- JoNova - https://joannenova.com.au -

Malcolm Roberts on Q & A : 1 skeptic against 6 who believe the consensus

On the Eastern side of the country the new skeptical Senator, Malcolm Roberts is on Q & A.

Monday, 15 August 2016

As usual it is 6 against 1 the skeptical views that 54% of Australians share. Glaciers will form in hell before the ratio on the ABC would run 1:6 the other way. For Groupthinkers it’s very important that the group discussing a “controversial” topic agrees with each other. This neutralizes any damaging effects of hearing a lone voice put forward counter arguments.

John Cook has sent in a Question about empirical evidence.

Cook points at “less heat escaping to space” – Jo says –this doesn’t mean anything. We assume he means less heat escapes at certain frequencies (which he should have said). Sections of the outgoing spectrum are missing (e.g. Harries et al), which shows that CO2 is stopping some outgoing radiation and is a greenhouse gas (and we knew that already), but it doesn’t show that overall extra heat is staying in the system. The heat absorbed by CO2 is probably just rerouting out from other wavelengths (say, for example through emissions from the dominant greenhouse gas — water vapor). Indeed 28 million radiosondes suggest this is happening. The water vapor emissions layer is falling (not rising as the models predicted with the “hot spot”). We live on The Water Planet — the climate is driven by clouds, humidity, and our oceans — changes in these swamp the tiny effect of a trace gas. [This paragraph was edited for clarity, see notes below*]

The rate of warming in the 1980s peaked at the same rate that the globe warmed at in the 1920s and the 1880s (0.16C per decade). Ask Phil Jones. All that CO2 did not make any difference to the peak rate of global warming per decade. After World War II temperatures fell as CO2 rose. In the ice cores there are many examples of warmer temperatures causing CO2 to rise, and no clear examples of the opposite.

Since the year 2000 humans have put out 30% of all their CO2 and there is nothing to show for it.

I predict Brian Cox and Lily Serna will smile knowingly and talk about a “consensus”. Brian Cox may say the phrase “basic physics”.

As an honours student Lily Serna modeled pesticides feeding into the Great Barrier Reef.

“Using the existing CSIRO model the aim of my project is to develop an understanding of how pesticides move through the Fitzroy Estuary system in order to mitigate impacts on the Great Barrier Reef in light of predictions about climate change. The model also aims to describe the impact of increased or decreased pesticide usage on this fragile environment.

According to Wikipedia “Serna intends to complete a Ph.D. in environmental science”


For other viewers, theoretically, if you can find it, the show should appear on iview (sorry for overseas readers, I don’t know if that plays for you. Though  hear the “Modify Headers” App for Firefox may work for Ex-pats if they use their Australian IP).  Last weeks episode includes PJ O Rourke.

Twitter Feed Q& A

UPDATE There are video’s with these tweets but you’ll need to use the Twitter link.

Is there evidence a human element is involved in climate change? @ProfBrianCox responds #QandA https://t.co/oaB9b9pUEk  — ABC Q&A (@QandA) August 15, 2016

We’ve had a pause in warming & NASA corrupted data, says Malcolm Roberts. @ProfBrianCox examines the graphs #QandA https://t.co/HTNk4Bzrk1  — ABC Q&A (@QandA) August 15, 2016

Former environment minister Greg Hunt says constant dialogue is better:

ABC Q&A ‏@QandA  21m21 minutes ago

This constant dialogue, testing policy & getting feedback is the best system, says @GregHuntMP #QandA

Which is why he tries to shut down BOM inquiries, so he can get the best feedback…

UPDATE: Brian Cox is arguing from incredulity, “the idea that NASA…” he says aghast at the thought they might not be 100% correct — he just can’t believe they could be wrong. He argues from authority. He shows the latest graph from … probably GISS. He does not show the latest graph from UAH satellites, which much more accurate, regarding the pause, and very different showing that 1998 is very similar to 2016.

Answer to Cook edited: Talking about total joules (as I did initially) doesn’t make the issue clearer, because Cook’s statement is too undefined to start with. All forms of warming cause the planet to release more radiation in toto. Cook said “less heat escapes to space” (which begs the question “less than what?”) — so a lot of people would interpret that as “total heat” coming off the planet, which isn’t true and is not helpful either. To that point, I said: “No one is accurately measuring the total joules coming off the whole planet, and even if they did, we don’t have accurate data from years past to compare it with. In other words, Cook is misrepresenting the results. ” The problem with talking about total joules is cause and effect. Even if we had accurate information it wouldn’t help us know what caused the warming. To know the cause we need to know the fingerprint, the missing hotspot, the spectral changes. And that is what Cook was talking about the last time he used the phrase “less heat escapes to space“. Hence my reply now responds to that point. ]

8.4 out of 10 based on 89 ratings