Still in the theme of Shock!-The-Media-IS-Reporting-The-News: The Canberra Times announced on it’s front page that CSIRO is not so sure that droughts are due to increased carbon dioxide. Only a few months ago, they announced the exact opposite.
September 2009: A three-year collaboration between the Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO has confirmed what many scientists long suspected: that the 13-year drought is not just a natural dry stretch but a shift related to climate change.
Jan 2010: One of the report’s co-authors, hydrologist David Post, told The Canberra Times there was ”no evidence” linking drought to climate change in eastern Australia, including the Murray-Darling Basin.
Back in September, this long study was based on the old trick of using climate models and “subtracting” the natural causes to see what’s left. It’s also known as “Argument from Ignorance”. Since we can’t predict the climate five years in advance, obviously there are factors or weightings in those climate models that aren’t right. Ruling out “what we know” doesn’t prove anything at all, except that there is a lot we don’t know.
When David Stockwell analysed climate models and Australian droughts, he found that random numbers were more likely to predict droughts successfully. The models failed validation tests. In the end, instead of using climate models, we’re better off with last week’s Lotto numbers. It’s cheaper too.
…instead of using climate models, we’re better off with last week’s Lotto numbers. It’s cheaper too.
Despite the welcome advance in climate-journalism from The Canberra Times, things are far from perfect. Modern journalism doesn’t miss the chance to put in a meaningless interview with a person who isn’t an expert and can’t put a logical construct together.
Watch Bob Brown (leader of the Australian Greens) at work. He takes the opportunity to pump the myth that the “pressure” is against the climate-scare-campaign (instead of against the skeptics). This time it’s an opportunity that isn’t even there, but he runs with it anyway:
Australian Greens leader, Bob Brown has accused CSIRO of ”caving in to political pressure” to soften its stance on climate change in the lead-up to this year’s federal election.
”We should ask why CSIRO is prepared to turn an unaccountable blind eye to recent climate trends in Tasmania. This undercurrent of scepticism would seem to suggest the report has been politicised,” Senator Brown said.
What political pressure is he referring too? The pressure from the ruling ALP to downplay the need for the Emissions Trading Scheme that they have bet their political lives on? This makes so little sense, it’s not even wrong.
The real political pressure works in the opposite direction. Just ask Clive Spash who merely tried to do his job and discuss the merits of an ETS when he was heavied, censored and eventually resigned under the onslaught. That’s what pressure looks like.
The CSIRO site is strangely hard to search for this announcement. The Canberra Times doesn’t give us a link, or mention a journal, or name this report, and the CSIRO site doesn’t find this news when searching with “drought” and “climate change”. It’s almost like they hope no one notices. In past days with a sleeping media, possibly no one would have.
4BC radio in Brisbane also covered this.
Well now! Maybe I’ve been wrong. Embarrassment does seem to cause rethinking of what they’re about, at least at CISRO.
Another reason for Gore and Hansen to sweat!
10
Oops, CSIRO. Spell checkers shouldn’t be relied on quite so much…
10
Average American rainfall increased by 2 inches in the last 100 years. Less than 10%. CO2 peaked at 400 PPM in 1942.
10
It must take a special kind of person, such as Bob Brown, to be in a constant state of cognitive dissonance. Any normal person would end up in a mental institution if they lived in a perpetual state of such unreality. Hmmmm?????
10
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Fred Chukkawakka, ClimateGate_RT. ClimateGate_RT said: #JoNova : Droughts might not be due to carbon-dioxide, says CSIRO http://bit.ly/8BCCSC #HideTheDecline […]
10
Thanks for reporting… seems ‘journalists’, by and large, that are turned out via indoctrination centers prefer to be on the LIST for titles, advancement, cocktail parties, and so forth; of course, journalism today incorporates mass deception and persuasion instead of reporting the facts and letting the people decide–truly decide, not the slogan.
It is usually the average person, today, that actual news and not ‘news’ is coming from. I know your background, but I am speaking in general terms.
10
Sorry, I forgot to mention (for the sake of those not in Australia) that Bob Brown is leader of the Australian Greens party, and has been for ages.
Who else would you interview if you were trying to explain the science of why Australia has droughts? A politician…
10
Phillip B
“It must take a special kind of person, such as Bob Brown, to be in a constant state of cognitive dissonance”
Yes, and they are known collectively as politicians.
10
I suppose it depends on your definition of drought. Last week BoM reported that the area currently in flood in NSW was still in drought!
10
For every politician, there is an alternate universe that matches his thoughts and favorite programs and policies without unintended consequences. Then there is the actual universe were we mere mortals live and work.
10
I can’t quite believe they don’t know about the unintended consequences. They certainly get told about them often enough. So it must be that they don’t care.
That leads me to wonder how they can sleep with themselves at night. I certainly couldn’t live like that. It’s one thing to work legitimately for your own advantage in a competitive world as we all do. But it’s quite another to just screw everyone who happens to be in the way of what you want.
10
[…] JoNova noticed a Canberra Times article that the Tasmanian drought may not be due to global warming after all. […]
10
Hello, being new to this process please forgive my unintentional errors. I saw this today from the University of Bristol site and thought it would be good on Jo’s site. The research states that atmospheric CO2 has been more rapidly absorbed than thought. I see that the research was presented on Nov. 9, 2009. My question is in regard to whether anyone can speak to validate this papers content? Thank you.
10
Sorry, but forgot to post the web site for the paper.
http://bristol.ac.uk/news/2009/6649.html
Thanks again,
Michael
10
In reference to the link that Michael (#14) posted:
I really wish they’d qualify statements like “..than previously expected”. Expected by whom, exactly, and what is the “significant body of recent research”?
10
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s1848641.htm A good read about drought. The very last comment by the Narrator is speculation.
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001629.html 1914 photo of a DRY Murray river, DRY for 6 months!
When the author of the Canberra Times story was interviewed on radio 4BC Brisbane, he denied everything, it was obvious that he was gagged, he had forgotten that the Government must approve of any comment and anything that’s not consistent with Government Policy will not see the light of day.
The Canberra Times confirmed their story was correct and it was read back to the Scientist before publication.
The Government censors the CSIRO since the election of the Rudd Government and this needs to stop.
Senator Joyce interviewed later on 4BC told Michael Smith that the Government even censors his Christmas cards. Merry Christmas!
10
Slightly off topic, but on the theme of media dissonance. ABC has made a reference to Climategate, admittedly tangentially. I think this might be a first.
10
I forwarded this to the Greens a fortnight ago.
To Bob Brown and Christine Milne.
Some interesting information and questions for you !
July 29, 1999: email 0933255789
The World Wildlife Fund’s Adam Markham writes to University of East Anglia climate scientists Mike Hulme and Nicola Sheard, about a paper that Hulme and Sheard had written about climate change in Australasia:
Hi Mike,
I’m sure you will get some comments direct from Mike Rae in World Wildlife Fund Australia, but I wanted to pass on the gist of what they’ve said to me so far.
They are worried that this may present a slightly more conservative approach to the risks than they are hearing from Australian scientists. In particular, they would like to see the section on variability and extreme events beefed up if possible. …
I guess the bottom line is that if they are going to go with a big public splash on this they need something that will get good support from Australian scientists (who will certainly be asked to comment by the press).
———————————————————————
**Climategate takes on a new dimension with this revelation: political activists from an environmental lobby group are telling East Anglia climate scientists to rewrite sections of their paper, as it is less alarming than the message that Australian scientists have already presented for public consumption!
My Comments:-
Is this the genesis of chief Chicken Littles, ChristineMilne and Bob Brown flapping round and clucking “Catastrophic Climate Change, Catastrophic Climate Change” and so on ad nauseum at every opportunity???!!!
***I have two challenges for Bob and Christine or any other Green AGW alarmist.
You’ve talked the talk, now walk the walk and publicly put your reputations on the line.
1. Produce just one piece of credible evidence that CO2 is causing global warming or conversely name just one observed change in climate that can be attributed solely to increased levels of CO2.
2. Name just one instance of observed change in climate where natural variability can be categorically ruled out as a factor.
I await your replies with great interest.
————————————–
As at 20/1/10 I’m still waiting for any response!!!!
I also note it was the WWF who were the channel for the Himalayan Glacier melt misinformation so avidly seized upon and used by the IPCC in their allegedly “peer reviewed” Report!
10
My theory is, CSIRO came up with this to let Krudd off the hook.
John Howard was turned out, basically, because he couldn’t make it rain in the desert.
“Climate Activist” (among other things) Krudd pretty much promised rain because he advocated ETS and worse; the worst scientist on Earth, Tim Flannery, concurred.
Krudd couldn’t make it rain either, but rather than hang blame on Krudd for “not pushing hard enough” for ETS, the CSIRO gave him a free pass
10
My take on this is that some members of CSIRO are starting to ‘sniff the wind’.
Factors for more circumspect CSIRO analysis include a global increase in skepticism w.r.t AGW-CC… what with Climategate, Liberal Change in Leadership, Defeat of ETS (and probably for third time), Copenhagen fiasco, consistent UK Met Office failed seasonal predictions (BoM here not much better), UNIPCC Pachauri money trail, dodgy UN Himalayan Glacier ‘science’, Northern Hemisphere frozen-in, drought breaking rains particularly in Qld & parts of NSW. Good rainfall in WA, SA & Vic over last year.
As for Bob Brown, why don’t the media ask him for some facts. To make comments like that presumes he has the FACTS and can support those FACTS with hard evidence ie. Real Data (AGW-CC & drought). Although he is partly correct, CSIRO have sniffed the political wind and hence public sentiment and are now trying to repair their shattered reputation.
10
Behind every great scheme there’s a mastermind, and AGW is no different.
The (one time) frenzy over AGW points back to a single individual, the relatively unknown Tom Wigley, formerly of East Anglia U in the UK, and who went to preside over UCAR in the USA.
Wigley populated the Climate Research Unit CRU (hwich he helped to found) with people he knew to be agreeable to AGW.
Wigley orchestrated it from the USA because there was enough money only there to do it.
From there Wigley also pressed the UN to found the IPCC, and most importantly, blackjack it to come to the “correct” conclusion about human influence on the climate.
Thus far Wigley has gone unscathed pretty much, but he is in fact gang leader
10
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2haTWt-MZtw&NR=1
This YouTube clip will give you a good laugh.
Penny Wong dismisses the emails and looks to our own Scientific organizations like the CSIRO, she doesn’t mention that the CSIRO is censored and they can not publish anything that conflicts with Government policy.
10
In my other life as a retired farmer who is still farming but with more time to read I came across “Freakonomics”, a book by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner.
To paraphrase: During the 1980s crime in the US was accelerating at an alarming rate leading some experts to predict “blood flowing in the streets”. Indeed incarceration was up fifteen fold as society demanded a tougher stance on crime. Hundreds of new jails were planned when suddenly the crime rate started to plummet. Why? Experts once again gave their views; better economy, aging population, more police and so on but the real reason eluded them. In 1964 abortion was made legal in most American states. Most criminals came from severely disadvantaged backgrounds; including single mothers, poor education and lack of a future. Abortion effectively curtailed the birth of many criminals.
The point is that often the logical and obvious answer is not the right one. I found many similarities between the AGW promoters and the social scientists forecasting a disaster then explaining how they were still right but for a different reason when the disaster failed to materialise. Just as the social scientists found the wrong solution the AGW crowd may have also found the wrong culprit.
CO2 has become the focus to the virtual exclusion of all other causes of CC and IMHO they may well be overlooking the real driver of climate change.
10
An interesting insight into the CSIRO is the case of Maarten Stapper. Dr Stapper was a CSIRO scientists who was working on natural farming techniques and resigned from the CSIRO because he couldn’t go along with their GM Foods bias.
http://www.abc.net.au/austory/specials/stapper/default.htm
check out the way the head of CSIRO addresses his case.
10
maybe mr. ‘mann-made global warming’ will be the first to go?
19 Jan: Collegian: Group calls for Mann’s external investigation
Powers also said Penn State has a good track record for handling these types of inquiries.
“Any notion that we are not prepared to be objective in evaluating our own or are incapable of invoking appropriate sanctions in the event of misconduct is incorrect,” Powers said. “We would not jeopardize the integrity of the entire institution and its researchers for a single individual.”
Mann did not comment on the inquiry, saying that a response would be inappropriate.
http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2010/01/19/group_calls_for_manns_external.aspx
10
Greetings all,
Maybe we are seeing the start of a public re-education campaign? Of course Joe Sixpack would really choke if he got all this info in one day. He would get confused – and confusing Rudds voter base is not what Mr Rudd wants.
I would bet that any 180 degree turn in the “consensus” willn not be done overnight in the public arena. People would then ask some of the questions I’ve been thinking – like “What else should I know about but don’t”?
So maybe they’re eating the elephant one bite at a time? Or are the skeptics bouyed by the recent revelations enough to have decided that now is the time to stand up? I know I’ve been standing up since Climategate broke.
I am wondering if the press censorship has been deliberate or just a result of most hippie types with degrees tend to go for BAs and such rather than anything requiring some Maths and analytical skills? And as such end up as “journalists” and such like? Maybe the Left/Right thing more of a Left Brain Hemishpere/Right Brain Hemisphere thing?
Dunno, just rambling..
10
Republicans in the race in Ted Kennedy’s old seat. A win could derail Democrat legislation.http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100119/pl_nm/us_usa_politics_massachusetts
Good news for the sceptics as well.
10
It appears that Scott Brown has won Ted Kennedys old seat in Massachusetts. This is a real game changer with regards to cap and trade. The democrats will no longer have a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. In addition to that Cap and Trade and the Health Care bills were a major part of this race. This has to have other democrats reading the writing on the wall. Politicians only care about reelection so this race has to have them a little shaken perhaps enough to jump ship, they aren’t a brave lot.
This is becoming a year of bullet dodging.
10
The Republican, Scott Brown, did in fact win the Massachusetts election. His opponent conceded. Republicans will have 41 votes in the Senate. The margin was about 53% to 47% earlier this evening.
Republicans will pick up some seats in the Senate and the House in November as well. The times, they are a changing!
10
There might have been some internal climate biffo down at the CSIRO for a while which has made it’s way into the media. If so, they may have been emboldened by the sceptic noise in general. Yes, that’s our contribution.
Bob Brown’s take is plain amusing. Politicized? Richer than my Granny’s fruitcake.
10
Madjak
And as such end up as “journalists” and such like? Maybe the Left/Right thing more of a Left Brain Hemishpere/Right Brain Hemisphere thing?
I’ve asked John Ray (Greenie Watch) about this specifically and as he is a pyschologist, told me there was no published literature on this specific topic – LBrain vs RBrain – tendency.
I suspect there might be and that feelgoody type approaches balance the empirical approach.
Problem is that if this is so, then we will have to deal with it forever.
10
Keith h @ 16,
Please Please Please let me have this….
I have two challenges for Bob and Christine or any other Green AGW alarmist.
You’ve talked the talk, now walk the walk and publicly put your reputations on the line.
1. Produce just one piece of credible evidence that CO2 is causing global warming or conversely name just one observed change in climate that can be attributed solely to increased levels of CO2.
2. Name just one instance of observed change in climate where natural variability can be categorically ruled out as a factor.
I await your replies with great interest.
🙂 Love it!
10
Madjak,
I should be clearer – Lbrain vs RBrain in political terms. It actually boils down to how we think, which is a biochemical phenomenon.
And with that comment I suspect I have created an issue.
🙂
10
Sorry that be @ 18
10
Nick @ 32. Glad you loved it. Feel free. Posted similar challenge on UK TimesOnline and other sites inviting IPCC scientists, AGW believers, ETS supporting politicians or anyone to provide the evidence. No luck so far. Not surprising really considering CO2 is just one of the trace greenhouse gases so statistically insignificant in the atmosphere they can’t even be shown on an atmospheric pie chart and human contribution to that insignificant CO2 volume is fractional.
My position is that few if any would “deny” climate change, either warming or cooling, which has been happening naturally and cyclically since Time began. However, considering the multitude of complex factors and forcings which in combination can and do influence such changes, I and many millions of others are deeply sceptical of the UNIPCC hypothesis of Anthropogenic Global Warming allegedly caused solely by human-induced increases in the atmospheric volume of CO2, that very statistically minor but absolutely essential greenhouse gas.
See http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/search/label/graphs for some perspective in the scheme of things
10
If Bob Brown had any evidence of political interference in CSIRO, he can table it in parliament. He can also call for a Senate Inquiry. He is a Senator after all. Oh, and so is Christine Milne.
I doubt that any of this happen, however.
Madjak, Louis,
You might like to ponder this. Shades of Schumpeter, who made similar observations.
10
Keith H @ 35,
LOL, you beat me to it 🙂
10
Jo, I’ve found this:
http://www.climatechange.gov.au/minister/wong/2010/media-releases/January/mr20101018-1410.aspx
and it leads to the Tasmania reports:
http://www.csiro.au/partnerships/TasSY.html
I’ve only read the 8p overview, and can see nothing in it about the cause of our droughts. Something David said perhaps, but wasn’t brave enough to put in print?
10
Roy Hogue @ 29: The times, they are a changing!
Yes, but are the Republicans changing? In the past, they acted as if their central concern was to have the Democrats love them and not say bad things against them. They then proceeded to prove they were better Democrats than the Democrats themselves.
Its all grow government, increase spending, increase regulation…for the sake of that bottomless pit of the *sacred* other. The so called two sides only argue over who to sacrifice to whom, how much, how fast, and for what excuse but they agree on the basic principles.
Where is the politician who is honestly and forthrightly for upholding the constitution, as written, and defending INDIVIDUAL rights on principle? As near as I can tell, THAT specie is extinct.
10
Louis,
Thanks for the link. Having a good friend who is a professor and an extreme leftie, I have been well aware of the left bias from a lot of Professors ( as an adult student at Uni some years ago it was extremely noticeable).
An interesting parellel to this is how the universities in Germany in the ’30s was extremely right wing. Maybe the Lefties hope to have that amount of influence some day? Good luck with that.
10
Interesting how our language is being abused.
Droughts are caused by Climate Change.
Droughts are not caused by co2 induced climate change which does not exist.
Political use of the words Climate Change, Carbon etc are confusing to the man in the street and make explanations more difficult to execute.
10
So the Canberra Times didn’t provide a link huh?
That’s why you do research. You do know what that is right? You supposedly have a science degree and you are supposedly a journalist (or something like that), so how about you do your job.
It’s not hard – go to the CSIRO website and look up any recent publications on Tasmania which were authored by Dr David Post. It took me all of 5 minutes.
To save you the work, here is a link to the study
http://www.clw.csiro.au/publications/waterforahealthycountry/tassy/
If you actually read the report, you might find out that it is not a study of climate change and contains no criticism of climate change. Dr David Post is not a ‘co-author’ – he is the project team leader. He has no doubts that climate change is real and humans are the cause.
So here’s a couple of tips for free. Act like a scientist and/or proper journalist and do your research. Then act like a scientist and accept the evidence when it is shown to you. If you want to be a skeptic that’s fine. But be a real skeptic not just a blinkered denialist who’s world view is based on prejudice and irrationality, rather than evidence and thought.
10
Lionell,
We have to wait and see of course. A couple of them at least will start out much better as far as I can see. But once in office they’re subject to all the corrupting influences that hit everyone.
There’s another phenomenon to watch. The “Tea Party” groups are starting to talk about organizing to get into the local ranks of the Republican Party and hope to influence who will be nominated and eventually take the party over. This could change the calculus for quite a while if successful. On the other hand it could be worse as well as better. I don’t like extreme right any more than I like extreme left. Again, we can only wait and see.
I like it best when the White House and one half of Congress are controlled by one party and the other half of Congress is controlled by the other party. That seems to do the least damage.
10
And I should add that it’s a terrible commentary on the state of our nation when I have to settle for the least damage.
10
Nick @32,
Please don’t try to hold your breath until you get an answer!
10
The CSIRO and BoM are just beginning to wake up that the Coral & Timor Seas are two degrees lower than normal (caused by cyclonic mixing by Cat 5 cyclones Hamish & Laurence), the East Australia Current has for weather prediction purposes stopped moving and the El Nino has been neutered.
Its going to be a long cold, very wet (unless it snowing), winter & spring in Melbourne (BoM headquarters). It will take 2-3 years for the oceans to heat up to begin again lowering average SE Australia rainfall. The lower Murray Darling Basin can expect massive flooding this winter/spring.
Victoria’s North-South pipe ($750M) from the Goulburn River to the Sugarloaf Reservoir (Melbourne) is going to have trouble pumping water up 211m to a full dam. The Wonthaggi, 150GL/year, Suez desalination plant ($4.8B) is going to have trouble burning 90MW filling the Cardinia Reservoir when its full.
The Esk River problem Bob Brown refers to is caused by silting and storing water for a not-as-yet built paper pulp mill.
Its time to clean out SE Australia’s drains (and fire a few climatologists for utter incompetence, attention seeking & fraud). Then there’s the idiots who listened to them. They knew it was bull but saw an opportunity to get elected or make money. They need to go directly to jail, Do not Pass Go.
10
mandas,
So here’s the problem. Dr. Post is the leader of a team which studies drought in Tasmania. He follows the AGW line and agrees with CC. The reporter at the Canberra Times asked him whether the drought in SE Australia was a result of climate change, no doubt caused by AGW. His answer quoted above says that there was “no evidence” linking drought to climate change.He went on to say “At this stage we’d prefer to say we’re talking about natural variability”.
There is no need to refer to papers as this is a straight lift from a newspaper and a quote from the Dr. Apart from accessing the reporters tape recorder we can have no better evidence. If the Dr. was misquoted then he would have said so.
The fact that the Dr. has publicly rebuffed the statements of both Rudd and Wong has no doubt upset you and caused you to doubt their other pronouncements of impending doom. While it is understandable that you are distraught at their deceit, your anger should be directed at them rather than Jo who was merely alerting you to the truth.
10
Roy Hogue: post 43 and 44
I can’t agree more with you on this. I don’t know when it happened but some in my late 20’s I decided to always vote for gridlock whenever I had a chance to do so. It’s always been a choice between the lesser of two evils for me ever since.
Both parties have their BIG government factions. I have often said that the best of all worlds would be to send them all home and pay them to do absolutely nothing. I wonder if someone could be elected on that platform. “Vote for me and I won’t even go to Washington!” I can tell you one thing he/she would get my vote.
10
Lawrie
Wrong on every count.
To suggest that newspapers are accurate and never misquote or get things wrong is ludicrous in the extreme. Dr Post was the project leader on the Tasmanian study. The newspaper has him commenting on the Murray Darling basin, which he would not have done. It would be a bit hard for him to say he was misquoted since the article only came out in the last couple of days, and newspapers are notoriously bad and admitting their mistakes and making corrections when they misquote someone.
However, what cannot be doubted is that Dr Post accepts that the climate is changing, and humans are the cause (ask him if you like). If you want to go around using his study as some sort of evidence against climate change, you are barking up the wrong tree. In fact, I strongly suggest you continue to do what you are doing and accept what you think is his advice. Oh wait – he disagrees with you, so I guess you will probably saying he is in on the conspiracy or just spruking the partyy line or some other nonsense.
What is worse is the spin which is being put on this story on this website. This is a story about a report issued by the CSIRO on water sustainability. You should read it because it does not take any position on climate change – it uses a number of potential scenarios to calculate the availability and sustainability of water use in Tasmania. The project leader – who you want to use to justify your denialist position – categorically accepts anthropogenic climate change as a fact.
So keep spinning all you like. But it won’t change the facts of climate change or what the CSIRO and other scientists around the world realise from the overwhelming evidence they are discovering.
Finally, Jo was not alerting me or anyone else to the truth. She did no research, and just accepted a newspaper report as fact without any evidence. That is lazy, sloppy journalism, and it is appalling bad science. As she is supposed to be both a scientist (well, an undergraduate degree anyway) and a journalist, it means she did not do her job properly. I just called her on it. I guess that’s why you are upset – because not everyone takes these things at face value. I actually check my facts before I comment. You should try it some time.
10
Clive Popham @ 41. Go to http://www.nzclimatescience.net and type Envirotruth 212 in the site search box. Dr.Vincent Gray,an expert reviewer of all four Assessment Reports of the IPCC will explain “The Triumph of Doublespeak – How UNIPCC Fools Most Of The People All Of The Time”.
Mandas @ 49. You state that “the climate is changing, and humans are the cause” and further “it won’t change the facts of climate change or what the CSIRO and other scientists around the world realise from the overwhelming evidence they are discovering.”
Herein lies the problem for all we AGW sceptics (not the derogatory demonising term “denialists” introduced by the pro-AGW lobby), that after 20 years of effort and billions of dollars of money spent on grants and so-called carbon reduction schemes etc., not one shred of credible evidence has been produced to back up your (and the IPCC) assertions about Anthropogenic Global Warming.
That money, which could have been spent so much better, has been wasted based on “scenarios that are derived from computer models that are unable to reproduce the realities of Nature” as Dr.Gray puts so well.
Despite what others may think,we all care deeply about our Planet,and I (and I’m sure most other AGW sceptics) have an open mind and have searched site after site these last few months vainly trying to find some credible evidence to back up the Intergovernmental Panel assertions. The only thing “Mann-made” I found was the infamous and now discredited “hockey stick” which attempted to wipe out the historically proven and accepted Mediaeval Warm Period and The Little Ice Age.
Perhaps from the overwhelming evidence you say exists, you may be the one who can provide answers to the following requests:-
1. State one credible documented instance where any observed statistically significant change in climate could be solely attributed to levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, human-induced or otherwise.
2. State one instance of any observed statistically significant change in climate which could not be put down to natural cyclical variability, as has been happening since Earth was formed.
Please don’t just descend into attacking me, Dr.Gray or sceptics in general, or making statements like “overwhelming consensus” and “the science is settled”. Hopefully everyone is past all that.
Thanks to the Internet, we are no longer dependent upon Mainstream Media, or powerful interest groups who control the outflow of information on any subject.
10
Roy,
I agree. Political gridlock is the best we can hope for any time soon.
10
[…] Ahhh the CSIRO finally letting go of its moral high ground, […]
10
Mandas,
Are you suggesting the Canberra Times report is a fabrication, that the reporter didn’t actually speak to Dr.Post but simply made up the interview? How can you be sure Dr. Post didn’t make those statements about the drought in the Murray/Darling basin? Were you present?
Dr. Post supports the theory of AGW, so what? Lots of other scientists don’t. I haven’t been convinced and nature seems to be supporting my view rather than yours.
10
Mandas,
Would you help me out and make a list of the overwhelming evidence you refer to. I’d like to fact check. Thanks.
10
Mandas,
I just love it when someone puts words in another’s mouth. Or in this case, takes them out. You cannot know what Dr. Post would or would not say. You have demanded greater rigor of others, now where are you on that subject? You have weakened your already bad position even more and given me a good laugh.
You’re entitled to your opinion. But the pot may not call the kettle black.
10
Lionell,
Gridlock may be the best we can get. But I can hope for better. Otherwise I have to give up and quit voting.
10
Mandas #49
You write clearly and to the point, I have no doubt you check your facts before commenting.
But I’m afraid you may have missed one fact in this instance. Unfortunately it happens to be the most important fact in your argument.
Unless you can provide a communique with Ms Nova whereby you asked WHAT Ms NOVAS JOB IS in regards to this blog, you can not claim to know her job. If you don’t know her job, YOU CANNOT CRITICISE HOW SHE IS DOING her job, e.g. ” it means she did not do her job properly,”
Regards your choice of words and tone, I have blogged here for a number of months now. My experience is Ms Nova is welcoming of criticism, though I don’t know for sure but my personal belief is she doesn’t “censor” as such but she does have certain rules, so she should, it is her blog afterall.
The rules really basicly state that we (her guests) behave in a CIVILIZED manner. Rules to be encouraged don’t you think?
You have behaved in an unacceptable way, I believe you owe Ms Nova an apology.
10
A lot of people here want to claim to be skeptics about climate change. Well, there is nothing wrong with being skeptical; all good scientists are.
Unfortunately, being skeptical means not accepting things at face value, and requiring evidence and rationality before believing in something. But it also means that, when the evidence is presented to you, you review it, and if you cannot find anything wrong with it, you accept it. Particularly when the people showing you the evidence know what they are talking about, have spent most of their lives studying it, andd base their credibility on getting it right. Rather than people who don’t understand the subject, have made no effort to understand it, and base their opinions on a political/religious/economic view rather than scientific and rational position.
There is a huge difference between being skeptical and what is actually going on here. Most people here are doing the OPPOSITE of skepticism. You are all adopting a position – that climate change is a myth or that it isn’t antropogenic – then denying all the evidence that is presented to you.
If you want to be skeptical, ask yourself WHY you believe the way you do. Then ask what evidence you have for that view. Do you believe the climate isn’t changing? Very few do, because the evidence for change is so overwhelming that even the most hardened denialists out there accept that it is. So then, do you accept that the climate is changing, but it isn’t anthropogenic? Fair enough – so it must therefore be natural. What is your evidence for that? Show us the evidence you have for natural forcing mechanisms which are causing the currently observed climate variations. Then we can have a debate about the science. Don’t keep saying that everything the climatologists say is wrong unless you can demonstrate that it is, and you can offer a credible alternative.
As far as calling out Joanne Nova on her sloppy work, I do not and will not offer an apology or change my position. I know EXACTLY what her job is with regard to this website, because it is written at the top of the page. It says she is a science writer. Note it says both science and writer. That means that she should check her facts, and she should base her opinions on science. Does anyone disagree? And on this issue, she has done neither.
10
Mr(?) Mandas, when I read each of your posts it becomes very clear, at least in my opinion, that you really do not seek to understand exactly why we are truly skeptical regarding AGwarming. I believe you, sir,need to seek some research data which is available to anyone, if they choose to seek it, on the web. And I am not even going to mention all that is available in various books and magazines. But I will provide some sources which will make your journey easier – at least in the beginning. Please forgive me for providing a minimal listing, it is just that there exists such a massive amount just at the touch of one’s finger-tips(Sorry, that was indeed harsh,I should have resisted the temptation to taunt).
For instance, you could go to http://www.CO2science.org and you could even become educated on the ‘value of CO2’ to all of life. You could take the time to review several video which detail some degree to which the scientist has gone to determine yea or nea on one or more aspects of CO2.
You could go to the following site http://www.climate-skeptic.com/phoenix and watch a 90 minute video which has some degree of scientific data to support my reason for being skeptical.
The sites are so numerous that it boggles the mind when one stops to consider just why you have not yet decided to truly investigate the true story behind AGWarming.
You lament about skeptics, journalists, etc but have not given any factual data to support your overwhelming ‘faith’ that AGWarming is in “fact” occurring. PLease, stop your folly and don’t come back until you can provide true data to support your claims. You are wasting our time and space.
We all seek the truth, but you continue to cast a fog which prohibits one from even sorting through evidence. At least give us something to dig into which might support your lusty faithfulness. You don’t need to degrade other people for it does not prove you are right. We all live together in this world and one’s particular point of view is (and has been) shaped by a variety of events. It is my hope that by intersecting with others we might come to understand more clearly what the “complete” truth might be.
Thank you
10
Mandas,
You are continuing your pious assault against Jo regarding sourcing for her comments, yet you do not provide any of the overwhelming evidence that you say you have. Clearly you have made up your mind, having been overwhelmed. That’s fine. All I ask that you share some of it with me. Is this too much to ask ?
10
Michael
Thank you for validating everything I said.
Let me make this abundantly clear so you understand it. I berated everyone for not doing their research, and in response you provide me with links to a couple of blogs as if that means anything.
No – reading blogs is not research, and the opinions of bloggers are not evidence.
Go away and do some REAL research. You know, the type where they have data and information and it is published and reviewed. Proper science papers written by scientists who have studied the evidence. Not books or magazines or films or newspaper articles or tv shows. Evidence!!!!!
You say you have ‘a massive amount’. Ok – show it.
10
Mandas
You leave me a humble and contrite heart as I become aware of the immense pain you must be feeling as one is confronted with their own foolishness. Go to the sites, see and taste the “data” shared on the sites, explore other sites that are there and continue the personal exploration. Then go to the sites easily found which put forth the ‘other side’. Make sure you seek opinions and then try to determine if the opinion is shared, and if there is a lead to where one might find related “data” to support the forementioned claim. Don’t just blindly accept it, begin to seek (research) on your own.
Now, Mr. Mandas, good health to you and yours, and please close the door quietly on the way out.
Michael
All humanity begins with positive possibilities and too many choose to stop using their brain on their own behalf; which are you?
10
Mandas,
What you suggest is credible to some extent, however, there is a lot of rubbish science out there on this matter. You talk about “proper science papers written by scientists who have studied the evidence”.
Are you referring to the Yamal tree rings, the Wikipedia graphs in the IPCC AR4 or the Himalayan glaciers disappearing by 2035?
Personally, if anything has formulated in myh skeptical mind the most over the past few months is how eminently corruptible the scientific method has become.
Or are you takling about the hockey stick graphs which were the pinup poster for AGW and the IPCC to the public?
Don’t get me wrong here, there is still some good science out there, but there really is a lot of Crap out there within the “proper science papers written by scientists who have studied the evidence”.
10
Oh Mandas, where to start! Your mind is so closed you seem to be beyond help but I still respect your right to hold the opinions you do. However, you have no personal knowledge of any of us so your many generalisations about those who post here, sceptics as a group, their interest, motives, reasons etc., are not even worth responding to individually and quite frankly I find them rather insulting. My position is very clearly laid out in Post 35 at this blog and I have found this to be a position shared by many other AGW sceptics.
You say: “So then, do you accept that the climate is changing, but it isn’t anthropogenic? Fair enough – so it must therefore be natural. What is your evidence for that? Show us the evidence you have for natural forcing mechanisms which are causing the currently observed climate variations.”
The evidence you want AGW sceptics to provide is also laid out at Post 35: “climate change, either warming or cooling, —— has been happening naturally and cyclically since Time began.” AGW sceptics believe nothing has changed in that respect and evidence that has been known and accepted for thousands of years still stands, despite Michael Mann, Briffa, Jones etc. at the IPCC trying to rewrite history with the discredited “Hockey Stick”, so there is absolutely no requirement for “new” evidence. What is so hard about that for you to accept?
On the other hand, you and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change contend there is something different happening and that Man is now responsible for current “observed changes” and further, there is “overwhelming evidence” to support those assertions. The onus is clearly on you and the IPCC to outline that evidence and we are respectfuly asking you to do so.
Since my two requests to you at Post 50 go to the heart of the UNIPCC assertions about the effects of CO2, they should be simple to answer if the evidence exists. Please do so or it will become obvious to all that you have no valid argument.
10
Keith
I ask for evidence, I get a link to a website with a lot of graphs on it. I guess you don’t understand what constitutes evidence then.
But I am even more staggered by the assertion that the science of climatology has been known and understood for thousands of years, and there is no need for new evidence. Do you really, honestly, believe that? Do you believe the same about every science? I am going to suggest that – despite your assertion that I should find it easy to acccept that position – that science moves on, we discover ‘new evidence’ all the time, and knowledge advances. Things are different to what they were in the past, and we know a bit more about the universe, the world and the climate.
Do you really, honestly, believe that the world is the same place as it has been for thousands of years, and nothing has changed that is worth studying and knowing about, and that the circumstances of human impact on the planet are still the same as a millenium ago?
You state you believe that my mind is closed. Wow. Yours is so closed it beggars belief.
You ask me to produce the evidence. Fair enough. I tried to provide a number of links here, but for some reason my post was blocked. How about you just go to Google Scholar and do a search of the available literature. It’s not secret. Anyone can do it. There are thousands of papers just waiting for your reading pleasure. But a note of caution – there is not one ‘master document’ with all the science. You have to read papers from dozens of different disciplines to get the whole picture.
Happy reading!
10
Leave the room for five minutes and what enters?
Mandas, that’s what, delivering an arm-flailing diatribe against …
… Joanne, I’m assuming, although the target of his wrath is unnamed.
Mandas hasn’t checked any facts before excoriating Joanne, and answers rebuke with arm-flailing; from what I can gather, Mandas appears displeased with some people’s interpretation of “sceptic”.
I’m not a physician, but Mandas might want to talk with his health care provider about the possible benefits of such things as “chlorpromazine” and “risperidone”
10
All right Mandas, so climate is changing. Now show me the evidence that CO2 is causing that change. Just make one credible link between anything that has changed and CO2 as the cause of that change and we’ll all be on your side. Surely you can do that! But up to now you have not done it and the opinion of someone that CO2 is responsible is not sufficient. If you’re any kind of scientist you know this yourself.
We need not prove anything. The burden of proof is yours. So pick it up and run with it.
10
NEWS
Just watched speech at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYj5baVfB0Y&feature=player_embedded
showing Al Gore held in contempt during British Parliment speech. Mention of poorly developed Austrailian scientific report. I am now looking for this Austrialian report. Any one know where I can locate it. Sorry, just trying to short cut the process a bit. Thanks michael
10
I jumped rather too quickly. It was in the European Parliament, talking about the New Zealand Climate -not the Australian Climate, and here is another source. My apologize.
http://fwix.com/wellington/share/d6de5ab4dd/godfrey_bloom_told_the_eu_parliament_the_nz_national_climate_data_base_is_all_fraudulent
10
Mandas,
Thanks for the tip – Google Scholar. I think I’ve heard of that. And “do a search of available literature” is that right ? And I will find thousands of papers. So your overwhelming evidence comment is merely a count of scientific papers, is that right ? So, if you were repeatedly told something, by many different people, you would believe it ? Would that make that something a fact ? Or would you look for alternate explanations, and would you examine likely scenarios that would invalidate the “fact”. For me, overwhelming means that I can no longer maintain acceptance of a theory, where other facts do not fit that theory and are anathema to it. You seem immune to the many scientific observations that are contrary to the notion that AGW fully explains recent (in the historical timeframe) climate trends. There are plenty of contra indications that would seem to indicate that CO2 plays a minor role in climate, in comparison to other effects. But rather than acknowledge the limited explanatory power of CO2, we remain stuck, like so many prehistoric gnats in amber, rather than seeking to further our understanding of this amazing planet and its environs.
By the way, if there is “no master document”, perhaps you should consider writing one – you could become famous like Dr Pachuri. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought the IPCC was given the task to create just such a document, at great expense. Given your view on the lack of a master document, I take it that you do not accept the Assessment Reports of the IPCC ?
10
Mandas @65:
Perhaps my phraseology wasn’t the best and I realised straight after posting the “thousands of years” was a bit sweeping, though even primitive Man knew the Sun warmed, the clouds cooled and brought rain, without understanding the dynamics. However, I did not assert “the science of climatology has been known and understood”. I said “climate change, either warming or cooling, —— has been happening naturally and cyclically since Time began. …and evidence that has been known and accepted….”. You do see the difference between “understood” and “accepted”?
I apologise for the “cut & paste”, but to clearly illustrate, and with acknowledgment to http://www.nzscience.net – Thriving With Nature, most know, accept but certainly do not understand the following:-
“Factors driving climate—the dynamic sun radiating to a dynamic earth.
FACT There appear to be hundreds, perhaps many hundreds of factors affecting global climate. These operate across many scales including the following partial list
• Galactic. eg, 150 million year cycle of our solar system passing through high cosmic wind radiation bands in our galaxy.
• Solar system and sun. These are many, varied and appear highly significant for climate including variations in sun’s solar output; output of solar particles; sun’s magnetic field polarity and strength; Earth’s orbit; solar system’s centre-of-gravity; Earth’s axis tilt and precession; sun’s polarity; sun spot cycles; moon’s orbit.
• Planetary. These appear to include Earth’s axis tilt; geotectonic and volcanic activity; many forms of energy including kinetic and magnetic; Earth’s polarity and movement of the poles; length of day;seasons of the year; volume of water in the global hydrological cycle; Earth’s geothermal heat flow; Earth’s interior heat source – vastly greater by many orders of magnitude than oceans as a heat sink.
• Earth’s surface. eg, topography; Earth’s surface temperatures; seasonal variations in temperature;fires; relative differentials between regions around the Earth’s surface, especially polar to tropical;photochemical -dynamical changes; sea ice; sea level; Earth’s internal constitution.
• Atmospheric. eg, variations in strength of Earth’s magnetic field – deflecting of photons; atmospheric water content; cloud cover; precipitation – rain, snow; variability in wind currents; lower and upper atmospheric temperatures and their relationships; natural aerosols (far outweigh human-made aerosols); ozone; natural mineral aerosols; atmospheric pressure; storm activity; auroral lights.
• Oceanic. eg, ocean temperature; salinity; currents; sea surface temperatures; iron content; Earth’s tides due to interaction of sun and moon.
• Cyclic regional decadal circulation patterns such as North American Oscillation and the southern
Pacific ocean’s El Nino together with their variation over time.
• Biological. eg, marine phytoplanckton producing natural aerosols like sea salt and dimethyl sulphide;enzyme action of microbes;
• Nature’s large scale changes to vegetation.
• Interactions. eg, of wind currents and ocean currents; conversion of energy forms (eg, from sun’s e-m energy to cloud seeds); environmental processes involving the interaction of climate, biological and geological processes and, at times, extraterrestrial bombardment by meteorites; area of snow cover; heat content and transfers spatially and vertically around and within Earth; heat transfersbetween ocean and atmosphere and between land and atmosphere;
• water vapour transfers spatially and vertically; release of volatiles at deep ocean vents.
• Human. eg, relatively tiny human production of aerosols (eg, soot); aircraft contrails; land use. Due to Earth’s relative enormity, the impact of human factors is restricted to local and occasionally regional.
FACT Understanding has improved recently of the sun’s huge effect on Earth directly, and indirectly through its variation triggering variation in other climate factors such as clouds.
FACT Perfect seasonal and short term correlation of atmospheric CO2 content with ocean surface temperatureshas recently been proved. Endersbee (2008).
FACT Not one scientist can reliably state the complete list of climate factors. Not one scientist can state the impact of each factor in isolation. Not one scientist can state the impact of the interdependent factors.
Not one scientist can even state the direction of effect on climate. Not one. Evans (2008a).”
I don’t want to get into semantics, but my perhaps poorly enunciated point was that there is no need for new evidence that natural variability is what affects climate. In our constantly changing and evolving Solar System, other new natural factors may well emerge that further influence the mathematically chaotic object known as climate.
Now to your statement: “I ask for evidence, I get a link to a website with a lot of graphs on it. I guess you don’t understand what constitutes evidence then.”
No Mandas, the link listed in my post 35 for Nick@post32 was not provided as “evidence” and was clearly referenced to illustrate and put into perspective, that considering the complex factors involved, some of which are outlined above, the absurdity of the “UNIPCC hypothesis of Anthropogenic Global Warming allegedly caused solely by human-induced increases in the atmospheric volume of CO2, that very statistically minor but absolutely essential greenhouse gas….. just one of the trace greenhouse gases so statistically insignificant……they can’t even be shown on an atmospheric pie chart.” I considered the “pie chart” at the link gave that perspective.
As to your comments such as “science moves on”, AGW sceptics are not the ones saying “the science (on AGW) is settled” and “there is overwhelming consensus”.
As to closed minds, I don’t think that asking for some evidence of that “settled science” beyond projections of computer modelling based on “corrected” “homogenised” “adjusted” and otherwise manipulated data from poorly sited, poorly maintained and recorded, increasingly “cherry picked” surface stations, many subject to increasing “Urban Heat Island” effect, scattered round land that occupies only approximately 29 percent of the Earth’s surface, is indicative of a closed mind.
Although blessed with an inquiring mind, I’m the first to admit I’m not qualified to understand a fraction of what’s available in any scientific papers, let alone the ones you ask me to read.
We mere mortals are dependent upon more gifted individuals to interpret the complexities. Though I don’t know your qualifications, your post seems to infer you are one such individual and have read all the papers, so to answer our queries could you kindly provide us with a condensed version of the evidence you have found?
Sadly for the ordinary man and science, the leaked CRU emails and documents show us we can no longer accept it when someone says: “trust me, I’m a scientist”.
On a positive note, the great thing is that intelligent debate is now happening and good scientists from all disciplines around the world are becoming heaily involved, doing their own research and closely monitoring and scrutinising the work of the UNIPCC, which even well-respected IPCC East Anglia Scientist Denis Hulme says should be wound up.
10
Congratulations to scientists like Jo Nova for having the courage to stand up against the AGW runaway steam (gravy?) train.
This article linking the two reports is interesting to me in their respective timing: one before Copenhagen and one after. Do I detect a slight change in the wind now as politicians wake up to the fact that there will never be a “global new deal” (I hate that sound bite!), and possibly that the unwashed masses are being alerted to the fact that this AGW emperor is positively running about in his birthday suit? Do I hear the sounds of pedals being engaged into reverse? I’ve certainly noticed more “sceptic” stories in the media since Copenhagen.
Of course any political U turn will subtle.
Own own moribundly dreadful “President non-elect” Brown stated before Copenhagen “that we only had two weeks to save the world”. He flew into Copenhagen ready to show he saved the world in a “new world order”, ready to bask in the limelight had it been successful. He quietly backed away from the car crash that was Copenhagen and he’s been quiet about the subject of saving the world from AGW global warming since then.
I always smelt a rat on “Climate Change” (my ‘O’ Level in Geology attained in 1981 educated me to a few basic facts about the planet and how it works) and over the past month, after an insanely busy year and finally having the time to look into it, as a non-scientific but technically educated layman, I am horrified with how thin the argument is.
Christopher Booker in the UK Telegraph always has insightful comments, and his book “The Real Global Warming Disaster” on the issue is a “Jaw Dropping” read. Nigel Lawson’s “An Appeal To Reason” is also a fascinating and well argued book.
I’ve made it a mission of mine to alert as many people I know as possible to the counter argument. In the past two weeks in a small corner in Wales, a few jaws have been dropping.
Cheers
Derek
Wales (UK)
“Question Everything, Believe Nothing”
10
I was trying to find the “Thriving With Nature” Link given in Keith’s post, but unfortunately the link is wrong. However, Google came to the rescue!
http://nzclimatescience.net
And more specifically
http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/thriving_with_nature_and%20humanity.pdf
HTH.
Cheers
Derek
Wales (UK)
“Question Everything, Believe Nothing”
10
Derek Cook @72,73. Welcome to Jo’s Blog. Sorry about the wrong link to nzscience and thankyou for providing the correct one. I’ve found the site extremely helpful with it’s many great links and the open debate page which welcomes contributions from both sides of the argument. Sadly in Australia, we may still be shafted on the ETS by Rudd, Wong and the Greens with the help of a couple of unthinking brainwashed Liberal Senators urged on by Malcolm Turnbull still seemingly wearing his Goldman Sachs hat.
At the accelerating rate the AGW scam is disintegrating world-wide, the end of that may come in time to save us but Labour and the Greens are really desperate to impose this foolish job-destroying and industry-exporting huge new tax which will do exactly nothing for the environment but cost Australians dearly in higher prices not only for power but for everything.
However, we’ll do our best to stop it and wish you continued good hunting in Wales in spreading the word. You have joined a rapidly increasing army round the world.
10
Mandas, 1934 is the hottest year according to the climate gurus at NASA, Dr. Jim Hansen. So if 1934 is the hottest year, and there has been added 75 years of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, and still haven’t got past 1934 temperature, doesn’t that disprove the computer models and AGW theories?
See recently released under FOI NASA emails (available at Judicial Watch) and intricite dissection on this at http://climateaudit.org/2010/01/23/nasa-hide-this-after-jim-checks-it/#more-9903.
10
Thanks, Keith
I’m only 50 pages into Mr Booker’s book, with the events leading up to the Rio summit in 1992. Even getting to there, it makes my blood boil to see the manipulation that was going on even then.
It beggars belief that the UK government has unilaterally committed itself to an unattainable reduction in Carbon emissions on the basis of this sham.
I wish I had had the time to research this a long time ago, but I’m catching up fast!
Cheers
Derek
Wales (UK)
“Question Everything, Believe Nothing”
10
Here is yet another wonderfully topical example of just how divorced from reality the cloistered CSIRO (etc) mindset can be (and how it leads young scientists so very easily right up the garden path to a sort of naive alarmism):
“ScienceDaily (Jan. 23, 2010) — Nitrogen is an essential nutrient for plants; limits on available nitrogen constrain how much plants can grow. This in turn affects the amount of carbon dioxide plants can absorb, which affects the global climate.
See Also:
Earth & Climate
* Global Warming
* Climate
* Acid Rain
* Geochemistry
* Air Pollution
* Environmental Issues
Reference
* Consensus of scientists regarding global warming
* Carbon cycle
* Soil life
* Soil
Using a framework that considers interactions of carbon and nutrients, Wang and Houlton have developed a new global estimate of nitrogen fixation rates.
The authors considered the amount of nitrogen plants require to store additional carbon and found that a substantial deficit of nitrogen exists for plants in most areas of the world. They argue that most climate models that do not take into account nitrogen have overestimated carbon uptake and therefore underestimated predicted global warming.
The authors suggest that it is important that the next Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change consider interactions between the nitrogen and carbon cycles.
The research appears in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.
Authors include Ying-Ping Wang, CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research and CAWCR; Benjamin Z. Houlton, Department of Land, Air and Water Resources, University of California, Davis.”
Of course no mention in this paper that about 47% of Earth’s CO2-ABSORBING photosynthetic biomass exists not on the land but in the oceans as cyanobacteria (also known as algae or phytoplankton)!
So what do we know about the cyanobacteria in the sea?
Why, for a start, one little thing that we know e.g. from modern satellite remote sensing of Chlorophyll a etc., is that they grow most prolifically in the waters of the continental shelves!
And what do we know about the water of the continental shelves?
Why, for a start, one little thing thing that we do know is that that is precisely where the expanding human race pours most of it’s NITROGEN-RICH waste!
DUH!
10
I’ve just got to the end of the chapter in Mr. Booker’s book where the Hockey Stick flaws have been exposed. Nothing new there, but Mr booker finished the chapter with a very relevant and insightful quote as being pertinent to the way that the IPCC appears to work. I read the book it came from last year, having mean to have read it for a long time. When I read it, the book scared me for how close it was to the mindset of our ruling politicians.
And the book? 1984……..
10
[…] you ignore the green propaganda (CSIRO backs down on AGW/drought link, more here) and looking at natural climate cycles then what do we […]
10
and just look what these marxists are saying now!
http://www.csiro.au/files/files/pvfo.pdf
is there no end to their fact-obsessed perfidy?
10
bztm @80,
We’d call that a crock where I come from!
10
I just want to give you some kudos for exerting effort in posting this entry and in coming up with this. I’m looking forward to more of your blogs
10
[…] you ignore the green propaganda (CSIRO backs down on AGW/drought link, more here) and looking at natural climate cycles then what do we […]
10