan is that Hansen’s 1988 best case scenario still over-estimated 2002 global temperatures (which since have dropped even more!)…”
I will repeat the exchange at #186:
“BW: ‘On this basis Hansen et al 1988 predicted a scenario “A” for global temperature if this rate of emissions was maintained…’
BH: ‘Hansen’s scenario A stipulated a continuing increase in emissions.’
BW: ‘Remarkably with CO2 emissions far in excess of those used for the model projections…’
BH: ‘If this comment refers to Hansen’s scenarios, it is clearly incorrect. The projected level of CO2 concentrations for his scenario B for 2008 was 385ppm, pretty close to the actual level of 387ppm for that year. So it is not correct to say that CO2 levels are far in excess of those used by Hansen in 1988.’
BW: ‘…in 2002 the global temperature was not only below the projected temperature for scenario “A”, it was actually below the scenario “C”…’
BH: ‘One cherry-picked year is meaningless. Hansen’s scenario B, the one that in 1988 he identified as the most likely scenario, tracks the actual overall temperature record reasonably well.’
http://www.realclimate.org/images/Hansen06_fig2.jpg”
I think my above points still hold.
“But his idea of dealing with that chart is to produce one page that contains somewhat altered versions of the GEOCARB CO2 data shown in the above chart and temperature measurements that predate the basis of the temperatures shown in the above chart.”
Our difference here boils down to which source we find the most credible.
“If CO2 forcing climate change hasn’t happened in the 3.5 billion years of climate since first life forms emerged…”
That’s a somewhat dogmatic claim. Evidence from paleoclimate – for example, at a time when sun’s strength was 30 percent less than today, CO2 and temperatures were a good deal higher — suggests, although does not conclusively confirm, the warming effects of CO2. Other evidence also shows that CO2 correlates well with warming periods. And CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
Empirical evidence aside, your argument above is logically invalid. Essentially, your claim is: x has never occurred in the past; therefore, it will never occur in the future. But this would only hold if the factors in each case were in every way identical, and that’s hardly likely.
In addition, we have a new, unprecedented factor: the rapid rise of atmospheric CO2 from human sources.
00
In #271 Brendan has trouble with a link … so do I. Not sure why because if I type the link address in it does work. The link below was pasted from a working page … not sure what the problem is with the other one:
http://www.webcommentary.com/images/climate/co2history-ext.jpg
The extent to which Brendan will “cherry-pick” parts of a statement to misrepresent the conclusion continues to astonish me … as if he thinks he can slip it by without notice!
Let me correct Brendan’s recitation of history:
“BW: ‘On this basis Hansen et al 1988 predicted a scenario “A” for global temperature if this rate of emissions was maintained…’
What he has just done is take a piece of Kalmanovitch’s background statement that I had quoted while excluding (…) the part of the statement that was key to the whole point which has been dodged completely. The complete background statement:
Hansen et al 1988 predicted a scenario “A” for global temperature if this rate of emissions was maintained, and a scenario “C if emissions were controlled and levelled off.
The point (conclusion offered by Kalmanovitch):
in 2002 the global temperature was not only below the projected temperature for scenario “A”, it was actually below the scenario “C” which represented what Hansen would consider a complete stop of global warming.
BH: ‘Hansen’s scenario A stipulated a continuing increase in emissions.’
As stated originally in my quote of Kalmanovitch.
BW: ‘Remarkably with CO2 emissions far in excess of those used for the model projections…’
Brendan continues to pounce on an introductory statement that is quite irrelevant to the point of the conclusion. That being, emissions were NOT reduced worldwide, they continued to increase (scenario “A”), but at a rate that may have differed from Hansen’s projections. Nevertheless, they EXCEEDED Hansen’s scenario “C”.
BH: ‘If this comment refers to Hansen’s scenarios, it is clearly incorrect. The projected level of CO2 concentrations for his scenario B for 2008 was 385ppm, pretty close to the actual level of 387ppm for that year. So it is not correct to say that CO2 levels are far in excess of those used by Hansen in 1988.’
It did not specifically refer to any Hansen scenario, it was simply Kalmanovitch’s characterization of the state of emissions over the years since 1988 … which should have been self-evident to Brendan. References to Hansen’s scenario B are irrelevant as they were not part of Kalmanovitch’s discussion that I was quoting.
BW: ‘…in 2002 the global temperature was not only below the projected temperature for scenario “A”, it was actually below the scenario “C”…’
That is a correct summary of Kalmanovitch’s point … that being, Hansen got it wrong in 1988. (Point: If he got it wrong in 1988, why should we believe his later forecasts?)
BH: ‘One cherry-picked year is meaningless. Hansen’s scenario B, the one that in 1988 he identified as the most likely scenario, tracks the actual overall temperature record reasonably well.’
I agree, cherry picking is not meaningful, whether with data or with statements designed to mischaracterize the point.
There is no historic demonstration that CO2 changes LEAD climate changes. CO2 always has followed temperature. Brendan should note that 70% of the globe is covered by the largest emitter of CO2, the oceans, and this should provide him a large clue as to why CO2 lags temperature changes.
An unprecedented change in puny human emissions (compared to natural emissions) of a minor greenhouse gas (compared with water vapor and clouds) is hardly a significant sign of climate change.
CO2’s atmospheric warming capacity is vastly overstated by the IPCC and their assumptions are supported by weak computer simulations and nothing more.
Real world observation reveals that AGW is a fraud.
00
Bob: “http://www.webcommentary.com/images/climate/co2history-ext.jpg
As the article below explains, a large proportion of these CO2 measurements were taken at sites where CO2 concentrations were likely much higher than the atmospheric average. Furthermore, the fluxes required to produce these variations were impossibly large. And how likely would it be that CO2 concentrations from 1800 to 1958 were all over the map like a bad woman, and then from 1958 suddenly assumed a steady year-on-year increase.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/beck-to-the-future/
“Hansen et al 1988 predicted a scenario “A” for global temperature if this rate of emissions was maintained, and a scenario “C if emissions were controlled and levelled off.”
You need to spell out the significance of this statement. Neither scenario A or C has eventuated.
“It did not specifically refer to any Hansen scenario, it was simply Kalmanovitch’s characterization of the state of emissions over the years since 1988.”
Look at the statement again: “‘Remarkably with CO2 emissions far in excess of those used for the model projections…’”
So which model projections was he referring to?
BW: ‘…in 2002 the global temperature was not only below the projected
temperature for scenario “A”, it was actually below the scenario “C”…’
That is a correct summary of Kalmanovitch’s point … that being, Hansen got it wrong in 1988.”
And then you agree that cherry picking is not meaningful, thus undermining the very point you are trying to make.
“Real world observation reveals that AGW is a fraud.”
Real world observations will reveal whether AGW is a sufficient explanation for climate change. To establish fraud you would have to discover evidence that AGW theory is deliberately designed to deceive.
If the sceptical scientific literature were on a par with the literature supporting the AGW claim, there would be no cries of fraud. So the fraud claim is an admission of bankruptcy and defeat by climate sceptics.
What’s more, the fraud claim is the default setting of climate scepticism: in the face of the overwhelming scientific evidence in favour of AGW, the sceptic argument invariably devolves to accusations of fraud.
Further, the fraud claim is based on political and ideological considerations, ie claims that leftist environmentalists have somehow hijacked the science for their own nefarious ends. Thus, climate scepticism ultimately devolves to a political and ideological world view.
00
Brendan H:
August 4th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
wrote,
” Real world observations will reveal whether AGW is a sufficient explanation for climate change. To establish fraud you would have to discover evidence that AGW theory is deliberately designed to deceive. ”
Specifically,
“evidence that AGW theory is deliberately designed to deceive. ”
James Hansen’s assumed and unobserved water vapour feedback warming mechanism in the upper troposphere.
As modelled, but NOT observed.
Micheal Mann’s Hockey Stick, that portrays a completely different “climate reconstruction” to all previous accepted reconstructions, AND that completely contradicts the known (documented and archeological evidence) human history.
Mauna Loa Observatory “global” CO2 data set – A sixty year record of a supposedly “measured” and supposedly global CO2 atmospheric levels,
with no raw data, AND no realeased algorithms / corrects / interpolations as used.
Add to the above basic building blocks, the political and beauocratic (dream) motivation (across the board) for enabling more control of our daily lives and higher taxes.
It is no wonder this fraud has become a political (and beauocratic) bandwagon underpinned by BAD science.
00
BTW Brendan H, as you have not attempted an answer yet regarding wind power,
here is a good link for you..
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25877969-5000117,00.html
Excerpt,
” An unreliable 484MW wind farm would not only cost more than two times a gas-fired 550MW power station. But it would allow perhaps only 25MW of coal-fired generation to be shut down – whereas the gas plant could close its full 550MW.
The analysis comes in a series of papers. The first, from weather analyst Andrew Miskelly and physicist Tom Quirk, tracks the performance of the wind farms across Victoria, South Australia, New South Wales and Tasmania for the entire month of June in five-minute intervals. ”
and,
” A second analysis, from engineer and power industry authority Peter Lang, shows three equally devastating and simple conclusions.
Wind power does not avoid significant amounts of greenhouse gas emissions. It is a very, very high-cost way to avoid such emissions – costing between $830 and $1149 to avoid one tonne of CO2 emitted per MWh as against just $22 with nuclear power. And wind power, even with high capacity penetration, could never make a significant contribution to reducing those emissions. ”
I also share this dream,
” I have a dream: to be at the first dismantling of the first turbine. We’ll keep some as a reminder of a time when politicians and supposed intellectual elites lost all touch with reality. “
00
At #273 Brendan is at it again, missing the obvious.
The purpose of pointing out CO2 varies should be obvious.
By cherry-picking data, AGW-believers construct a continuous curve back to the beginning of Beck’s analysis. But the extended data they cherry-pick is based on ice core proxy analysis, not chemical analysis. They simply ignore data that is “inconvenient.”
Averaging chemical analysis data produces a considerably higher figure (321 ppm) than the IPCC’s pre-industrial claim of 280 ppm. Considering Beck’s analysis covered 50 years PRIOR to the industrial revolution, it’s a bit far-fetched to suggest local industrialization had anything to do with the readings. It is also worth noting that in the long history of CO2 in the atmosphere, levels below 400 are by comparison low.
From Global Warming False Alarm – The Bad Science Behind the UN’s Assertion That Man-Made CO2 Causes Global Warming (2009, Ralph B. Alexander):
Brendan still cannot “get it” with respect to Kalmanovitch’s statements, despite my clearly putting it in front of him.
Background:
Hansen et al 1988 predicted a scenario “A” for global temperature if this rate of emissions was maintained, and a scenario “C if emissions were controlled and levelled off.
Point:
in 2002 the global temperature was not only below the projected temperature for scenario “A”, it was actually below the scenario “C” which represented what Hansen would consider a complete stop of global warming.
So, again, there it is. Hansen made several projections in 1988 and the actual global temperature in 2002 was LESS THAN the most optimistic of Hansen’s 1988 predictions despite growing atmospheric CO2.
By 2008, Hansen’s 1988 projections were worse still:
http://theresilientearth.com/files/images/hansen_forecast_1988-no_title.jpg
Explanation of significance: If Hansen got it wrong in 1988, why should we believe him today?
Note, too, that global temperatures have dropped since 2002, and the downturn has accelerated over the past several years (based on the best record of temperature available, from satellites). Surface stations records are hopelessly corrupt and cannot be relied upon. See http://www.surfacestations.org/
Regarding the issue of fraud, in Brendan’s own words:
“To establish fraud you would have to discover evidence that AGW theory is deliberately designed to deceive.”
Well, Derek did a good job pointing out several instances of fraud. But there is even more. Much more.
How about the missing tropical mid-troposphere greenhouse warming “fingerprint” … real world observations find it missing. So AGWers decided to come up with yet another proxy for easily obtainable real world data so they could manipulate the methodology to show something that isn’t! Lo and behold, they come up with a sham proxy for temperature based on wind.
Then, to counter over 50 years of Antarctic cooling with a sudden discovery that the Antarctic is really warming (despite growing snow/ice thickness and continental glaciers expanding out to the sea), yet another Mann-made methodology that purports to show warming where none exists is offered.
Apparently gross fraud was committed with urban heat island (UHI) adjustment papers relied upon by the IPCC. Two key research papers co-authored by Wei-Chyung Wang (IPCC climate scientist) in 1990 have been used as the basis for the IPCC treating UHI effects as insignificant, despite strong evidence to the contrary. Again, from Global Warming False Alarm by Alexander:
“In explaining why he accepted the IPCC’s invitation to serve as a reviewer, [Ross] McKitrick says:
The IPCC attempts to dismiss this by claiming temperature measurements are adequately adjusted for urbanization. But the Wang studies (he was lead author) upon which UHI adjustments are based was fraudulently conceived. Wang’s China paper was based on data gathered over 1954-1983 in both rural and urban areas. The other paper included the China data but also included rural data from Australia and the former Soviet Union. From Global Warming False Alarm:
Both studies included assurances that weather stations were chosen that had “few, if any, changes in instrumentation, location, or observation times.” Station consistency over the 30-years of observations was critical to the validity of the research. Of 260 stations identified in a joint US DOE and Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) project, Wang selected 84 for his studies. But not all of the selected stations had data over these years. A year after Wang published his research, a joint DOE/CAS report stated that for 49 of the 84 stations “station histories are not currently available” and details of changes in location and instrumentation were not known! Clearly, for those 49 (of the 84) stations, the assurances given by Wang were obviously not supportable (i.e., fraudulent). Of the 35 remaining stations, many had been moved multiple times and one station had been in five different locations, some as far as 26 miles apart! Another station had been in the center of a city and was moved 9 miles away to the cooler seashore. The DOE/CAS report added:
Wang’s invalidated research is the basis for the IPCC claim that the urban heat island effect is negligible. Investigators have concluded that improperly/insufficiently adjusted data based on the Wang papers could account for as much as 0.4°C, a substantial portion of claimed “global warming.”
But that’s just the tip of the iceberg. In the IPCC’s own guidance as to how Working Group reports are to be made consistent with the previously-determined conclusions of political writers of the Summary for Policymakers and the Overview Chapter (the material that gets most media and public exposure). The IPCC’s guidance states:
As Alexander observed in Global Warming False Alarm:
AGW is laced with fraud, deceit, manipulation and misrepresentation. It would be a fair statement to observe that “AGW theory is deliberately designed to deceive”.
When the public is hounded with claims of “greenhouse warming by CO2” having potentially disastrous consequences and there is no real scientific foundation for such claim, then the term fraud comes to mind fairly quickly.
This chart illustrates the potential for more warming by CO2:
http://theresilientearth.com/files/images/co2_temperature_curve_saturation.png
The real question still remains, does it really matter what CO2 is doing?
Oh yes, Wang, Mann, etc., msy all have “peer-review” of their material, but, as we know, that doesn’t mean anything when peers are as corrupt as those whose work is being reviewed. Ironically, Mann’s “Hockey Stick” analysis was the centerpiece of the IPCC’s TAR, despite it never having been peer-reviewed. Nevertheless, AGW-scientists still try to claim some validity for the discredited work.
Skeptical positions are based on science and a deep regard for truth and honest scientific investigation.
The entire sorry spectacle of the IPCC (and their AGW theory), whose very mandate is styled to find a significant influence of human activity on climate, is tainted by misrepresentation, conjecture, assumption, and the necessity to rely upon unproven, clearly inadequate computer simulations of poorly understood climate change science. The IPCC process is the antithesis of “robust scientific investigation.” It is little more than political posturing supported by well-funded “scientists” who’ve sold their integrity for lucrative grants.
00
Derek: “BTW Brendan H, as you have not attempted an answer yet regarding wind power, here is a good link for you…”
The article discusses gas versus wind. How competitive wind is against other sources of energy depends on a number of factors:
Quote: “When conventional power is substituted by wind power, the avoided cost depends on the degree to which wind power substitutes each of three components – fuel cost, O&M costs and capital.”
And: “The conventional power costs avoidable through use of wind electricity will vary from country to country. Fig. 4 shows the range, assuming that all conventional fuel and O&M costs are avoided and that wind power is assigned a capacity credit of 25%.
“This shows that in Spain, for example, for each kWh of electricity generated by wind power which displaces a kWh of gas power, approximately 5.2 €cents/kWh are saved in gas fuel, O&M costs and displaced capital costs. Therefore, if a wind turbine could be installed in Spain at an average cost below 5.2 €cents/kWh, this would make wind power economically competitive in comparison with new gasfired plant.
“The competitiveness of wind will depend on short term prediction, and specific conditions for budding into short-term forward and spot markets at the power exchange.
“These calculations show that although wind power might be more expensive than conventional power today, it may nevertheless take up a significant share in investors’ power plant portfolios as a hedge against volatile fossil fuel prices. The constancy of wind power costs justifies a relatively higher cost per kWh compared to the more risky future costs of conventional power due to volatile oil, coal and gas prices.”
http://www.ewea.org/fileadmin/ewea_documents/documents/press_releases/factsheet_economy2.pdf
Using wind power or any other energy source comes down to horses for courses. Where I live, wind is an abundant resource, and is used as part of a mix with other resources such as hydro, thermal and coal. Other countries will have other permutations.
00
Bob: “But the extended data they cherry-pick is based on ice core proxy analysis, not chemical analysis.”
The ice core data is more consistent with what we know of CO2 concentrations, and, importantly, the physical constraints that mitigate against the see-saw swings you support.
“So, again, there it is. Hansen made several projections in 1988 and the actual global temperature in 2002 was LESS THAN the most optimistic of Hansen’s 1988 predictions despite growing atmospheric CO2.”
Again, I can only advise against cherry-picking to get the result you want. And of course, temperatures have been higher post-2002.
“AGW is laced with fraud, deceit, manipulation and misrepresentation.”
In affect, you base your claims on methodologies that you don’t agree with. That’s a long way from fraud. But as I say, the fraud claim is an admission of defeat.
Clearly, it’s always possible that some scientist, whether in climate science or elsewhere, could be engaged in fraud. However, it’s unlikely that a science practised by many practitioners across the world would be “laced with fraud, deceit, manipulation and misrepresentation”.
Only those with a hard-line ideological axe to grind would make such a sweeping generalisation.
00
Brendan H:
August 5th, 2009 at 5:41 pm
wrote,
How competitive wind is against other sources of energy depends on a number of factors:
Brendan H quoted,
” These calculations show that although wind power might be more expensive than conventional power today ”
and,
” The constancy of wind power costs justifies a relatively higher cost per kWh compared to the more risky future costs of conventional power due to volatile oil, coal and gas prices ”
The “constancy” of wind power – volatile oil, coal, gas prices…
” although wind power might be more expensive than conventional power today ”
IT IS MORE EXPENSIVE TODAY, THERE IS NO “MIGHT BE” ABOUT IT.
.
” The constancy of wind power costs justifies a relatively higher cost per kWh ”
WHAT DOES CONSTANCY MEAN…AND THEN ADMITS WIND POWER IS MORE EXPENSIVE.
.
Sold using fear then…………….
However, wind power,
IS more expensive.
Also wind power
IS unreliable,
DOES cost jobs (see Spain).
Cracking advice in a recession Brendan H.
BTW – Hydro, is opposed by many “environMENTALists”
(read AGW / Green supporters / believers).
Because it minces too many fish,
so that’s OK to bird pate but
a big NO to fish pate,
and of course an even deeper (unneccesarilly) recession..
00
Regarding wind power,
DOES cost jobs (see Spain).
http://www.nature.com/naturejobs/2009/090625/full/nj7250-1156a.html
Excerpt,
” But economist Roger Meiners, a senior fellow with the Property & Environment Research Center, an environmental think tank based in Bozeman, Montana that in May published 7 Myths About Green Jobs, says that green jobs actually cost the economy. The report says that in Spain, for example, each green job created has destroyed 2.2 existing jobs in other sectors.
The report says green-job outlays take resources from other sectors, raise energy prices, and encourage companies to move production facilities to lower-cost nations. ”
Ironically (and entirely predictably in my opinion)
I have just recieved a “nice” letter from work,
stating my (manufacturing) job is going to Thailand.
.
Blooming Greens / AGW believers and their wind turbines / climate nonsense.
I will be far from the last recieving such “nice” letters regarding their job
in many Western countries in the near future.
00
Brendan,
The biggest problem with wind and solar is that it is transient enough than almsot an equal amount of generating capacity from other sources must be on-line (i.e. spinning reserve) so that when the wind stops or a cloud passes by, the grid doesn’t collapse. Now you need fossil fuel plants burning fuel to stay hot yet not producing electricity. Do you call this efficient?
Where I live in California, the incremental electricity costs are around $0.30 per KW hour, which is just about the most expensive in the US (I think Hawaii might be more expensive). The reason for this is that we have among the highest amount of ‘renewable’ sources, whose higher costs are passed directly to the consumer. And of course, a lot of the stupidity surrounding this has been driven by the lunatics making laws in Sacramento mandating a ‘greenocracy’.
Even with such a high cost of electricity, solar voltaic is still not viable without subsidies. A modest 5KW system costing $25K (the minimum I would need) would take about 20 years to pay for itself (at $100/mo saving), which is about the expected lifespan of the solar cells themselves.
I should point out that I went the solar water heater route back when that was in vogue. Even after subsidies which covered a substantial chunk of the cost of the system, it never came close to paying for itself before the system failed. The company that manufactured the system went out of business when the subsidies dried up, so once the system failed, I was SOL. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.
George
00
The leaders of the greenies KNOW the absurdity of their so called alternate energy programs. Their intermediate goal is to destroy the economic production of energy. Then once that is achieved, prohibit the use of renewable energy sources because they desecrate mother earth. All with the intended purpose of returning mankind to the state prior to the stone age with the desired result that 99.99+% of the human population of the earth will starve to death. It is their “final solution”. They have no real interest in protecting or saving anything. They want to destroy man BECAUSE he is human (can use reason and can know) even at the cost of their own extinction.
Don’t look at their words. Look at the consequences of their actions. THAT is their purpose.
00
Lionell,
Yes, the greenies have the same agenda as the Taliban. Isn’t it about time to declare organizations like Greenpeace, the Sierra club and the IPCC as terrorist organizations? To me, it doesn’t matter whether you’re using suicide bombers or fake science to destroy an enemy, it’s still an act of terrorism. Holding a population at bay with fear, forcing an agenda on others and harming and/or denigrating anyone who opposes you are all tactics used by terrorist organizations. The ‘greenie’ approach is just more insidious as it’s packaged as a Trojan Horse.
George
00
co2isnotevil @ 283: Isn’t it about time to declare organizations like Greenpeace, the Sierra club and the IPCC as terrorist organizations?
Yes. With our national terrorists in charge of the government – all three branches – we have our work cut out for us. Add to that, the terrorists who are in charge of the UN, the World Bank, and likely NATO, the task is gigantic.
I doubt that they will be cooperative with our goal. To the contrary, we will be designated as terrorists because we believe we have the right to be free of government coercion. Imagine the horror of the fact that we actually believe in the founding principles of our nation. We actually expect the government uphold the Constitution by respecting our individual rights to Life, Liberty, Property, and Pursuit of Happiness.
00
George: “The biggest problem with wind and solar is that it is transient enough than almsot an equal amount of generating capacity from other sources must be on-line (i.e. spinning reserve) so that when the wind stops or a cloud passes by, the grid doesn’t collapse.”
Not necessarily. This fact sheet from the Renewable Energy Research Laboratory at the University of Massachusetts says otherwise.
Quote: “…the results to date also lay to rest one of the major concerns often expressed about wind power: that a wind plant would need to be backed up with an equal amount of dispatchable generation. It is now clear that, even at moderate wind penetrations, the need for additional generation to compensate for wind variations is substantially less than one-for-one and is often closer to zero.”
http://www.ceere.org/rerl/about_wind/RERL_Fact_Sheet_2a_Capacity_Factor.pdf
The fact sheet also makes some comments about intermittency.
“Recent studies of wind power installed on United States grids have attempted to determine the actual cost of intermittency. They indicate it is currently in the area of a 2-5 tenths of a cent per kWh, depending on penetration. The higher costs were for 20% penetration. A few tenths of a cent per kWh is not insignificant, but it is still a small percentage of the total cost of generating power (which for wind power might be in the range of 2-6 ¢/kWh). Intermittency does impose a cost but that cost is typically not prohibitive, as some people imagine.”
00
Brendan,
For the Altamont pass wind farm, it takes almost 5 KW if installed capacity to generate 1 KW of energy based on the average utilization of about 21%, moreover; the probability of producing energy continuously for 24 hours or more is almost zero. This duty cycle is far too short to spin down any other capacity as it often takes many hours to bring a power plant up to speed.
The cost of intermittency in the link you provided is not backed up with any good data and assumes that the percentage of power being produced by wind is negligible. You also must take into account the bias of ceere.org before blindly accepting anything they say. The problem is that if the probability of intermittency is anything other than 0, spinning reserve must be present. Here in CA, if the spinning reserve in the system falls below the capacity of the largest, single generating source, PGE goes into a power emergency situation and shedable load is automatically taken off line. You don’t seem to understand that the cost of letting the grid fail is so large that it must be avoided at all costs, hence spinning reserve.
You can trade off spinning reserve for shedable load, but the low hanging fruit here has already been picked and the next level is rotating block outages. If rotating block outages becomes the norm, people will surely revolt, especially when you’re trying to charge your electric car at 0.50/KW hour.
BTW, gasoline contains about 150 MJ/gallon, so $0.50/KW hour is equivalent to about $20/gallon. Yes, an electric motor is more efficient, so the equivalent cost is between $10 and $20/gallon. A cost of $0.50/KW hour is not even close to the worst case predicted for a cap and tax regime. As it is, I’m already paying over $0.30/KW hour already for my incremental joules.
George
00
At #278 Brendan shows how utterly unqualified he is to be debating any science. He is very obviously oblivious to the scientific method and takes all his cues from the climate alarmist playbook, allowing nothing else to penetrate.
Despite numerous extensive efforts to open his tightly closed eyes to a little climate reality, Brendan prefers the stupor of scientific illiteracy he finds in the sanctity of climate alarmism.
In the cited response, Brendan outdoes himself for sheer nonsense.
Dismissing the work of Beck and over 90,000 measurements of atmospheric CO2 over the past 200 years as somehow less representative than ice core proxy data is laughable if not pathetic. Brendan finds “see-saw swings” in CO2 (his description) are somehow unacceptable because, … well, he imagines some physical restraints that prevent CO2 in the atmosphere from changing at that rate.
Flummoxed and incapable of explaining why Hansen’s 1988 predictions were so bad, Brendan resorts to an irrelevant reference to “cherry-picking” and claims “temperatures have been higher post-2002.” As anyone can see from the best record available (satellite), temperatures have been trending down significantly since 2002:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/MSUCRUCO2June09.jpg
(Hadley in rose, MSU in blue, CO2 in green)
The trend lines are not only DOWN post-2002 (Hadley is -0.15°C, MSU is -0.20°C in just seven years!), the trends are dropping at a remarkable rate.
In answer to the detailed case of fraud put to him, Brendan simply ignores the facts, claiming it’s just a matter of disagreement over methodologies. Well, one could say that. Climate realists prefer methodologies that are sound and supportable in the real world. None of the “methodologies” in which Brendan seeks comfort is supportable by real-world data. Several have been exposed as outright frauds (Mann’s “Hockey Stick”; Wang’s UHI fiction). But that doesn’t bother Brendan. After all, RealClimate (the oxymoron of the century) proclaims them valid.
And, of course, Brendan could not dispute the IPCC’s own words that describe how the science must fit the pre-ordained conclusions of the summary writers!
Exposing his naivete, Brendan writes: … it’s unlikely that a science practised by many practitioners across the world would be “laced with fraud, deceit, manipulation and misrepresentation”.
Only one who has no understanding of science and who swallows the alarmist claim of “consensus” could possibly put on such a sweeping display of ignorance.
00
There are technologies such as Zinc Bromine Batteries that are relatively cheap to make, have good charge/discharge cycles and easy to take apart and refurbish too. However, everything comes at a cost, so some power is lost in the battery and the AC/DC conversion, plus you need to build large sheds for the battery arrays and so it goes.
Having a coal-fired, steam turbine power plant sitting on top of a coal mine within easy reach of water reserve is damn hard to beat on a cost and reliability basis.
In NSW they are working towards “smart” power meters that offer householders the opportunity to sell back to the grid, and also offers them a buy price that fluctuates with demand. This gives a direct financial incentive for every electricity buyer to make their best effort to buy off-peak. Let’s suppose I need backup batteries for my computers anyhow… so I program them to charge at the cheapest price and discharge at the most expensive price and I immediately make a profit.
FWIW, I believe that the “sell back to grid” price should always be exactly equal to the buy price (seems fair and easy to understand), but there’s a big argument over how this will actually be calculated.
Mind you, someone has to pay for the highly complex metering devices, and the not inconsiderable R&D in building an electronic meter that is as predictable and reliable as the current mechanical meters (that have had 100 years of fine tuning). Since they have already forced me to pay for many miles of temporary fencing to obstruct movement throughout the city when George Bush visited, and a whole bunch of other ridiculous unexplained cost blowouts when the Pope visited, at least this way they are forcing me to pay for something that might vaguely have some scientific purpose.
00
At the moment our maximum peak electric rate is $0.15 per kW hour, and the Australian money is still a fraction lower than USD (but climbing fast). On your conversion, I calculate that the petrol-equivalent price of electricity is $1.65 per litre, real petrol is costing us something like $1.20 per litre to $1.40 per litre (depending on time of day, day of week and whether you want real octane, or a random mix of benzine, alcohol and floor sweepings).
For cooking purposes it would be cheaper to run the stove on a mixture of petrol and sand 🙁 but the food would taste different.
00
Tel,
My parents live on the East coast and get most of their power from coal and pay about 0.12/KW hour peak. The reason electricity costs more than 2X in California is because of the large amount of ‘renewables’ on the grid and pressure from environmental activists against building new power plants and transmission facilities. Talk about green gone bad …
George
00
Derek: “The cost of intermittency in the link you provided is not backed up with any good data…”
The fact sheet I referred to references a summary of various studies carried out up to 2003. The summary mentions various data. Whether they are “good” or not I can’t say.
http://www.uwig.org/UWIGOpImpFinal11-03.pdf
“You don’t seem to understand that the cost of letting the grid fail is so large that it must be avoided at all costs, hence spinning reserve.”
I understand that. The above summary is saying that the costs of the reserve are less than assumed.
00
“Brendan prefers the stupor of scientific illiteracy…”
Bob, I am now going to change the subject to another matter. Consider the following:
“The pollution is in Brendan’s understanding…a mountain of foggy illogic…If it is possible for you to be Objective…I am just trying to find a simple enough construction for you to comprehend…Clearly, you cannot engage and stay focused…it is pointless to try to engage you in an intelligent discussion…I believe it would be easier to teach a rock to speak…I have to wonder if you’re as dense as your postings suggest…you AGW true-believers…your evident discomfort with numbers (self-admitted) seems to spill over to your grasp of logic…you are, indeed, a lost cause whose difficulty with numbers and logic…Almost like trying to teach a rock to talk…blind faith AGW true-believers…those who worship at the church of AGW…I hope the simple maths and logic of this question is not beyond his abilities…Flummoxed and incapable…sweeping display of ignorance…”
The occasional expression of irritation can be ignored, but your posts have shown a consistent pattern of denigration. This behavior is unacceptable to me. Change your behavior and then we can continue the discussion.
00
Brendan H,
Talking of behaviour Brendan H,
in Post 291 who are you quoting. ?
Please do not invent quotes for me.
You still have not apologised for the language you replied to me with near the start of this thread that was so rude, abusive, and plain dumb, it HAD to be snipped by Jo herself.
You seem unable to grasp the Hockey Stick is a fraud, and
the very same Mann is behind Real Climate.org.nonsense.
And the same Mann is involved in trying to tell us
the Antarctic is warming when it is not.
You also blindly believe that accepting a 60 record WITH NO RAW DATA,
ie MLO, is perfectly reasonable. Your response, on several occasions in this thread has been to say your not qualified to comment.
NO RAW DATA, NO RECORD. Pretty simple really.
You even think wind turbines look “good”….
What planet are you on. Your behaviour, language, and reasoning are all deplorable, and should be a source of immense embarresment to you.
Discussion Brendan H you do not know the meaning of the word.
Now if you’d like to return to the topic of this thread,
FUNDED ARROGANCE then please Brendan H do so.
Aaarh, but of course, you have never left it have you.
00
At #292 Brendan H has nicely consolidated the record of my frustration with his dodging of major points and rephrasing side issues to replace primary issues. This is classic obfuscation. Yes, I admit to having a low threshold of tolerance for those who cannot stay on point or who recast the point into something that becomes unrecognizable.
Given straightforward issues, they are all swept aside, ignored, or recast so that it has become impossible to recognize them.
I’ve gathered a lot of material that I provided for Brendan’s enlightenment, but little of it appears to have been even perused.
In his previous reply at #278 Brendan opined,
I provided for his enlightment the best record of global temperature available (satellite):
At which point Brendan H bails out at #292.
Well, I can’t say I’ll miss wasting my time trying to keep him on point.
I note at #224 Brian pretty well sums up the difficulty dealing with Brendan.
And, of course, at #293 above, Derek appears to have about had enough too.
There is a lot of excellent material at Joanne’s site.
Time for me to leave this topic and move on.
PS: Anyone know how these author icons are selected? Mine even makes me grouchy! I’d love to change it, but cannot find a way to make that happen. Help is always gratefully appreciated.
00
Go to http://en.gravatar.com/ and you can provide your own image. Many blogs are set up for automatic substitutes if there is no gravatar registered for your email address.
00
Derek: “Talking of behaviour Brendan H, in Post 291 who are you quoting. ? Please do not invent quotes for me.
You still have not apologised for the language you replied to me with near the start of this thread that was so rude, abusive, and plain dumb, it HAD to be snipped by Jo herself.”
Fair enough. I apologise for confusing you with George, and I also apologise for calling you an arsehole. It was an overreaction and a gratuitous slip that was far below my usual standard of discourse.
00
Bob: “Brendan H has nicely consolidated the record of my frustration…”
Bob, you are not unique in experiencing frustration during these types of debates. The way to rise above frustration is to concentrate on the issue rather than the opponent, and to strive to present information as accurately and completely as one is able.
In addition, I think it helps to have confidence that, for all its faults, the science is progressing towards improving its explanation for the world’s climate, within the limitations of human understanding.
00
Mike: Thanks for the tip!
00
The excellent piece by Willie Soon and David R. Legates, Answering Three Simple Questions, describes the non-response to Sen. Steve Fielding’s questions from Penny Sackett (Chief Scientist of Australia) and Professor Will Steffen (ANU Climate Research Centre):
It would appear Sackett and Steffen practice a variant of the “Gavin Dodge”.
Reminds me of non-responses of other practitioners of the “Gavin Dodge”.
Geez, forgot to change the avatar!
00
Brian G Valentine said:
“So, in answer to your question – yes indeed, if Ed Teller is Hungarian, then I am Hungarian too.”
Commenting:
I am a Geophysicist 30 years experience. I signed that same petition and was quite proud to put my name with Teller’s. In that sense, I guess I am Hungarian too.
00
I am a skeptic but not a scientist. I have avidly been reading about this debate for some time and I skip the really scientific bits as I don’t understand them.
However, the behaviour of warmists (abusive and refusing answers and information) is enough to tell me I can’t trust them.
I believe we are approaching Peak oil and so I do believe we need to look for alternative fuels within the next few decades. This however has nothing to do with carbon credits and maybe we should start using this climate funding to look at effective alternative fuels. On the other hand I remember being told there would be no oil left in the world by the 90s.
My real fear is not earth’s natural climate behaviour but the creation of radio active waste. This is a genuine threat to life on earth and yet no one seems very concerned by it and many blithely suggest we should switch to ‘clean’ nuclear energy; how can a product with the most lethal by products imaginable be regarded as ‘clean’?
00
Kiehl and Trenberth’s global energy budget appears a useful fabrication for IPCC, even the newest version has serious issues:
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/10.1175_2008BAMS2634.1.pdf
As far as I can tell reading, the global energy budget based on best available measurements of ingoings and outgoings doesn’t balance. The total effect of CO2 is within the measurement error of many energy budget line items. Because the budget doesn’t balance (out of balance is way larger than total CO2 effect), the computer model is used to make best guesses as to what the “correct” budget items should be. The CO2 forcing appears to be a computer model creation which is consistent with the computer model. One could remove CO2 completely from the energy budget and still make the computer model balance and the warming trend would be the same because the net radiative forcing that is assumed to cause the temperature rise is exactly the same. The harder I look, the worse it gets for climate predictors.
00
BTW, the whole anti-carbon thing appears a convenient lie for an Al Gore double play:
1. making money on carbon trading
2. making money on nuclear power stations as the only “clean” alternative that can reduce carbon emissions to meet large reduction targets
Did you know you only have to buy 3/5 people on a committee to get a Nobel Peace Prize!
00
BTW, the whole anti-carbon thing appears a convenient lie for an Al Gore double play:
1. making money on carbon trading
2. making money on nuclear power stations as the only “clean” alternative that can reduce carbon emissions to meet large reduction targets
Did you know you only have to buy 3/5 people on a committee to get a Nobel Peace Prize!
00
Wow, this is a lively discussion. I will enjoy following it as it unfolds and hopefully contributing.
00
Nick,
Here is an interesting update on the “Arctic is melting” claim from “the usual suspects”:
Comparing Arctic ice for April 13, 2010 to April 13, 2007 (the year summer melt was maximum, been growing ever since!):
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=04&fd=13&fy=2007&sm=04&sd=13&sy=2010
While it is clear that there is more sea ice now than there was in 2007 on the same date, the real significance of this comparison is in the “% concentration” revealed by the nearly complete 100% (deep magenta) color of today vs. the major areas of lighter coloring for 2007. This indicates the ice is thicker and more uniform (because much of it is new ice which is harder and more durable) than it was just three years ago over a vast area of the Arctic Sea. This may be due to less infiltration of warm ocean currents under the ice(? – speculation). Another notable item from this comparison is the greater snow cover in 2010 than in 2007 in both Asia and North America. These images do not lend much credibility to “global warming” claims based on simulations from computer models and corrupted, inappropriate temperature data.
Also worth noting:
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=04&fd=13&fy=1979&sm=04&sd=13&sy=2010
This compares April 13, 2010 with April 13, 1979 (the first year of Arctic satellite measurements). While there is marginally greater ice extent in 1979, the extent of thick “good” ice is evident from the many veins of 1979 ice that were of lesser concentration when compared with 2010 ice on the same date. Of course, 1979 was on the cusp of the change in temperature change from the lowering that began ca 1940 and ended in the late 1970s when the “global warming” hysteria followed on the heels of the “global cooling” hysteria from many of the same scientists who now champion global warming caused by humans … ironically, they had been blaming global cooling on humans, too!
Snow data was not recorded for many of the earlier years.
Perhaps more interesting is to compare today’s ice quality and extent to that of 1990:
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=04&fd=13&fy=1990&sm=04&sd=13&sy=2010
Note that the coverage is almost identical, but the quality of today’s ice is far better. This was at a time when James E. Hansen was preaching his global warming doom and gloom to the US Congress to extract about $2 billion per year for climate studies. Hansen works for NASA who is always looking for funding and they looked the other way at Hansen’s peculiar radicalism on climate change in exchange for the funding boost it gave NASA.
Not sure how much interest there is in the topic of this particular line of comments, given it’s been silent since late December (until your post).
Bob Webster
Vero Beach, FL
USA
Editor/Publisher WEBCommentary.com (http://www.webcommentary.com)
Climate Resources: http://www.webcommentary.com/climate/climate.php (where you’ll find this site on the recommended list).
00
I have read a couple of the articles on this blog over the past few days, and I truly love your writing technique. I added it to my favorites website list and will be checking back soon. If you have a few moments, please visit my site and let me know what you think.
00
“club penguin help”
Assuming you’re comments are directed to Jonova.com, go to the “About” page to contact Jo directly by email.
00
Apologies for the brain-o! “you’re” should be “your” above … YEEKS!
00
do you know that MJ can make you want to sleep?
00
cheers lots, I must announce that your website is fantastic!
00