Sometimes there’s just no point. Do they think ad hominem is a spice in an Arabic dip? What can you say? Just smile and go back to doing your damnedest to work for free so that they and their children might have a bit more freedom from tyranny and a bit more of their hard earned cash in their wallet. If you succeed, they’ll probably never thank you, but it’s still a job worth doing. Cheers!
Anthony Watts, and David Archibald will be speaking in Melbourne Tuesday night. Don’t miss your last chance to see the heroes of the grassroots independent scientists. Read my thoughts on Anthony and David. Get more info from the Climate Sceptics.
Melbourne VIC: Tuesday 22 June 2010, 12:30 pm
Institute for Private Enterprise, 6/112 Millswyn Street, South Yarra
Anthony Watts and David Archibald
$25 per person, $20 if you make a booking or are a pensioner
Contact: Des Moore (03) 9867 1235
Melbourne VIC: Tuesday 22 June 2010, 6:30 pm
German Club, 291 Dandenong Rd, Windsor
Anthony Watts and David Archibald
$25 per person, $20 if you make a booking or are a pensioner
Contact: Michael Spencer (03) 9808 6075
Hobart TAS: Wednesday 23 June 2010, 6:30 pm
Stanley Burbury Theatre, University Centre, Churchill Avenue, Sandy Bay,
Anthony Watts and David Archibald
$25 per person, $20 if you make a booking or are a pensioner
Contact: Alan Ashbarry 0417 536 621
Adelaide SA: Thursday 24 June 2010, 6:30 pm
German Club, 223 Flinders Street, Adelaide
Anthony Watts and David Archibald
$25 per person, $20 if you make a booking or are a pensioner
Contact: Leon Ashby (08) 8723 5550
Mount Gambier SA: Friday 25 June 2010, 12:00 pm
Blue Lake Golf Links, Mount Gambier
Anthony Watts and David Archibald
$20 per person
Contact: Leon Ashby (08) 8723 5550
Hamilton VIC: Friday 25 June 2010, 6:00 pm
Hospital Auditorium, “The Education Centre”, Lonsdale Street
Anthony Watts and David Archibald
$20 per person
Contact: Paul Collits (03) 5572 0537, 0410 524 742
Ballarat VIC: Saturday 26 June 2010, 7:30 pm
York Street Church Auditorium, 410 York St, Ballarat (East)
Anthony Watts and David Archibald
$20 per person
Contact: David Westaway 0414 347 618
Narrogin WA: Monday 28 June 2010, 7:30 pm
Narrogin & Districts Senior Citizens Centre
Anthony Watts, David Archibald, Bob Carter and Jo Nova
$20 per person
Contact: Janet Thompson 0417 815 595
Perth WA: Tuesday 29 June 2010, 6:30 pm
Social Sciences Lecture Theatre, University of Western Australia
Anthony Watts, David Archibald, Jo Nova and Bob Carter
$25 per person, $20 if you make a booking or are a pensioner
Contact: Book with a message (08) 9487 0404 *And email me if you might be able to help on the night (joanne AT “this site”.com.au)
Canberra ACT: Wednesday 30 June 2010, 6:30 pm
Labor Club, Chandler Street, Belconnen
Anthony Watts, David Archibald and Tim Curtin
$25 per person, $20 if you make a booking or are a pensioner
Contact: 0401 772 857
Wagga Wagga NSW: Thursday 1 July 2010, 7:00 pm
Country Comfort Hotel, Wagga Wagga
Anthony Watts, David Archibald and Tim Curtin
$20 per person
Contact: John Westman 0432 827 254
The smile on Davids face is absolutely priceless.
This one photo says a helluva lot more about where sceptics and alarmists are in life than a thousand posts.
Thanx Jo, this is a keeper.
10
By the way, that’s not Mattb in the middle, is it?
10
If climate-phobia deniers were fossil fuel lobbyists they would deny nuclear energy as well as the carbonari do. The only lobbyists of energy industry monopolization can deny energy expansion regardless it is fossil fuel based or nuke based. They seek for barriers of energy branch entry creating “bonny environment” for monopoly so to cartels of the good energy companies like BP can exploit society without a competition of more effective enterprises or nuclear plants. And it is the main goal of the artificial limit of grow (banning competition) that is saving our cartelized planet against heat conditions on the competitive market. Bunch of great corporations endowed with monopoly privileges along with great government called corporativism is the saved planet not overheated by competition and innovations. If such savings would be achieved the previous corporativists Hitler and Mussolini defeat had been useless.
10
Photographic exposure. Only one bright chap in the picture. 😉
10
The photo is from Brisbane, (so no, not Mattb). C’mon, those two in the photo are chumpy chumpy. They’ve probably never set eyes on a skeptical blog… I’m sure Matt would never say anything as inane as “I don’t believe in Ian Plimer”.
10
Err um,
Jo, I know that the photo carries your name, along with Bob Carter’s, but the image looks suspiciously like it’s been photoshopped to me. I would have expected to see some flash reflection from the lettering on the placards, and they look a bit too consistent and flat!
Just thinking … I am a card-carrying sceptic, after all.
As an aside – the WordPress spell checker accepts “photoshopped” as a past tense verb. I find that very sad.
10
Note the “socialist alliance” on the bottom of poster in the top right hand corner.
Says it all really.
10
Jo after having seen the Watt’s tour “science” presentations I emailed Leon suggesting that if the lads were serious they’d make a presentation of their “research” to BoM and CSIRO – given the the degree of complaint. And surely in the national interest, which I’m sure would be close to your hearts.
But seems the guys are chicken.
It’s not going to happen is it.
The cognitive dissonance arising from some serious review could be personally disturbing I guess.
Face it Jo – alarming halls of aged retirees is easier.
10
Yes, this looks photoshopped to me too.
Note that Mr. Archibald’s lower left side of his jacket is cutoff – either that or his jacket is somehow behind the fellow holding up the two placards behind him…look just above the middle letters of ‘nothing’.
Not sure, but it seems to have sliced out a bit of his left ear too comparing to:
http://anhonestclimatedebate.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/archibald-david.jpg
His unretouched ear appears to round out a bit more than in your picture here. Was he even in the original picture?
And at least one of the placards looks far too white…no finger shadows either…the one with “I don’t believe” has those words on a different plane than “in Ian Plimer”.
Cute picture though.
Photoshopped is not accepted by my spell checker. Tough.
I’m not registered as a card-carrying skeptic – I just do it in my spare time.
John :-#)#
10
I see “Luke” made the same post at WUWT.
Isn’t there a bridge missing your attendance somewhere, “Luke”?
10
Dave’s arm is around the guy’s back, with his fingers on the guy’s right shoulder. He is leaning forward slightly and the jacket has fallen open and is caught behind the guy’s left hip. What is incongruous about this?
Seriously, you guys would be better off researching a little science than speculating about pictures being PhotoShopped.
10
Luke @ 8:
I am not sure there is much point trying to debate science with organisational rerpresentatives when the organisations have become politicised. Read any BoM or CSIRO report on climate change and the bias in the verbiage is self-evident. A classic example is the deceptive wording used by BoM when talking about rainfall. They constantly skirt around the fact that the average annual rainfall in Australia has been trending upwards over 110 years. Instead they talk of drying in the SE and SW.
So when it suits them they talk about country averages and when it doesn’t they cherry-pick regions over the national averages. That is not science… that is advocacy. At that point you realise there is no point whatsoever having a scientific debate with a politicised institution.
When all is said and done, no one has scientific evidence worth the paper it is printed on that positive feedbacks exist. Without them the IPCC forecasts* are meaningless. So what is worth debating? In the absence of scientific evidence of CAGW we are all just pissing in the wind. The fact is that there is no evidence and we would not be having these debates if it were not for socialist-leaning** governments wanting to levy the biggest tax in human history.
* Let’s call them what they are … predictions, forecasts, not “projections” as the IPCC likes to call them. If it is not a bone fide forecast or prediction then it is worthless. A projection is simply a forecast of a model you don’t trust. These are weasel words.
** The irony here is that I am slightly left leaning politically … heck I was brought up in Holland, ’nuff said. Were there a democrat party in Australia that is probably where my vote would be, but sadly we only have socialist Rudd and Liberals (Conservatives) to chose from. Were I an American voter I would be on the Democrat side, except for this folly on climate policy. I see even Rahm Emanuel has had enough of the idealism in the Obama inner circle.
10
Joanne Nova says
Why would you believe in Ian Plimer?
His book is riddled with faults.
http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/23/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth/
He bluntly refused to acknowedge problems with his volcano/CO2 argument on national television. Plimer was caught concluding one thing whilst citing the expert as the source, but the expert had said the exact opposite.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/dec/16/ian-plimer-versus-george-monbiot
If Ian Plimer had acknowedged his mistakes, then perhaps he’d maintain some credibility. I agree with the person in the picture. I am very sceptical of anything that Ian Plimer says.
10
Luke: #8
June 22nd, 2010 at 8:42 am
You’ve missed the whole point Luke. I’m not surprised.
The “old” folk are there because they WERE NOT ALARMED about 0.6DegC of warming since 1850. Unlike you, who believes this 0.6DegC is something to scream about.
You see Luke, older folks have been there, done that, experienced it all. Hot, cold, wet dry ususal, unusual. So it takes a bit of EVIDENCE to convince a life experienced person.
Unlike young impressionable naivettes like you, who grew up getting their information from facebook and myspace, who are too easily convinced that their parents and grandparents are bad people who stuffed up the planets climate.
But ofcourse Luke, you could have been lucky and been born in a third world country, then you’d be called LUCKY LUKE.
What impressionable young naivettes like you don’t understand is that, because you were born into a modern, industrialised society, you have the opportunity to be able to QUESTION AUTHORITY without fear of persecution. (so far) You are missing this opportunity by behaving like a lemming Luke.
10
Baa Humbug and Bulldust
I’m not teasing the Watt’s tour for being too chicken to present to BoM and CSIRO just to take sides. Having quietly sat through the presentations by Watts, Archibald, Stockwell and Carter – any amateur student of climate change could easily pick holes in a very partisan position. The sneaky graphs with bits left out. And then there’s the issue of telling half the story.
And so by failing to test their ideas robustly with the establishment they are simply deluding themselves. Surely we’re all interested in the truth. If one’s position is wrong – might hurt personally but we all need to know.
And before I say anymore – don’t pigeon hole me as a lefty greenie warmist. And I don’t work for CSIRO or BoM. You don’t know how I vote, I didn’t support the ETS, and am nuclear sympathetic.
My comments are purely about the climate science – and the defence of good science. And the serious assessment of climate risk. Bob Carter said that humans have much to fear from natural hazards – earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis and extremes of climate. And Australians have more than their share of inconvenient climate variability – droughts, floods, cyclones, heatwaves etc.
So Bob is in favour a climate policy that addresses natural hazards. So on this much we agree.
Your comments about Australia receiving more rainfall are simply misguided. NW WA is – and the reason seems to be changes in circulation from aerosol production in Asia. Indeed you should be cynical that BoM can even map rainfall as well in that part of the continent.
However – where people live and main agriculture exists in SW WA, SE Australia and eastern Australia, there have been severe rainfall declines over time. The best analytical research we have suggests that greenhouses and stratospheric ozone depletion have made a “contribution” – that’s contribution not 100% to the overall effect. The mechanisms involved being changes to the Antarctic Southern Annular Mode, intensity of the sub-tropical ridge, spatial aspects of ENSO, and perhaps the Indian Ocean Dipole. I can quote the papers if you like.
Governments have spent billions on drought aid over the last 30 years. Billions. Allocation of water resources in an ongoing issue. So how do we make policy and implement decisions on these issues.
As I have said elsewhere – what Watt’s did not show us is what do the 10% of “good” stations in the US network show us, he didn’t mention the Australian reference network, nor the two ocean temperature data sets, nor the two satellite data sets, nor the Nature paper documenting 25,000 cases of changes in phenology and behaviour of species. All showing a warming trend. Or that the major area of global temperature rise is over areas that don’t have a UHI.
We suffered US temperature data glossed over as global … solar cycles attributed to climate with no statistical support.
We were shown pictures of CO2 fertilised plants – but no mention how CO2 increases risk of frost injury, how real world free air carbon dioxide experiments (FACE) respond (like no where as well as labs), that CO2 won’t help you in a drought, and the CO2 will preference C3s over C4s leading to grasslands changing to shrubs and woody plants. You don’t get the full story – WHY NOT?
So the Watt’s tour far from full disclosure.
You’re being dazzled. Told half the story. And until sceptics start doing professional scepticism instead of the usual sleazy style – angry science supporters will just keep pot-shotting the nonsense.
Baa Humbug – it’s not about the mean temperature rise – if you think it is you’ve missed the point – it’s climate will be changed – how fast – with what changes in the extremes and circulation patterns – particularly water – with 6 billions humans going to 9 billion needing to be fed – not some stone age period. We were told how warm the MWP was and that the Hockey Stick didn’t stack up. So if you’d like to use the MWP as a dry run (pun intended)for warming of any kind you had mega-droughts in the USA, Africa and China – so much for grapes in England and cathedral building).
The nation is poorly served by its sceptics – not serious enough ! No analysis of its own side. Until sceptics are universally critical – we’re simply playing politics Not science.
The Watt’s tour is too chicken to present their stuff to an establishment science audience. Wouldn’t stand the scrutiny.
10
I wasn’t suggesting a manipulation of the photo in my earlier post.
The difference in brightness that you see is probably an unfortunate side-effect of flash photography and a “smart” digital camera. The people who put the “smarts” into a camera make lots of assumptions about the subject being photographed and the lighting conditions. Cheaper cameras don’t do image compression all that well – it’s limited by the computing resources – introducing sharper boundaries (at pixelation) and less colour/brightness than sensed by the camera’s sensor.
The more sophisticated cameras allow the user to choose a different set of assumptions; sorry “program”; perhaps even to allow the user to set exposure themselves and not fiddle with areas of the image at all. And the flexibility to store a “raw” sensor image; without compression artifacts; at the expense of using much more storage space.
Engineers and scientists should understand how their instruments work so that they can understand the limitations. The camera is an instrument which can used and abused like any other.
10
Luke:
A number of points, seeing as you argue we should stick to the science:
1) Seeing as “any amateur could pick holes’ in the presentations, why have you not cited a few examples. Baseless statements are, well… wait for it… /drumroll … baseless.
2) I never said you were anything. Trying to score points that don’t exist here methinks. Nowhere in my previous post did I imply anything about your personal stance on anything. Reread at your leisure.
3) you seem a tad confused over rainfall statistics. I have linked BoM’s own average stats here a couple times before, but here we go again:
http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/climate/change/20100105.shtml
Note that the average Australian rainfall shows no strong trend, but if anything it has moved upwards over the 110 year history of readings (from lowish 400mm to highish 400mm range). So explain how that is misguided? You have a better source of statistics? If so, I am all eyes. My argument with the BoM is that the data says one thing and they seek to portray an entirely different picture by word-smithing their reports with pro-AGW bias.
It is hardly my misguided bias that the rain isn’t falling in the parts of Australia we would like it to fall. The fact is that more of it is falling than the past, based on BoM’s stats.
4)You follow up with more baseless statements. Try following your own advice mate, make statements with reference to the science, rather than vague generalisations with no reference whatsoever if you intend to score debating points here.
PS> As for the “severe rainfall declines” in the SW I shall leave you to the tender merrcies of Bernd. I would bet he has studied that regional climate far more than you have and will beg to differ with your statement.
PPS> Your frequent gestures of deference to authority make no sense either… since when is science determined by consensus? You are no sceptic despite your protestations. A sceptic cares not a wit what the “consensus” is, but seeks to verify things for him/herself. Scepticism is at the heart of good science, not blind faith in “establishment science.”
10
Bulldust Luke won’t like me for mentioning this little problem about rainfall accross southern Australia, but it’s been drying out for at least 5,000 years.
Over the last century according to the BOM only one state has actually recieved less rainfall and that is Tassie, but from much higher levels than any other state.
Sure the SW corner of WA has recieved less rainfall but the state as a whole has recieved more, even SA has recieved more rainfall presumably because it has a higher latitude than the SW corner of WA.
Anyhow you can read this Catalyst transcript or watch the video, very interesting stuff, I hope Jo has the time top look as well.
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s1848641.htm
10
Did anyone also notice the inscription on the bottom of placard over the top of David’s head ??
Does it say ??
http://[email protected]
10
Just another interesting Catalyst story, if you read or watch the video you will see that they make mention of the fact that sea level around Sydney was 1.5 metres higher than today just 4,000 years ago, something most Aussies are not aware of I’d say, that’s about 1 to 2 thousand years past the mid Holocene.
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/2278381.htm
10
17 Bulldust It is not worth replying to Luke. He clearly has little idea about the complex technology and science associated with the assessment of climate and appears to have been brainwashed by others who are equally lacking in their knowledge.
Ian Pilmer is geologist who is world respected for his knowledge about the formation and placement of base metal deposits (eg Broken Hill). Geology requires knowledge of past conditions including climate. Amongst the hundreds of geologists (young, old and from many countries)I have met, none agree with AGW.
Warwick Hughes has presented evidence from BOM raw data eg http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/ 17th June 2010 & 19th June that shows there has been no reduction in WA and Perth catchment rainfall. There always has been variability of rainfall. In my area in March this year there was 350mm of rain in one day followed by zero a few days later. BOM indicates that SOI has a relationship to rainfall. Few understand SOI and sunspot cycles as well as David Archibald.
10
Cement a friend:
Possibly so, but the educator in me always wishes to rise to the ocassion … perhaps it is a character flaw 🙂
As for Plimer, I have mixed feelings about his climate-related work. While some of his arguments have merit, I think he is often over-zealous and reluctant to admit where he has made errors (and he has).
I found Heaven and Earth to be largely unreadable (I have a signed copy BTW). Perhaps the book was an overly ambitious attempt to provide a scietific synthesis of peer-reviewed works in climate-related fields. It needs some serious editing IMHO to make the book more coherant and concise.
Anywho… I am rambling…
10
Luke: #15
June 22nd, 2010 at 1:31 pm
You obviously haven’t read any of the IPCC AR’s. Do so
If you have any data that shows “severe rainfall decline” attributable to CO2 emissions, do so. Maybe a comment or two by you about the federation drought and the many many other droughts of this unforgiving land, long before mans emissions, is in order.
Hows about you grab that Nature paper, and tell the rest of us WHICH species have been adversly affected by CO2 emissions, and what adverse means. Did some butterflies emerge early? So what?
Are you kidding? How about you quote some passages from the IPCC AR4 that tells BOTH SIDES of the story. 3000 pages, I challenge you to come up with 30 pages (1%) that tells both sides of the story. (Speaking of chickens, go to it Luke, the force is with you)
Oh really? Did someone forget to tell Obama and Rudd, attempts to keep global T’s to less than 2DegC rise (mean T) is missing the point? Did someone forget to tell the IPCC, that many many pages of their document, especially working groups 2 and 3, that talk about DegC of T’s in 50 and 100 years, and the affects that will have was missing the point. What is the point Luke?
Well Luke, the AGW camp has had 22 years, billions of dollars at their disposal, not to mention the THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of scientists working on this. Point us to where they can show accurately how the circulation patterns will change, how the hydro cycle will change and how fast it will all change.
Stating that China and the USA have had mega droughts is like saying a bear shits in the woods. Some of the biggest mega droughts were in the early part of the 20th Century. WE DIDN’T CAUSE THEM.
The nation is poorly served by it’s rent seeking alarmist SCIENTISTS like Flannery, Karoly, Glikson and Hugh-Guldberg. No analysis of their own, just copy and paste from the IPCC. Until these scientists are universally unbiased, we’re simply playing politics and wealth accumulation, not science. Touche’
10
Luke, how amazing two posts no use of the “D” word, foul language or the gratuitous insults. Its good that you have kept to the science. I hope you can keep this up as you often raise interesting and thought provoking issues.
10
Baa Humbug et al.
A major serve of the usual non-thinking sceptic comments.
Cement-a-friend – quoting Hughes is hardly “source” is it?
Archibald has offered no statistical proof of his theories at the recent seminars. Where’s the hindcast validation. Anyone can overfit a relationship. Why haven’t you lot asked for it. Are you that easily convinced?
In fact the funny comment from one meeting is that some observors (sceptics) thought he was at odds with Watts on some issues. So confusion may have been possible.
Baa-H – Sorry droughts this century are nowhere on a par with the MWP – get real.
The Federation drought was probably the largest drought Australia has seen. However if you notice the contemporary drying trends are confined to very specific regions. You might do well to work out why. To do that you have to do some research and engage some critical thinking. Well gee Aussie researchers have and none of you lot have read the papers have you?
I did not say which species had been adversely affected by global warming. You’re now engaging in denialist verballing. The paper showed a biological response to the arrant nonsense from Watts et al that there has been no warming. Whether that is adverse or not is another question.
Neville confuses a long term slow decline with a step change (unpublished I might add) – hardly intelligent.
The general comment about “personalities” and “advocates” on the AGW side is somewhat warranted – but only as they have been careless enough to only ever be 90% totally correct, as opposed to sceptics who are ever at best only 10% correct. However – there is heaps of serious work undertaken by scientists that you don’t hear about in the media – and the fact that you have not named the big players in climate science simply illustrates that you’re just slopping around in reactionary blog space – keeping yourself uneducated.
What to do if anything about AGW is probably most unpalatable. It’s a grand challenge problem. But it being a most difficult and expensive problem does not it is not happening. That’s akin to calling your oncologist ugly – might make you feel better but doesn’t change the diagnosis.
And the problem with you lot is that you’re so closed now to any science information that you’ve rejected it before you’ve even gotten to the second sentence.
La la lah lah – you’re not listening. At some point most people would think by the sheer volume and diverse nature of the evidence that something might be actually happening. Unless of course your mind was totally polluted by advocates who want to cloud the message.
Bob Carter himself said that nobody denied there was a greenhouse effect. Well gee many sceptics don’t agree with that. I think everything that could be denied has been denied. Except the sky being blue.
I did listen very carefully to Watts, Stockwell and Archibald. I would love David Archibald to have a solar prediction. Alas he did not convince me at all. But I hope he keeps at it and wish him well in his quest. If he got some serious peer review and left the politics alone maybe he might even get further.
In the end Bob Carter says Australia needs a climate policy. Sceptics aren’t offering one. You’ve all decided that all previous work in this special field of science is now corrupt. “We know nuttin'” is the meme.
Decisions on climate risk need to made from farms through business and major infrastructure. The sceptics policy for these decisions is to what – divine chicken entrails?
So why aren’t sceptics more fair dinkum? Why tell half the story? Why leave whole chunks of evidence out?
10
Luke has been at Jenny Marohasy’s blog for quite some time. Some attribute the survival of Jenny’s blog to the rubbish posts that Luke puts there. The realists replies bludgeon Luke.
It is believed that “Luke” is not one person but some think it is a tag team of about three. His computer was thought to be based in a Queensland governmet Department. It is believed he is actually a group of government workers who are being paid to present this drival. It is best to just scroll past the Lukes.
10
You know that they’re in more intellectual trouble than normal when they stop playing the ball for some sledging.
Maybe the real answer is that ASIS is paying for it. See that van outside your window – how long has it been there?
10
I’d like to know who Luke nominates as being ‘the big players in climate science’
otherwise his last post is full of generalities which of themselves are evidence of nothing
10
Len @ #26.
I think you are pretty spot on there with “Luke”.
Again, don’t feed the galahs, they’ll soon go away.
10
@Luke
Human water consumption problems stem from water use, or, mis-use. I think we can all agree that we can use water better. Doug L. Hoffman put a good summary of the situation recently on his blog: Water Is Not The New Oil. We can easily support 9 billion people on this planet, I theorise it’s somewhere closer to half a trillion with today’s technology but, we need to get onto 21st century water use practices.
If you were paying attention, the average climate sceptic is arguing against the idea that feedbacks within the climate system are positive. Most evidence supports the hypothesis of there being negative feedbacks to increased C02 in the atmosphere. So, the whole denial of the greenhouse effect is a strawman. No-one here will bite on that.
10
Yes, that’s about what it boils down to, Len. Apart from the political tell Luke gave us all rushing out to save the day when his masters think their state turf is being infringed upon. Bugger.
10
Waffles – on the contrary a whole faction of sceptics deny the greenhouse effect exists – putting them at odds with the Watts tour…. face it sceptics are opposed to everything including each other’s theories. So you have the “no greenhouse” lobby, the cosmic rays guys, the solar cycles guys, the imminent bone-crushing ice age fraternity, the planetary alignment freaks, the PDO builds heat lobby, there’s volanoes groupies – then there’s denying the temperature record is right while simultaneously commenting that it’s about to get colder. Then there’s leaving bits off graphs – telling half the story…. everyone can play….
As for “most evidence” supports negative feedbacks – it does?
10
Luke,
Get serious. The BoM and CSIRO would NEVER let Anthony or any other skeptic make a presentation to them. The sheer weight of evidence that climate is perfectly natural and cyclical and that the contributions of man to climate are finite and negligible would completely jeopardize the funding of BoM and CSIRO.
I am sure that BoM and CSIRO do not want to get off of the gravy train. Too many government “scientists” would have to go and find a real job and actually do something productive, rather than coming up with alarmist claptrap designed to steal the hard-earned money from the people who actually DO WORK for a living.
Think about it – if you were getting millions in “free” government largesse, would you allow someone who has facts on his side to make a presentation refuting your side, thereby jeopardizing the way you currently make a living?
I am sure that Anthony and crew have made such offers, and I am equally sure that they have been roundly rejected. Alarmist scientists do not fear AGW. What alarmist scientists fear is REAL science, based upon the SCIENTIFIC METHOD, which shows them to be incorrect and threatens their livelyhood.
10
Luke,
The vast majority of evidence supports negative feedbacks. If feedbacks were not negative, when we warmed out of the very first ice-age ever, we never would have stopped warming. It would STILL be warming. We would never have had a 2nd ice age, or a 3rd, or a 4th. Climate is a natural, cyclical, and self-regulating system. Sometimes the natural regulator gets a bit out of whack, and you get the Younger Dryas or the Medieval Warm Period. Within the NATURAL bounds of climate, anything from an ice age to an extended period of “extreme” warmth are possible. However, we have never had a permanent ice-age, nor have we had a run-away unstoppable heatwave leading to permanent furnace-like conditions on the planet. Ergo, the vast majority of feedbacks MUST be negative by simple observation of these facts.
Changing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere from 0.00035 to 0.00039 (the amount it has change in the last 50 years) isn’t going to have much of an effect on the system as a whole.
10
Re: Luke @ 32
So you have noticed there are a variety of reasons why skeptics are skeptical. So what?
You seem to miss that they all agree that CAGW is wrong. AGW is wrong and some even think that GW is wrong.
Yes I am a denier. I want very much to deny governments and banks access to my hard earned dollars.
10
PeterB in in Indianapolis – some how I think CSIRO just might survive you know. They do have a quite diverse research program – and they’ve been around a little while. You might do well updating yourself on their history and portfolio. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_Scientific_and_Industrial_Research_Organisation even inventing wi-fi internet for you yanks – http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/millions-to-flow-from-csiro-wi-fi-win/story-e6frgal6-1225701846231 Don’t talk to us about CSIRO matey. You’re just another ill-informed silly person.
I can’t believe you’ve invoked the old run-away feedback ruse. You guys aren’t very good are you. Who’s talking about runaway and furnaces – this is just more denialist verballing. How utterly pretentious of you. Not even the Watts tour would try that on.
Why as sceptics do just tell half the story e.g. about ice age transitions – you never hear about the PETM or perhaps the Siberian or Deccan Traps do you ? http://www.physorg.com/news96823193.html Ice age transitions have nothing to do the contemporary situation and are merely another sceptic diversionary ruse.
Mark D – faux sceptics don’t know that AGW is wrong – they WANT IT to be wrong. It’s their priori assumption not based on politics not on evidence.
Watts et al haven’t asked for an opportunity to present to the establishment.
They won’t ask.
They’d be too afraid to confront serious scientists for a change – retirees are easier.
10
Hmmm OK I see… Luke is just a garden-variety troll. No worries, I am done playing with him as he raises no worthwhile lines of argument nor evidence. Luke you think links to articles with phrases like:
“The scientists speculate that…”
“…which we think are…”
carry any weight whatsoever? The authors even admit:
“No conclusive links have been established, however, he added.”
Desperate scientists trying to link anything in their field to get some action with the fat “climate change” research purse. They are merely pigs suckling at the government teat.
To give another ludicrous example of global warming association – today we have an article on bees dying in the US:
http://www.theage.com.au/national/australia-stung-by-bee-allegations-20100622-yvbb.html
Most factors have not been ruled out for the cause:
“Scientists are unsure what’s causing the problem, though it could involve a combination of factors. The possible culprits include mites, viruses, other diseases, pesticides, habitat loss, stress and even climate change. The latest suspect, however, is the imported honeybee from Australia.”
Yes they just had to throw climate change in there didn’t they? What a crock. Somehow bees survive tens of degrees variation from day to night and season to season, but a half degree temperature rise over 50 years is suddenly wiping them out? I’d type more but it is very difficult when you are laughing so hard.
10
Nah BD – they’re too chicken.
10
Luke, I probably don’t agree with most anything you post but I really do like your gravitar photo. It is the quintessential warmist look.
10
Luke @38:
And you’re too chicken to post your full name.
Afraid to risk your reputation?
Afraid of political repercussions?
Afraid to lose your job?
Do you have the courage to stand by your words or don’t you?
Or is the “climate problem” not important enough?
10
PeterB in Indianapolis June 22nd, 2010 at 11:23 pm wrote
Wrong.
The difference between “coming out of the ice age” and now is that we are adding to the amount of atmospheric CO2 at rates far greater than seen during the interglacial periods.
CO2 is never claimed to be the only forcing acting on climate. There are many causes that affect temps on the planet, for the interglacials the most noticeable is the Milankovitch cycles.
http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn11640/dn11640-1_800.jpg
The Milankovitch cycles can overwhelm the CO2 forcing because both were slow to change. During the interglacials CO2 levels fluctuated between 200 and 300 ppm, today they are at 390ppm.
We never got to the high levels of CO2 as seen today during because the cooling effect of the cycles was enough to counter the change in CO2 levels.
Heard of snowball earth? How long did that last? Would you want it to occur for as long again today? My point is that just because the earth has bounced around temperature-wise in the past, that is no reason to wish that it will act the same way now.
Nor would we want to get anywhere near “unstoppable”. The temp would become a huge problem even at +6 degrees.
Look back to 55 million years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:All_palaeotemps.png
There was a lot more heat then for a very long time. Yes, it did eventually come down again, how were the mammals doing back then? 😉
Negative? Eventually yes, but how long does each one take and to what temps will we reach before they start coming back down?
The past climate of the planet does not mean that a runaway effect could NEVER happen. Look to other planets for info on that. 😉
You jump from these numbers to a conclusion but miss out a few points.
– The change has been from 0.00028, not 0.00035. Why would you only count the rise from the past 50 years?
– The CO2 level we’re currently headed for is beyond a doubling.
– The greenhouse effect of CO2 at 0.00028 levels kept the Earth from being frozen.
– A doubling of CO2 from that level would see an increase in the basic radiative forcing, along with the feedback effect (from climate sensitivity studies) to arrive at a stabilised temp of 3 degrees of warming. That doesn’t yet include the long term feedback effects.
So how is it you think there isn’t going to be much effect?
10
Brendon @ 41:
And is always the case in science, the onus is on folks to prove that the case has changed. Most sceptics would believe that man has caused some warming through CO2 emissions and changing land use, but not enough to alter the system significantly on a global scale (some regional environmental impacts are appalling).
What AGW types frequently do is put the burden of disproving the CAGW case on sceptics. It is not for us to disprove CAGW… the case is yet to be made with convincing science. The “C” in CAGW only becomes valid if positive feedbacks are proven to exist. Without the “C” AGW becomes a mere scientific curiosity.
Common sense suggests that the globe has a natural temperature buffering mechanism for hundreds of millions of years, and I would argue that the logical buffer is the oceans and clouds. Until those physical climate systems are properly understood (and they aren’t at the present time) CAGW has not a leg to stand on.
10
Yet another hockey stick article for the cognitively impaired.
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/debates/copenhagen_article/9056/
They bend the truth so much they don’t even realise they’re doing it any more.
10
By the way, did someone try to convey that Kevin Trenberth was referring to oceans when he emailed thus:
“Well I have my own article on ‘where the heck is global warming?’ We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record.
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The data published in the August 2009 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate”.
10
Bulldust:
June 23rd, 2010 at 3:35 pm
Here’s one example http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090814103231.htm
Ice caps emlting to reduce the albedo is another.
And common sense should tell you nature isn’t raising atmospheric CO2 levels as rapidly as what we are doing now.
10
Brendon,
“Wrong.
The difference between “coming out of the ice age” and now is that we are adding to the amount of atmospheric CO2 at rates far greater than seen during the interglacial periods”
This is simply an incorrect statement. There have been many times in the past where the RATE OF INCREASE in atmospheric CO2 was even higher than it has been in the past 150 years. Do some research my friend.
10
Brendon,
“Heard of snowball earth? How long did that last? Would you want it to occur for as long again today? My point is that just because the earth has bounced around temperature-wise in the past, that is no reason to wish that it will act the same way now.”
Another statement that requires some research. I said “PERMANENT ice age”. Quite obviously, snowball earth was not a permanent condition, or we would still have that condition today.
Further, there is EVERY REASON to wish that climate will currently act the same way it has ALWAYS acted. Why? Because it has ALWAYS acted that way.
Your job is to PROVE that it is going to act in some bizzare new way that it has NEVER ACTED IN THE PAST.
The default hypothesis is that climate is going to continue to behave the way it always has. This is called the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis REQUIRES that you disprove it. That is the way science works.
10
Luke,
Once again you prove the idiocy of the “true believers”.
You do not KNOW that the climate of the earth is going to behave in some bizzare new way that it has never behaved in the past, you merely WANT IT TO BE SO.
Please do some research on the scientific method. As I said above, the Null Hypothesis is that climate is a cyclical system which is going to behave in ways similar to the ways it has always behaved in the past. The ONLY WAY to debunk the Null Hypothesis is to show that it is not a valid hypothesis. This has yet to be convincingly done by any true believer.
I have a firm understanding of the scientific method, since it is a big part of my job. I am not going to speculate as to what your profession is, but I strongly suspect it isn’t based on a strong science background.
You attempt to make your posts SOUND intellectual, but on a basic science level, they simply fail.
10
Also Luke,
I have no doubt that BoM and CSIRO will survive. They are government-sponsored entities. They are not suddenly going to cease to exist regardless of whether they are right or wrong. Your tax dollars will still pay for their continued existence in either case.
10
PeterB in Indianapolis: June 23rd, 2010 at 11:22 pm
Care to name that period of time?
It certainly wasn’t in the last 2.1 million years when man has walked the planet.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090618143950.htm
10
PeterB in Indianapolis: June 23rd, 2010 at 11:26 pm
I know you said PERMANENT and yes it is very obvious that didn’t happen. But the point you seem to completely miss is that these extreme climates can last for millions of years. If we’re not able to survive for 100 years on a planet that is 6 or 10 degrees warmer, what’s the point of it returning to “normal” again in a million years.
You may wish for it, but there is no physical law that prevents a runaway effect from occurring.
10
Luke: ‘CO2 increases risk of frost injury’
What sort of bollocks is that?
10
Weeeell Lazlo – big rounded frozen bollocks actually
Lazlo – there’s this thing called “the Internet” – which has this service called a “search engine” – it allows one to undertake research on matters such as CO2 and frost injury.
Such an example http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080303072651.htm
And you will say “but duh” it’s be sooo warm there won’t be any frost. Well that ain’t being the case see here – http://ams.confex.com/ams/87ANNUAL/techprogram/paper_117372.htm “Cold air outbreaks in a greenhouse world”
Isn’t the internet so subversive. One’s personal intellectual safety perimeters challenged so readily.
10
Have read your links. Still total bollocks. You really are a zealot..
10
PS Must now be on the Black List. What about you Luke?
10
So Lazlo – you digested all that in 9 minutes and listened to the presentation.
I don’t think so. You must be a speed reader mate.
Did you have a wee bit of a Googley on CO2 and frost injury and why? Nah !
And you talk to me about zealotry.
You’re a clown like most of your unthinking blog bilge wallowing faux sceptics.
Keep being led around the ring by the nose.
10
Luke,
Your error is to base thinking on extrapolation of an assumption. That process is otherwise referred to a fantasising.
The assumption that CO2 is producing any measurable change in global climate. That’s never been shown to happen in the real world. The dominant climate effects swamp those of plausible CO2 radiative behaviour.
“Cold air outbreaks in a greenhouse world”:
They are ONLY models based on ASSumptions. They purport to be global models, but their verity is only tested selectively over particular regions. Physical models need to be precise everywhere as the physical factors are non-linear, chaotically coupled and deterministic. IOW: impossible for the global climate system, in practice.
I’m not a sceptic. I’m an infidel.
10
And all at once the veil is dropped, and the true nature is revealed. People who cannot debate a point without resorting to this kind of abuse, on either side of teh debate, immediately drop into the mental bit bucket for me. I am sure the same is true for most others at this site.
10
Dear Bernd
The point of the cold air outbreak is simply to stop the incessant sceptic “verballing” as to what climate models do or don’t do.
The simple point is that they do generate cold air outbreaks (CAOs) – and that the distribution of those outbreaks changes under greenhouse – some areas perhaps worse, but overall frequency lower. (unlike what is claimed that they universally and incessantly warm – “coz they’re programmed to do that”. A simple point.
Most people would simply respond to the CAO study with an “I didn’t know the models would do that”. I was surprised myself.
Check the PETM, Siberian and Deccan Traps as to what greenhouse gases can do. So I’m afraid it has been shown.
You will not I have not pronounced an apocalypse. But there will be impacts.
And to Bulldust – well coming back with the opinion provided after 10 minutes is disingenuous ! It’s pretty basic.
10
Luke; you’re grasping at straws. The Playstation climate isn’t what happens in the real world. It’s a delusion. I’ve stated why. You’re ignoring that.
Go back to first-principles. Understand the strict conditions under which they apply. At each step from there, be aware of the necessary assumptions and assess their validity.
Look at how the models are constructed. What are the justifications, if any for the “forcings”, “scale” factors and “fitting constants”? Are they there to make the model fit the “acceptable” measurements?
As it happens; the “greenhouse” gases mostly also appear in my Engineering tables of refrigerants. The OTHER gas properties (and their consequences in a freely-convective atmosphere) overwhelm any “warming”; and in some ways enhance the radiative loss of the whole-Earth climate system.
You don’t need a computer model to tell you that some gases promote convection due to their change in buoyancy in response to temperature change; which can be amplified or damped by relative specific heat. But one must keep in mind that these mostly trace gases represent only 1% in total of the atmosphere. One that makes a big difference is water vapour; which cannot be modelled on a large scale because the non-linearity that’s a consequence of non-uniform distribution and phase changes. The total effect is not the same as that which could be estimated from an average concentration.
Similarly for CO2; which is known not to be uniformly distributed. So how can one credibly calculate the radiant heat flow that’s quantified by a 4th power temperature relationship?
Those who understand the interaction between heat transfer and fluid mechanics should understand that CO2 acts as a coolant in the real world where the rest of us live. CO2 promotes convection at the surface and the increased mass-flow of convection increases the rate of heat transfer from the surface by conduction – contact between surface and air; as well as collisions between air molecules, including CO2.
Why would one look for CO2 by warming at or near the surface? So you check higher up for “hot spots” that are predicted by some simple models and don’t find any — from which one can only gather that those simple models are too simple.
10
Oh dear Bernd what an indulgent mind. Unable to cope with excellent past examples we return to the models.
From your description you clearly have no idea how a GCM works.
Isn’t so inconvenient that you can go into your backyard at night and measure the back radiation with a pyrgeometer – how annoying.
How tedious that energy balances actually work out close to theory and can be dissected http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008GL036350.shtml
And isn’t it so tedious that the radiative imbalance has actually been measured. http://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm
10
Luke,
Catastrophic, Anthroprogenic Global Warming only exists in the models.
How can I have any idea how GCMs work when they don’t? At least not the ones that are accepted by the Church of Climatology.
I have reviewed fragments of the code in 3 GCM. But most of the fragments were in just one. (Not that a lot of the models aren’t incestuously related.) They’re a hopeless swill.
Dimensions aren’t normalised. “Magic” functions are called without comment or justification. Parameters come out of nowhere with no apparent basis in the real world. And there is no evidence of version or configuration control. Lots of the code has been amateurishly dragged from the 1960’s and 1970’s into the 1990’s. Probably reluctantly from FORTRAN-2 roots.
When the modellers claim that the models are too complicated for any one person to understand; it’s their doing. Nothing inherent in numerical modelling puts it beyond the ken of mortals.
At least one of the models treats the world as being flat; or at least on a cylindrical surface. With energy “balance” sought using equi-sized, flat rectangles representing 5 x 5 degrees of longitude-latitude. Not even approximately a globe. It’s like spherical coordinates had never been invented.
Water vapour is represented as a uniform haze -no precipitation. Cloud albedo: GUESSED. The surface is represented to be uniform for the whole rectangle… Apparently no adjustment for attenuation of sunlight through more atmosphere nearer the poles. No life in the oceans or on the land.
There is no checking of input data plausibility. There is no checking of error status after calling functions. There are very few meaningful comments in the code. Many comments left in the code obviously applied to previous versions. There is lots of “dead code”.
There don’t appear to be any recent (from the past 15 to 20 years) ideas implemented; just new fudge factors added and array dimensions increased to facilitate producing prettier-looking garbage. I guess the ideas stopped when the money started.
Yet the so-called “climatologists” use it as a veritable Ouja board to “project” what the climate will be like in 100 years. They twiddle the CO2 forcing knob along with a couple of others until the temperature matches what they think it ought to be; then let it rip. And expect the public to squander accummulated wealth in the form of indulgences to avert an imaginary catastrophe.
Australia’s entire cattle industry doesn’t generate as much bulltish in a decade as these “climatologists” running “their” models for an hour.
Re: “back-radiation”. Violation of thermodynamics.
10
Hey guys look what I found, a page full of alarmists!
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
Look at their well-sourced information and scientific approach, makes you wanna puke rainbows doesn’t it?
And then there’s this guy, with his informed guide to the very basics of climate science.
http://scienceofdoom.com/
10
Bernd – sorry the proprietor is into post censoring. So enjoy back-slapping your mates in the echo chamber.
10
Amazingly convincing stuff, but sadly not enough to convince the thermometers. The IPCC predicted at least 0.2 degrees C per decade warming, which was predicted to accelerate to 0.3 degrees C per decade, and I do note that CO2 measurements keep going up so where is the warming?
The only tedious thing is that it will be another decade of cold before you and your followers finally admit that the IPCC predictions really ain’t going to happen. No doubt you will have come up with an excuse by then, but maybe you should get your excuses down in print now so we can come back and examine this page later on down the track.
10
Tel, I imagine by then “they” will have completely shifted focus to Co2 caused acid oceans. They’ll have a harder time bending tax systems around the “problem” but they’ll at least be able to get grants and funding from governments, so as to stay solvent for a while…..
10
Re the photo: it is real. I was there (off to the side) at the time Bob Carter took the photo. The protestor’s sign reads http://www.socialist-alliance.org at the bottom. I questioned them about the sign mentioning Ian Plimer. They thought he was speaking at the meeting.
10