The MSM has been peddling out the IPCC mantra since yesterday as predicted and on cue, however at the end of some articles there is a admittance of AGW skepticism described in scientific terms such as “natural variability”, I think the skeptical burr under the saddle is starting to rub instead of itch.
The IPCC in AR5 says there is no natural variability, or to be precise: -0.1 to +0.1.
By inference, that translates:
The concept of natural climate climate cycles still remains a supreme heresy, which means.
1. There never were any ice ages, but the Little Ice Age of 150 years ago was the norm to which we should try to return.
2. Mann’s theory is correct which states that the MWP and previous warm phases in the Holocene Era did not exist.
3. The Earth’s climate has remained static for hundreds of millions of years.
Does anyone doubt why geologists are the most sceptical group of all, when the IPCC publishes such garbage? As someone commented here, the IPCC is still stuck in the same old groove of GIGO – Garbage In, Gospel Out, when it comes to climate computer modelling.
The IPCC “95% consensus” has exactly the same technical meaning and the same purpose as the “5-min to midnight” (or whatever) updates of the Doomsday Clock. Totally meaningless, but an excuse for a bunch of leftist academics and assorted useful idiots to get their 15 minute of fame, utter their “calls for action” (western disarmament or western de-industrialization), “save the world” and stroke their big egos. Next round, the IPCC will have to advance their doomsday clock to “99% certain” to keep the scare level high and get another few minutes of publicity.
The Channel 10 late news had it beyond 95%, said it was certain, it was carbons fault and we’re to blame. It was 100% the way they stated it. It sounded like they had been playing climate cluedo – it was colonel coal, in the west, with the carbon. Is it now time to pack up and go home, or do they now break out the monopoly board?
They replace the monopoly board with another more to their liking if all else fails. Repeating the mantra worked before and they won’t give up hope easily.
Cognitive psychologists should be able to evolve a theory about this 95%. Proclamations of increased certainty about untenable beliefs by a group when cornered is common. I and friends have got similar responses when finding groups of youths in places where they should not be, potentially causing damage. They claim authority to be there, and are full of excuses. Furthermore, a standard ploy is now to accuse the accusers of being child molesters. Those defending the “science”, like astronomer Michael Brown, may make slightly milder unjustified claims to attack skeptics but it seems to follow the same pattern as the youth gangs.
If I remember correctly, the first two estimates were not numbers. Then, came 90% and now 95%. Assuming they can hang on another seven years, 99.9% would be expected next. It was clever ploy. Start out with word, move up to near certainty with one number and increase thereafter to as close to 100% as you dare go. I read somewhere that when the 90% number was introduced, the media fawned over the science in now having a number. This was a very clever scheme. Unfortunately, large groups of people and scientists started to question the models and predictions. Then, the warming leveled off. By then, they were locked into the strategy and had to hope that continuing to raise a number would look “sciency” enough. 95% sounds scary and people are used to seeing such numbers and hearing statistics as 2x the risk, etc (they don’t ask what the risk was in the first place). Perhaps their biggest mistakes were saying weather is climate then trying to limit it only to hot, and saying hotter makes colder. They should have just repeated the 95% number.
I don’t know how to read exactly what the 95% means. And reading Judith Curry’s thread, nor does she.
To the laymen, who normaly deal with dice roll style predictive outcomes (can’t reemember the name), it sounds as though there is still a 5% chance of being wrong. And anybody who’s played games of chance will know very well that 5% (1:20) comes up a lot more often than desirable.
I think they’re boxing themselves into a ever tightening corner. Perhaps its the seige mentality getting the better of the the previous silo mindset. They leave themselves little option but to declare absolute certainty, which in effect is what they are doing presently, except you’ll see that there is change to the polemic in the face of no statistically significant measurable temperature change since AR4.
The meme has been subtly altered #6 –
from a 90% hand-waving certainty of 100% AGG attribution for the increase in global mean temperature (2007) to a 95% hand-waving certainty that >50% of the increase in global mean surface temperature is the result of AGG and other anthroforcings together (2013).
The key thing here is that the ‘other anthropogenic forcings’ are chiefly aerosols, which exert a strong negative forcing….which is a putative reason for the absence of statistically significant measurable warming.
…and as has been well decribed elsewhere, expressions of ‘confidence’ at 90% or 95% have nothing whatsoever to do with the statistical use of a confidence interval. It is instead an artful and misleading use of terms to create an aura of greater authority and sense of consensus. It could be considered more akin to a confidence ‘trick’.
Professor Peter Wadhams, professor of Ocean Physics at the University of Cambridge, said:
‘There are serious deficiencies in the modelling. The assessment makes extensive use of the UK Met Office model which does not take account at all of the feedback due to emissions from thawing permafrost. ‘Nor is the possibility of a major methane emission from melting offshore permafrost on Arctic shelves mentioned, even though this has been projected as capable of adding 0.6°C to global warming.’
They are California-based Australian entrepreneurs Andrew Birch and Danny Kennedy
With apologies to whoever I will place this small intro before you to check the background.
After a quick look you may want to help me put the pieces together and explain how it works.
Perhaps people in the US, Roy? or any others could help.
The summary:
“Sungevity is the third largest solar PV retailer in the US household segment and is about to enter the Australian market via a joint venture with Nickel Energy. The interesting thing is that Sungevity is headed up by two people who were originally engaged in the solar sector in Australia but moved over to California because of a more conducive and supportive market environment for solar PV. So the fact that they are taking the plunge back into the Australian market is a positive sign.
Sungevity are one of the pioneers of a model for selling solar PV via a pay as you go leasing model that enables solar to be cash-flow positive for households from day one. This model of selling solar PV has had a dramatic impact, particularly in California where Sungevity are based. This was profiled in the Climate Spectator article, Solar’s New Business Model, that we ran on April 12. It has opened up an entire new market of less affluent householders that previously had considered solar PV unaffordable.”
OK, so after reading the main article in the AFR I was almost convinced that these guys were producing PV sourced power cheaper than coal fired. The casual reader would have to be impressed that PV was now on equal terms with traditional power generation and that it could turn any greenie into a millionaire.
My questions:
What is the real deal in California? Are they just using Ca subsidies to give householders a good deal?
Is it transferable to Australia as they seem to intend?
California has been winding down their subsidies for household PV solar. The direct California Solar Initiative subsidy for installing photovoltaic (PV) panels on your house, which started at $2.50 per watt (of installed peak capacity) is now just $0.20 per watt. i.e. a peak of $7500 for a 3kV system is now $600. Whether they would get any in Australia in the near future is doubtful. Bear in mind that the USA tendency is to give a tax rebate for improvements (Federal, not State) which could also offset the initial cost.
Residential solar owners in California receive retail reimbursement rates for electricity supplied back to the grid. There are distribution and balancing costs associated with net metering which are borne by non-solar ratepayers (higher overall prices), making solar more attractive, especially as California has the highest electricity charges in the (continental) USA.
Anybody thinking about this scheme would be well advised to look very closely at the overall cost versus the savings.
It’s not the subsidies per se that support this–it’s the RPS. And California has one of the highest RPS’s in the country. As long as Governor “Green” Brown (I love the mental picture of that!) is in, the RPS will payouts high enough. All of this rests on California being able to charge huge rates for electricity and still have enough residents to cover the costs.
The Anthony Watts item is interesting and obviously saving him money because where he is he has to contend with the Smart Metering system which they hope to introduce here in Australia.
As Graeme Inkster says above the whole business has the same level of reality and logic as the junk bonds and CDs and CDOs and CFDs which were let loose in the community by the banking/financial system in your country.
I agree with Graeme Inkster. And solar is likely to backfire when the utilities get too disgusted with having to mess around with thousands of very small suppliers feeding them power intermittently. The subsidy is down and the real story on solar has yet to be felt. In the meantime, if you want a good weekend task, get up and wash down those solar panels every week or you’ll very soon be supporting worthless hardware on your roof. They collect dirt very fast and when I last looked, dirt is opaque to sunlight (this comes under the heading of things they’re afraid to tell you).
The worst of this nonsense is that a charge shows up on my bill to compensate Edison for handling this mess. Yes, Graeme is right. I pay for this nonsense. As far as I’m concerned it’s just punitive. You’d otherwise let the solar provider pay the cost via slightly lower rate per kWh delivered to the grid. It’s all just plain nuts!
There will never be a solar panel on my roof while I am alive. I have no use for nonsense and I don’t buy into it. I learned my lesson with solar water heating and that’s that.
If there are any U.S. readers with solar we’d all like to hear about your experience.
Got it all there, especially the bit that Tony keeps pushing, about the actual uselessness of the small scale erratic supply from so many sources that will make the utilities disgusted.
You’ve given a good image there of the Electricity suppliers being like a dog chasing it’s tail.
I can’t comment on the pay as you go idea without seeing the contract details. However, if you could count on government and utilities being true to their word on into the future and if you could count on solar panels staying at full efficiency and having the life expectancy they say they do, then it might be a beneficial way to go. Then there’s the weather…
Unfortunately there are too many ifs. I wouldn’t do it.
My main concern with the article is that it gives a great image for Solar PV that many readers may think is due to the wonderful costs effectiveness of solar in it’s own right.
The issue of subsidies and “incentives” is well hidden in the AFR article that originally got my goat up.
It seems that all that is happening is that these two guys are taking Government, read taxpayer funded, incentives and organising a finance arrangement that is less threatening to buyers.
ps forgot to add that there is no cost to sign up for the Business Spectator if you want to read the article.
cheating: part of the article
“Repackaging the value of photovoltaics (PV) as a simple savings on the monthly electric bill is an attractive alternative to the pitch that it will pay for itself in a decade, he said. “If someone comes up to you and says you can make money next month and forever, that totally changes how people see the value of solar.”
The differences in upfront costs are stark between buying and leasing. Heather and Kit Lammers put $3,000 down for a 5.64-kilowatt system that is providing 62 per cent of the electricity for their two-story home in Erie, Colorado. If they had bought the system outright, they would have had to pay more than $9,000 with incentives, or as much as $20,000 without incentives.
The Lammers had been averaging $107 per month for electricity. Now, they’re paying $64 per month to lease the solar panels, plus $41 per month to utility Xcel Energy, which represents the 38% of their electricity use that won’t be offset by solar energy.
That gives them only $2 per month in savings the first year. But the real benefits come over the next two decades, when that $64 lease payment stays constant while, presumably, the price of fossil-fuel-powered electricity rises with inflation. When their two-year-old graduates from college, the Lammers will still be paying the equivalent of 12 cents per kilowatt-hour through their solar lease arrangement.
I put a link to this letter from Doug Keenan to Julia Slingo ( UK Met office)in the thread below but it seems to have gone unnoticed so I’m repeating it in full here because I think it could cause an interesting stir in the UK, worth following.
Dear Julia,
The IPCC’s AR5 WGI Summary for Policymakers includes the following statement.
The globally averaged combined land and ocean surface temperature data as calculated by a linear trend, show a warming of 0.85 [0.65 to 1.06] °C, over the period 1880–2012….
(The numbers in brackets indicate 90%-confidence intervals.) The statement is near the beginning of the first section after the Introduction; as such, it is especially prominent.
The confidence intervals are derived from a statistical model that comprises a straight line with AR(1) noise. As per your paper “Statistical models and the global temperature record” (May 2013), that statistical model is insupportable, and the confidence intervals should be much wider—perhaps even wide enough to include 0°C.
It would seem to be an important part of the duty of the Chief Scientist of the Met Office to publicly inform UK policymakers that the statement is untenable and the truth is less alarming. I ask if you will be fulfilling that duty, and if not, why not.
Keenan claims with respect to the 90% confidence limits for warming for the period 1880 to 2012 0.85 [0.65 to 1.06] °C or 0.064 [0.049 to 0.080] °C/decade
“the confidence intervals should be much wider—perhaps even wide enough to include 0°C.”
Keenan supplies no reasons whatsoever for this claim or what the level should be.
Statistical significance is usually taken to mean a 95% (2 sigma) confidence interval. This is the level that skeptics wish to use when claiming that the probability of warming for the last 17 years (93% for Hadcrut4) is not “statistically significant”. It would be statistically significant at the 90% confidence level.
Now to avoid any accusations of cherry picking, I will take dataset (Hadcrut4) with the lowest trend and highest 2 sigma level of the global land/sea data sets available here for 1880-2012.
Trend: 0.062 ±0.008 °C/decade, or in the form of the report;
0.06 [ 0.05 to 0.70] °C/decade
Which for 132 years is
0.82 [0.71 to 0.92] °C
The result is nowhere near including zero.
On Friday Mr Bolt claimed that the report supported a pause in warming. It does not.
It reports a drop in the rate of warming to 0.05 [–0.05 to +0.15] °C per decade
Again I must point out that statistical significance cuts both ways.
The data to a 90% confidence level does not support a statistically significant cooling or flat trend (pause) because part ot the range (in fact most of it) is in the warming region.
Nor does it for 95% limits (again Hadcrut 4)
0.052 ±0.155 °C/decade or
0.05 ±0.16 [ -0.10 to 0.21] °C/decade
Furthermore as the ranges overlap, there is no statistically significant drop in the warming rate compared to the entire 1880-2012 period (see data above) or the period from 1951 to 2012:
0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C /decade (90%)
0.11 [0.09 to 0.13] °C/decade (95%) (Hadcrut4)
That is the problem with choosing short data sets of less than a couple of decades. They really tell you very little.
Hiding behind statistical manipulations is hardly the act of honest scientists, Brian.
The fact is the temp trend for 15-17 years depending on your data set is not statistically different from zero. This was not predicted by models, there is no excuse for failure of predictions when one considers that the warming only encompasses 20 years itself. What an honest scientist or group thereof would say is that this was not predicted, and to review the assumptions that underpin those predictions, particularly that CO2 is the primary driver that has been claimed up till now. Unfortunately, having successfully painted themselves into a corner, the IPCC is in panic mode, hiding its failure and hoping against hope that warming will resume.
Even if alarmists are eventually vindicated, which is appearing increasingly unlikely as indirect, non TSI solar influences show their hand over the next decade, people such as yourself are going at some point to have to swallow their pride and admit that they were ignorant of the magnitude of many of the natural, non-anthropogenic influences on climate.
I know of no other branch of science where a failure to predict results from a hypothesis increases ones certainty that one is correct. You need to step away from the blackboard, Brian, and ponder that big picture fact which the latest IPCC report highlights.
The fact is the temp trend for 15-17 years depending on your data set is not statistically different from zero.
The fact that data sets covering 15 to 17 years are not statistically different to zero is my point.
If you cannot say on that basis that it is warming, you cannot say that there has been a pause or cooling either.
As I point out, the problem is that when you look at data sets of that short duration, the “signal” (the change in temperature for the period) is reduced whereas the “noise” (the magnitude of the wiggles for the period) remains much the same, so the signal to noise ratio is reduced, increasing the error margins. The lack of statistical significance is not because the trend is close to zero, as many wrongly suppose, as the fact the the signal to noise ratio is low.
For example, the Hadcrut 4 data set for the last 60 years shows a statistically significant rise in temperature.
Trend: 0.114 ±0.022 °C/decade (2σ)
But break it up into consecutive 15 year periods, and only one shows a statistically significant temperature rise, and the earliest actually shows a (non stiststically significant) decline, which is more than can be said for the last 15 years.
But Philip we know what they did in producing Hadcrut4 –they reintroduced weather station temp records
( especially from Arctic areas) which had previously been dropped in earlier series. That is, they had to get earlier time periods colder. Even the Icelandic climatologists objected at the time because as well as reintroducing the records they adjusted them –the Icelandic guys said they had already made the adjustments.
In fact Hadcrut 4 shows the lowest trend for the last 60 years of the global/land sea data sets which agree within the error margins.
For the last 15 years only RSS shows a (non-statistically significant) cooling trend and the other 15 year trends show some differences between the data sets. The satellite data is radically different for some with very large error margins and insufficient data for any fit of the 1953 -1968 period, but this does not alter the argument regarding the problem with short term data sets compared with the 60 year trends.
Andy, your stupid little games with endpoints confirms exactly what I was saying. That taking periods of 15 years does not represent the longer term data. the error margins are much too large.
You can CLEARLY see the effect of HadCrut adjustments early in the satellite data era.
This is just a continuation of the trend creating adjustments of pre-1979 temperatures.
Stopped in the early 1990’s when they realised they could no longer keep getting away with it.
RSS shows ABSOLUTELY NO WARMING before the large El Nino ocean COOLING event around 1998, and the same DECREASE in temperatures since 2002 as Hadcrut4. The start of the cooling trend is upon us.
And won’t the climate models look wonderful then 🙂
AR6 should be VERY FUNNY.. if it ever gets published !
“For instance, in the AR4 released in 2007, the IPCC was willing to highlight the significance of 6 years worth of global temperature data in supporting its conclusions:
Six additional years of observations since the TAR (Chapter 3) show that temperatures are continuing to warm near the surface of the planet.
The annual global mean temperature for every year since the TAR has been among the 10 warmest years since the beginning of the instrumental record.
Now with global temperatures in an extended hiatus, the IPCC has reversed course and told us that such short-term periods are actually irrelevant to its arguments: Due to natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends.
As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to +0.15] °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño, is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade)5. {2.4}”
.
Quote Michel Jarraud, Secretary-General of the World Meteorological Organization, one of the founding organisations of the IPCC: “Temperatures between 2001-2010 were the highest on record, a decade that saw more records than ever broken. “It would have been even higher were it not for the role of the deep oceans in absorbing heat,” he added.
One of the questions raised since the previous report in 2007 was the so-called “hiatus” in global warming that was not predicted by models.
UN-IPCC co-chair Dr Thomas Stocker said,”(T)hat while too few measurements were available in the deep ocean, a large amount of the recent “pause” in global warming was due to natural variability, including: a series of recent volcanic eruptions, natural Pacific cooling cycle, and absorption of heat in the deep oceans.
. Kosaka and Xie recently published in Nature: “Our results show that the current hiatus is part of natural climate variability tied specifically to a La Niña like decadal cooling. Gavin @realclimate claims there is no intelligent life on earth as he “re-settles the science” claiming “The First Law of Thermodynamics sends greetings.” Ms. Jo gets a mention in that realclimate link. Gavin also claims the UN-IPCC predicted the pause/hiatus in 2007, but I can’t get link to work.
.
All of a sudden “natural variability,” not carbon(sic) is an explanation. Obviously this is a “new” development in climate science & requires more examples/observations before the latest climate science can be confirmed. Who knows where that will lead? Natural variability.
Handjive it is not clear to me whether the six additional years was added on to a previous data set or not or whether they were subjected to a statistical linear trend analysis in isolation. If this was the case then in my opinion it is rubbish.
The IPCC have not been ignoring the fact that anthropogenic warming is superimposed on variable natural forcings, some of which like the el nino/la nina events do not follow a predictable pattern and are so not included in the models. But their effects average out over longer time scales.
You know from my regular pposts on this at Mr Bolt’s blog that my complaints on this 15, 16, 17 year pause business is based partly on the lack of statistical significance and secondly, even accepting the raw trends at face value, that such dips, plateaus spikes and declines are part of the temperature record due to the effects of variation in natural forcings.
I have been reminding people of these matters on Mr Bolt’s blog with the periodicity of a chiming clock but in spite of the numerous replies I get meaning people are not ignoring what I write, the same people and others keep coming back with the same objections over and over and over again. I suspect they have similarly ignored what the IPCC has said about this as they want to keep insisting that there is this inexplicable “pause”.
Greetings Phillip. Thanks for the reply. I am guessing you post as Dr Brian.
You are obviously an educated person and I gladly/humbly dips me lid to you. I have been a little rude over at Bolt’s blog & I apologise. It gets rough over there. I appreciate that your original research is detailed and relevant as co2 is an important component necessary for life on our blue planet.
Over at the Conversation, Prof. Andy Pitman claims he asks “deniers” for five examples that would convince them of IPCC science. I offer them to you:
As that 5 point description of our earth is nothing like today, despite carbon(sic) levels same, a convincing scientific explanation would be a start. First observation would be that co2 had nothing to do with one climate.
Handjive, Yes it is I, Dr Brian. My full name is Brian Philip Shehan as I thought most people over there knew. I will consider your arguments in detail later but note my comments on “robust” discussion at 6.1.1.2.2
Sorry handjive for taking a while to get back to you but contrary to Heywood’s assertions I have other things to do and there are so many critics and so little time (and then they put dark motivations to my admittedly hurried typing and lack of adequate proof reading). I also wanted to read your links before answering and giving an adequate (I hope) answer.
Anyway, briefly I do not agree with scientists who attempt to make simplistic direct comparisons with climate millions of years ago. You are comparing apples with oranges. Longer term variables to do with orbital factors, long term variations in solar cycles whichhave dramatic effects on climate (ice ages being one example) etc mean that you cannot make comparisons based only on CO2 concentration between the present and the long past.
As for the graph unsurprisingly I stick to my contention that a 13 year period is telling us very little. As far as the percentage confidence in AGW at the time of each IPCC report indicated on the graph, I am not very comfortable with attempting to assign such percentages as it gives a false sense of a claimed precision.
I understand that they are trying to put more fuzzy subjective descriptions such as likely, not very likely, as likely as not etc into some kind of perspective, but it confuses the issue as people will link these attempts at putting a numerical value on fuzzy descriptions to considering mathematically calculated statistical confidence limits.
That said the fact that the numbers are increasing merely means that all the evidence considered, the IPCC scientists think that the degree of probability that AGW is real is increasing with accumulating evidence from many lines of research.
Again the non-statistically significant trend for a short term period tells us very little about what is happening with regard to warming or cooling over the last 13 years or so does not carry a lot of weight when expressing confidence in how AGW is faring.
As for what it would take for me to reconsider my position on AGW,which I gather to be part of your question, I cannot give you a precise answer on that, any more than I can a particular time ofr piece of evidence that caused me to change from considering that AGW insufficiently supported by the total evidence evidence at the time to changing my mind and considering that the weight of evidence supported AGW.
There was no waking up one morning with a start and thinking, “Time to change my position”. It happened over the period between the third and fourth reports.
If and when the evidence accumulates sufficiently in the other direction, I can see no reason why I won’t change my opinion again. I have changed my mind with regard to other scientific questions, including when a subsequent paper by other researchers based on new evidence contradicted my own published conclusions some years earlier. My conclusions were perfectly good on the evidence at the time and that is the most you can claim.
I think I pointed this out to you once before, but of course you perhaps have forgotten, or simply did not understand.
If the period from 1945 to 1970 was sufficient for the UN to hysterically claim that the world was headed for another Ice Age, and the coal and oil were to blame, and if the period from 1978 to 1998 was sufficient for the UN to hysterically claim that we are all gonna fry, and oil and coal and gas are to bleme, why is the period from 1998 to 2013 with its temperature stasis and observable cooling insufficiently significant to call the whole bloody scam a typical UN deceit?
And seriously, do the letters “phd” designate “pig-headed doctor”?
Rod.The UN never claimed that we were headed for an Ice Age.
The furphy that we were headed for an ice age was based on a journalistic beat up of some research findings. We probably are headed for an ice age, due within about 10,000 years and if human civilization still exists then, they may need the coal we are currently burning to warm up the planet then.
Rod and David. Resorting to personal abuse is simply a sign that you do not have enough confidence that your arguments can support themselves without that crutch. Or in the case of David, it is simply gratuitous insult unnacompanied by any attempt at analysis.
I’m calling BULLSHIT on your poker hand.
I’m old enough to remember it. You probably aren’t.
Maurice Strong was carrying on like a Pork Chop. And I happen to come from the same place as that old bastard.
If I had the inclination, I would look up some of the headlines from 1972 to 1975.
But I won’t, because you are so immersed in this alternate religion that you will spin and twist and turn the way you have been going on for the last year or so.
I find it fascinating that you call the coming ice age just a journalistic field day, while climate science today uses the media and celebrities right and left to promote climate change. Warmists rush in to defend Al Gore–Mr. Politician and oil money recipient (ad hominem included due to warmists thinking this is the proper way to judge people). Can we assume that the plan here is to say it was all Al Gore’s fault and the media that the climate change doctrine was wrong–except for the pesky Hansen guy? I guess you could call him senile? Science is only too happy to embrace the media when it suits their purpose. Sorry, the “media did it” is not going to work unless warmists insist we ignore Al Gore, Matt Damon and every single newscaster out there. This “blame the media when we’re wrong” and praise it when you have not yet been proven wrong is not going to cut it. Using it as a CYA is not acceptable.
Right now, you have the media claiming extreme weather events for every single wind storm, flood, tornado. The warmists embraced the media in spreading the news and stand back now and let the media scream “the sky is falling” with impunity. It serves your purpose. So did the ice age in the 70’s. Science has nothing to do with this whole mess–it’s a PR battle. PR knows only agenda, not truth.
Stephen Schneider certainly did. I was working in environmental science at a university in 1976 and 1977 when Schneider’s Ice Age prediction came out. We discussed it in the department and I remember wondering if the human race could actually do anything to prevent it. Space based maybe (the Saturn 5 production line was not long shut down and most of the people who knew how to build and fly it were still around), spread soot in the Arctic etc. There’s also lots of media from around that time on the same theme and media don’t get their stories out of thin air usually. There’s usually some grain of truth or rent seeking bastard looking for an easy gain that triggers it.
So what kind of “Doctor” are ya?
Philip.
Errors are usually taken in two parts, errors in precision and errors in bias.
You are talking only of precision.
Your argument means nothing when you include bias, which is likely to be about +/- 1 deg C for a past thermometer reading.
Geoff. The errors you are refering to as errors in bias are called random errors. They can be above or below the true value (and I would like to know on what basis you claim that they are likely to be 1 degree) so they cancel out over the long term of measurements and do not effect the trend line but would increase the error margin.
The pervasive odour of goal shifting here, from a 90% hand-waving certainty of 100% AGG attribution for the increase in global mean temperature (2007) to a 95% hand-waving certainty that >50% of the increase in global mean surface temperature is the result of AGG and other anthroforcings together (2013).
But given the temperature increase is statistically insignificant over the period in question we can say ‘no change’. To achieve this the aerosol fudge factor provides the requisite negative influence required to make the books balance, so to speak.
What the IPCC means is that the anthropogencil contibution has only been noticable compared to the noise of contributions due to natural forcings for about 60 years:
The temperature data for since 1850 years follows the same upward curve as rising CO2 concentration by three decades, with a probability of less than 0.01 percent that this is a coincidence.
Baseless, nonsense Philip or Brian or whatever you like to be called – there is no way to make a sensible partition like that
How in hell is anybody supposed to have any confidence in any of this IPCC crap if it doesn’t reach the level of lies that a dumb 10 year old could spot
Philip I hope you aren’t puzzled by the ANGER that people react to this IPCC stuff with, people just HATE to be played for gullible FOOLS
97% of all pro warming commentators are Economists by profession.
The models are a joke because you can’t have a model where 97% of the relevant factors are arbitrarily screened out of the picture and not even accounted for in a “black box” scenario which is a technique often used in engineering-thermodynamic modelling.
Lastly, of all of the tens of thousands of scientists supporting the contention that man made global warming is nothing but a political invention, it should be known that 97% of those scientists are absolutely disgusted by the AGW scam.
We’ve read the thoughts of many of these leading climate scientists here at this blog.
Many of them (like David Suzuki) don’t have a clue what the hell they are talking about, let alone any sort of argument.
There is too much stupidity within the climate science, and too little care in the MSM.
Anyone who takes an critical look at the situation (the people involved, the data, the shinanigan), can’t posibily accept the belief taht the world is going to die by the end of this century.
Philip: Resorting to treating people as if they were as gullible as you are is simply a sign that you do not have enough confidence that your arguments can support themselves without that crutch. Or in the case of every post you have made on this blog, it is simply gratuitous insult unaccompanied by any attempt at analysis.
Brian. I have not treated anyone as gullible. My posts are serious and I have endevoured to present them so that anyone of reasonable intelligence and numerical understanding can get the point and carry an implied invitation to disagree or ask for clarification if they are unsure. That is the way scintists communicate their views. Tell me where I have treated people as if they are gullible.
I reposted this over at Bishop Hill and recieved what appeared to be a very knowledgable and polite counterargument from Nullius in Verba. When I recieve such replies I take respectful notice and have asked him for more detail of his point of view which he again politiely provided. I have not finished with my questions to him.
You may well be capable of a reasonable analysis of my argument without abuse so why not give it a try?
handjive above apologises for some of his comments over at Bolt and notes above that in combative situations one can get carried away. Viperous is another over there who often makes very good points but then spoils it with playground abuse. I am not entirely innocent of biting back when provoked but I think I usually show considerable restraint. I have had friendly discussion and disagreement with another scientist, Bruce of Newcastle on this blog.
I was particularly shocked by the abuse dished out by one poster over at Bolt last week, not because it was any worse than the standard fare over there but because “Dr C” is apparently a scientist and that’s not how scientists disagree.
I debated with myself whether or not to reply to this comment. You know, there I would be, waiting expectantly for the usual conspiracy theory response, but after four or so hours, I was just curious enough to actually ask.
See where you mention this:
My posts are serious and I have endevoured to present them so that anyone of reasonable intelligence and numerical understanding can get the point…..
It’s a very clever thing you’ve done here with your subliminal message, but being a Doctor, you know that, eh!
So, let me see if I’ve got this right then.
You want us to be as brainwashed as you are, because, well, you know, you’re the only one who is right here, the serious Scientist that you told us you were.
Soooo, if we do disagree with you, then, as per your quote, we have no intelligence, and are numerically deficient.
Can you see that point of view from what you have written.
You phrase all your arguments from the position of speaking from authority.
However, when any of us voice disagreement, you just scoff and use the typical excuses which those from your side of the debate always use.
When we do move outside your comfort zone and ask questions about your views on some of the things that are completely related to this Scientific debate, you assiduously ignore responding to them.
Does that not tell you something about us, and more importantly ….. about you.
You dazzle us with your deep and intense Scientific knowledge, your superiority from authority, and expect us to respond to that, so you can subliminally scoff at us, and yet, when we ask questions that directly relate to this debate, you avoid them like the plague.
You all do it. You come here to put us down, covertly, and when we overtly put you down in reply, you scream ad hom etc etc etc.
Here, at this site of Joanne’s we’re not the knuckle dragging troglodytes your side think we all are.
Each one of us who comes here learns something.
Why?
Because there are people here who have expertise in different areas.
We don’t just make this stuff up. There is no conspiracy. Just like you, we also use our brains. We also weigh things up. We also analyse thing. More importantly, we ask questions as well, and out of common politeness, sometimes we actually would like to have answers.
So Dr, Phil, you can look down on us plebs from on high, you can speak from authority. You can use all the reasonableness you can muster, but don’t talk down to us.
Tony.
PostScript – Oh, and with respect to your spelling problem which you are forever apologising for, another subliminal ploy you have used so often, there is a very easy fix for that. Prior to hitting the Post Comment button, just check what you have written in the Preview button, and you know, there’s even a hint under that as to how to go about it. Now, why is it that we know this, and yet you don’t.
I notice you deliberately left out the last part of the quote which would have spoiled the interpretation you are intent on making:
“I have endevoured to present them so that anyone of reasonable intelligence and numerical understanding can get the point and carry an implied invitation to disagree or ask for clarification if they are unsure.”
You also ignore this comment:
I reposted this over at Bishop Hill and recieved what appeared to be a very knowledgable and polite counterargument from Nullius in Verba. When I recieve such replies I take respectful notice and have asked him for more detail of his point of view which he again politiely provided. I have not finished with my questions to him.
Stop trying to paint yourself as some sort of victim of insults I never offered.
Other Andy. You seem to be missing the fact that you are agreeing with me. As I wrote above:
The fact that data sets covering 15 to 17 years are not statistically different to zero is my point.
If you cannot say on that basis that it is warming, you cannot say that there has been a pause or cooling either.
And earlier: That is the problem with choosing short data sets of less than a couple of decades. They really tell you very little.
And I entirely agree that is some cases periods of greater than 17 years are not stistically significant with regard to warming or cooling.
“A couple of decades” was a ball park figure. You are pretty safe with data of 3 decades or more as far as statistical significance is concerned, as long as the headline trend figure is not too close to flat, but of course I have not checked every 30 year period in all the data sets, so I can’t guarantee it.
The IPCC’s view of the science, consistently held since the 1990s, is that CO2 is the key driver of modern climate change, and that natural variability is too small to count in comparison. This is the “mainstream” view of climate science, and it is what is programmed into all modern climate models.
Whenever I questioned this dogma I was shouted down, called a denier (and worse).
Now the IPCC suddenly tells me that the 17 year ‘hiatus’ and 10 year cooling period is due to natural drivers and ALL past warming is due to anthropogenic CO2 and other ‘greenhouse gasses’ (Was it a magical, based on nothing 95% confidence this time?).
So either the IPCC is trying to rewrite history (“We’ve always been at war with Eastasia”) or the IPCC tells us that natural variability only works one way (it only cools).
Which one is it Mr Shehan?
Other_Andy,
I agree that the IPCC holds that the increase in temperature in the later half of this century is largely due to anthropgenic factors. This is implied by the graphs separating out (some of) these factors in the last report:
The contribution of natural forcings is not a sudden discovery by the IPCC, it the basic assumption if climate research as stated in the earlier reports, nor does the IPCC hold that all warming is due to anthropogenic factors.
The variable nature of natural forcings on temperature over decadal time scales can add, subtract or be neutral but on multidecadal timescales tend to average out.
As noted above I do not accept that the temperature shows a haitus in the warming trend for the last 17 years:
17 year trend: 0.087 ±0.115 °C/decade (2σ)
There has been no warming for 15 years.
Note your ±0.115 °C/decade for the 17 years, that means no statistically significant warming for 17 years.
I was actually being generous as it is more than 17 years….
For RSS the warming is not statistically significant for over 23 years.
For RSS: +0.122 +/-0.131 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1990
For UAH the warming is not statistically significant for over 19 years.
For UAH: 0.139 +/- 0.165 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
For Hadcrut3 the warming is not statistically significant for over 19 years.
For Hadcrut3: 0.091 +/- 0.110 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
For Hadcrut4 the warming is not statistically significant for over 18 years.
For Hadcrut4: 0.093 +/- 0.107 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995
For GISS the warming is not statistically significant for over 18 years.
For GISS: 0.105 +/- 0.110 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995
For NOAA the warming is not statistically significant for over 18 years.
For NOAA: 0.086 +/- 0.103 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995
Do you want us forget that there hasn’t been ANY statistically significant global warming trend since about 1995, despite 1/3rd of ALL CO2 emissions since 1750 were made since 1995….
The contribution of natural forcings is not a sudden discovery by the IPCC, it the basic assumption if climate research as stated in the earlier reports, nor does the IPCC hold that all warming is due to anthropogenic factors.
Yes it is and yes it does.
According to the IPCC report, ”….Greenhouse gases contributed a global mean surface warming likely to be in the range of 0.5-1.3 C.”
This is an average 0.9 C over the period 1951-2010.
However, the most widely used global temperature dataset [HADCRU4] shows a temperature rise of 0.64 C over the period 1951-2010.
So if Greenhouse gases contributed an average global mean surface warming of 0.9 C and the dataset shows a warming of ~0.6 C, how much do natural forcings contribute?
Can I also remind you that Of course during this 30-yr period the IPCC has been promoting CAGW, the Earth experienced it’s 2nd and 3rd strongest solar cycles since 1715, marked the end of the strongest 63-yr string of solar cycles in 11,400 years, FIVE El Nino events including the largest Super El Nino ever recorded, a 30-year PDO warming cycle and the start of a 30-yr AMO warming period….
And then the IPCC tells us that most (If not all) the warming since 1979 was due to anthropogenic CO2?
I think both you and the IPCC miss the point. The demonstrated rise in themperature since 1850 can be shown to represent a climate sensitivity of only 1.4 deg per doubling which is far from catastophic. Whether or not there is actually any warming is a minor consideration. More significant is that the IPCC has decresed its estimate of anthropogenic content. This means antropogenic CO2 only represents about 0.4 deg of warming since 1850 and our contribution to warming becomes about 0.7 degrees per doubling based on the period 1850 to now. Natural variation may either cancel or reinforce that, as mother nature is now showing us.
Mathematically the case for 3 deg per doubling or more warming requires a feedback loop gain of over .95 in acumulated uncorrelated positive feedback effects. This is very destabilising to a system and is close to impossible.
For lots of very good mathematical reasons the IPCC position remains almost as outlandish as before. As to the 90% confidence, the IPCC implicitly says this is bull. Consider that last time they said that they were 90% certain the warming was 2-6 degrees per doubling and now they say 1-5 95%,in the tails between 1-2 and 5-6 especially given that 2 now represents the highest probability. The tail between 1 and 2 degrees represents much more than 10% of the distribution therefore the IPCC was clearly wrong claiming 90% confidence last time by a fair margin,on the evidence at best they should have claimed is 60%, how much off might they be this time?
I note the IPCC actually say warming lies somewhere in a range encompassing zero, and therefore acknowledges there is a significant probability the climate is in a hiatus or even cooling.
I suggest you do as you preach and actually do the math.
Here’s a start, CO2 is absorbing 85 % of available energy in its absorbtion band, the rise in temperature over black body is 33 degrees. If the atmosphere were all CO2 what would be the warming?
If the rise in temp from 1850 to today is 0.8 degrees, what is the rise for a doubling.
( IF C x ln (400/280) = 0.8 then what is C x ln(2) ? Noting that the IPCC concludes only half of that can be attributed to man what is mans contribution to warming for each doubling?
Acting negative feedbacks on the atmosphere are estimated to be a factor of 5, the IPCC say the Nett gain is 3 (now 2 I guess). Calculate the positive feedback gain necessary to overcome the negative feedbacks and then produce an overall gain of what the IPCC says. Calculate the loop gain necessary to produce such positive feedback.
… the anthropogencil [sic] contribution has only been noticeable compared to the noise of contributions due to natural forcings [sic] for about 60 years
It is very easy to make an assertive statement like that. But where is the detailed analysis of all contributing, and potentially contributing, sources? And where is the definitive demonstration that any anthropogenic influences are significant to the point that they can overwhelm natural influences on a global basis?
The assertions are supported by the graphical evidence I produced in the posts above.
The temperature data for since 1850 years follows the same upward curve as rising CO2 concentration by three decades, with a probability of less than 0.01 percent that this is a coincidence.
And the graph showing the understanding of natural and anthropogenic contributions (as of the last IPCC report linked in the second post. (I mean that following the apology for the typos, which I note incidentally has triggered 3 don’t likes. I mean, who but those whose capacity for analysis does not go beyond knee jerk head kicking of people whose opinions they do not like bothers with that kind of stupidity?)
It was around 1990 when the people at Giss and Hadcrut found that they could NO LONGER apply pseudo adjustments to the surface data.
They realised that from 1979 at the start of the satellite record to the mid 1990’s there was very little actual warming, so they had to stop their shenanigans.
Unfortunately they had already irrevocably tainted the pre-satellite data to create a false trend to match the CO2 level rise. They could not now change it back to reality.
That means we are stuck with basically no real data set that has any relevance or accuracy before the mid 1990’s.
Don’t blame skeptics for this. The blame is SOLELY on the shoulders of those who took it on themselves to manipulate the data to suit their ideas and agenda.
NOTHING related to HadCrut or Giss in the pre-satellite temperature series can in any way be described as data and is worthless in any discussion of real temperature trends.
Your continued use of these false record to justify the small warming trend during the latter part of last century, a trend that has recently (15 or so years) levelled out and is showing every sign of starting to decline, puts you firmly in the “propaganda only” camp.
Your continued parrot-like postings further confirm this.
Andy, satellite data sets for the last 17 years show quite different results and have very wide error margins. Skeptics John Cristy and Roy Spencer are associated with UAH:
The satellite trends since 1979 are in statistical agreement with those of Giss and Hadcrut4:
RSS Trend: 0.128 ±0.070 °C/decade (2σ)
UAH Trend: 0.137 ±0.071 °C/decade (2σ)
Gis Trend: 0.157 ±0.045 °C/decade (2σ)
Had Trend: 0.155 ±0.042 °C/decade (2σ)
Satellites do not measure temperature directly but make microve measurements on the assumtion that these emanate from atmospheric oxygen, but this neglects other sources of microwave radiation.
It should also be noted that prominent skeptics use non – satellite data in support of their arguments.
Yes, there may have been some small NATURAL warming pre-1979, and some in the early part of the satellite record, but during the latter part of the 1900’s the sun had several very strong cycles, so that is to be expected.
(We will probably never know the real story about the pre-1979 temps, because the data has been so thoroughly corrupted by the likes of Hansen et al., a real pity. !!)
What is important is what is happening NOW.. and ALL the data and climate and ocean indicators point to a DECREASE in global temperatures over the next decade or more, a DECREASE that CANNOT be reconciled with the continued increased levels of CO2.
The graph in the previous post clearly shows that this NEGATIVE TREND in temperatures has almost certainly already started.
Andy, Once again they are not my stupid games endpoints.
I am demonstrating that short term data sets are unreliable. They have large error margins and there is a large variation between different data sets.
Your “stupid game with end points” is another example of that.
The trend four your selected periods for hadcrut4 are
Trend: 0.095 ±0.157 °C/decade (2σ)
Trend: 0.229 ±0.415 °C/decade (2σ)
Trend: -0.046 ±0.190 °C/decade (2σ)
These values are all over the shop and have error margins that make them next to useless, including the claim that the last period is predictive of a continuing negative trend.
For the period as a whole the trend is statistically significant:
Trend: 0.159 ±0.046 °C/decade (2σ)
And as for how this data is faring with regard to atmospheric CO2:
The REAL FACT is that we are actually in a rather cool period of the Holocene.
Your pathetic cherry-picking of a starting point which may be the coolest period (after Hansen/Jones adjustment) in the past 100 year truly marks you NOT as a scientist but as a true propagandist.
Andy, It was your chosen data set that I was analysing.
I understood that your compalaint about GISS and Hadcrut were fiddled with prior to 1979 but even if you claim that to be so later than date, I gave the trends for the data sets above:
The satellite trends since 1979 are in statistical agreement with those of Giss and Hadcrut4:
RSS Trend: 0.128 ±0.070 °C/decade (2σ)
UAH Trend: 0.137 ±0.071 °C/decade (2σ)
Gis Trend: 0.157 ±0.045 °C/decade (2σ)
Had Trend: 0.155 ±0.042 °C/decade (2σ)
Again
There is no stistically significant difference between the data you condemn and the satellite data.
KK The anthropogenic 3 or 4% you mention is additional CO2 added to the atmosphere cumulatively each year. The other 97% is “old” CO2 recycled by nature through the carbon cycle.
Thus since the beginning of the industrial revolution atmmospheric CO2 has gone from 280 to 400 ppm. A 40% increasing giving a total atmospheric content of 3.3 trillion tonnes, absorbing and emitting IR radiation day after day, year after year, decade after dedade, century after century until thermal equilibrium is reached.
The reason I said that you and Ferdinand were a team is because of this statement:
“KK The anthropogenic 3 or 4% you mention is additional CO2 added to the atmosphere cumulatively each year”
It is scientific absurdity to say that human origin CO2 does not become chemically indistinguishable from other CO2.
It is OBVIOUS to anyone who has done basic chemistry at University, and you haven’t, that human origin CO2 cannot be a separate batch of gas; it is absurd; did I say that before; I must be repeating myself which is really absurd.
Sorry Dude but if you do actually have a science degree from a University I would sure as hell make sure my grandchildren didn’t go to the same one.
Your histrionic “3.3 trillion tonnes” of something or other sounds like a lot of something but big numbers need to be put in context.
For example my mates and I once ate 10,000 kg of sausages in 10 days. How do you like that for numbers?
The simple reality of it back in 1960 was that there were over ten thousand of us and we each ate a couple of sausages a day; that’s what we were fed on. No big deal.
Let’s get some perspective on this, and that leads us to motive, or as most people would put it, The Money.
Do you get paid to write this crap?
If you don’t you need to go and talk to someone who can advise you.
I do not understand what you mean by “chemically indistinguishable” or how this affects my argument.
The CO2 molecules are chemically indistinguishable, and they are not separate, they are mixed through the atmosphere.
It is the quantity of atmospheric CO2 and its sources that I am discussing
By the way I majored in chemistry during my undergraduate degree and my PhD was in NMR studies of organic and inorganic molecules was carried out in a chemistry department. It has been considered good enough for me to be employed in major universities and research institutes in Australia and overseas.
I do not see the relevance of sausage consumption to the heating effects of atmospheric CO2.
I do not see the relevance of sausage consumption to the heating effects of atmospheric CO2.
The world consumes nearly 25 kilos of sausages (all kinds) per person per year (along with about 150 eggs) – so if you can’t see a link between a simple snag and CO2, then I give up hope on your ability to connect the various arguments presented here. Go to SAUSAGE at Wikipedia, and it’s amazing the different types.
I could explain the carbon cycle involved, but it’s obviously a snag in your thinking with this one.
If you knew any basic chemistry you would be aware that some reactions really Go of the own accord, some need a little push to get started and some need a push all the way to completion.
I wonder which one involves CO2 and plants Phil?
SO, if there is MORE CO2 in the air, sadly for your AGW drama the plants can be FORCED to grow faster and Research,
you know about Research? yes research shows that natural sequestration will develop via increased plant and soil bio
activity so that withing 2 to 5 years all new CO2 sources have new sequestration ( sometimes called grass and trees)
that creates a zero sum effect for increased CO2.
OH and I forgot, some of that CO2 is drawn into the oceans by funny equilibrium effects associated with something called partial pressure equilibrization.
That analysis only follows if the variables are independent and not linked through a third variable, so lets say solar warming of the ocean causes atmospheric temperature rise and ocean outgassing of co2… Correlation is not causation.
The number of typographical errors is an indication of the care that people place on what they contribute, and presumably on the care they place on their research. No offense meant, but it is a game played here sometimes when people are being a bit pompous, or typing from a script, or both.
In my time, I have worked as a modeller, and I understand the techniques involved. A model is designed to run a series of calculations, based on the known, or presumed relevant theories.
Even in Engineering, or in real Physics, models never produce results that accurately predict later experimental results or empirical measurements. Some critical factors have always been ignored, or were perhaps previously unknown.
So the modeller analyses the deviations in the model output, and inserts “adjustment variants” (or fiddle factors, as some call them), to try and align the model with the observed reality. The process is called back-casting. The adjustment variants are indicators of real world influences, and it is the researchers job to try to figure out what they might be. In this way, computer models help science to progress. Knowing that you don’t know something, is better than not knowing that you don’t know.
Now, I have never worked in the field of climate science per se. But I have worked in the area of modelling radio signal propagation, at various frequencies, across different types of terrain, under a range of atmospheric, magnetic, and solar conditions. So there are similar complexities involved, and some real parallels. We found lots of future research possibilities in the number of adjustment variants we had to introduce, some of which have been “solved” and some which remain as opportunities for somebody to become famous, perhaps.
In theory, climate science should have proceeded in the same way. In fact, some of my colleagues later moved into that field, so I presume that it did, at least in its early stages. But, it has since transpired that climate modelling has become different from engineering modelling, and in a very significant way.
Due to political time pressures, the researchers have not felt that they had the time to investigate and research the unknown factors surrounding the adjustment variants, that were less than obvious. Instead, and presumably under pressure of deadlines, they have adjusted the source data to better align the models to a specific point in time. Now, this is the same sort of thing, as adding adjustment factors. But it requires less testing and verification, so it is the most expedient course of action.
Unfortunately, such changes are difficult to identify, let along remove, and so historic adjustment to the data just hang around in the data sets like so many zombies. Not only that, but further down the track, those adjustments to the source data become indistinguishable from the real history, and start to act as a dead weight bias on future modelling, requiring yet further adjustments.
So you get to the stage where those of us in the know, who have worked in the field, get very cynical. Yes, the models are tools, to help you understand what it is that you don’t know, but they are never, and can never ever be, proof of anything, at all. Furthermore, because we know that the source data was “adjusted” in the past, writing and running even the simplest models today is unlikely to give you any insights that you can trust. Garbage in equals garbage out.
HadCrut, and GISS may be held up as the standard, but they are a pretty low standard, once you have worked on the inside, and realise what has been going on.
People like me are not necessarily sceptics, but we are cynics, because without the models, and without having unadulterated data for them you work on, the whole climate scare has nothing. And I repeat, NOTHING.
The IPCC AR5 Report is therefore a fiction, based on lies, and I challenge anybody to produce audited quality assurance and data validation reports, and make them available to public scrutiny.
As I have said many time. If you hindcast to HadCrut/Giss which now have quite a significant artificial trend built into them, your final model results must also have that artificial trend.
Even if their models took everything in the climate into account they would STILL end up shooting high !!
I will call you out on that, the number of typos for me is more related to whether I composed my post on my computer or my tablet. (predictive text and touch screen keyboards… arrgh) That and the time of day.
I remember seeing somewhere that in the REAL DATA, ie unadjusted by BOM homogenisation, that in Australia at least, there has actually been VERY LITTLE CHANGE in the temperature on most long running stations since the late 1800’s
Trends ONLY EXIST once the real data gets into the hands of so-called “climate scientists”
Sorry again for the frequent typos. As I remarked to handjive:
Sorry handjive for taking a while to get back to you but contrary to Heywood’s assertions I have other things to do and there are so many critics and so little time (and then they put dark motivations to my admittedly hurried typing and lack of adequate proof reading).
Philip.
You cannot assign a probability like you have done unless you establish cause and effect.
Besides, many of the original up-down decadal long trends in the temperature data have been smoothed by adjusters, especially the downward slope of the 1940-1970 period.
Your contribution is just playing with numbers, with no recognition that you might as well be correlating the number of papers written by climate workers over the same period.
Geoff. No. Statistical analysis of data itself has nothing to do with cause and effect. Thus it is why it is entirely correct to say that correlations do not imply cause and effect.
It is simply mathematical analysis of the data. The equations take no notice of the source of the data. It does not matter whether the numbers represent temperature, stock market prices, banana production in Latin America or are entirely made up.
On one occasion, data sets were sent to statisticians for analysis without telling them what they represented to avoid any suggestion of bias.
I have been discussing various skeptics’ own assertions about statistical significance of data. The cause of any alleged rise, pause or decline in the temperature data does not come into the discussion of whether the relevent data sets are statistically significant. It’s just about the numbers.
My initial contribution to this thread was an analysis of Doug Keenan’s criticism of IPCC’s choice of a 90% confidence level of statistical significance of the data # 5. And I also have to say that I can’t see the point of the change but but I did nothing more than crunch the numbers to see whether it had the implications he was postulating. The numbers show it did not.
So, the IPCC says that ….. catastrophe, catastrophe, Chicken Little, we must lower emissions of GHG by 5% a year.
That’s code for the UN’s 40 Developed Countries to lower their emissions by 5%, because by the UN’s own rules, the remaining 150+ Countries need do nothing other than report their emissions.
So then, let’s actually pretend that those 40 Developed Countries can indeed go against the trend of the last, well, decades, and actually do that, and that’s not just an overall 5% lowering, but 5% EVERY YEAR.
Now, it’s amazing what you find when you’re not even looking for something in the first place.
I found a new link to an article barely one Month old, and while the link is here, it will need some explanation, which is below the link in this Comment.
Now, while there’s a lot there, I just want to point you to a couple of those things there, and explain them for you, one in this Comment and a second point in a further Comment.
First, prior to making the point, note the second column in from the right titled Jan-Jul (bln KWH) and here bln KWH stands for Billion KWH or TeraWattHours (TWH) so that’s 2990TWH (just for that 6 Month period)
Now, directly under that is the total power that was consumed in the Residential sector, here, 374.1TWH.
The point here is this. That comes in at 12.5% of all generated power going to the Residential sector. That is quite a large, well huge really, rise over the last 5 years, because in early 2008, that Residential power consumption just ticked over 7%.
Now, as China ramps up considerably its power generation nearly all of it is for the burgeoning Industrial sector. The by product of that is that power is becoming accessible to that residential sector, and here you need realise that 5 years ago, more than half China’s population had NO electrical power in their homes at all.
So, 12.5% of power going to the Residential sector.
Here in Australia, 25% of all power goes to the Residential sector, but here that Australian total is not a true indicator. Here in Australia, when it comes to Residential ENERGY consumption, (and note the distinction where I use the word energy here, and not electricity) is made up of electricity and gas consumption, because here in Australia, we use more gas in the home (for both cooking and heating) than in most Developed Countries.
So, a better indicator is the U.S. where Residential electricity consumption makes up 37% of all power consumption, and here I am not using the U.S. in isolation as that 37% of power to the Residential sector is a similar 37% in most Developed Countries.
So, with barely 12.5% of power in China going to the Residential sector, and extrapolating out all the figures for TOTAL power consumption, China is currently only 35% towards having an equivalence of electrical power consumption across all sectors to bring it up to the same standard as for the already Developed Countries.
Now, as all that power does come on line, then the ratios per sector will gradually become similar.
So then, keeping in mind the UN’s call for a 5% reduction every year, and with China barely one third of the way towards parity with the rest of the World, those 40 Countries could indeed do the already proven to be unobtainable, a yearly reduction of 5% and nearly all of that would be totally wiped out by the increase in China alone.
Now, while you take note of what I have here, mentioning how China is only a third of the way towards parity, keep in mind that India is in even more dire straits than China because India is barely 5% towards parity with the Developed World.
So then, what the UN is actually calling for is that those still Developing Countries need to stay exactly as they are now, and on top of that, those of us in the Developed World have to actually go back and join them there.
Now, you tell me if that is going to happen.
Keep in mind that the only LEGAL document that the UN currently has in place states categorically that those still Developing Countries need do NOTHING other than report their emissions.
The UN is basically all talk, and quite literally no action.
PostScript – Where I mention 40 Countries here, that is the number of Countries the UN categorises as Annex 1 Countries (already Developed) and from those 40, 23 Countries have been further cut (Annex 2) as the Countries that need to support those remaining 150+ still Developing Countries.
I think we all know the answer is no, it won’t happen. But there’s a caveat here. A government willing to force things could simply force the shutdown of generating capacity and say go lump it if you don’t like it. Or, as in California, simply prevent the addition of new capacity using any excuse they can find.
Scroll down and look at the Total Generation Capacity, and note the small indicator there, which indicates plants only of 6MW and larger.
Now note the totals listed there and here I will compare them with Australia and the U.S. Where it says Thermal here, that is coal fired and Natural gas fired, in other words CO2 emitting plants, and as a bonus I’ll add Wind Power onto the end of each Country’s totals.
Incidentally, that China percentage total for Wind power is decreasing because as more and more Thermal and Hydro plants come on line, the Wind percentage of the total decreases, even though China is still constructing new wind plants.
Now, last thing here, go right back up to the top left number there on that Table where it says that for the Month of June, China consumed a total of 495TWH of power.
Australia consumed 250TWH of power in total for the whole of the year 2012.
So, China consumes double in one month than what we consume here in Oz for a whole year.
Now, pretty useless thing to say, eh!
So, in effect China consumes 24 times the power that we do here in Oz.
The population of China is 54.5 times that of Australia.
You guess how many people in China still have no power at all in their homes.
Hint It’s in the hundreds of millions. That’s NO electrical power whatsoever in their homes.
Now, who amongst us is willing to go back to that.
Until Warmists actually realise that, then I can in fact refer to them as hypocrites.
Note here that I have only used the available data, this here for China showing CAPACITY, and not actual generation totals, because try as I might, those figures are not easy to locate with any clarity.
All mention of the hockey stick has been erased. The poster child of the noughties is no more, disappeared in much the same way as an out-of-favour Stalinist apparatchik and for similar reasons. By implication the IPCC has recognised both the MWP and the LIA, and has admitted by default that the science is not settled.
One of the many denials of reality in AR5 is the concentration on the last 50 years of temperature data. This is a lie by omission, as the temperature records for the early part of the 20th C and the ’30’s show marked inclines, similar in gradient to that of the ’80’s/’90’s, but when even the IPCC recognise that man-made CO2 was not a significant factor.
Yesterday in London I attended a presentation by Fred Singer and your very own Bob Carter on the NICCP Climate Change Reconsidered physical science summary for policy makers. I was one of the few climate wonks present, most being captains of industry and academia with a sprinkling of politicos and 1 MSM reporter. Bob was on top form and his hard-hitting presentation had a visible effect on the assembled Great and Good. I was even able to recommend this site to interested parties!
Finally, “The Neglected Sun” is now No.1 on the Amazon UK Best Seller list – an astonishing achievement for a serious science book. The book itself is a well-presented and carefully composed book operating on 2 levels – clear and simply expressed (Brilliantly translated) narrative with ample citations to peer-reviewed literature for the serious scientist to research at leisure. I commend it to all here.
The important point is that large numbers of Brits are clearly no longer prepared to take the dicta of the BBC and the Guardian as gospel and are searching elsewhere for information they can believe in. “The Neglected Sun”, has lit a candle in the Darkness, and the Darkness knows it not.
Unfortunately, the gatekeepers of temperature data before the satellite era have been shown to be more than a tad prone to routinely manipulate/torture/adjust the raw data downwards to ‘prove’ their point of “today is much worse than we thought”.
So the thirties were not warmer than today, even though they probably were. Such is ‘climate science’.
Even the trolls cannot deny the gatekeepers’ dramatic ‘homogenisation’ of past temperature data has become more than a little bit too obvious.
The lack of the hockey sticks is that this is the Working Group 1 report. Temperature reconstructions in are in Working Group 2.
The hockey sticks will rely on the Pages2K reconstructions. This is discussed in a number of posts at Climate Audit. Steve McIntyre’s summary of the various regional reconstructions that make up Pages2K is here. Brief notes on McIntyre’s notes are:-
Arctic: Warming from 1800 to 1950, levelling off since. Australia: A zombie version of the Gergis Reconstruction. Europe: “Most of the increase in the reconstruction took place prior to 1950.” North America. “There are two North American reconstructions.”. The pollen one (with 30 year intervals) ends in 1950. The tree-ring reconstruction uses many of the MBH98 datasets, including Graybill bristlecone chronologies. It ends in 1974. “Hiding the decline” is still there.
This leads to an interesting conclusion. The most extreme C20th warming was allegedly in the Arctic, along with Canada and Northern Europe. Most of the catastrophic warming this century is projected to be in the Arctic (>8 Celsius in the case of Figure SPM.8 RCP 8.5). Yet the thermometer evidence is contradicted by the reconstructions. As a mere beancounter, I think reconciling this anomaly a worthwhile task. But I realize that scientist demi-gods already know the revealed truth from their climate models, so it is merely a case of a PR blog explaining to us lesser mortals why our perceptions of reality are wrong.
So without the hocky stick, upon what will they rest this years Nobel Peace Prize?
Been thinking about that. Perhaps Obama’s recent telephone call to the new president of Iran while he was here in the states to address the UN will qualify him for another no-bel(l)? I hear they talked for 15 whole minutes! 😉
I’ve looked. Twice. The SPM is predominately based on models.
Models which failed to predict the end of warming. It’s not a pause until warming has been observed to continue.
Following the grand, secret hand-washing ceremonies in Stockholm, one cannot hold any particular individual responsible for that waste of taxpayers’ money. They’ve all bathed in collective guilt. The IPCC, the contributing authors and the annointed, unthinking pressitutes.
I sit here somewhat bemused in Turkish Kusadasi (ku-shah-da-su) after visiting the amazing ruins at Ephesus some six miles inland (and somewhat above sea level). Why is this relevant? Well in Roman times Ephesus was on the coast, and now the sea level is down at Kusadasi. But there was no Roman warm period, right? IPeCaC said so…
The IPCC are just now hinting that there was a MWP, dance around the “Warm Period”; and insist that it was regional:
Continental-scale surface temperature reconstructions show, with high confidence, multi-decadal periods during the Medieval Climate Anomaly (year 950 to 1250) that were in some regions as warm as in the late 20th century. These regional warm periods did not occur as coherently across regions as the warming in the late 20th century (high confidence). {5.5}
As with a user-car salesman, you have to observe closely the language used and their escape clauses: “Continental-scale surface temperature reconstructions”; “(year 950 to 1250)” and “did not occur as coherently as the warming in the late 20th century”. Watch for pick-pockets as you try to keep an eye on where the Queen is going.
co2science’s MWP coverage is over a much longer period; from about 750 A.D. to nearly 1500 A.D. You can visually trace the period discussed in each of the studies examined by co2science by using the time-scale animation, stepping through 50 years at a time … a period similar to the “late 20th century”. The IPCC’s bracketing of a narrower period is suspicious. So is their assertion of poor coherence between regions; the lack of “coherence” is probably based on poor data availability. i.e. argument from ignorance.
Deep within the bowels of Wonkypedia are some survivors of the Connolley purges showing the many climate changes in Greenland going back to approx 500 AD. Greenland warmer before 800 AD than during the current period.
Any decent student of physical geology can point you to numerous places where the coastline shows compelling evidence that the waves once hit land at a point now well above sea level. And if you dive you can find evidence of the same thing that’s now below sea level. I’ve forgotten the official name for these terraces but by any name they do exist.
I find them to be at least as credible as tree rings. 😉
Where are the sea level alarmists when you need them. Come, please, debunk this evidence and show us why the IPCC is justified in ignoring it — if you can. 🙁
On the other hand, this is as easily explained by uplifting or sinking of the land as it is by anything else. So in the end, why do we need to worry so much about sea level?
The uplifting or sinking of land happens over geological time scales, that is millions of years. Thermal expansion of the ocean and increases due to ice cap melt will have an effect within the next few generations.
Its ridiculous, isn’t it? These jokers are absolutely clueless as to just how much temperatures in the Antarctic would need to rise for the ice caps to begin melting.
In fact I believe you will find that they believe that it’s already melting. We are talking with complete drongos.
Do you have any idea how cold it is in the Antarctic? Do you have even the faintest clue just how much temperatures would need to ride for the ice cap to melt? C’mon, give us some numbers.
Yes, sometimes it goes very slowly, taking millions of years in the process. The Kaibab Plateau in Arizona was raised up this way so slowly that the Colorado River could carve its way down as the land was lifted and so managed to form the Grand Canyon. Almost two billion years of sediment are exposed in the walls of the Grand Canyon.
On the other hand, to form recognizable terraces the uplifting or sinking has to happen in steps that probably were much faster than millions of years followed by long periods in between. For instance, in 1952 an earthquake raised up a part of California near the city of Tehachapi by a measured 4 feet in a matter of seconds. The uplift is detectable along part of the coast of CA, many miles from the actual 4 foot rift. This is good evidence for my position even though it’s far from a proof. The image I could find is not very good but you can see how large the rift is by reference to the man standing next to it.
Then there’s the new island off the coast of Pakistan…
I’m not one to jump to sweeping conclusions just because something is changing. I see that the whole thrust of your argument hangs on CO2 induced warming. What I don’t see is empirical evidence that CO2 can actually do what is claimed for it. If you have or know of such evidence please point me to it. Until I find it, things are just changing as they always have on this planet and I won’t get excited about it.
I’ve figured out a few things in my search for reliable information.
1. The retreat of glaciers is as easily explained by a drop in precipitation at the top as it is by melting at the bottom. Absent any kind of information such as a temperature record at the bottom end of the glacier I think it more likely that a drop in precipitation is the cause. Less snow, shrinking glacier. Ice, by the way, sublimes away even when kept below freezing. Anyone who doubts this should put some ice cubes in their freezer in an open container and then come back in a month. You’ll find much smaller ice cubes.
2. With the exception of Greenland any other ice that’s melting is floating on water. Ice on the Antarctic continent is not only not melting, it’s getting deeper. The better conclusion is that the melting is happening from the bottom where water temperature is above the freezing point of seawater. I’m not surprised by this since a simple change of ocean currents could cause what we see. I know of no one looking to see what’s happening at the bottom side of sea ice, Arctic or Antarctic. If you do, please point me to it.
3. Greenland is harder to explain. But if it’s CO2 induced then it must be a localized phenomenon since much of the northern hemisphere and northern Europe in particular, has been having more severe winters than people remember. It’s simply much colder than previous years. Colder equates to less melting than before.
4. Finally, I’m really stunned at the lack of depth to the “research” into global warming. For all the money spent we’ve gotten more spin and less science than we could have gotten out of a couple of sharp college grads just a couple of decades ago. And before you jump all over me, yes, I know that’s exaggerated. I did it to make a point. And the point is correct.
5. We have no data on some of the most important things to know before we can assign blame for anything to CO2. Just for starters, in Jo’s Skeptic’s Handbook she pointed out that the expected signature of CO2 induced warming, the tropical hot spot, is totally absent. It’s still absent!!!! Yet the blame game is still running at full speed with the finger pointed squarely at CO2. And the tropical hot spot was the alarmists own agreed upon signature. It didn’t come from skeptics.
——————————-
I don’t get it Philip. The whole thing needs shoring up with so much spin I’m surprised the spinners don’t have chronic vertigo. Everyone needs to take a long vacation. Go out to your favorite bar and get drunk a few times. After the hangovers are over take some time to just enjoy your life. Come back in a couple of months and reset everything; start over using honest science. Do the research it really takes to make a case. Then if you still think you have a case, present it without all the spin, without all ad hom attacks, without all the BS. We’ll always listen to an honest presentation backed up by data that hasn’t been adjusted, bent and tweaked until it’s ready to cry uncle.
The bottom line is that we’ve seen all this before. It doesn’t stand up under examination. We’re losing patience with it. Come back when you have something to say.
Maybe CO2 is doing something. But you have not shown it.
Roy , Sorry I have not responded to your posts which are quite thoughtful and detailed and would require some time to answer and I have been rather busy since the weekend and only made short responses to others.
But at this stage I must object to the accusations that I have made ad hominum attacks.
Have you seen the posts of my critics? I am amazed at my restraint.
And as I have pointed out elsewhere, my posts have been largely about stistical analysis of data. This is simply mathematical analysis and says nothing about cause and effect.
Indeed you have not made ad hom attacks and I apologize for the inference that you did. Please forgive me on that point. I was talking in general in the comment you replied to and it was a general reference to the whole global warming alarm and I could have stated it better.
Around the end of the 19th Century, the early settlers in Wellington, New Zealand, suffered a very large earthquake in the 8.x range. The western shore line of the harbour rose by about 40 metres. Today, that land is called The Terrace, and is where most of the legal and accounting firms have their offices, along with the Government owned radio network head office.
It is interesting that no commercial Science, or Engineering companies have offices on The Terrace. That may be due to the thought that another major earthquake may see the whole area sink down again.
Meanwhile, the harbour remains at the height it has always been – at sea level.
Roy: You are correct that some earthquakes etc result in sudden uplifts and drops, but they are localised and relativel small shifts. Most uplift occurs due to larger scale and slower processes, eg the rise of the Himalayas due to tectonic plat movements.
I think the major point here is that there are possible explanations for what we see happening that do not require CO2 to be involved. The ice is much more likely to be melting from the bottom than from the top except for Greenland.
It should be a puzzle to you why the Argo buoys do not give us the expected increased temperature reading from deeper down, since it seems to be assumed that this is where the “missing” heat is. I think it’s much more logical to conclude that ice is melting from the bottom side and probably always does. And there is simply too much evidence that Arctic ice simply comes and goes again, and probably so does the Antarctic ice that’s floating on water.
Greenland I can’t explain. But doesn’t it cause at least a little curiosity that a place where it has been so cold for so long came to be called Green-land? Their smaller neighbor is called Iceland. That’s not a proof of anything and not even very good evidence but it’s some real food for thought — and it ought to be a good incentive for a lot more research into that whole region instead of jumping to conclusions.
Things change naturally. Some things may become local problems to cope with but they’re not a worldwide catastrophe. Sea level changes of a fraction of a millimeter/year aren’t enough to justify all the measures now being taken out of plain old fear or because political opportunists see ways to boost their egos by increasing their power over the rest of us.
The global warming fear has been a political disease from the start.
Roy, Don’t know if you are still tuning in but a fascinating doco on last night about continental drift, loss of oceans and creation of mountain ranges focusing on Eurasia last night. (An earleir eprisode on Americas is still available)
Thanks! I’ll take a look if I get the time (depends on how long it runs).
I am familiar with the continental drift theory and plate tectonics. In general the theory holds up but I’m not an expert. Still, I suspect that the formation of the Grand Canyon, just for example, can be attributed to the forces created as the Americas separated from Europe and Africa. But these are things easy to theorize about and very hard to prove.
Between 1992 and 2011, the ice sheets of Greenland, East Antarctica, West Antarctica, and the Antarctic Peninsula changed in mass by –142 ± 49, +14 ± 43, –65 ± 26, and –20 ± 14 gigatonnes year−1, respectively. Since 1992, the polar ice sheets have contributed, on average, 0.59 ± 0.20 millimeter year−1 to the rate of global sea-level rise.
LMAO! Do you have any idea exactly what they are measuring?
Let me fill you in sonny. They are measuring glaciers calving, something which has been going on since the year dot. It is not a measure of Antarctica melting, although warmists like to pretend that it is.
You need to explain why the calving rate increased by gigatonnes per year between 1992 and 2011.
And this is only anecdotal evidence but a friend who went walking in the European Alps earlier this year had some photos of a glacier.
The guide pointed out just how far the glacier level had dropped and the face retreated up the valley in the past few decades. There are plenty of photographic evidenc of such glacial retreats from all over the world
Since Backslider is only here to mock, I’ll be foolish enough to converse with you for while.
No, we do not need to explain why the calving rate increased by gigatonnes per year between 1992 and 2011–we don’t have nearly enough data to draw any conclusions as to “why”. We are just starting to understand how the ice cover works, to make measurements, etc. It’s brand new science. It would be irresponsible to starting stating why at this point.
Glaciers form and glaciers melt. They always have. Not in any pattern. Scientists are covering a glacier in the Alps with blankets trying to keep it from melting. They say it’s 11,500 years old and “very sensitive to climate change”. (Sounds like they have been reading Marcott and missed the part where the end of the graph is not statistically robust.) I find it impossible to believe that a glacier that lasted 11,500 years is “very sensitive” to climate change.
Pictures of melting glaciers do not address the “why” of the melting. They just document the change.
How much does 1 degree of temperature increase raise the melt rate? Are there studies on this or is it just a model? My guess is you’re going to tell me the melt rate it geometric or hyperbolic, right? By the time we get to three degrees warming, how high has the function gone–enough to cover New York or less than a few centimeters?
By the time we get to three degrees warming, how high
Antarctic temperatures where it matters (where the ice cap is) struggle to get above -20C in the summer. 3 degrees would do nothing….. it has been stable for millions of years.
What these jokers measure is glaciers calving, then add all of that up and call it “Antarctic ice cap melt”. It’s a crock.
Backslider–I understand how this works. I even wrote blog entry on it after researching extensively (including several professional studies on Arctic ice–they are very fascinating. Some are very well done and the conclusions are often very different from what warmists tell you). I am asking because I want Philip to explain his viewpoint.
The temperature is not now warm enough for melting, so the melting is due to storms and melting from underneath (land that is exposed to the sun–it can warm up enough to melt the edges of the ice, which may or may not be significant in the overall scheme of things.). Only land ice melting significantly affects sea level–melting ocean ice will raise it a bit. Land ice melts mostly in response to temperature, but wind also has effect. The calculations for melt and the volume of ocean water, values needed to calculate volumes are from satellite measurements of the changes in gravity. I am not familiar with how this are calibrated–my belief is there is a mathematical formula that will be correct if all of the assumptions are right. Since I don’t know the assumptions at this point, I am accepting that this method is commonly used and appears to have no major flaws. If it does, please tell me! Philip is throwing out numbers and there is no mention of whether or not the calculations exclude the masses of glaciers calving that is a “normal” function of the natural system. This is why I am asking him questions–I am curious how much he leaves in and how much he takes out. (One clue on the “exactness’ of these figures is the margin of error: East Antartica’s margin of error is 3 times the actual quoted change…)
no mention of whether or not the calculations exclude the masses of glaciers calving that is a “normal” function of the natural system.
No, they are by no means excluded. I am homing in on his claim that the Antarctic ice cap is melting, since this is on land with extreme low temperatures – Vostok recorded a world record −89.2°C in 1983
He said the ice sheets changed–he did not specify what parts changed. Read carefully what he is saying. Again, in the case of East Antarctica, the margin of error says there could have been ice gain. The Antarctic peninsula could actually have lost relatively little, again due to margins of error. Since the paper is paywalled, we have only the abstract. Without the paper, we don’t know if this was attributed to global warming–the abstract only says they were measuring it to better understand. Also, papers on Antarctica often say we have too little data to actually know what is happening. The calving is actually the way the ice sheet decreases according to articles on the ice. It is normal–happens all the time. What they were doing is measuring it. It melts from underneath, they think. No one knows if humans had a thing to do with this or not since we only figured out this possibility recently, it seems. (Remember, just because we can measure it doesn’t mean we can control it–or that we had anything to do with it happening.)
Thus, Philip is relating interesting studies that do no in any way add evidence to the human-caused theory of global warming. Besides, the Antarctic is local–doesn’t count.
Sheri, Backslider is not here to mock. He is here to abuse and headkick pewiple he identifies as idealogical enemies. If he had as much confidence in his arguments as he maintains he would find this unneccessary.
I am not “putting out numbers”. The authors of the research paper are giving the results of their findings.
I was responding to the remarks by Backslider such as this:
In fact I believe you will find that they believe that it’s already melting. We are talking with complete drongos.
and
It [the ice cap] has been stable for millions of years.
Between 1992 and 2011, the ice sheets of Greenland, East Antarctica, West Antarctica, and the Antarctic Peninsula changed in mass by –142 ± 49, +14 ± 43, –65 ± 26, and –20 ± 14 gigatonnes year−1, respectively. Since 1992, the polar ice sheets have contributed, on average, 0.59 ± 0.20 millimeter year−1 to the rate of global sea-level rise.
This is an emprical study showing a loss of ice for antarctica over a period of 21 years.
Backslider has been shown to be wrong, so he just indulges in more abuse.
Enough with Backslider–he is impossible right now so let’s not include him for now.
I understand that melting is occurring presently. As previously noted, I looked at the abstract. The margins of error are problematic. +14 with a margin of error at plus/minus 43. That’s over 3 times the reported change. Note within the bounds of scientific rigor. The ice could have gained 57 gigatonnes or lost 29. We definitely need more study before any conclusion is reached. It’s fine and useful to study these things and note changes, but we should not draw conclusions before we have enough data.
(Yes, the other numbers all show a decrease. Again, we don’t know why, other than water underneath wears away at these ice shelves. Why it seems to increase over time is something we do not know. We don’t know if it happened before the past 21 years of the study. There are so many factors, it’s impossible to say right now.)
The melt rate will increase over time as temperatures rise.
First you need to get the temperature above melting point. You never answered as to how much warming is required before the Antarctic ice cap begins to melt (I know you think it already is, but I don’t think you have actually managed to think about that one).
Since 1992, the polar ice sheets have contributed, on average, 0.59 ± 0.20 millimeter year−1 to the rate of global sea-level rise.
Floating ice contributes nothing to the water level when it melts. When it floats it displaces exactly the volume of the amount of water that froze. If you want to make such an argument then any rise in sea level must be because of snow deposited on top of the frozen sea water. Unfortunately this doesn’t work out for you either because when snow is deposited on the existing ice it sinks until it displaces the volume of water that would have had to freeze to make the total ice mass. So there is your sea level rise anyway.
But there is another term in the equation. Any precipitation on any part of the planet, no matter where, is water that came from the ocean in the first place. So there’s no net difference in sea level averaged over time. And a fairly short time at that. This whole process has been going on for a couple of billion years. Photographs of U.S. submarines surfaced at the north pole in the late 1960s (about March of 1967 as I remember) in open water have been displayed right here on this blog. North polar ice comes and goes whether anyone likes it or not.
What is not liked is the implication this is somehow indicative of human-induced climate change. So far as I can see, there’s nothing to that effect. It’s just measurement.
Apologies. Formatting fail. Quote should have read,
“We combined an ensemble of satellite altimetry, interferometry, and gravimetry data sets using common geographical regions, time intervals, and models of surface mass balance and glacial isostatic adjustment to estimate the mass balance of Earth’s polar ice sheets”
Dont forget when GRACE measures changes in gravity they assume this is the land mass changing due to a loss of ice but it is in fact caused by magma flows beneath the surface. This very fact tripped the warmbots up re WAIS upon closer inspection they found the worlds largest volcanic chain under the ocean.
Crakar24: Do you have a reference for that? This is what I have been wondering about (noted in my exchanges with Backslider). You’re saying they are not measuring what they claim to–it’s not gravity changes due to ice. Is this true for ocean volume “measurements” where the satellite data is used to estimate ocean volume and then the figures for melting ice are used to tell us how much of NYC will be underwater in the future?
I can’t tell if you’re just being contrary to annoy Philip or not, but since you asked a question:
“Because ice shelves already float in the ocean, they do not contribute directly to sea level rise when they break up. However, ice shelf collapse could contribute to sea level rise indirectly. Ice streams and glaciers constantly push on ice shelves, but the shelves eventually come up against coastal features such as islands and peninsulas, building pressure that slows their movement into the ocean. If an ice shelf collapses, the backpressure disappears. The glaciers that fed into the ice shelf speed up, flowing more quickly out to sea. Glaciers and ice sheets rest on land, so once they flow into the ocean, they contribute to sea level rise.”
It’s an indirect cause. Ice shelf melts due to warm water (as in just above freezing). Land ice loses barrier and flows out to the ocean. It’s also a very new discovery and there is not much data out there.
You apparently slept through grade school? Glaciers move–NOT run, which is ludicrous and you know it. The weight moves the ice. Remember gravity? Perhaps tomorrow I can find you information on the ice shelf collapses. I’ll start with as simple an explanation as possible so maybe you get it.
If I were “on the spectrum”, I would not be offended. So if I say I’m offended, then the answer is no. If I say I am not offended, then the answer is yes.
In case you were referring to like IQ, then try the very far end of the bell curve on the high side. 🙂
Otherwise, we’re talking rainbows and unicorns, right?
Now, since you changed subjects, I am going with you still don’t understand about ocean ice, melting and glaciers–correct?
So are you being a cynic, sarcastic or humorous? Have you considered that it’s not that I don’t understand but rather that you have failed to use a /sarc tag when needed, or you’re not funny? I absolutely sense the cynicism. So you want that I stop asking if you made it through grade school and just assume you are attempting to mock, ridicule and otherwise abuse Philip because it’s who you are and what you do? Okay, mock away. If at some point this rises to an intelligent discussion involving evidence and science, let me know.
assume you are attempting to mock, ridicule and otherwise abuse Philip
Again, this leads back to my question “are you on the spectrum?”, because you take everything literally and have absolutely no social sense.
I display incredulity toward Philip because he makes ridiculous statements to the effect that the Antarctic ice cap is melting, his latest being “Because the ice cover is melting?“.
It appears I somehow hurt your little feelings by actually responding to Philip’s statement addressed to me in 11.2.2.2.1. When you’re incredulous, does that mean no one can actually enter the discussion even when addressed by name and I failed to understand that particular part of your reality. Again, since you seem so taken with Philip and insist on being the only one to respond to him (or was I not rude enough to Philip and that’s why you’re so bent out of shape?) I suppose I can let you have your way for now and then later on maybe Philip and I can have a conversation. Unless Philip is yours and only yours.
I need him for my troll collection later on. I have like 200, all dressed in cute little outfits. The climate change ones are in green and some in red to show how hot things are going to get. So as long as I can have him later on, he’s your for now.
You see what I mean Sheri. Backslider has next to nothing but abuse, and he calls me a troll. Apaprently this blog is supposed to be a hugfest of “skeptics” who congratualate each other on their insights and intelligence and is closed to anyone who puts a counterargument.
Even genuine skeptics such as youself who can put an argument politely are barely tolerated.
[is closed to anyone who puts a counterargument.]
[We know that that statement is bullshit because you Phillip have been posting counter arguments for a fair while now. You may have issues with other commentors, but you have no issue with this blog. DON’T START ONE NOW. mod oggi]
So how much of the Greenland melt is due to atmospheric warming and how much of the melt is from underneath the ice sheet due to increased heat flow from the mantle and geothermic reactions?
There has been no end of warming, not even a non-statistically significant 15 years of decline as there was from 1953 to 1968 which was part of a statistically significant 60 year trend, and was followed by 3 consecutive warming 15 year trends of which only one was stistically significant.
And the lower warming rate was not predicted because the models do not attempt to predict varaible el nino and la nina periods.
Dr. Philip, the issue is the end of human caused warming. Non statistically significant HUMAN caused warming right?.
No one I have ever communicated with is under the impression that the globe was not already warming well before we started burning fossil fuels. Do you know of anyone?
The issue is not the end of human caused warming, just human caused warming. As for the non stistically significant bit, all I am saying is that looking at short term non stistically sgnificant trends are a highly unreliable guide to what is happening over multidecadal time periods.
Actually there are longer term data claim that prior to the industrial revolution temperatures were slowly declining, but the question is the warming effect of atmospheric CO2 superimposed on natural forcings. And the evidence there is that it is having a significant warming effect.
I thought that the climate activists stopped getting paid overtime with the demise of the climate commission. It seems that Brian Philip Shehan has absolutely nothing better to do on a Sunday afternoon.
Ummm no. Like Michael the Activist, it is an obsession. You can’t help it. No matter who responds, or what they say, you feel utterly compelled to be here and argue the toss.
“is attempt to correct scientific misapprehensions ”
Then you desperately need to correct your own misapprehensions first and clean out your brain-washed little cranium of all the climate propaganda you have bought into.
Get back to us in say, 4 -5 years, once the global decline in temperatures starts to bite.
Still waiting on your supposed scientific explanation for the Antarctic ice cap melting. You claim it is melting, so go ahead, show us. That does not mean giving us numbers on glaciers calving.
I want to see photos of all that fresh water from the melting ice cap running into the ocean…. it must be a torrent according to you…. surely you must have some?
I want to see the piccies of you sitting on a beach in Antarctica sipping piña coladas….
Thank’s for the weekend entertainment Philip, I hope that next time you will have a desire to talk about something serious… fun is fun, but…….
I note that Heywood describes those who quetion the skeptic case asobsessive activists, but “skeptics” who do the same thing, well that’s another matter of course.
In Heywood’s case as with many other “skeptic” commentators he spends very little time actually analysing the data befor posting he just posts “clever” comments so no doubt excludes himself.
And Backslider, the scientific answer is:
Its getting warmer.
I have shown the evidence in the link to the paper.
Not aware of “photos” of this from antactica, but I have seen footage of of such torrents in Greenland.
“I note that Heywood describes those who quetion the skeptic case asobsessive activists, but “skeptics” who do the same thing, well that’s another matter of course.”
I’m not the one on the “opposition’s” (for want of a better word) blog trying to re-educate convince us. You are engaging in activism on this blog.
You and Michael the Activist (AAD) are the Taco brothers of this blog.
ac·tiv·ism
/ˈaktəˌvizəm/
Noun
The policy or action of using vigorous campaigning to bring about political or social change
No. ENSO events occur at irregular intervals and so cannot be used in predictions any more than the effects of volcanic eruptions can but this is only a problem for the short term. on multidecadal timescales the effects average out.
There are many aspects of climate that are far from fully understood. That is why the research continues. Others are well understood.
To say that “they haven’t got a bloody clue” is, well on par with your other contributions.
To say the time scales involved in Climate variation are ‘decadal’, or ’multi-decadal’ is a ‘base ten’ construct that has nothing to do with the actual maths involved – but is a result of the age of ‘computer modelling’, bearing no resemblance to reality. I am aware of no ‘decadal’ time-frames existing anywhere in the climate workings of the planet. For example, the ‘Sunspot Cycle’ period is 11.028148 Earth years. The Solar Rotation Rate at the Sunspot Latitude is 27 Earth days. The ‘Dry’ Cycles, acting in ‘concert’ and relevant to immediate concern, are 6.75 and 2.25 Earth years in duration. The important Lunar Metonic cycle is 18.61 Earth years.
Note; The Earth year is the time taken for the Earth to orbit 360 degrees around the Sun. (ie. 360 days, 12 x 30 day months.)
Alex S. Gaddes showed in his work, ‘Tomorrow’s Weather’ (1990), that these ‘Dry’ Cycles travel longitudinally around the planet from East to West, (thirty degrees/month with the Solar orbit of the Earth’s Magnetic Field,) thus, affecting both Poles simultaneously. The passing of these ‘Dry’ Cycles ( and the ‘Wet’/Normal Periods between,) explain the fluctuations in surface temperature so eagerly grasped upon by AGW proponents as ‘proof’ of impending doom. There is no ‘missing’ heat.
ENSO always was a fantasy – perpetuated in the mid 1970’s from the University of East Anglia and ‘exported’ to Australia, (and other places,) where it thrived under the sacrosanct auspices of the BoM, and their ‘sweetheart’ relationship with the mainstream media.
Many millions of dollars later, the deluded and the fraudsters are found out.
An updated version of the work ‘Tomorrow’s Weather’ (including ‘Dry’ Cycle forecasts to 2055,) is available as a free pdf from dongaddes93@gmail .com
So if the intervals are irregular and could not be factored in, why didn’t the report say “Human caused climate warming except if ENSO enters or there is a volcanic eruption or…….” There’s no mention that natural factors were simply ignored because they were too tricky to model. Never mind they might have been really, really important.
Yes Tony – people go on and on about how polluted China is yet when you cook with coal and wood that’s what happens. They don’t seem to understand that to clean the pollution in China they have to burn the coal in power stations with scrubbers and send them electricity to cook with.
I’m so worn out by being attacked all day by my lefty friends because they religiously believe the IPCC and it’s proclamations.
Ask them for a large donation to help rural african women get cleaner fuel for cooking. Their health suffers badly from smoke inhalation. Average life expectancy is years lower than it should be.
Explain that a group of racists is banning cleaner energy for ideological reasons.
It won’t help, but every time they call you a denier you can say “at least I’m not a racist”.
Raise your game, janama. Find the short questions on the subject that they can’t answer, and every time they bring up the subject, deploy them. They’ll soon back off.
What are the figures for efficiency of use of coal to produce heat when (a) it is burnt in a manner common for cooking in the 3rd world; (b) it is burnt in a power station and transmitted to the user and used for heat? Pollution aside, THAT is the relevant comparison; don’t forget that power stations have thermodynamic limitations.
Anton I’ve run into the same thing and I have a list of “short questions” that I routinely bring up. It’s akin to a cult for some people,because you dare to question the science and demand evidence,you are a “climate change denier” end of story,if not worse names. I’m perfectly willing to change my viewpoint if the science supports it,but currently it’s sadly lacking in this regard.
“The Australian Government acknowledges and appreciates the release today of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report on the physical science basis for climate change.
The Report’s findings reinforce the Government’s bi-partisan support for the science and the targets set for emissions reductions.”
Did they make a complete AR5E of presenting this report ?
Are they so desperate to justify continuing with past failed & economically crippling climate policies that they forget about the purpose of the IPCC ?
Was there ever any Iimpartial analysis , or just shameless cheerleading , for another round of wasteful indulgence.
Wonky Moon rallying the troops & inviting World Leaders to another unprecedented Summit in 2014.
AR5E is the Section with all the scary projections. Future Global and Regional Climate Change, pages SPM14 – 22
Now based on scenarios termed “Representative Concentration Pathways” (RCPs) they sound vaguely reminiscent of discredited schemes for management of the terminally ill.
Did they make a complete AR5E of presenting this report ?
Oh I do hope so.
Climate Sensitivity
No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.
The concensus is 95% certain we don’t have a concensus.
Antartic Sea Ice
Most models simulate a small downward trend in Antarctic sea ice extent, albeit with large inter-model spread, in contrast to the small upward trend in observations
The concensus is 95% certain the models don’t agree with observations.
Observationally Constrained
The global mean surface temperature change for the period 2016–2035 will likely be in the range of 0.4°C to 1.0°C for the set of RCPs. This is based on an assessment of observationally-constrained projections and predictions initialized with observations (medium confidence).
The concensus is 95% certain that observationally-constrained projections and predictions will get you every time.
Would observationally-unconstrained projections and predictions be what we normally refer to as a wild guess.
Models
There has been some improvement in the simulation of continental-scale patterns of
precipitation since the AR4. At regional scales, precipitation is not simulated as well, and the
assessment is hampered by observational uncertainties
The concensus is we are 95% certain observational uncertainties are at this time uncertain.
Rather than rely on press releases to see how confident a committee is of their work, it is worth reading the detail. An area I have looked at in yesterday’s report is Figure SPM.5 detailing Radiative Forcing Components, and compared them to the equivalent 2007 figures. A few points of note
– The potency of CO2 as a greenhouse gas is reduced by 10%.
– The potency of CH4 (Methane) as a greenhouse gas is doubled.
– The uncertainty bands for CO2, CH4 and Nitrous Oxides have more than doubled. Despite this, scientists still have unshaken high confidence in their figures.
– The direct effect of aerosols in suppressing warming has reduced. What is more, the uncertainty range now includes a net warming effect from aerosols. Despite having been so far out before, scientists still have high confidence in their figures.
Very interesting analysis MBC. I agree with you it would seem that they are creating a scenario where they can claim an understanding of the current slowdown in temp rise but keep a scary story at the forefront.
I’d like to know when the coal industry going to start arguing that we should be burning coal (without scrubbers) not natural gas because it reduces global warming via aerosols?
I don’t think the coal industry will do this at all. They have had to go so long kow-towing to the political masters, who in turn only listen to climate activists that they would not dare. After all, all what the coal barons are doing is trying to make money through providing cheap and plentiful electricity. That is in contrast to the climate activists who have much higher aims.
The environmentalists will point out why aerosols could have a positive effect on warming. That is due to black carbon, generated by the incomplete burning of fossil fuels, biofuel and “biomass”. I hope they do so. Firstly, it is an argument to replace the oldest coal-fired power stations. More importantly, if aerosols are actually net positive then the sensitivity factor for CO2 is much lower. Just as if the hypothesised warming of the oceans is an exaggeration then CO2 sensitivity is lower.
Oh Dear ! While Australia is at last showing the way on Global Warming , it seems the increasingly desperate IPCC beaureautocracy is having a tantrum. As it cannt think of anything new to say it just wants to up the tyranny because no one is listening.
“The financial markets are humanity’s only hope in the battle against global warming, the world’s top climate expert (sic!) declared…”
Forgetting my smartphone one lunchtime this week and casting around for the lowest cost newspaper I could find for some light reading, it was this once proud broadsheet, The ‘Independent’ , at just 20p (35 Aus Cents).
This should give the left to ponder. According to the left financial markets, run by the reckless financial institutions such as Goldman Sachs and Lehman Brothers trading in phony financial instruments caused the credit crunch that the USA, UK and much of Europe are still recovering from. Now they need to put their trust in these same institutions to manage the trading in phony financial instruments to save the planet.
Of course, leftist intellectuals don’t think for themselves and collectively have very selective interpretations of history and economics. So they will not see the irony.
Time for another reminder of a comment in an interview by one of the IPCC’s senior members, Ottmar Edenhofer (Neue Zuercher Zeitung 14/11/2010): “We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy… one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy any more”.
Tom Harris of the International Climate Science Coalition explains the IPCC report is an example of “decision-based evidence making”.
It’s like he was peeking into the laboratories of innocent science students, trying to get the best marks in the class by working out the results they should be getting from the theory.
To stop a dog from killing chooks you hang a chook it has just killed around it’s neck for a week or more until it is just a rotten stinking mess which just about fixes any social contact with that dog for the duration and generally fixes the dog’s interest in chickens .
That “95%” claim is going to be one big, very rotten, stinking chook around the IPCC’s neck and all the big wheels who partook of the AR5 deliberations for many a year to come,
And one none of them are likely to be able to discard for far into the foreseeable future.
“foreseeable future”? Darn! I’ll have to model that..
I believe absolutely that the world would be different if there was no such thing as humans.
Of course humans have impacted or influenced the weather/climate/environment! Especially on a local scale.
The argument being advanced by the IPCC and the green/environmental political movement that it is WORSE because there is such a species known as ‘homo-sapiens’ is:
a) Profoundly misanthropic &
b) Ridiculous!
Who would know if it would be better or worse if there was no such thing as the human race?
A little bird crashed into the huge glass panes of my conservatory about an hour ago, falling to the floor and landing on an opportunely placed dog blanket. I managed to stop the two dogs taking an interest in it ( they were as surprised as me) but it still looked pretty far gone, lying there helpless.
After making a warm box , out of old ice cream tub & tissue paper, for it to recover in and siting it on a table clear of the ground, it perked up and flew of 5 minutes ago.
Without mankind the cats would probably have had it.
Debbie, you have touched on a subject [ and given me a platform for another sermon! ] that I got a horrified and strong reaction to from a small sample of lurkers and posters on another forum when I posted my views of the role and presence of humanity on this planet.
My views are simply this.
We, that is the species Homo sapiens, the only surviving sub-species out of what is now known to have been a whole gamut of similar manlike creatures from the genus “Homo” are just another [ short duration? ] life-form out of the billions of life forms on this planet.
As a part of the planet’s biological make up, we as a species are doing no more and no less than any other species in that we are doing everything we can as a species to change our environment to suit and to benefit to the maximum and to ensure the propagation and ultimate success of our species.
Just as every other species and genus on this planet is also attempting to do.
And because of this we as a species are in conflict with a whole range of other life-forms who are just as intent as a species on maximising their own success, propagation and survival as we are and who are just as prepared to wipe us out if it suits their species purpose and take over our species niches on this planet as we are in taking over their niches.
As sentient, intelligent beings we are told we are not supposed to think like this but as with all other life forms we as a species have exactly the same ruthlessness drive to survive and maximise our species chances characteristics that are hard wired into all life of every possible shade on this planet.
It is a basic fundamental characteristic of life which one day into the very far future we might find is basic to all life through out the universe.
When you think of our competition and there is plenty of that, most folk think only of the big but not very important lifeforms like animals, plants and etc.
We as a species are smarter and far more adaptable than any of those as our increasing niche filling numbers prove so our competition for the available niches has to come from somewhere else.
And with the big game a non serious threat of any sort to our species that competition is the insects, the viruses, the bacteria, the prions almost without number, all of which are either in competition and / or conflict and often in co-operation and cahoots with our species if it suits their species climb up the ladder of life. This along with most other species that are using us as a energy and food source, ie; malaria , aids, colds, influenza which they also use to try to maximise their own species survival and propagation and increase their role and influence amongst all life-forms through that hard wired adaptive survival and competitive lust to just survive and prosper as a species.
They are our real competition for dominance and survival and they like us, as a species are all out in trying to maximise their role in the scheme of things amongst the life forms of the planet.
In a more indirect manner, amongst the larger life forms you can count the myriad’s of insect species and small animal species like mice and rats and birds and etc and the viral diseases of our food crops which they are using as a food source again in direct conflict and opposition to our species claims on those plant life-forms..
So when i see the bleating and hand ringing so prevalent amongst the self designated good and great in the environmental camp, i think of all those things we as a species are doing to maximise our role as a species on this planet. We create great open spaces to grow our food crops [ and give another lot of species a brand new food and energy niche above ground and below ground to try and maximise their role as a species ]
We dig up ores which is no different to bacteria chewing up oil and methane and sulphur and endless other metals and elements for their own energy requirements .
We plant another life form , trees, plants and sometimes a plant in the wrong place which we call weeds, all for our advancement but in doing so we provide another huge range of niches and food sources for a whole host of new species or old species coming back in because the local environment; ie food sources and cover now again suits their species purposes
We develop a huge range of medical drugs to protect ourselves and our food crops and animals from the competitive attacks of the other viral, bacterial and fungal life-forms.
Strangely we get most of those drugs and the molecular and sometimes genetic structure for their analogs from the different species of bacterial and viral life forms themselves who are waging a constant war for superiority and survival at the sub microscopic scale amongst themselves every millisecond of every millennium.
We as a species, walk away from an area for a few years and anybody and everybody in the plant, insect, animal and bacterial and viral world races in, as the big gorilla of the competition, thats us, Homo sapiens has vacated the scene and so everything else that can survive in that new niche and some that can’t, try to grab as big a slice of the vacant patch as they possibly can. Usually to be mostly thrown out as they are out competed by some other species. But nevertheless they still usually get another slice of the territory for a period to further their own species survival and propagation [ Nothing and nowhere on this planet is ever vacant of life forms of some sort.. They just switch around somewhat according to what’s on offer and what they can exploit to their species aggrandisation and benefit at that moment and in that location..]
So when i see the hand ringing of the so called encvironmental movement on how we are destroying the planet or some supposed “natural” feature, my reaction is ” what utter BS and ignorance in spades”.
All we are doing is changing the local so called environment which every other species is also intent on doing for it’s own selfish purposes, and making it harder or impossible for the old order of things to survive there. But in reality we have merely opened up a brand new niche and environment for a whole host of other species, other life forms to rush in and grab some territory while they can.
And they do, often in a spectacular and for us, unexpected manner and with unexpected outcomes, ie; Chernobyl Exclusion Zone is now teeming with plants, animals and fish as mankind vacated the Exclusion Zone a quarter of a century ago and as the dominant life form and species which had modified the area to our own requirements,
When we left, the other species raced in to get a slice of the territory and the huge resources, from those species viewpoint, that had suddenly become available.
Had we “Damaged” the local environment? Nope!
We had changed the local environment and a new lot of species and life forms had moved in so when we went, they lost the controlling factor over that local environment, ie; mankind, which had shaped the local environment to suit both mankind and those other life forms that rode piggyback on mankind’s changes to the local environment.
With mankind gone, so was their support structure and the old order came storming back in to the Exclusion Zone.
I have seen exactly this happen on so many occassions in my time as a farmer. But we have to look at things in a completely different way and we have to try and understand just what drives life on this planet to even know what we might be looking for, at and why.
The greens like to claim we have destroyed a lot of natural features of the planet.
Take the termites, one of the largest genus and arguably one of the most influential of all larger than bacterial life forms that have shaped life on this planet,
Take the termites out of this planet and you would have an environment not just destroyed but a planet with a mixture and construct of life and appearance and climate that would be arguably unrecognisable to modern man.
Termites are only just one genus with multitudes of species, out of countless other genus and species that have shaped this planet through the 3 billion plus years that life has existed on this planet.
We, Homo Sapiens are no more and no less responsible for shaping what this planet is than each and all those other species that have made and continue to make up life of every conceivable type on the planet and have and continue to alter and shape the planetary environment in complex ways that we may never fully understand.
To consider we are not of and a part of the life forms of this planet, that we, Homo sapiens are somehow not of the life of this planet but separate and above all other life forms, that we are not just another species trying to shape the planet’s characteristics for our own species further advancement and dominance is just an arrogant blindness and hubris as to where we stand relative to every other planetary life form whatever it might be or whatever form it takes.
A quick clarification;
The above was NOT aimed at anybody at all.
It was merely a chance to expound albeit through one of my usual long rants on what I believe about the role and place of humanity amongst the life forms of this planet and the role that humanity plays in the way we attempt to restructure the world to suit our species.
I am upset that you have eclipsed my record for longest rant, however for humanitarian reasons I do not seek to regain this dubious crown.
If I could single out one claim that is in need of more justification it would be this:
“Take the termites out of this planet and you would have […] a planet with a mixture and construct of […] climate that would be arguably unrecognisable to modern man.”
The termites shape the climate?
ROM, mate, buddy, in case you hadn’t noticed… we’re having extreme difficulty proving that a species which extracts and burns coal, oil, and gas from 11km underground and clears forests at the rate of a football field every 3 seconds has been capable of altering the climate by even a fraction of a degree in a century. I’d guess the termites aren’t even in the running.
But hey, blow us all away if you’ve got some theory or data to support this statement.
You realise when you see ants coming into your house during the rain that this correlation is causal but in the other direction. The ants aren’t making it rain. 🙂
I chose Termites quite deliberately to illustrate my thinking.
And “ants” are not termites but are a different genus entirely
Termites are known from the paleo records to have been around at the end of the late Jurassic to the early Cretaceous era or about 145 to 150 million years ago. The termites of Early Eocene Cambay amber
Humanity has been around in our genetic ancestors form for about 3.5 million years from the finding and dating of tools that can be accurately dated from the accompanying volcanic deposits in African Afar region
Our own species Homo sapiens, the species that now dominates the world has been around for only a few hundred thousand years.
In fact during the so called Human Genetic bottleneck of some 75,000 years ago which is being put down to the dramatic cooling of the global climate from the colossal super volcanic explosion of Toba in northern Sumatra, the entire global population of our species is estimated to have fallen to perhaps less than 10,000 or far less breeding pairs or perhaps no more than 3000 to 10,000 individuals of the homo sapiens species, thats us, of every age.
According to the genetic bottleneck theory, between 50,000 and 100,000 years ago, human populations sharply decreased to 3,000-10,000 surviving individuals.[31][32] It is supported by genetic evidence suggesting that today’s humans are descended from a very small population of between 1,000 to 10,000 breeding pairs that existed about 70,000 years ago
[ A side track of interest is that we humans having originated in Africa were dark skinned or a black skinned species.
The white or lighter coloured skin which readily absorbs Solar UV better than a black skin is a genetic adaption to compensate for the lack of solar UV for Vitamin D production as our species moved northwards into regions of less intense and less duration sunlight.
Black or dark skinned people often have Vitamin D deficiencies if they live in the northern climes as their skin cannot absorb enough of the limited northern solar UV for an adequate internal Vitamin D production process. ]
Even Rome, which created the greatest and longest lasting Empire over 2000 years ago, only had a maximum city population at it’s peak of about one million.
The global population before or at the start of agriculture some 13,000 years ago has been estimated as having stabilised at about 3 million people.
In about 1800 the world’s population reached about one billions.
Historically from every angle our human numbers have been far to low to ever shape the Earth’s ecology and climate in any at all significant fashion until our numbers increased to some 2 billion around 1927 during the 20th century.
Even now immediately we withdraw from some ecological niche there is a vast range of organisms are raring to get back in there to reclaim or claim some of the again available territory for their own species so no species has yet fully adapted to our presence unless you include or genetically selected and engineered pets and animals that we use for food and power..
Our effects on the global ecology is very temporary as we haven’t yet had the time as species to alter the basic underlying ecology of all the organisms we are competing with or those that are co-operating with us or we with them
In contrast Termites in something approaching their present form have been around, as above, for some 150 million years and have changed and altered the ecology of the entire planet and it’s climate through their changing of the trees and grasses species and consequently all other species that can grow in termite infested environments.
Why is it that in Australia which has a high termite population. is dominated by hard wood trees and grasses that are relatively termite resistant hardwoods or by highly scented ie; chemically laden as in spices and etc bushes and trees and grasses and etc as are the forests and growth in a lot of high density termite tropical areas.
The soft woods on the other hand are to be found in colder climes where termites are far less common
and thats only referring to trees as species of termites also snack on a whole range of grasses and other plants which has selected over the last 150 million years a whole range of plants that can survive termite depredations whereas no doubt other species of plants have been forced extinct or have been confined to minor enclaves where they can survive without termite attacks
As to how large the global termite population is and how they effect the global ecology and climate, an example from many is a paper from a Russian [ with not very good english ] delivered to an urban pest control conference who gives a pretty good idea on just how large are the effects of the global termite population.
A quote or two from the paper and please excuse the English as I’m sure most of us would mess up badly if we had to deliver an address in Russian
Termite Ecology
Termites are social insects, having three casts. Their biological diversity is not high, but population is extremal.
World population may be till 107 – 108 billions. The mass of one specimen may get 3-5 gram. The sum mass of termite per one man may be 3 ton. At the same time “car mass” per human is about 200 kg.
Metabolism of termites is more active that human and transport one. Their resource is wet wood. Microorganisms Flagellata (Hypermastigina), living within their bowels support processing of the wood.
Because of transformation some gases are produced. They are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and ammiak (NH4).
They have effect on atmosphere process and the effect is more significant than human one. Human industry increased use of wet wood during many hundred years. This fact increased ecological niche for termites. Modern technology needs less wood than old one.
The process of deforestation is stopped. Forest area is increased (Кондратьев et. al, 2003; Lomborg, 2002). Population processes are delayed in relation to niche dynamics.
That’s why numbers of such an insects increases. Quantitative grows is accompanied by microevolution and adaptation of termites to cold climate. They got south of Europe, Moldova, Ukraina, Middle Asia.
There is more in this paper on Termites very considerable contribution to the various gases, some are green house gasses that the termite population emits as it’s gut bacteria decompose the cellulose in the wood and grasses they consume.
&
Another source on termites in the australian environment can be found here ;Ecological Role of Termites in Dry Environments
A valiant effort. 🙂
But the GHG explanation is not terribly satisfying compared to all the other larger sources of CO2. We could arrive at your conclusion by a different argument:
1) Ammonia (NH4) is one of the particles that can act as Cloud Condensation Nuclei, though H2SO4 is the largest.
2) Average cloud cover can be limited by available CCNs
3) Termites emit ammonia during digestion of wood.
4) Termite population can therefore affect the climate.
So there it is. I would never have guessed.
Just one nitpick…
We were told removing termites would create a “climate that would be arguably unrecognisable to modern man.” This requires proving termites are the single largest natural source of ammonia and the largest by a long margin. That remains to be proven.
Unfortunately it seems the termites have some tough competition from Pseudomonas syringae during natural leaf decay. But that’s okay, we can still cheer on the underdogs.
It is indeed a pity that so much of our species has lost touch with the land. It takes a farmer to understand your logic, in many cases at least. Urban hippies simply do not possess the insight.
Interesting post Darwin approach but it is already in trouble in a post Christian world which is reverting to Paganism.
I did not notice anyone pick up David Suzuki’s relish in pointing to Ecuador’s recent embrace of Pachamama (Mother Earth) in its political approach to climate change etc as the philosophy for all those interested in conservation of the environment.
Of course this is just old fashioned Paganism which if one observes carefully undergirds most if not all of the alarmist climate scientists’ concerns about humanity’s impact on the environment. If one listens carefully, for example, to Richard Dawkins when he touches on climate change his world view is essentially one of Paganism. (I guess the truth is that humankind is incurably religious and Paganism is about the only religion left for an atheist to believe in).
Here is Bolivia’s similar approach that it is also agitating for to be made law by the United Nations:
The Law of Mother Earth and other Pagan News of Note
Jason Pitzl-Waters — April 13, 2011 —
The Guardian reports that Bolivia, one of the countries hardest hit by global climate change, is planning to pass a law that would enshrine a list of rights held by nature. Called “The Law of Mother Earth” (la Ley de Derechos de la Madre Tierra), it seeks to establish “a new relationship between man and nature” according to Vice-President Alvaro García Linera.
.
The country, which has been pilloried by the US and Britain in the UN climate talks for demanding steep carbon emission cuts, will establish 11 new rights for nature. They include: the right to life and to exist; the right to continue vital cycles and processes free from human alteration; the right to pure water and clean air; the right to balance; the right not to be polluted; and the right to not have cellular structure modified or genetically altered. Controversially, it will also enshrine the right of nature “to not be affected by mega-infrastructure and development projects that affect the balance of ecosystems and the local inhabitant communities”.
The Guardian notes that the law is partially inspired by an “Andean spiritual world view,” resurgent since the election of Evo Morales, the first fully indigenous president of Bolivia. In addition, Bolivia is pushing to have similar rights enshrined by the United Nations as well, just in time for Earth Day (aka International Mother Earth Day).
I mentioned post Darwin because there seems to me to be little doubt that the Industrial Revolution and the tremendous advances in technology that sprang from it which gave mankind increased power over nature simply would not have occurred had, at the time, the West had its roots in Paganism.
The Judeo/Christian sub cultural matrix that was significant in fostering that era right up to recent times is found in the edict to … “subdue the Earth (obviously the early writers of the bible did not consider it a Garden of Eden but rather a “fallen world” that mankind needed to act upon to make comfortably habitable) .. . and have dominion or stewardship over the entire animal population.”
That by any measure is pure “Apaganism”.
Post Darwin? Well it does seem that the interrelatedness of the species through evolution is more conducive to a Pagan view of the unity and importance of each and every species than is the old “subdue the Earth and have dominion over all other species” mandate.
In this post Christian era it seems to me that climate change skeptics may have to stick to their definition of evidence based science as the only rebuttal of climate change alarmism because the philosophical tide has turned in favour of the new Paganism. That approach to climate change alarmism is endemic to the Greens and virtually all those who indulge in climate change alarmism, not on the basis of the science but because of their belief in the necessity of the untouchable ( by humans) unity of nature. Which tenet belongs to classical as well as neo-Paganism.
An issue that should be faced up to in the near term by the new Government, is to review their policy on “direct action”, now the NIPPC Report 2013 and the IPCC AR5 Report are out and able to be examined closely. Why waste money on “direct action”, chasing an elusive climate rabbit that doesn’t actually exist? Their policy framework will be as effective as finding you made the mistake of choosing a dry lake in the dark in haste, ready for the first day of the duck season: No bloody ducks! Someone should have done a lot better research.
Are these Reports likely to have any effect regarding a review and/or change in policy? Is the government keeping its powder dry, intending to initiate a Commission of Enquiry into Climate Science, as an arms-length means to provide independent outcomes on the science, from which they could then develop a new policy on climate “action”? This would take the mainstream opinion with them, marginalise the warmists and provide the opportunity to drop it as an issue of importance, let alone urgency to do anything. Or will they stay put and stick with their policy? If so, we can probably take that as an indication they are taking their orders from a “higher authority” they are unwilling to talk about.
If they don’t move to change mainstream public opinion on climate science, by providing factual information as a knowledge base that supports change in community understanding, they will not have the support they need to marginalise Labor and the Greens. The pressure of the science vs the religion needs be kept up until the whole edifice of wasting resources on pseudo science and pandering to a New Age religion, collapses. It might take another three years of no warming and many to abandon their Climate Titanic.
A key to achieving success is changing mainstream public opinion by providing them with facts embedded in an understanding of the basic truths of the science. That is what the new government should do with it’s resources, if it’s at all serious about providing the truth in climate science. Surely it can be simplified from the complexities often thrown about, to get to the core argument that can help support community discussion at every level. Empowerment from understanding the issues that supports open discussion beats ignorance that otherwise allows propaganda to prevail.
Not going to happen realist. This issue is a touchstone for those on the left. Asking them for a mea culpa is like trying to wrench a rosary from the clutches of a catholic priest on his deathbed which is why they and their cohorts in the MSM will move heaven and earth to keep the facts out of mainstream public awareness. What we need is some sort of media watchdog that not only responds meaningfully to public complaints but does so in a very public and transparent way. When politicians lie to us we get rid of them. Why is there no such sanction on our media?.
Oh but there is. Simply don’t buy their newspapers, magazines, and don’t watch their news channels. If enough of us do that, they will either have to change or go bankrupt. It is already working in the newspaper business. It can work in other parts of the miserable (oops main) stream media.
I agree Ceetee. Hence my quip, “No bloody ducks”! It’s what should (and we would hope to see) happen in a logical world, but we know it won’t because it isn’t (always) logically driven; it’s politically manipulated for personal gain by a few at the expense of the majority. We select some politicians at elections to “lead”, in the often-vain hope they will always act in our (the nation’s) best interest. But we don’t get to choose those who run the major parties behind the public facade.
MTM (mass technological manipulation) via hand-held, finger-driven technology is chosen by many for their “social” media distraction entertainment, disseminating instant opinion, innuendo, outright lies and sometimes grains of truth, ad nauseum. But how does one distinguish lies from truth or a composite of mere opinion in a cascade of sound or text bytes?
A publicly funded media watchdog (not your ABC equivalent) set up by politicians to catch out politicians when they lie sounds a bit like an oxymoron. And just consider how busy they would be! What would be the penalty? Free membership to the Labor party for Liberals caught lying, and vise versa? Are you (also) stating an ideal, but know it won’t happen?
Propaganda often masquerades as fact, where dissenting views might be either discounted or denigrated by the MSM. This contrasts with the contemporary “enlightenment” via alternative media and in particular blogs (like Jo’s) that provide a vehicle for free expression and exchange of ideas and, most important, an examination of public information to distinguish truth from fiction, which then helps others hold government and the MSM lackies to account. Hence my last sentence.
The observed reduction in surface warming trend over the period 1998–2012 as compared to the period 1951–2012, is due in roughly equal measure to a reduced trend in radiative forcing and a cooling contribution from internal variability, which includes a possible redistribution of heat within the ocean (medium confidence). The reduced trend in radiative forcing is primarily due to volcanic eruptions and the timing of the downward phase of the 11-year solar cycle.However, there is low confidence in quantifying the role of changes in radiative forcing in causing the reduced warming trend. There is medium confidence that internal decadal variability causes to a substantial degree the difference between observations and the simulations; the latter are not expected to reproduce the timing of internal variability. There may also be a contribution from forcing inadequacies and, in some models, an overestimate of the response to increasing greenhouse gas and other anthropogenic forcing (dominated by the effects of aerosols).
Summary of SPM AR5
The oceans ate my CO2.
Volcanoes and aerosols blocked the sun which was on a bit of a holiday at the time.
Okay, fellow lab rats, it was noted earlier in the David Suzuki thread that he held fears about the safety of current Genetically Modified Organisms. There is a strong tendency to dismiss an issue if someone you don’t like (or someone who’s plain crazy) promotes it as a problem – throwing the baby out with the bathwater, essentially.
I’ve said before I think genetic engineering is a fabulous idea and holds great promise as a technology, but there are some good reasons why the current suite of products are called genetically modified and NOT genetically engineered. They can’t make the same guarantees of product performance that engineers are expected to make about more conventional technologies. There may be isolated instances already where this statement is not true, and maybe one day it may not be true even as a generalisation, though it is hard to see how since all living things evolve and can transfer genes horizontally on occasion. My suspicion is that the testing protocols and modification techniques are immature and their introduction to market is pre-emptive and unsafe, thus requiring secret political deals to force them into the market.
This puts me in an apparently difficult position, since I am in favour of “GEO”s in principle but I have doubts about the current state of the technology and the priorities of the biggest companies in that market. These doubts are not entirely unfounded and in about 3 hours I have collected together some quotes and links which offer some food for thought.
– – – – – – – –
http://online.sfsu.edu/rone/GEessays/FDAdocuments.html [1999] The FDA’s records reveal it declared genetically engineered foods to be safe in the face of disagreement from its own experts–all the while claiming a broad scientific consensus supported its stance. Internal reports and memoranda disclose: (1) agency scientists repeatedly cautioned that foods produced through recombinant DNA technology entail different risks than do their conventionally produced counterparts and (2) that this input was consistently disregarded by the bureaucrats who crafted the agency’s current policy, which treats bioengineered foods the same as natural ones.
http://www.csid.unt.edu/files/What%27s%20Wrong%20With%20Genetically%20Modified%20Food.pdf GM crops designed to be herbicide resistant (so that large amounts of strong weed killer can be safely used on them) have already spread to related weed species, which then also pick up the resistance to the herbicides and become “super-weeds” that are difficult to control.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23756170 Glyphosate is an active ingredient of the most widely used herbicide and it is believed to be less toxic than other pesticides. … This study focuses on the effects of pure glyphosate on estrogen receptors (ERs) mediated transcriptional activity and their expressions. Glyphosate exerted proliferative effects only in human hormone-dependent breast cancer, T47D cells, but not in hormone-independent breast cancer, MDA-MB231 cells, at 10(-12) to 10(-6)M in estrogen withdrawal condition. … These results indicated that low and environmentally relevant concentrations of glyphosate possessed estrogenic activity.
[Interpretation: The study found that breast cancer cell proliferation is accelerated by glyphosate in extremely low concentrations: ppt to ppb. The greatest effect was observed in the ppb range, including single-digit ppb such as 1 ppb. … California set an upper limit of “1.0 mg/L (1,000 ppb) for glyphosate in drinking water.” ]
http://anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu/pdf/8180.pdf While traditional approaches to assessing food safety examine the effects of individual chemicals on animal species, these methods are impractical for studying the safety of GE food. This is due to the presence of thousands of unique chemicals in foods and the inability of laboratory animals to consume large amounts of specific food items. Instead, the safety assessment of GE foods relies upon the concept of “substantial equivalence” that must be demonstrated between the GE food and its conventional food counterpart (Schauzu 2000).
http://blog.tedx.com/post/37405280671/a-letter-to-the-tedx-community-on-tedx-and-bad-science Red flag topics. These are not “banned” topics by any means — but they are topics that tend to attract pseudo-scientists. If your speaker proposes a topic like this, use extra scrutiny. An expanding, depressing list follows: Food science, including: GMO food and anti-GMO foodists
http://www.foodpolicy.umn.edu/policy-summaries-and-analyses/genetically-engineered-foods/ Scientific studies testing whole GE food show some mixed results so statements about all GE foods being safe or unsafe are unwarranted.
Whole-food feeding studies for GE safety assessment are tricky, as plant varieties are diverse in chemical composition and the effect of the introduced genes or changes caused by them are hard to tease out.
Strong agreement exists for better testing protocols, especially for allergenicity and whole-food feeding trials
http://www.ids.ac.uk/files/Wp190.pdf An industry commentator observed: ‘Debate is always good, but there is a limit. Let’s plant these things and see what happens. Time for action is now’. A leading official in the Zimbabwe Farmers Union was cynical about the likelihood of effective consultation: ‘They say they have consulted, but they have already decided. They give a document today to make a decision next week. There is no time to consult our membership. They just want ZFU to rubber stamp’.
http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2013/07/30/the-intensifying-debate-over-genetically-modified-foods/ More independent scientific research also needs to be done on GMOs to determine if they are indeed safe and “substantially equivalent,” as some molecular analysis has shown that GM crops have a different composition from their non-GM counterparts and different effects when fed to animals. Until 2009, independent scientists often could not get access to GM seeds; buyers of GM seeds had to sign contracts which prohibited growing crops for research. Scientific American reported that only studies approved by the biotech companies appeared in peer-reviewed journals. After 26 scientists complained to the Environmental Protection Agency in 2009 that the biotech companies were suppressing research, some of the companies began negotiating deals with university researchers, but the deals are not binding. The Union of Concerned Scientists urges a change in patent law to facilitate independent research.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrea-brower/gmos-kauai-tpp_b_3883371.html At the international level, through the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) these same chemical corporations are seeking to lock us in to arrangements that guarantee their profit interests will not be impeded by pesky democratic governments protecting people’s health or other common interests. The TPP is a highly secretive international agreement being negotiated under the pretext of “trade” between twelve Asian and Pacific Rim countries, including the United States. If passed, it will amount to perhaps the biggest corporate power-grab in history, putting the rights of corporations above those of elected governments and sovereign nations.
Under the cryptic title of “Investor State Dispute Settlement” (ISDS), foreign corporations could challenge national and local laws and regulations that undermine their expected profits, holding tax-payers liable for these losses. Challenges could be brought for everything from attempts to regulate pesticide use to health warnings on cigarettes. Governments would be tried in private offshore tribunals that lack transparency and due process.
– – – – – – –
Labelling products as containing GMO is pointless, they are either safe or unsafe, and if they’re not safe they shouldn’t be on the market at all. GMO labelling is a half-measure dreamed up by the “natural foods” and supplement snake oil sales crowd who can then use the threat of GMOs to boost sales of their own “Non-GMO” branded products. If they *really* thought GMOs were dangerous they would arguing to ban them, not just label them. Why ban when you can profiteer?
I’m warming to the idea of preventing farmers from keeping GMO’d seeds and forcing them to buy new seed every year, at least for the first 10 years. They should go a step further and prevent GMO crops from even generating viable seed during the first 10 years since that prevents the GMO from spreading. Its effects on the ecosystem are unlikely to be long-lasting if it cannot self-reproduce without assistance from Big Agri. This allows a period of live testing on real humans, which is clearly what these self-interested biotech companies want to do.
It seems to me the experts do not know what these GMOs will do to people who eat them every day for a decade, yet the government’s solution is to get in bed with Big Agri, skip the long term testing protocols and independent research, and just force GMOs onto the market. With reports from both academia and media like those I’ve cited above, that is the picture I get. I would love to be mistaken about this but, unless the GMO provisions of the TPP are somehow deleted within the next eight days, we are going to find out how good Monsanto and Dupont’s GMOs are the hard way – by eating them without knowing it.
It seems to me that the most damning evidence against the safety of natural, organic and GM foods is that sooner or later, if you use them, they will all kill you.
Unless of course someone has some contrary evidence.
Your techno-optimist sarcasm has a grain of truth in it. By the FDA’s own logic and by your nominated standard of safety, demonstrating that GMOs are “substantially equivalent” to their natural counterparts would require demonstrating through 60 years of controlled human trials that a GMO doesn’t kill you any quicker than either traditional foods or the GMO’s natural predecessor.
Surely you must admit that the testing standard implied by your own statement is a far cry from current testing protocols which requires a company to test only on mice and for less than 2 years?
Your nominated standard of safety is higher than mine, as I would accept a 2-generation trial on chimpanzees which would still take at least 50 years to conclude due to their long lifespan.
Don’t worry, Llew, on this issue The Conversation is giving your point of view a decent hearing and anyone who is pro-Science and anti-Monsanto is branded an anti-Science anti-GMO activist. That’s at least until someone who knows what they’re talking about issues a correction.
There is apparently FUD injected into the debate occasionally by scientists and science bodies, not just by lay activists. The headlines were awash with claims that Monsanto’s NK603 modified corn would cause rats to grow more tumours than normal. This study was later thoroughly discredited by a post at The Conversation, which seems to argue that because the type of rats used in the study are bred intentionally to be prone to cancer anyway, therefore all GMOs are safe. An incredible leap of logic, but then that’s just The Con crowd staying true to form.
Further googling finds more GMO studies. Here’s (a copy of) an Austrian study of the effects of the same NK603 maize on a different mice strain done back in 2008. Amongst other things, the study concluded with over 99% certainty that: * “In the group fed with A REF corn fewer females were without litters, and accordingly more pups were weaned.”
* “The electron histological investigation of the cell nuclei revealed differences as to fibrillar centres, dense fibrillar components and the pore density in hepatocytes, and cells from spleen and pancreas. This could point to an effect of the GM crop on metabolic parameters.”
* “When the data of both non-GM feeding groups from MGS were combined and compared to the GM feeding group, the discrimination became more evident. Analyses of metabolic pathways indicated, that the groups differed regarding some important pathways, including interleukin signalling pathway, cholesterol biosynthesis and protein metabolism.”
The response to this paper from Industry and government agricultural policy groups was to highlight deficiencies in the reproductive test data and statistics and to claim that no effect on reproduction could be concluded from this study.
Okay, so the the lab coats were wrong about the pup weaning rates being different. Show’s over, folks, move along, nothing to see here, GMOs are safe!
Absolutely deafening silence on the other two cellular and organ differences found between the GMO-fed group and the controls in that same study. Nobody wants to talk about the differences in kidneys, spleen, and pancreas, and their probable origin in the GMO food’s effect on “interleukin signalling pathway, cholesterol biosynthesis and protein metabolism”.
As yet another example, this time slightly closer to home, take the study with lead author Judy A. Carman from University of South Australia studying pigs fed a combined genetically modified (GM) soy and GM maize diet. With over 97% confidence they found:
* There were no differences between pigs fed the GM and non-GM diets for feed intake, weight gain, mortality, and routine blood biochemistry measurements.
* GM-fed pigs had uteri that were 25% heavier than non-GM fed pigs (p=0.025).
* GM-fed pigs had a higher rate of severe stomach inflammation with a rate of 32% of GM-fed pigs compared to 12% of non-GM-fed pigs (p=0.004). The severe stomach inflammation was worse in GM-fed males compared to non-GM fed males by a factor of 4.0 (p=0.041), and GM-fed females compared to non-GM fed females by a factor of 2.2 (p=0.034).
This is interesting because it shows a standard based on how soon the food kills you (“sooner or later” in your words) does not give a full picture of safety once quality of life is taken into account. Would you be happy eating a GM corn which doesn’t kill you any quicker than traditional corn but leaves you with stomach inflammation every day of your life?
But let’s gloss over these negatives and end on a positive note, since that’s what you want to hear.
AquaAdvantage Salmon looks on the surface to be a fairly safe product, though the statement they are identical to normal salmon is not quite true since their cells have 3 copies of their chromosomes instead of 2 so they are theoretically sterile as a bio-safety measure.
As another vote of confidence take the PhD press release of Dr Lucy Carter at UQ, whose meta-study concluded: “To proceed with care is the most prudent decision regulatory authorities can make at this stage.”
Then Dr Carter and I agree on the general course of action. I rather suspect the source of consternation is how much “care” is enough.
Minor error alert: The sentence about the Austrian study stating “the study concluded with over 99% certainty that…” should simply read “the study concluded that…”. I got a certainty figure from the Australian pig study mixed up with the Austrian mice study.
Interesting that Food Standards Australia has an official response about the Australian pig study (plus several other studies that claimed adverse GM results).
> If the GM diet caused the stomach inflammation, the total number of GM-fed pigs with stomach inflammation would be expected to be greater than non-GM fed pigs. According to the data provided however, greater numbers of non-GM fed pigs exhibited “inflammation”.
Hang on, the whole point of using statistics is that counting from a limited sample can give misleading answers due to chance sample bias. They say the count of stomachs with inflammation is lower for GM-fed than non-GM. But the bottom end of the confidence interval for the Relative Risk Ratio of Nil Inflammation is less than 1 and so allows for the possibility that GM-fed may count less as “Nil Inflammation” than control and hence count more than Control on one of the higher inflammation categories. By contrast the bottom end of the interval for Relative Risk of “Severe Inflammation” from GM-fed is 1.29 which is greater than 1. There is no chance the GM food didn’t have an inflammatory effect under these statistics.
Does the FSA want to use statistical tests or not? They say yes, but they disqualify the study based on the raw count, not the statistics given. What exactly is going on there?
There are plenty of people who hold a utilitarianism ethics framework, or at least apply such a rationalisation on some subset of their actions. For such people it’s okay if a new technology with poorly understood operation is allowed to kill a few hundred or a few thousand people. They justify this by the belief that the technocracy learns from these events, improves the technology so it won’t happen again, and proceeds to give benefits to a larger number of people than were killed in the “accidents”.
There’s not much I can say to argue against this line of reasoning, since it is axiomatic just like the two other main frameworks of ethics, consequentialism and deontology. I could point out this approach also permits slavery as long as less than 20% of the population are slaves, but again a utilitarian sees this as justifiable in the same way they see immature biotech foisted onto an unwary public as simply the price we “must” pay for “Progress”.
Of couse the morality is only relevant if there really is some lurking harm from ingesting or releasing any one particular GMO. Certainly a single incident is all it takes with GMOs, unlike nuclear technology where reactors are not self-reproducing so the appearance of a Chernobyl or Fukushima event is not self-perpetuating and so diminishes over time instead of growing.
On the other hand, if the track record of GMOs was in fact much better than has been reported and somehow all the documented cases of ill test results and fascist charlatanism were all just spurious correlations and lies from some bio-Luddite minority of the worlds biologists, academics, and journalists, then perhaps no bravery is required in this Bio-Brave New World.
My mind is not completely decided on the issue, it just looks bad on first glance (~2.5 hours Googling). I’d probably eat “frankenfoods” if they were safe enough to pass a multi-generational test on chimps, for example. (Yes, animal testing is an application of utilitarian ethics, and if anyone wants to volunteer to be the human test subject for GMOs they are welcome to do it.)
It’s great that my comment received (so far) equal numbers of up and down votes. Perhaps this is a fruitful area of discussion where some edification can be achieved.
I coyly note that our generous blog hostess has a background in microbiology and advertises as a specialist in “genetics and the future of medicine”. Certainly some of the apparently innocuous GMOs being grown already such as Golden Rice are blurring the boundary between medicine and food. Perhaps Her Blogginess may wish to entertain discussion on GMOs at some future date, especially if this whole CAGW fad blows over. It’s a shame that Monsanto’s implementation schedule is not nearly as sluggish as progress in the climate debate.
Much like climate science, the terminology and acronyms used in bio-technology are not familiar to the common person, i.e. those who do not have any expertise or working knowledge of a subject matter tend to overlook important distinctions for simplification. “Modified” or “engineered” mean little to most as accurate descriptors. Biotechnology, like other technologies and sciences contains a spectrum ranging from the benign and beneficial to the complete opposite, e.g nuclear physics, with many shades of grey in-between.
With incomplete and sometime difficult to obtain accurate information it can be difficult to ascertain and distinguish beneficial from hazardous or downright dangerous. Many negative impacts of chemicals are subtle and not readily seen. The principle of: If you don’t measure and monitor objectively then you can’t manage effectively, clearly applies. Testing regimes in food are sometimes only meaningful when considered on an inter-generational time frame. And people don’t have the same lifestyle as research rats nor eat the same foodstuffs. Some opinions might differ on that point for those that eat “fast food”!
GM/O crops containing altered and/or foreign proteins and sequences never before found in our food supply are a food engineering experiment. They are not “substantially equivalent” to non-modified food plants just because some people stated it was their consensus that was so. And it should be considered as a separate issue from on-farm benefits. There is no room for “co-existence”, as all will eventually end up in the GM mix, removing all choice. If that’s what society at large wants, choice should be based on objective and transparent information being widely available. Like much of climate science, where the data is “adjusted” or hidden from public scrutiny, data on GM/GE technology in food crops is withheld or otherwise unknown.
Like social engineering politicians and others like to dabble in, “engineering” plants is another spectrum where some technologies might be beneficial, while others are dabbling with human health via the food chain. We should make continued progress with careful evaluation, not undue haste. Outcomes potentially carry serious consequences, the extent of which won’t really be known for some time and will be difficult to correct if/when found to be negative. Irrespective, society at large will pay. What starts off as “beneficial” can later turn into a massive problem. Take herbicide resistance as an example.
This has developed into a major issue in agriculture with significant cost implications to farmers. Resistance evolved from an initial beneficial use to a serious problem by ignoring the warning signs. The politics of agronomy is merchandising products to farmers. Even simple ecological process, where all organisms will evolve to develop resistance to a chemical “designed” to destroy them, was brushed aside as inconsequential. The hidden cost of chemical residues and the collatoral damage are another issue yet to come home to roost.
And the TPP has nothing of benefit for us; it’s all about US corporations 10, Australia 0. If we don’t work in a particular area of expertise or technology with ease, it’s an easy trap to be an instant expert and fall for many of the same issues inherent in climate science, where everyone has an opinion, much of which is based on inuendo not a solid understanding.
That’s sounds pretty much the situation we are in. i.e. –
> “With incomplete and sometime difficult to obtain accurate information it can be difficult to ascertain and distinguish beneficial from hazardous or downright dangerous.”
Example: When I tried to find the current US FDA regulations for test protocols for GMOs this afternoon, I couldn’t. Where are the rules saying how much testing is enough? It didn’t show up in a Google search and it was not obvious to me from the headings on the FDA web site as to where such documents might reside. The way the FDA makes the vendor responsible for proving the safety of the product makes me wonder if there are no consistent government rules about what testing is sufficient.
I figured there was no point in looking for the Australian equivalent of the FDA because I’m (cynically) under the impression that Food Standards Australia just rubber-stamp anything already approved by the FDA.
If the TPP goes ahead then they will become even more of a bunch of do-nothing rubber-stamping yes-men.
I also take your point about being “an instant expert”, but what is our alternative? Certainly being misinformed can be worse than being uninformed. But having “no information” means assigning all responsibility for the decision to parties that are seemingly compromised by vested interests. I think searching for some amount of information and trying to suss out what’s mostly true from what’s lightweight propaganda is about all one can do. Surely that’s got to be better than nothing? (Note in my earlier comments I found information that supported both sides of the argument and I was not above accepting that Golden Rice and AquaAdvantage Salmon are probably okay.)
Is there a better way, with GMOs or any other issue?
Instant experts are different to people having opinions (everyone is entitled to have one, be it “right” or “wrong”). A well paid instant expert on climate (appointed as the offical government expert) was recently sacked. Others with no relevant expertise in climate science recieve reward to “research” and promote a cause. The common person accepts their “expertise” without understandng many are shills and their advice is not founded on good science. It just reflects human behaviour. Caveat emptor! (buyer beware!) That’s where open public enquiry and debate acts as a constraint. The internet is the main avenue for finding alternative perspectives given the lack of professionalism and level of activism in the MSM.
GM cotton is often touted to illustrate the benefits of “biotechnology” in agriculture to farmers, consumers and “the environment”. An important distinction: cotton is a commodity, not a food product. It has different cost/benefit implications entirely. And what is one of the declared, “worst environmental weeds”? GM cotton. It requires even more toxic chemicals to kill. Do the proponents include negative information in their promotional material?
The proponents of most new technology will provide biased and misleading information; they are driven by a commercial imperative. On the other hand, consumers want different information, which is often witheld and sometimes blatant lies are propgated as to do otherwise it would negate the first imperative. Sometimes they might not know, but honesty might help. Climate charlatans don’t have a monopoly on propaganda. There is no effective public advocate for consumers, they are all privately funded. Government appointed or sanctioned “watchdogs” might be considered as too close or simply just rubber stamp the information provided by the advocates for the technology. They aren’t set up to investigate and provide independent advice, e.g. the OGTR, the regulator of gene technology.
Independent research (investigation) across the spectrum of information available on the internet and in journals is the only effective way to gain a more comprehensive understanding. That can take a lot of time, and everyone views the information through their own prism, consciously and unconsciously accepting or disregarding what they see or read.
You realize that one take virtually any issue, spend 3 hours googling information and produce an argument from whatever viewpoint they want. I have used GM insulin for years–which is probably more of a “risk” than GM foods, since the insulin is the only way I can process any food into useful energy. It’s been 25 years since the switch was made. There are all kinds of articles for the change and an equal number against. The “for” are usually drug makers and physicians, the against are personal injury lawyers. There’s money to made in them there GM products–especially if you can scare people enough. This does not prove the GM foods are safe or not safe–it just addresses some of the arguments.
It is interesting that with climate change, where in the exact same 3 hours, one can both “prove” and “disprove” the idea, many reject the climate change. At the same time, with the same method, they accept the GM argument. It’s one of the things that confuses me most with people–same method, same argument but two totally different conclusions. (I’m not being sarcastic here–it really is interesting that virtually the same method and arguments can yield such very different outcomes. I would love to understand it, though I suspect there is an emotional component involved that overrides the reason.)
Despite the damage it would do world wide, I find myself more and more hoping that the predicted drop in global temperatures happens rather quickly over the next few years.
Maybe then, they will accept just how idiotic this whole CO2 demonization is. !!
No AG55, they won’t ever do that unfortunately.
You’ll notice that the meme has changed:
.
..from a 90% hand-waving certainty of 100% AGG attribution for the increase in global mean temperature (2007) to a 95% hand-waving certainty that >50% of the increase in global mean surface temperature is the result of AGG and other anthroforcings together (2013).
What is happening is that >50% of all climate change is being attributed to human forcings. The activity of aerosols (a negative forcing) has kept the rate of change of temperature at a statistically insignificant level since AR4. They’re had to introduce this negative forcing to account for the temperature change flat line. The exclusion of sea temperatures (previously global mean temp; now global mean surface temp) at this point is preparation for their inclusion in AR6, when it is hoped the ‘lost heat’ will finally turn up in the Oceans.
The IPCC will simply continue to do what they do until the day they are disbanded.
I think that the latest IPCC report has truly sunk to level of hilarious incoherence. They are proclaiming increased confidence in their models as the discrepancies between their models and observations increase
Figure 1.4 Chapter 1 (Lindzen’s point) did not get a mention in most of the MSM blurbs on the AR5 and only a minor, dismissive reference in the AR5 SPM
As cynical as some may see me, this situation was predicted in earlier threads. So one wonders just where the cynicism actually lies
While we are all discussing the IPCC AR5, lets look at the real basis for the report.
The United Nations program, AGENDA 21 was established at the UN 1992 Earth Summit in Rio.
Chairman Maurice Strong said from the chair…… “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialised civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
Known as the Rio Declaration, Representatives of the Keating Government voted for its implementation at the Earth Summit, in 1992.
The Rio Declaration was subsequently supported by the Howard Government and progressively implemented to different degrees by federal and state governments and municipal councils of all political persuasions.
Agenda 21 does not officially form part of the policies of either major party but has the objective of having the environment regulated by an international body.
Forget the science, this is where the real fight lies.
I know some AGW believers say we deal with probabilities every day. For example, there is some probability of being run over by a bus when crossing a road.
But seriously, would these people board a plane if told the plane was only 95% airworthy after its inspection? Would they drive over a bridge if told the engineers were only 95% sure of their calculations regarding its integrity? No.
The NASA program to send men to the moon and other missions were based on 100% proven reliability of Newton’s Laws. The disasters of 2 space shuttles was due to ignoring the science advice not to launch when O rings were at below freezing and no check was made to see if tiles were missing after achieving orbit. But Newton’s LAWS never failed.
Einstein was not believed by everyone at first but test after test proved his relativity theories 100% valid to this day. However, he even said that if someone could find a flaw in his theories then the theories were invalid.
For all the wordsmiths around. An interesting comparison by Bob Tisdale of the earlier draft of the report compared to the final one. That is, after the bureaucrats at the Stockholm meeting got the “teeth into it”
Professor MacKay highlighted the report’s reference to the possibility that climate change could be countered by methods of removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere or shielding Earth from solar radiation.
He said he had already urged ministers to support a large-scale program of research and development and would now redouble his efforts.
He suggested three methods: erecting artificial trees that used a chemical process that “sucks CO2 out of the air like a vacuum cleaner”; planting millions of real trees, which absorb carbon, and burning them in power stations equipped with carbon capture and storage systems; and speeding up weathering of rocks by CO2 dissolved in rainwater and then grinding them up.
On the latter option, he said: “We are literally talking about mountains that would have to be ground up and put in the sea. That might have environmental consequences so we need research to find out if that is a credible option.
Good Grief! That MacKay must be yet another of those PH and D fellows!
I’ll bet he plans to hang the artificial trees on skyhooks, and water them with flying pigs.
I have a better idea. We could stuff a ground up mountain up his arse!
28 Sept: UK Daily Mail: David Rose: Met Office proof that global warming is still ‘on pause’ as climate summit confirms global temperature has stopped rising
IPCC report confirms no significant rise in global temperature since 1997
IPCC accused of sinking to ‘hilarious level of incoherence’
But the IPCC insists 2016-2035 will be 0.3-0.7C hotter than 1986-2005
The global warming ‘pause’ has now lasted for almost 17 years and shows no sign of ending – despite the unexplained failure of climate scientists’ computer models to predict it.
The Mail on Sunday has also learnt that because 2013 has been relatively cool, it is very likely that by the end of this year, world average temperatures will have crashed below the ‘90 per cent probability’ range projected by the models…
***The graph above covers the period June 1997 to July 2013. It was drawn using the official Met Office ‘HadCRUT4’ monthly data for world average temperatures, and shows the lack of a warming trend…
A footnote in the new report also confirms there has been no statistically significant increase since 1997.
Last night independent climate scientist Nic Lewis – an accredited IPCC reviewer and co-author of peer-reviewed papers – pointed out that taking start years of 2001, 2002 or 2003 would suggest a cooling trend of 0.02-0.05C per decade, though this would not be statistically significant…
Piers Forster, Leeds University’s Professor of Physical Climate Change, told The Mail on Sunday: ‘If it does get beyond 20 years, that would get very interesting.
‘We would have to revisit the models. As it goes on, it would get more and more peculiar.’
He added: ‘We are right on the edge of the probability distribution now. We have to accept that if we are going to come up with projections, they have to be correct.’…
However, not only does the report deny the importance of the pause, it makes a firm, short-term forecast that it is about to end – claiming that the period 2016-2035 will, on average, be 0.3-0.7C hotter than 1986-2005.
That, said Prof Judith Curry, head of climate science at the Georgia Institute of Technology, is a high-risk strategy: ‘The IPCC has thrown down the gauntlet.’
Should the pause continue, she said, ‘they are toast’.
She was critical about the report’s statement that confidence humans had caused most of the warming of the 20th Century had increased from 90 per cent in the last IPCC report in 2007 to 95 per cent.
‘How they can justify this is beyond me.’ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2436710/Met-office-proof-global-warming-pause-climate-summit-confirms-global-temperature-stopped-rising.html
while checking if phil jones/cru had any comment on the IPCC report, i found:
7 Sept: Eastern Daily Press: UEA founder’s life to be celebrated at exhibition
A conference to celebrate 100 years since the birth of pioneering climate scientist Hubert Lamb, who founded the University of East Anglia’s (UEA) Climatic Research Unit, is taking place at the university…
Climatic Research Unit (CRU) director Prof Phil Jones said: “Hubert Lamb did more than any other scientist of his generation to make the academic community aware of climate change and variability. He was the founding director of CRU back in 1972 – at a time when the study of climate change was still in its infancy.
“At that time very little was known about climate change. Hubert believed the world was gradually cooling, but building on his pioneering work we now know the opposite is true, and that between 1880 and now the world has warmed significantly… http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/uea_founder_s_life_to_be_celebrated_at_exhibition_1_2370935
Are you not just positively overjoyed that people like this are being paid by the taxpayer for coming up with such wonderful ideas.
This guy is, and wait for this ….. the British Government’s chief scientific adviser on climate change, David MacKay.
Following the IPCC’s report he then rushed to a pliant media with the following article, hidden behind a paywall, but can be bypassed by cutting and pasting the title into a search engine.
In that article, and yes, I did go back and check the date to see that it definitely was not April 1st, he says (in just one part) the following in response to the IPCC report and how we need to address the problem of removing GHG’s from the Atmosphere:
He suggested three methods: erecting artificial trees that used a chemical process that “sucks CO2 out of the air like a vacuum cleaner”; planting millions of real trees, which absorb carbon, and burning them in power stations equipped with carbon capture and storage systems; and speeding up weathering of rocks by CO2 dissolved in rainwater and then grinding them up.
WTF!
Not one, but four totally inane (and you can also add the letter ‘S’ to that word) ideas.
This isn’t a bunch of seventh graders ball parking. This is the Chief bloody Scientist.
Haven’t you ever wondered why these umm Scientists come up with these harebrained crackpot things to do, when all they have to do is to shut down the damned coal fired power plants, and there’s 40 to 45% of all the CO2 emissions.
If this problem is so dire, so dire, then they would just be stopping the emissions dead.
Why are they talking piddling tiny percent reductions when China, India and the rest of the still Developing World are (quite literally) powering away, and then, when they can’t achieve even those tiny reductions, they just move the goal posts and come up with even more crackpot harebrained things to do.
They argue the semantics of a scientific phrase, and totally ignore what is happening in front of their very eyes.
These people are damned Scientists, and they’re all blind.
Then they suck in the media, who then suck in the gullible followers, and they all sit around, seriously nodding their heads in agreement.
Tony, perhaps this will help. With emphasis added.
“The essence of science is that it is always willing to abandon a given idea, however fundamental it may seem to be, for a better one; the essence of theology is that it holds its truths to be eternal and immutable.” Attributed to H.L. Mencken.
The AGW religion is a contemporary version of the age old, “the End is Nigh” mantra. Same theme, new version of cause, same attention seeking. The primary difference is many of the true believer’s faith lies in a continuation of graft grants and other entitlements to preach their version of “repent before the God Gaia”. In the 70’s it was easy to spot the hippies and other cult followers dressed in sheets. Now they wear fancy suits and trot around the globe to talkfests with fellow believers, calling everyone else deniers and suggesting serious consequences for those who fail to “repent”.
I preferred the hippies, they were all “peace man”. The new version of “stop the world or get off” cultists and their followers are far more dangerous. Cutting off the supply of entitlements will transform many into turning secular.
Nah, Tony, you’ve gotta beat these people at their own game.
All this insanity is actually starting to make sense. You’ve just gotta think Big Picture.
It also establishes a Ministry of Mother Earth, and provides the planet with an ombudsman whose job is to hear nature’s complaints as voiced by activist and other groups, including the state.
Finally the political oppression of the birds, rocks, and trees will be ended with the granting of suffrage to Gaia.
This is great news! Now the trees have all the same political representation that humans do in protecting their access to sunshine, CO2, water, unpolluted soil, and the right to work at photosynthesis and grow free from foreign human interference! Don’t you see how perfect that is for us, Tony? No need to worry how much tax money will be spent on the crazy “artificial tree” proposal because now it will be politically impossible.
This proposal to replace trees with Chinese robotic “artificial trees” will never get past the Tree Union.
“United Nations treaty giving ‘Mother Earth’ the same rights as humans“…
In spite of how dangerous this idea really is I’m laughing because it will certainly hurt Bolivia. Simon Bolivar is rolling over in his grave, screaming at them to wake up. But they’ll never hear him.
Headline: Bondi under siege as swelling ocean seeps into suburbs
All Fairfax web sites today are featuring a doctored pic of Bondi showing what it might be like in 2100, with an 80 cm sea rise and a big storm.
That’s a great alarmist story of course. Just like those diagrams, before we went metric, showing the atomic bomb destruction at one mile radius of downtown Sydney, then two miles, five miles and ten miles.
But the photoshop job is entirely wrong at the top left. To the left of the roundabout, the height is easily 15 metres up a gentle hill and there is no way the surf would cover it. Clearly the artist has never been to Bondi.
Hmmm, no warming whatsoever from 1940 – 1980 (40 years).
So why 1950?
The only warming in that attribution period is from 1980 – 2000, a mere 20 years and only 5 years longer than the pause that is too short to consider because 30 years is required, apparently,
That’s odd, is it possible the IPCC might be telling porkies? Surely not.
Fair enough, but there’s a double standard running here. When it doesn’t warm, they call it “unpredictable climate”. When it does warm, (or it turns cold), then it’s definitely manmade, significant and catastrophic.
I have always maintained that I consider the climate to be pretty much unpredictable. I fail to see how so many variables combined together could not make the act of prediction into the medium to long term impossible.
And that’s assuming that we know everything there is to know about the climate, which we don’t.
Propagandists and Ideologists will always try and spout whatever reinforces their confirmation bias.
OK – lets start with “Unpredictable Climate Variability” (UCV). What’s the difference between that and “Unpredictable Climate Stability” (UCS)(given the variability has been shown to be negligible these last 17 years).
The final phase – mankind is responsible for Climate Stability (CC). Doesn’t make you sort of want to panic though, does it? Probably not much government grant money in that though, eh Professor?
How do you feel about articles highlighted by Brian from Bondi regarding Fairfax printing the interactive photo of Bondi Beach now and how it might look in the year 2100 with a predicted median sea level rise of 80cm and a once-in-a-century storm.
This photo that was printed today, and the report written by Nicole Hasham and Peter Hannam, is blatantly incorrect as highlighted by Brian from Bondi.
Can you see that this is criminal dishonesty in reporting (especially the photo) in order to progress the fear factor response of CAGW and the IPCC. It’s the same sort of rubish regarding Tim Flannery and all his stupid statements and fear campaigns, not to mention the hundreds of others. You at least do not carry on like this, but can’t you see the rapid decline in people’s belief of any warming, danger etc with the sort of garbage that continually comes from the ABC, The Guardian, Fairfax etc with reporting such as above. It kind of explains why people are rapidly turning off against all CAGW comments even here, where you get 3 red thumbs for apologising for bad spelling (I gave you a thumbs down, simply because over the period of years on this blog alone, you have not tried to correct this spelling error rate and repeated this exact apology 17 times in order to gain some type sympathy with those who you are discussing with). Time to act on this spelling problem Philip, as it indicates a cut and paste behavioural syndrome.
And with Michael Brown, astronomer, (see previous Article by Jo) on the Conversation, saying that people like me (average Australians) are not smart enough to enter any debate on Climate Science because we may not pick the CAGW alarmist side. Can’t you see the more of this type of abuse, will only result in the total shutdown of IPCC, the CAGW cult and the rest (already occurring). Yet you and Michael the Realist both have severe spelling problems continually, so how in the world can we expect to consider you points when we have to use a kindergarten teacher to decipher your content on CAGW. Peer reviewed published Climate Change articles contain nearly 97% certainty of containing grammatical errors. You guys are accusing us of not being smart enough, you can’t spell, you can’t answer direct questions with honest answers without using SKS, and they is no way you will go near answering any of Tony from Oz’s (above) questions on power supply like
“Why don’t you shut down the damned coal fired power plants?”
Don’t worry MWhite, the results of this report, and the ones to come, have been determined a long time ago. And nothing as insignificant as evidence to the contrary is going to change those conclusions.
The document’s basis is political, not scientific.
We have a bunch of corrupt politicians bent upon global totalitarian governance establishing a governmental agency to discover an excuse to implement the global totalitarian governance. The governmental agency provides the excuse as requested. The corrupt politicians say “see we must take over the governance of the globe to save the globe immediately if not sooner”. Then both the corrupt politicians and the governmental agency are offended that the people whom they intend to control and consume don’t believe them.
This is not an example of circular reasoning it is a tornado.
Does this mean Cook’s 97% has been conveniently ‘kicked to the curb’?
Steffen appeared on ABC News 24 Sat Sept 28 to run interference for Flannery and their new scam ‘The Climate Council’,and tell us that 95% really could (and should) be construed as 100%!
Where are the names of the scientists and survey results that provide the IPCC’s ‘new’ 95%?
Probably with the ‘missing’ heat at the bottom of the ocean.
Recent events including the release of the Non Report of the IPCC and the political posturing of Warmer addicts like President Obama and Banh Ki Moon have one clear and obvious implication for me.
These events show the timelessness of that old but insightful story that I heard and understood as a five year old.
Does anyone have a working link to download the actual, official, released version of the AR5 SPM, complete with actual Figures, diagrams,maps, charts etc ?
Pielke Jr has a purported link, but all the Figures are missing … aaaaarghhh !!
If it’s that certain that we are facing a catastrophic global warming event, then it’s time we made it illegal to burn coal anywhere in the world. After all nothing else is working or ever going to work to save the planet. In case you haven’t noticed, I’m being sarcastic. Obviously that certainty figure is meaningless. One could say there’s a 99% probability that we will be hit by a killer asteroid some time in the future, and it would in fact be much closer to the truth. I don’t see 100’s of billions of dollars being taxed and spent on doing something about it.
As this is way down at the end of some 260 [posts I guess not many lurkers will get down this far to read this post.
I have just spent a few hours trying to research the comparative amounts of funding spent annually on global Climate Change “research” and the so called “adaption” and that spent on global research in Agriculture.
The current spending figures on global climate change research are hard to sort out in the available data although JoNova , our hostess, has done a quite comprehensive study titled Climate Money published in 2009 which can be found here;
The American public annual [ rubbery ] expenditure on climate change research plus the subsidies related to the so called adaption to the [ dangerously?? ] changing climate for 2010 are given as US $38 billion .
[ US Budget and Clmate Change ]
Financing the mainstreaming of climate action’ in all EU instruments. The draft foresees €17.7 billion of climate-related spending[ US $ 24 billion ] out of a total EU budget of €138.9 billion, i.e. a 12.7% share.
I think this EU budget allocation for the so called climate change is separate from the similar budgets in each of the EU member countries. If so then my figures will be very understated.
This initial study report, which focuses on the first objective, finds that the cost between 2010 and 2050 of adapting to an pproximately 2oC warmer world by 2050 is in the range of $70 billion to $100 billion a year. This range is of the same order of magnitude as the foreign aid that developed countries now give developing countries each year, but it is still a very low percentage of the wealth of countries as measured by their GDP.
Between the USA and the EU we can total over US$60 billion publicly funded dollars being budgeted annually to be spent on climate change research and adaption.
In addition to these two political and national entities you have to add Canada, Australia and NZ, China, India, Russia, Japan, Brazil and etc and etc all with much smaller or in Australia’s case perhaps [ hopefully ] a dramatic reduction in this unwarranted, unneeded and unfortunate public expense.
So a very rough annual global expenditure based on my rough and ready research and estimates on the so called climate change research and adaption comes to around the US$100 Billion of public monies per year.
All this public monies expenditure based on nothing more than unproven, unverified, unvalidated climate models which have failed almost totally in thir past predictions. And all this when the real measured temperatures of the global climate have had an almost flat line trend for some 15 going onto 16 years past and now since about the mid 2000’s are starting to indicate a very small, non statistically relevant declining trend.
So how does that $100 billion a year expenditure on climate research and adaption stack up against the annual expenditure globally on agricultural research, the research that is going to try and ensure that the world’s peoples are going to have full bellies in the decades ahead despite their numbers increasing to perhaps 9 billions from the seven and quarter billions now, a 25% increase in the global population, within the next 25 to 35 years,?
Total global public spending on agricultural R&D in 2008: $31.7 billion (2005 PPP dollars)
In today’s dollars that probably equates to around US$ 40 billion plus around another $10 to $15 billion spent on agricultural research by companies and organisations, an overall total of around $50 billion dollars of which some $40 billion is public monies or considerably less than half the $100 billion of public monies that are spent annually on the so called Climate change and adaption.
Is it necessary to ask if you would yourself spend such sums on something as in climate change and adaption with model predicted consequences that are completely unproven and might never occur and in any case would do no more than requiring to adapt to warmer temperatures and conditions that in most Australian’s case are similar to those a few hundred kilometres to the north of where they live?.
Or would you settle for a situation where through the serious neglect of agricultural research, the money having been spent on climate change research and adaption , the world’s farmers no longer have the varieties with the necessary yield increases and the genetic resistance to disease and insect attack that prevents them from growing enough food to feed the world’s increasing population in the decades ahead?.
$100 billion dollars a year for unproven, climate modelled climate change research and adaption versus $40 billion a year for agricultural research that will be needed in spades to feed the worlds growing population in the decades ahead.
What’s more important to you.? Getting slightly warmer or a full belly?
Methinks the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5)should be read with the following…..
Long Range Disclaimer
The forecast information contained in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), while believed to be reasonably made at the time of publication, is subject to change. In particular, yearly and decade forecasts, given the range of the forecast, do not contain a guarantee and will contain some degree of inaccuracy. You should always seek updated professional weather/climate advice before taking any action dependent on certain weather/climate conditions prevailing. Liability for any errors or omissions, including that arising as a result of IPCC negligence, is excluded by the IPPC, its associates, officers, directors, employees and agents.
27 Sept: Imperial College London: Imperial researchers give their take on the IPCC’s climate change science report
Imperial researchers give their take on the IPCC’s climate change science report
We asked researchers at Imperial working with the Grantham Institute for Climate Change to take us through the report and its key findings…
What is climate sensitivity and what are the current estimates for it?…
Professor Sir Brian Hoskins, Director of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change: …The IPCC’s new estimate is that the long-term increase in surface temperature in response to CO2 doubling is likely to be between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees Celsius, consistent with estimates first made in 1979. The lower bound is smaller than the value in the IPCC’s previous assessment in 2007, but this should not distract us from the concern that we may well be on track to exceed three degrees warming by the end of the century on current emissions trends…
So the message to governments is clear: we need to accelerate efforts to reduce emissions, whatever the real value of the climate sensitivity is.”… http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandeventspggrp/imperialcollege/newssummary/news_27-9-2013-15-14-9
29 Sept: Japan Times: Process to assess data on climate change is slow, outdated
IPCC report may be ditched
by Richard Ingham and Anthony Lucas
AFP-JIJI
STOCKHOLM – Top U.N. experts have just delivered the first volume of a massive new climate change report, but already whispers are starting to be heard: Will it be the last such review?…
To supporters, these massive “assessment reports” play a vital role in stoking awareness…
Not only do they condense the findings of thousands of studies published in peer-reviewed journals, in a transparent process in which the text is vetted twice over, they also carry the approval of governments…
This dual-track approach, say supporters, yields a fantastic tool for politicians who want to tackle climate change: they can tell the public that the need for reform is clear as the evidence comes from neutral and impartial sources.
Conversely, if politicians prevaricate on climate change, the public can challenge them on facts that they themselves had endorsed…
Jean Jouzel, a French scientist who is vice chairman of the group that issued Friday’s report, said that though the technical text is authored by scientists “it is the adoption of the summary which gives the IPCC its success, and enables it (the summary) to be used by governments.”
But some critics say these mega-reviews spanning thousands of pages belong to the past…
***“The question of whether the exercise is worthwhile is logical,” said a European delegate, speaking on condition of anonymity, adding that “things have changed substantially since the first report” in 1990… http://www.japantimes.co.jp/life/2013/09/29/environment/ipcc-report-may-be-ditched/
*** i swear that is all Anonymous says in this article! what does it mean?
also funny. so embarrassing when phys.org pushes this rubbish:
27 Sept: Phys.org: Carbon offsets could help lower emissions without harming the economy
Instead of harming the economies of developing countries, carbon offsets and taxes on shipping and aviation would have a minimal or even a positive economic impact if implemented wisely, according to a new study.
Carbon taxes, offsets and other market-based measures could effectively address the impact of CO2 emissions from the aviation and international shipping industries, without significant financial impact to the world’s poorest countries, according to a new study led by researchers from the University of Cambridge.
The study, prepared for the climate policy organisation Climate Strategies, concluded that market-based measures (MBMs) could be a key part of an overall emissions reduction strategy, while reducing GDP by less than 0.01 per cent on average.
Researchers from Cambridge University, CE Delft, Cambridge Econometrics, TAKS (Transport Analysis and Knowledge Systems) and Climate Strategies quantified the economic impacts of MBMs in shipping and aviation for ten selected countries, and determined the most effective and efficient tools to reduce these impacts…
The ten countries chosen for the study (Mexico, China, India, Trinidad and Tobago, Togo, Kenya, Maldives, Samoa, Cook Island and Chile) were selected because they are expected to be impacted more significantly by the implementation of global MBMs – either due to their dependence on these modes of transport, on international trade, on airborne tourism, or their remote location…
“On the one hand, there could be an exemption for poor, small island nations that are heavily reliant on tourism,” says Dr Annela Anger-Kraavi, who completed the research while a member of the University’s Cambridge Centre for Climate Change Mitigation Research, and is now at the University of East Anglia. “However, on the other hand, if it’s a small island nation in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, adding a £30 carbon tax is not a make or break amount for a tourist who already pays £1000 for their long-haul flight, and that £30 could go towards developing climate solutions.”…
The results of the study were recently presented at an informal stakeholder discussion with government officials, NGO and industry representatives and journalists in London. http://phys.org/news/2013-09-carbon-offsets-emissions-economy.html
Good to see ROM ,formerly of Weatherzone forums,contributing to this site.Weatherzone decided to erase threads relating to climate-change:an attempt I believe to stymie debate on the issue.Pity.
Thank you Glen Michel
Your comment and your welcome is very appreciated.
When one door shuts and another often opens. If not that then at least one has to get out of a deep rut to have a look around to find another place where one is again comfortable.
Say, while we’re sitting here waiting for Joanne to Post a new Thread, (and three guesses what that might be about) I want you to have a look at something with me.
Remember how I (kept) mentioning that situation in South Australia when they struggled with finding electrical power after they shut down the only remaining coal fired plant at the end of Summer.
Remember how I also mentioned that the bottom dropped out of wind power generation and they had to fire up as many plants as they could find, and also suck up all the power that they could get from Victoria.
Imagine now the early AM Monday morning June 3rd, and the grid controllers, getting onto their boss and saying that they were close to their maximum. Then the overall grid controller gets onto the Department who speaks with the Minister, who then tells the Premier. Imagine how embarrassing it would be for a State Premier who is just so chuffed with his State’s reliance on Wind power, and (probably) contrary to advice, informs the coal fired plant’s operators that they don’t need their power now that the Summer peaks are over.
Imagine how embarrassing it would be to have the State go into localised power shedding. ANY shedding at all would be an absolute political disaster, and in fact would obviously lead to some questions about wind power, and that would then be also embarrassing as (eventually) the REAL truth might just seep out.
So word goes back down the line to avoid load shedding at ANY cost.
So now, having painted this image for you, let’s then look at the link in question:
Look first at the text immediately above the chart there where it says Peak Power period covers 7AM to 10PM, 15 hours.
Now note the cost for SA on that June 3rd (a work day Monday) for that 15 hour period.
$866.41/MWH
That’s not a spike, but the AVERAGE for the 15 hours.
That’s the price that all the power retailing Companies had to pay for the power they could then onsell to their consumers.
So, now watch this.
SA, at any one point in time on that day was consuming 1750MW (averaged across that 15 hours) So that means for the 15 hours, just to keep SA running required 26,250MWH of power.
So, at that $866.41 per MWH, then the total cost for that power comes in at $22,743,262.
Now, that’s the wholesale cost for that power.
Those retailers then sell that power to their contracted consumers.
The average retail price is 26 cents/KWH which translates to $260/MWH, so those retailers collected $6,825,000.
That’s a loss of $15,918.262 ….. in 15 hours, or more than a million dollars an hour.
I wonder how many of those retailers could afford that sort of loss. I also wonder if the ‘keep the power connected at ANY cost’ may have in fact meant something else, but hey, look over there, isn’t that Britney Spears.
Now I don’t expect you to work it out for the whole Month, and incidentally the months either side of this Month, June, but the average coast came in at around $110/MWH, and those retailers work their profit margins around the wholesale cost of around $50/MWH, so for three Months power retailers were quite literally bleeding money from their bottom lines.
Hey Tony defence is still being cut to the bone there is a recruitment freeze across the board and another round of culling is about to begin and yet today CSIRO has 109 positions vacant advertised……….yes thats right 109!!!!!!
Have a look at this little gem i dug up (not from CSIRO but another seat on the gravy train)
Tony,
Mike Rann was the Premier who delighted in wind and solar. That’s because the wind made a whistling sound as it went in one ear and out the other (unimpeded), while he thought he knew where the sun shone from. He certainly behaved like it.
Whetherall is an even lighter weight installed, supposedly because of his popularity, but basically there as disposable if they lose the election.
Meanwhile the Liberal Party in SA is doing its best to lose another election. To misquote Xavier Herbert “Poor fellow, my State”.
tried to post this earlier, but it didn’t go thru.
forget Maurice Strong – it’s all a response to the concerns of an African Meteorologist:
30 Sept: BusinessSpectator: Tristan Edis: IPCC – a primer for conspiracy theorists
How did all this come about, you might ask?
Well, the story explained to me by Neville Nicholls, past-president of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, suggests something rather innocent. Back in the 1980s at a conference of meteorologists, one hailing from Africa complained she was getting lots of requests for information from her government on the possible impacts of human-induced global warming. She wasn’t well equipped or resourced to answer them. She asked whether it might be possible for the meteorologists to arrange an assessment that could summarise what was known about global warming, which could be used by governments such as her own. And so the IPCC Assessment report process was born…
Governments get to nominate authors and the get to vote on the IPCC management. When the first IPCC assessment process commenced George Bush Snr was the US President and Margaret Thatcher was UK prime minister. Both nations had significant representation in the authorship of the report. The prior Fourth Assessment Report was developed with a range of Australian and US authors involved that were nominated by the Howard and George Bush Jnr governments…
It’s worth noting that back in 2001, President George Bush Jnr’s administration, suspicious of the IPCC, asked a panel of eleven top American Scientists to review the IPCC’s assessment of climate science. This panel included a favourite of the climate change doubt lobby – Richard Lindzen.
The panel of scientists told President Bush:
“The committee finds that the full IPCC Working Group I (WG I) report is an admirable summary of research activities in climate science, and the full report is adequately summarized in the Technical Summary.”… http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/9/30/science-environment/ipcc-primer-conspiracy-theorists
Nicholls missed an opportunity here to tell the tale of the African Meteorologist himself:
24 Sept: Monash: Neville Nicholls: Explainer: what is the IPCC anyway, and how does it work?Professor Nicholls is the immediate Past-President of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society and was a Coordinating Lead Author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report “Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation” that was completed in 2011. http://monash.edu/news/show/explainer-what-is-the-ipcc-anyway-and-how-does-it-work
Here is a challenge for any real skeptics here. I have enrolled in a course run by the University of British Columbia on Climate Literacy. Who is game to acutally learn some science from actual climate scientists still researching in the field, rather than climate misleading opinion bloggers? Its Free. Make sure you can understand the science in the IPCC report.
Instructors
Sarah Burch is an Assistant Professor at the University of Waterloo in the Department of Geography and Environmental Management. She was formerly a Banting Postdoctoral Scholar in the Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability, and a Visiting Research Associate at the University of Oxford. Sarah holds a PhD in Resource Management and Environmental Studies from UBC, and holds degrees in Environmental Science and International Relations
Sara Harris teaches global climate change, environmental science, and oceanography in the department of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Sciences at the University of British Columbia. She has a PhD in Oceanography from Oregon State University and a research background in paleoceanography and paleoclimate. During seven years as a chief scientist at Sea Education Association in Woods Hole, Massachusetts, she studied modern oceans and sailed thousands of miles with undergraduate students.
Both still actively researching, unlike most opinion bloggers. So science from qualified experts.
As pointed out on an earlier thread, this course gets its material from SkS
Presenting the language of climate activism as a science and advocating plenty of social & sustainability narrative.
Better for impressionable minds to check out something like Coursera’s Introduction to Logic or Introduction to Philosophy first perhaps, to help with thinking and recognising more about when you’re being fed a line.
Would that be the prestigious Woods Hole Oceanographic Centre or the Woods Hole Research Centre which has on its front page “The climate is changing at an unprecedented rate in human history”.
Every thing points to you getting confirmation of your views. Whether you will learn anything new is unlikely, but judging from your posts you won’t be worried by that.
The response was exactly as I expected. Eyes wide shut, minds fully closed. Nobody willing to learn or invest the time necessary to get a better grasp on the subject or even to investigate other points of views. Both would allow you to investigate your own views and determine their validity with more knowledge.
Nope typically excuses, indoctrination, etc type comments. You guys do realise that Canada has an anti AGW government, that this is a proper university and that the lecturers ae qualified, practising and publishing. But that would actually be to much science for most here.
That response was exactly as I expected. Eyes wide shut, mind fully closed. Never willing to learn or invest the time necessary to get a better grasp on the subject or even to investigate other points of views. Both would allow you to investigate your own views and determine their validity with more knowledge.
Michael–how many courses have you taken from professors who do NOT believe in climate change? Or is it indeed “eyes wide shut” for you, too?
Again, Michael makes the very, very , very arrogant assumption that anyone who does not agree with him has never read or studied his side. It helps him sleep at night.
Note to:
Michael and others like him–human-induced, catastrophic climate change is NOT so utterly persuasive that merely speaking the words convinces people. That is what a cult does-the leader speaks and all bow to his great knowledge. If you are asserting that all who hear will believe, you might want to rethink that one. Some hear and recognize a con when they see one. Some hear and recognize BAD science. Get over it. Or get better science. Then you won’t have to live with the illusion that people who don’t agree would just be so much more convinced if they took a class. Many already have. The class is not the problem, the science is.
Oh, Michael… “climate literacy”? Yeah, maybe, as you’d obviously never make it in medicine
or engineering. Wonder what will happen when the federal grant machine turns off the tap on that and other drains on, as opposed to positive contributions to, the country’s future wealth and security.
Mark BC is in Canada. Canada has an anti AGW government that has been shutting down climate communication and scientists, a lot like our government is starting to do. More totalitarian than democratic. Nevertheless, the science has not changed, because it never was a conspiracy, it never was about grants, or jobs, it was the science.
The globes future wealth and security is in the hands of corporations, and all they care about is themselves.
Better to be in the hands of the corporations than at the mercy of a government run by greedy millionaires. Less power when you divide it up. 🙂 And, yes, it appears warmists believe in conspiracy theories, too. Be careful–Lew will not be happy.
It does not require a conspiracy. A corporation is put there for the benefit of its executives and its shareholders, not for the human race in general. Therefore a company that makes cigarettes is worried about finding markets with less regulations against cigarettes rather than the health of people smoking cigarettes. A company that makes energy drinks like Monster or Red Bull is more interested in getting children hooked on their drinks than the long term health of the children. Truest me as a teacher I know first hand how much energy drinks kids drink and how bad it is for them. So therefore a company that digs up fossil fuels is more interested in finding markets for its products and finding ways to reduce regulation than it is in leaving them in the ground or the health of future generations.
So basic definition of a corporation, not conspiracy. A conspiracy is thinking that the science as accepted by virtually every scientific organisation in the world is somehow all trying to fool people for their long term benefit. Such rubbish, there is no benefit, this includes dictatorships, communist, capitalist, democracies and governments that don’t agree in the science. But the science does not change. Grow up people.
Read the IPCC documents with an open mind, further your education and get your science from actual educational and scientific institutions and publications rather than opinion bloggers. You owe it to yourselves and your family to think deeper.
That’s your theory Michael and it is conspiratorial. Deny it if it makes you feel better.
Corporations of the type you mention identify, manufacture and distribute things people WANT to buy. You have conveniently ignored that the consumer creates the market, the corporation (evil no doubt) merely creating what the consumers want.
You have a very twisted line of logic Michael. You have not mentioned that the consumer is responsible for their actions and has free choice NOT to buy any product.
Don’t forget too, that corporations are in every respect people. The owners, directors, shareholders and employees-all PEOPLE. How many environmentalist corporations are out there Michael? Do you invest, have a retirement account? Your premise is absurd, your comparisons absurd, your thinking is conspiratorial.
The IPCC is worse than useless, the UN is worse than useless, the rants and machinations of the Eco-loons like Hansen are dangerous to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You owe it to your family and the rest of society to wake up and see where the real dangers lie.
Like I said, it is not a theory. The purpose of a corporation is profit.
ignored that the consumer creates the market
This is twisted logic. If the consumer wanted crystal meth, then do we supply crystal meth? The consumer is buying electricity, it can come from many sources. Your argument would be that the cheapest source is what the consumer wants but it is the role of governments to look at the bigger picture and to look at the consequences for other people. For instance it is cheaper for a company to dump its waste in the river but the government puts in regulations to prevent that because people use the river, fish come from the river, etc etc. This is basic stuff, your inability to realise the illogical nature of your argument shows how biased you are and how motivated by money you are over all else.
Eco-loons like Hansen are dangerous to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Dangerous to people who believe money buys you happiness, but a realistic voice for the basic science and for future generations. The IPCC merely represents the state of international science and produces reports on it. It has multiple levels of review and represents the work of thousands of scientists.
If money isn’t what buys happiness, then why are people determined to take money away from those who have it and give it to those who did not earn it? Socialism most certainly makes the claim that money is happiness or we would not be redistributing it.
It is true we do not want corporations dumping into rivers. No one is arguing they should. Few people argue against all regulation (though if we weren’t so apathetic and uneducated, the corporations would not do these things because people would stop buying from them) We are arguing that those stupid bird-killing, environmentally damaging wind monsters should go–for all the reasons we should not dump things in rivers, etc. (wind turbines are reported to possibly contaminate ground water, just like fracking–yet that rarely comes up). The government does not look at the bigger picture–they look at what will get them re-elected. There’s so much money in government, once you start sucking people dry, you just can’t help yourself it seems. There is no evidence whatsoever that government cares any more about the environment than corporations. In fact, it gives money to corporations that are later found guilty of bad things–dumping, low quality materials, etc. Monetary support for environmentally damaging practices, brought to you by your “all-caring” government.
Basic science says climate “science” violates multiple parts of the scientific method. Predication after prediction fails. In science, that means you discard the theory. In politics, it means you dig in like a pit bull, snarl and bark and hope no one notices how vacant the theory actually is. I’m seeing snarling and barking here.
If money isn’t what buys happiness, then why are people determined to take money away from those who have it and give it to those who did not earn it?
Sheri, 3 billion people live on $2.50 a day or less. It is not a case about money buying happiness it is about having enough funds for food, shelter, medicine etc. Also in any society you have those that fall on hard times through no fault of their own, families break up, companies close, global financial crises’s hit, major storm, flood, drought, war etc. So it is not a case of socialism or communism, I do not agree with either, communism failed, without incentive then nobody bothers, just human nature. But on the other side of the coin is what are the minimums we are prepared to accept as a race. Does this only apply to our state, our country, the world? How do we distribute those minimums etc. Would you like to be deserted if any of the above disasters befell you?
So this is where tax and foreign aid comes in, to get the people who can afford it to contribute more to those that need help.
I agree with your comments on government, our terms are to small by world standards, with 3 year terms you do not have enough time to think longer than short term. Any long term thinking, like the NBN and climate change gets you thrown out because people cannot see the immediate benefits and are easily swayed by short term monetary inducements. Also governments are influenced by corporations because they employ people (look at holden demands) and because of their support of parties, both directly and in lobby groups.
Basic science says climate “science” violates multiple parts of the scientific method.
I do not agree with your comments on climate science. If anything most predictions have been to conservative, and natural factors and uncertainties obviously exist when looking at a global climate with unpredictable elements, like ENSO, solar and volcanos. These need to be adjusted for and taken into account as we go, but do not change the basic science. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, greenhouse gases cause warming and these have other effects all occurring, such as ocean warming, falling ocean ph, sea levels rising, Arctic melting, increasing floods, droughts and heatwaves, etc etc. I don’t really see where the scientific method has been ignored or what prediction of climate change has not occurred? Could it be that you have fallen for the models meme? Models have been fairly accurate, are only projections of certain scenarios and the current trends match well with certain scenarios. When natural factors are taken into account they are spot on. We only need to look at this years neutral ENSO conditions. All of a sudden we have heat records being broken all over Australia with our hottest 12 months on record recently. What is going to happen when we shift to El Nino conditions? It is pretty plain that ENSO has had a fairly large impact in the recent short term conditions and even then it has not cooled, only paused. So in summary, the basic science is strong, most of it is not in contention from anyone (not even here, read Jos books) and the bits that are uncertain do not overly affect what is occurring.
3 billion people do not live in the US or Europe on @2.50 a day or less. Actual monetary value depends on the country. If most make $2.50 a day, then that’s the standard for said country. It’s poverty in some places, not in others.
Actually, storms, companies closing, etc have befallen me. Both myself and my husband were laid off from work about one week apart. We dealt with it. Planning ahead helps–all these people who can’t go a week without pay need budgeting work, not handouts. I have no problem with SHORT-TERM assistance (less than 3 months). After that, all we do is encourage dependence.
As for other countries, the best way to help them is not cash but with technology and training. You help people help themselves. If they won’t help themselves, you’re wasting your time.
I don’t believe in “minimums”. In an ideal world, people would at least have basic food, clean water, etc. However, in the real world, that would involve not money, but overthrowing dictators. Not really practical, is it? So minimums could actually require constant military action.
Charity is for those who want to pay more–not forceable removal of their money by a government. All forceable removal does is encourage people to either move elsewhere, use the tax breaks the government writes in for its own millionaires, or earn less. Longer than 3 year terms just leads to more addiction to sucking the people dry and earning more money for one’s self. In the US, a large portion of our legislators are over 70 and MILLIONAIRES. Many are worth 10 times or more what they were when they were elected. Election is their ONLY concern–that’s the long term planning you so seem enamored with.
How is 17 years of flattened temperature showing predictions are accurate? How is being 99% wrong on the Arctic ice being accurate. How is wrong being accurate. It is NOT obvious that it has paused. It has virtually stopped warming currently and until another 17 years shows us it has returned to warming, it’s not possible to predict direction. Models have not been accurate. Many not even close. The “uncertain bits” most certainly should call into question the science. Again, the fact that it doesn’t tells us very clearly that it is NOT science.
(You can check out my views further by clicking on my name and reading my writings there–I’m using up too much time repeating things here.)
You really need to travel more widely, investigate more widely. The world is not the US or Europe, most poverty does not come from dictatorships and many disasters come unexpectedly and take longer than 3 months to fix. http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats
I agree that we need to help with technology and training and that is how most assistance is provided but that takes just as much money. There are many practical things we could do to make sure that everybody had basic levels of food and shelter. It is not charity it is basic human rights or have we not evolved from animals? Tax is not forseable removal it is the way we pay for essential services, health, education, law and order, roads and much more. The alternative would be the poverty stricken, kill or be killed societies of some of these areas.
I don’t get how anyone can make themselves rich by being a politician, In Australia they are on a fixed salary, if they wanted to be rich they would be rich before going into politics, if your politicians can get that rich from politics then there is something wrong with it. That has nothing to do with the length of the terms, short terms promote short term thinking and things cannot get done before the next side is coming in, tearing everything you half accomplished down and starting again.
You need to actually READ an IPCC report. The atmosphere is only 10% of where the extra energy goes, pauses and even dips are common in the long term record due to natural factors in the system, they do not change or negate the long term trend and are consistent with any of the model runs. Also the models are not the science. Please consider that the 2001 to 2010 decade was the hottest on the industrial record on every continent, over ocean and land despite being a decade mainly affected by cooling natural factors, that your 17 years starts on one of the strongest el nino events in 60 years and finishes on back to back la ninas. That 2011 and 2012 were the hottest la nina affected years on record and that the ocean shows strong warming into the deeper oceans and the Arctic is melting much faster than expected or predicted. Basing your beliefs on a cherry picked portion of a graph out of context, without regard to the science and without taking natural factors into account is NOT SCIENCE. Going on natural factors we should be strongly cooling, this has not occurred.
Where do you get the 99% Arctic wrong remark from? It is melting faster than predicted with record melts in 2007 and last year. The uncertain bits is normal science of the natural world, it is never possible to know everything and have perfect information but what we do know, can measure and understand is fairly conclusive and represents the majority of the system (to 95% certainty). So open your eyes and look at the whole world, and all of the science and all of the data, not just what fits your narrow world view.
This is not a discussion–it’s a tiny minded little person trying to bully people into going along with the farce he call reality. Go get life. I ‘m done here.
This is not a discussion–it’s a tiny minded little person trying to bully people into going along with the farce he call reality. Go get life. I ‘m done here.
So I have shown many ways that the predictions of climate change are correct and occurring. You have focussed on a short term atmosphere trend (that has been explained) and an incorrect comment about the Arctic. I assume you have now realised how little you have and how strong the science actually is. Please read the IPCC documents and discuss with knowledge rather than making ‘someone told me’ type comments in the future. You cannot attack something you do not actually know anything about.
And if you care to look, the long term trend is cooling.
You really should stop making stuff up and assume that nobody is going to check. This statement is non sensical and not supported by any evidence I am aware off. 2011 and 2012 where the hottest la nina affected years on record and the 2001 to 2010 decade the hottest decade globally, in the ocean, over land and in every continent. Seriously grow up or go and do some actual learning. You really should have joined that course I am doing, it even has a week on the carbon cycle, something that really confuses you.
Have you found out what is causing the declining cloud cover yet? Care to try to answer the questions you have spent weeks avoiding?
This whole string of comments by Michael the Communist clearly liberates the “real” Michael from the pretender “science” Michael.
Michael is a political ideologue, twisted by Leftist themes and dogma. The reason he supports the “science” of AGW is BECAUSE it fits so well with all the other social agendas in his head not the other way around.
I’ve seen other Michaels before. The world has suffered from Michaels out there meddling throughout history. The Michaels of the world are pleased by Hansen and Farnish, Pleased to undo the successes of mankind, Pleased to smash free and private enterprise, pleased to redistribute wealth, pleased to empower the UN and concurrently eliminate individual rights.
Yes I’ve seen Michaels before. They are what I use as examples to inspire others to fight against them. Politically I’m what I am BECAUSE of the Michaels of the world. I’m a card carrying Republican/Tea Party member because of them. I work tirelessly to prevent their success in causing failure. Some want us to ignore the Michaels of the world. That would be foolish. Michael himself has created a great deal of material for me to get people motivated to fight back against what they stand for. Michael has done yeoman’s work providing valuable evidence of what we are up against, how twisted their thinking. If we ignore the Michaels of the world, they don’t go away. The only way to deal with Michaels is to reduce their POLITICAL POWER. To do this they need to BE EXPOSED their ideology needs to BE EXPOSED.
Take advantage of the Michaels of the world and use them as examples.
Nothing annoys me more that people who scream “Think of your children and future generations” yet are pro-abortion. That says it all for me…… just more emotive bullshit.
The point was there are millions of individual corporations each with it’s own goals. There is only one government. Which do you think is going to have the greatest influence: One corporation or one government? The government obviously has control over corporations–witness the EPA in the United States.
“The globes future wealth and security is in the hands of corporations, and all they care about is themselves” is a frequent claim of conspiracy theorists. It may not be a “true” conspiracy belief, but the way you stated it, it certainly seems meant to lean in that direction.
It does not require “changing the science” to allow government control. Just report whatever parts serve the purpose. If you doubt that, try looking at the kindergarten behaviour now occurring with the idiots running the US. The Republicans are “blamed” for shutting down the government while the Democrats are the ones voting NOT to fund the government unless they get every thing they want. Selective reporting to an apathetic population is all it takes. I am told that if one reads the actual science part of the IPCC document, the conclusions in the study do not match the political part–and GOVERNMENTS met to approve the release, not scientists. None mentioned anywhere. So why would governments review the draft if we are talking science here?????
As noted by Mark D, no one forces people to buy products (except insurance) and corporations sell what people want. The government sometimes does what 51% of the population voted for, sometimes they do whatever is in their best interest. Corporations cannot mandate everyone buy 2000 gallons of gasoline and no more per year. Governments can. Corporations do not have that kind of power.
The point was there are millions of individual corporations each with it’s own goals. There is only one government. Which do you think is going to have the greatest influence:
They have different roles and goals. A corporation only needs to look after its profit margin and in that respect focusses on promoting, pushing and finding alternative markets for its products. Their combined influence on the consumer society is unparrelled. A government is a totally different kettle of fish. Most of the work is service, law and order, health, education etc. Not there for profit but to look after the society in general that they govern. Politicians do not earn bonuses and share incentives for selling a product. They can be influenced by rich corporations to help fund campaigns which have become to expensive, this then leaves expectations on behalf of the corporations for their funding.
I am told that if one reads the actual science part of the IPCC document
How about reading than being told about it? I have read some of it and find that climate misleaders often argue things that are not part of the science. For instance the Antarctic not melting enough is often thrown forward as proof of AGW falseness, when the actual IPCC report specifically says that the Antarctic is to cold to melt anytime soon and may even increase to some extent due to increased snow due to the increased precipitation part of AGW. Also the document (AR4) says that while floods, heatwaves and droughts are expected to increase climate misleaders go on about hurricanes and tornados, which the document does not say will increase. You would probably find if you actually was skeptical and got information from actual scientific sources that it is a lot more rational and measured than claims that you guys routinely make.
Corporations cannot mandate everyone buy 2000 gallons of gasoline and no more per year. Governments can. Corporations do not have that kind of power.
Governments are voted in and in that sense have to make sure that they do not do anything to contrary to the overall health and wealth of the populace or they quickly lose their jobs. Real global power comes from corporations that are not at the mercy of any particular countries populace, they are truly global and the money they wield is huge.
As to the US, I do not claim to be an expert on their system, but it seems to me that Obamacare has withstood many fights by republicans and won. In court and in an election and multiple challenges. It is the republicans acting like terrorists trying to blackmail the government for their ideological beliefs. A bit like climate misleaders and their response to science.
Right…. so you mean like the Gates Foundation and thousands of others……
The gates foundation is not a product, it is more a charity, funded by a billionaire who eventually came to the conclusion that doing good things brought more happiness than wealth. In regards to thousands of others, the damage they do or do not do depends on the product they are selling, regardless they are primarily created for the purpose of of the company itself.
Funny you should mention Gates, you do understand that he does believe in AGW, don’t you?
I invited him over to my blog where we can have a discussion to his heart’s content. I have two or three others who come on the blog now and then, write for while and then leave. I’m good with it–as long as they don’t resort to only insults or too many insults. It’s sometimes frustrating, but I think someone should answer questions, so I guess volunteered. 🙂
I will stop responding here out of respect for the “stop feeding the trolls” request.
The grinding mill of climate science [ and climate change politics ] grinds slowly but very finely and the [ IPCC ] chaff is being blown away by the rising political wind.
Owen Paterson, secretary of state for environment, food and rural affairs, says effects of global warming not all negative
The cabinet minister responsible for fighting the effects of climate change claimed there would be advantages to an increase in temperature predicted by the United Nations including fewer people dying of cold in winter and the growth of certain crops further north.
Owen Paterson told a fringe meeting at the Conservative party conference on Sunday night that predictions by scientists – that there could be major increases in temperature resulting in melting ice caps and worldwide flooding – should not be seen as entirely negative.
His comments came after the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found last week that within two or three decades the world will face nearly inevitable warming of more than 2 degrees, resulting in rising sea levels, heatwaves, droughts and extreme weather.
Asked at a fringe meeting organised by the RSPB if the report proved that the climate is “broken”, Paterson said:
“People get very emotional about this subject and I think we should just accept that the climate has been changing for centuries.
“I think the relief of this latest report is that it shows a really quite modest increase, half of which has already happened. They are talking one to two and a half degrees.
“Remember that for humans, the biggest cause of death is cold in winter, far bigger than heat in summer. It would also lead to longer growing seasons and you could extend growing a little further north into some of the colder areas.
“I actually see this report as something we need to take seriously but I am rather relieved that it is not as catastrophic in its forecast as we had been led to believe early on and what it is saying is something we can adapt to over time and we are very good as a race at adapting,” he said.
Paterson’s views were taken to task by Guy Newey, head of environment and energy at the Policy Exchange thinktank.
“The point that the climate has been changing for centuries understates the size of the problem that we are facing and the size of the action we need to overcome it. We really have no idea of knowing what is going to happen in terms of temperature. The risk is really very scary … I worry that some of the language that Owen uses – that we can actually wait and see what happens – is a big risk,” he replied, to applause from the audience.
Paterson has long been suspected of being a climate change sceptic. He has previously called for a reduction in the subsidies given to wind farms and other green energy initiatives.
He also defended the government’s plans for a badger cull, revealing that he had two pet badgers when he was a child.
ROM –
don’t get too excited. this is the official response to the IPCC report by Ed Davey:
28 Sept: ABC AM: Ban Ki-moon urges action after climate report
BARBARA MILLER: Climate change sceptics won’t be convinced by this report, but the UK’s climate change secretary, Ed Davey, says history will prove them wrong.
ED DAVEY: This piece of evidence that we’re seeing from Stockholm is probably the most robust, rigorous, most peer-reviewed piece of science in human history. I think it’s put the question of whether climate change is happening beyond doubt.
We’ve got to stop debating this issue as if we’re some members of the flat earth society and get on and act… http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2013/s3858277.htm
I gather from the Bishop Hill blog that there is quite a serious bit of a war going on within UK government circles over just how serious this climate caper is and increasingly how much it is costing and whether all the sacrifice of the little people to the “cause” is worth the political risk.
Prime minister David Cameron’s wife is reportedly a card carrying member of Greenpeace.
His FIL is one of the largest wind operators in the UK.
And we think we have problems with prime ministers!
Meanwhile P Gosselin in his German / english NoTricksZone blog headlines his latest post;
“We’ve got to stop debating this issue as if we’re some members of the flat earth society and get on and act…”
That’s what I like from Ed ‘Boy’, a can do attitude, but he still can’t help flinging insults & stoking hostility, ensuring his message will never gain acceptance, unlike new Coalition in Aus., who are treading a fine and considered line between action & restraint.
I think it’s put the question of whether climate change is happening beyond doubt.
So who exactly doubts that the climate changes? Oh, that’s right, its those damned climate deniers… almost as rare as the missing heat…. you can’t see them, but they are there.
Regarding the “pause” or “hiatus.” These words are deliberately chosen for a purpose. Both words ambiguously imply a re-start. A re-start is speculation & is unknown. The best word is “halt,” as this only means one thing. A stop. Right click those three words and ‘look up’. Halt is the only word to use.
Quite right about the deliberately suggestive choice of words. It is indeed a halt as warming has been absenc these past 17 years , for going on 2 decades and completely this century.
Global Warming was a feature of the 20th century as well as of many previous centuries, but it has not been evident since before that last great uncertainty, the Y2K bug unfolded as another damp squib.
30 Sept: ABC 7.30 Report: Climate change report renews pressure on Government
With the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s report painting a grim picture for what the future could hold for Australia, there’s renewed pressure on the Government to ramp up its targest for cuts in greenhouse emissions.
LEIGH SALES, PRESENTER: The latest global warming outlook paints a grim picture for Australia – a future of extreme weather, heatwaves and rising seas…
HAYDEN COOPER, REPORTER: It’s official: the mercury is rising, the oceans are changing and this nation of sun lovers could be in for a rough ride over the course of the next century.
PENNY WHETTON, CLIMATOLOGIST, CSIRO: There is clearly a potential for Australia’s climate to warm significantly and we are already a hot, dry climate. And so it may take our climate into quite extreme territory in the later decades of 21st Century.
JOHN CONNOR, CEO, THE CLIMATE INSTITUTE: We are a country of extremes, of floods and droughts, and they talk about climate change putting the weather on steroids and so that means we have more and more extreme impacts that accentuate those extremes that are there already…
(EXAGGERATION, EXAGGERATION, EXAGGERATION, SCARE, SCARE, SCARE)
HAYDEN COOPER: But the minister maintains the five per cent target will stay. It means adaptation may be the only choice and that’s expensive…
LEIGH SALES: And we asked the Environment Minister Greg Hunt to join the program. He was unable to make it tonight, but is hoping to take up the invitation later this week http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2013/s3859430.htm
Apologies, as the youtube video below has nothing to do with climate whatsoever. A remarkably eloquent and intelligent 12 year old muslim boy speaking about women’s rights, and democracy.
The MSM has been peddling out the IPCC mantra since yesterday as predicted and on cue, however at the end of some articles there is a admittance of AGW skepticism described in scientific terms such as “natural variability”, I think the skeptical burr under the saddle is starting to rub instead of itch.
210
The IPCC in AR5 says there is no natural variability, or to be precise: -0.1 to +0.1.
By inference, that translates:
The concept of natural climate climate cycles still remains a supreme heresy, which means.
1. There never were any ice ages, but the Little Ice Age of 150 years ago was the norm to which we should try to return.
2. Mann’s theory is correct which states that the MWP and previous warm phases in the Holocene Era did not exist.
3. The Earth’s climate has remained static for hundreds of millions of years.
Does anyone doubt why geologists are the most sceptical group of all, when the IPCC publishes such garbage? As someone commented here, the IPCC is still stuck in the same old groove of GIGO – Garbage In, Gospel Out, when it comes to climate computer modelling.
201
The IPCC “95% consensus” has exactly the same technical meaning and the same purpose as the “5-min to midnight” (or whatever) updates of the Doomsday Clock. Totally meaningless, but an excuse for a bunch of leftist academics and assorted useful idiots to get their 15 minute of fame, utter their “calls for action” (western disarmament or western de-industrialization), “save the world” and stroke their big egos. Next round, the IPCC will have to advance their doomsday clock to “99% certain” to keep the scare level high and get another few minutes of publicity.
270
The Channel 10 late news had it beyond 95%, said it was certain, it was carbons fault and we’re to blame. It was 100% the way they stated it. It sounded like they had been playing climate cluedo – it was colonel coal, in the west, with the carbon. Is it now time to pack up and go home, or do they now break out the monopoly board?
160
They replace the monopoly board with another more to their liking if all else fails. Repeating the mantra worked before and they won’t give up hope easily.
20
They replaced the Monopoly board with a Ouija board, which is more accurate in its predictions than the climate models.
30
More appropriate for the IPCC to use the Ouija board. Ouija boards tend to give the answers those with fingers on the moveable indicator want to see.
10
Cognitive psychologists should be able to evolve a theory about this 95%. Proclamations of increased certainty about untenable beliefs by a group when cornered is common. I and friends have got similar responses when finding groups of youths in places where they should not be, potentially causing damage. They claim authority to be there, and are full of excuses. Furthermore, a standard ploy is now to accuse the accusers of being child molesters. Those defending the “science”, like astronomer Michael Brown, may make slightly milder unjustified claims to attack skeptics but it seems to follow the same pattern as the youth gangs.
110
If I remember correctly, the first two estimates were not numbers. Then, came 90% and now 95%. Assuming they can hang on another seven years, 99.9% would be expected next. It was clever ploy. Start out with word, move up to near certainty with one number and increase thereafter to as close to 100% as you dare go. I read somewhere that when the 90% number was introduced, the media fawned over the science in now having a number. This was a very clever scheme. Unfortunately, large groups of people and scientists started to question the models and predictions. Then, the warming leveled off. By then, they were locked into the strategy and had to hope that continuing to raise a number would look “sciency” enough. 95% sounds scary and people are used to seeing such numbers and hearing statistics as 2x the risk, etc (they don’t ask what the risk was in the first place). Perhaps their biggest mistakes were saying weather is climate then trying to limit it only to hot, and saying hotter makes colder. They should have just repeated the 95% number.
40
I don’t know how to read exactly what the 95% means. And reading Judith Curry’s thread, nor does she.
To the laymen, who normaly deal with dice roll style predictive outcomes (can’t reemember the name), it sounds as though there is still a 5% chance of being wrong. And anybody who’s played games of chance will know very well that 5% (1:20) comes up a lot more often than desirable.
30
It doesn’t mean anything. It’s what it sounds like that matters.
30
It sounds like it’s hitting the normal “statistically significant” range or p<=0.05. That's the only rationale I can think of.
10
Will the AR7 claim a 105% increase?
40
I think they’re boxing themselves into a ever tightening corner. Perhaps its the seige mentality getting the better of the the previous silo mindset. They leave themselves little option but to declare absolute certainty, which in effect is what they are doing presently, except you’ll see that there is change to the polemic in the face of no statistically significant measurable temperature change since AR4.
The meme has been subtly altered #6 –
The key thing here is that the ‘other anthropogenic forcings’ are chiefly aerosols, which exert a strong negative forcing….which is a putative reason for the absence of statistically significant measurable warming.
30
…and as has been well decribed elsewhere, expressions of ‘confidence’ at 90% or 95% have nothing whatsoever to do with the statistical use of a confidence interval. It is instead an artful and misleading use of terms to create an aura of greater authority and sense of consensus. It could be considered more akin to a confidence ‘trick’.
60
Yes–see my comment above. It has no meaning.
30
Talking about aerosols…
Professor Peter Wadhams, professor of Ocean Physics at the University of Cambridge, said:
‘There are serious deficiencies in the modelling. The assessment makes extensive use of the UK Met Office model which does not take account at all of the feedback due to emissions from thawing permafrost. ‘Nor is the possibility of a major methane emission from melting offshore permafrost on Arctic shelves mentioned, even though this has been projected as capable of adding 0.6°C to global warming.’
10
Photo Voltaics
In this week-ends Australian Financial Review we are greeted on the front page by a photo of two very cool looking guys who have done the Green Dream.
Half way down this page under “Business”: http://www.afr.com/home
They are California-based Australian entrepreneurs Andrew Birch and Danny Kennedy
With apologies to whoever I will place this small intro before you to check the background.
After a quick look you may want to help me put the pieces together and explain how it works.
Perhaps people in the US, Roy? or any others could help.
The summary:
“Sungevity is the third largest solar PV retailer in the US household segment and is about to enter the Australian market via a joint venture with Nickel Energy. The interesting thing is that Sungevity is headed up by two people who were originally engaged in the solar sector in Australia but moved over to California because of a more conducive and supportive market environment for solar PV. So the fact that they are taking the plunge back into the Australian market is a positive sign.
Sungevity are one of the pioneers of a model for selling solar PV via a pay as you go leasing model that enables solar to be cash-flow positive for households from day one. This model of selling solar PV has had a dramatic impact, particularly in California where Sungevity are based. This was profiled in the Climate Spectator article, Solar’s New Business Model, that we ran on April 12. It has opened up an entire new market of less affluent householders that previously had considered solar PV unaffordable.”
OK, so after reading the main article in the AFR I was almost convinced that these guys were producing PV sourced power cheaper than coal fired. The casual reader would have to be impressed that PV was now on equal terms with traditional power generation and that it could turn any greenie into a millionaire.
My questions:
What is the real deal in California? Are they just using Ca subsidies to give householders a good deal?
Is it transferable to Australia as they seem to intend?
Could their scheme work outside of Ca?
Any comments?
KK
100
Junk bonds have been followed by junk solar.
California has been winding down their subsidies for household PV solar. The direct California Solar Initiative subsidy for installing photovoltaic (PV) panels on your house, which started at $2.50 per watt (of installed peak capacity) is now just $0.20 per watt. i.e. a peak of $7500 for a 3kV system is now $600. Whether they would get any in Australia in the near future is doubtful. Bear in mind that the USA tendency is to give a tax rebate for improvements (Federal, not State) which could also offset the initial cost.
Residential solar owners in California receive retail reimbursement rates for electricity supplied back to the grid. There are distribution and balancing costs associated with net metering which are borne by non-solar ratepayers (higher overall prices), making solar more attractive, especially as California has the highest electricity charges in the (continental) USA.
Anybody thinking about this scheme would be well advised to look very closely at the overall cost versus the savings.
60
Thanks Graeme
Very well put, and it sounds just like the Australian set up even to the point of reducing subsidies.
KK
10
It’s not the subsidies per se that support this–it’s the RPS. And California has one of the highest RPS’s in the country. As long as Governor “Green” Brown (I love the mental picture of that!) is in, the RPS will payouts high enough. All of this rests on California being able to charge huge rates for electricity and still have enough residents to cover the costs.
As for an American with solar panels, asked by Roy in 3.3, Anthony Watts has written up on his blog why he put in solar panels and explained the costs and benefits, plus the installation procedure. This is his latest update (that I could find): http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/23/an-update-on-my-solar-power-project-results-show-why-i-got-solar-power-for-my-home-hint-climate-change-is-not-a-reason/
30
Thanks Sheri,
Manipulation of power pricing, the new CDs.
The Anthony Watts item is interesting and obviously saving him money because where he is he has to contend with the Smart Metering system which they hope to introduce here in Australia.
As Graeme Inkster says above the whole business has the same level of reality and logic as the junk bonds and CDs and CDOs and CFDs which were let loose in the community by the banking/financial system in your country.
A magical twisted invention of avaricious humans.
KK
20
Anything that seems too good to be true inevitably is. Especially with these people. California?. Says it all.
90
Red Hot Chilly Peppers calls it Californication, an apt description (and song lyrics).
40
KK,
I agree with Graeme Inkster. And solar is likely to backfire when the utilities get too disgusted with having to mess around with thousands of very small suppliers feeding them power intermittently. The subsidy is down and the real story on solar has yet to be felt. In the meantime, if you want a good weekend task, get up and wash down those solar panels every week or you’ll very soon be supporting worthless hardware on your roof. They collect dirt very fast and when I last looked, dirt is opaque to sunlight (this comes under the heading of things they’re afraid to tell you).
The worst of this nonsense is that a charge shows up on my bill to compensate Edison for handling this mess. Yes, Graeme is right. I pay for this nonsense. As far as I’m concerned it’s just punitive. You’d otherwise let the solar provider pay the cost via slightly lower rate per kWh delivered to the grid. It’s all just plain nuts!
There will never be a solar panel on my roof while I am alive. I have no use for nonsense and I don’t buy into it. I learned my lesson with solar water heating and that’s that.
If there are any U.S. readers with solar we’d all like to hear about your experience.
50
Thanks Roy,
Got it all there, especially the bit that Tony keeps pushing, about the actual uselessness of the small scale erratic supply from so many sources that will make the utilities disgusted.
You’ve given a good image there of the Electricity suppliers being like a dog chasing it’s tail.
KK
50
I wouldn’t put solar panels up at gunpoint
nor compact fluorescent bulbs
nor a hybrid car
nor any other watermelon artifact I have some pride
72
KK,
I can’t comment on the pay as you go idea without seeing the contract details. However, if you could count on government and utilities being true to their word on into the future and if you could count on solar panels staying at full efficiency and having the life expectancy they say they do, then it might be a beneficial way to go. Then there’s the weather…
Unfortunately there are too many ifs. I wouldn’t do it.
40
Hi Roy, Graeme and Ceetee,
Thanks for the comments,
I think we all have some idea of what is behind this article about the two wonder boys, but it’s interesting to get others to confirm it.
Some of the costing structure is at the Business Spectator:
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2012/4/12/smart-energy/solar%E2%80%99s-new-business-model
My main concern with the article is that it gives a great image for Solar PV that many readers may think is due to the wonderful costs effectiveness of solar in it’s own right.
The issue of subsidies and “incentives” is well hidden in the AFR article that originally got my goat up.
It seems that all that is happening is that these two guys are taking Government, read taxpayer funded, incentives and organising a finance arrangement that is less threatening to buyers.
KK
20
ps forgot to add that there is no cost to sign up for the Business Spectator if you want to read the article.
cheating: part of the article
“Repackaging the value of photovoltaics (PV) as a simple savings on the monthly electric bill is an attractive alternative to the pitch that it will pay for itself in a decade, he said. “If someone comes up to you and says you can make money next month and forever, that totally changes how people see the value of solar.”
The differences in upfront costs are stark between buying and leasing. Heather and Kit Lammers put $3,000 down for a 5.64-kilowatt system that is providing 62 per cent of the electricity for their two-story home in Erie, Colorado. If they had bought the system outright, they would have had to pay more than $9,000 with incentives, or as much as $20,000 without incentives.
The Lammers had been averaging $107 per month for electricity. Now, they’re paying $64 per month to lease the solar panels, plus $41 per month to utility Xcel Energy, which represents the 38% of their electricity use that won’t be offset by solar energy.
That gives them only $2 per month in savings the first year. But the real benefits come over the next two decades, when that $64 lease payment stays constant while, presumably, the price of fossil-fuel-powered electricity rises with inflation. When their two-year-old graduates from college, the Lammers will still be paying the equivalent of 12 cents per kilowatt-hour through their solar lease arrangement.
10
Donna Laframboise:
The unadorned truth was door number one. Cringe-worthy exaggeration was door number two. The IPCC made the wrong call.
150
I put a link to this letter from Doug Keenan to Julia Slingo ( UK Met office)in the thread below but it seems to have gone unnoticed so I’m repeating it in full here because I think it could cause an interesting stir in the UK, worth following.
162
Slingo now has a stock reply to these questions:
“I will only conduct such discussions through the peer-reviewed literature”
She adopted this after Nic Lewis beat her to a public pulp on the aerosol-induced warming plateau excuse
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2013/9/25/met-office-concedes-the-error.html
100
Keenan claims with respect to the 90% confidence limits for warming for the period 1880 to 2012 0.85 [0.65 to 1.06] °C or 0.064 [0.049 to 0.080] °C/decade
“the confidence intervals should be much wider—perhaps even wide enough to include 0°C.”
Keenan supplies no reasons whatsoever for this claim or what the level should be.
Statistical significance is usually taken to mean a 95% (2 sigma) confidence interval. This is the level that skeptics wish to use when claiming that the probability of warming for the last 17 years (93% for Hadcrut4) is not “statistically significant”. It would be statistically significant at the 90% confidence level.
Now to avoid any accusations of cherry picking, I will take dataset (Hadcrut4) with the lowest trend and highest 2 sigma level of the global land/sea data sets available here for 1880-2012.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php
Trend: 0.062 ±0.008 °C/decade, or in the form of the report;
0.06 [ 0.05 to 0.70] °C/decade
Which for 132 years is
0.82 [0.71 to 0.92] °C
The result is nowhere near including zero.
On Friday Mr Bolt claimed that the report supported a pause in warming. It does not.
It reports a drop in the rate of warming to 0.05 [–0.05 to +0.15] °C per decade
Again I must point out that statistical significance cuts both ways.
The data to a 90% confidence level does not support a statistically significant cooling or flat trend (pause) because part ot the range (in fact most of it) is in the warming region.
Nor does it for 95% limits (again Hadcrut 4)
0.052 ±0.155 °C/decade or
0.05 ±0.16 [ -0.10 to 0.21] °C/decade
Furthermore as the ranges overlap, there is no statistically significant drop in the warming rate compared to the entire 1880-2012 period (see data above) or the period from 1951 to 2012:
0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C /decade (90%)
0.11 [0.09 to 0.13] °C/decade (95%) (Hadcrut4)
That is the problem with choosing short data sets of less than a couple of decades. They really tell you very little.
316
Hiding behind statistical manipulations is hardly the act of honest scientists, Brian.
The fact is the temp trend for 15-17 years depending on your data set is not statistically different from zero. This was not predicted by models, there is no excuse for failure of predictions when one considers that the warming only encompasses 20 years itself. What an honest scientist or group thereof would say is that this was not predicted, and to review the assumptions that underpin those predictions, particularly that CO2 is the primary driver that has been claimed up till now. Unfortunately, having successfully painted themselves into a corner, the IPCC is in panic mode, hiding its failure and hoping against hope that warming will resume.
Even if alarmists are eventually vindicated, which is appearing increasingly unlikely as indirect, non TSI solar influences show their hand over the next decade, people such as yourself are going at some point to have to swallow their pride and admit that they were ignorant of the magnitude of many of the natural, non-anthropogenic influences on climate.
I know of no other branch of science where a failure to predict results from a hypothesis increases ones certainty that one is correct. You need to step away from the blackboard, Brian, and ponder that big picture fact which the latest IPCC report highlights.
122
Winston,
I love this line
I would change it to the following:
“I know of no other branch of science where an increasing failure to predict results from a hypothesis increases ones certainty that one is correct.”
My own view is a little more crude and I appologise up front for the language
“you can polish a turd, but at the end of the day its still a turd”
122
Winston, I am not hiding behind anything. It was Doug Keenan (via Ross) who introduced the subject of statistical significance of the data.
You have ducked the issue failing to point out where any of my analysis of that subject is wrong.
27
[Winston by request] ED,
The fact is the temp trend for 15-17 years depending on your data set is not statistically different from zero.
The fact that data sets covering 15 to 17 years are not statistically different to zero is my point.
If you cannot say on that basis that it is warming, you cannot say that there has been a pause or cooling either.
As I point out, the problem is that when you look at data sets of that short duration, the “signal” (the change in temperature for the period) is reduced whereas the “noise” (the magnitude of the wiggles for the period) remains much the same, so the signal to noise ratio is reduced, increasing the error margins. The lack of statistical significance is not because the trend is close to zero, as many wrongly suppose, as the fact the the signal to noise ratio is low.
For example, the Hadcrut 4 data set for the last 60 years shows a statistically significant rise in temperature.
Trend: 0.114 ±0.022 °C/decade (2σ)
But break it up into consecutive 15 year periods, and only one shows a statistically significant temperature rise, and the earliest actually shows a (non stiststically significant) decline, which is more than can be said for the last 15 years.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1953/to:2013/mean:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1953/to:2013/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1998/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1983/to:1998/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1968/to:1983/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1953/to:1968/trend
From the most recent 15 years:
Trend: 0.038 ±0.130 °C/decade (2σ)
Trend: 0.166 ±0.147 °C/decade (2σ)
Trend: 0.112 ±0.162 °C/decade (2σ)
Trend: -0.015 ±0.159 °C/decade (2σ)
06
Apologies agin. That post should have been addressed to Winston.
02
But Philip we know what they did in producing Hadcrut4 –they reintroduced weather station temp records
( especially from Arctic areas) which had previously been dropped in earlier series. That is, they had to get earlier time periods colder. Even the Icelandic climatologists objected at the time because as well as reintroducing the records they adjusted them –the Icelandic guys said they had already made the adjustments.
90
Ross, it is my understanding that Hadcrut4 superceded Hadcrut 3 because the latter lacked higher latitude data.
Anyway, if you choose any of the other data sets here, it makes no difference to the argument.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php
In fact Hadcrut 4 shows the lowest trend for the last 60 years of the global/land sea data sets which agree within the error margins.
For the last 15 years only RSS shows a (non-statistically significant) cooling trend and the other 15 year trends show some differences between the data sets. The satellite data is radically different for some with very large error margins and insufficient data for any fit of the 1953 -1968 period, but this does not alter the argument regarding the problem with short term data sets compared with the 60 year trends.
07
“insufficient data for any fit of the 1953 -1968 period,”
Of course there is no data fit between surface and satellite before 1979. DOH !!!
That is why they have felt that they were totally free to keep applying downward “adjustments” to the pre-1979 record.
That is why you have to rely on pre-1979 HadCrut and Giss adjusted non-data to show ANY trend at all part from the 1998 El Nino jump and rebound.
70
Andy, your stupid little games with endpoints confirms exactly what I was saying. That taking periods of 15 years does not represent the longer term data. the error margins are much too large.
012
So you would rather use the much corrupted data, specifically mutilated to show an unrealistic trend, than to look at what is happening NOW !!
Now and the future is what is important, and it will be pretty much diametrically opposite the model projections.
The whole FARCE will come tumbling down.
The latest AR5 report shows that it has already started to crumble..
There are no foundations left, just people like you hopelessly trying to shovel in buckets of oozing muddy slime.
71
Anyone can play stupid little games with end points
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1980/to:1994/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1994/to:2002/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2013/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/last:2013/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1980/to:1994
60
And then if you compare the above chart with the same set-up with RSS…
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1980/to:1994/trend/plot/rss/from:1994/to:2002/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2013/plot/rss/from:2002/last:2013/trend/plot/rss/from:1980/to:1994
You can CLEARLY see the effect of HadCrut adjustments early in the satellite data era.
This is just a continuation of the trend creating adjustments of pre-1979 temperatures.
Stopped in the early 1990’s when they realised they could no longer keep getting away with it.
RSS shows ABSOLUTELY NO WARMING before the large El Nino ocean COOLING event around 1998, and the same DECREASE in temperatures since 2002 as Hadcrut4. The start of the cooling trend is upon us.
And won’t the climate models look wonderful then 🙂
AR6 should be VERY FUNNY.. if it ever gets published !
81
Choosing short data sets. Like The UN-IPCC:
“For instance, in the AR4 released in 2007, the IPCC was willing to highlight the significance of 6 years worth of global temperature data in supporting its conclusions:
Six additional years of observations since the TAR (Chapter 3) show that temperatures are continuing to warm near the surface of the planet.
The annual global mean temperature for every year since the TAR has been among the 10 warmest years since the beginning of the instrumental record.
Now with global temperatures in an extended hiatus, the IPCC has reversed course and told us that such short-term periods are actually irrelevant to its arguments:
Due to natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends.
As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to +0.15] °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño, is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade)5. {2.4}”
.
Quote Michel Jarraud, Secretary-General of the World Meteorological Organization, one of the founding organisations of the IPCC: “Temperatures between 2001-2010 were the highest on record, a decade that saw more records than ever broken. “It would have been even higher were it not for the role of the deep oceans in absorbing heat,” he added.
One of the questions raised since the previous report in 2007 was the so-called “hiatus” in global warming that was not predicted by models.
UN-IPCC co-chair Dr Thomas Stocker said,”(T)hat while too few measurements were available in the deep ocean, a large amount of the recent “pause” in global warming was due to natural variability, including: a series of recent volcanic eruptions, natural Pacific cooling cycle, and absorption of heat in the deep oceans.
.
Kosaka and Xie recently published in Nature: “Our results show that the current hiatus is part of natural climate variability tied specifically to a La Niña like decadal cooling. Gavin @realclimate claims there is no intelligent life on earth as he “re-settles the science” claiming “The First Law of Thermodynamics sends greetings.” Ms. Jo gets a mention in that realclimate link. Gavin also claims the UN-IPCC predicted the pause/hiatus in 2007, but I can’t get link to work.
.
All of a sudden “natural variability,” not carbon(sic) is an explanation. Obviously this is a “new” development in climate science & requires more examples/observations before the latest climate science can be confirmed. Who knows where that will lead? Natural variability.
50
Missed link:
Quote: Michel Jarraud, Secretary-General of the World Meteorological Organization … via The Conversation
30
Handjive it is not clear to me whether the six additional years was added on to a previous data set or not or whether they were subjected to a statistical linear trend analysis in isolation. If this was the case then in my opinion it is rubbish.
The IPCC have not been ignoring the fact that anthropogenic warming is superimposed on variable natural forcings, some of which like the el nino/la nina events do not follow a predictable pattern and are so not included in the models. But their effects average out over longer time scales.
You know from my regular pposts on this at Mr Bolt’s blog that my complaints on this 15, 16, 17 year pause business is based partly on the lack of statistical significance and secondly, even accepting the raw trends at face value, that such dips, plateaus spikes and declines are part of the temperature record due to the effects of variation in natural forcings.
I have been reminding people of these matters on Mr Bolt’s blog with the periodicity of a chiming clock but in spite of the numerous replies I get meaning people are not ignoring what I write, the same people and others keep coming back with the same objections over and over and over again. I suspect they have similarly ignored what the IPCC has said about this as they want to keep insisting that there is this inexplicable “pause”.
27
Greetings Phillip. Thanks for the reply. I am guessing you post as Dr Brian.
You are obviously an educated person and I gladly/humbly dips me lid to you. I have been a little rude over at Bolt’s blog & I apologise. It gets rough over there. I appreciate that your original research is detailed and relevant as co2 is an important component necessary for life on our blue planet.
Over at the Conversation, Prof. Andy Pitman claims he asks “deniers” for five examples that would convince them of IPCC science. I offer them to you:
Last Time Carbon Dioxide Levels Were This High: 15 Million Years Ago, Scientists Report
1. Temperatures 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than today.
2. Sea level 75 to 120 feet higher than today.
3. No permanent arctic sea ice cap.
4. Very little ice on Antarctica.
5. Very little ice on Greenland.
Also included a link to current carbon(sic) levels at 400ppm.
As that 5 point description of our earth is nothing like today, despite carbon(sic) levels same, a convincing scientific explanation would be a start. First observation would be that co2 had nothing to do with one climate.
Finally, I will offer this woodfortrees graph from 2001 to 2014 derived from Hadcrut 4 that explains the UN-IPCC science from SteveGoddard. A “short data set” but …
70
Handjive, Yes it is I, Dr Brian. My full name is Brian Philip Shehan as I thought most people over there knew. I will consider your arguments in detail later but note my comments on “robust” discussion at 6.1.1.2.2
03
Sorry handjive for taking a while to get back to you but contrary to Heywood’s assertions I have other things to do and there are so many critics and so little time (and then they put dark motivations to my admittedly hurried typing and lack of adequate proof reading). I also wanted to read your links before answering and giving an adequate (I hope) answer.
Anyway, briefly I do not agree with scientists who attempt to make simplistic direct comparisons with climate millions of years ago. You are comparing apples with oranges. Longer term variables to do with orbital factors, long term variations in solar cycles whichhave dramatic effects on climate (ice ages being one example) etc mean that you cannot make comparisons based only on CO2 concentration between the present and the long past.
As for the graph unsurprisingly I stick to my contention that a 13 year period is telling us very little. As far as the percentage confidence in AGW at the time of each IPCC report indicated on the graph, I am not very comfortable with attempting to assign such percentages as it gives a false sense of a claimed precision.
I understand that they are trying to put more fuzzy subjective descriptions such as likely, not very likely, as likely as not etc into some kind of perspective, but it confuses the issue as people will link these attempts at putting a numerical value on fuzzy descriptions to considering mathematically calculated statistical confidence limits.
That said the fact that the numbers are increasing merely means that all the evidence considered, the IPCC scientists think that the degree of probability that AGW is real is increasing with accumulating evidence from many lines of research.
Again the non-statistically significant trend for a short term period tells us very little about what is happening with regard to warming or cooling over the last 13 years or so does not carry a lot of weight when expressing confidence in how AGW is faring.
As for what it would take for me to reconsider my position on AGW,which I gather to be part of your question, I cannot give you a precise answer on that, any more than I can a particular time ofr piece of evidence that caused me to change from considering that AGW insufficiently supported by the total evidence evidence at the time to changing my mind and considering that the weight of evidence supported AGW.
There was no waking up one morning with a start and thinking, “Time to change my position”. It happened over the period between the third and fourth reports.
If and when the evidence accumulates sufficiently in the other direction, I can see no reason why I won’t change my opinion again. I have changed my mind with regard to other scientific questions, including when a subsequent paper by other researchers based on new evidence contradicted my own published conclusions some years earlier. My conclusions were perfectly good on the evidence at the time and that is the most you can claim.
07
I think I pointed this out to you once before, but of course you perhaps have forgotten, or simply did not understand.
If the period from 1945 to 1970 was sufficient for the UN to hysterically claim that the world was headed for another Ice Age, and the coal and oil were to blame, and if the period from 1978 to 1998 was sufficient for the UN to hysterically claim that we are all gonna fry, and oil and coal and gas are to bleme, why is the period from 1998 to 2013 with its temperature stasis and observable cooling insufficiently significant to call the whole bloody scam a typical UN deceit?
And seriously, do the letters “phd” designate “pig-headed doctor”?
100
PhD? Probably has Dementia perhaps.
20
Rod.The UN never claimed that we were headed for an Ice Age.
The furphy that we were headed for an ice age was based on a journalistic beat up of some research findings. We probably are headed for an ice age, due within about 10,000 years and if human civilization still exists then, they may need the coal we are currently burning to warm up the planet then.
Rod and David. Resorting to personal abuse is simply a sign that you do not have enough confidence that your arguments can support themselves without that crutch. Or in the case of David, it is simply gratuitous insult unnacompanied by any attempt at analysis.
010
I’m calling BULLSHIT on your poker hand.
I’m old enough to remember it. You probably aren’t.
Maurice Strong was carrying on like a Pork Chop. And I happen to come from the same place as that old bastard.
If I had the inclination, I would look up some of the headlines from 1972 to 1975.
But I won’t, because you are so immersed in this alternate religion that you will spin and twist and turn the way you have been going on for the last year or so.
90
Rod, Headlines. Precisely my point:
The furphy that we were headed for an ice age was based on a journalistic beat up
I am old enough to remember it.
Reread the last para of my comment at 5.2.3.2
09
I find it fascinating that you call the coming ice age just a journalistic field day, while climate science today uses the media and celebrities right and left to promote climate change. Warmists rush in to defend Al Gore–Mr. Politician and oil money recipient (ad hominem included due to warmists thinking this is the proper way to judge people). Can we assume that the plan here is to say it was all Al Gore’s fault and the media that the climate change doctrine was wrong–except for the pesky Hansen guy? I guess you could call him senile? Science is only too happy to embrace the media when it suits their purpose. Sorry, the “media did it” is not going to work unless warmists insist we ignore Al Gore, Matt Damon and every single newscaster out there. This “blame the media when we’re wrong” and praise it when you have not yet been proven wrong is not going to cut it. Using it as a CYA is not acceptable.
Right now, you have the media claiming extreme weather events for every single wind storm, flood, tornado. The warmists embraced the media in spreading the news and stand back now and let the media scream “the sky is falling” with impunity. It serves your purpose. So did the ice age in the 70’s. Science has nothing to do with this whole mess–it’s a PR battle. PR knows only agenda, not truth.
130
I know, but it feels GOOOD.
20
Stephen Schneider certainly did. I was working in environmental science at a university in 1976 and 1977 when Schneider’s Ice Age prediction came out. We discussed it in the department and I remember wondering if the human race could actually do anything to prevent it. Space based maybe (the Saturn 5 production line was not long shut down and most of the people who knew how to build and fly it were still around), spread soot in the Arctic etc. There’s also lots of media from around that time on the same theme and media don’t get their stories out of thin air usually. There’s usually some grain of truth or rent seeking bastard looking for an easy gain that triggers it.
So what kind of “Doctor” are ya?
90
“Shehan”, STOP TRYING TO REWRITE HISTORY WITH YOUR LIES…….
Read some FACTS and REAL HISTORY !
The 1970′s Global Cooling Compilation – looks much like today:-
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/01/global-cooling-compilation/
80
And this as well…..
The 1970s Ice Age Scare:-
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/05/21/the-1970s-ice-age-scare/
50
Angry, your links again refer to media beat ups and many are the same stories repeated in different papers.
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/
http://logicalscience.blogspot.com.au/2006/11/wooden-stake-in-newsweeks-global.html
Of 68 studies published in the peer reviewed literature from 1965 t0 1979, 10% predicted cooling, 62% predicted warming and 28% had no stance.
09
Philip.
Errors are usually taken in two parts, errors in precision and errors in bias.
You are talking only of precision.
Your argument means nothing when you include bias, which is likely to be about +/- 1 deg C for a past thermometer reading.
30
Geoff. The errors you are refering to as errors in bias are called random errors. They can be above or below the true value (and I would like to know on what basis you claim that they are likely to be 1 degree) so they cancel out over the long term of measurements and do not effect the trend line but would increase the error margin.
01
The pervasive odour of goal shifting here, from a 90% hand-waving certainty of 100% AGG attribution for the increase in global mean temperature (2007) to a 95% hand-waving certainty that >50% of the increase in global mean surface temperature is the result of AGG and other anthroforcings together (2013).
But given the temperature increase is statistically insignificant over the period in question we can say ‘no change’. To achieve this the aerosol fudge factor provides the requisite negative influence required to make the books balance, so to speak.
Ahh, the inconvenient joys of ‘settled’ science.
Have to acknowledge the folk at SkSc.
60
I like how the Coyote Blog put it:
The IPCC claims more confidence that warming over the past 60 years is due to man. But this is odd given that the warming all came from 1978 to 1998.
So, only 20 out of the last 60+ years have been warming? And this is supposed to be runaway catastrophic warming?? Not even close.
200
What the IPCC means is that the anthropogencil contibution has only been noticable compared to the noise of contributions due to natural forcings for about 60 years:
http://www1.picturepush.com/photo/a/11901124/img/Anonymous/hadsst2-with-3rd-order-polynomial-fit.jpeg
The temperature data for since 1850 years follows the same upward curve as rising CO2 concentration by three decades, with a probability of less than 0.01 percent that this is a coincidence.
http://tinyurl.com/aj2us99
http://oi46.tinypic.com/29faz45.jpg
017
Apologies for the typos
05
Or to put it another way, up until about 1960, natural forcings alone could acount for the observed temperatures:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-9-5.html
19
Baseless, nonsense Philip or Brian or whatever you like to be called – there is no way to make a sensible partition like that
How in hell is anybody supposed to have any confidence in any of this IPCC crap if it doesn’t reach the level of lies that a dumb 10 year old could spot
Philip I hope you aren’t puzzled by the ANGER that people react to this IPCC stuff with, people just HATE to be played for gullible FOOLS
130
Well said.
97% of all pro warming commentators are Economists by profession.
The models are a joke because you can’t have a model where 97% of the relevant factors are arbitrarily screened out of the picture and not even accounted for in a “black box” scenario which is a technique often used in engineering-thermodynamic modelling.
Lastly, of all of the tens of thousands of scientists supporting the contention that man made global warming is nothing but a political invention, it should be known that 97% of those scientists are absolutely disgusted by the AGW scam.
KK
90
We’ve read the thoughts of many of these leading climate scientists here at this blog.
Many of them (like David Suzuki) don’t have a clue what the hell they are talking about, let alone any sort of argument.
There is too much stupidity within the climate science, and too little care in the MSM.
Anyone who takes an critical look at the situation (the people involved, the data, the shinanigan), can’t posibily accept the belief taht the world is going to die by the end of this century.
70
Brian, See my comments to Rod and David above.
18
Philip: Resorting to treating people as if they were as gullible as you are is simply a sign that you do not have enough confidence that your arguments can support themselves without that crutch. Or in the case of every post you have made on this blog, it is simply gratuitous insult unaccompanied by any attempt at analysis.
110
Brian. I have not treated anyone as gullible. My posts are serious and I have endevoured to present them so that anyone of reasonable intelligence and numerical understanding can get the point and carry an implied invitation to disagree or ask for clarification if they are unsure. That is the way scintists communicate their views. Tell me where I have treated people as if they are gullible.
I reposted this over at Bishop Hill and recieved what appeared to be a very knowledgable and polite counterargument from Nullius in Verba. When I recieve such replies I take respectful notice and have asked him for more detail of his point of view which he again politiely provided. I have not finished with my questions to him.
You may well be capable of a reasonable analysis of my argument without abuse so why not give it a try?
handjive above apologises for some of his comments over at Bolt and notes above that in combative situations one can get carried away. Viperous is another over there who often makes very good points but then spoils it with playground abuse. I am not entirely innocent of biting back when provoked but I think I usually show considerable restraint. I have had friendly discussion and disagreement with another scientist, Bruce of Newcastle on this blog.
I was particularly shocked by the abuse dished out by one poster over at Bolt last week, not because it was any worse than the standard fare over there but because “Dr C” is apparently a scientist and that’s not how scientists disagree.
210
Dr. Phil,
I debated with myself whether or not to reply to this comment. You know, there I would be, waiting expectantly for the usual conspiracy theory response, but after four or so hours, I was just curious enough to actually ask.
See where you mention this:
It’s a very clever thing you’ve done here with your subliminal message, but being a Doctor, you know that, eh!
So, let me see if I’ve got this right then.
You want us to be as brainwashed as you are, because, well, you know, you’re the only one who is right here, the serious Scientist that you told us you were.
Soooo, if we do disagree with you, then, as per your quote, we have no intelligence, and are numerically deficient.
Can you see that point of view from what you have written.
You phrase all your arguments from the position of speaking from authority.
However, when any of us voice disagreement, you just scoff and use the typical excuses which those from your side of the debate always use.
When we do move outside your comfort zone and ask questions about your views on some of the things that are completely related to this Scientific debate, you assiduously ignore responding to them.
Does that not tell you something about us, and more importantly ….. about you.
You dazzle us with your deep and intense Scientific knowledge, your superiority from authority, and expect us to respond to that, so you can subliminally scoff at us, and yet, when we ask questions that directly relate to this debate, you avoid them like the plague.
You all do it. You come here to put us down, covertly, and when we overtly put you down in reply, you scream ad hom etc etc etc.
Here, at this site of Joanne’s we’re not the knuckle dragging troglodytes your side think we all are.
Each one of us who comes here learns something.
Why?
Because there are people here who have expertise in different areas.
We don’t just make this stuff up. There is no conspiracy. Just like you, we also use our brains. We also weigh things up. We also analyse thing. More importantly, we ask questions as well, and out of common politeness, sometimes we actually would like to have answers.
So Dr, Phil, you can look down on us plebs from on high, you can speak from authority. You can use all the reasonableness you can muster, but don’t talk down to us.
Tony.
PostScript – Oh, and with respect to your spelling problem which you are forever apologising for, another subliminal ploy you have used so often, there is a very easy fix for that. Prior to hitting the Post Comment button, just check what you have written in the Preview button, and you know, there’s even a hint under that as to how to go about it. Now, why is it that we know this, and yet you don’t.
220
Tony
The reason he doesn’t know “that” is that he is a SPACER.
Bulking out his input to reach the critical page coverage that gets him a bonus.
KK
70
Dr Brian..
Your underlying arrogance is patently obvious.
The “slime” literally drips from all your posts.
61
Tony,
I notice you deliberately left out the last part of the quote which would have spoiled the interpretation you are intent on making:
“I have endevoured to present them so that anyone of reasonable intelligence and numerical understanding can get the point and carry an implied invitation to disagree or ask for clarification if they are unsure.”
You also ignore this comment:
I reposted this over at Bishop Hill and recieved what appeared to be a very knowledgable and polite counterargument from Nullius in Verba. When I recieve such replies I take respectful notice and have asked him for more detail of his point of view which he again politiely provided. I have not finished with my questions to him.
Stop trying to paint yourself as some sort of victim of insults I never offered.
Andy:
Dr Brian..
Your underlying arrogance is patently obvious.
The “slime” literally drips from all your posts.
Psychologists call this “projection”.
19
Other Andy. You seem to be missing the fact that you are agreeing with me. As I wrote above:
The fact that data sets covering 15 to 17 years are not statistically different to zero is my point.
If you cannot say on that basis that it is warming, you cannot say that there has been a pause or cooling either.
And earlier: That is the problem with choosing short data sets of less than a couple of decades. They really tell you very little.
And I entirely agree that is some cases periods of greater than 17 years are not stistically significant with regard to warming or cooling.
“A couple of decades” was a ball park figure. You are pretty safe with data of 3 decades or more as far as statistical significance is concerned, as long as the headline trend figure is not too close to flat, but of course I have not checked every 30 year period in all the data sets, so I can’t guarantee it.
010
Tony, why do you respond to this puling?
Dreadful, I can’t bear to look at it
50
Seriously Dr Brain, .. Is that the best you can do?
roflmao.. you go nothing, bozo. !!
60
Andy, again you offer no counterargument whatsoever just snide abuse.
But I do believe that is the best you can do.
02
It’s all you are worth, Sheldon. !
10
The IPCC’s view of the science, consistently held since the 1990s, is that CO2 is the key driver of modern climate change, and that natural variability is too small to count in comparison. This is the “mainstream” view of climate science, and it is what is programmed into all modern climate models.
Whenever I questioned this dogma I was shouted down, called a denier (and worse).
Now the IPCC suddenly tells me that the 17 year ‘hiatus’ and 10 year cooling period is due to natural drivers and ALL past warming is due to anthropogenic CO2 and other ‘greenhouse gasses’ (Was it a magical, based on nothing 95% confidence this time?).
So either the IPCC is trying to rewrite history (“We’ve always been at war with Eastasia”) or the IPCC tells us that natural variability only works one way (it only cools).
Which one is it Mr Shehan?
110
Other_Andy,
I agree that the IPCC holds that the increase in temperature in the later half of this century is largely due to anthropgenic factors. This is implied by the graphs separating out (some of) these factors in the last report:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-4-1-2.html
As noted above I do not accept that the temperature shows a haitus in the warming trend for the last 17 years:
I dissapprove of personal attacks on you for voicing that view.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1943/to:2013/mean:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1943/to:2013/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1996/trend
17 year trend: 0.087 ±0.115 °C/decade (2σ)
70 year trend: 0.088 ±0.019 °C/decade (2σ)
The contribution of natural forcings is not a sudden discovery by the IPCC, it the basic assumption if climate research as stated in the earlier reports, nor does the IPCC hold that all warming is due to anthropogenic factors.
The variable nature of natural forcings on temperature over decadal time scales can add, subtract or be neutral but on multidecadal timescales tend to average out.
16
As noted above I do not accept that the temperature shows a haitus in the warming trend for the last 17 years:
17 year trend: 0.087 ±0.115 °C/decade (2σ)
There has been no warming for 15 years.
Note your ±0.115 °C/decade for the 17 years, that means no statistically significant warming for 17 years.
I was actually being generous as it is more than 17 years….
For RSS the warming is not statistically significant for over 23 years.
For RSS: +0.122 +/-0.131 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1990
For UAH the warming is not statistically significant for over 19 years.
For UAH: 0.139 +/- 0.165 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
For Hadcrut3 the warming is not statistically significant for over 19 years.
For Hadcrut3: 0.091 +/- 0.110 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
For Hadcrut4 the warming is not statistically significant for over 18 years.
For Hadcrut4: 0.093 +/- 0.107 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995
For GISS the warming is not statistically significant for over 18 years.
For GISS: 0.105 +/- 0.110 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995
For NOAA the warming is not statistically significant for over 18 years.
For NOAA: 0.086 +/- 0.103 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995
Do you want us forget that there hasn’t been ANY statistically significant global warming trend since about 1995, despite 1/3rd of ALL CO2 emissions since 1750 were made since 1995….
The contribution of natural forcings is not a sudden discovery by the IPCC, it the basic assumption if climate research as stated in the earlier reports, nor does the IPCC hold that all warming is due to anthropogenic factors.
Yes it is and yes it does.
According to the IPCC report, ”….Greenhouse gases contributed a global mean surface warming likely to be in the range of 0.5-1.3 C.”
This is an average 0.9 C over the period 1951-2010.
However, the most widely used global temperature dataset [HADCRU4] shows a temperature rise of 0.64 C over the period 1951-2010.
So if Greenhouse gases contributed an average global mean surface warming of 0.9 C and the dataset shows a warming of ~0.6 C, how much do natural forcings contribute?
Can I also remind you that Of course during this 30-yr period the IPCC has been promoting CAGW, the Earth experienced it’s 2nd and 3rd strongest solar cycles since 1715, marked the end of the strongest 63-yr string of solar cycles in 11,400 years, FIVE El Nino events including the largest Super El Nino ever recorded, a 30-year PDO warming cycle and the start of a 30-yr AMO warming period….
And then the IPCC tells us that most (If not all) the warming since 1979 was due to anthropogenic CO2?
160
I think both you and the IPCC miss the point. The demonstrated rise in themperature since 1850 can be shown to represent a climate sensitivity of only 1.4 deg per doubling which is far from catastophic. Whether or not there is actually any warming is a minor consideration. More significant is that the IPCC has decresed its estimate of anthropogenic content. This means antropogenic CO2 only represents about 0.4 deg of warming since 1850 and our contribution to warming becomes about 0.7 degrees per doubling based on the period 1850 to now. Natural variation may either cancel or reinforce that, as mother nature is now showing us.
Mathematically the case for 3 deg per doubling or more warming requires a feedback loop gain of over .95 in acumulated uncorrelated positive feedback effects. This is very destabilising to a system and is close to impossible.
For lots of very good mathematical reasons the IPCC position remains almost as outlandish as before. As to the 90% confidence, the IPCC implicitly says this is bull. Consider that last time they said that they were 90% certain the warming was 2-6 degrees per doubling and now they say 1-5 95%,in the tails between 1-2 and 5-6 especially given that 2 now represents the highest probability. The tail between 1 and 2 degrees represents much more than 10% of the distribution therefore the IPCC was clearly wrong claiming 90% confidence last time by a fair margin,on the evidence at best they should have claimed is 60%, how much off might they be this time?
I note the IPCC actually say warming lies somewhere in a range encompassing zero, and therefore acknowledges there is a significant probability the climate is in a hiatus or even cooling.
I suggest you do as you preach and actually do the math.
Here’s a start, CO2 is absorbing 85 % of available energy in its absorbtion band, the rise in temperature over black body is 33 degrees. If the atmosphere were all CO2 what would be the warming?
If the rise in temp from 1850 to today is 0.8 degrees, what is the rise for a doubling.
( IF C x ln (400/280) = 0.8 then what is C x ln(2) ? Noting that the IPCC concludes only half of that can be attributed to man what is mans contribution to warming for each doubling?
Acting negative feedbacks on the atmosphere are estimated to be a factor of 5, the IPCC say the Nett gain is 3 (now 2 I guess). Calculate the positive feedback gain necessary to overcome the negative feedbacks and then produce an overall gain of what the IPCC says. Calculate the loop gain necessary to produce such positive feedback.
70
Do you really think we know enough about natural forcings to say that. I think you are full of it.
60
It is very easy to make an assertive statement like that. But where is the detailed analysis of all contributing, and potentially contributing, sources? And where is the definitive demonstration that any anthropogenic influences are significant to the point that they can overwhelm natural influences on a global basis?
110
Rereke,
The assertions are supported by the graphical evidence I produced in the posts above.
The temperature data for since 1850 years follows the same upward curve as rising CO2 concentration by three decades, with a probability of less than 0.01 percent that this is a coincidence.
And the graph showing the understanding of natural and anthropogenic contributions (as of the last IPCC report linked in the second post. (I mean that following the apology for the typos, which I note incidentally has triggered 3 don’t likes. I mean, who but those whose capacity for analysis does not go beyond knee jerk head kicking of people whose opinions they do not like bothers with that kind of stupidity?)
018
Of course Hadcrut follows the CO2.. It was designed to do so !
It is no coincidence.
70
Andy, Check the links I supplied. They do not rely on Hadcrut data.
07
Apologies Andy, I notice the temperature data is Hadcrut, but it is essentially the same as this one based on averaging of 10 data sets:
010
Damn. Missed the link. Grand final hangover.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/AMTI.png
013
It was around 1990 when the people at Giss and Hadcrut found that they could NO LONGER apply pseudo adjustments to the surface data.
They realised that from 1979 at the start of the satellite record to the mid 1990’s there was very little actual warming, so they had to stop their shenanigans.
Unfortunately they had already irrevocably tainted the pre-satellite data to create a false trend to match the CO2 level rise. They could not now change it back to reality.
That means we are stuck with basically no real data set that has any relevance or accuracy before the mid 1990’s.
Don’t blame skeptics for this. The blame is SOLELY on the shoulders of those who took it on themselves to manipulate the data to suit their ideas and agenda.
NOTHING related to HadCrut or Giss in the pre-satellite temperature series can in any way be described as data and is worthless in any discussion of real temperature trends.
Your continued use of these false record to justify the small warming trend during the latter part of last century, a trend that has recently (15 or so years) levelled out and is showing every sign of starting to decline, puts you firmly in the “propaganda only” camp.
Your continued parrot-like postings further confirm this.
140
end of 4th line should read “…. before the mid 1980′s.”
30
Andy, satellite data sets for the last 17 years show quite different results and have very wide error margins. Skeptics John Cristy and Roy Spencer are associated with UAH:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1979/mean:12/plot/uah/from:1979/trend/plot/rss/from:1979/trend/plot/rss/from:1979/mean:12/plot/rss/from:1996/trend/plot/uah/from:1996/trend/offset
RSS Trend: 0.028 ±0.192 °C/decade (2σ)
UAH Trend: 0.118 ±0.195 °C/decade (2σ)
The 15 year trends are in opposite directions:
RSS Trend: -0.047 ±0.226 °C/decade (2σ)
UAH Trend: 0.055 ±0.232 °C/decade (2σ)
The satellite trends since 1979 are in statistical agreement with those of Giss and Hadcrut4:
RSS Trend: 0.128 ±0.070 °C/decade (2σ)
UAH Trend: 0.137 ±0.071 °C/decade (2σ)
Gis Trend: 0.157 ±0.045 °C/decade (2σ)
Had Trend: 0.155 ±0.042 °C/decade (2σ)
Satellites do not measure temperature directly but make microve measurements on the assumtion that these emanate from atmospheric oxygen, but this neglects other sources of microwave radiation.
It should also be noted that prominent skeptics use non – satellite data in support of their arguments.
011
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1980/to:1994/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1994/to:2002/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2013/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/last:2013/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1980/to:1994
You want to play stupid game with end points. Really!!
You seriously ARE a propa ganda !! Or is that .. goose !!!
70
Yes, there may have been some small NATURAL warming pre-1979, and some in the early part of the satellite record, but during the latter part of the 1900’s the sun had several very strong cycles, so that is to be expected.
(We will probably never know the real story about the pre-1979 temps, because the data has been so thoroughly corrupted by the likes of Hansen et al., a real pity. !!)
What is important is what is happening NOW.. and ALL the data and climate and ocean indicators point to a DECREASE in global temperatures over the next decade or more, a DECREASE that CANNOT be reconciled with the continued increased levels of CO2.
The graph in the previous post clearly shows that this NEGATIVE TREND in temperatures has almost certainly already started.
90
Andy, Once again they are not my stupid games endpoints.
I am demonstrating that short term data sets are unreliable. They have large error margins and there is a large variation between different data sets.
Your “stupid game with end points” is another example of that.
The trend four your selected periods for hadcrut4 are
Trend: 0.095 ±0.157 °C/decade (2σ)
Trend: 0.229 ±0.415 °C/decade (2σ)
Trend: -0.046 ±0.190 °C/decade (2σ)
These values are all over the shop and have error margins that make them next to useless, including the claim that the last period is predictive of a continuing negative trend.
For the period as a whole the trend is statistically significant:
Trend: 0.159 ±0.046 °C/decade (2σ)
And as for how this data is faring with regard to atmospheric CO2:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1958/mean:12/plot/esrl-co2/from:1958/normalise/scale:0.75/offset:0.2
04
Again, the moronic reliance on a temperature record that you know to be highly corrupted.
Hadcrut and Giss were specifically “adjusted” to show that rise.
YOU KNOW THAT. EVERYONE KNOWS THAT.
Yet you keep using it. Seriously ? What the **** is wrong with you. ??????
A REAL scientist would immediately junk the pre-1979 record as USELESS.
But its ALL YOU HAVE !
50
“I am demonstrating that short term data sets are unreliable’
And HadCrut/Giss record is even more UNRELIABLE!
So stop using it. If you are a scientist.
50
The REAL FACT is that we are actually in a rather cool period of the Holocene.
Your pathetic cherry-picking of a starting point which may be the coolest period (after Hansen/Jones adjustment) in the past 100 year truly marks you NOT as a scientist but as a true propagandist.
http://theresilientearth.com/files/images-2011/easterbrook_holocene_temps.png
30
Andy, It was your chosen data set that I was analysing.
I understood that your compalaint about GISS and Hadcrut were fiddled with prior to 1979 but even if you claim that to be so later than date, I gave the trends for the data sets above:
The satellite trends since 1979 are in statistical agreement with those of Giss and Hadcrut4:
RSS Trend: 0.128 ±0.070 °C/decade (2σ)
UAH Trend: 0.137 ±0.071 °C/decade (2σ)
Gis Trend: 0.157 ±0.045 °C/decade (2σ)
Had Trend: 0.155 ±0.042 °C/decade (2σ)
Again
There is no stistically significant difference between the data you condemn and the satellite data.
04
There is a difference, and all that difference is in the first several years, until Gis and Had were bought into line.
Your puerile little statistical games amuse me though. 🙂
–
And of course, in a somewhat chaotic oscillating system, if you choose anywhere on the upward part of the oscillation, the trend is upwards.
Then you reach the top and flatten out (you know, like the last 17 or so years).. then the trend starts becomes negative. (like the last 10 years)
The ONLY trend it is even worth looking at is the “now” trend, because it tells you where you might be in the cycle.
It appears that we are over the NATURAL peak, and its downwards for a while from here.
10
And seriously? Trying to hide a 15%-16% difference in trends under the wording “significant”?
A new low even for you !!!
10
Andy, you demand I stop using data before 1979 and that is precisely what I have done above:
[17 years]
RSS Trend: 0.028 ±0.192 °C/decade (2σ)
UAH Trend: 0.118 ±0.195 °C/decade (2σ)
The 15 year trends are in opposite directions:
RSS Trend: -0.047 ±0.226 °C/decade (2σ)
UAH Trend: 0.055 ±0.232 °C/decade (2σ)
The satellite trends since 1979 are in statistical agreement with those of Giss and Hadcrut4:
RSS Trend: 0.128 ±0.070 °C/decade (2σ)
UAH Trend: 0.137 ±0.071 °C/decade (2σ)
Gis Trend: 0.157 ±0.045 °C/decade (2σ)
Had Trend: 0.155 ±0.042 °C/decade (2σ)
If you are going to discuss statistical significance you really should understand what it means.
Here are the ranges of the four data sets since 1979 (the trend plus and minus the error:
0.058 to 0.198
0.066 to 0.208
0.112 to 0.202
0.113 to 0.197
All the ranges overlap from 0.113 to 0.197
They are therefore not statistically different at the 95% confidence level.
02
That is just plain scientific rubbish.
Ferdinand Englebeen and you should get together.
Man made CO2, is only 3 or 4% of all annual CO2 production; the rest is nature at its finest.
Then in the so called “green House Gas” issue, if it is relevant, water vapour accounts for most of the ?GHG? effect
leaving all, yes ALL CO2, not the human bit Ferdinand, to take the blame for the other 4% of the total GHG input, IF it is relevant.
As I have written several time previously:
Total Human Input to the Fabled GHG Effect is: 3% of 4% of 1.
As a percentage, Total Human Input is therefore 0.12 % of the total GHG Effect.
IF we can change our Earthly carbon footprints by say 10% then we are influencing the Total GHG Effect by 0.012% or 1 part in 10,000.
Applying this to the much shouted temperature increase from mid 1800s we have a change of about 0.6 C deg of which
0.000072 C Deg is due to us Humans getting together and reducing CO2 output by 10%.
Thankfully we have not cut back on CO2 output that much and have paid the awful price of having the temperature due to our
profligate behaviour by, you guessed it:
0.000072 C Deg
If we can find anyone who is capable of detecting such a change in Earths temperature I would like to meet them and shake their hand.
KK
140
KK The anthropogenic 3 or 4% you mention is additional CO2 added to the atmosphere cumulatively each year. The other 97% is “old” CO2 recycled by nature through the carbon cycle.
Thus since the beginning of the industrial revolution atmmospheric CO2 has gone from 280 to 400 ppm. A 40% increasing giving a total atmospheric content of 3.3 trillion tonnes, absorbing and emitting IR radiation day after day, year after year, decade after dedade, century after century until thermal equilibrium is reached.
111
Dear Phillip,
The reason I said that you and Ferdinand were a team is because of this statement:
“KK The anthropogenic 3 or 4% you mention is additional CO2 added to the atmosphere cumulatively each year”
It is scientific absurdity to say that human origin CO2 does not become chemically indistinguishable from other CO2.
It is OBVIOUS to anyone who has done basic chemistry at University, and you haven’t, that human origin CO2 cannot be a separate batch of gas; it is absurd; did I say that before; I must be repeating myself which is really absurd.
Sorry Dude but if you do actually have a science degree from a University I would sure as hell make sure my grandchildren didn’t go to the same one.
Your histrionic “3.3 trillion tonnes” of something or other sounds like a lot of something but big numbers need to be put in context.
For example my mates and I once ate 10,000 kg of sausages in 10 days. How do you like that for numbers?
The simple reality of it back in 1960 was that there were over ten thousand of us and we each ate a couple of sausages a day; that’s what we were fed on. No big deal.
Let’s get some perspective on this, and that leads us to motive, or as most people would put it, The Money.
Do you get paid to write this crap?
If you don’t you need to go and talk to someone who can advise you.
KK
100
KK,
I do not understand what you mean by “chemically indistinguishable” or how this affects my argument.
The CO2 molecules are chemically indistinguishable, and they are not separate, they are mixed through the atmosphere.
It is the quantity of atmospheric CO2 and its sources that I am discussing
By the way I majored in chemistry during my undergraduate degree and my PhD was in NMR studies of organic and inorganic molecules was carried out in a chemistry department. It has been considered good enough for me to be employed in major universities and research institutes in Australia and overseas.
I do not see the relevance of sausage consumption to the heating effects of atmospheric CO2.
18
Philip,
The world consumes nearly 25 kilos of sausages (all kinds) per person per year (along with about 150 eggs) – so if you can’t see a link between a simple snag and CO2, then I give up hope on your ability to connect the various arguments presented here. Go to SAUSAGE at Wikipedia, and it’s amazing the different types.
I could explain the carbon cycle involved, but it’s obviously a snag in your thinking with this one.
40
Dear Phil,
may I call you Phil?
If you knew any basic chemistry you would be aware that some reactions really Go of the own accord, some need a little push to get started and some need a push all the way to completion.
I wonder which one involves CO2 and plants Phil?
SO, if there is MORE CO2 in the air, sadly for your AGW drama the plants can be FORCED to grow faster and Research,
you know about Research? yes research shows that natural sequestration will develop via increased plant and soil bio
activity so that withing 2 to 5 years all new CO2 sources have new sequestration ( sometimes called grass and trees)
that creates a zero sum effect for increased CO2.
OH and I forgot, some of that CO2 is drawn into the oceans by funny equilibrium effects associated with something called partial pressure equilibrization.
Gee, science is so complicated Phil.
Yours in science.
KK
50
btw Phil
I think maybe you really area bit of a silly sausage if you didn’t understand by “Big Numbers as Bullsh$t” analogy.
KK
50
My sincere apologies Phil.
That should have been MY not BY.
KK
20
KK:
so that withing 2 to 5 years all new CO2 sources have new sequestration ( sometimes called grass and trees)
that creates a zero sum effect for increased CO2.
No. That is why atmospheric CO2 has risen from 280 to 400 ppm since we began burning coal.
12
That analysis only follows if the variables are independent and not linked through a third variable, so lets say solar warming of the ocean causes atmospheric temperature rise and ocean outgassing of co2… Correlation is not causation.
50
The number of typographical errors is an indication of the care that people place on what they contribute, and presumably on the care they place on their research. No offense meant, but it is a game played here sometimes when people are being a bit pompous, or typing from a script, or both.
In my time, I have worked as a modeller, and I understand the techniques involved. A model is designed to run a series of calculations, based on the known, or presumed relevant theories.
Even in Engineering, or in real Physics, models never produce results that accurately predict later experimental results or empirical measurements. Some critical factors have always been ignored, or were perhaps previously unknown.
So the modeller analyses the deviations in the model output, and inserts “adjustment variants” (or fiddle factors, as some call them), to try and align the model with the observed reality. The process is called back-casting. The adjustment variants are indicators of real world influences, and it is the researchers job to try to figure out what they might be. In this way, computer models help science to progress. Knowing that you don’t know something, is better than not knowing that you don’t know.
Now, I have never worked in the field of climate science per se. But I have worked in the area of modelling radio signal propagation, at various frequencies, across different types of terrain, under a range of atmospheric, magnetic, and solar conditions. So there are similar complexities involved, and some real parallels. We found lots of future research possibilities in the number of adjustment variants we had to introduce, some of which have been “solved” and some which remain as opportunities for somebody to become famous, perhaps.
In theory, climate science should have proceeded in the same way. In fact, some of my colleagues later moved into that field, so I presume that it did, at least in its early stages. But, it has since transpired that climate modelling has become different from engineering modelling, and in a very significant way.
Due to political time pressures, the researchers have not felt that they had the time to investigate and research the unknown factors surrounding the adjustment variants, that were less than obvious. Instead, and presumably under pressure of deadlines, they have adjusted the source data to better align the models to a specific point in time. Now, this is the same sort of thing, as adding adjustment factors. But it requires less testing and verification, so it is the most expedient course of action.
Unfortunately, such changes are difficult to identify, let along remove, and so historic adjustment to the data just hang around in the data sets like so many zombies. Not only that, but further down the track, those adjustments to the source data become indistinguishable from the real history, and start to act as a dead weight bias on future modelling, requiring yet further adjustments.
So you get to the stage where those of us in the know, who have worked in the field, get very cynical. Yes, the models are tools, to help you understand what it is that you don’t know, but they are never, and can never ever be, proof of anything, at all. Furthermore, because we know that the source data was “adjusted” in the past, writing and running even the simplest models today is unlikely to give you any insights that you can trust. Garbage in equals garbage out.
HadCrut, and GISS may be held up as the standard, but they are a pretty low standard, once you have worked on the inside, and realise what has been going on.
People like me are not necessarily sceptics, but we are cynics, because without the models, and without having unadulterated data for them you work on, the whole climate scare has nothing. And I repeat, NOTHING.
The IPCC AR5 Report is therefore a fiction, based on lies, and I challenge anybody to produce audited quality assurance and data validation reports, and make them available to public scrutiny.
160
Now Rereke,
surely you’re not implying/inferring that models use data from models which used data from models that modelled models from models.
So, if the fist model was, umm, adjusted, then the second model would be out, and so on.
No! I’m shocked! (/sarc)
Tony.
90
As I have said many time. If you hindcast to HadCrut/Giss which now have quite a significant artificial trend built into them, your final model results must also have that artificial trend.
Even if their models took everything in the climate into account they would STILL end up shooting high !!
40
I will call you out on that, the number of typos for me is more related to whether I composed my post on my computer or my tablet. (predictive text and touch screen keyboards… arrgh) That and the time of day.
30
Geeez,
I wasn’t getting at anybody here, I was pointing the bone at Philip Shehan, who is (to use a delightfully antiquated phrase) a pompous ass.
But all to no avail, it would seem, he has probably gone back to the green room to have his medication adjusted.
61
I remember seeing somewhere that in the REAL DATA, ie unadjusted by BOM homogenisation, that in Australia at least, there has actually been VERY LITTLE CHANGE in the temperature on most long running stations since the late 1800’s
Trends ONLY EXIST once the real data gets into the hands of so-called “climate scientists”
30
Wow a lot of thumbs downs here. Anyone want to dispute the sibsatnce of my argument?
04
Sorry again for the frequent typos. As I remarked to handjive:
Sorry handjive for taking a while to get back to you but contrary to Heywood’s assertions I have other things to do and there are so many critics and so little time (and then they put dark motivations to my admittedly hurried typing and lack of adequate proof reading).
Mea culpa
04
Philip.
You cannot assign a probability like you have done unless you establish cause and effect.
Besides, many of the original up-down decadal long trends in the temperature data have been smoothed by adjusters, especially the downward slope of the 1940-1970 period.
Your contribution is just playing with numbers, with no recognition that you might as well be correlating the number of papers written by climate workers over the same period.
20
Geoff. No. Statistical analysis of data itself has nothing to do with cause and effect. Thus it is why it is entirely correct to say that correlations do not imply cause and effect.
It is simply mathematical analysis of the data. The equations take no notice of the source of the data. It does not matter whether the numbers represent temperature, stock market prices, banana production in Latin America or are entirely made up.
On one occasion, data sets were sent to statisticians for analysis without telling them what they represented to avoid any suggestion of bias.
I have been discussing various skeptics’ own assertions about statistical significance of data. The cause of any alleged rise, pause or decline in the temperature data does not come into the discussion of whether the relevent data sets are statistically significant. It’s just about the numbers.
My initial contribution to this thread was an analysis of Doug Keenan’s criticism of IPCC’s choice of a 90% confidence level of statistical significance of the data # 5. And I also have to say that I can’t see the point of the change but but I did nothing more than crunch the numbers to see whether it had the implications he was postulating. The numbers show it did not.
00
Actually, its the COOLING pre-1980 that is responsible for a large proportion of the apparent warming between 1960 to 1998.
That pre-1980’s COOLING happened in the early 1990’s, and was certainly human induced.
80
We owe a lot to the guys behind the UHA and RSS temperature records.
They have effectively stopped the warming in HadCrut and Giss… well.. most of it, anyway. !
80
ps.. try to imagine what the surface temperature would be now..
..if the satellite records was not available.
..hot enough in the Antarctic to boil a frog, despite all the sea ice.
40
So, the IPCC says that ….. catastrophe, catastrophe, Chicken Little, we must lower emissions of GHG by 5% a year.
That’s code for the UN’s 40 Developed Countries to lower their emissions by 5%, because by the UN’s own rules, the remaining 150+ Countries need do nothing other than report their emissions.
So then, let’s actually pretend that those 40 Developed Countries can indeed go against the trend of the last, well, decades, and actually do that, and that’s not just an overall 5% lowering, but 5% EVERY YEAR.
Now, it’s amazing what you find when you’re not even looking for something in the first place.
I found a new link to an article barely one Month old, and while the link is here, it will need some explanation, which is below the link in this Comment.
China’s July power consumption shows fastest growth in 2013
Now, while there’s a lot there, I just want to point you to a couple of those things there, and explain them for you, one in this Comment and a second point in a further Comment.
First, prior to making the point, note the second column in from the right titled Jan-Jul (bln KWH) and here bln KWH stands for Billion KWH or TeraWattHours (TWH) so that’s 2990TWH (just for that 6 Month period)
Now, directly under that is the total power that was consumed in the Residential sector, here, 374.1TWH.
The point here is this. That comes in at 12.5% of all generated power going to the Residential sector. That is quite a large, well huge really, rise over the last 5 years, because in early 2008, that Residential power consumption just ticked over 7%.
Now, as China ramps up considerably its power generation nearly all of it is for the burgeoning Industrial sector. The by product of that is that power is becoming accessible to that residential sector, and here you need realise that 5 years ago, more than half China’s population had NO electrical power in their homes at all.
So, 12.5% of power going to the Residential sector.
Here in Australia, 25% of all power goes to the Residential sector, but here that Australian total is not a true indicator. Here in Australia, when it comes to Residential ENERGY consumption, (and note the distinction where I use the word energy here, and not electricity) is made up of electricity and gas consumption, because here in Australia, we use more gas in the home (for both cooking and heating) than in most Developed Countries.
So, a better indicator is the U.S. where Residential electricity consumption makes up 37% of all power consumption, and here I am not using the U.S. in isolation as that 37% of power to the Residential sector is a similar 37% in most Developed Countries.
So, with barely 12.5% of power in China going to the Residential sector, and extrapolating out all the figures for TOTAL power consumption, China is currently only 35% towards having an equivalence of electrical power consumption across all sectors to bring it up to the same standard as for the already Developed Countries.
Now, as all that power does come on line, then the ratios per sector will gradually become similar.
So then, keeping in mind the UN’s call for a 5% reduction every year, and with China barely one third of the way towards parity with the rest of the World, those 40 Countries could indeed do the already proven to be unobtainable, a yearly reduction of 5% and nearly all of that would be totally wiped out by the increase in China alone.
Now, while you take note of what I have here, mentioning how China is only a third of the way towards parity, keep in mind that India is in even more dire straits than China because India is barely 5% towards parity with the Developed World.
So then, what the UN is actually calling for is that those still Developing Countries need to stay exactly as they are now, and on top of that, those of us in the Developed World have to actually go back and join them there.
Now, you tell me if that is going to happen.
Keep in mind that the only LEGAL document that the UN currently has in place states categorically that those still Developing Countries need do NOTHING other than report their emissions.
The UN is basically all talk, and quite literally no action.
Why?
Because the UN themselves imposed those rules.
The UN – Big Hat No Cattle
Tony.
PostScript – Where I mention 40 Countries here, that is the number of Countries the UN categorises as Annex 1 Countries (already Developed) and from those 40, 23 Countries have been further cut (Annex 2) as the Countries that need to support those remaining 150+ still Developing Countries.
301
I think we all know the answer is no, it won’t happen. But there’s a caveat here. A government willing to force things could simply force the shutdown of generating capacity and say go lump it if you don’t like it. Or, as in California, simply prevent the addition of new capacity using any excuse they can find.
70
Now the second point from that same link:
China’s July power consumption shows fastest growth in 2013
Scroll down and look at the Total Generation Capacity, and note the small indicator there, which indicates plants only of 6MW and larger.
Now note the totals listed there and here I will compare them with Australia and the U.S. Where it says Thermal here, that is coal fired and Natural gas fired, in other words CO2 emitting plants, and as a bonus I’ll add Wind Power onto the end of each Country’s totals.
China – Thermal 73% – Hydro 19.5% – Nuclear 1.3% – Wind 1.4%
Australia – Thermal 89% – Hydro 5.8% – Nuclear umm! Wind 1.9%
U.S. – Thermal 68% – Hydro 6.8% – Nuclear 19% – Wind 3.2%
Incidentally, that China percentage total for Wind power is decreasing because as more and more Thermal and Hydro plants come on line, the Wind percentage of the total decreases, even though China is still constructing new wind plants.
Now, last thing here, go right back up to the top left number there on that Table where it says that for the Month of June, China consumed a total of 495TWH of power.
Australia consumed 250TWH of power in total for the whole of the year 2012.
So, China consumes double in one month than what we consume here in Oz for a whole year.
Now, pretty useless thing to say, eh!
So, in effect China consumes 24 times the power that we do here in Oz.
The population of China is 54.5 times that of Australia.
You guess how many people in China still have no power at all in their homes.
Hint It’s in the hundreds of millions. That’s NO electrical power whatsoever in their homes.
Now, who amongst us is willing to go back to that.
Until Warmists actually realise that, then I can in fact refer to them as hypocrites.
Tony.
351
Note here that I have only used the available data, this here for China showing CAPACITY, and not actual generation totals, because try as I might, those figures are not easy to locate with any clarity.
Tony.
181
AR5 THE BARD SPEAKS: Macbeth Act V
” I have two nights watched with you but can perceive no truth in your report”
Pachauri gets a mention.
“… a walking shadow, a poor player who struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more”
with a final dig at AGW.
“it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury – signifying nothing”
220
A couple of points on the AR5 shambles.
All mention of the hockey stick has been erased. The poster child of the noughties is no more, disappeared in much the same way as an out-of-favour Stalinist apparatchik and for similar reasons. By implication the IPCC has recognised both the MWP and the LIA, and has admitted by default that the science is not settled.
One of the many denials of reality in AR5 is the concentration on the last 50 years of temperature data. This is a lie by omission, as the temperature records for the early part of the 20th C and the ’30’s show marked inclines, similar in gradient to that of the ’80’s/’90’s, but when even the IPCC recognise that man-made CO2 was not a significant factor.
Yesterday in London I attended a presentation by Fred Singer and your very own Bob Carter on the NICCP Climate Change Reconsidered physical science summary for policy makers. I was one of the few climate wonks present, most being captains of industry and academia with a sprinkling of politicos and 1 MSM reporter. Bob was on top form and his hard-hitting presentation had a visible effect on the assembled Great and Good. I was even able to recommend this site to interested parties!
Finally, “The Neglected Sun” is now No.1 on the Amazon UK Best Seller list – an astonishing achievement for a serious science book. The book itself is a well-presented and carefully composed book operating on 2 levels – clear and simply expressed (Brilliantly translated) narrative with ample citations to peer-reviewed literature for the serious scientist to research at leisure. I commend it to all here.
The important point is that large numbers of Brits are clearly no longer prepared to take the dicta of the BBC and the Guardian as gospel and are searching elsewhere for information they can believe in. “The Neglected Sun”, has lit a candle in the Darkness, and the Darkness knows it not.
350
The 30’s was in fact the hottest decade on record…. if you look at unadjusted data.
231
Ahh….. retrospective cooling! The fingerprint of GISS and HadCrud !
It was warmer back then, then… than it was back then, now.
90
Unfortunately, the gatekeepers of temperature data before the satellite era have been shown to be more than a tad prone to routinely manipulate/torture/adjust the raw data downwards to ‘prove’ their point of “today is much worse than we thought”.
So the thirties were not warmer than today, even though they probably were. Such is ‘climate science’.
Even the trolls cannot deny the gatekeepers’ dramatic ‘homogenisation’ of past temperature data has become more than a little bit too obvious.
60
An older posting
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2012/04/13/the-sun-is-setting-on-solar-power-the-moneys-gone-and-nobodys-asking-any-questions/
has had a surge of viewing recently. Thousands have been reading it.
Modesty should forbid this, but I have a post there bearing on the UK energy policy.
70
Kevin,
The lack of the hockey sticks is that this is the Working Group 1 report. Temperature reconstructions in are in Working Group 2.
The hockey sticks will rely on the Pages2K reconstructions. This is discussed in a number of posts at Climate Audit. Steve McIntyre’s summary of the various regional reconstructions that make up Pages2K is here. Brief notes on McIntyre’s notes are:-
Arctic: Warming from 1800 to 1950, levelling off since.
Australia: A zombie version of the Gergis Reconstruction.
Europe: “Most of the increase in the reconstruction took place prior to 1950.”
North America. “There are two North American reconstructions.”. The pollen one (with 30 year intervals) ends in 1950. The tree-ring reconstruction uses many of the MBH98 datasets, including Graybill bristlecone chronologies. It ends in 1974. “Hiding the decline” is still there.
This leads to an interesting conclusion. The most extreme C20th warming was allegedly in the Arctic, along with Canada and Northern Europe. Most of the catastrophic warming this century is projected to be in the Arctic (>8 Celsius in the case of Figure SPM.8 RCP 8.5). Yet the thermometer evidence is contradicted by the reconstructions. As a mere beancounter, I think reconciling this anomaly a worthwhile task. But I realize that scientist demi-gods already know the revealed truth from their climate models, so it is merely a case of a PR blog explaining to us lesser mortals why our perceptions of reality are wrong.
130
MBC. Thank. K
30
So without the hocky stick, upon what will they rest this years Nobel Peace Prize?
10
Been thinking about that. Perhaps Obama’s recent telephone call to the new president of Iran while he was here in the states to address the UN will qualify him for another no-bel(l)? I hear they talked for 15 whole minutes! 😉
20
I’ve looked. Twice. The SPM is predominately based on models.
Models which failed to predict the end of warming. It’s not a pause until warming has been observed to continue.
Following the grand, secret hand-washing ceremonies in Stockholm, one cannot hold any particular individual responsible for that waste of taxpayers’ money. They’ve all bathed in collective guilt. The IPCC, the contributing authors and the annointed, unthinking pressitutes.
170
I sit here somewhat bemused in Turkish Kusadasi (ku-shah-da-su) after visiting the amazing ruins at Ephesus some six miles inland (and somewhat above sea level). Why is this relevant? Well in Roman times Ephesus was on the coast, and now the sea level is down at Kusadasi. But there was no Roman warm period, right? IPeCaC said so…
150
The IPCC are just now hinting that there was a MWP, dance around the “Warm Period”; and insist that it was regional:
As with a user-car salesman, you have to observe closely the language used and their escape clauses: “Continental-scale surface temperature reconstructions”; “(year 950 to 1250)” and “did not occur as coherently as the warming in the late 20th century”. Watch for pick-pockets as you try to keep an eye on where the Queen is going.
co2science’s MWP coverage is over a much longer period; from about 750 A.D. to nearly 1500 A.D. You can visually trace the period discussed in each of the studies examined by co2science by using the time-scale animation, stepping through 50 years at a time … a period similar to the “late 20th century”. The IPCC’s bracketing of a narrower period is suspicious. So is their assertion of poor coherence between regions; the lack of “coherence” is probably based on poor data availability. i.e. argument from ignorance.
Deep within the bowels of Wonkypedia are some survivors of the Connolley purges showing the many climate changes in Greenland going back to approx 500 AD. Greenland warmer before 800 AD than during the current period.
100
Any decent student of physical geology can point you to numerous places where the coastline shows compelling evidence that the waves once hit land at a point now well above sea level. And if you dive you can find evidence of the same thing that’s now below sea level. I’ve forgotten the official name for these terraces but by any name they do exist.
I find them to be at least as credible as tree rings. 😉
Where are the sea level alarmists when you need them. Come, please, debunk this evidence and show us why the IPCC is justified in ignoring it — if you can. 🙁
On the other hand, this is as easily explained by uplifting or sinking of the land as it is by anything else. So in the end, why do we need to worry so much about sea level?
80
Roy
The uplifting or sinking of land happens over geological time scales, that is millions of years. Thermal expansion of the ocean and increases due to ice cap melt will have an effect within the next few generations.
122
Dr, that is the most stupid thing I’ve ever heard you say.
40
So, umm, how soon do you expect Antarctica to melt then?
Tony.
60
Its ridiculous, isn’t it? These jokers are absolutely clueless as to just how much temperatures in the Antarctic would need to rise for the ice caps to begin melting.
In fact I believe you will find that they believe that it’s already melting. We are talking with complete drongos.
60
Apparently not if you live in Southern Pakistan;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-24315820
30
Do you have any idea how cold it is in the Antarctic? Do you have even the faintest clue just how much temperatures would need to ride for the ice cap to melt? C’mon, give us some numbers.
It has been stable for millions of years.
You sir believe nonsense and twaddle.
50
riderise10
Oh right, Hastings, Thermopylae etc were millions of years ago. You are so wrong here I’m thinking you are wrong in everything you say.
20
Seriously (roflmao)… you should stick to base level chemistry, you may then just have some possibility of coherent posts !
11
Philip,
Yes, sometimes it goes very slowly, taking millions of years in the process. The Kaibab Plateau in Arizona was raised up this way so slowly that the Colorado River could carve its way down as the land was lifted and so managed to form the Grand Canyon. Almost two billion years of sediment are exposed in the walls of the Grand Canyon.
On the other hand, to form recognizable terraces the uplifting or sinking has to happen in steps that probably were much faster than millions of years followed by long periods in between. For instance, in 1952 an earthquake raised up a part of California near the city of Tehachapi by a measured 4 feet in a matter of seconds. The uplift is detectable along part of the coast of CA, many miles from the actual 4 foot rift. This is good evidence for my position even though it’s far from a proof. The image I could find is not very good but you can see how large the rift is by reference to the man standing next to it.
Then there’s the new island off the coast of Pakistan…
I’m not one to jump to sweeping conclusions just because something is changing. I see that the whole thrust of your argument hangs on CO2 induced warming. What I don’t see is empirical evidence that CO2 can actually do what is claimed for it. If you have or know of such evidence please point me to it. Until I find it, things are just changing as they always have on this planet and I won’t get excited about it.
90
I’ve figured out a few things in my search for reliable information.
1. The retreat of glaciers is as easily explained by a drop in precipitation at the top as it is by melting at the bottom. Absent any kind of information such as a temperature record at the bottom end of the glacier I think it more likely that a drop in precipitation is the cause. Less snow, shrinking glacier. Ice, by the way, sublimes away even when kept below freezing. Anyone who doubts this should put some ice cubes in their freezer in an open container and then come back in a month. You’ll find much smaller ice cubes.
2. With the exception of Greenland any other ice that’s melting is floating on water. Ice on the Antarctic continent is not only not melting, it’s getting deeper. The better conclusion is that the melting is happening from the bottom where water temperature is above the freezing point of seawater. I’m not surprised by this since a simple change of ocean currents could cause what we see. I know of no one looking to see what’s happening at the bottom side of sea ice, Arctic or Antarctic. If you do, please point me to it.
3. Greenland is harder to explain. But if it’s CO2 induced then it must be a localized phenomenon since much of the northern hemisphere and northern Europe in particular, has been having more severe winters than people remember. It’s simply much colder than previous years. Colder equates to less melting than before.
4. Finally, I’m really stunned at the lack of depth to the “research” into global warming. For all the money spent we’ve gotten more spin and less science than we could have gotten out of a couple of sharp college grads just a couple of decades ago. And before you jump all over me, yes, I know that’s exaggerated. I did it to make a point. And the point is correct.
5. We have no data on some of the most important things to know before we can assign blame for anything to CO2. Just for starters, in Jo’s Skeptic’s Handbook she pointed out that the expected signature of CO2 induced warming, the tropical hot spot, is totally absent. It’s still absent!!!! Yet the blame game is still running at full speed with the finger pointed squarely at CO2. And the tropical hot spot was the alarmists own agreed upon signature. It didn’t come from skeptics.
——————————-
I don’t get it Philip. The whole thing needs shoring up with so much spin I’m surprised the spinners don’t have chronic vertigo. Everyone needs to take a long vacation. Go out to your favorite bar and get drunk a few times. After the hangovers are over take some time to just enjoy your life. Come back in a couple of months and reset everything; start over using honest science. Do the research it really takes to make a case. Then if you still think you have a case, present it without all the spin, without all ad hom attacks, without all the BS. We’ll always listen to an honest presentation backed up by data that hasn’t been adjusted, bent and tweaked until it’s ready to cry uncle.
The bottom line is that we’ve seen all this before. It doesn’t stand up under examination. We’re losing patience with it. Come back when you have something to say.
Maybe CO2 is doing something. But you have not shown it.
110
Roy , Sorry I have not responded to your posts which are quite thoughtful and detailed and would require some time to answer and I have been rather busy since the weekend and only made short responses to others.
But at this stage I must object to the accusations that I have made ad hominum attacks.
Have you seen the posts of my critics? I am amazed at my restraint.
And as I have pointed out elsewhere, my posts have been largely about stistical analysis of data. This is simply mathematical analysis and says nothing about cause and effect.
00
Philip,
Indeed you have not made ad hom attacks and I apologize for the inference that you did. Please forgive me on that point. I was talking in general in the comment you replied to and it was a general reference to the whole global warming alarm and I could have stated it better.
Roy
00
Roy,
Around the end of the 19th Century, the early settlers in Wellington, New Zealand, suffered a very large earthquake in the 8.x range. The western shore line of the harbour rose by about 40 metres. Today, that land is called The Terrace, and is where most of the legal and accounting firms have their offices, along with the Government owned radio network head office.
It is interesting that no commercial Science, or Engineering companies have offices on The Terrace. That may be due to the thought that another major earthquake may see the whole area sink down again.
Meanwhile, the harbour remains at the height it has always been – at sea level.
40
Interesting point, Rereke. Sea level always occurs at seal level doesn’t it? 😉
I’m glad I wasn’t anywhere near when that quake hit. That’s what we call a doozey!
00
Roy: You are correct that some earthquakes etc result in sudden uplifts and drops, but they are localised and relativel small shifts. Most uplift occurs due to larger scale and slower processes, eg the rise of the Himalayas due to tectonic plat movements.
13
I think the major point here is that there are possible explanations for what we see happening that do not require CO2 to be involved. The ice is much more likely to be melting from the bottom than from the top except for Greenland.
It should be a puzzle to you why the Argo buoys do not give us the expected increased temperature reading from deeper down, since it seems to be assumed that this is where the “missing” heat is. I think it’s much more logical to conclude that ice is melting from the bottom side and probably always does. And there is simply too much evidence that Arctic ice simply comes and goes again, and probably so does the Antarctic ice that’s floating on water.
Greenland I can’t explain. But doesn’t it cause at least a little curiosity that a place where it has been so cold for so long came to be called Green-land? Their smaller neighbor is called Iceland. That’s not a proof of anything and not even very good evidence but it’s some real food for thought — and it ought to be a good incentive for a lot more research into that whole region instead of jumping to conclusions.
Things change naturally. Some things may become local problems to cope with but they’re not a worldwide catastrophe. Sea level changes of a fraction of a millimeter/year aren’t enough to justify all the measures now being taken out of plain old fear or because political opportunists see ways to boost their egos by increasing their power over the rest of us.
The global warming fear has been a political disease from the start.
20
Roy, Don’t know if you are still tuning in but a fascinating doco on last night about continental drift, loss of oceans and creation of mountain ranges focusing on Eurasia last night. (An earleir eprisode on Americas is still available)
http://www.abc.net.au/iview/#/series/12834
00
Philip,
Thanks! I’ll take a look if I get the time (depends on how long it runs).
I am familiar with the continental drift theory and plate tectonics. In general the theory holds up but I’m not an expert. Still, I suspect that the formation of the Grand Canyon, just for example, can be attributed to the forces created as the Americas separated from Europe and Africa. But these are things easy to theorize about and very hard to prove.
00
Mark D. Can you explain why?
Backslider,
Cold. Damned cold. Cold as a mother-in-law’s kiss.
And yes it is already melting:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6111/1183
Between 1992 and 2011, the ice sheets of Greenland, East Antarctica, West Antarctica, and the Antarctic Peninsula changed in mass by –142 ± 49, +14 ± 43, –65 ± 26, and –20 ± 14 gigatonnes year−1, respectively. Since 1992, the polar ice sheets have contributed, on average, 0.59 ± 0.20 millimeter year−1 to the rate of global sea-level rise.
19
LMAO! Do you have any idea exactly what they are measuring?
Let me fill you in sonny. They are measuring glaciers calving, something which has been going on since the year dot. It is not a measure of Antarctica melting, although warmists like to pretend that it is.
71
You need to explain why the calving rate increased by gigatonnes per year between 1992 and 2011.
And this is only anecdotal evidence but a friend who went walking in the European Alps earlier this year had some photos of a glacier.
The guide pointed out just how far the glacier level had dropped and the face retreated up the valley in the past few decades. There are plenty of photographic evidenc of such glacial retreats from all over the world
13
Since Backslider is only here to mock, I’ll be foolish enough to converse with you for while.
No, we do not need to explain why the calving rate increased by gigatonnes per year between 1992 and 2011–we don’t have nearly enough data to draw any conclusions as to “why”. We are just starting to understand how the ice cover works, to make measurements, etc. It’s brand new science. It would be irresponsible to starting stating why at this point.
Glaciers form and glaciers melt. They always have. Not in any pattern. Scientists are covering a glacier in the Alps with blankets trying to keep it from melting. They say it’s 11,500 years old and “very sensitive to climate change”. (Sounds like they have been reading Marcott and missed the part where the end of the graph is not statistically robust.) I find it impossible to believe that a glacier that lasted 11,500 years is “very sensitive” to climate change.
Pictures of melting glaciers do not address the “why” of the melting. They just document the change.
00
That is an entirely false statement. You do not understand the difference between mocking and incedulity.
You explain calving increasing Philip, it’s your argument.
10
Actually, I am afraid I do understand. However, if you don’t want to share Philip with me, he’s all yours.
00
It’s warming?
01
Less than 1 mm per year for 9 years. How do we then jump to meters of rise? Even 10 mm per 10 years does not seem to indicate a serious threat.
50
Sheri, you are assuming that the trend is linear. The melt rate will increase over time as temperatures rise.
14
How much does 1 degree of temperature increase raise the melt rate? Are there studies on this or is it just a model? My guess is you’re going to tell me the melt rate it geometric or hyperbolic, right? By the time we get to three degrees warming, how high has the function gone–enough to cover New York or less than a few centimeters?
21
Antarctic temperatures where it matters (where the ice cap is) struggle to get above -20C in the summer. 3 degrees would do nothing….. it has been stable for millions of years.
What these jokers measure is glaciers calving, then add all of that up and call it “Antarctic ice cap melt”. It’s a crock.
30
Backslider–I understand how this works. I even wrote blog entry on it after researching extensively (including several professional studies on Arctic ice–they are very fascinating. Some are very well done and the conclusions are often very different from what warmists tell you). I am asking because I want Philip to explain his viewpoint.
The temperature is not now warm enough for melting, so the melting is due to storms and melting from underneath (land that is exposed to the sun–it can warm up enough to melt the edges of the ice, which may or may not be significant in the overall scheme of things.). Only land ice melting significantly affects sea level–melting ocean ice will raise it a bit. Land ice melts mostly in response to temperature, but wind also has effect. The calculations for melt and the volume of ocean water, values needed to calculate volumes are from satellite measurements of the changes in gravity. I am not familiar with how this are calibrated–my belief is there is a mathematical formula that will be correct if all of the assumptions are right. Since I don’t know the assumptions at this point, I am accepting that this method is commonly used and appears to have no major flaws. If it does, please tell me! Philip is throwing out numbers and there is no mention of whether or not the calculations exclude the masses of glaciers calving that is a “normal” function of the natural system. This is why I am asking him questions–I am curious how much he leaves in and how much he takes out. (One clue on the “exactness’ of these figures is the margin of error: East Antartica’s margin of error is 3 times the actual quoted change…)
20
No, they are by no means excluded. I am homing in on his claim that the Antarctic ice cap is melting, since this is on land with extreme low temperatures – Vostok recorded a world record −89.2°C in 1983
10
He said the ice sheets changed–he did not specify what parts changed. Read carefully what he is saying. Again, in the case of East Antarctica, the margin of error says there could have been ice gain. The Antarctic peninsula could actually have lost relatively little, again due to margins of error. Since the paper is paywalled, we have only the abstract. Without the paper, we don’t know if this was attributed to global warming–the abstract only says they were measuring it to better understand. Also, papers on Antarctica often say we have too little data to actually know what is happening. The calving is actually the way the ice sheet decreases according to articles on the ice. It is normal–happens all the time. What they were doing is measuring it. It melts from underneath, they think. No one knows if humans had a thing to do with this or not since we only figured out this possibility recently, it seems. (Remember, just because we can measure it doesn’t mean we can control it–or that we had anything to do with it happening.)
Thus, Philip is relating interesting studies that do no in any way add evidence to the human-caused theory of global warming. Besides, the Antarctic is local–doesn’t count.
10
Sheri, Backslider is not here to mock. He is here to abuse and headkick pewiple he identifies as idealogical enemies. If he had as much confidence in his arguments as he maintains he would find this unneccessary.
I am not “putting out numbers”. The authors of the research paper are giving the results of their findings.
I was responding to the remarks by Backslider such as this:
In fact I believe you will find that they believe that it’s already melting. We are talking with complete drongos.
and
It [the ice cap] has been stable for millions of years.
You sir believe nonsense and twaddle.
with this simple rebuttal:
And yes it is already melting:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6111/1183
Between 1992 and 2011, the ice sheets of Greenland, East Antarctica, West Antarctica, and the Antarctic Peninsula changed in mass by –142 ± 49, +14 ± 43, –65 ± 26, and –20 ± 14 gigatonnes year−1, respectively. Since 1992, the polar ice sheets have contributed, on average, 0.59 ± 0.20 millimeter year−1 to the rate of global sea-level rise.
This is an emprical study showing a loss of ice for antarctica over a period of 21 years.
Backslider has been shown to be wrong, so he just indulges in more abuse.
00
Enough with Backslider–he is impossible right now so let’s not include him for now.
I understand that melting is occurring presently. As previously noted, I looked at the abstract. The margins of error are problematic. +14 with a margin of error at plus/minus 43. That’s over 3 times the reported change. Note within the bounds of scientific rigor. The ice could have gained 57 gigatonnes or lost 29. We definitely need more study before any conclusion is reached. It’s fine and useful to study these things and note changes, but we should not draw conclusions before we have enough data.
(Yes, the other numbers all show a decrease. Again, we don’t know why, other than water underneath wears away at these ice shelves. Why it seems to increase over time is something we do not know. We don’t know if it happened before the past 21 years of the study. There are so many factors, it’s impossible to say right now.)
00
First you need to get the temperature above melting point. You never answered as to how much warming is required before the Antarctic ice cap begins to melt (I know you think it already is, but I don’t think you have actually managed to think about that one).
10
Philip,
Floating ice contributes nothing to the water level when it melts. When it floats it displaces exactly the volume of the amount of water that froze. If you want to make such an argument then any rise in sea level must be because of snow deposited on top of the frozen sea water. Unfortunately this doesn’t work out for you either because when snow is deposited on the existing ice it sinks until it displaces the volume of water that would have had to freeze to make the total ice mass. So there is your sea level rise anyway.
But there is another term in the equation. Any precipitation on any part of the planet, no matter where, is water that came from the ocean in the first place. So there’s no net difference in sea level averaged over time. And a fairly short time at that. This whole process has been going on for a couple of billion years. Photographs of U.S. submarines surfaced at the north pole in the late 1960s (about March of 1967 as I remember) in open water have been displayed right here on this blog. North polar ice comes and goes whether anyone likes it or not.
Why should I get excited over this?
70
Easy Roy, the guy is only into chemistry..
(says he did some organic chemistry, but doesn’t like CO2)
Don’t confuse him with things like Archimedes principle….
and .. facts !!
21
Angry, CO2 is fine, in fact as skeptics keep pointing out it is essential to life and plants do better at higher CO2 concentrations.
All of which has nothing to do with its effects on climate.
You own posts are very, very short on facts or analysis but long on personal abuse.
12
No Backslider (and Roy), they are measuring the mass of the land based ice sheets. When they lose mass, sea level rises.
13
To the don’t likes: What is it you don’t like about me pointing out what the study was actually measuring?
12
What is not liked is the implication this is somehow indicative of human-induced climate change. So far as I can see, there’s nothing to that effect. It’s just measurement.
20
Ummm Measuring??
Is the result of plugging different datasets and assumptions into a computer model called measuring now?
“We combined an ensemble of satellite altimetry, interferometry, and gravimetry data sets using common geographical regions, time intervals, and
of surface mass balance and glacial isostatic adjustment to
the mass balance of Earth’s polar ice sheets”
Perhaps it is more accurate to use the term in the referenced paper’s abstract of “estimate”.
21
Apologies. Formatting fail. Quote should have read,
21
Heywood,
Dont forget when GRACE measures changes in gravity they assume this is the land mass changing due to a loss of ice but it is in fact caused by magma flows beneath the surface. This very fact tripped the warmbots up re WAIS upon closer inspection they found the worlds largest volcanic chain under the ocean.
41
Crakar24: Do you have a reference for that? This is what I have been wondering about (noted in my exchanges with Backslider). You’re saying they are not measuring what they claim to–it’s not gravity changes due to ice. Is this true for ocean volume “measurements” where the satellite data is used to estimate ocean volume and then the figures for melting ice are used to tell us how much of NYC will be underwater in the future?
00
And how, pray tell, are they “losing mass”?
00
I can’t tell if you’re just being contrary to annoy Philip or not, but since you asked a question:
“Because ice shelves already float in the ocean, they do not contribute directly to sea level rise when they break up. However, ice shelf collapse could contribute to sea level rise indirectly. Ice streams and glaciers constantly push on ice shelves, but the shelves eventually come up against coastal features such as islands and peninsulas, building pressure that slows their movement into the ocean. If an ice shelf collapses, the backpressure disappears. The glaciers that fed into the ice shelf speed up, flowing more quickly out to sea. Glaciers and ice sheets rest on land, so once they flow into the ocean, they contribute to sea level rise.”
It’s an indirect cause. Ice shelf melts due to warm water (as in just above freezing). Land ice loses barrier and flows out to the ocean. It’s also a very new discovery and there is not much data out there.
10
Please show the “ice shelf collapses” in Antarctica…. which glaciers are now madly running into the ocean due to this?
00
You apparently slept through grade school? Glaciers move–NOT run, which is ludicrous and you know it. The weight moves the ice. Remember gravity? Perhaps tomorrow I can find you information on the ice shelf collapses. I’ll start with as simple an explanation as possible so maybe you get it.
00
No offense Sheri, but are you by chance “on the spectrum”?
00
If I were “on the spectrum”, I would not be offended. So if I say I’m offended, then the answer is no. If I say I am not offended, then the answer is yes.
In case you were referring to like IQ, then try the very far end of the bell curve on the high side. 🙂
Otherwise, we’re talking rainbows and unicorns, right?
Now, since you changed subjects, I am going with you still don’t understand about ocean ice, melting and glaciers–correct?
10
I am going with that you do not understand cynicism, sarcasm or humor and you respond inappropriately because of this, thus my question.
00
So are you being a cynic, sarcastic or humorous? Have you considered that it’s not that I don’t understand but rather that you have failed to use a /sarc tag when needed, or you’re not funny? I absolutely sense the cynicism. So you want that I stop asking if you made it through grade school and just assume you are attempting to mock, ridicule and otherwise abuse Philip because it’s who you are and what you do? Okay, mock away. If at some point this rises to an intelligent discussion involving evidence and science, let me know.
10
Backslider,
Because the ice cover is melting?
01
Deep in the realms of fantasy. Educate yourself, beginning at around 10:30.
10
Again, this leads back to my question “are you on the spectrum?”, because you take everything literally and have absolutely no social sense.
I display incredulity toward Philip because he makes ridiculous statements to the effect that the Antarctic ice cap is melting, his latest being “Because the ice cover is melting?“.
10
It appears I somehow hurt your little feelings by actually responding to Philip’s statement addressed to me in 11.2.2.2.1. When you’re incredulous, does that mean no one can actually enter the discussion even when addressed by name and I failed to understand that particular part of your reality. Again, since you seem so taken with Philip and insist on being the only one to respond to him (or was I not rude enough to Philip and that’s why you’re so bent out of shape?) I suppose I can let you have your way for now and then later on maybe Philip and I can have a conversation. Unless Philip is yours and only yours.
00
Come on now, lets play friendly. There is more than enough Shehan to go around.
10
Sorry, Mark D., but it appears I lack social skills and give inappropriate responses. Of course, it’s not my fault, it’s that spectrum thing. 🙂
That’s okay–I have other things to do. Backslider can have Philip for now.
00
Ahhh…. so that’s what it was all about. No wonder you are so defensive toward one of the worst warmist trolls that hangs around here.
00
I need him for my troll collection later on. I have like 200, all dressed in cute little outfits. The climate change ones are in green and some in red to show how hot things are going to get. So as long as I can have him later on, he’s your for now.
00
You see what I mean Sheri. Backslider has next to nothing but abuse, and he calls me a troll. Apaprently this blog is supposed to be a hugfest of “skeptics” who congratualate each other on their insights and intelligence and is closed to anyone who puts a counterargument.
Even genuine skeptics such as youself who can put an argument politely are barely tolerated.
[We know that that statement is bullshit because you Phillip have been posting counter arguments for a fair while now. You may have issues with other commentors, but you have no issue with this blog. DON’T START ONE NOW. mod oggi]
00
So how much of the Greenland melt is due to atmospheric warming and how much of the melt is from underneath the ice sheet due to increased heat flow from the mantle and geothermic reactions?
00
There has been no end of warming, not even a non-statistically significant 15 years of decline as there was from 1953 to 1968 which was part of a statistically significant 60 year trend, and was followed by 3 consecutive warming 15 year trends of which only one was stistically significant.
And the lower warming rate was not predicted because the models do not attempt to predict varaible el nino and la nina periods.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1953/to/mean:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1953/to/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1998/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1983/to:1998/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1968/to:1983/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1953/to:1968/trend
011
Dr. Philip, the issue is the end of human caused warming. Non statistically significant HUMAN caused warming right?.
No one I have ever communicated with is under the impression that the globe was not already warming well before we started burning fossil fuels. Do you know of anyone?
90
Mark D
The issue is not the end of human caused warming, just human caused warming. As for the non stistically significant bit, all I am saying is that looking at short term non stistically sgnificant trends are a highly unreliable guide to what is happening over multidecadal time periods.
Actually there are longer term data claim that prior to the industrial revolution temperatures were slowly declining, but the question is the warming effect of atmospheric CO2 superimposed on natural forcings. And the evidence there is that it is having a significant warming effect.
08
Surely you aren’t still here?
51
I thought that the climate activists stopped getting paid overtime with the demise of the climate commission. It seems that Brian Philip Shehan has absolutely nothing better to do on a Sunday afternoon.
90
Heywood
Just love parables.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/pizzataco.php
I might just stick to sausages.
KK
20
Only for the pleasure of your company KK.
Heywood. I was out this afternoon. The most active thing I do is attempt to correct scientific misapprehensions on blogs like this one.
Just a hobby.
You and KK should refer to the last para of my comment at 5.2.3.2
07
Ummm no. Like Michael the Activist, it is an obsession. You can’t help it. No matter who responds, or what they say, you feel utterly compelled to be here and argue the toss.
Sad really, and a little pathetic.
80
You haven’t read the Parable of the Pizza Parlor and the Taco Stand yet have you Brian?
Scroll on down past the ads and have a read.
Then you might understand why nobody here cares what you think.
60
“is attempt to correct scientific misapprehensions ”
Then you desperately need to correct your own misapprehensions first and clean out your brain-washed little cranium of all the climate propaganda you have bought into.
Get back to us in say, 4 -5 years, once the global decline in temperatures starts to bite.
60
So far off thread… care to explain how CO2, or some other variable caused sea level to change so much in the eastern Med in just two millenia?
30
Still waiting on your supposed scientific explanation for the Antarctic ice cap melting. You claim it is melting, so go ahead, show us. That does not mean giving us numbers on glaciers calving.
I want to see photos of all that fresh water from the melting ice cap running into the ocean…. it must be a torrent according to you…. surely you must have some?
I want to see the piccies of you sitting on a beach in Antarctica sipping piña coladas….
Thank’s for the weekend entertainment Philip, I hope that next time you will have a desire to talk about something serious… fun is fun, but…….
50
I note that Heywood describes those who quetion the skeptic case asobsessive activists, but “skeptics” who do the same thing, well that’s another matter of course.
In Heywood’s case as with many other “skeptic” commentators he spends very little time actually analysing the data befor posting he just posts “clever” comments so no doubt excludes himself.
And Backslider, the scientific answer is:
Its getting warmer.
I have shown the evidence in the link to the paper.
Not aware of “photos” of this from antactica, but I have seen footage of of such torrents in Greenland.
02
I’m not the one on the “opposition’s” (for want of a better word) blog trying to
re-educateconvince us. You are engaging in activism on this blog.You and Michael the Activist (AAD) are the Taco brothers of this blog.
10
Righto Philip, Subtract the human quantity from the statistical significance and what is left?
Please provide peer reviewed papers to support your answer. All the Skeptical Science flunkies want that stuff.
70
Mark D: Sorry, don’t understand the question, The human and anthropegenic contributions to warming can be separated.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-4-1-2.html
But subtracting the human contribution from statistics? That is a category error.
01
“the models do not attempt to predict variable el nino and la nina periods”
… amongst many, many other aspects of the climate and atmosphere that they TOTALLY FAIL TO CONSIDER.
Basically…. they haven’t got a bloody clue…..
…. but that seems to be enough to convince you.
GULLIBLE !!!!!!!
70
No. ENSO events occur at irregular intervals and so cannot be used in predictions any more than the effects of volcanic eruptions can but this is only a problem for the short term. on multidecadal timescales the effects average out.
There are many aspects of climate that are far from fully understood. That is why the research continues. Others are well understood.
To say that “they haven’t got a bloody clue” is, well on par with your other contributions.
01
To say the time scales involved in Climate variation are ‘decadal’, or ’multi-decadal’ is a ‘base ten’ construct that has nothing to do with the actual maths involved – but is a result of the age of ‘computer modelling’, bearing no resemblance to reality. I am aware of no ‘decadal’ time-frames existing anywhere in the climate workings of the planet. For example, the ‘Sunspot Cycle’ period is 11.028148 Earth years. The Solar Rotation Rate at the Sunspot Latitude is 27 Earth days. The ‘Dry’ Cycles, acting in ‘concert’ and relevant to immediate concern, are 6.75 and 2.25 Earth years in duration. The important Lunar Metonic cycle is 18.61 Earth years.
Note; The Earth year is the time taken for the Earth to orbit 360 degrees around the Sun. (ie. 360 days, 12 x 30 day months.)
Alex S. Gaddes showed in his work, ‘Tomorrow’s Weather’ (1990), that these ‘Dry’ Cycles travel longitudinally around the planet from East to West, (thirty degrees/month with the Solar orbit of the Earth’s Magnetic Field,) thus, affecting both Poles simultaneously. The passing of these ‘Dry’ Cycles ( and the ‘Wet’/Normal Periods between,) explain the fluctuations in surface temperature so eagerly grasped upon by AGW proponents as ‘proof’ of impending doom. There is no ‘missing’ heat.
ENSO always was a fantasy – perpetuated in the mid 1970’s from the University of East Anglia and ‘exported’ to Australia, (and other places,) where it thrived under the sacrosanct auspices of the BoM, and their ‘sweetheart’ relationship with the mainstream media.
Many millions of dollars later, the deluded and the fraudsters are found out.
An updated version of the work ‘Tomorrow’s Weather’ (including ‘Dry’ Cycle forecasts to 2055,) is available as a free pdf from dongaddes93@gmail .com
10
So if the intervals are irregular and could not be factored in, why didn’t the report say “Human caused climate warming except if ENSO enters or there is a volcanic eruption or…….” There’s no mention that natural factors were simply ignored because they were too tricky to model. Never mind they might have been really, really important.
10
This neatly summarises the IPCC:
http://andysrant.typepad.com/.a/6a01538f1adeb1970b019affa5f2e4970b-pi
91
Yes Tony – people go on and on about how polluted China is yet when you cook with coal and wood that’s what happens. They don’t seem to understand that to clean the pollution in China they have to burn the coal in power stations with scrubbers and send them electricity to cook with.
I’m so worn out by being attacked all day by my lefty friends because they religiously believe the IPCC and it’s proclamations.
170
Ask them for a large donation to help rural african women get cleaner fuel for cooking. Their health suffers badly from smoke inhalation. Average life expectancy is years lower than it should be.
Explain that a group of racists is banning cleaner energy for ideological reasons.
It won’t help, but every time they call you a denier you can say “at least I’m not a racist”.
151
Raise your game, janama. Find the short questions on the subject that they can’t answer, and every time they bring up the subject, deploy them. They’ll soon back off.
What are the figures for efficiency of use of coal to produce heat when (a) it is burnt in a manner common for cooking in the 3rd world; (b) it is burnt in a power station and transmitted to the user and used for heat? Pollution aside, THAT is the relevant comparison; don’t forget that power stations have thermodynamic limitations.
70
Anton I’ve run into the same thing and I have a list of “short questions” that I routinely bring up. It’s akin to a cult for some people,because you dare to question the science and demand evidence,you are a “climate change denier” end of story,if not worse names. I’m perfectly willing to change my viewpoint if the science supports it,but currently it’s sadly lacking in this regard.
00
Its all about the NEWS bite.. That is how “climate science” is done.
Its NOT about the science, the “sceptical, reality” side won that battle ages ago.
To win against this, we need to over-ride those news bites.
ABolt, Jo, BH and many others, are doing their best, but somehow we need major MSM bites.
101
Great to see the new Australian federal government supports the science of global warming:
“ELIZABETH JACKSON: For more reaction to the report, I spoke to the Federal Minister for the Environment, Greg Hunt.
GREG HUNT: Minister, good morning.
ELIZABETH JACKSON: Do you and does your government accept this scientific assessment?
GREG HUNT: Yes we do.”
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2013/s3858281.htm
And again here on the minister’s webpage:
“The Australian Government acknowledges and appreciates the release today of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report on the physical science basis for climate change.
The Report’s findings reinforce the Government’s bi-partisan support for the science and the targets set for emissions reductions.”
http://www.environment.gov.au/minister/hunt/2013/mr20130927.html?utm_source=mins&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=feed
58
depressing.
50
No.
Very depressing!
50
Did they make a complete AR5E of presenting this report ?
Are they so desperate to justify continuing with past failed & economically crippling climate policies that they forget about the purpose of the IPCC ?
Was there ever any Iimpartial analysis , or just shameless cheerleading , for another round of wasteful indulgence.
Wonky Moon rallying the troops & inviting World Leaders to another unprecedented Summit in 2014.
130
AR5E is the Section with all the scary projections. Future Global and Regional Climate Change, pages SPM14 – 22
Now based on scenarios termed “Representative Concentration Pathways” (RCPs) they sound vaguely reminiscent of discredited schemes for management of the terminally ill.
50
Oh I do hope so.
The concensus is 95% certain we don’t have a concensus.
The concensus is 95% certain the models don’t agree with observations.
The concensus is 95% certain that observationally-constrained projections and predictions will get you every time.
Would observationally-unconstrained projections and predictions be what we normally refer to as a wild guess.
The concensus is we are 95% certain observational uncertainties are at this time uncertain.
AR5 the gift that just goes on giving.
81
Actually they are 100% certain but don’t dare say so, the point being that one can be certain yet wrong.
80
Rather than rely on press releases to see how confident a committee is of their work, it is worth reading the detail. An area I have looked at in yesterday’s report is Figure SPM.5 detailing Radiative Forcing Components, and compared them to the equivalent 2007 figures. A few points of note
– The potency of CO2 as a greenhouse gas is reduced by 10%.
– The potency of CH4 (Methane) as a greenhouse gas is doubled.
– The uncertainty bands for CO2, CH4 and Nitrous Oxides have more than doubled. Despite this, scientists still have unshaken high confidence in their figures.
– The direct effect of aerosols in suppressing warming has reduced. What is more, the uncertainty range now includes a net warming effect from aerosols. Despite having been so far out before, scientists still have high confidence in their figures.
Doubling the potency of methane doubles the impact of the permafrosts melting on global warming. This is a scare story that will no doubt come out next year. Check my workings at
http://manicbeancounter.com/2013/09/28/radiative-forcing-unipcc-ar5-undermines-ar4-but-scientists-have-unshaken-confidence-in-their-work/
130
Very interesting analysis MBC. I agree with you it would seem that they are creating a scenario where they can claim an understanding of the current slowdown in temp rise but keep a scary story at the forefront.
I’d like to know when the coal industry going to start arguing that we should be burning coal (without scrubbers) not natural gas because it reduces global warming via aerosols?
40
I don’t think the coal industry will do this at all. They have had to go so long kow-towing to the political masters, who in turn only listen to climate activists that they would not dare. After all, all what the coal barons are doing is trying to make money through providing cheap and plentiful electricity. That is in contrast to the climate activists who have much higher aims.
The environmentalists will point out why aerosols could have a positive effect on warming. That is due to black carbon, generated by the incomplete burning of fossil fuels, biofuel and “biomass”. I hope they do so. Firstly, it is an argument to replace the oldest coal-fired power stations. More importantly, if aerosols are actually net positive then the sensitivity factor for CO2 is much lower. Just as if the hypothesised warming of the oceans is an exaggeration then CO2 sensitivity is lower.
60
Oh Dear ! While Australia is at last showing the way on Global Warming , it seems the increasingly desperate IPCC beaureautocracy is having a tantrum. As it cannt think of anything new to say it just wants to up the tyranny because no one is listening.
Forgetting my smartphone one lunchtime this week and casting around for the lowest cost newspaper I could find for some light reading, it was this once proud broadsheet, The ‘Independent’ , at just 20p (35 Aus Cents).
130
This should give the left to ponder. According to the left financial markets, run by the reckless financial institutions such as Goldman Sachs and Lehman Brothers trading in phony financial instruments caused the credit crunch that the USA, UK and much of Europe are still recovering from. Now they need to put their trust in these same institutions to manage the trading in phony financial instruments to save the planet.
Of course, leftist intellectuals don’t think for themselves and collectively have very selective interpretations of history and economics. So they will not see the irony.
100
Time for another reminder of a comment in an interview by one of the IPCC’s senior members, Ottmar Edenhofer (Neue Zuercher Zeitung 14/11/2010): “We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy… one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy any more”.
60
FYI.
Zerohedge.com: Cyprus-Style Wealth Confiscation Is Starting All Over The World
40
Thanks handjive, a very interesting read.
10
Tom Harris of the International Climate Science Coalition explains the IPCC report is an example of “decision-based evidence making”.
It’s like he was peeking into the laboratories of innocent science students, trying to get the best marks in the class by working out the results they should be getting from the theory.
More videos via http://ezralevant.com/
30
To stop a dog from killing chooks you hang a chook it has just killed around it’s neck for a week or more until it is just a rotten stinking mess which just about fixes any social contact with that dog for the duration and generally fixes the dog’s interest in chickens .
That “95%” claim is going to be one big, very rotten, stinking chook around the IPCC’s neck and all the big wheels who partook of the AR5 deliberations for many a year to come,
And one none of them are likely to be able to discard for far into the foreseeable future.
“foreseeable future”? Darn! I’ll have to model that..
102
I believe absolutely that the world would be different if there was no such thing as humans.
Of course humans have impacted or influenced the weather/climate/environment! Especially on a local scale.
The argument being advanced by the IPCC and the green/environmental political movement that it is WORSE because there is such a species known as ‘homo-sapiens’ is:
a) Profoundly misanthropic &
b) Ridiculous!
Who would know if it would be better or worse if there was no such thing as the human race?
50
“better or worse if there was no such thing as the human race
It would certainly be worse for the human race. !
One big plus though.. there wouldn’t be any Green politicians or any climate scientists. 🙂
61
“It would certainly be worse for the human race. !
”
The human race wouldn’t care, but who would feed my cats ?
40
Just imagine a world full of hungry cats 🙂
30
we are nature Debbie.
10
A little bird crashed into the huge glass panes of my conservatory about an hour ago, falling to the floor and landing on an opportunely placed dog blanket. I managed to stop the two dogs taking an interest in it ( they were as surprised as me) but it still looked pretty far gone, lying there helpless.
After making a warm box , out of old ice cream tub & tissue paper, for it to recover in and siting it on a table clear of the ground, it perked up and flew of 5 minutes ago.
Without mankind the cats would probably have had it.
61
“Who would know if it would be better or worse if there was no such thing as the human race?”
Give them time. They’re working on it.
20
Debbie
September 28, 2013 at 8:38 pm
Debbie, you have touched on a subject [ and given me a platform for another sermon! ] that I got a horrified and strong reaction to from a small sample of lurkers and posters on another forum when I posted my views of the role and presence of humanity on this planet.
My views are simply this.
We, that is the species Homo sapiens, the only surviving sub-species out of what is now known to have been a whole gamut of similar manlike creatures from the genus “Homo” are just another [ short duration? ] life-form out of the billions of life forms on this planet.
As a part of the planet’s biological make up, we as a species are doing no more and no less than any other species in that we are doing everything we can as a species to change our environment to suit and to benefit to the maximum and to ensure the propagation and ultimate success of our species.
Just as every other species and genus on this planet is also attempting to do.
And because of this we as a species are in conflict with a whole range of other life-forms who are just as intent as a species on maximising their own success, propagation and survival as we are and who are just as prepared to wipe us out if it suits their species purpose and take over our species niches on this planet as we are in taking over their niches.
As sentient, intelligent beings we are told we are not supposed to think like this but as with all other life forms we as a species have exactly the same ruthlessness drive to survive and maximise our species chances characteristics that are hard wired into all life of every possible shade on this planet.
It is a basic fundamental characteristic of life which one day into the very far future we might find is basic to all life through out the universe.
When you think of our competition and there is plenty of that, most folk think only of the big but not very important lifeforms like animals, plants and etc.
We as a species are smarter and far more adaptable than any of those as our increasing niche filling numbers prove so our competition for the available niches has to come from somewhere else.
And with the big game a non serious threat of any sort to our species that competition is the insects, the viruses, the bacteria, the prions almost without number, all of which are either in competition and / or conflict and often in co-operation and cahoots with our species if it suits their species climb up the ladder of life. This along with most other species that are using us as a energy and food source, ie; malaria , aids, colds, influenza which they also use to try to maximise their own species survival and propagation and increase their role and influence amongst all life-forms through that hard wired adaptive survival and competitive lust to just survive and prosper as a species.
They are our real competition for dominance and survival and they like us, as a species are all out in trying to maximise their role in the scheme of things amongst the life forms of the planet.
In a more indirect manner, amongst the larger life forms you can count the myriad’s of insect species and small animal species like mice and rats and birds and etc and the viral diseases of our food crops which they are using as a food source again in direct conflict and opposition to our species claims on those plant life-forms..
So when i see the bleating and hand ringing so prevalent amongst the self designated good and great in the environmental camp, i think of all those things we as a species are doing to maximise our role as a species on this planet. We create great open spaces to grow our food crops [ and give another lot of species a brand new food and energy niche above ground and below ground to try and maximise their role as a species ]
We dig up ores which is no different to bacteria chewing up oil and methane and sulphur and endless other metals and elements for their own energy requirements .
We plant another life form , trees, plants and sometimes a plant in the wrong place which we call weeds, all for our advancement but in doing so we provide another huge range of niches and food sources for a whole host of new species or old species coming back in because the local environment; ie food sources and cover now again suits their species purposes
We develop a huge range of medical drugs to protect ourselves and our food crops and animals from the competitive attacks of the other viral, bacterial and fungal life-forms.
Strangely we get most of those drugs and the molecular and sometimes genetic structure for their analogs from the different species of bacterial and viral life forms themselves who are waging a constant war for superiority and survival at the sub microscopic scale amongst themselves every millisecond of every millennium.
We as a species, walk away from an area for a few years and anybody and everybody in the plant, insect, animal and bacterial and viral world races in, as the big gorilla of the competition, thats us, Homo sapiens has vacated the scene and so everything else that can survive in that new niche and some that can’t, try to grab as big a slice of the vacant patch as they possibly can. Usually to be mostly thrown out as they are out competed by some other species. But nevertheless they still usually get another slice of the territory for a period to further their own species survival and propagation [ Nothing and nowhere on this planet is ever vacant of life forms of some sort.. They just switch around somewhat according to what’s on offer and what they can exploit to their species aggrandisation and benefit at that moment and in that location..]
So when i see the hand ringing of the so called encvironmental movement on how we are destroying the planet or some supposed “natural” feature, my reaction is ” what utter BS and ignorance in spades”.
All we are doing is changing the local so called environment which every other species is also intent on doing for it’s own selfish purposes, and making it harder or impossible for the old order of things to survive there. But in reality we have merely opened up a brand new niche and environment for a whole host of other species, other life forms to rush in and grab some territory while they can.
And they do, often in a spectacular and for us, unexpected manner and with unexpected outcomes, ie; Chernobyl Exclusion Zone is now teeming with plants, animals and fish as mankind vacated the Exclusion Zone a quarter of a century ago and as the dominant life form and species which had modified the area to our own requirements,
When we left, the other species raced in to get a slice of the territory and the huge resources, from those species viewpoint, that had suddenly become available.
Had we “Damaged” the local environment? Nope!
We had changed the local environment and a new lot of species and life forms had moved in so when we went, they lost the controlling factor over that local environment, ie; mankind, which had shaped the local environment to suit both mankind and those other life forms that rode piggyback on mankind’s changes to the local environment.
With mankind gone, so was their support structure and the old order came storming back in to the Exclusion Zone.
I have seen exactly this happen on so many occassions in my time as a farmer. But we have to look at things in a completely different way and we have to try and understand just what drives life on this planet to even know what we might be looking for, at and why.
The greens like to claim we have destroyed a lot of natural features of the planet.
Take the termites, one of the largest genus and arguably one of the most influential of all larger than bacterial life forms that have shaped life on this planet,
Take the termites out of this planet and you would have an environment not just destroyed but a planet with a mixture and construct of life and appearance and climate that would be arguably unrecognisable to modern man.
Termites are only just one genus with multitudes of species, out of countless other genus and species that have shaped this planet through the 3 billion plus years that life has existed on this planet.
We, Homo Sapiens are no more and no less responsible for shaping what this planet is than each and all those other species that have made and continue to make up life of every conceivable type on the planet and have and continue to alter and shape the planetary environment in complex ways that we may never fully understand.
To consider we are not of and a part of the life forms of this planet, that we, Homo sapiens are somehow not of the life of this planet but separate and above all other life forms, that we are not just another species trying to shape the planet’s characteristics for our own species further advancement and dominance is just an arrogant blindness and hubris as to where we stand relative to every other planetary life form whatever it might be or whatever form it takes.
70
A quick clarification;
The above was NOT aimed at anybody at all.
It was merely a chance to expound albeit through one of my usual long rants on what I believe about the role and place of humanity amongst the life forms of this planet and the role that humanity plays in the way we attempt to restructure the world to suit our species.
10
I am upset that you have eclipsed my record for longest rant, however for humanitarian reasons I do not seek to regain this dubious crown.
If I could single out one claim that is in need of more justification it would be this:
“Take the termites out of this planet and you would have […] a planet with a mixture and construct of […] climate that would be arguably unrecognisable to modern man.”
The termites shape the climate?
ROM, mate, buddy, in case you hadn’t noticed… we’re having extreme difficulty proving that a species which extracts and burns coal, oil, and gas from 11km underground and clears forests at the rate of a football field every 3 seconds has been capable of altering the climate by even a fraction of a degree in a century. I’d guess the termites aren’t even in the running.
But hey, blow us all away if you’ve got some theory or data to support this statement.
You realise when you see ants coming into your house during the rain that this correlation is causal but in the other direction. The ants aren’t making it rain. 🙂
40
I chose Termites quite deliberately to illustrate my thinking.
And “ants” are not termites but are a different genus entirely
Termites are known from the paleo records to have been around at the end of the late Jurassic to the early Cretaceous era or about 145 to 150 million years ago.
The termites of Early Eocene Cambay amber
Humanity has been around in our genetic ancestors form for about 3.5 million years from the finding and dating of tools that can be accurately dated from the accompanying volcanic deposits in African Afar region
Our own species Homo sapiens, the species that now dominates the world has been around for only a few hundred thousand years.
In fact during the so called Human Genetic bottleneck of some 75,000 years ago which is being put down to the dramatic cooling of the global climate from the colossal super volcanic explosion of Toba in northern Sumatra, the entire global population of our species is estimated to have fallen to perhaps less than 10,000 or far less breeding pairs or perhaps no more than 3000 to 10,000 individuals of the homo sapiens species, thats us, of every age.
[ A side track of interest is that we humans having originated in Africa were dark skinned or a black skinned species.
The white or lighter coloured skin which readily absorbs Solar UV better than a black skin is a genetic adaption to compensate for the lack of solar UV for Vitamin D production as our species moved northwards into regions of less intense and less duration sunlight.
Black or dark skinned people often have Vitamin D deficiencies if they live in the northern climes as their skin cannot absorb enough of the limited northern solar UV for an adequate internal Vitamin D production process. ]
Even Rome, which created the greatest and longest lasting Empire over 2000 years ago, only had a maximum city population at it’s peak of about one million.
The global population before or at the start of agriculture some 13,000 years ago has been estimated as having stabilised at about 3 million people.
In about 1800 the world’s population reached about one billions.
Historically from every angle our human numbers have been far to low to ever shape the Earth’s ecology and climate in any at all significant fashion until our numbers increased to some 2 billion around 1927 during the 20th century.
Even now immediately we withdraw from some ecological niche there is a vast range of organisms are raring to get back in there to reclaim or claim some of the again available territory for their own species so no species has yet fully adapted to our presence unless you include or genetically selected and engineered pets and animals that we use for food and power..
Our effects on the global ecology is very temporary as we haven’t yet had the time as species to alter the basic underlying ecology of all the organisms we are competing with or those that are co-operating with us or we with them
In contrast Termites in something approaching their present form have been around, as above, for some 150 million years and have changed and altered the ecology of the entire planet and it’s climate through their changing of the trees and grasses species and consequently all other species that can grow in termite infested environments.
Why is it that in Australia which has a high termite population. is dominated by hard wood trees and grasses that are relatively termite resistant hardwoods or by highly scented ie; chemically laden as in spices and etc bushes and trees and grasses and etc as are the forests and growth in a lot of high density termite tropical areas.
The soft woods on the other hand are to be found in colder climes where termites are far less common
and thats only referring to trees as species of termites also snack on a whole range of grasses and other plants which has selected over the last 150 million years a whole range of plants that can survive termite depredations whereas no doubt other species of plants have been forced extinct or have been confined to minor enclaves where they can survive without termite attacks
As to how large the global termite population is and how they effect the global ecology and climate, an example from many is a paper from a Russian [ with not very good english ] delivered to an urban pest control conference who gives a pretty good idea on just how large are the effects of the global termite population.
GLOBAL DYNAMICS OF TERMITE POPULATION:
A quote or two from the paper and please excuse the English as I’m sure most of us would mess up badly if we had to deliver an address in Russian
There is more in this paper on Termites very considerable contribution to the various gases, some are green house gasses that the termite population emits as it’s gut bacteria decompose the cellulose in the wood and grasses they consume.
&
Another source on termites in the australian environment can be found here ;Ecological Role of Termites in Dry Environments
30
A valiant effort. 🙂
But the GHG explanation is not terribly satisfying compared to all the other larger sources of CO2. We could arrive at your conclusion by a different argument:
1) Ammonia (NH4) is one of the particles that can act as Cloud Condensation Nuclei, though H2SO4 is the largest.
2) Average cloud cover can be limited by available CCNs
3) Termites emit ammonia during digestion of wood.
4) Termite population can therefore affect the climate.
So there it is. I would never have guessed.
Just one nitpick…
We were told removing termites would create a “climate that would be arguably unrecognisable to modern man.” This requires proving termites are the single largest natural source of ammonia and the largest by a long margin. That remains to be proven.
Unfortunately it seems the termites have some tough competition from Pseudomonas syringae during natural leaf decay. But that’s okay, we can still cheer on the underdogs.
10
It is indeed a pity that so much of our species has lost touch with the land. It takes a farmer to understand your logic, in many cases at least. Urban hippies simply do not possess the insight.
20
Interesting post Darwin approach but it is already in trouble in a post Christian world which is reverting to Paganism.
I did not notice anyone pick up David Suzuki’s relish in pointing to Ecuador’s recent embrace of Pachamama (Mother Earth) in its political approach to climate change etc as the philosophy for all those interested in conservation of the environment.
Of course this is just old fashioned Paganism which if one observes carefully undergirds most if not all of the alarmist climate scientists’ concerns about humanity’s impact on the environment. If one listens carefully, for example, to Richard Dawkins when he touches on climate change his world view is essentially one of Paganism. (I guess the truth is that humankind is incurably religious and Paganism is about the only religion left for an atheist to believe in).
Here is Bolivia’s similar approach that it is also agitating for to be made law by the United Nations:
The Law of Mother Earth and other Pagan News of Note
Jason Pitzl-Waters — April 13, 2011 —
The Guardian reports that Bolivia, one of the countries hardest hit by global climate change, is planning to pass a law that would enshrine a list of rights held by nature. Called “The Law of Mother Earth” (la Ley de Derechos de la Madre Tierra), it seeks to establish “a new relationship between man and nature” according to Vice-President Alvaro García Linera.
.
The country, which has been pilloried by the US and Britain in the UN climate talks for demanding steep carbon emission cuts, will establish 11 new rights for nature. They include: the right to life and to exist; the right to continue vital cycles and processes free from human alteration; the right to pure water and clean air; the right to balance; the right not to be polluted; and the right to not have cellular structure modified or genetically altered. Controversially, it will also enshrine the right of nature “to not be affected by mega-infrastructure and development projects that affect the balance of ecosystems and the local inhabitant communities”.
The Guardian notes that the law is partially inspired by an “Andean spiritual world view,” resurgent since the election of Evo Morales, the first fully indigenous president of Bolivia. In addition, Bolivia is pushing to have similar rights enshrined by the United Nations as well, just in time for Earth Day (aka International Mother Earth Day).
More here:
http://wildhunt.org/2011/04/the-law-of-mother-earth-and-other-pagan-news-of-note.html
I mentioned post Darwin because there seems to me to be little doubt that the Industrial Revolution and the tremendous advances in technology that sprang from it which gave mankind increased power over nature simply would not have occurred had, at the time, the West had its roots in Paganism.
The Judeo/Christian sub cultural matrix that was significant in fostering that era right up to recent times is found in the edict to … “subdue the Earth (obviously the early writers of the bible did not consider it a Garden of Eden but rather a “fallen world” that mankind needed to act upon to make comfortably habitable) .. . and have dominion or stewardship over the entire animal population.”
That by any measure is pure “Apaganism”.
Post Darwin? Well it does seem that the interrelatedness of the species through evolution is more conducive to a Pagan view of the unity and importance of each and every species than is the old “subdue the Earth and have dominion over all other species” mandate.
In this post Christian era it seems to me that climate change skeptics may have to stick to their definition of evidence based science as the only rebuttal of climate change alarmism because the philosophical tide has turned in favour of the new Paganism. That approach to climate change alarmism is endemic to the Greens and virtually all those who indulge in climate change alarmism, not on the basis of the science but because of their belief in the necessity of the untouchable ( by humans) unity of nature. Which tenet belongs to classical as well as neo-Paganism.
20
Hat tip to Steve Goddard over at real science
41
Sorry, for some reason the image did not post. Here’s the link
http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/screenhunter_1013-sep-28-00-13.jpg?w=640
50
That’s definitely something you won’t see on the ABC, BBC, CNN or in the Guardian.
If one image can dismiss AR5 as the BS, it is, this is it.
41
Just substitute ‘incompetent’ for ‘confidence’ and the graph reads fine. I am disappointed IPeCaC isn’t giving 110% yet.
31
An issue that should be faced up to in the near term by the new Government, is to review their policy on “direct action”, now the NIPPC Report 2013 and the IPCC AR5 Report are out and able to be examined closely. Why waste money on “direct action”, chasing an elusive climate rabbit that doesn’t actually exist? Their policy framework will be as effective as finding you made the mistake of choosing a dry lake in the dark in haste, ready for the first day of the duck season: No bloody ducks! Someone should have done a lot better research.
Are these Reports likely to have any effect regarding a review and/or change in policy? Is the government keeping its powder dry, intending to initiate a Commission of Enquiry into Climate Science, as an arms-length means to provide independent outcomes on the science, from which they could then develop a new policy on climate “action”? This would take the mainstream opinion with them, marginalise the warmists and provide the opportunity to drop it as an issue of importance, let alone urgency to do anything. Or will they stay put and stick with their policy? If so, we can probably take that as an indication they are taking their orders from a “higher authority” they are unwilling to talk about.
If they don’t move to change mainstream public opinion on climate science, by providing factual information as a knowledge base that supports change in community understanding, they will not have the support they need to marginalise Labor and the Greens. The pressure of the science vs the religion needs be kept up until the whole edifice of wasting resources on pseudo science and pandering to a New Age religion, collapses. It might take another three years of no warming and many to abandon their Climate Titanic.
A key to achieving success is changing mainstream public opinion by providing them with facts embedded in an understanding of the basic truths of the science. That is what the new government should do with it’s resources, if it’s at all serious about providing the truth in climate science. Surely it can be simplified from the complexities often thrown about, to get to the core argument that can help support community discussion at every level. Empowerment from understanding the issues that supports open discussion beats ignorance that otherwise allows propaganda to prevail.
30
Not going to happen realist. This issue is a touchstone for those on the left. Asking them for a mea culpa is like trying to wrench a rosary from the clutches of a catholic priest on his deathbed which is why they and their cohorts in the MSM will move heaven and earth to keep the facts out of mainstream public awareness. What we need is some sort of media watchdog that not only responds meaningfully to public complaints but does so in a very public and transparent way. When politicians lie to us we get rid of them. Why is there no such sanction on our media?.
40
Why is there no such sanction on our media?
Oh but there is. Simply don’t buy their newspapers, magazines, and don’t watch their news channels. If enough of us do that, they will either have to change or go bankrupt. It is already working in the newspaper business. It can work in other parts of the miserable (oops main) stream media.
40
I agree Ceetee. Hence my quip, “No bloody ducks”! It’s what should (and we would hope to see) happen in a logical world, but we know it won’t because it isn’t (always) logically driven; it’s politically manipulated for personal gain by a few at the expense of the majority. We select some politicians at elections to “lead”, in the often-vain hope they will always act in our (the nation’s) best interest. But we don’t get to choose those who run the major parties behind the public facade.
MTM (mass technological manipulation) via hand-held, finger-driven technology is chosen by many for their “social” media
distractionentertainment, disseminating instant opinion, innuendo, outright lies and sometimes grains of truth, ad nauseum. But how does one distinguish lies from truth or a composite of mere opinion in a cascade of sound or text bytes?A publicly funded media watchdog (not your ABC equivalent) set up by politicians to catch out politicians when they lie sounds a bit like an oxymoron. And just consider how busy they would be! What would be the penalty? Free membership to the Labor party for Liberals caught lying, and vise versa? Are you (also) stating an ideal, but know it won’t happen?
Propaganda often masquerades as fact, where dissenting views might be either discounted or denigrated by the MSM. This contrasts with the contemporary “enlightenment” via alternative media and in particular blogs (like Jo’s) that provide a vehicle for free expression and exchange of ideas and, most important, an examination of public information to distinguish truth from fiction, which then helps others hold government and the MSM lackies to account. Hence my last sentence.
30
SPM AR5
Summary of SPM AR5
The oceans ate my CO2.
Volcanoes and aerosols blocked the sun which was on a bit of a holiday at the time.
40
Okay, fellow lab rats, it was noted earlier in the David Suzuki thread that he held fears about the safety of current Genetically Modified Organisms. There is a strong tendency to dismiss an issue if someone you don’t like (or someone who’s plain crazy) promotes it as a problem – throwing the baby out with the bathwater, essentially.
I’ve said before I think genetic engineering is a fabulous idea and holds great promise as a technology, but there are some good reasons why the current suite of products are called genetically modified and NOT genetically engineered. They can’t make the same guarantees of product performance that engineers are expected to make about more conventional technologies. There may be isolated instances already where this statement is not true, and maybe one day it may not be true even as a generalisation, though it is hard to see how since all living things evolve and can transfer genes horizontally on occasion. My suspicion is that the testing protocols and modification techniques are immature and their introduction to market is pre-emptive and unsafe, thus requiring secret political deals to force them into the market.
This puts me in an apparently difficult position, since I am in favour of “GEO”s in principle but I have doubts about the current state of the technology and the priorities of the biggest companies in that market. These doubts are not entirely unfounded and in about 3 hours I have collected together some quotes and links which offer some food for thought.
– – – – – – – –
http://online.sfsu.edu/rone/GEessays/FDAdocuments.html [1999]
The FDA’s records reveal it declared genetically engineered foods to be safe in the face of disagreement from its own experts–all the while claiming a broad scientific consensus supported its stance. Internal reports and memoranda disclose: (1) agency scientists repeatedly cautioned that foods produced through recombinant DNA technology entail different risks than do their conventionally produced counterparts and (2) that this input was consistently disregarded by the bureaucrats who crafted the agency’s current policy, which treats bioengineered foods the same as natural ones.
http://www.csid.unt.edu/files/What%27s%20Wrong%20With%20Genetically%20Modified%20Food.pdf
GM crops designed to be herbicide resistant (so that large amounts of strong weed killer can be safely used on them) have already spread to related weed species, which then also pick up the resistance to the herbicides and become “super-weeds” that are difficult to control.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23756170
Glyphosate is an active ingredient of the most widely used herbicide and it is believed to be less toxic than other pesticides. … This study focuses on the effects of pure glyphosate on estrogen receptors (ERs) mediated transcriptional activity and their expressions. Glyphosate exerted proliferative effects only in human hormone-dependent breast cancer, T47D cells, but not in hormone-independent breast cancer, MDA-MB231 cells, at 10(-12) to 10(-6)M in estrogen withdrawal condition. … These results indicated that low and environmentally relevant concentrations of glyphosate possessed estrogenic activity.
[Interpretation: The study found that breast cancer cell proliferation is accelerated by glyphosate in extremely low concentrations: ppt to ppb. The greatest effect was observed in the ppb range, including single-digit ppb such as 1 ppb. … California set an upper limit of “1.0 mg/L (1,000 ppb) for glyphosate in drinking water.” ]
http://anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu/pdf/8180.pdf
While traditional approaches to assessing food safety examine the effects of individual chemicals on animal species, these methods are impractical for studying the safety of GE food. This is due to the presence of thousands of unique chemicals in foods and the inability of laboratory animals to consume large amounts of specific food items. Instead, the safety assessment of GE foods relies upon the concept of “substantial equivalence” that must be demonstrated between the GE food and its conventional food counterpart (Schauzu 2000).
http://blog.tedx.com/post/37405280671/a-letter-to-the-tedx-community-on-tedx-and-bad-science
Red flag topics. These are not “banned” topics by any means — but they are topics that tend to attract pseudo-scientists. If your speaker proposes a topic like this, use extra scrutiny. An expanding, depressing list follows: Food science, including: GMO food and anti-GMO foodists
http://www.foodpolicy.umn.edu/policy-summaries-and-analyses/genetically-engineered-foods/
Scientific studies testing whole GE food show some mixed results so statements about all GE foods being safe or unsafe are unwarranted.
Whole-food feeding studies for GE safety assessment are tricky, as plant varieties are diverse in chemical composition and the effect of the introduced genes or changes caused by them are hard to tease out.
Strong agreement exists for better testing protocols, especially for allergenicity and whole-food feeding trials
http://www.ids.ac.uk/files/Wp190.pdf
An industry commentator observed: ‘Debate is always good, but there is a limit. Let’s plant these things and see what happens. Time for action is now’. A leading official in the Zimbabwe Farmers Union was cynical about the likelihood of effective consultation: ‘They say they have consulted, but they have already decided. They give a document today to make a decision next week. There is no time to consult our membership. They just want ZFU to rubber stamp’.
http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2013/07/30/the-intensifying-debate-over-genetically-modified-foods/
More independent scientific research also needs to be done on GMOs to determine if they are indeed safe and “substantially equivalent,” as some molecular analysis has shown that GM crops have a different composition from their non-GM counterparts and different effects when fed to animals. Until 2009, independent scientists often could not get access to GM seeds; buyers of GM seeds had to sign contracts which prohibited growing crops for research. Scientific American reported that only studies approved by the biotech companies appeared in peer-reviewed journals. After 26 scientists complained to the Environmental Protection Agency in 2009 that the biotech companies were suppressing research, some of the companies began negotiating deals with university researchers, but the deals are not binding. The Union of Concerned Scientists urges a change in patent law to facilitate independent research.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrea-brower/gmos-kauai-tpp_b_3883371.html
At the international level, through the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) these same chemical corporations are seeking to lock us in to arrangements that guarantee their profit interests will not be impeded by pesky democratic governments protecting people’s health or other common interests. The TPP is a highly secretive international agreement being negotiated under the pretext of “trade” between twelve Asian and Pacific Rim countries, including the United States. If passed, it will amount to perhaps the biggest corporate power-grab in history, putting the rights of corporations above those of elected governments and sovereign nations.
Under the cryptic title of “Investor State Dispute Settlement” (ISDS), foreign corporations could challenge national and local laws and regulations that undermine their expected profits, holding tax-payers liable for these losses. Challenges could be brought for everything from attempts to regulate pesticide use to health warnings on cigarettes. Governments would be tried in private offshore tribunals that lack transparency and due process.
– – – – – – –
Labelling products as containing GMO is pointless, they are either safe or unsafe, and if they’re not safe they shouldn’t be on the market at all. GMO labelling is a half-measure dreamed up by the “natural foods” and supplement snake oil sales crowd who can then use the threat of GMOs to boost sales of their own “Non-GMO” branded products. If they *really* thought GMOs were dangerous they would arguing to ban them, not just label them. Why ban when you can profiteer?
I’m warming to the idea of preventing farmers from keeping GMO’d seeds and forcing them to buy new seed every year, at least for the first 10 years. They should go a step further and prevent GMO crops from even generating viable seed during the first 10 years since that prevents the GMO from spreading. Its effects on the ecosystem are unlikely to be long-lasting if it cannot self-reproduce without assistance from Big Agri. This allows a period of live testing on real humans, which is clearly what these self-interested biotech companies want to do.
It seems to me the experts do not know what these GMOs will do to people who eat them every day for a decade, yet the government’s solution is to get in bed with Big Agri, skip the long term testing protocols and independent research, and just force GMOs onto the market. With reports from both academia and media like those I’ve cited above, that is the picture I get. I would love to be mistaken about this but, unless the GMO provisions of the TPP are somehow deleted within the next eight days, we are going to find out how good Monsanto and Dupont’s GMOs are the hard way – by eating them without knowing it.
75
It seems to me that the most damning evidence against the safety of natural, organic and GM foods is that sooner or later, if you use them, they will all kill you.
Unless of course someone has some contrary evidence.
10
Your techno-optimist sarcasm has a grain of truth in it. By the FDA’s own logic and by your nominated standard of safety, demonstrating that GMOs are “substantially equivalent” to their natural counterparts would require demonstrating through 60 years of controlled human trials that a GMO doesn’t kill you any quicker than either traditional foods or the GMO’s natural predecessor.
Surely you must admit that the testing standard implied by your own statement is a far cry from current testing protocols which requires a company to test only on mice and for less than 2 years?
Your nominated standard of safety is higher than mine, as I would accept a 2-generation trial on chimpanzees which would still take at least 50 years to conclude due to their long lifespan.
Don’t worry, Llew, on this issue The Conversation is giving your point of view a decent hearing and anyone who is pro-Science and anti-Monsanto is branded an anti-Science anti-GMO activist. That’s at least until someone who knows what they’re talking about issues a correction.
There is apparently FUD injected into the debate occasionally by scientists and science bodies, not just by lay activists. The headlines were awash with claims that Monsanto’s NK603 modified corn would cause rats to grow more tumours than normal. This study was later thoroughly discredited by a post at The Conversation, which seems to argue that because the type of rats used in the study are bred intentionally to be prone to cancer anyway, therefore all GMOs are safe. An incredible leap of logic, but then that’s just The Con crowd staying true to form.
Further googling finds more GMO studies. Here’s (a copy of) an Austrian study of the effects of the same NK603 maize on a different mice strain done back in 2008. Amongst other things, the study concluded with over 99% certainty that:
* “In the group fed with A REF corn fewer females were without litters, and accordingly more pups were weaned.”
* “The electron histological investigation of the cell nuclei revealed differences as to fibrillar centres, dense fibrillar components and the pore density in hepatocytes, and cells from spleen and pancreas. This could point to an effect of the GM crop on metabolic parameters.”
* “When the data of both non-GM feeding groups from MGS were combined and compared to the GM feeding group, the discrimination became more evident. Analyses of metabolic pathways indicated, that the groups differed regarding some important pathways, including interleukin signalling pathway, cholesterol biosynthesis and protein metabolism.”
The response to this paper from Industry and government agricultural policy groups was to highlight deficiencies in the reproductive test data and statistics and to claim that no effect on reproduction could be concluded from this study.
Okay, so the the lab coats were wrong about the pup weaning rates being different. Show’s over, folks, move along, nothing to see here, GMOs are safe!
Absolutely deafening silence on the other two cellular and organ differences found between the GMO-fed group and the controls in that same study. Nobody wants to talk about the differences in kidneys, spleen, and pancreas, and their probable origin in the GMO food’s effect on “interleukin signalling pathway, cholesterol biosynthesis and protein metabolism”.
As yet another example, this time slightly closer to home, take the study with lead author Judy A. Carman from University of South Australia studying pigs fed a combined genetically modified (GM) soy and GM maize diet. With over 97% confidence they found:
* There were no differences between pigs fed the GM and non-GM diets for feed intake, weight gain, mortality, and routine blood biochemistry measurements.
* GM-fed pigs had uteri that were 25% heavier than non-GM fed pigs (p=0.025).
* GM-fed pigs had a higher rate of severe stomach inflammation with a rate of 32% of GM-fed pigs compared to 12% of non-GM-fed pigs (p=0.004). The severe stomach inflammation was worse in GM-fed males compared to non-GM fed males by a factor of 4.0 (p=0.041), and GM-fed females compared to non-GM fed females by a factor of 2.2 (p=0.034).
This is interesting because it shows a standard based on how soon the food kills you (“sooner or later” in your words) does not give a full picture of safety once quality of life is taken into account. Would you be happy eating a GM corn which doesn’t kill you any quicker than traditional corn but leaves you with stomach inflammation every day of your life?
But let’s gloss over these negatives and end on a positive note, since that’s what you want to hear.
AquaAdvantage Salmon looks on the surface to be a fairly safe product, though the statement they are identical to normal salmon is not quite true since their cells have 3 copies of their chromosomes instead of 2 so they are theoretically sterile as a bio-safety measure.
As another vote of confidence take the PhD press release of Dr Lucy Carter at UQ, whose meta-study concluded: “To proceed with care is the most prudent decision regulatory authorities can make at this stage.”
Then Dr Carter and I agree on the general course of action. I rather suspect the source of consternation is how much “care” is enough.
21
Minor error alert: The sentence about the Austrian study stating “the study concluded with over 99% certainty that…” should simply read “the study concluded that…”. I got a certainty figure from the Australian pig study mixed up with the Austrian mice study.
21
Interesting that Food Standards Australia has an official response about the Australian pig study (plus several other studies that claimed adverse GM results).
> If the GM diet caused the stomach inflammation, the total number of GM-fed pigs with stomach inflammation would be expected to be greater than non-GM fed pigs. According to the data provided however, greater numbers of non-GM fed pigs exhibited “inflammation”.
Hang on, the whole point of using statistics is that counting from a limited sample can give misleading answers due to chance sample bias. They say the count of stomachs with inflammation is lower for GM-fed than non-GM. But the bottom end of the confidence interval for the Relative Risk Ratio of Nil Inflammation is less than 1 and so allows for the possibility that GM-fed may count less as “Nil Inflammation” than control and hence count more than Control on one of the higher inflammation categories. By contrast the bottom end of the interval for Relative Risk of “Severe Inflammation” from GM-fed is 1.29 which is greater than 1. There is no chance the GM food didn’t have an inflammatory effect under these statistics.
Does the FSA want to use statistical tests or not? They say yes, but they disqualify the study based on the raw count, not the statistics given. What exactly is going on there?
11
You get three down thumbs for this?
Wow tough crazy crowd. Must be spring fever.
10
There are plenty of people who hold a utilitarianism ethics framework, or at least apply such a rationalisation on some subset of their actions. For such people it’s okay if a new technology with poorly understood operation is allowed to kill a few hundred or a few thousand people. They justify this by the belief that the technocracy learns from these events, improves the technology so it won’t happen again, and proceeds to give benefits to a larger number of people than were killed in the “accidents”.
There’s not much I can say to argue against this line of reasoning, since it is axiomatic just like the two other main frameworks of ethics, consequentialism and deontology. I could point out this approach also permits slavery as long as less than 20% of the population are slaves, but again a utilitarian sees this as justifiable in the same way they see immature biotech foisted onto an unwary public as simply the price we “must” pay for “Progress”.
Of couse the morality is only relevant if there really is some lurking harm from ingesting or releasing any one particular GMO. Certainly a single incident is all it takes with GMOs, unlike nuclear technology where reactors are not self-reproducing so the appearance of a Chernobyl or Fukushima event is not self-perpetuating and so diminishes over time instead of growing.
On the other hand, if the track record of GMOs was in fact much better than has been reported and somehow all the documented cases of ill test results and fascist charlatanism were all just spurious correlations and lies from some bio-Luddite minority of the worlds biologists, academics, and journalists, then perhaps no bravery is required in this Bio-Brave New World.
My mind is not completely decided on the issue, it just looks bad on first glance (~2.5 hours Googling). I’d probably eat “frankenfoods” if they were safe enough to pass a multi-generational test on chimps, for example. (Yes, animal testing is an application of utilitarian ethics, and if anyone wants to volunteer to be the human test subject for GMOs they are welcome to do it.)
It’s great that my comment received (so far) equal numbers of up and down votes. Perhaps this is a fruitful area of discussion where some edification can be achieved.
I coyly note that our generous blog hostess has a background in microbiology and advertises as a specialist in “genetics and the future of medicine”. Certainly some of the apparently innocuous GMOs being grown already such as Golden Rice are blurring the boundary between medicine and food. Perhaps Her Blogginess may wish to entertain discussion on GMOs at some future date, especially if this whole CAGW fad blows over. It’s a shame that Monsanto’s implementation schedule is not nearly as sluggish as progress in the climate debate.
52
Much like climate science, the terminology and acronyms used in bio-technology are not familiar to the common person, i.e. those who do not have any expertise or working knowledge of a subject matter tend to overlook important distinctions for simplification. “Modified” or “engineered” mean little to most as accurate descriptors. Biotechnology, like other technologies and sciences contains a spectrum ranging from the benign and beneficial to the complete opposite, e.g nuclear physics, with many shades of grey in-between.
With incomplete and sometime difficult to obtain accurate information it can be difficult to ascertain and distinguish beneficial from hazardous or downright dangerous. Many negative impacts of chemicals are subtle and not readily seen. The principle of: If you don’t measure and monitor objectively then you can’t manage effectively, clearly applies. Testing regimes in food are sometimes only meaningful when considered on an inter-generational time frame. And people don’t have the same lifestyle as research rats nor eat the same foodstuffs. Some opinions might differ on that point for those that eat “fast food”!
GM/O crops containing altered and/or foreign proteins and sequences never before found in our food supply are a food engineering experiment. They are not “substantially equivalent” to non-modified food plants just because some people stated it was their consensus that was so. And it should be considered as a separate issue from on-farm benefits. There is no room for “co-existence”, as all will eventually end up in the GM mix, removing all choice. If that’s what society at large wants, choice should be based on objective and transparent information being widely available. Like much of climate science, where the data is “adjusted” or hidden from public scrutiny, data on GM/GE technology in food crops is withheld or otherwise unknown.
Like social engineering politicians and others like to dabble in, “engineering” plants is another spectrum where some technologies might be beneficial, while others are dabbling with human health via the food chain. We should make continued progress with careful evaluation, not undue haste. Outcomes potentially carry serious consequences, the extent of which won’t really be known for some time and will be difficult to correct if/when found to be negative. Irrespective, society at large will pay. What starts off as “beneficial” can later turn into a massive problem. Take herbicide resistance as an example.
This has developed into a major issue in agriculture with significant cost implications to farmers. Resistance evolved from an initial beneficial use to a serious problem by ignoring the warning signs. The politics of agronomy is merchandising products to farmers. Even simple ecological process, where all organisms will evolve to develop resistance to a chemical “designed” to destroy them, was brushed aside as inconsequential. The hidden cost of chemical residues and the collatoral damage are another issue yet to come home to roost.
And the TPP has nothing of benefit for us; it’s all about US corporations 10, Australia 0. If we don’t work in a particular area of expertise or technology with ease, it’s an easy trap to be an instant expert and fall for many of the same issues inherent in climate science, where everyone has an opinion, much of which is based on inuendo not a solid understanding.
20
That’s sounds pretty much the situation we are in. i.e. –
> “With incomplete and sometime difficult to obtain accurate information it can be difficult to ascertain and distinguish beneficial from hazardous or downright dangerous.”
Example: When I tried to find the current US FDA regulations for test protocols for GMOs this afternoon, I couldn’t. Where are the rules saying how much testing is enough? It didn’t show up in a Google search and it was not obvious to me from the headings on the FDA web site as to where such documents might reside. The way the FDA makes the vendor responsible for proving the safety of the product makes me wonder if there are no consistent government rules about what testing is sufficient.
I figured there was no point in looking for the Australian equivalent of the FDA because I’m (cynically) under the impression that Food Standards Australia just rubber-stamp anything already approved by the FDA.
If the TPP goes ahead then they will become even more of a bunch of do-nothing rubber-stamping yes-men.
I also take your point about being “an instant expert”, but what is our alternative? Certainly being misinformed can be worse than being uninformed. But having “no information” means assigning all responsibility for the decision to parties that are seemingly compromised by vested interests. I think searching for some amount of information and trying to suss out what’s mostly true from what’s lightweight propaganda is about all one can do. Surely that’s got to be better than nothing? (Note in my earlier comments I found information that supported both sides of the argument and I was not above accepting that Golden Rice and AquaAdvantage Salmon are probably okay.)
Is there a better way, with GMOs or any other issue?
00
Instant experts are different to people having opinions (everyone is entitled to have one, be it “right” or “wrong”). A well paid instant expert on climate (appointed as the offical government expert) was recently sacked. Others with no relevant expertise in climate science recieve reward to “research” and promote a cause. The common person accepts their “expertise” without understandng many are shills and their advice is not founded on good science. It just reflects human behaviour. Caveat emptor! (buyer beware!) That’s where open public enquiry and debate acts as a constraint. The internet is the main avenue for finding alternative perspectives given the lack of professionalism and level of activism in the MSM.
GM cotton is often touted to illustrate the benefits of “biotechnology” in agriculture to farmers, consumers and “the environment”. An important distinction: cotton is a commodity, not a food product. It has different cost/benefit implications entirely. And what is one of the declared, “worst environmental weeds”? GM cotton. It requires even more toxic chemicals to kill. Do the proponents include negative information in their promotional material?
The proponents of most new technology will provide biased and misleading information; they are driven by a commercial imperative. On the other hand, consumers want different information, which is often witheld and sometimes blatant lies are propgated as to do otherwise it would negate the first imperative. Sometimes they might not know, but honesty might help. Climate charlatans don’t have a monopoly on propaganda. There is no effective public advocate for consumers, they are all privately funded. Government appointed or sanctioned “watchdogs” might be considered as too close or simply just rubber stamp the information provided by the advocates for the technology. They aren’t set up to investigate and provide independent advice, e.g. the OGTR, the regulator of gene technology.
Independent research (investigation) across the spectrum of information available on the internet and in journals is the only effective way to gain a more comprehensive understanding. That can take a lot of time, and everyone views the information through their own prism, consciously and unconsciously accepting or disregarding what they see or read.
20
You realize that one take virtually any issue, spend 3 hours googling information and produce an argument from whatever viewpoint they want. I have used GM insulin for years–which is probably more of a “risk” than GM foods, since the insulin is the only way I can process any food into useful energy. It’s been 25 years since the switch was made. There are all kinds of articles for the change and an equal number against. The “for” are usually drug makers and physicians, the against are personal injury lawyers. There’s money to made in them there GM products–especially if you can scare people enough. This does not prove the GM foods are safe or not safe–it just addresses some of the arguments.
It is interesting that with climate change, where in the exact same 3 hours, one can both “prove” and “disprove” the idea, many reject the climate change. At the same time, with the same method, they accept the GM argument. It’s one of the things that confuses me most with people–same method, same argument but two totally different conclusions. (I’m not being sarcastic here–it really is interesting that virtually the same method and arguments can yield such very different outcomes. I would love to understand it, though I suspect there is an emotional component involved that overrides the reason.)
10
Despite the damage it would do world wide, I find myself more and more hoping that the predicted drop in global temperatures happens rather quickly over the next few years.
Maybe then, they will accept just how idiotic this whole CO2 demonization is. !!
91
No AG55, they won’t ever do that unfortunately.
You’ll notice that the meme has changed:
.
What is happening is that >50% of all climate change is being attributed to human forcings. The activity of aerosols (a negative forcing) has kept the rate of change of temperature at a statistically insignificant level since AR4. They’re had to introduce this negative forcing to account for the temperature change flat line. The exclusion of sea temperatures (previously global mean temp; now global mean surface temp) at this point is preparation for their inclusion in AR6, when it is hoped the ‘lost heat’ will finally turn up in the Oceans.
The IPCC will simply continue to do what they do until the day they are disbanded.
50
Lindzen on AR5:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2013/9/28/lindzen-on-ar5.html
Figure 1.4 Chapter 1 (Lindzen’s point) did not get a mention in most of the MSM blurbs on the AR5 and only a minor, dismissive reference in the AR5 SPM
As cynical as some may see me, this situation was predicted in earlier threads. So one wonders just where the cynicism actually lies
30
While we are all discussing the IPCC AR5, lets look at the real basis for the report.
The United Nations program, AGENDA 21 was established at the UN 1992 Earth Summit in Rio.
Chairman Maurice Strong said from the chair…… “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialised civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
Known as the Rio Declaration, Representatives of the Keating Government voted for its implementation at the Earth Summit, in 1992.
The Rio Declaration was subsequently supported by the Howard Government and progressively implemented to different degrees by federal and state governments and municipal councils of all political persuasions.
Agenda 21 does not officially form part of the policies of either major party but has the objective of having the environment regulated by an international body.
Forget the science, this is where the real fight lies.
90
I know some AGW believers say we deal with probabilities every day. For example, there is some probability of being run over by a bus when crossing a road.
But seriously, would these people board a plane if told the plane was only 95% airworthy after its inspection? Would they drive over a bridge if told the engineers were only 95% sure of their calculations regarding its integrity? No.
The NASA program to send men to the moon and other missions were based on 100% proven reliability of Newton’s Laws. The disasters of 2 space shuttles was due to ignoring the science advice not to launch when O rings were at below freezing and no check was made to see if tiles were missing after achieving orbit. But Newton’s LAWS never failed.
Einstein was not believed by everyone at first but test after test proved his relativity theories 100% valid to this day. However, he even said that if someone could find a flaw in his theories then the theories were invalid.
But the IPCC shows no such reticence or modesty.
60
For all the wordsmiths around. An interesting comparison by Bob Tisdale of the earlier draft of the report compared to the final one. That is, after the bureaucrats at the Stockholm meeting got the “teeth into it”
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/09/27/side-by-side-comparison-of-draft-and-final-ipcc-ar5-spm-on-warming-plateau-and-attribution/
20
– See more at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/british-climate-adviser-david-mackay-plants-artificial-tree-idea-after-new-ipcc-report-on-warming-forecasts/story-fnb64oi6-1226729134489#sthash.GGLCiBHs.dpuf
The warmists might as well add throwing a female virgin into a volcano to appease Gaia.
40
Good Grief! That MacKay must be yet another of those PH and D fellows!
I’ll bet he plans to hang the artificial trees on skyhooks, and water them with flying pigs.
I have a better idea. We could stuff a ground up mountain up his arse!
30
Ouch!
How much energy/CO2 would it require to grind up a mountain?
20
posted on the ABC Will Steffen’s report on the IPCC report.
The IPCC report: busting the climate myths
Posted after 6pm Friday evening.
This story will be opened for comment at 6am on Monday September 30.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-27/steffen-ipcc-report/4984656
Is it closed for comment over the weekend to give time to public servants to get into work and then be able to post comments as well?
40
No
It’s to allow the public servants their weekend prior to deleting posts they don’t like. It’s all about public propaganda
40
28 Sept: UK Daily Mail: David Rose: Met Office proof that global warming is still ‘on pause’ as climate summit confirms global temperature has stopped rising
IPCC report confirms no significant rise in global temperature since 1997
IPCC accused of sinking to ‘hilarious level of incoherence’
But the IPCC insists 2016-2035 will be 0.3-0.7C hotter than 1986-2005
The global warming ‘pause’ has now lasted for almost 17 years and shows no sign of ending – despite the unexplained failure of climate scientists’ computer models to predict it.
The Mail on Sunday has also learnt that because 2013 has been relatively cool, it is very likely that by the end of this year, world average temperatures will have crashed below the ‘90 per cent probability’ range projected by the models…
***The graph above covers the period June 1997 to July 2013. It was drawn using the official Met Office ‘HadCRUT4’ monthly data for world average temperatures, and shows the lack of a warming trend…
A footnote in the new report also confirms there has been no statistically significant increase since 1997.
Last night independent climate scientist Nic Lewis – an accredited IPCC reviewer and co-author of peer-reviewed papers – pointed out that taking start years of 2001, 2002 or 2003 would suggest a cooling trend of 0.02-0.05C per decade, though this would not be statistically significant…
Piers Forster, Leeds University’s Professor of Physical Climate Change, told The Mail on Sunday: ‘If it does get beyond 20 years, that would get very interesting.
‘We would have to revisit the models. As it goes on, it would get more and more peculiar.’
He added: ‘We are right on the edge of the probability distribution now. We have to accept that if we are going to come up with projections, they have to be correct.’…
However, not only does the report deny the importance of the pause, it makes a firm, short-term forecast that it is about to end – claiming that the period 2016-2035 will, on average, be 0.3-0.7C hotter than 1986-2005.
That, said Prof Judith Curry, head of climate science at the Georgia Institute of Technology, is a high-risk strategy: ‘The IPCC has thrown down the gauntlet.’
Should the pause continue, she said, ‘they are toast’.
She was critical about the report’s statement that confidence humans had caused most of the warming of the 20th Century had increased from 90 per cent in the last IPCC report in 2007 to 95 per cent.
‘How they can justify this is beyond me.’ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2436710/Met-office-proof-global-warming-pause-climate-summit-confirms-global-temperature-stopped-rising.html
50
Little greenie twerps who have been protesting and yelling about “deniers” and “consensus” over the past 15 years aren’t going down without a fight.
The IPCC report gave them some hope to cling to, that all of their time and energy and money spent on solar panels etc haven’t been a total waste.
At some point, these people are going to have to face the music: yes, all of your name calling and effort spent was one big waste
91
The ‘twerps’ will go slink off and raise a generation to support the next scare, as there surely will be, it is the nature of cultism.
When I reflect on the aberration to common sense this clip comes to mind.
The philosophers pretty well sum up the warmist mind set.
50
while checking if phil jones/cru had any comment on the IPCC report, i found:
7 Sept: Eastern Daily Press: UEA founder’s life to be celebrated at exhibition
A conference to celebrate 100 years since the birth of pioneering climate scientist Hubert Lamb, who founded the University of East Anglia’s (UEA) Climatic Research Unit, is taking place at the university…
Climatic Research Unit (CRU) director Prof Phil Jones said: “Hubert Lamb did more than any other scientist of his generation to make the academic community aware of climate change and variability. He was the founding director of CRU back in 1972 – at a time when the study of climate change was still in its infancy.
“At that time very little was known about climate change. Hubert believed the world was gradually cooling, but building on his pioneering work we now know the opposite is true, and that between 1880 and now the world has warmed significantly…
http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/uea_founder_s_life_to_be_celebrated_at_exhibition_1_2370935
00
Are you not just positively overjoyed that people like this are being paid by the taxpayer for coming up with such wonderful ideas.
This guy is, and wait for this ….. the British Government’s chief scientific adviser on climate change, David MacKay.
Following the IPCC’s report he then rushed to a pliant media with the following article, hidden behind a paywall, but can be bypassed by cutting and pasting the title into a search engine.
Here’s the link to that article.
In that article, and yes, I did go back and check the date to see that it definitely was not April 1st, he says (in just one part) the following in response to the IPCC report and how we need to address the problem of removing GHG’s from the Atmosphere:
WTF!
Not one, but four totally inane (and you can also add the letter ‘S’ to that word) ideas.
This isn’t a bunch of seventh graders ball parking. This is the Chief bloody Scientist.
And these people want US to take THEM seriously.
Give me strength!
Tony.
100
Just thinkin’ here.
Haven’t you ever wondered why these umm Scientists come up with these harebrained crackpot things to do, when all they have to do is to shut down the damned coal fired power plants, and there’s 40 to 45% of all the CO2 emissions.
If this problem is so dire, so dire, then they would just be stopping the emissions dead.
Why are they talking piddling tiny percent reductions when China, India and the rest of the still Developing World are (quite literally) powering away, and then, when they can’t achieve even those tiny reductions, they just move the goal posts and come up with even more crackpot harebrained things to do.
They argue the semantics of a scientific phrase, and totally ignore what is happening in front of their very eyes.
These people are damned Scientists, and they’re all blind.
Then they suck in the media, who then suck in the gullible followers, and they all sit around, seriously nodding their heads in agreement.
For the life of me, I just can’t figure it out.
Tony.
71
Tony, perhaps this will help. With emphasis added.
“The essence of science is that it is always willing to abandon a given idea, however fundamental it may seem to be, for a better one; the essence of theology is that it holds its truths to be eternal and immutable.” Attributed to H.L. Mencken.
The AGW religion is a contemporary version of the age old, “the End is Nigh” mantra. Same theme, new version of cause, same attention seeking. The primary difference is many of the true believer’s faith lies in a continuation of
graftgrants and other entitlements to preach their version of “repent before the God Gaia”. In the 70’s it was easy to spot the hippies and other cult followers dressed in sheets. Now they wear fancy suits and trot around the globe to talkfests with fellow believers, calling everyone else deniers and suggesting serious consequences for those who fail to “repent”.I preferred the hippies, they were all “peace man”. The new version of “stop the world or get off” cultists and their followers are far more dangerous. Cutting off the supply of entitlements will transform many into turning secular.
40
Nah, Tony, you’ve gotta beat these people at their own game.
All this insanity is actually starting to make sense. You’ve just gotta think Big Picture.
Just bear with me for a moment. 😉
See, just two years ago Bolivia changed their national Constitution to give nature equal rights to people and began drafting a “United Nations treaty giving ‘Mother Earth’ the same rights as humans“…
Finally the political oppression of the birds, rocks, and trees will be ended with the granting of suffrage to Gaia.
This is great news! Now the trees have all the same political representation that humans do in protecting their access to sunshine, CO2, water, unpolluted soil, and the right to work at photosynthesis and grow free from foreign human interference! Don’t you see how perfect that is for us, Tony? No need to worry how much tax money will be spent on the crazy “artificial tree” proposal because now it will be politically impossible.
This proposal to replace trees with Chinese robotic “artificial trees” will never get past the Tree Union.
20
In spite of how dangerous this idea really is I’m laughing because it will certainly hurt Bolivia. Simon Bolivar is rolling over in his grave, screaming at them to wake up. But they’ll never hear him.
20
Giving “Mother Earth” the same rights as humans does not elevate Mother Earth–it devalues humans.
60
Another reason by the communist and anti human “united nations” must be disbanded ASAP
10
Bondi Trashed by Fairfax Vandals
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/bondi-under-siege-as-swelling-ocean-seeps-into-suburbs-20130928-2ul6l.html
http://www.watoday.com.au/environment/climate-change/bondi-under-siege-as-swelling-ocean-seeps-into-suburbs-20130928-2ul6l.html
Headline: Bondi under siege as swelling ocean seeps into suburbs
All Fairfax web sites today are featuring a doctored pic of Bondi showing what it might be like in 2100, with an 80 cm sea rise and a big storm.
That’s a great alarmist story of course. Just like those diagrams, before we went metric, showing the atomic bomb destruction at one mile radius of downtown Sydney, then two miles, five miles and ten miles.
But the photoshop job is entirely wrong at the top left. To the left of the roundabout, the height is easily 15 metres up a gentle hill and there is no way the surf would cover it. Clearly the artist has never been to Bondi.
Have a look at some pictures taken at Bondi:-
http://bondivillage.com/pics2011/c2s1299.jpg
http://bondivillage.com/pics2010/c2s0183.jpg
http://bondivillage.com/pics2009/xd9872.jpg
http://bondivillage.com/pics2007/xd7457.jpg
90
Good point Brian,
It’s not hard to see the alarmists are desperate, even the Bondi Beach Icebergs pool: even the rocks at the corner of the baths are still visible.
1. Bondi Beach Pool 1928
2. Bondi Beach Pool 2013
That treed section like you said is probably 25 meters up the slope standing at the pool.
Their whole lying scam is coming apart quickly. It’s not hard to prove any of these alarmist fear campaigns wrong.
71
Ok,just a quick reconciliation of the SPM attribution period (1950 – 2010) with the observations to be sure the IPCC is on the level.
Should be easy, here’s the ‘Decadal averages’ graph and data series from the SPM:
http://blogs.nicholas.duke.edu/thegreengrok/files/2013/09/Picture-322.png
Hmmm, no warming whatsoever from 1940 – 1980 (40 years).
So why 1950?
The only warming in that attribution period is from 1980 – 2000, a mere 20 years and only 5 years longer than the pause that is too short to consider because 30 years is required, apparently,
That’s odd, is it possible the IPCC might be telling porkies? Surely not.
60
The IPCC has dismissed the recent climate warming pause as unpredictable climate variability.
Those 3 words must have snuck through the censors.
If that mean the last 16 years was unpredictable by their modelling, how the hell can their future predictions be 95% accurate?
90
Tim,
I think they must’ve meant the pause in warming was due to an “unpredictable climate”. A rare episode of rationalism on their part.
They are human, after all.
60
How much of that climate is unpredictable then ? The 99.96% that isn’t CO2, or just the last 16 years that failed to follow their predictions ?
60
Madjack
Fair enough, but there’s a double standard running here. When it doesn’t warm, they call it “unpredictable climate”. When it does warm, (or it turns cold), then it’s definitely manmade, significant and catastrophic.
Hmmm.
Cheers,
Speedy
20
A double standard, surely not /sarc.
I have always maintained that I consider the climate to be pretty much unpredictable. I fail to see how so many variables combined together could not make the act of prediction into the medium to long term impossible.
And that’s assuming that we know everything there is to know about the climate, which we don’t.
Propagandists and Ideologists will always try and spout whatever reinforces their confirmation bias.
00
Tim
OK – lets start with “Unpredictable Climate Variability” (UCV). What’s the difference between that and “Unpredictable Climate Stability” (UCS)(given the variability has been shown to be negligible these last 17 years).
The final phase – mankind is responsible for Climate Stability (CC). Doesn’t make you sort of want to panic though, does it? Probably not much government grant money in that though, eh Professor?
Cheers,
Speedy
10
Here is a description of the process used to develop the SPM in past years.
Doesn’t appear very ‘scientific’ to me.
20
Dr. Judith Curry would seem to agree with you
http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/28/ipcc-diagnosis-permanent-paradigm-paralysis/
10
So now the IPCC is 95% that mankind is causing something which isn’t happening.
MWHAWWW HAWWW HAWWW.
Sorry, I just laughed so hard a bit of…. [ self censored, too much information]…..
90
A pertinent article from Andrew Bolt about this very issue…..
IPCC more sure about less:-
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/ipcc_more_sure_about_less/
20
While the rest of us get less sure about more than ever. 🙁
20
Dr. Philip Shehan,
How do you feel about articles highlighted by Brian from Bondi regarding Fairfax printing the interactive photo of Bondi Beach now and how it might look in the year 2100 with a predicted median sea level rise of 80cm and a once-in-a-century storm.
This photo that was printed today, and the report written by Nicole Hasham and Peter Hannam, is blatantly incorrect as highlighted by Brian from Bondi.
Can you see that this is criminal dishonesty in reporting (especially the photo) in order to progress the fear factor response of CAGW and the IPCC. It’s the same sort of rubish regarding Tim Flannery and all his stupid statements and fear campaigns, not to mention the hundreds of others. You at least do not carry on like this, but can’t you see the rapid decline in people’s belief of any warming, danger etc with the sort of garbage that continually comes from the ABC, The Guardian, Fairfax etc with reporting such as above. It kind of explains why people are rapidly turning off against all CAGW comments even here, where you get 3 red thumbs for apologising for bad spelling (I gave you a thumbs down, simply because over the period of years on this blog alone, you have not tried to correct this spelling error rate and repeated this exact apology 17 times in order to gain some type sympathy with those who you are discussing with). Time to act on this spelling problem Philip, as it indicates a cut and paste behavioural syndrome.
And with Michael Brown, astronomer, (see previous Article by Jo) on the Conversation, saying that people like me (average Australians) are not smart enough to enter any debate on Climate Science because we may not pick the CAGW alarmist side. Can’t you see the more of this type of abuse, will only result in the total shutdown of IPCC, the CAGW cult and the rest (already occurring). Yet you and Michael the Realist both have severe spelling problems continually, so how in the world can we expect to consider you points when we have to use a kindergarten teacher to decipher your content on CAGW. Peer reviewed published Climate Change articles contain nearly 97% certainty of containing grammatical errors. You guys are accusing us of not being smart enough, you can’t spell, you can’t answer direct questions with honest answers without using SKS, and they is no way you will go near answering any of Tony from Oz’s (above) questions on power supply like
ANSWER THE BLOODY QUESTION.
121
Philip Shehan needs to answer a whole lot of questions. I’m not going to spend any more time on him.
31
Propaganda fools like him greatly raise Jo’s view and posting count 🙂
And do a LOT for the sceptical cause.. !
51
The communists refer to “individuals” like this Shehan character as USEFUL IDIOTS….
41
he can’t read down this far in a thread.
doesn’t get the attention he craves.
20
It must be tough…. you know, all those years of education, but still a nobody loser…. not surprising he craves…..
30
Let’s lighten up, folks.
There once was a greenie from France
Who lived in a tent and ate ants
to lower his carbon
and into the bargain
Got titles and government grants.
Gotta zip now.
80
“The Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) is being released in four parts between September 2013 and November 2014.”
http://www.ipcc.ch/activities/activities.shtml#.UkgRqBRwaM8
A summery for a report that has not been completed yet??????
50
Don’t worry MWhite, the results of this report, and the ones to come, have been determined a long time ago. And nothing as insignificant as evidence to the contrary is going to change those conclusions.
The document’s basis is political, not scientific.
Cheers,
Speedy
30
We have a bunch of corrupt politicians bent upon global totalitarian governance establishing a governmental agency to discover an excuse to implement the global totalitarian governance. The governmental agency provides the excuse as requested. The corrupt politicians say “see we must take over the governance of the globe to save the globe immediately if not sooner”. Then both the corrupt politicians and the governmental agency are offended that the people whom they intend to control and consume don’t believe them.
This is not an example of circular reasoning it is a tornado.
110
Does this mean Cook’s 97% has been conveniently ‘kicked to the curb’?
Steffen appeared on ABC News 24 Sat Sept 28 to run interference for Flannery and their new scam ‘The Climate Council’,and tell us that 95% really could (and should) be construed as 100%!
Where are the names of the scientists and survey results that provide the IPCC’s ‘new’ 95%?
Probably with the ‘missing’ heat at the bottom of the ocean.
70
Recent events including the release of the Non Report of the IPCC and the political posturing of Warmer addicts like President Obama and Banh Ki Moon have one clear and obvious implication for me.
These events show the timelessness of that old but insightful story that I heard and understood as a five year old.
THE EMPEROR’S NEW CLOTHES.
KK
40
Does anyone have a working link to download the actual, official, released version of the AR5 SPM, complete with actual Figures, diagrams,maps, charts etc ?
Pielke Jr has a purported link, but all the Figures are missing … aaaaarghhh !!
10
Is this any better Ian ?
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5-SPM_Approved27Sep2013.pdf
10
Thanks, but it’s the same incomplete version – no Figures etc
The IPCC appears to be censoring itself as well as everyone else 🙂
10
If it’s that certain that we are facing a catastrophic global warming event, then it’s time we made it illegal to burn coal anywhere in the world. After all nothing else is working or ever going to work to save the planet. In case you haven’t noticed, I’m being sarcastic. Obviously that certainty figure is meaningless. One could say there’s a 99% probability that we will be hit by a killer asteroid some time in the future, and it would in fact be much closer to the truth. I don’t see 100’s of billions of dollars being taxed and spent on doing something about it.
10
As this is way down at the end of some 260 [posts I guess not many lurkers will get down this far to read this post.
I have just spent a few hours trying to research the comparative amounts of funding spent annually on global Climate Change “research” and the so called “adaption” and that spent on global research in Agriculture.
The current spending figures on global climate change research are hard to sort out in the available data although JoNova , our hostess, has done a quite comprehensive study titled Climate Money published in 2009 which can be found here;
The American public annual [ rubbery ] expenditure on climate change research plus the subsidies related to the so called adaption to the [ dangerously?? ] changing climate for 2010 are given as US $38 billion .
[ US Budget and Clmate Change ]
From the EU’s Budget Framework for 2014- 2020
I think this EU budget allocation for the so called climate change is separate from the similar budgets in each of the EU member countries. If so then my figures will be very understated.
Then we have the very alarmist World Bank’s figures which I quote from their Economics of the Adaption to Climate Change
Between the USA and the EU we can total over US$60 billion publicly funded dollars being budgeted annually to be spent on climate change research and adaption.
In addition to these two political and national entities you have to add Canada, Australia and NZ, China, India, Russia, Japan, Brazil and etc and etc all with much smaller or in Australia’s case perhaps [ hopefully ] a dramatic reduction in this unwarranted, unneeded and unfortunate public expense.
So a very rough annual global expenditure based on my rough and ready research and estimates on the so called climate change research and adaption comes to around the US$100 Billion of public monies per year.
All this public monies expenditure based on nothing more than unproven, unverified, unvalidated climate models which have failed almost totally in thir past predictions. And all this when the real measured temperatures of the global climate have had an almost flat line trend for some 15 going onto 16 years past and now since about the mid 2000’s are starting to indicate a very small, non statistically relevant declining trend.
So how does that $100 billion a year expenditure on climate research and adaption stack up against the annual expenditure globally on agricultural research, the research that is going to try and ensure that the world’s peoples are going to have full bellies in the decades ahead despite their numbers increasing to perhaps 9 billions from the seven and quarter billions now, a 25% increase in the global population, within the next 25 to 35 years,?
World annual expenditure on agricultural research from the ASTI Global Assessment of Agricultural R&D Spending
Total global public spending on agricultural R&D in 2008: $31.7 billion (2005 PPP dollars)
In today’s dollars that probably equates to around US$ 40 billion plus around another $10 to $15 billion spent on agricultural research by companies and organisations, an overall total of around $50 billion dollars of which some $40 billion is public monies or considerably less than half the $100 billion of public monies that are spent annually on the so called Climate change and adaption.
Is it necessary to ask if you would yourself spend such sums on something as in climate change and adaption with model predicted consequences that are completely unproven and might never occur and in any case would do no more than requiring to adapt to warmer temperatures and conditions that in most Australian’s case are similar to those a few hundred kilometres to the north of where they live?.
Or would you settle for a situation where through the serious neglect of agricultural research, the money having been spent on climate change research and adaption , the world’s farmers no longer have the varieties with the necessary yield increases and the genetic resistance to disease and insect attack that prevents them from growing enough food to feed the world’s increasing population in the decades ahead?.
$100 billion dollars a year for unproven, climate modelled climate change research and adaption versus $40 billion a year for agricultural research that will be needed in spades to feed the worlds growing population in the decades ahead.
What’s more important to you.? Getting slightly warmer or a full belly?
Your choice!
20
Methinks the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5)should be read with the following…..
Long Range Disclaimer
The forecast information contained in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), while believed to be reasonably made at the time of publication, is subject to change. In particular, yearly and decade forecasts, given the range of the forecast, do not contain a guarantee and will contain some degree of inaccuracy. You should always seek updated professional weather/climate advice before taking any action dependent on certain weather/climate conditions prevailing. Liability for any errors or omissions, including that arising as a result of IPCC negligence, is excluded by the IPPC, its associates, officers, directors, employees and agents.
10
plenty to amuse, including the headline:
27 Sept: Imperial College London: Imperial researchers give their take on the IPCC’s climate change science report
Imperial researchers give their take on the IPCC’s climate change science report
We asked researchers at Imperial working with the Grantham Institute for Climate Change to take us through the report and its key findings…
What is climate sensitivity and what are the current estimates for it?…
Professor Sir Brian Hoskins, Director of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change: …The IPCC’s new estimate is that the long-term increase in surface temperature in response to CO2 doubling is likely to be between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees Celsius, consistent with estimates first made in 1979. The lower bound is smaller than the value in the IPCC’s previous assessment in 2007, but this should not distract us from the concern that we may well be on track to exceed three degrees warming by the end of the century on current emissions trends…
So the message to governments is clear: we need to accelerate efforts to reduce emissions, whatever the real value of the climate sensitivity is.”…
http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandeventspggrp/imperialcollege/newssummary/news_27-9-2013-15-14-9
00
29 Sept: Japan Times: Process to assess data on climate change is slow, outdated
IPCC report may be ditched
by Richard Ingham and Anthony Lucas
AFP-JIJI
STOCKHOLM – Top U.N. experts have just delivered the first volume of a massive new climate change report, but already whispers are starting to be heard: Will it be the last such review?…
To supporters, these massive “assessment reports” play a vital role in stoking awareness…
Not only do they condense the findings of thousands of studies published in peer-reviewed journals, in a transparent process in which the text is vetted twice over, they also carry the approval of governments…
This dual-track approach, say supporters, yields a fantastic tool for politicians who want to tackle climate change: they can tell the public that the need for reform is clear as the evidence comes from neutral and impartial sources.
Conversely, if politicians prevaricate on climate change, the public can challenge them on facts that they themselves had endorsed…
Jean Jouzel, a French scientist who is vice chairman of the group that issued Friday’s report, said that though the technical text is authored by scientists “it is the adoption of the summary which gives the IPCC its success, and enables it (the summary) to be used by governments.”
But some critics say these mega-reviews spanning thousands of pages belong to the past…
***“The question of whether the exercise is worthwhile is logical,” said a European delegate, speaking on condition of anonymity, adding that “things have changed substantially since the first report” in 1990…
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/life/2013/09/29/environment/ipcc-report-may-be-ditched/
*** i swear that is all Anonymous says in this article! what does it mean?
20
Anyone in need of a laugh?
http://www.ecoenquirer.com/Bali-global-warming-2027.htm
More stories on left of page are very funny they take the piss out of the warmbots quite well
10
also funny. so embarrassing when phys.org pushes this rubbish:
27 Sept: Phys.org: Carbon offsets could help lower emissions without harming the economy
Instead of harming the economies of developing countries, carbon offsets and taxes on shipping and aviation would have a minimal or even a positive economic impact if implemented wisely, according to a new study.
Carbon taxes, offsets and other market-based measures could effectively address the impact of CO2 emissions from the aviation and international shipping industries, without significant financial impact to the world’s poorest countries, according to a new study led by researchers from the University of Cambridge.
The study, prepared for the climate policy organisation Climate Strategies, concluded that market-based measures (MBMs) could be a key part of an overall emissions reduction strategy, while reducing GDP by less than 0.01 per cent on average.
Researchers from Cambridge University, CE Delft, Cambridge Econometrics, TAKS (Transport Analysis and Knowledge Systems) and Climate Strategies quantified the economic impacts of MBMs in shipping and aviation for ten selected countries, and determined the most effective and efficient tools to reduce these impacts…
The ten countries chosen for the study (Mexico, China, India, Trinidad and Tobago, Togo, Kenya, Maldives, Samoa, Cook Island and Chile) were selected because they are expected to be impacted more significantly by the implementation of global MBMs – either due to their dependence on these modes of transport, on international trade, on airborne tourism, or their remote location…
“On the one hand, there could be an exemption for poor, small island nations that are heavily reliant on tourism,” says Dr Annela Anger-Kraavi, who completed the research while a member of the University’s Cambridge Centre for Climate Change Mitigation Research, and is now at the University of East Anglia. “However, on the other hand, if it’s a small island nation in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, adding a £30 carbon tax is not a make or break amount for a tourist who already pays £1000 for their long-haul flight, and that £30 could go towards developing climate solutions.”…
The results of the study were recently presented at an informal stakeholder discussion with government officials, NGO and industry representatives and journalists in London.
http://phys.org/news/2013-09-carbon-offsets-emissions-economy.html
00
Good to see ROM ,formerly of Weatherzone forums,contributing to this site.Weatherzone decided to erase threads relating to climate-change:an attempt I believe to stymie debate on the issue.Pity.
20
Thank you Glen Michel
Your comment and your welcome is very appreciated.
When one door shuts and another often opens. If not that then at least one has to get out of a deep rut to have a look around to find another place where one is again comfortable.
Cheers
ROM
10
Say, while we’re sitting here waiting for Joanne to Post a new Thread, (and three guesses what that might be about) I want you to have a look at something with me.
Remember how I (kept) mentioning that situation in South Australia when they struggled with finding electrical power after they shut down the only remaining coal fired plant at the end of Summer.
Remember how I also mentioned that the bottom dropped out of wind power generation and they had to fire up as many plants as they could find, and also suck up all the power that they could get from Victoria.
Imagine now the early AM Monday morning June 3rd, and the grid controllers, getting onto their boss and saying that they were close to their maximum. Then the overall grid controller gets onto the Department who speaks with the Minister, who then tells the Premier. Imagine how embarrassing it would be for a State Premier who is just so chuffed with his State’s reliance on Wind power, and (probably) contrary to advice, informs the coal fired plant’s operators that they don’t need their power now that the Summer peaks are over.
Imagine how embarrassing it would be to have the State go into localised power shedding. ANY shedding at all would be an absolute political disaster, and in fact would obviously lead to some questions about wind power, and that would then be also embarrassing as (eventually) the REAL truth might just seep out.
So word goes back down the line to avoid load shedding at ANY cost.
So now, having painted this image for you, let’s then look at the link in question:
AEMO Average Price Tables June
Look first at the text immediately above the chart there where it says Peak Power period covers 7AM to 10PM, 15 hours.
Now note the cost for SA on that June 3rd (a work day Monday) for that 15 hour period.
$866.41/MWH
That’s not a spike, but the AVERAGE for the 15 hours.
That’s the price that all the power retailing Companies had to pay for the power they could then onsell to their consumers.
So, now watch this.
SA, at any one point in time on that day was consuming 1750MW (averaged across that 15 hours) So that means for the 15 hours, just to keep SA running required 26,250MWH of power.
So, at that $866.41 per MWH, then the total cost for that power comes in at $22,743,262.
Now, that’s the wholesale cost for that power.
Those retailers then sell that power to their contracted consumers.
The average retail price is 26 cents/KWH which translates to $260/MWH, so those retailers collected $6,825,000.
That’s a loss of $15,918.262 ….. in 15 hours, or more than a million dollars an hour.
I wonder how many of those retailers could afford that sort of loss. I also wonder if the ‘keep the power connected at ANY cost’ may have in fact meant something else, but hey, look over there, isn’t that Britney Spears.
Now I don’t expect you to work it out for the whole Month, and incidentally the months either side of this Month, June, but the average coast came in at around $110/MWH, and those retailers work their profit margins around the wholesale cost of around $50/MWH, so for three Months power retailers were quite literally bleeding money from their bottom lines.
You wonder if, naah! Surely Not!
Tony.
10
Hey Tony defence is still being cut to the bone there is a recruitment freeze across the board and another round of culling is about to begin and yet today CSIRO has 109 positions vacant advertised……….yes thats right 109!!!!!!
Have a look at this little gem i dug up (not from CSIRO but another seat on the gravy train)
https://www.apsjobs.gov.au/SearchedNoticesView.aspx?Notices=10617106%3A1&mn=EngtechSearch
Note the coin……….maybe you should have a crack at it (white ant them from within) LOL
Abbott has a long way to go before we are rid of this shit
Cheers
21
Tony,
Mike Rann was the Premier who delighted in wind and solar. That’s because the wind made a whistling sound as it went in one ear and out the other (unimpeded), while he thought he knew where the sun shone from. He certainly behaved like it.
Whetherall is an even lighter weight installed, supposedly because of his popularity, but basically there as disposable if they lose the election.
Meanwhile the Liberal Party in SA is doing its best to lose another election. To misquote Xavier Herbert “Poor fellow, my State”.
10
Graeme,
Poor Fellow My Country. Without doubt, the best Australian novel I have read.
Tony.
20
tried to post this earlier, but it didn’t go thru.
forget Maurice Strong – it’s all a response to the concerns of an African Meteorologist:
30 Sept: BusinessSpectator: Tristan Edis: IPCC – a primer for conspiracy theorists
How did all this come about, you might ask?
Well, the story explained to me by Neville Nicholls, past-president of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, suggests something rather innocent. Back in the 1980s at a conference of meteorologists, one hailing from Africa complained she was getting lots of requests for information from her government on the possible impacts of human-induced global warming. She wasn’t well equipped or resourced to answer them. She asked whether it might be possible for the meteorologists to arrange an assessment that could summarise what was known about global warming, which could be used by governments such as her own. And so the IPCC Assessment report process was born…
Governments get to nominate authors and the get to vote on the IPCC management. When the first IPCC assessment process commenced George Bush Snr was the US President and Margaret Thatcher was UK prime minister. Both nations had significant representation in the authorship of the report. The prior Fourth Assessment Report was developed with a range of Australian and US authors involved that were nominated by the Howard and George Bush Jnr governments…
It’s worth noting that back in 2001, President George Bush Jnr’s administration, suspicious of the IPCC, asked a panel of eleven top American Scientists to review the IPCC’s assessment of climate science. This panel included a favourite of the climate change doubt lobby – Richard Lindzen.
The panel of scientists told President Bush:
“The committee finds that the full IPCC Working Group I (WG I) report is an admirable summary of research activities in climate science, and the full report is adequately summarized in the Technical Summary.”…
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/9/30/science-environment/ipcc-primer-conspiracy-theorists
Nicholls missed an opportunity here to tell the tale of the African Meteorologist himself:
24 Sept: Monash: Neville Nicholls: Explainer: what is the IPCC anyway, and how does it work?Professor Nicholls is the immediate Past-President of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society and was a Coordinating Lead Author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report “Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation” that was completed in 2011.
http://monash.edu/news/show/explainer-what-is-the-ipcc-anyway-and-how-does-it-work
00
Here is a challenge for any real skeptics here. I have enrolled in a course run by the University of British Columbia on Climate Literacy. Who is game to acutally learn some science from actual climate scientists still researching in the field, rather than climate misleading opinion bloggers? Its Free. Make sure you can understand the science in the IPCC report.
https://www.coursera.org/course/climateliteracy
Instructors
Sarah Burch is an Assistant Professor at the University of Waterloo in the Department of Geography and Environmental Management. She was formerly a Banting Postdoctoral Scholar in the Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability, and a Visiting Research Associate at the University of Oxford. Sarah holds a PhD in Resource Management and Environmental Studies from UBC, and holds degrees in Environmental Science and International Relations
Sara Harris teaches global climate change, environmental science, and oceanography in the department of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Sciences at the University of British Columbia. She has a PhD in Oceanography from Oregon State University and a research background in paleoceanography and paleoclimate. During seven years as a chief scientist at Sea Education Association in Woods Hole, Massachusetts, she studied modern oceans and sailed thousands of miles with undergraduate students.
Both still actively researching, unlike most opinion bloggers. So science from qualified experts.
111
So then, hypocrite, that’s even less time you’ll get to spend with your, umm, children and grandchildren.
41
Good . come back when YOU have learnt something.. in 6 or 7 years !!!
21
Sorry, I assumed it was a decent Uni course… but …3-5 hours a week or 10 weeks.. seriously ????
Sounds like the total propaganda / brain-washing course.. should be right down your alley !!
I strongly suggest you to go back and learn some basic science first, so that you know when you are being fed bulls**t !!
31
Maybe look at post #165 of http://joannenova.com.au/2013/09/monckton-honey-i-shrunk-the-consensus/ for a list of people who frequent this blog !!
And a hint: to pass that course.. remember to follow The AGW mantra !
21
And under no circumstances… think for yourself !!!
00
—————————————————————————-
21
🙂
11
Succinctly put.
21
As pointed out on an earlier thread, this course gets its material from SkS
Presenting the language of climate activism as a science and advocating plenty of social & sustainability narrative.
Better for impressionable minds to check out something like Coursera’s Introduction to Logic or Introduction to Philosophy first perhaps, to help with thinking and recognising more about when you’re being fed a line.
20
Would that be the prestigious Woods Hole Oceanographic Centre or the Woods Hole Research Centre which has on its front page “The climate is changing at an unprecedented rate in human history”.
Every thing points to you getting confirmation of your views. Whether you will learn anything new is unlikely, but judging from your posts you won’t be worried by that.
10
Lol
The response was exactly as I expected. Eyes wide shut, minds fully closed. Nobody willing to learn or invest the time necessary to get a better grasp on the subject or even to investigate other points of views. Both would allow you to investigate your own views and determine their validity with more knowledge.
Nope typically excuses, indoctrination, etc type comments. You guys do realise that Canada has an anti AGW government, that this is a proper university and that the lecturers ae qualified, practising and publishing. But that would actually be to much science for most here.
02
Michael The Realist,
Why do crabs walk sideways?
10
That response was exactly as I expected. Eyes wide shut, mind fully closed. Never willing to learn or invest the time necessary to get a better grasp on the subject or even to investigate other points of views. Both would allow you to investigate your own views and determine their validity with more knowledge.
00
Michael–how many courses have you taken from professors who do NOT believe in climate change? Or is it indeed “eyes wide shut” for you, too?
Again, Michael makes the very, very , very arrogant assumption that anyone who does not agree with him has never read or studied his side. It helps him sleep at night.
Note to:
Michael and others like him–human-induced, catastrophic climate change is NOT so utterly persuasive that merely speaking the words convinces people. That is what a cult does-the leader speaks and all bow to his great knowledge. If you are asserting that all who hear will believe, you might want to rethink that one. Some hear and recognize a con when they see one. Some hear and recognize BAD science. Get over it. Or get better science. Then you won’t have to live with the illusion that people who don’t agree would just be so much more convinced if they took a class. Many already have. The class is not the problem, the science is.
20
Oh, Michael… “climate literacy”? Yeah, maybe, as you’d obviously never make it in medicine
or engineering. Wonder what will happen when the federal grant machine turns off the tap on that and other drains on, as opposed to positive contributions to, the country’s future wealth and security.
30
Mark BC is in Canada. Canada has an anti AGW government that has been shutting down climate communication and scientists, a lot like our government is starting to do. More totalitarian than democratic. Nevertheless, the science has not changed, because it never was a conspiracy, it never was about grants, or jobs, it was the science.
The globes future wealth and security is in the hands of corporations, and all they care about is themselves.
04
Ha ha, what a conspiracy theory you have there Michael!
20
Better to be in the hands of the corporations than at the mercy of a government run by greedy millionaires. Less power when you divide it up. 🙂 And, yes, it appears warmists believe in conspiracy theories, too. Be careful–Lew will not be happy.
40
It does not require a conspiracy. A corporation is put there for the benefit of its executives and its shareholders, not for the human race in general. Therefore a company that makes cigarettes is worried about finding markets with less regulations against cigarettes rather than the health of people smoking cigarettes. A company that makes energy drinks like Monster or Red Bull is more interested in getting children hooked on their drinks than the long term health of the children. Truest me as a teacher I know first hand how much energy drinks kids drink and how bad it is for them. So therefore a company that digs up fossil fuels is more interested in finding markets for its products and finding ways to reduce regulation than it is in leaving them in the ground or the health of future generations.
So basic definition of a corporation, not conspiracy. A conspiracy is thinking that the science as accepted by virtually every scientific organisation in the world is somehow all trying to fool people for their long term benefit. Such rubbish, there is no benefit, this includes dictatorships, communist, capitalist, democracies and governments that don’t agree in the science. But the science does not change. Grow up people.
Read the IPCC documents with an open mind, further your education and get your science from actual educational and scientific institutions and publications rather than opinion bloggers. You owe it to yourselves and your family to think deeper.
03
That’s your theory Michael and it is conspiratorial. Deny it if it makes you feel better.
Corporations of the type you mention identify, manufacture and distribute things people WANT to buy. You have conveniently ignored that the consumer creates the market, the corporation (evil no doubt) merely creating what the consumers want.
You have a very twisted line of logic Michael. You have not mentioned that the consumer is responsible for their actions and has free choice NOT to buy any product.
Don’t forget too, that corporations are in every respect people. The owners, directors, shareholders and employees-all PEOPLE. How many environmentalist corporations are out there Michael? Do you invest, have a retirement account? Your premise is absurd, your comparisons absurd, your thinking is conspiratorial.
The IPCC is worse than useless, the UN is worse than useless, the rants and machinations of the Eco-loons like Hansen are dangerous to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You owe it to your family and the rest of society to wake up and see where the real dangers lie.
20
Like I said, it is not a theory. The purpose of a corporation is profit.
This is twisted logic. If the consumer wanted crystal meth, then do we supply crystal meth? The consumer is buying electricity, it can come from many sources. Your argument would be that the cheapest source is what the consumer wants but it is the role of governments to look at the bigger picture and to look at the consequences for other people. For instance it is cheaper for a company to dump its waste in the river but the government puts in regulations to prevent that because people use the river, fish come from the river, etc etc. This is basic stuff, your inability to realise the illogical nature of your argument shows how biased you are and how motivated by money you are over all else.
Dangerous to people who believe money buys you happiness, but a realistic voice for the basic science and for future generations. The IPCC merely represents the state of international science and produces reports on it. It has multiple levels of review and represents the work of thousands of scientists.
01
If money isn’t what buys happiness, then why are people determined to take money away from those who have it and give it to those who did not earn it? Socialism most certainly makes the claim that money is happiness or we would not be redistributing it.
It is true we do not want corporations dumping into rivers. No one is arguing they should. Few people argue against all regulation (though if we weren’t so apathetic and uneducated, the corporations would not do these things because people would stop buying from them) We are arguing that those stupid bird-killing, environmentally damaging wind monsters should go–for all the reasons we should not dump things in rivers, etc. (wind turbines are reported to possibly contaminate ground water, just like fracking–yet that rarely comes up). The government does not look at the bigger picture–they look at what will get them re-elected. There’s so much money in government, once you start sucking people dry, you just can’t help yourself it seems. There is no evidence whatsoever that government cares any more about the environment than corporations. In fact, it gives money to corporations that are later found guilty of bad things–dumping, low quality materials, etc. Monetary support for environmentally damaging practices, brought to you by your “all-caring” government.
Basic science says climate “science” violates multiple parts of the scientific method. Predication after prediction fails. In science, that means you discard the theory. In politics, it means you dig in like a pit bull, snarl and bark and hope no one notices how vacant the theory actually is. I’m seeing snarling and barking here.
20
Sheri, 3 billion people live on $2.50 a day or less. It is not a case about money buying happiness it is about having enough funds for food, shelter, medicine etc. Also in any society you have those that fall on hard times through no fault of their own, families break up, companies close, global financial crises’s hit, major storm, flood, drought, war etc. So it is not a case of socialism or communism, I do not agree with either, communism failed, without incentive then nobody bothers, just human nature. But on the other side of the coin is what are the minimums we are prepared to accept as a race. Does this only apply to our state, our country, the world? How do we distribute those minimums etc. Would you like to be deserted if any of the above disasters befell you?
So this is where tax and foreign aid comes in, to get the people who can afford it to contribute more to those that need help.
I agree with your comments on government, our terms are to small by world standards, with 3 year terms you do not have enough time to think longer than short term. Any long term thinking, like the NBN and climate change gets you thrown out because people cannot see the immediate benefits and are easily swayed by short term monetary inducements. Also governments are influenced by corporations because they employ people (look at holden demands) and because of their support of parties, both directly and in lobby groups.
I do not agree with your comments on climate science. If anything most predictions have been to conservative, and natural factors and uncertainties obviously exist when looking at a global climate with unpredictable elements, like ENSO, solar and volcanos. These need to be adjusted for and taken into account as we go, but do not change the basic science. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, greenhouse gases cause warming and these have other effects all occurring, such as ocean warming, falling ocean ph, sea levels rising, Arctic melting, increasing floods, droughts and heatwaves, etc etc. I don’t really see where the scientific method has been ignored or what prediction of climate change has not occurred? Could it be that you have fallen for the models meme? Models have been fairly accurate, are only projections of certain scenarios and the current trends match well with certain scenarios. When natural factors are taken into account they are spot on. We only need to look at this years neutral ENSO conditions. All of a sudden we have heat records being broken all over Australia with our hottest 12 months on record recently. What is going to happen when we shift to El Nino conditions? It is pretty plain that ENSO has had a fairly large impact in the recent short term conditions and even then it has not cooled, only paused. So in summary, the basic science is strong, most of it is not in contention from anyone (not even here, read Jos books) and the bits that are uncertain do not overly affect what is occurring.
02
3 billion people do not live in the US or Europe on @2.50 a day or less. Actual monetary value depends on the country. If most make $2.50 a day, then that’s the standard for said country. It’s poverty in some places, not in others.
Actually, storms, companies closing, etc have befallen me. Both myself and my husband were laid off from work about one week apart. We dealt with it. Planning ahead helps–all these people who can’t go a week without pay need budgeting work, not handouts. I have no problem with SHORT-TERM assistance (less than 3 months). After that, all we do is encourage dependence.
As for other countries, the best way to help them is not cash but with technology and training. You help people help themselves. If they won’t help themselves, you’re wasting your time.
I don’t believe in “minimums”. In an ideal world, people would at least have basic food, clean water, etc. However, in the real world, that would involve not money, but overthrowing dictators. Not really practical, is it? So minimums could actually require constant military action.
Charity is for those who want to pay more–not forceable removal of their money by a government. All forceable removal does is encourage people to either move elsewhere, use the tax breaks the government writes in for its own millionaires, or earn less. Longer than 3 year terms just leads to more addiction to sucking the people dry and earning more money for one’s self. In the US, a large portion of our legislators are over 70 and MILLIONAIRES. Many are worth 10 times or more what they were when they were elected. Election is their ONLY concern–that’s the long term planning you so seem enamored with.
How is 17 years of flattened temperature showing predictions are accurate? How is being 99% wrong on the Arctic ice being accurate. How is wrong being accurate. It is NOT obvious that it has paused. It has virtually stopped warming currently and until another 17 years shows us it has returned to warming, it’s not possible to predict direction. Models have not been accurate. Many not even close. The “uncertain bits” most certainly should call into question the science. Again, the fact that it doesn’t tells us very clearly that it is NOT science.
(You can check out my views further by clicking on my name and reading my writings there–I’m using up too much time repeating things here.)
20
You really need to travel more widely, investigate more widely. The world is not the US or Europe, most poverty does not come from dictatorships and many disasters come unexpectedly and take longer than 3 months to fix.
http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats
I agree that we need to help with technology and training and that is how most assistance is provided but that takes just as much money. There are many practical things we could do to make sure that everybody had basic levels of food and shelter. It is not charity it is basic human rights or have we not evolved from animals? Tax is not forseable removal it is the way we pay for essential services, health, education, law and order, roads and much more. The alternative would be the poverty stricken, kill or be killed societies of some of these areas.
I don’t get how anyone can make themselves rich by being a politician, In Australia they are on a fixed salary, if they wanted to be rich they would be rich before going into politics, if your politicians can get that rich from politics then there is something wrong with it. That has nothing to do with the length of the terms, short terms promote short term thinking and things cannot get done before the next side is coming in, tearing everything you half accomplished down and starting again.
You need to actually READ an IPCC report. The atmosphere is only 10% of where the extra energy goes, pauses and even dips are common in the long term record due to natural factors in the system, they do not change or negate the long term trend and are consistent with any of the model runs. Also the models are not the science. Please consider that the 2001 to 2010 decade was the hottest on the industrial record on every continent, over ocean and land despite being a decade mainly affected by cooling natural factors, that your 17 years starts on one of the strongest el nino events in 60 years and finishes on back to back la ninas. That 2011 and 2012 were the hottest la nina affected years on record and that the ocean shows strong warming into the deeper oceans and the Arctic is melting much faster than expected or predicted. Basing your beliefs on a cherry picked portion of a graph out of context, without regard to the science and without taking natural factors into account is NOT SCIENCE. Going on natural factors we should be strongly cooling, this has not occurred.
Where do you get the 99% Arctic wrong remark from? It is melting faster than predicted with record melts in 2007 and last year. The uncertain bits is normal science of the natural world, it is never possible to know everything and have perfect information but what we do know, can measure and understand is fairly conclusive and represents the majority of the system (to 95% certainty). So open your eyes and look at the whole world, and all of the science and all of the data, not just what fits your narrow world view.
02
This is not a discussion–it’s a tiny minded little person trying to bully people into going along with the farce he call reality. Go get life. I ‘m done here.
20
And if you care to look, the long term trend is cooling.
10
So I have shown many ways that the predictions of climate change are correct and occurring. You have focussed on a short term atmosphere trend (that has been explained) and an incorrect comment about the Arctic. I assume you have now realised how little you have and how strong the science actually is. Please read the IPCC documents and discuss with knowledge rather than making ‘someone told me’ type comments in the future. You cannot attack something you do not actually know anything about.
02
You really should stop making stuff up and assume that nobody is going to check. This statement is non sensical and not supported by any evidence I am aware off. 2011 and 2012 where the hottest la nina affected years on record and the 2001 to 2010 decade the hottest decade globally, in the ocean, over land and in every continent. Seriously grow up or go and do some actual learning. You really should have joined that course I am doing, it even has a week on the carbon cycle, something that really confuses you.
Have you found out what is causing the declining cloud cover yet? Care to try to answer the questions you have spent weeks avoiding?
Instrumental temp record: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif
Longer multiple proxy records: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/globalwarming/ar4-fig-6-10.gif
Unfortunately due to the actions of the republicans you will need to wait until the US reopens to access those graphs, but BEST is still available.
http://static.berkeleyearth.org/img/annual-comparison-small.png
So do you have any evidence of a cooling trend?
00
This whole string of comments by Michael the Communist clearly liberates the “real” Michael from the pretender “science” Michael.
Michael is a political ideologue, twisted by Leftist themes and dogma. The reason he supports the “science” of AGW is BECAUSE it fits so well with all the other social agendas in his head not the other way around.
I’ve seen other Michaels before. The world has suffered from Michaels out there meddling throughout history. The Michaels of the world are pleased by Hansen and Farnish, Pleased to undo the successes of mankind, Pleased to smash free and private enterprise, pleased to redistribute wealth, pleased to empower the UN and concurrently eliminate individual rights.
Yes I’ve seen Michaels before. They are what I use as examples to inspire others to fight against them. Politically I’m what I am BECAUSE of the Michaels of the world. I’m a card carrying Republican/Tea Party member because of them. I work tirelessly to prevent their success in causing failure. Some want us to ignore the Michaels of the world. That would be foolish. Michael himself has created a great deal of material for me to get people motivated to fight back against what they stand for. Michael has done yeoman’s work providing valuable evidence of what we are up against, how twisted their thinking. If we ignore the Michaels of the world, they don’t go away. The only way to deal with Michaels is to reduce their POLITICAL POWER. To do this they need to BE EXPOSED their ideology needs to BE EXPOSED.
Take advantage of the Michaels of the world and use them as examples.
20
Nothing annoys me more that people who scream “Think of your children and future generations” yet are pro-abortion. That says it all for me…… just more emotive bullshit.
10
The point was there are millions of individual corporations each with it’s own goals. There is only one government. Which do you think is going to have the greatest influence: One corporation or one government? The government obviously has control over corporations–witness the EPA in the United States.
“The globes future wealth and security is in the hands of corporations, and all they care about is themselves” is a frequent claim of conspiracy theorists. It may not be a “true” conspiracy belief, but the way you stated it, it certainly seems meant to lean in that direction.
It does not require “changing the science” to allow government control. Just report whatever parts serve the purpose. If you doubt that, try looking at the kindergarten behaviour now occurring with the idiots running the US. The Republicans are “blamed” for shutting down the government while the Democrats are the ones voting NOT to fund the government unless they get every thing they want. Selective reporting to an apathetic population is all it takes. I am told that if one reads the actual science part of the IPCC document, the conclusions in the study do not match the political part–and GOVERNMENTS met to approve the release, not scientists. None mentioned anywhere. So why would governments review the draft if we are talking science here?????
As noted by Mark D, no one forces people to buy products (except insurance) and corporations sell what people want. The government sometimes does what 51% of the population voted for, sometimes they do whatever is in their best interest. Corporations cannot mandate everyone buy 2000 gallons of gasoline and no more per year. Governments can. Corporations do not have that kind of power.
20
They have different roles and goals. A corporation only needs to look after its profit margin and in that respect focusses on promoting, pushing and finding alternative markets for its products. Their combined influence on the consumer society is unparrelled. A government is a totally different kettle of fish. Most of the work is service, law and order, health, education etc. Not there for profit but to look after the society in general that they govern. Politicians do not earn bonuses and share incentives for selling a product. They can be influenced by rich corporations to help fund campaigns which have become to expensive, this then leaves expectations on behalf of the corporations for their funding.
How about reading than being told about it? I have read some of it and find that climate misleaders often argue things that are not part of the science. For instance the Antarctic not melting enough is often thrown forward as proof of AGW falseness, when the actual IPCC report specifically says that the Antarctic is to cold to melt anytime soon and may even increase to some extent due to increased snow due to the increased precipitation part of AGW. Also the document (AR4) says that while floods, heatwaves and droughts are expected to increase climate misleaders go on about hurricanes and tornados, which the document does not say will increase. You would probably find if you actually was skeptical and got information from actual scientific sources that it is a lot more rational and measured than claims that you guys routinely make.
Governments are voted in and in that sense have to make sure that they do not do anything to contrary to the overall health and wealth of the populace or they quickly lose their jobs. Real global power comes from corporations that are not at the mercy of any particular countries populace, they are truly global and the money they wield is huge.
As to the US, I do not claim to be an expert on their system, but it seems to me that Obamacare has withstood many fights by republicans and won. In court and in an election and multiple challenges. It is the republicans acting like terrorists trying to blackmail the government for their ideological beliefs. A bit like climate misleaders and their response to science.
02
Right…. so you mean like the Gates Foundation and thousands of others……
10
The gates foundation is not a product, it is more a charity, funded by a billionaire who eventually came to the conclusion that doing good things brought more happiness than wealth. In regards to thousands of others, the damage they do or do not do depends on the product they are selling, regardless they are primarily created for the purpose of of the company itself.
Funny you should mention Gates, you do understand that he does believe in AGW, don’t you?
11
This would be the insane individual who wants to “save” the planet by putting tonnes of reflective particles of sulphur dioxide 30 miles above earth?
00
Sheri,
When are you going to learn.
.
STOP FEEDING THE TROLL!!
00
I invited him over to my blog where we can have a discussion to his heart’s content. I have two or three others who come on the blog now and then, write for while and then leave. I’m good with it–as long as they don’t resort to only insults or too many insults. It’s sometimes frustrating, but I think someone should answer questions, so I guess volunteered. 🙂
I will stop responding here out of respect for the “stop feeding the trolls” request.
00
Right. And you do not use any of these products which you claim are so harmful. Bullshit.
You are just full of crap.
And further:
————————————————————————————-
00
Disaster, catastrophe, End of the World.
Every night we hear of a new record high temperature. All part of the Climate Change indoctrination.
Every story is accompanied by the hundreds of people who died as a result of that new high temperature record.
Umm, wait a minute, come to think of it, I can’t recall hearing that even once.
Don’t tell me people are adapting to that high temperature.
Surely not.
Tony.
30
The grinding mill of climate science [ and climate change politics ] grinds slowly but very finely and the [ IPCC ] chaff is being blown away by the rising political wind.
From The Guardian of all places
There are advantages to global warming, says minister
20
The really big risk is that we are about to plunge into a Dalton type minimum.
A 1°C warming over 50 or so years is hardly going to be an issue, almost certainly beneficial in most places.
A drop into a Dalton type minimum will be devastating… worldwide !!
10
ROM –
don’t get too excited. this is the official response to the IPCC report by Ed Davey:
28 Sept: ABC AM: Ban Ki-moon urges action after climate report
BARBARA MILLER: Climate change sceptics won’t be convinced by this report, but the UK’s climate change secretary, Ed Davey, says history will prove them wrong.
ED DAVEY: This piece of evidence that we’re seeing from Stockholm is probably the most robust, rigorous, most peer-reviewed piece of science in human history. I think it’s put the question of whether climate change is happening beyond doubt.
We’ve got to stop debating this issue as if we’re some members of the flat earth society and get on and act…
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2013/s3858277.htm
00
I gather from the Bishop Hill blog that there is quite a serious bit of a war going on within UK government circles over just how serious this climate caper is and increasingly how much it is costing and whether all the sacrifice of the little people to the “cause” is worth the political risk.
Prime minister David Cameron’s wife is reportedly a card carrying member of Greenpeace.
His FIL is one of the largest wind operators in the UK.
And we think we have problems with prime ministers!
Meanwhile P Gosselin in his German / english NoTricksZone blog headlines his latest post;
2013 So Far Among Germany’s Coldest This Century! Glaciers In Swiss Alps Gaining In Mass! –
Meanwhile;we hope a soon to be seen advert perhaps.
Highly qualified climate warming scientist available for work, Any job; Sweeping floors accepted.
20
That’s what I like from Ed ‘Boy’, a can do attitude, but he still can’t help flinging insults & stoking hostility, ensuring his message will never gain acceptance, unlike new Coalition in Aus., who are treading a fine and considered line between action & restraint.
00
But the Flat Earth Society has come out in favour of man made warming.
I suspect with tongue in cheek as they probably find it rather improbable.
10
So who exactly doubts that the climate changes? Oh, that’s right, its those damned climate deniers… almost as rare as the missing heat…. you can’t see them, but they are there.
10
Regarding the “pause” or “hiatus.” These words are deliberately chosen for a purpose. Both words ambiguously imply a re-start. A re-start is speculation & is unknown. The best word is “halt,” as this only means one thing. A stop. Right click those three words and ‘look up’. Halt is the only word to use.
20
Quite right about the deliberately suggestive choice of words. It is indeed a halt as warming has been absenc these past 17 years , for going on 2 decades and completely this century.
Global Warming was a feature of the 20th century as well as of many previous centuries, but it has not been evident since before that last great uncertainty, the Y2K bug unfolded as another damp squib.
10
the more things change!
30 Sept: ABC 7.30 Report: Climate change report renews pressure on Government
With the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s report painting a grim picture for what the future could hold for Australia, there’s renewed pressure on the Government to ramp up its targest for cuts in greenhouse emissions.
LEIGH SALES, PRESENTER: The latest global warming outlook paints a grim picture for Australia – a future of extreme weather, heatwaves and rising seas…
HAYDEN COOPER, REPORTER: It’s official: the mercury is rising, the oceans are changing and this nation of sun lovers could be in for a rough ride over the course of the next century.
PENNY WHETTON, CLIMATOLOGIST, CSIRO: There is clearly a potential for Australia’s climate to warm significantly and we are already a hot, dry climate. And so it may take our climate into quite extreme territory in the later decades of 21st Century.
JOHN CONNOR, CEO, THE CLIMATE INSTITUTE: We are a country of extremes, of floods and droughts, and they talk about climate change putting the weather on steroids and so that means we have more and more extreme impacts that accentuate those extremes that are there already…
(EXAGGERATION, EXAGGERATION, EXAGGERATION, SCARE, SCARE, SCARE)
HAYDEN COOPER: But the minister maintains the five per cent target will stay. It means adaptation may be the only choice and that’s expensive…
LEIGH SALES: And we asked the Environment Minister Greg Hunt to join the program. He was unable to make it tonight, but is hoping to take up the invitation later this week
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2013/s3859430.htm
00
Apologies, as the youtube video below has nothing to do with climate whatsoever. A remarkably eloquent and intelligent 12 year old muslim boy speaking about women’s rights, and democracy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=dwkxRw2YSQY
from;
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2013/09/28/two-households-full-time-job-bi-coastal-and-more/#comment-55428
00