In the true spirit of satire Steve Hunter manages to pretty much expose the grand flaw.
Thanks to Steve Hunter
Credit Steve Hunter illustrations
Man-made global warming is unfalsifiable.
Scientists make predictions and test them. Only unskeptical scientists ignore the failures.
Flannery has missed a few. Bolt has a copy of Flannery’s Dam Predictions. For the record.
For your entertainment, the list of things that global warming can cause has been collected by NumberWatch:
A list of things caused by global warming
A snippet from I – K:
… indigestion, industry threatened, infectious diseases, inflation in China, insect explosion, insect invasion, insurance premium rises, Inuit displacement, Inuit poisoned, Inuit suing, invasion of alien worms, invasion of Antarctic aliens, invasion of Asian carp, invasion of cane toads, invasion of caterpillars, invasion of cats, invasion of crabgrass, invasion of herons, invasion of jellyfish, invasion of king crabs, invasion of lampreys, invasion of midges, invasion of pine beetles, invasion of rats (China), invasion of slugs, island disappears, islands sinking, Italy robbed of pasta, itchier poison ivy, Japan’s cherry blossom threatened, jellyfish explosion, jets fall from sky, Kew Gardens taxed, kidney stones, killer cornflakes, killing us, kitten boom, koalas leaves inedible, koalas under threat, krill decline…
CO2 like H2O & O2 are precious elements & compounds sustaining life on Planet Earth. They are all critical for all life forms. Flim Flam’s crazy claim that CO2 is a pollutant & catastrophic for Planet Earth’s Climate, and life forms, displays an extraordinary level of ignorance. To think that he was named “Australian of the Year in 2007”, ironically the year Rudd came to office, has to be the pinnacle of incongruity. Flim Flam is indeed no more than a “hopping mad” scientist – how ironic that he was awarded a PhD in Geology studying fossil kangaroos.
230
Is 370ppm not 0.037% ?? What a gas!!
——
Freddie, you are right of course. Fixed. Ta. Jo
60
Yes! .. and I believe the latest February 2014 reading is 398ppm.
Ref: .. co2now . org
—-
Oh. A tough audience! Fair enough. I’ve rounded it. will 0.04% do? – Jo
70
.. haha, sure, 0.04% is fine, thanks 🙂
30
Or Zerro , Nada, Null, Zipp to the nearest 1/10th. of a percent.
(You know that, but it does no harm to keep repeating – well no more than CO2 does anyway).
80
Or 4/10ths. of sweet Fanny Adams .
20
400 parts per million = 4 per 10,000 =0.04 per hundred
0.037% surely ?
—-
Recache the page. Should be fine now. Jo
40
We seem to have peer reviewed a cartoon.
112
And a fine job of it too. It’s probably the best peer review in the history of global warming.
241
Nic;
“We seem to have peer reviewed a cartoon”
–
The ‘we’ is more than a little self-indulgent!
40
0.04% actually. And rising steadily.
36
Obviously Heeby/MTR is taking the weekend off and BilB is pulling some overtime at troll central.
51
… and since you see the need to correct the figures, might as well be accurate. It’s 398.03ppm.
31
“And rising steadily”
Good. The biosphere luvs CO2 🙂
80
Someone else loves it too …;<)
00
Much surprised that people like BA4, MtR, HJ, PS aren’t all for massive increase in CO2.
They have obviously been smoking something strange.
21
“And steadily rising” and temperature isn’t.
50
I’m inventing a new sport. It’s called Extreme Flannery.
The aim is to make as many outrageously untrue pseudo-scientific statements as you can in one minute, doing so in extreme locations, e.g. TV studios, Radio phone-ins, street corners, on the beach, off the beach, up a gum tree, up shite creek with and without a paddle.
The winner is to be awarded the Golden F***wit, an annual prize but… [snip. enough :)]
180
That sport was apparently invented long before your time. 😉
30
‘The miracle gas that causes everything and nothing’
Is co2 important or not?
‘The Monckton who argues co2 is immensely important argues it out with the Monckton who claims it is negligible, let me take the side of Mr Monckton, by which I mean this one, according to the biological text books he is absolutely right all plant life depends on co2’ Potholer54
The amount of co2 in the atmosphere is so small, it can’t have any effect on the climate say, but they also say all life depends on it! Because it is ‘plant food’, so what is the correct answer?
You can’t deny that it is one of Moncktons favourite sound bites, ‘co2 is plant food’. But if it is so powerful, that all life relies on it, how come it is so small in volume it can’t influence the climate? That’s the oxymoron you have to come to terms with!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wv3-de8ArCk
261
BA4 – CO2 helps in the biological respiratory process of both plants (as an input) and animals (as an output). At about 180 ppm it is game over, for everything.
At any concentration it has no effect on the ambient temperature of the atmosphere or planetary surface. These are two completely different processes. One is a bio-chemical process on a micro scale and the other is a thermodynamic process on a macro scale.
It is only alarmist dogma that could link the two.
573
‘At any concentration it has no effect on the ambient temperature of the atmosphere or planetary surface’
But there is 500 million years of evidence that CO2 is a GHG and therefore currently heating up the planet!
‘looking back at the effect co2 had in the past and these estimates should show a doubling in co2 we should see rise in global temperatures between 2 and 4.5 degrees, now that’s all basic physics…if basic physics is correct we should see a good correlation between temperatures and co2 over the past 500 million years. Well here is the data for temperatures and we get a very clear, oh dear…but it’s the climate science critics, politicians, the bloggers, amateurs, who showcase this graph that completely ignore the role of Sun and it is the climate researchers who factor it in. Over the last 500 million years solar output has being getting slowly stronger, but of course on its own it doesn’t show any better correlation with global temperature than co2 on its own. But if the co2 temperature levels link is correct then when we factor in both co2 and solar radiants which are the long time drivers of climate we should get a good correlation with global temperatures and we do! And the third piece of evidence from our geological past are the so called snowball Earth conditions…Earth should have being covered in ice and it was, several times…the only thing that changed during the snowball period was the co2 levels rose dramatically due to volcanic activity. The thawing of the planet fits perfectly with the role of co2 as being a powerful GHG…but during snowball Earth that kind of weathering did not happen…yes even with the Sun being about 6% weaker than today but with co2 level 25 times higher, the earth was much hotter than today. His amounts to our fourth piece of evidence that co2 is a powerful GHG…and the process repeated itself…so when I hear the argument the climate always changes and this is perfectly natural…then of course it is. There is absolutely no difference of the co2 bring added to the atmosphere now and the co2 that was added to the atmosphere in the past, it‘s the same stuff. Coming to the recent past climatologist agree that the amount of forcing from the Earth’s change in orbit though to be the initial trigger for deglacierization had no where near enough…I covered this in my video the 800 year lag unravelled…so before you claim co2 only lags temperature…so we have now seen how basic physics should warm the earth and we have seen…consistent with co2 as a powerful GHG…then there is no reason to believe co2 has reformed its behaviour because it has come from burning fossil fuels… Is there any evidence that co2 is causing any warming now. Back in the 1950s, 60s, 70s scientists saw no reason why co2 should change its properties and they predicted as co2 levels rose and aerosols cleared we would start to see warming. Over the last 35 years the atmosphere has being warming…of course not all of the heat goes into the atmosphere. Most of it goes into the oceans and evidence shows the deep oceans are absorbing a lot of the extra heat…’ Potholer54.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbUnp0QDaRo
253
The “basic physics” I learnt at school had pretty precise measures. For instance the most accurate measure of the speed of light was 299792458 m/s.
Any measure of the impact of a doubling of CO2 on average temperature is very much applied science. It needs a lot of complex calculations and estimations. The spread of your figure – of 2 to 4.5 degrees shows that is not constant. It is only applicable under certain conditions. Otherwise as well as being the claimed warming for CO2 280 to 560ppm, it would also be the warming from 1ppm to 2ppm.
Maybe it is because a lot of people say the same thing for long enough that you believe it becomes true. Well your figures are now out of date. Nic Lewis has a chart of 8 estimates of climate sensitivity going back to 1979. The last 5 are from the 5 IPCC assessment reports. 7 have sensitivity of 1.5 to 4.5 degrees, except AR4 which has your 2 to 4.5 degrees.
All are from modelled estimates, adjusted so as not to break the consensus.
310
‘it would also be the warming from 1ppm to 2ppm’ that would be perverse to think that! Do you have any evidence?
017
Bot. Bot-like. Bot-o-rama. Botist.
A sentence of nonsense-ly assembled words followed by a link to Utube……
Bot. Bot-like. Bot-o-rama. Botist.
90
> Do you have any evidence?
No, he relies on all the IPCC reports.
The “between 2 and 4.5 degrees” you quote is for a doubling of CO2 which means that it should be between 2 and 4.5 for an increase from 280 to 560 ppm or from 580 to 1160ppm or from 1 to 2ppm. Each of which is a doubling of CO2.
Are you now going to argue that the IPCC reports are all incorrect and the “between 2 and 4.5 degrees” is for an increase of 280ppm rather than a doubling?
70
Nope, he’ll just select another YouTube video with no direct relevance to the discussion and post that instead.
50
Kevin: As you correctly write the calculation is extremely complex and all the factors not well understood.
The 1.5 to 4.5 degree likely range (5th IPCC report)does not mean the figure is not ‘constant’, just very imprecisely known.
I think the true figure will be at the low end of that range. First order empirical calculations from 1850, (when more or less reliable global temperatures are available) 1958 (when Muana Loa CO2 data became available) and 1979 (when satellite temperature data bigins) all give a value of 2 C.
Very back of the envelope assuming that shorter term variations in temperature due to natural forcings average out and longer term natural variations are not significant but not a bad place to start.
I do think extrapolating this curve down to 1 C is pushing it a bit.
http://knowledgedrift.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/log1-co2.jpg
112
Phillip,
Consider if you are correct that climate sensitivity is 2 degrees for a doubling of CO2 in the current configuration of the climate systems. It would mean most of the climate catastrophe is averted compared to a climate sensitivity of 4 degrees. For a given emission growth path, the rate of warming will be halved, and the ultimate maximum temperature (as emissions will eventually top out) will be halved. Crossing climate tipping points involves not just reaching a level of warming, but also the speed which it is reached. When I tried to derive a cost function of the relative cost (RC) with temperature rise from the Stern Review’s claims, I came up with
RC = f(T^4)
That is temperature raised to the power 4.
So if 1 degree of total warming gives a relative cost of 1, for 2 degrees RC = 16, 3 RC = 81 and 6 RC = 1296.
Leading climate economist Richard Tol built in evidence that a small amount of warming is net beneficial. His function was of the form.
RC = f(T^6)
With functions of form T^4 or T^6, and with only vague empirical evidence of the lower part of that function, you are relying nearly 100% on modelled cost estimates for the high values. In turn, these cost estimates rely almost 100% on the modelled consequences of a given level of warming, which in turn are contingent on the high levels of sensitivity.
Policy justification has to rely upon computer models of computer models which have assumptions that somebody thought up back in the 1970s and nobody thought to challenge. In reality this is just a cover. Policy relies upon the belief by the many that the beliefs of a few have some solid, scientific foundation, which they cannot understand.
80
Do you even look at what you are posting, bozo brain.
According to that graph at 280ppm, there is “zero” forcing.. un.. right.. lol !
Seem their knowledge surely has drifted.. far , far away.. and yours has taken the same trip.
(Mind you, zero forcing at 280 is probably correct, but it should be zero forcing for all other values to.)
———————-
PS, your continued postings are doing the CAGW meme a great dis-service. Thank you. 🙂
60
As with graphs of temperature where zero point is an average of some pre existing temperature range (eg 1981 to 2000) so that the temperature is expressed as the “anomaly” relative to that point, so here the vertical axis shows the energy per square meter anomaly relative to the preindustrial era.
06
I knew that was what was meant, but the graph did not indicate that, did it.
Look at what you post and make sure if you post a graph, it stands on its own.
60
or that you provide a description of what you think is meant to be.
60
Whoops. It is not CO2 that will take temps to 4.5C higher – it is the resultant increase in water vapour.
So far, there has been no apparent increase (no hot spot). And that’s from any IPCC report.
200
‘it is the resultant increase in water vapour.’ oh, no it isn’t, because co2 is so much more effective than water vapour at trapping heat! Just because there is more of co2, doesn’t mean it has overall the biggest potential at trapping heat, co2 punches above its weight!
Water vapour and co2 as GHGs and heat vent blockers. [Therefore resulting in AGW!].
‘70 years ago the view that co2 could affect the global climate was held by only a tiny minority of climate scientists, many assumed there would be a self regulating mechanism that would put things back into balance. Then there was the scientifically valid view that water vapour also trapped radiation and warms up the Earth and it is more abundant in the atmosphere than co2. But research in the 1940s changed all that, Guy Stewart Callender, a British engineer showed that radiation absorption is not even. Water vapour absorbs is mainly in the 18-30
micro-meter band and allows most of the rest to escape into space, in effect these absorption gaps act like cooling vents , but co2 absorbs in a different range, 8-18 micro-metre so Callender concluded that co2 mops up this escaping radiation, effectively acting as a plug to these cooling vents’. Potholer54.
As you can see here!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RdAKIN6Y6k
Even the IPCC acknowledges water vapor as more important than CO2. You’ll need to do better before you clutter up the thread with falsehoods. You are not seriously suggesting that H20 acts differently because it works on a slightly different part of the micrometer band to CO2? It’s too stupid, even for you? H20 has wider absorption bands than CO2, and it makes up 4%, not 0.04% of the atmosphere. — Jo
321
Ms Nova. “It’s too stupid, even for you?”
Now the “skeptic” shows her true colours.
126
Yes, accurate and precise.
141
“When you resort to name calling you’ve lost the argument.”
Anthony Watts.
219
But you probably agree with BA4.
His comments are not too stupid for you.
150
We know your style of scientific discussion Griss. I expected better from Ms Nova.
019
““When you resort to name calling you’ve lost the argument.””
And that is exactly what you did, in your normal insipid, slimy way.
181
Brian,
So claiming his argument is stupid is name calling? Read it again.
Is Blackdribblerthe4th Correct?
110
Philip, you BA4, HJ etc, have to be told continually just how inept you are.
Its like AA, until you are prepared to admit you have a major problem, you won’t do anything about it.
We are only being kind, trying to help you. Trying to jolt your minds out of their ignorant and brain-washed stupor.
As Heywood asks…
“because co2 is so much more effective than water vapour at trapping heat! “
Is Blackdribblerthe4th Correct?”
181
And we know your style of scientific discussion…
…. and we expect nothing from you.
111
……..and you constantly deliver just that.
111
Heywood.
No. But that’s no excuse for name calling and certainly not by the proprietor of this blog, and it was not just “stupid” It was “It’s too stupid, even for you?”
The relative contibutions to the greenhouse effect of water compared to CO2 is not simple.
http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2010/08/27/adding-up-the-greenhouse-effect-attributing-the-contributions/
(10^15/10^18)
021
Brian,
Thanks for replying.
You may or may not be aware of BA4th’s tactics and history of ‘stupid’ statements on this blog. I read Jo’s statement as implying that this particular claim, which you have confirmed as incorrect, is even more stupid than most of the stupid statements he makes.
You are entitled to your faux indignation though, it is free speech after all.
122
On what rational basis is that expectation based??
311
Is calling something someone SAYS “stupid”, the same as calling the person “stupid”?
Not in my book, but maybe it is to you thin skinned warmists.
101
Phillip: “It’s too stupid”…refers to the idea.
If I wanted to namecall the correct grammar would be: “you’re too stupid”.
I see you have no criticism with my scientific summary so you agree H20 is more powerful than CO2, and it’s not about it being 8 – 18 vs 18 – 30 micrometers.
181
Ms Nova: A bit of a fine distinction and it sets a bad example for others. Not that some of them need any encouragement.
And no I did not dispute the content of you comment. Mind you I did not examine it in detail but it seems in line with the contents of the link I provided to Heywood above.
111
Phillip, sometimes a stupid idea is a stupid idea. You seem to think if someone calls it what it is, they’ve “lost” the argument.
Dare I suggest that with reasoning like this, no wonder you are confused about climate change.
There is a reason there is no law of science about namecalling.
120
Ms Nova as I explained to Heywood above if you had left it at “It’s too stupid”, that would have been one thing. But you wrote “It’s too stupid, even for you?” (My Bold)
That is personalysing the comment.
06
Phillip, as opposed to you that called me (and others)
You cannot even get the spelling of your personal insults correct …
50
Brian,
I know that you ‘explained’ your position but I humbly disagree.
I gave you the background information on BA4th above that puts Jo’s “too stupid, even for you” comment in context.
40
you are not a skeptic. But your colors are apparent.
30
She called no names. She said the statement was stupid. So I take it you are ESL?
30
Again, no. Your comprehension of the English language is lacking. The additional clause only indicates the object to have a propensity for less than rational statements. It says nothing for the intelligence of the person.
I see the education system in your area suffers from the same symptoms of the ones around here. Perhaps if you had paid attention in school, you would not be making such stupid statements (yea, I know, now you are going to claim I lost the debate – so typical).
40
It’s all in the IPCC report re water vapour increasing the temps past 2.0C. Just read it.
120
Stop linking to crap, Philip.
This git refers to ‘Lindzen’ (no first name) estimating 97% or 98% due to water, and “radiative transfer guru Andy Lacis” attempting to correct this situation.
Pure propaganda. No calculations. Just spin.
91
I guess he was assuming everyone would know who Lindzen is. It’s quite normal to refer to people who are well known by their last name only.
He is more formally identified in the linked reference to Coby Beck:
5) References to 95% contribution of water vapor:
a. S.M. Freidenreich and V. Ramaswamy, “Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,” Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264
b. Global Deception: The Exaggeration of the Global Warming Threat
by Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, June 1998
Virginia State Climatologist and Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia
c. Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Appendix D, Greenhouse Gas Spectral Overlaps and Their Significance
Energy Information Administration; Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government
d. Personal Communication– Dr. Richard S. Lindzen
Alfred P. Slone Professor of Meteorology, MIT
I generally take a brief look at at least some of the references in a websource to see if it is credible. Especially for a source I am unfamiliar with as here, where the author is not even named.
The piece is in the nature of a review. The author does not need to do calculations. They are given in the references.
010
Reading this soliloquy from BA4 I had a strong feeling of deja vue, then immediately recalled the “thinking” speech by Lucky the slave from Samuel Becketts “absurdist” masterpiece “Waiting for Godot”.It is far too long to quote but contains same incoherent non sequiturs and “stream of consciousness” verbal diarrhea where multiple, barely related, concepts fight for expression
like the bad dream just before waking
which leaves you thinking “what the f*** was all that about?”.
Then you realise that your brain has just excreted the worthless detritus of your unconscious anxieties and a new day has begun.
Thank you for the thermodynamic history of the planet, sadly restricted to only 500m years, but all driven by CO2. Time to consider those other trace gases O2 & N2, that might possibly affect the atmosphere.
230
‘ Time to consider those other trace gases O2 & N2’ no doubt minor compared with co2! See link and text above.
116
You’re a climate zombie.
100
Quote:
blackadderthe4th March 7, 2014 at 11:14 pm ·
“But there is 500 million years of evidence that CO2 is a GHG and therefore currently heating up the planet!”
Question:
How do you explain the late Ordovician period (450my) when carbon(sic) levels were over 4000 ppm and it was
an ice age?
270
HJ, Levels of solar out put and orbital factors vary greatly over time periods of hundreds of millions of years.
Since the end of the last ice Age they have been relatively stable.
017
So has the climate..
apart from the slight warming from the Grand Solar Maximum in the latter part of the 20th century.
And read it this time if you can, so you may actually learn something… or stay ignorant as usual… your choice.
151
Here, because I doubt you will get a that far.. I’ve included a quote from the conclusion
“The modern level of solar activity (after the 1940s) is very high, corresponding to a grand
maximum. Grand maxima are also rare and irregularly occurring events, though the exact
rate of their occurrence is still a subject of debates.”
111
BA4,
There is actually no evidence of CO2 doing anything of the sort apart from its general property of being a free-flowing gas in a planetary atmosphere. We have had very warm periods (warmer than now) and very cold periods (ice ages), both of which have been experienced when CO2 levels were an order of magnitude higher than they are now. There is no correlation between CO2 levels and ambient temperature so there is certainly no causality.
Let us start with 20 facts about CO2 that puts the two areas (biology and thermodynamics) in the correct context.
Let us then continue with observational based science that shows that there is no evidence of any temperature effect based on the gaseous composition of the atmosphere.
160
Can you please link to where we can find the measurements of the deep ocean temperatures that confirms this ‘extra heat’?
Take your time.
160
Correct Truthseeker.
The role of CO2 in sustaining life and as a greenhouse gas are two completely different processes.
So why do skeptics keep mentioning the former in reference to the latter?
400 ppm is 2.1 trillion tonnes, warming the atmosphere day after day, year after year, for as long as it takes to reach thermal equilibrium.
241
Errata. 400 ppm is actually a volume by volume or molecule by molecule proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere.
For mass one needs to adjust for the differing molar masses (molecular weights in the old usage.) I will not reproduce the calculations for fear that Griss will again attack me for using “purile junior high school mathematics”, but the mass of CO2 in the atmosphere is actually 3.3 trillion tonnes.
130
Philip Shehan;
“”, but the mass of CO2 in the atmosphere is actually 3.3 trillion tonnes.”
=
And the mass of N2 or O2 ?
–
For (ouch!) perspective.
210
bullocky
On (Ouch!) perspective. Again skeptics are trying to have it both ways.
On the one hand, when it comes to biology, the fact that CO2 constitutes only 0.04% of the atmosphere is irrelevant when singing the praises of this life giving gas. In fact increasing this amount by even a hundred ppm will be a boon for life on earth.
But when it comes to physics, the idea that this same 0.04% CO2 could have any effect is self evident tosh.
Please explain.
Nitrogen constitutes 79% of the atmosphere.
(Yes Vic that’s molecule by molecule or volume by volume. I have spent several decades measuring nuclear magnetic resonance frequencies in ppm, so I do have some familiarity with the concept. I did forget to put in the adjustment for mass when I made the initial calculation.
And of course you and all the other skeptics would have picked up the error had I not corrected it myself.)
The mass of N2 in the atmosphere, as you all no doubt have calculated yourselves since it requires only puerile junior high school mathematics (thank you for spelling the correction Griss) is therefore 3.2 billion trillion tones.
Oh. My. God.
3.2 billion trillion tonnes of suffocating nitrogen!!!
WE ARE ALL DOOMED!!!!
116
” In fact increasing this amount by even a hundred ppm will be a boon for life on earth.”
Yes.. let’s get to it then. !
Been parlously low for eons, because it all got trapped below ground.
If you had even the inkling of biological knowledge you would know that plants luv CO2 up around 1000+ ppm because that’s what they had when they developed. But you obviously don’t. So I won’t waste any more of my time on trying to explain stuff to you.
And again, your basic lack of physics knowledge again comes to the fore if you think CO2 at this minuscule amounts is going to have any affect whatsoever.
And of course carbon is important to carbon based life, (of which we are one by the way), extremely important.
It is one of the three main building blocks, no living thing, that I can think of, can exist without it………
Yet, look how badly imbalanced its amount is in the atmosphere.
141
“you think CO2 at this minuscule amounts is going to have any affect whatsoever.”
Sorry Griss, are you talking effects on plant life or effects on atmosphere?
I am still confused and waiting for an explanation as to why 400 ppm is self evidently piddling in one context and significant in the other.
113
The atmosphere of course, drone.
” why 400 ppm is self evidently piddling in one context and significant in the other.”
Sorry you are incapable of understanding because of your lack of general education.
Not my problem,
and not my job to fix it.
101
I’ll keep it really simple for you.
Physically it is a tiny amount and totally unimportant
Biologically it is also tiny amount, but absolutely important.
That’s the simplest I can make it for.
Please try to comprehend the basics… just once.
121
“WE ARE ALL DOOMED!!!!”
roflmao..
You are starting to sound more and more like BA4 or MOR or HJ every day. 🙂
101
…… as your IQ continues to drop.
51
Philip Shehan;
“Oh. My. God.
3.2 billion trillion tonnes of suffocating nitrogen!!!
WE ARE ALL DOOMED!!!!”
–
‘The end is nigh,
According to Phil;
If CO2 don’t getcha,
…..Nitrogen will!
–
–
And the total mass of (benign?) Oxygen?
20
Philip, this one is really quite simple: You see science is all about empirical evidence (maybe a shocker to the typical warmist). We can measure and build physical tests and observe what different levels of co2 do for living creatures.
With regard to co2 caused warming, well, um, how can I put it delicately, THERE IS NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE! We can’t measure or build physical tests. What you have is a weak theory bolstered with model created “evidence”.
Get it?
90
bullocky. Pardon me if I do not bother doing the maths this time. The brief answer is a shiteload.
And please note: The amount of CO2 is actually 3.2 thousand trillion tonnes. Was waiting to see if Vic or anyone else noticed that error.
010
“Physically it is a tiny amount and totally unimportant
Biologically it is also tiny amount, but absolutely important.”
“With regard to co2 caused warming, well, um, how can I put it delicately, THERE IS NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE!”
There is in fact about the same amount of evidence as in my reply to bullocky concerning the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere.
If you guys want to believe the contrary fine. Do not expect me or Roy Spencer or Lindzen or the vast majority of skeptics to go along with it (although they differ with me on the amount of warming).
110
Philip Shehan;
“And please note: The amount of CO2 is actually 3.2 thousand trillion tonnes. Was waiting to see if Vic or anyone else noticed that error.”
–
That’s about 0.039% of the total atmosphere then?
00
Philip, contrary to what? You try to lump us all into a following of one skeptical Authority or another? Skeptics don’t follow Authorities we follow evidence and warmists are so short on evidence it should be a laugh. Too bad it isn’t funny.
For me It has always boiled down to the assumptions of feedbacks not what CO2 can do alone (although there is still plenty of room to argue whether CO2 in the small quantity could cause warming). Water in all forms is abundant on the globe. It is the elephant in the room. Assumed by warmists to be adding to CO2 warming with virtually no supporting empirical measurement. Water in all forms has the ability to cool the earth just as well.
It’s water that is the thermostat and we should be spending time and resources figuring out what trips in the systems that cause ice ages not hamstringing the globes inhabitants by limiting energy. It is ice climate that will mess up human life, not a few degrees of natural warming.
By the way have you bothered to look into Agenda 21 yet?
40
Mark D. The contrary to the statement that there is evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Not even that the evidence is incorrect mind you, but that there is no evidence.
And I was also thinking of the skeptics poll which was trumpeted here (so much for consensus and “authority” don’t matter among you skeptics) which actually showed some 80% think CO2 is a greenhouse gas but disgree with the magnitude of its effect.
And no I have not read agenda 21 as it is not about science.
04
No bullocky its 79% by volume
05
So you agree that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. Progress is being made.
40
Sorry bullocky just noticed two errors.
I meant that the mass of nitrogen in the atmoshere (79% by volume) is 3.2 thousand trillion tonnes, not CO2.
But I think I made an unintended error factoring the 79% in twice.
Pardon the puerile junior high school mathematics.
To convert from % by volume to mass you need to factor in the molar masses of the constituent gases. (This conversion is really much more important when calculating the mass of CO2 in the atmosphere from the volume fraction as the molar mass for CO2 = 44 which is considerably heavier than N2 or O2)
N2 = 28
O2 = 32 (20% of the atmosphere by volume)
The remaining 1% of the atmosphere is made up of gases of varying molar masses (ncluding 0.04% CO2) but for simplicity in the calculation we will leave this out.
So the average molar mass for molecules in the atmosphere is 28 x 0.79 + 32 x 0.20 = 22.1 + 6.4 = 28.5
So overall the proportion of the atmosphere by mass that is nitrogen 5.2 x 0.79 x 28/28.5 x 10^15 = 4.0 x 10^15 or
4.0 thousand trillion tonnes.
06
No TS
“If you guys want to believe the contrary fine…The contrary to the statement that there is evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.”
The next sentence is clearly a reference to a belief contrary to the existance of evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas:
“Not even that the evidence is incorrect mind you, but that there is no evidence.”
06
Still waiting on you to produce one example of observational evidence that CO2 (or any other gas) is a “greenhouse gas” in a free-flowing atmosphere …
40
Gees TS, how many times has that one been asked….
….. and ignored.
Must be nearing 3 figures.
30
Philip Shehan;
“And please note: The amount of CO2 is actually 3.2 thousand trillion tonnes. Was waiting to see if Vic or anyone else noticed that error.”
–
That’s about 0.039% of the total atmosphere then?
–
Philip Shehan;
“So overall the proportion of the atmosphere by mass that is nitrogen 5.2 x 0.79 x 28/28.5 x 10^15 = 4.0 x 10^15 or
4.0 thousand trillion tonnes.”
–
–
‘USED CARS & HARBOUR BRIDGES FOR SALE!’
10
Yep, Bullock.. 4c in $100. up from 3c in $100.
( How does that line up with inflation. That would be an interesting correlation 😉 )
Need to get it up to 10c before we can start to spend it, though. 🙂
30
Mass of atmosphere. 5×10^18 kg = 5×10^15 tons =5×10^15 tons/10^12 (short trillion)=5×10^3 trillion tons
5×10^3 trillion tons x 400/1,000,000 x 44(g/mol)/29(g/mol)= 3 trillion tons.
ton is a metric tonne in Aus.
40
The never ending stupidity of the knee jerk like/don’t like tickers.
Vic reproduces my calculation (which got 29 thumbs down and he gets 2 thumbs up.
15
Brian, you do realise the more you complain about it the more you get don’t you?
Ask crakar24 next time he is in. Because he complains nearly every time, it has become a sport for some to throw a red thumb in every post he makes.
21
aaawww. A red thumb Brian? Just after I gave you a green one too. Oh it’s on! 😉
20
Aww, only 29! Even I managed to get 32 once, and I wasn’t even trying.
I think it’s about time you lifted your game.
Here, have another red thumb from me, that should make you feel better.
20
Poor PS.. a red thumb or two… .. roflmao.
Tears, tears in the morning. 🙂
(an old Beach Boys song)
[Snip not relevant] ED
20
or even better…
[Snip. Doubtful that any of this is “better” ] ED
10
I’m not going back over his drivel, but I’m sure that he asked me to check after he changed it to 3,000 trillion tons (instead of kilograms)
10
Its just a “cop-out”
An EGO thing.
20
Philip Shehan;
“The never ending stupidity of the knee jerk like/don’t like tickers.”
–
This sort of language is unlikely to win them over.
–
(…and Anthony Watts wouldn’t approve, either!)
00
Not complaining old boy. Just pointing out the stupidity of it. If I was not upsetting these people I would be disappointed.
01
I mean Heywood I got multiple raspberries for genuinely thanking you for supplying some information.
That has happened often. I mean stupid hardly covers it does it? I wonder if they can actually read, other than to recognise the names of people they have deemed idealogical enemies.
02
Looks like Philip just discovered what ppm was.
The mass of all living things on Earth is comparable to the mass of CO2 in the atmosphere. Should we also insist that the metabolism of living organisms contributes 30°C to the global mean surface temperatures?
There are only 2 billion tons that are dry crops, but this is much more important for humanity.
A quick science quiz for BA4 or Philip. Why do we breath?
150
Sorry Vic don’t think I follow your reasoning here. (Even if only birds, mammals and monotremes are warm blooded creatures and plants are cold sapped.
To scare people when making otherwise silent anonymous telephone calls?
114
Sounds like there is a story behind that Brian. Have you been the target of heavy breathers on the phone? 😉
101
I asked the question to see what your general knowledge in science was. I guess I didn’t have to.
The metabolism of all organisms create heat. Its thought that large dinosaurs could have had a constant warm body temperature akin to warn blooded, due to their size, because even the metabolism of cold-blooded animals, and plants, produce heat. Obviously, not enough to make up for that lost to the environment in many cases.
110
Heywood: Victim or perpetrator? I refuse to answer on the grounds of possible self incrimination.
212
Philip Shehan;
“To scare people when making otherwise silent anonymous telephone calls?”
–
Why not ask Robyn ‘Hundred Meters’ Williams about scaring people?
10
“Griss will again attack me for using “purile junior high school mathematics”, ”
Why bother when we are talking about such piddling relative amounts.
Do BIG numbers scare you , Philip ?
—————–
ps.. and your maths is “puerile”, not “purile”.
183
definition and spelling
10
However Phillip, despite your own math showing that climate sensitivity is strictly somewhat less than 2, and per the IPCC conclusion that only 1/2 of that is reliably attributable to Anthropogenic CO2 you stil persist in carrying on like chicken little.
Instead, why shouldn’t we just worry about this mild warming as it happens, and use instead our wealth and intellect for the betterment of mankind. For example, like feeding the worlds hungry with our corn instead of burning it in our engines. Or maybe by bettering the poor nations by providing the same universal cheap energy we enjoy. Or perhaps by using the billions wasted on unsustainable windmills and solar panels to find cures for the worlds great diseases.
Frankly Phillip, you are an enigma, you are the only person I have ever met that has done the math showing the sensitivity is a benign 0.9 to 1.8 degrees per doubling and is still a warmist. Now that’s what I call being in denial!
You claim to be a scientist so do my other boundary test… I challenge you, if you dare.
Warmist claims are that the temperature rise between atmospheric temperature and theoretical blackbody is 33 degrees. ( Ignoring lapse rate – gravity well warming ), and via satellites we know that energy is 85% absorbed in the CO2 absorption band
So let’s do a classic boundary test using these facts, let’s assume that this 33 degrees is ALL due to GHGs and that it’s growth is linear (it’s not it’s logarithmic, and not only that, water vapour feedback is logaritmic too!). Assuming linearity though will give us a bounds figure that is very conservative, strictly greater than what should happen for a logarithmic system where not all the 33 degrees is due to grenouse warming. Calculate the temperature rise per percent absorbed energy (33/85) extrapolate that to 100 percent absorbtion ( the maximum possible )
Go on, what do you get? Hint – about 38.6, that’s just 5.6 degrees greater than now.
Now there are about 13 doublings of CO2 between 400 PPM and 100% CO2 = 99.9% absorption. What is the maximum sensitivity as extrapolated from the current difference between blackbody theoretical and 15C Hint, (5.6 / 13).
NOW Phil, remember, I was being conservative, I assumed that all the 33 degree rise was due to GHGs. Modify your calculation to account for the fact that it’s generally accepted that only 10 of the 33 degrees is GHG related.
What do you get then?
My bet is you will refuse to do the math.
I tell you what Phil, until someone shows me how greenhouse warming is going to magically accelerate for the last 15 percent absorbtion I must scientifically remain sceptical of that claim. Such claims do not tally with even these simple boundary tests based on accepted facts. Now are you going to be a scientist and be sceptical of claims outside simple boundary tests of historical warming, or are you in the ranks of climate preachers screaming thermoggedon on every street corner, repent yet sins, the end of the world is nigh….
PS, when I taught at uni, this was a classic problem with students. You could give a problem let’s say a small petrol engine driving a generator, and the students would actually submit calculations showing gigawatts of generation. I used to teach about bounds checking, if you have a 4 KW motor, then the answer to the problem has gotta be less than 4 KW. Climate science fails these simple reasonableness tests all the time, but they dont seem to get it… My guess is environmental scientists are a bit math challenged.
190
**Tumbleweeds**
10
bobl.
My own estimate of about 2 C does not mean “strictly somewhat less than 2 C.”
Nor does nominating a low figure means I am carrying on like chicken little.
I would genuinely like a specific reference to “the IPCC conclusion that only 1/2 of that is reliably attributable to Anthropogenic CO2.” That means chapter (and page would be nice) if you can supply it.
You seem to be careful with numbers (except for the linguistic interpretations you place on my statement about 2 C) but I have found that often such quoted figures are not quite in the right context. As when I was abused for persisting in quoting the IPCC range of 1.5 – 4.5 C for the climate sensitivity figure instead of the 1.3 C which the draft of the fifth report chapter summary allegedly said. Except that the former referred to equilibrium figure range and the latter to the transient figure.
Now accepting a figure of 1.5 C would still mean that with continuing accelerating growth in CO2 emmissions we would soon be beyond the 2 C increase since the industrial revolution which is generally nominated as the level for “dangerous” climate change. We are currently 0.9 C toward that figure. I do not think that makes me an alarmist or a chicken littler.
I sincerely hope the true figure less than 2 C, because if it is anywhere near 4.5 C, things could get unpleasant quickly.
And no I may not do the maths. (Apologies if that is the case.) I would really have to spend quite a bit of time checking your assumptions and familiarising myself with the necessary calculations. But I do take note of your comments which are thoughtful and considered.
013
I believe the IPCC said something like there is high confidence that most (50% or more) warming is anthropogenic. from this statement we can conclude that no more than 50% can be reliably attributed to Anthropogenic sources according to the IPCC so up to 1/2 your dubious 0.9 degree since 1900 claim is natural.
We are currently 0.9 C toward that figure.
Since there is only a mere 0.8 degrees between now and the depths of the little ice age I hope you are not claiming that moving back 0.9 degrees to colder than LIA temperatures, and near starvation CO2 levels is in any way desirable
which is generally nominated as the level for “dangerous” climate change.
Welcome back chicken little.
And no I may not do the maths.
Hmm for someone who’s supposed to have a PHD in nuclear magnetic reasonance, you seem to be very reluctant to do a little arithmetic. What’s wrong, worldview challenged? I guess I can claim victory in this debate then and I assume you’ll stop spreading disinformation about “dangerous” sky falling type warming until you have bothered with the math.
There’s more after this too Phillip, since it can be shown mathematically that IPCC warming requires internal, positive loop gains exceeding 0.95, and even a mere magnetic reasonance physicist aught to know that that’s impossible, especially for a system that’s been stable to within 3 percent for millions of years.
90
Oh, and unfortunately you do not know it, but you imply strictly less than 2 because your estimate has assumed that all warming since 1900 in your case is anthropogenic, we know that a major portion of that though is not anthropogenic, the bit from 1900 – 1950 for starters, so your estimate is conservative, it a high bound on measured warming sensitivity, real AgW sensitivity will be strictly less than your estimate because not all of the warming since 1900 can be attributed to man as you have done.
80
Are you playing with us, or did you omit the ‘deep ocean’…..well……. accidentally ?
90
Philip Shehan;
“400 ppm is 2.1 trillion tonnes, warming the atmosphere day after day, year after year, for as long as it takes to reach thermal equilibrium.”
–
Quite a bit, in the average herbarium!
40
Sorry bozo, but that 400ppm or 0.4% of the atmosphere, has had no warming effect for all of this century.
201
typo.. 0.04% but everyone knows that. even though it is so darn tiny
50
Philip Shehan says:
Philip using the pre 1900 part of the chart on the right at the link below, can you tell us what that destination equilibrium temperature was before human intervention is supposed to have saved us from the long term cooling?
http://a-sceptical-mind.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Comparison-charts.jpg
Also refering to the “settled science” that produced that chart can you explain the now 17 and a half year pause without concluding that natural cooling would have sucked all the CO2 into the oceans and killed us all by now if the chart had been correct? Bear in mind that you have agreed with ” At about 180 ppm it is game over, for everything.”
140
Siliggy,
The first graph on your link was drawn up by H.H. Lamb who used tree rings, agricutural records and historical accounts from norhtern Europe, and mostly from central England. The best that could be procuced at the time.
The second graph from 2011 is from a wider range of sources in terms of geographic location, proxy temperature sources and instrumental readings, and is thus closer to the true global temeprature record.
With regard to the “pause” or “hiatus”, here is UAH satellite data, associated with skeptics Christy and Spencer so no complaints about corrupted temperature data please.
http://tinyurl.com/kxlcjc8
There is no more evidence of a pause since 1998 than of a pause up until 1998. But if you look at the data set as a whole there is a warming trend. In fact since 1999 the trend is the same as for the period as a whole. Warming as usual.
If it sounds odd that you can claim it hasn’t warmed for the last 17 years but has warmed for the last 15 years. I agree.
All that can be said unequivocally that is 1998 was an exceptionally hot el nino year, and discussion of trends which include or exclude this single year are likely to be problematic.
Only the whole satellite data set is statistically significant, and the effect of the extreme el nino event of 1998, which makes such a difference if you include or exclude it from the short term data, has little or nothing to do with the effect of increasing CO2 concentration.
But we can compare the temperature with CO2 concentration for the whole period:
http://tinyurl.com/nyjroxe
The lack of statistical significance of course does not rule out a hiatus, but in the event such a hiatus is real, so what?
There have been plenty of flat and even declining periods within a decades long period of statistically significant warming.
A basic tenet of AGW theory is that natural forcings and weather events will at times reinforce and at other times diminish anthropogenic warming due to increasing CO2 concentrations and there is a very good correlation given the “noise” in the temperature due to natural forcings and weather events which also affect the temperature.
013
Philip Shehan;
“A basic tenet of AGW theory is that natural forcings and weather events will at times reinforce and at other times diminish anthropogenic warming……”
–
‘AGW theory is flexible enough to retrospectively fit any weather event to the prediction/projection (whichever best suits the occasion).’
–
George Orwell was, perhaps, the first modern climatologist!
11
Anyone coming in late to this discussion would certainly realise that carbon dioxide generates heat.
Philip Shehan:
I would be wary of defending Blackbladder 4 as you will find yourself in indefensible territory.
He has recently claimed that the last 500 million years back the theory of CO2 warming, when the reverse is the case.
He has claimed that CO2 is the major greenhouse gas, not water vapour; obviously he has never spent a night in a dry desert.
And he has claimed that Guy Callender proved CO2 causes warming using infrared spectra. Not true, he was in fact rebuked at the time about incorrect statements about the infrared. Indeed his original paper was not at all convincing, but because he was right about the Earth warming in the preceding 20 years he has been elevated to sainthood. (Incidentally he estimated the feedback at 1.8 and believed that some warming would be good for mankind, so he wasn’t worried about his wartime job of burning tens of thousands of gallons of oil to lift fog from bomber airfields).
30
Philip
You have completely ignored the question. So here it is again.
Using the pre 1900 part of the chart on the right at the link below, can you tell us what that destination equilibrium temperature was?
http://a-sceptical-mind.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Comparison-charts.jpg
30
I ignored it because the question is not answerable.
What year is the “destination”?
It depends on the amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere (among other natural forcings).
18
Philip
The question you claim to have ignored because “the question is not answerable.”
is..
The chart clearly shows accelerating cooling prior to 1900. As you say the destination temperature before human intervention cannot be known (year given or not). Therefore you cannot be sure that man made CO2 did not save us from simultaneous lack of CO2 and the onset of an ice age. Yet you push on with a religion that could inspire geoengineers to bring about the real catastrophe that lack of CO2 would be.
As I have explained to you before, your religion states that CO2 sensitivity drops as CO2 increases, so if you want CO2 climate change reduced then drive CO2 up to reduce the effect of CO2 change. This will also help to avoid the above catastrophy that you cannot be sure will not happen.
70
Philip Shehan;
“It depends on the amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere (among other natural forcings).”
–
eg; Climate Scientists jetting around the world to conferences etc.
30
Anyone can play silly childish games with graphs.
20
ie. If you cherry pick your starting points and cherry pick the scales you can make nearly any pair of graphs appear to coincide.
Its a trick even M. Mann is capable of, so yes….. very puerile. (gees he even turn some upside down to fake it.)
Same as that anomaly forcing one that I couldn’t bother looking for again.. why start at zero anomaly when you could graph the whole thing… oh because it would barely show up otherwise.
ie.. Its a graphical lie. !
51
And of course, since the ElNino settled at the beginning of 2001, we have this.
50
Griss, What are the 2 sigma error limits of your trend lines?
05
Griss your arbitrary scaling of the CO2 concentration with respect to the temperature cannot hide the fact that the increase in temperature with doubling of CO2 concentration is 2 C whether the data starts in 1850, 1958 or 1979.
05
“ fact that the “
Fact ????? roflmao..
And you call yourself a scientist. !! that’s just hilarious 🙂
Your 2°C is based on a short period of random coincidence of temperature and CO2 rise, it is no more a fact than flying pink elephants are a fact.
It totally ignores real FACTS such as
i) FACT: no warming for 17 years, hints of cooling in 3 of the 4 data sets. No correlation at all with CO2.
ii) FACT: largest solar activity in several hundred years (now gone to sleep, so warming stopped)
iii) FACT: whole-scale cooling adjustments of the pre-1980 data to create the warming trend from around 1970 to try to get rid of the 1940’s peak
iv) FACT: In Hansen’s adjusted data pre-”the CAGW farce” 1940’s temp was approximately the same as the large ElNino peak of 1998. Warming trend since 1940 is zero
v) FACT: The 30 year period from 1977-2007 warmed at a slower rate than the 30 year period from 1915-1945 in the unadjusted temperature data, despite raised CO2, UHI effects and a Grand Solar maximum.
Sorry PS, but your little attribution calculations are a farce, you know that, I know that, and everybody else on the forum with even the slightest intelligence knows that.
(no, not JJ or BA4)
Why you continue to waste your obviously value time (sarc, btw) in trying to pass off junk science really does puzzle me.
[Snip. Unnecessary] ED
21
“Your 2°C is based on a short period of random coincidence of temperature and CO2 rise”
So 150 years is not long enough to establish a correlation but
“i) FACT: no warming for 17 years, hints of cooling in 3 of the 4 data sets. No correlation at all with CO2.”
Again Griss what are the 2 sigma error margins of your regression lines?
14
Who TF cares what the stupid 2 sigma error is. Gees, a year 10 student with the data could calculate that.. ITS NOT IMPORTANT
That is your problem.. its irrelevant and meaningless in a chaotic system.
The FACT that you don’t realise that really says so much about your limited mathematical ability.
Your continued refusal to accept that THERE HAS BEEN NO WARMING THIS CENTURY puts you at odds with the entire scientific and mathematical community. See.. I can call “consensus”, too.
You really are WASTING YOUR TIME.. You will gain no traction , and win no arguments here.
[Snip. Griss these extra personal comments aren’t helpful. Please raise your standards] ED
20
Griss, The entire scientific and mathematical community understands the importance of statistical significancew, even if you do not.
And you have failed to explain how a 164 year statistically significant data set is too short a term on which to base a conclusion but a non stistically significant 17 year period is fine.
03
Philip Shehan;
“….cannot hide the fact that the increase in temperature with doubling of CO2 concentration is 2 C whether the data starts in 1850, 1958 or 1979.”…..
–
……….but not 1997!
00
Philip Shehan;
“And you have failed to explain how a 164 year statistically significant data set is too short a term on which to base a conclusion but a non stistically significant 17 year period is fine.”
–
And you have failed to identify a mechanism that has prevented the continuing increase of CO2 from causing any warming over the most recent and continuing 17+ years.
(A range of mechanisms have been proposed, apparently to address the significance of the pause/hiatus, stalling/flatlining of global temperatures.)
00
bullocky plese go back and read
5.1.2.5.1
Philip Shehan
March 8, 2014 at 9:24 pm ·
Also, explain to me on the basis of the linear trend lines or any other measure, how the last 17 years shows any less of a temperature “pause” or correlation with CO2 concentration than for the preceeding 18 years.
And how is it that the trend for the last 15 years shows no pause at all compared with the entire 35 years of UAH data?
http://tinyurl.com/n2nvs4d
The fact is that the correlation between temperature and CO2 holds good for the entire period.
The short non statistically significant trend lines simply demonstrate that for short periods the signal to noise ratio of the temperature data is to low to give any reliable indication of the longer term trend in which they are embedded.
The effect of the extreme el nino southern summer of 1997/1998 on which the 17 year (non statistically significant)”pause” depends is due to the ENSO forcing mechanism and so has no relevance to the connection between CO2 concentration and temperature.
01
Philip Shehan;
“Also, explain to me on the basis of the linear trend lines or any other measure, how the last 17 years shows any less of a temperature “pause” or correlation with CO2 concentration than for the preceeding 18 years.”
–
Firstly, you must propose, with credible verifiable evidence, a mechanism that has caused the continuing absence of atmospheric warming over the most recent 17+ years. We all agree that CO2 can cause warming. Why has a continuously increasing amount of it during the past 17 (approx.) not produced the theoretically expected warming.
A number of papers published in recent years – Trenberth, England,Cowtan,Schmidt etc – all propose explanations for the lull in warming, reflecting the statistical significance of the ‘pause’. You may have a preference, or perhaps you exclude these personnel from your idea of “The entire scientific and mathematical community”?
–
Of course, you may be saving your privately held view for a “special occasion!
00
bullocky please go back and read
5.1.2.5.1
Philip Shehan
March 8, 2014 at 9:24 pm ·
But bullocky, by exactly the same reasoning, you must propose, with credible verifiable evidence, a mechanism that caused the continuing absence of atmospheric warming over the 18 years between the beginning of 1979 and the end of 1996.
http://tinyurl.com/n2nvs4d
Why do skeptics never go on about this “pause”?
How is it that there are two consecutive “pauses”, one from 1979 to the end of 1996 and another from the beginning of 1997 to the present, but the same data set examined as a whole, from 1979 to the present shows a warming trend?
Why do I need to “propose, with credible verifiable evidence, a mechanism that has caused the continuing absence of atmospheric warming over the most recent 17+ years” when when the most recent 15 years of that period shows a warming trend the same as that for the last 35 years.
Why has a continuously increasing amount of it during the past 17 (approx.) not produced the theoretically expected warming.
Go back and read my original post.
And answer me this. Is it your position that only CO2 is responsible for atmospheric temperature?
01
STOP PRESS!!!
Philip Shehan;
“But bullocky, by exactly the same reasoning, you must propose, with credible verifiable evidence, a mechanism that caused the continuing absence of atmospheric warming over the 18 years between the beginning of 1979 and the end of 1996.”
–
There’s no doubt, Philip, you can make them figgers do whatever you want. I never really took your CS figure of 2 deg.C seriously, anyway!
00
Philip Shehan;
‘Why do skeptics never go on about this “pause”?’
–
Tenberth, Fasullo, England, Cowtan, Way, Schmidt et al are not skeptics! – (perhaps even, the diametric opposite)
00
Philip Shehan;
“And answer me this. Is it your position that only CO2 is responsible for atmospheric temperature?”
–
Whatever my position is, yours is quite clear;
–
Philip Shehan;”…. the continuing absence of atmospheric warming over the 18 years between the beginning of 1979 and the end of 1996.”
00
bullocky, Again,
please go back and read
5.1.2.5.1
Philip Shehan
March 8, 2014 at 9:24 pm.
I note your inability to answer any of the questions I posed.
You are the one who is claiming there is a “pause” from for the last 17 years. I am applying your assumptions to the period from 1997 to 1996. That does not mean I endorse them.
You are the one who must apply them consistently. Thus the full quote:
But bullocky, by exactly the same reasoning, you must propose, with credible verifiable evidence, a mechanism that caused the continuing absence of atmospheric warming over the 18 years between the beginning of 1979 and the end of 1996.
“Whatever my position is, yours is quite clear;”
Yes mine is very clear. There is no statistically significant evidence for a pause from 1997 to the present, [trend: 0.10 ±0.20 °C/decade (2σ)] or from 1979 to 1996 [trend: 0.03 ±0.20 °C/decade (2σ)]
There’s no doubt, Philip, you can make them figgers do whatever you want. I never really took your CS figure of 2 deg.C seriously, anyway!
If you are talking about short term trends with large uncertainties which render them virtually mweaningless; such as that for the last 17 years, the 18 years between 1979 and 1996 and the 15 years from 1999 to the present you are absolutely correct, whicch is precisely the point I have been trying to get across.
The 35 year period since 1979 on the other is statistically meaningfull.
But there is evidence of a statistically significant increase in the entire data set comprising those two subsets:
trend: 0.14 ±0.07 °C/decade (2σ)
If you still do not understand, ask someone to explain statistical significance to you.
Your position as you state is unclear:
Again, you asked:
Why has a continuously increasing amount of it during the past 17 (approx.) not produced the theoretically expected warming.
and I asked:
“And answer me this. Is it your position that only CO2 is responsible for atmospheric temperature?”
A simple question and yet you cannot answer it
I asked yo to reread my initial post 3 times now because the answer is given quite clearly there.
A basic tenet of AGW theory is that natural forcings and weather events will at times reinforce and at other times diminish anthropogenic warming due to increasing CO2 concentrations and there is a very good correlation given the “noise” in the temperature due to natural forcings and weather events which also affect the temperature.
In this context I also wrote
the effect of the extreme el nino event of 1998, which makes such a difference[to the temperature trend] if you include or exclude it from the short term data, has little or nothing to do with the effect of increasing CO2 concentration.
You write:
I never really took your CS figure of 2 deg.C seriously, anyway!
I did not mention the 2C figure for doubling of CO2 concentration in the discussion of the alleged pause for the last 17 years.
That figure applies to the application of mathematical equations to temperature and CO2 data from 1850, 1958 and 1979, all of which show statistically significant warming.
It does not matter whether you take those figures “seriously” or not.
01
Philip Shehan;
“I note your inability to answer any of the questions I posed.”
–
I note the nonsensicality on which your questions (and, it would seem, your entire position) is predicated:”;
”…. the continuing absence of atmospheric warming over the 18 years between the beginning of 1979 and the end of 1996.”
–
No Harbour Bridges today, thanks Philip!
–
00
Philip Shehan;
“I note your inability to answer any of the questions I posed.”
–
I note the nonsensicality of the assertion on which your questions are predicated:
Philip Shehan;
“… the continuing absence of atmospheric warming over the 18 years between the beginning of 1979 and the end of 1996.”
–
Philip Shehan;
“I did not mention the 2C figure for doubling of CO2 concentration in the discussion of the alleged pause for the last 17 years.”
–
You’ll find it extremely difficult to, having picked the cherry, replace it on the limb.
–
Philip Shehan;
“the effect of the extreme el nino event of 1998, which makes such a difference[to the temperature trend] if you include or exclude it from the short term data, has little or nothing to do with the effect of increasing CO2 concentration.”
–
You can’t have your Cherrycake, and eat it too!
–
Philip Shehan;
“A basic tenet of AGW theory is that natural forcings and weather events will at times reinforce and at other times diminish anthropogenic warming due to increasing CO2 concentrations ”
–
This is the ‘money-quote’: it allows all creative interpretations that, unfortunately, have ensued. If you can’t quantify the NET effect of natural forcings, how can you quantify the NET effect of atmospheric CO2?
Advocates of the AGW theory, as it stands, are destined to haunt the interpretive shadows of ‘statistical significance’, ‘error bars’, ‘certainty/uncertainty’, ‘trendlines’ with suitably selected start and finish points,’consensus’, statistical validity etc.
When you reflect upon the number of red ‘thumbs-down’ that you attract with your posts, you may consider that the readers have identified you as a denizen of those shadows.
01
I note the nonsensicality of the assertion on which your questions are predicated:
Philip Shehan;
“… the continuing absence of atmospheric warming over the 18 years between the beginning of 1979 and the end of 1996.”
Here is your statement:
“you must propose, with credible verifiable evidence, a mechanism that has caused the continuing absence of atmospheric warming over the most recent 17+ years.”
Here is mine:
“ you must propose, with credible verifiable evidence, a mechanism that caused the continuing absence of atmospheric warming over the 18 years between the beginning of 1979 and the end of 1996.”
Mine is a restatement of your own quote, but replacing “the most recent 17+ years.” “with the 18 years between the beginning of 1979 and the end of 1996.”
So if my statement is “nonsensical”, yours is also nonsensical.
It is predicated on your assumption, not mine, that a 17 or 18 year non statistically significant period is indicative of an “absence of atmospheric warming.”
I have repeatedly rejected that assumption.
The reason that skeptics ignore the earlier period of reduced warming (ignoring the error margins) – not a “pause” (0.03 °C/decade) – while declaring the later period of warming as a” pause” (0.10 °C/decade) is because the earlier period is demonstrated to be a non statistically significant short time period which is part of a longer term statistically significant period of atmospheric warming.
Thus demonstrating the fallacious assumption that the later 17 year non statistically period of reduced warming is evidence of any “pause”.
Philip Shehan;
“I did not mention the 2C figure for doubling of CO2 concentration in the discussion of the alleged pause for the last 17 years.”
–
You’ll find it extremely difficult to, having picked the cherry, replace it on the limb.
No bullocky, the 17 year period is your cherry, not mine and with respect to your cherry I make the following comment:
Philip Shehan;
“the effect of the extreme el nino event of 1998, which makes such a difference[to the temperature trend] if you include or exclude it from the short term data, has little or nothing to do with the effect of increasing CO2 concentration.”
With this obfuscation you repeatedly refuse to answer the question, which is central to your assumption, as to whether CO2 concentration is the only factor affecting temperature.
And you will not answer because if you answer yes, you show yourself to be the only person who I have ever encountered in the entire AGW debate, skeptic and “warmist” alike, who thinks so.
If you answer no, you explain precisely why rising temperatures do not exactly follow the rising CO2 concentration with temperature somtimes being above the CO2 concentration plot, and at other times bellow.
So having snookered yourself, you put the cue back in the rack.
In which case this correspondence is at an end.
01
Philip Shehan;
“So having snookered yourself, you put the cue back in the rack.
In which case this correspondence is at an end.”
–
A rather convoluted and self-flattering logic, Philip.
However, if you wuz judge and jury, you would surely be acquitted.
–
To paraphrase the habitual alarmist:
………..THE END IS HERE
00
From Philp “The first graph on your link was drawn up by H.H. Lamb who used tree rings, agricutural records and historical accounts from norhtern Europe, and mostly from central England. The best that could be procuced at the time.
The second graph from 2011 is from a wider range of sources in terms of geographic location, proxy temperature sources and instrumental readings, and is thus closer to the true global temeprature record.”
The second graph was the discredited hockey stick. The one where bristle cone pine data (that are heavily dependent on frequent rain for growth) and the post 1960s data was removed because the tree rings showed cooling after 1960 (cherry picking, hide the decline etc.).
The first, as Philip described as historical accounts of Lamb was actually using timing of the advance of glaciers as well as tree lines around the world to support the timing. The actual quantifying of anomalies gives it away that proxies were used for temperature estimates.
Are you not paying attention Philip, or do you just not care?
40
Vic the hocky stick was cleared in an exhaustive 160 page report prepared at the behest off the US congress.
Are you not paying attention Vic, or do you just not care?
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11676&page=R1
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/cv/cv_pubs/wahl/NH-and-Climate-Field-Reconstruction-Papers/Wahl_Ammann_ClimChange2007.pdf
02
Philip Shehan;
“Vic the hocky stick was cleared in an exhaustive 160 page report prepared at the behest off the US congress.”
–
The Muir-Russel enquiry was convened at the behest of the British Parliament, too.
Establishment initiatives have a fine track record of producing establishment results.
–
I suppose Michael Mann can say, just like Al Gore(re. AIT): ‘The ruling was in my favour’!
00
Looks like you neglected to mention the Wegman report. Funny how this has become a myth.
The Wegman report, which was submitted to the U.S. House of Representatives
energy and commerce committee in July 2006, stated that the criticisms of
Mann’s methodology were “valid and compelling,” and concluded that “Mann’s
assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the
millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be
supported by his analysis.”
20
Vic, You mean the retracted Wegman report?
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2011-05-15-climate-study-plagiarism-Wegman_n.htm
02
@Phil Shehan
You do not read too well I see.
00
I think Philip, aka Brian S’s comments above and in previous threads need to be understood through the prism of his attitudes and biases, as amply demonstrated in his quoted comment from Bolt’s site regarding Gina Rinehart and statements she made about the non-sustainability of an increasing proportion of welfare dependants relying on an ever-diminishing tax base.
While I have no particular “love” for Ms. Rhinehart, his comments reflect someone hard bitten by jealousy of the achievements of others, blind to the facts in pursuit of his personal prejudices, and unable for example to give credit to Lang Hancock for having the entrepreneurial endeavour to invest in the highly speculative, risky and pioneering venture of mining in order to provide the capital for his daughter to invest, jobs for others and raw materials for products which no doubt Brian uses every day.
He fails to acknowledge that Ms Rinehart, through her business acumen has taken a personal fortune of 60-70 million (and a bankrupt company) and converted that into a multi-billion dollar fortune, while Nathan Tinkler would be an exemplar of the opposite acumen, indulging himself in various sporting fantasies while frittering away his inherited wealth. Leaving aside the clear misogyny and lack of patriotism of this obvious hatred for a female and Australian home grown successful business person, he then ascribes the mining industry as merely recipients of “corporate welfare” through the diesel fuel excise rebate, when clearly this is based on infrastructure investment and maintenance for roads, etc which are necessary and available to the population, and would otherwise require governments to pay for through increasingly burdening taxpayers. Our budget bottom line would be far, far worse without mining contributing to the national coffers, particularly since our manufacturing industries have effectively killed off by the rush to unfettered globalisation with the final death blow of the unilateral carbon tax to add to their woes, or causing them to ship offshore.
While I might have had some previous begrudging respect for Brian’s devotion to CAGW as merely a misguided concern for the welfare of humanity, I now see that he is merely a political drone, wedded to the anti-industry, anti-progressive Neo-Luddite, proto-Malthusian cult that is “Global Warming”, whose disciples are driven by fear of over-population, and are prepared to turn a blind eye to consequences of poverty, disease and starvation, so long as they don’t have to get there hands dirty, or their hair mussed. And not to mention saving the world from correct spelling and good grammar.
110
Philip,
It is not sceptics that link the two except to say how important CO2 is for life on this planet and so it is not a pollutant which the lie that eco-nasties keep trying to force on the rest of us.
There is no such thing as a “greenhouse gas”. No free-flowing gas works like the physical barrier of a greenhouse, which works by stopping conduction and convection not by “trapping IR”. It is only alarmists that keep going down that physics dead end. If this gas was “warming the atmosphere day after day, year after year” we would never have had ice ages during times when CO2 concentrations were 4000 ppm. You talk about CO2 being 3.3 trillion tonnes, so what about the 5497.8 trillion tonnes of N2 and O2 (and yes I did allow for the fact that CO2 is a trinary molecule and N2 and O2 are both binary ones). Are you trying to tell us that the mass of 99.96% atmosphere has no effect on the ambient temperature of the planet? That is only true with alarmist fictional fisics.
Since you seem to be unaware of what actual physics looks like, let me start you on that path with this excellent and easy to read summary. It does have pictures, but no cartoons, unlike Hansen’s efforts.
You can then graduate to this analysis by the same author that shows that there is no such thing as a greenhouse gas.
80
Tony, first link is uninhabited. 🙂
00
Try that first link again …
http://www.l4patterns.com/uploads/virtual_vs_reality_report.pdf
10
Who is “Tony”?
00
me bad, sorry.. 🙁
00
TS: Actually I was using a lower figure for mass of the atmosphere, 5.2 thousand trillion tonnes rather than 5.5 (not trillion) tonnes (5.5 x 10^18 kg or 5.5 x 10^15 tonnes.) you are using. And its not the number of atoms in the molecules that matters its their masses.
(Ok I suppose I should fess up here that in writing that the N2 concentration of 3.2 billion trillion tonnes and dropping a couple of hints: “And of course you and all the other skeptics would have picked up the error had I not corrected it myself.” and “as you all no doubt have calculated yourselves” I was waiting to see if anyone would do just that.)
Can we move beyond the trivia that the term “greenhouse” is used as a linguistic rough analogy not a physical model? Are you shocked to learn that the Big Bang wasn’t and the God Particle isn’t?
And I am simply going to pass on the idiosyncratic thoroughly minority belief (even among credible skeptics) that CO2 is not a GHG.
Sunshine, My PhD and research in Nuclear Magnetic Resonance involve more than a smidge of physics.
And if I am sounding a little rude I do eventually reach the point where I am no longer inclined to to let the condescending faux superior tone slide.
014
“condescending faux superior tone slide.” neither am I , DH !!
71
[SNIP. Insults need substantiation. – Jo]
31
[SNIP. Not contributing to the topic. Comments about admin or moderation should be emailed to support AT joannenova.com.au – thanks – Jo]
11
[SNIP]
00
[SNIP]
00
[SNIP. please send comments about moderation or admin to support AT joannenova.com.au. – Jo]
01
[SNIP. OT – jo]
00
[SNIP]
01
[snip]
00
[snip]
01
[snip]
00
[SNIP – Stop it please. This is not the Phillip nor the Griss thread. OT. – Jo]
01
[SNIP]
00
[SNIP]
00
“more than a smidge of physics”
But obvious only marginally more.
51
[SNIP]
51
And seriously, everyone knows that a PhD is a very narrow study.
You have obviously never branched out and learnt anything else.
You should try it some time now that you are retired. (how long ago was that PhD?)
Or maybe you should stick to your NMR, like Flannery should stick to his kangaroo fossils.
51
“You have obviously never branched out and learnt anything else.”
You mean like my formal qualification in the History and Philiosphy of scince and my paid commissioned history of veterans of the 2/14 battalion AIF, among other things?
18
“History and Philosophy of science and my paid commissioned history of veterans of the 2/14 battalion ”
So, nothing about real science.. Just basic storytelling.
I always thought you had the attitude and intelligence of an Arts/Lits minor.
41
Philip Shehan;
“You mean like my formal qualification in the History and Philiosphy of scince and my paid commissioned history of veterans of the 2/14 battalion AIF, among other things?”
–
More claims with neither proof nor supporting evidence.
00
Griss you are not only a coward but an idiot. First you complain that my knowledge is limited to a narrow field of science.
So I show how wrong you are. Then you complian that I have mentioned non scientific areas.
And even your intitial complaint is wrong. Although my PhD was in the physical sciences I moved into biomedical research.
And so Griss, just what are your scientific qualifications and experience?
And please supply academic transcripts to satisfy bullocky.
[SNIP — he did not claim that. No need to exaggerate. Please stop petty bickering. – Jo]
16
bullocky, this will be the limit of my justifying myself to you. It comes from a previous post where I was again showing the cowardly idiot how wrong his suppositions were. (This time about about my supposedly profligate carbon emmitting lifestyle.)
Note that if I was as dishonest as you imply, I would not have mentioned these trips at all in accounting for my CO2 emmissions:
7.8.2.1.2
Philip Shehan
March 6, 2014 at 3:33 am
Errata. I forgot my trip to Borneo last year. It was to do with my work with veterans from the 2/14 Battalion Association who fought there. I have an Australian viewpoint of that as a short trip. I roll my eyes when Americans complain about jet lag on Trans Atlantic flights. (Sorry Sheri.) The conference was in Lille, France.
16
“Griss you are not only a coward but an idiot.”
Coming from you, that’s cool.
Talk to someone gives one hoot about your opinion.
Because I sure don’t 🙂
21
Philip Shehan;
“Griss you are not only a coward but an idiot”
–
You know how Anthony Watts would regard this sort of language, don’t you?
00
Philip Shehan;
“Note that if I was as dishonest as you imply, I would not have mentioned these trips at all in accounting for my CO2 emmissions:
7.8.2.1.2
Philip Shehan
March 6, 2014 at 3:33 am
Errata. I forgot my trip to Borneo last year. It was to do with my work with veterans from the 2/14 Battalion Association who fought there. I have an Australian viewpoint of that as a short trip. I roll my eyes when Americans complain about jet lag on Trans Atlantic flights. (Sorry Sheri.) The conference was in Lille, France.”
–
An assortment of claims with no proof or verifiable evidence.
Perhaps your idea of supplying verifiable evidence is akin to withholding data?
00
Sorry bullocky. Just a little confused here.
“An assortment of claims with no proof or verifiable evidence.
Perhaps your idea of supplying verifiable evidence is akin to withholding data?”
Just what “proof or evidence do you require here?
What do you mean by your second sentence? How does it relate to what I have written?
01
Philip Shehan;
“And its not the number of atoms in the molecules that matters its their masses.”
–
Ah! That’s why CO2 causes so much more ‘climate change’ than H2O!……….It’s a basic tenet of AGW theory, don’t you know?
20
Well, if that’s your understanding of the subject, I am not in the least surprised at the content of your other posts.
01
Philip Shehan;
“Well, if that’s your understanding of the subject, I am not in the least surprised at the content of your other posts.”
–
By contrast, general commentary in these threads has indicated almost unilateral surprise at the content of nearly all your posts!
00
Phillip,
Now that I know you have a background in physics, let me give you some work by other physicists that show in both practical and theoretical terms why there is no such thing as a “greenhouse gas”.
Let’s begin with the theoretical stuff which starts here and is built upon here.
We can continue using actual observations to refute the “greenhouse effect” which has been done here and more recently using a different data set here.
I have loads of this stuff to share. I am yet to find a single piece of observational evidence to support the idea that the gaseous composition of the atmosphere affects the ambient temperature of that atmosphere.
51
TS take it up with Roy Spencer Lindzen and the vast majority of skeptics who affirm the role of CO2 as a greenhouse gas. I will not bother discussing this matter with phone both minority deniers.
07
” I am yet to find a single piece of observational evidence to support the idea that the gaseous composition of the atmosphere affects the ambient temperature of that atmosphere’
So, Philip.. nothing to offer.. as usual.
81
Sorry about being a bit abrupt their TS but I have my own observational experience in the heat absorbing properties of the C=O double bond through IR spectroscopy.
08
FFS Philip, we know CO2 absorbs energy. (then dumps it either by radiation or kinetic energy to the other 99.96% of the atmosphere.)
There are no hot little CO2 molecules running around in mini-skirts.. so stop your fantasies, at your age is bad for your ticker.
Now provide something to answer this comment.
”I am yet to find a single piece of observational evidence to support the idea that the gaseous composition of the atmosphere affects the ambient temperature of that atmosphere’”
This has been asked so many times.. and still… absolutely nothing
71
Phillip, you say …
Well there is an argument from authority followed by argument by consensus. How very non-scientific of you. The universe only works one way and it does not care what you, me or Dr Roy Spencer thinks. I give you theoretical and observational science complete with falsifiable hypothesis, repeatable experiments and supplied data and workings and you respond with what other people think.
You are welcome to your intellectual servitude. Personally I prefer to think for myself.
51
Furthermore, all important scientific discoveries started with someone having an idea that was not what the majority of scientists in that field thought was true.
You offer nothing of value to this debate.
51
Philip Shehan;
” I will not bother discussing this matter with phone both minority deniers.”
–
There is a word in your sentence that you never use. Can you guess which one it is?
21
Oh look, threats but no answers. 🙂
21
bullocky, I saved it for a special occassion.
03
Philip Shehan;
“bullocky, I saved it for a special occassion.”
–
The Griss will most likely feel, at once, flattered and justified.
–
Your Anthony Watts quote could be adjusted to suit!
00
CO2 is not just plant food. Grass, trees, all plants, the forests and the plains, the flowers and the vegetables are made entirely from CO2 and water. They are not made from the soil or there would be a big hole around every tree. This was established 400 years ago. Apart from a few trace elements there is nothing else in plants. The material is called Hydrocarbon. CH. People too, except you have to add some calcium for bones.
Meat, is made from plants. So everything is made from CO2, all life on earth from the smallest phytoplankton to the blue whale or the mighty sequoia. If the 0.04% was to go to zero, all life on earth would be dead in a year or whenever the baked beans ran out. We are carbon lifeforms.
So by all means ban CO2, the world’s most terrible pollutant. What good is it? Or do the Greens really believe humans are pollution? Save the planet! For whom?
It is actually arguable that the CO2 levels are the lowest in the history of the planet and that there is a critical shortage of CO2 in the environment, but who wants to hear real science?
280
BA4,
Do you really believe that increasing CO2 is going to warm the planet?
If you do, I have a suggestion to help you save heaps of money this coming winter.
When the temperature drops to freezing, don’t pay for electric heating or gas, or wood to warm your house.
Place some baking soda in a large bowl and pour in some vinegar. Then just sit next to it and you should keep nice and warm all winter long.
Of course you could buy some dry ice, but you have to be careful because it’s made from CO2 and it causes severe burns, so don’t touch it with your bare hands. But that should keep you nice and warm too.
170
The scheme is that if enough people believe that we have CO2 caused catastrophic global warming they hope they will get global catastrophic democratic non governments?
80
Important or not, to temperature you mean?
http://imgur.com/BKaEalG
Perhaps you can help me see how the CO2 in the last 50 years of temperature rise is related the other temp fluctuation across the Holocene?
Here are a dozen positive slope events with low resolution data and frequency and an overall trend in the link.
With higher resolution there are probably 100 events.
Please tell me how only the last 50 years of CO2 are important again?
Also, feel free to take this and extrapolate your prediction on how how these curves will go and post up please.
60
The rate of warming from 1977-2007 even in the much adjusted Hadley record, is almost exactly the same as from 1915-1945.
There is no “extra warming” signal in the Hadcrut data.
80
@dayhay
March 8, 2014 at 5:26 am
‘Perhaps you can help me see how the CO2 in the last 50 years of temperature rise is related’
Not just 50 years, but 500 million years, see link at #5.1.1
09
ps, and if you re-create what might have been the “unadjusted’ temperature series, removing all the cooling adjustments between 1940 and 2000 that were necessary to create the warming trend to follow “the story”…..
the period from 1915-1945 warmed quite a bit faster than from 1977-2007.
Now considering there was a large increase in CO2 in the latter period, as well as a period of very strong solar activity, its quite amazing that the 1977-2007 period warmed so slowly.
Maybe that extra CO2 actually helped cool the globe.
90
Is Oxygen an important gas?
My oath!!
No oxygen – every human dead in max 2 minutes.
Ultra ultra ultra important.
It is 21% of the earth’s atmospheric gases.
On the Blackadder Hypothesis it is a major major factor in the earth’s temperature.
On the Belfast Hypothesis it is lacking in Blackadders brain.
110
Sucking oxygen at more than 2 atmospheres will do that to you as it becomes toxic.
20
And it isn’t an oxymoron, either. An oxymoron is a figure of speech, not a claim about the world.
40
BA4,
I see that giving you the benefit if the doubt is a waste of time.
I won’t bother to refer you to any tome on Atmospheric physics, given your Cherry Picking the previous references I provided.
All that while still managing neither to read or seem to demonstrate any comprehension of what your referred to, albeit incorrectly at that.
No, let us move forward, using rather simple science, that has been well proven for quite some time. Peer reviewed and all, mind you.
Aside from the various graphics, charts and references to Atmospheric gas composition in general, which should alert any reasonable person to the fact that Co2 has neither the volume nor the physical properties to generate, retain or combine with any matter to increase temperature, or decrease it, for that matter, comes the stunning concept of Atmospheric gas mix and density.
Now, if you had qualified as a Scuba diver or higher certification, a High Altitude pilot, a submariner, or any number of trades or professions who must know and understand Atmospheric gas mix and density, then you would understand that Atmospheric gas mix and density varies greatly.
This is also the problem with the CAGW warmest position, in that it assumes a relative stable and uniform planetary atmosphere, gas mix and density.
The opposite of course is true. Earth is not a stable laboratory environment.
Earth is a dynamic planet, hurtling through space, subject to a lot of influences and factors in it’s progress.
The most obvious of these, being our own Sun and the effects of the immediate Solar system.
However, I digress.
Lord Christopher Monckton, being an educated man, knows all of this and is well aware of the presence and dynamics of Atmospheric gas mix and density.
This in addition to the many and varied factors mentioned above.
Any person discussing CAGW from any position should at the very least, have a grasp of these basic facts.
This then is why any person even with a passing knowledge of Atmospheric gases, is also aware that they are certainly not well distributed, nor of equal density, nor presence equally at all heights or depths.
This is one of the reasons that certain professions and trades also reference the ‘Snow Line’ (altitude and latitude affects the precise placement of the snow line at a particular location) and why a lot of scientific and professional measurements are taken from mean sea level.
Simply put, not much survives above the ‘Snow Line’, while a great deal thrives in warmer, wetter, lower, locations.
Then there is those forces that act directly on Co2, such as plants, including kelp, that actively absorb Co2, whatever the level of presence.
This is something you should have learnt in High School, being part of your basic chemistry, physics and maths courses.
Any further tertiary study in any field that included the need to use the above would also expose the individual to various elements of the above.
This includes any self taught curriculum based on any valid science.
I would therefore request you acquaint yourself with these basic tenets of science in order to argue your positions more effectively.
Failing that, I think it appropriate if barefaced nonsense is called out for what it is.
As for supporting references, when and if you provide them, could I ask that they not be self serving platitudes?
Lastly but not leastly, the CAGW warmest position, being consensus, not science, requires proof, in particular from those espousing it’s position and affects.
Would you also kindly list your proofs, while not referencing the politics of opinion, pseudo science, or other positions not supported by facts or science?
Thanking you in advance for your future more informed positions and opinions.
40
blackadderthe4th,
It’s the stupid logarithm. Or shall I put it this way? It’s the logarithm, stupid.
Either way, even if CO2 in the atmosphere ever had any ability to warm the Earth, at present concentration the well known, provable, logarithmic nature of the effect has it well past the point where you’re ever going to be able to measure it. Natural variation simply overpowers CO2.
Then there’s the question of whether CO2 in the atmosphere actually behaves the same way it does in an isolated environment in a lab experiment. And according to real empirical evidence — see The Skeptic’s Handbook, volume 1, available on this blog for the evidence — it doesn’t. I don’t see how to escape that conclusion after so many years of failures of climate models.
40
Nice post .
Now a serious question for the professors out there :-
I have concluded that we could as a planet quite easily reduce the global temperature. It would involve distributing a shield of either reflective particles or totally oblique particles in a geo-stationery orbit between the Earth and the Sun. Designed in such a way as to decay after a given period of time. I call this The Parasol Agenda.
First of all ,some bright spark needs to decide ,what the perfect temp. is for Planet Earth and then it can be achieved by the TPA.
So what is wrong with my plan? Immediate cooling.how many days would it have to be up to achieve the desired effect. The cost would be a fraction of current outlay on Green nonsense.
70
I’ve got an even cheaper way of doing it. [SNIP nah. Lets not. -Jo]
170
Your idea was used, long ago, in an excellent science fiction tale. One of many, in a Universe that included self-powered-from-the-ionosphere Landing Grids, which could also throw loads into space, or into a chosen Orbit. Sulfer was the chosen material, dispersed via explosion of packages, renewed at a rate which replaced the ions taken away by the Solar Wind…
In the tale, the reflective screen was placed on the down-sun side, to ADD more solar energy to the planet.
An umbrella has many uses, eh?
60
By the same method , Mercury could be cooled too. Exciting possibilities!
Where do I apply for my Nobel Award?
70
Rogue…451
For advice on how to be styled ‘Nobel Laureate’, perhaps contact Dr Michael Mann who apparently has been there, done that.
50
The “Highlander” series of movies also had an “umbrella”, which changed the world into a dark dank place.
Trouble with this sort of thing is that it would stop heat escaping naturally, and probably cook the place. DOH !
At the moment the Earth is doing an admirable job of maintaining a very stable temperature,
Unfortunately each little heat peak is a bit less than the last ie Minoan ⇘ Roman ⇘ Medieval ⇘ Current, and the cooler periods between seem to be getting deeper and more extended eg Little Ice Age
If CO2 does actually cause some warming, now is the time to start producing it in abundance before the sun’s slumber takes full effect.
60
The TPA would not form part of the Earths Atmosphere , so no cooking involved. It would be positioned at the optimum distance between the Earth and the Sun to form a total Eclipse. I,m working on various ideas for materials , magicians flash cotton wool being one. When Cooling is complete, light touch paper and stand clear.
00
I hope you are financing this from your own pocket..
that’s gunna be one heck of a lot of cotton wool !!
I await computations for exactly what mass of cotton wool will be required..
….because I’m doing it for you ! 🙂
00
….because I’m NOT doing it for you. DOH !
00
This would need a massive concerted effort , it is a doom day solution , I was thinking Bruce Willis could play me,in the film naturally,as the handsome intellectual who comes up with the idea to save the World from the sky catching on fire. Cotton Wool was not a serious suggestion.Just running up a few flags to see who salutes. No , the material required would need to be light enough to be transported by possibly up to a 1000 rockets or more in this venture.
Some polymer/titanium sheets type substance,but with a built in breakdown point from the heat of the Sun. The best minds in the World would be required so we can probably eliminate anyone with IPCC connections, for this fabulous Human Endeavor.
Given zero AGW in the past 17 years or so, I think The UN should only fund my team a mere ten billion a year on research and feasibility with a similar reserve to be created to be used once the smell of singed Ozone is all pervasive. Rough estimate of total costs , well who needs to know ? This will be a World Enterprise, conducted from my stronghold , in the Cayman Isles where secrecy still prevails.Even at a trillion dollars it is nothing as to the costs of doing nothing.Do you not care for your children’s children? LMFAO.
10
Ernst Stavro Blofeld is interested in your plan.
20
Hmmmm, As I said to the cat on my lap , we must have a leak in the organisation.
10
Sounds pretty daft to me. Not nearly as daft though as getting the leaders of 200 countries to constrain their GHG emissions for at least 50 years, to the detriment of their own citizens, and in the near certain knowledge that the vast majority of countries will fail to keep their end of the bargain. Think about Julia Gillard. She resolved to cut emissions, but she was in no position to see that through, nor to lock the people of Australia into a policy for 50 years.
30
20
The IPCC did that for you, they say that the next 2 degrees of warming is likely to be increasingly beneficial but after that it will turn downward. I conclude from this that warming reaches break even at about 4 degrees or 1600 PPM in the year 3000 or so on current trajectory and for the next 1000 years we’l have a golden age of plentiful food and not much downside. On the IPCCs own numbers of course.
What’s not to like?
30
Rogueelement451,
And my question right back to you is, why bother? 😉
But you can certainly qualify for a Nobel prize… …maybe even the much coveted Peace Prize.
00
Steve Hunter should have used man’s contribution to CO2, at ~3% of 0.04% = 0.0012%, as it’s this tiny component of the overall levels that is being blamed for everything, not the natural CO2 levels. This would make the “miracle gas” point even more starkly.
80
The (UK) BBC were parroting a ‘rise in maleria’ as something else caused by climate change (i.e. CAGW) this morning. Utter tosh, as they fail to recognise man’s power to break the transmission change is vastly greater than nature’s change that could drive any geographical creep.
100
The last recorded malaria epidemic in Europe was, as Dr Paul Reiter reminds us, in St. Petersburg, Russia.
Malaria was endemic in the British Isles and Western Europe until the swamps and moors were drained from around the towns and cities. Typhoid, yellow fever, cholera; all endemic.
90
Small outbreaks still this century.
50
There is a myth that malaria is a tropical disease. So the argument goes that warming means malaria will move North and cause untold loss of life. This is nonsense.
In fact the mosquito swarms are worst in Northern Siberia where they feast on the birds and caribou and wildlife which head for the land of the midnight sun. Their swarms blot out the sun. Maybe 30,000 people died from Malaria in the swamp which became St. Petersburg. At nearly 60 degrees North, this city is not in the tropics. Even now you are warned to take ‘tropical strength’ mosquito repellent. A thousand years ago Malaria was the scourge of Northern Italy and the original settlement of Venice actually on the island of Torricello but everyone was killed by Malaria. Some houses are still there.
So the global alarmists, the profiteers of doom will seize on any fears and use them. Too bad about the facts. It plays to the old Egyptian fears of hell fire and brimstone, a fear adopted by the early Christian church as a symbol of hell. Hell did not exist in early Christianity, but warmists, like the early religious, realised the enormous fear of fire which can be harnessed. In fact it is cold which is the killer, the maker of droughts and the killer of crops.
121
Hell means hole and comes from the Norse tradition that the righteous go to Valhalla and the dammed are swallowed up in a hole. This is even the tradition in the Old Testament.
But if the Lord alters the order of nature, so that earth gapes and swallows them up with all that is theirs, and they go down still living to the depths beneath, then you will have proof that they have spoken blasphemy against the Lord. (Numbers 16:30)
The Greek Hades and Roman Inferno are pre-Christian and have no Christian influence. It is just a common human view of things. The New testament has a lot of names for Hell including a valley near Jerusalem that was traditional place of the dammed for Jews (Gehenna, gê-ben-hinnom) as well as the Greek influence of Hades.
I can’t get any useful information on the net for ancient volcanoes of Egypt because googling comes up with too many nutter sites, but it is unlikely that Egypt was the source of fire and brimstone. It might have been imported from the Mediterranean islands. Early Christians tried to make Jesus’ teachings relevant to local communities so a lot of pagan imagery was absorbed. This was never a secret nor an issue until recently.
51
Vic,
You are an excellent bible scholar and researcher in general. I hope you’ll stay around because you talk good judgment and common sense based on facts. We need more of that. 🙂
20
Great sense of humor too!
00
Thanks Roy, but I’m a quick researcher rather than a bible scholar. You will have to do your own to be sure. I’m no guru.
00
OK then! Excellent, fast researcher. But either way, you’re accurate, even given that I’m relying on memory for details I studied years ago. I could wish some of our less welcome visitors did their research as well as you do.
10
Professor Dr Tim Flannery. Has there ever been a more unqualified scientist in meteorology? How did he become our foremost spokesman on ‘Climate Science’, our Climate Commissioner, whatever that meant? It is still a puzzle that anyone can proceed from an Arts degree in English at LaTrobe in 1974 to a PhD in paleontology at Sydney University and onto meteorology? Beyond mediocre school results, this man has no mathematics, no physics, no chemistry, no geology, no computer science. Australian of the year? Why not a Nobel Laureate? Or a real scientist? Perhaps Professor Flannery can give us a view of the planet from the perspective of an extinct giant wombat? Or is that what we have? Still, he is more qualified than Al Gore, another writer who was also hopeless at science.
240
TdeF – Dr Tim Flannery did a Masters Degree in Geology (Earth Sciences) at Monash Uni and later a PhD in Palaeontology at the Uni of NSW – his thesis was on fossil kangaroos. Palaeontology is a field of Geology. For that reason his alarmist AGW views are at odds with his geological training. I know few geologists who believe in the Theory of AGW, unless of course they work in Academic / Govt entities where there is pressure to tow the “Warmist Line” – the good news is that this will change as the “15 year pause in GW” continues and then later this decade changes to “Global Cooling (GC)” in response to the next “Grand Minimum (GM)”.
70
A Masters degree is what it sounds, advanced research and training, mastery in your undergraduate skill set? So how do you do a Masters in Earth Science(Geology) with no undergraduate skills in Geology or any other science? How do you then do a PhD in paleoentology without biology or zoology or anatomy? Then how does paleoentology, a branch of geology and presumably zoology, qualify you as our Climate Commissioner on what is essentially meteorology? How does anyone expect Dr Flannery to interpret graphs, tables, data, computer analysis, complex multivariate analysis, probabilities and statistical analysis with no mathematics?
90
He was supposed to be very active in socialist groups during his undergraduate years. I suspect that he was a willing part of push to fill science with useful idiots that have a silver tongue. I was supposed to be one as well, but I wanted to be the real thing. I’m now a farmer with more letters after my name than in it.
90
I agree totally – Dr Flannery did not have the skill set to be Climate Commissioner. But with some geological background he should have been aware that there is little evidence in the geological record that rising CO2 in the atmosphere results in GW. As for his ability to “interpret graphs, tables, data, computer analysis, complex multivariate analysis, probabilities and statistical analysis with no mathematics” – well clearly he is way out of his depth there – so to me – but at least I realize that the “Theory of AGW” is, quoting our PM, “TOTAL CRAP” – no wonder he is trying so hard to rescind the Carbon Tax – but alas we have to wait to post July 1. It seems that if the LIBS win 3 Senate Seats in the WA half senate re-election to be held on April 5, then 6 of the 8 “minor party senators” will have to be “sweet talked” to allow the rescinding of the Carbon Tax, a tax that is like a cancer eating away at the Oz Economy. Yes the ALP & Greens have a lot to answer for.
50
In the last sitting week of June, the Bills to repeal could be passed AGAIN in the Lower House.
The first sitting day of the Senate is July 7. Now, what will be the first cache of Bills that will be dealt with???
If the Bills don’t pass the Senate then a DD election can be called. Don’t believe the PUP and the other newly elected fringe would like to see a DD election.
20
Agreed. The “Minor Party” Senators will vote with the Coalition in passing key legislation post July 1 e.g. rescinding the Carbon Tax otherwise the risk of a DD election may well see them not re-elected – a bit of a no brainer really especially given that the New Senators risk a 6 year term being put at risk.
30
Being a climate commissioner had nothing to do with his skill set or lack of.
It was his high profile as Australian of the year that Gillard wanted/needed.
To do nothing more than sell her CO/2 tax to the masses with some “credability”.
Nothing more.
Still on the topic of global frauds.
As the global warming scam slowly dies the newest “heroes” burst onto the scene in the latest catastrophe the world faces.
And in the nick of time the heroes again let out that oh so familiar battle cry, “give us billions and we’ll save the world.”
Read this report and take note of the highly emotive disscriptive text.
Tell me if any of it sounds familiar?
Take note that we are whacking in large already.
Just change a couple of words in every line and substitute” global warming” as these new fraudsters on the block move in.
And here’s me willing to take a “hit” for the country because Joe tells me we have to live within our means.
And then he gets done over by the snake oil salesmen.
Put on your helmet and read on.
“mass together creating a devastating avalanche of junk, similar to that depicted in the Hollywood blockbuster Gravity, that could potentially take out most satellites in space.”
The movie is fiction I note.
” A catastrophic avalanche of collisions that would quickly destroy all satellites is now possible.”
” entire space environment could be rendered useless.”
” fundamental to Australian society and its economy.”
And finally we have the buck rogers fix,
” The initial focus of the new centre will be to reduce the rate of collisions to minimise new debris before using ground based lasers to destroy the junk.”
http://www.news.com.au/technology/science/mount-stromlo-observatory-near-canberra-to-get-150m-centre-to-combat-space-junk/story-fn5fsgyc-1226848314008
00
“avalanche of junk”
Ahhh!…. the warmist agenda to a tee. !
31
It is interesting, the subtle spin on the fact that the fact that the 1990s warming stopped completely almost two decades ago. We all seem to hear this described as a ‘pause’ or a ‘hiatus’ or something which really implies that it is going to continue again, after a short break. Like an advertisement on television.
However we have no reason to believe this, no reason to argue that the global temperature will go up again and not down, as was expected in the 1970s. Just as we have no correlation between global temperature and CO2 levels, we have no reason to believe that we are in a ‘pause’ or a ‘hiatus’. What is absolutely certain is that CO2 levels are not directly connected to temperature and as the sole driver of temperature, as has been the basis of nearly all computer models. (This is all explained in Dr Murry Salby’s great lecture on Youtube.)
30
I think the use of ‘pause’ or even better ‘hiatus’ was just as a way of playing the warmists. And they fell for it, happily spouting that it’s just a pause as warming continues almost unabated, while real people think they’re just being silly and perhaps because they have too much already invested in that outcome.
It’s another device, like agreeing with the IPCC line that most of the warming of the last 60 years has probably been caused by man, even if it hasn’t. So what .
A 15 year ‘hiatus’ in government funding of Climate Change research would have a far greater effect on the human influence on climate than anything else.
50
I am still holding out for “the heartbreak of psoriasis”. I feel it is richly deserved and SHOULD be on the list of problems caused by CO2. It is a much misunderstood phenomenon.
90
blackadderthe4th,
Should you apply reason and logic and review the paper below, via the link provided, you will see that this planet has been both warmer and colder than today.
You might also notice that the global Co2 content is dropping.
Accordingly to the chart, a healthy planetary Co2 level would be around 900 to 1050 parts per million, or three to fours times it’s current levels.
The Jurassic period is noted for having planetary Co2 Levels around 1200 parts per million and higher.
Both plant and Animal life was, by any standard, very abundant. Even more so than today.
The immediate preceding period, the Triassic, had more than double the planetary Co2 content. Around 2500 parts per million and higher.
Life thrived. In fact, this planet has never seen more than 100 different types of the same specie, let alone, the number of carnivores and herbivores.
Also, the elephant in the room here, is that this planet is anything but stable.
Be it Geographically, Atmospherically or Galactically.
The Sun, and hence the solar system, is moving towards the constellation Hercules, namely to the star Lambda Herculis at 12 miles per second, or 20 kilometres per second, or around 43,200 MPH.
The Solar system is also moving upwards, at 90 degrees to the plane of the Milky Way, at 4.34 miles per second or around 15,624 MPH.
But we are actually leaving the Galaxy, out about 50 light years now and will be moving out to 250 light years before it reverses.
The Earth’s orbit is also unstable, as the planet actually wobbles on it’s axis as it’s wobbles around the Sun.
Oddly enough, all of this is also not factored into the CAGW theory of everything.
You think, just for a moment, that their might be factors in play that have nothing to do with Mankind and are entirely beyond the control of Mankind?
Finally, if the planet warmed five or ten degree’s, then the Temperature would become tropical, much like Queensland.
I lived in Queensland for more than a decade, good suntan, low cost of living, no Winter expenditure to speak of, plenty of Food grown locally.
While I can’t comment on Queenslander’s, I think most of mankind could possibly adapt to that.
Much like the medieval Roman warm period. That period seemed to have boomed as well.
Carbon Dioxide Geological time-scale
200
‘Accordingly to the chart, a healthy planetary Co2 level would be around 900 to 1050 parts per million’ why would that be? Considering the co2 level between the inter glacials are considered to be about 280ppm, and seen as that would cover our evolution, that should be an ideal level!
‘The Earth’s orbit is also unstable, as the planet actually wobbles on it’s axis as it’s wobbles around the Sun.’ of course it does and that is why we have had ice ages!
‘Nearer our own time, the coming and going of the ice ages that have gripped the planet in the past two million years were probably triggered by fractional changes in solar heating (caused by wobbles in the planet’s orbit, known as Milankovitch cycles’
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11650-climate-myths-global-warming-is-down-to-the-sun-not-humans.html
‘had more than double the planetary Co2 content. Around 2500 parts per million and higher’ and even vastly higher than that!
CO2 300,000 ppm but snowball Earth, followed by hot house Earth!
‘a puzzle called the faint sun paradox is explained by the warming effect of GHG, mostly co2…but if co2 fell it wouldn’t take much to tip the world into an ice age…a positive feedback leading to more more cooling, more ice, more reflection, until nearly all the world was covered by ice…there is no way the Sun could melt all this ice, even Monckton wouldn’t expect such a thing…but something did…because the Earth turned into a hothouse…geologists say the reason is very simple, the only part of the Earth not covered by ice was warm spots caused by volcanoes…but they did release gases..,co2 under normal conditions this would have reacted with rocks and rainfall and get washed out to sea…but in snowball Earth, there is no rain, no weathering…so the co2 just keeps building up…so you have high co2 levels with glaciers at the equator but this is a dynamic process, it doesn’t stay like this’ Potholer54
Now see for yourself!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xrm1KXttqDA
012
We are not plants!
Maybe you need to read this.
70
‘We are not plants!’ correct, that is why I said ‘and seen as that would cover our evolution, that should be an ideal level!’.
06
Vic,
BA4 won’t read that. He’s waiting for the YouTube movie to be released.
Even if he did read it, he grew up in the age of 24*7 TV and, as a consequence, has probably not developed the intellectual facility to create mental images from the written word.
This is why they are like sponges, that soak every CG graphics movie put in front of them, and believe it is real. Like a tidal wave breaking over the Himalayas? I ask you …
But think of the propaganda possibilities … oh, the brainwashing potential!
60
and the ignorance just flows and flows. !!
50
Something I read on Airport Noise forumn.
” So called ‘Progressives’ have to keep looking forwards because the cant face the destruction they typically leave in their wake “
250
I likes it… It has the ring of truth.
90
That has always been the cause of my confusion about them too.
Their ideas almost always fail, backfire, are completely wrong, don’t do anything useful, or people find a work-around within 5 minutes.
Yet the progressives never understand that their plans failed, or why they failed. They just come up with an even dumber plan and wonder why noone takes them seriously.
Strange people indeed.
90
Hi everyone finally a story about the man that made a skeptic. His latest TV show Coast Australia Tim Flannery in the episode were they look at the Victorian Coast line Tim says that “the temperature in Beaumaris use to be 2-3 degrees warmer”. And the world didn’t explode, all life as we know it wasn’t destroyed, hey some how we’re all still hear. How could that be Tim oh ya I forget I’m talking about Tim Flannery. My mistake. Have a look and see for yourself’s he dose say that, and ya watch out for him implying that a 2-3 degree warming will make sharks grow 16 meters long.
71
Tim attended St. Bede’s, Mentone and one commentator on his biography wrote that his school results seemed to preclude a career in Science, thus the entrance to LaTrobe in English. Even so Tim is really saying that his boyhood home in the 1960s is 2-3 degrees cooler today than he remembers it, now that he lives on the beach at the mouth of the Hunter in NSW? Now there’s a real scientist for you. His boyhood home is probably smaller than he remembers too. Now he is reminiscing about how his world used to be hotter when he was a boy even though he makes his living claiming the reverse.
20
” His latest TV show Coast Australia Tim Flannery ”
Is that ‘a’ in Cost Australia a typo, or is it really a telly program following in the vein of the inimitable Neil Oliver.
Oh I see, it really is with Neil Oliver the man himself, who you may need to see to appreciate the parody.
20
***furore? what furore? the entire article is idiotic & incomprehensible & “climate criticism” in the headline is a new, silly example of CAGW shorthand:
7 Mar: Australian: Annabel Hepworth: Coalition rejects climate criticism
Mr Hunt said the Climate Change Authority wasn’t “comparing apples with apples” when it declared the target was weaker than many other countries. The comments come as The Weekend Australian has learned of an “apples with apples” analysis by Department of Environment officials that uses a 2005 base year to compare targets between countries.
Australia uses a 2000 base year, with a policy of 5 per cent cuts below 2000 levels by 2020.
But Barack Obama’s target of 17 per cent cuts is set against a 2005 base year, as is that of Canada and Japan…
The new analysis is likely to add to the political ***furore over the measures Australia should take to tackle climate change, but also underscores the complexity of comparing targets between different countries…
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/coalition-rejects-climate-criticism/story-e6frg6xf-1226848468974#
Austraian media still in love with fracking/nuclear/droning Pres Obama. he’s sooooo concerned about “climate change action”:
7 Mar: Australian Financial Review: John Kehoe: Heat on Abbott as US pushes G20 climate change action
The United States is pushing for climate change to be an important agenda item when Australia hosts world leaders at the Group of 20 meeting this year, placing Prime Minister Tony Abbott in a potentially awkward position that conflicts with his domestic political agenda…
The government remains committed to meeting Australia’s goal of cutting emissions by 5 per cent by 2020, through paying big polluters billions of dollars to reduce their pollution.
However, European countries and Mr Obama are perceived to be more committed to addressing climate change…
***Sources in Washington say that when foreign governments and stakeholders have broached climate change in G20 lead-up meetings, Australian government officials have told them the issue is not a priority and suggested that other topics be discussed…
Mr Abbott may come under pressure from other countries to mention climate change in the official communique when he hosts world leaders, including Mr Obama, on November 15-16 in Brisbane…
http://www.afr.com/p/national/heat_on_abbott_as_us_pushes_climate_xxma1V2KrZxQjeryKlqzQM
13
Timely post, Joanne. I just read in South Carolina Wildlife, usually a high quality publication, that global warming is causing starfish wasting disease. Instead of just face palming and screaming, “Give me a freaking break,” I sent below link to warmlist.
http://echinoblog.blogspot.com/search?q=wasting
30
Gamecock,the warmer wallys seem to be a little slow to get around to the starfish,perhaps there is not much money to be made.
20
The Warmlist was last updated 2 years ago. I bet ther are another 100 or more references since.
20
Jo
I wouldn’t mind betting that old Flim-Flam won’t tell us that CO2 makes plants and food crops grow more efficiently. Or that a warming climate, were it to be caused by man-made CO2 emissions in the first place, would increase the area of cultivatable land and the length of the growing season. This is despite (or maybe because) it’s true.
For some reasons, warmists always forget the good news and go straight to the part where they take your money. For much the same reason a robber pulls a gun on you – people will do what you want if you scare them first.
Cheers,
Speedy.
70
If the ABC was Relevant (Part 52)
(The learned Professor)
[Scene: A riverside mansion on the banks of the Hawkesbury River, which is running at full FLOOD. BRYAN walks up to JOHN, who is constructing a sandbag LEVEE at a PRODIGIOUS rate of KNOTS.]
Bryan: Professor Tim Flannery?
John: Yep.
Bryan: The Australian Climate Commissioner?
John: That’s me.
Bryan: I was wondering if you’d like to provide us with some of your unique insights into the Australian climate?
John: Kinda busy. [Heaves a sandbag onto the levee.]
Bryan: Whether, for instance, you would consider that the south-eastern area of Australia is no longer in a state of semi-permanent drought?
John: Don’t happen to sell flood insurance, do you?
Bryan: No, why?
John: Just developed a sudden interest.
Bryan: You don’t have flood insurance already?
John: No point, really. No rain, no floods.
Bryan: In spite of the aqua pura running past your letterbox?
John: That – that’s just an isolated, localised event.
Bryan: Like Wagga Wagga?
John: That’s localised as well.
Bryan: Like the better part of the south-eastern Australia?
John: Yep – it’s just an isolated, localised event over a bloody big area.
Bryan: But would you agree that whatever rainfall we’ve had has make its way into the dams and river systems? As opposed to being absorbed by a hot, dry earth resulting from global warming?
John: Irrelevant. I’ll bet that this rainfall isn’t even official.
Bryan: Official?
John: Has it been peer reviewed ? Has it been approved by a consensus of climate scientists? Has it been computer modeled? I’ll tell you – no!
Bryan: !!!
John: And even if it were computer modeled, the models would clearly demonstrate that these flood waters [indicates river] are incontrovertible evidence of global warming and mankind’s adverse influence on the climate.
Bryan: Are you sure?
John: Bryan. When shit happens, it’s global warming. Always.
Bryan: And when does global warming cause both drought AND flood?
John: Whenever I say so, Bryan.
240
I gave you a tick but the part of the Hawkesbury that he lived on is an estuary (he has shifted to Melbourne with his partner, the second choice as he would still be with his wife if sceptics hadn’t harassed him). If his predictions are true, then the two houses he bought a few years after predicting 8 storey high seas due to global warming, will suffer lots of flooding in the years to come.
21
Really? I am curious. How do you know this Vic?
01
He said his wife left him because of the harassment ruined their marriage. My comment was sarcasm. I should stop doing that.
10
More than likely she caught him lying !
30
Is his new partner male or female ?
21
I heard his name is Michael and is from Perth. 😉
10
Completely off topic… BUT a true Flannery
You want to frighten Putin?
raise our gasoline tax, put in place a carbon tax and a national renewable energy portfolio standard — all of which would also help lower the global oil price (and make us stronger, with cleaner air, less oil dependence and more innovation).
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/05/opinion/friedman-why-putin-doesnt-respect-us.html?ref=thomaslfriedman
30
He starts off well and then he takes the same pratfall that so many others have.
But frankly, I don’t want to frighten Putin half as much as I want to leave the whole matter to those who have the real vested interest. Let Europe step up to the plate, pick up the bat and start hitting the ball.
It’s too late to fix all the mistakes of the past. Let’s learn from them and move on down the road. The U.S. has far too many more critical problems than Crimea or even all of Ukraine. And before anyone mentions it, yes, I’d like to swat down Putin for what he’s done. But we won’t actually do it and I think everyone knows it.
50
I made a random sampling from Jo’s list of things caused by climate change taken from the I – K section. The most striking conclusion I reached from what I read was this. Here are people all trying desperately to get attention and climate change provides the way to get it. No matter what aspect of the “problem” was addressed it’s, “Hey, look at me. I have the solution and you have to follow me.” And I suspect they all “know” that no one can shoot them down. After all, they get to define all the terms and the rules in the first place.
Do these people ever pause to take a good look at themselves and do a little introspection? I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. There’s so much blatant foolishness and so little actual data to back up the claims. I guess I didn’t really expect much better but it has more impact when so much of it is collected together in one spot. Even the Polar Bears are there posing for their picture. Reminds me of children about 10 years old, just the age where they start to know everything.
91
The McKibben syndrome. Someone linked to his crybaby article a while back. Basically he felt deprived that he was not a “victim”. He was born to affluent pasty white parents, so he fit none of the victim categories and that depressed him. Until AGW came around and he then realized he too could be a victim.
70
I have real trouble wanting to be a victim of anyone or anything. My parents struggled most of their lives and we were definitely not affluent growing up. But does that make me someone’s victim? Life’s too short to go around crying, “Oh woe is me. I’m being victimized by [take your pick].”
If he was a victim of anything, McKibben was a victim of not having to work and struggle enough to build up his character and self confidence. Yet he saw it the other way around. How messed up can you get?
10
Our history is similar, and so is our incredulity with people like McKibben. But to understand McKibben, you have to understand Affluenza. A common affliction of the offspring of the rich (see OWS). They never struggled, so they have a guilt complex because they were born with a silver spoon in their mouths, and never had to work for their keep.
Those of us who had to work to get ahead. To provide for a decent standard of living for our children after having been raised poor, appreciate what we have, and if someone tries to make us a victim, we fight back. We do not roll over and whine about it, or take some kind of masochistic pleasure from it.
10
Amen, Roy. As baroque symphonies end with a trill, nature stories end with a citing of climate models, and the trouble to come. Specific models aren’t cited, just the ubiquitous “climate models.” It has been formulaic with National Geographic Magazine for a generation.
I recommend that when anyone is confronted by pronouncements of what “climate models [note that’s plural]” predict, ask to name two of the models. That should stop them dead in their tracks. They invoke models, but most have no clue about models. It has become pop culture, not science.
10
National Geographic was once a wonderful publication. They documented the world just as they found it. What an excellent concept. But now they’ve become the world’s crybaby (with apology to Phil at #19.1 for stealing the term but it fits so well). The founders of the National Geographic Society are surely rolling over in their graves.
But I think you’re on to something. I’d bet you’re right, no one you asked to name two of the climate models they’re quoting would be able do it.
I have a small collection of model airplanes for display around the house. They were never intended to fly so it doesn’t bother me that they don’t. But if I was an RC** fan, built the airplane and it didn’t fly I’d be really POd. Why aren’t these climate change people equally angry that their models don’t fly?
** RC = Radio Controlled for anyone who doesn’t recognize the acronym.
20
Because they are PC**, and not RC.
** PC = Politically Controlled for anyone who has been locked in a cave for the last twenty years.
30
Rereke,
Given the speed with which terminology changed all across the field of Democrats in this country — Obamacare became The Affordable Care Act overnight — I could easily believe PC = RC. I don’t know how the word could have gotten around that fast otherwise. 😉
10
Perhaps one should go back to Arrhenius just to check that the present day simpletons, aka alarmist climate scientists, have seemingly learned absolutely nothing:
“Based on information from his colleague Arvid Högbom (sv), Arrhenius was the first person to predict that emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels and other combustion processes were large enough to cause global warming. In his calculation Arrhenius included the feedback from changes in water vapor as well as latitudinal effects, but he omitted clouds, convection of heat upward in the atmosphere, and other essential factors.”
The questions, amongst others the simpletons have failed to address is (1) “Was Arrhenius describing the physical reality when he postulated a very necessary (for significant warming to occur) positive feedback from increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2 involving water vapour” and (2) “Does his failure to deal with the effect of clouds invalidate his calculation of changes in global temperature due to changes in atmospheric CO2”?
The very humble Roy Spencer, who unlike Arrhenius and contemporary alarmist climate scientists, admits that he (and suggests that they) still do not know the definitive answers to those questions but his informed guess is that the water vapour and cloud “question” is likely to produce a net neutral at best or even a negative feedback. In which case of course the alarmists are truly shown to be intellectually lazy simpletons.
Is the post IR increase in atmospheric CO2, possibly caused in part by human activity a good or a bad thing?
I mean what would the great man say?
“ Worlds in the Making [1908]) directed at a general audience, where he suggested that the human emission of CO2 would be strong enough to prevent the world from entering a new ice age, and that a warmer earth would be needed to feed the rapidly increasing population:
“To a certain extent the temperature of the earth’s surface, as we shall presently see, is conditioned by the properties of the atmosphere surrounding it, and particularly by the permeability of the latter for the rays of heat.” (p46)
“That the atmospheric envelopes limit the heat losses from the planets had been suggested about 1800 by the great French physicist Fourier. His ideas were further developed afterwards by Pouillet and Tyndall. Their theory has been styled the hot-house theory, because they thought that the atmosphere acted after the manner of the glass panes of hot-houses.” (p51)
“If the quantity of carbonic acid [CO2] in the air should sink to one-half its present percentage, the temperature would fall by about 4°; a diminution to one-quarter would reduce the temperature by 8°. On the other hand, any doubling of the percentage of carbon dioxide in the air would raise the temperature of the earth’s surface by 4°; and if the carbon dioxide were increased fourfold, the temperature would rise by 8°.” (p53)
“Although the sea, by absorbing carbonic acid, acts as a regulator of huge capacity, which takes up about five-sixths of the produced carbonic acid, we yet recognize that the slight percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere may by the advances of industry be changed to a noticeable degree in the course of a few centuries.” (p54)
“Since, now, warm ages have alternated with glacial periods, even after man appeared on the earth, we have to ask ourselves: Is it probable that we shall in the coming geological ages be visited by a new ice period that will drive us from our temperate countries into the hotter climates of Africa? There does not appear to be much ground for such an apprehension. The enormous combustion of coal by our industrial establishments suffices to increase the percentage of carbon dioxide in the air to a perceptible degree.” (p61)
“We often hear lamentations that the coal stored up in the earth is wasted by the present generation without any thought of the future, and we are terrified by the awful destruction of life and property which has followed the volcanic eruptions of our days. We may find a kind of consolation in the consideration that here, as in every other case, there is good mixed with the evil. By the influence of the increasing percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere, we may hope to enjoy ages with more equable and better climates, especially as regards the colder regions of the earth, ages when the earth will bring forth much more abundant crops than at present, for the benefit of rapidly propagating mankind.” (p63)
So there you are true believers. Arrhenius may have over calculated the greenhouse effect but he wasn’t quite the simpleton our contemporary alarmist climate change scientists and their disciples seem to be.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius
70
What you have compiled there is a complete miss understanding of the nature of what we are facing with Global Warming. Here is the latest surface temperature compilation from Berkeley University covering 1850 to the present.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myZJrVWyuTg
the usual climatic cycles are plainly visible, but there is only one trend. Ever hotter and more uniformly so.
And this is just the surface temperatures which are a small part of the Global Warming picture.
013
You couldn’t link to a graph? This is aimed for the gullible teenager who was taught scary stories rather than how to read and comprehend.
The original graph of James Hansen says it all, take plot of global mean temperatures with a large pinch of salt. The trend is highly dependent on the ‘homogenization’ or how the data was collated and adjusted (Homogenization in maths is the making of all the terms in a polynomial of the same order. Does any other area of science use that term in that way?).
100
Vic Gallus,
The graph is below the global image, clearly too hard for you to find. The link no longer works on this site but it works just fine on the Real Climate web site in the “new data from Berkeley” article. I suspect that the information is too much of an inconvenient truth for some here to live with.
08
The truth is that you linked to youtube and not a paper or an article on a blog. I don’t view them. Please link to what is written as intelligent people like to go back and forth between what is written and what is plotted. Analysis, not indoctrination.
50
If you are trying to get from A to B, and you know that point B is 20o east of north, from point A, then you can do it by using just a compass, but you have to keep the compass in front of you all of the time, otherwise you will go off track, and you will do so, a little bit at a time. It is much easier to use a compass and a map, because the map shows you landmarks that you can use to adjust the bearing if you wander.
Such it is with YouTube videos. YouTube videos (or any recorded presentation) can take you away from the truth a little bit at a time, in ways that might not notice, if you weren’t looking for it. They have the potential to bias the way in which you receive and process the information presented, and create an emotive impression that has little relevance to the facts of the matter. Watch any of the YouTube videos on, “The Coming Ice Age” (from the 1970s), to see early attempts at using the fear of extreme weather events, for propaganda purposes.
Presenting text and graphs allow the reader to analyse and absorb the information in the way they want to, using and following multiple threads, and not be restricted just to the serial sequence in which the information is presented by the author. It is much harder to lie, if the reader is able to absorb the material in multiple ways.
YouTube is the Post-Modern way of presenting information, and like Post-Modern Science, it is totally inferior to what it seeks to replace.
71
Rereke,
You’ve just gone to a lot of troudle to explain how you are too lazy to do any basic research. For starters I pointed out that the video originated from recent research from Berkeley University. Thr video also srated this. Had you bothered to google that one small connection you would have found all if the graphs and background information that you claim to crave.
Alternatively you could have checked in at http://www.judithcurry.com and found it all there too.
It is time you were honest with youself and recognise that you are only interested in the information that supports you delusional image of an unchanging world.
17
As in the climate would not have changed if the Industrial Revolution had not occurred?
31
Drunk commenting is never pretty.
20
Oh simple one aka BilB. You mistake temperature data for the so called “settled science”. If you were a little more intelligent you would have realised that without a valid science your favourite temperature data could just as well be used to support climate change due to a combination of internal and external natural climate variability.
The problem the simple alarmists have is that increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration alone is incapable of doing anything significant for global warming. Arrhenius knew that. Some alarmist climate scientists know that and like Trenberth imagine instead of current temperature increases the energy from the warming effect has disappeared into the ocean depths.
The rest of the scamming climate scientists are either unaware that the “settled Science” demands a net positive CO2/water vapour feedback for increasing atmospheric CO2 to have any significant effect on global temperature, or are just being true to their simplistic unscientific predispositions.
For some of the less simple alarmists who are discovering that there seems to be substantial indications that the net CO2/water vapour feedback is neutral or negative then lying about increased weather volatility of all sorts, due of course to the magical effect ( e.g. the magician Flannery) of increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration , seems to them about the only option to feed their alarmism and fool simple people like your fervent easily fooled self.
110
What ever have you been smoking llew Jones.
What a garbled mess of perception you have on Arrhenius’s work you have.
For starters Arrhenius estimated that it would take 3000 years for CO2 levels to double. This conclusion at the time for the population and fossil fuel use of the time was a reasonable assumption. He would have had to have been an extreme futurist to have predicted the rate of change that has occured since drwing his conclusions. Arrhenius would have been hesitant to be too extreme as he had sufferred for this during his early university days.
Global warming covers the full spectrum of causations and subsequent influences (feedbacks) including loss of reflectivity from receding glaciers and arctic regions, human land clearing, desertification, decomposition methane releases, direct heating from cities, heat released and moisture from fossil fuel combustion, increase in ground level ozone, pernafrost thaw (a huge concern for Sir Ian Axford), and etc.
It is tempting to apply a label to you, llew, but I think that you are simply minimally informed.
08
Don’t lie BilB. llew’s post was much easier to follow than your drivel gleamed from Wikipedia. Why don’t you mention the rest like Arrhenius was into eugenics.
More importantly, the IR spectrum of CO2 was first measured four years after Arrhenius came up with the the greenhouse effect, which ignored the convection of air (which is what the glass of the greenhouse stops to keep the inside warm).
Basically, the CO2 will absorb the important frequencies of IR absorption at 680 cm-1 within a few 100m of the surface. This energy will warm up the air around it rather than re-radiate. The air will expand and rise to the upper troposphere where the it will cool because it expands. All ignored by Arrhenius so his calculations, even according to the IPCC (although not the exact words used) are bollocks.
Why the continual reference to him? It is completely irrelevant.
71
OK, Vic Gallus,
Firstly you are llew Jones’ contribution a pile of crap. What do say to that llew Jones?
Secondly you are correctly identifying that solar radiation heats air at the surface and rises expanding and cooling as it does so, even though you suggest that air does expand untill it gets to the troposphere (false, it is expanding all the way up).
And then you just abandon the story there. This tells me that you know nothing about….circulation…or you are intentionally omitting the next part of the story as it does not suit the false idea that you are putting across (lying).
What happens next is that the mass movespolward and westward to subsequent fall backwards towards the surface compressing (high pressure system) as it does and heating adiabatically. Then the air moves at new surface elevations to replace air that is rising in low pressure systems else where. Thr BOM has some excellent articles explaining this process.
All of this is well understood by science. In Earth’s case gravity acts as the glass of the greenhouse with soace being the insulator.
After all is said about it the climate will explain what is really going on. The Berkley study is simply a depiction of how the atmosphere is reating to CO2 levels and offers a preview of what we are soon to experience.
06
I think Bilge had a really, really bad curry last night.
And now its all coming out as a totally incoherent load of ****.
51
Because he is the One Prophet who defined The Way, and The Truth.
Only an infidel would think otherwise.
/sarc
60
Rereke,
I had never heard of Arrhenius until llew Jones declared him to be the ultimate authority on the science here in this blog. But I have read a fair bit about his work now.
16
llew jones pointed out that even Arrhenius 100 years ago appreciated the importance of feedback if CO2 was to be scary. He didn’t declare anything about ‘ultimate authority’. Stop lying and pretending that people reading this are more ignorant than you.
20
If it’s not Heeby Jeebies it’s BilB. And after Bilb there’ll be someone else. And someone else. And someone else. And someone else…
And like those from the past, you too, BilB, will disappear, leaving nothing useful in your wake as soon as you discover that those who know something about the subject aren’t impressed with your failure to understand both science in general and the science behind the global warming scare in particular.
40
And what is the significance of the year, 1850?
Here’s a hint. The LIA ended. And what would expect when an ICE AGE (little or not) ends? Well if you say the temperatures go down, I guess you belong on the team!
20
I could ask, what generation in the past has ever given a real thought to the future? Exactly none! And I’ll certainly be attacked now for some imagined crime, won’t I?
I seem to remember a city so completely destroyed by a volcanic eruption that it lay hidden for centuries. I expect the citizens of Pompeii were frightened too. The difference today is that now every frightened fool in the world can spread his fear across the globe with near light-speed. We’re a lot more capable technologically but no wiser than we were in the Garden of Eden.
And the funny thing is, the human race is still here and according to our phenomenal ability to keep census records (ain’t computers wonderful?) we number in the multi gazillions. I don’t think we’re facing anything any worse now than we ever did in the past. We’re just much more able to make everyone around us as scared as we are.
So Arrhenius had a theory? Big deal! Let’s go back to the challenge Jo handed out in The Skeptic’s Handbook, volume 1 and ask, where’s the proof? Oh! You say you have none… …so sorry to embarrass you that way.
I’d say our real problem is that we need to grow up as a species and start making realistic risk assessments. If the insurance industry can stay solvent doing that — Lloyd’s of London has been around over 300 years — why can’t the rest of us?
50
I think this cartoon should be prominently displayed in every classroom, all countries.
121
That is just plain disgusting, Jo Nova.
Every one of those things in your I to K list is agony for one group of people (or animals) or another. Each one is a tragedy.
And you think that this is funny!!?
This is no joke, and a new low even for you.
213
I think it’s funny that you miss the point of why Jo mentioned it.
Faux indignation is common in activists such as yourself though.
91
….now prove that any of them are linked to CO2, and not just the alarmist doing their normal irksome slimy underhanded propaganda of linking even a slight sneeze to non-existent (this century) global warming.
91
More CO2 = more plants = more pollen = more sneezing. I think there may be a link.
80
if we hadn’t mostly been brought up in a time when plants were struggling with low CO2 levels, we might all be more tolerant to pollens etc.
CO2 has been so low for so long, humans have probably lost a bit of their ability to reject these things.
61
It seems we have a really angry one in BilB. But at least his picture and the personality do seem to go together well. Sometimes you get lucky with random choices made by a computer hidden away somewhere that you don’t even know about and up pops exactly the right Avatar for the occasion.
30
“the right Avatar for the occasion”
Roy you look a tad cranky, me, I’m just having a good laugh. 🙂
40
Griss,
Sometimes I am cranky. But like BilB, I got the luck of the draw the first time I ever made a comment on JoNova. It follows me everywhere and I can’t seem to shake it off.
Actually, I’d say I look more like — and here’s that horrible word again — skeptical. But others should be the judge, not me.
30
Yes, the raised eyebrow, as if looking at HJ post and saying.. “what the **** is this rubbish?” 🙂
40
Blaming them on the bogey man is not going to help mitigate or cure them either, now is it?
I am sure finding a scape goat makes the administrations feel better, but does nothing to solve the problems.
10
Psychoanalysis may really be helpful in understanding how the atmosphere responds to the miracle gas by outbursts of extreme heat but also extreme cold by the defense mechanism of Reaction Formation (see Wikipedia). If the climate has gone mad, all these things may happen.
50
I may be just a little dense and this isn’t sinking in fast enough. But psychoanalyzing the atmosphere?
You learn something new all the time. 😉
30
50
So is a tale of, acts of the majestic gas, now known as a flannerism?
How about explaining the polar vortex as caused by mans co2 emissions.
The product of civilization, combustion products containing CO2 are emitted at high temperatures, this caused the CO2 to rise (in spite of being heavier than air).
The magic gas rises to the top of the world, there displacing unprecedented volumes of arctic air,by forcing it down into the northern landmasses.
Cause we have a consensus that North is up,sorry you southerners, therefor warm gas must rise.
Also this too explains the cooler conditions of the southern hemisphere, its the cold air falling to the bottom of the globe that causes the sea ice to grow.
There you have it non-science of an IPCC quality.
Where’s my govt grant?
90
Another one I wish I’d said. 🙂
20
Flantulence?
40
anonymous(?) piece at The Economist – ***final line tells you where this piece went:
8 Mar: The Economist: Who pressed the pause button?
The slowdown in rising temperatures over the past 15 years goes from being unexplained to overexplained
BETWEEN 1998 and 2013, the Earth’s surface temperature rose at a rate of 0.04°C a decade, far slower than the 0.18°C increase in the 1990s. Meanwhile, emissions of carbon dioxide (which would be expected to push temperatures up) rose uninterruptedly. This pause in warming has raised doubts in the public mind about climate change. A few sceptics say flatly that global warming has stopped. Others argue that scientists’ understanding of the climate is so flawed that their judgments about it cannot be accepted with any confidence. A convincing explanation of the pause therefore matters both to a proper understanding of the climate and to the credibility of climate science—and papers published over the past few weeks do their best to provide one. Indeed, they do almost too good a job. If all were correct, the pause would now be explained twice over…
***Like the Terminator, global warming will be back.
http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21598610-slowdown-rising-temperatures-over-past-15-years-goes-being
10
I guess it’s really true. Only the good die young. 🙁
10
Picked this up at Watts ‘tips and notes’.
Dan says:
March 7, 2014 at 2:28 pm
Interesting cartoon on Jo Nova today. Maybe we should make more use of this.
In one simple cartoon the warmist position is there for all to ridicule.
One suggestion would be to replace Flannery with say Holdren or Obama, another for Suzuki etc.
Great potential. It is simple, direct and effective and ignores the heavy science that turns off the lay person.
70
Steve Hunter –
the list grows daily.
6 Mar: TheGrandIslandIndependent: Harold Reutter: Doctor contends that global warming is a public health emergency
Asthma, hay fever, ADHD, blue baby syndrome and gastroenteritis. As Dr. Wendy Ring noted, those are all medical conditions that affect humans.
But Ring told an audience at Central Community College-Grand Island Campus, audiences at CCC-Columbus, CCC-Hastings and CCC education centers at Holdrege, Kearney and Lexington Thursday, the cases of all those human illnesses are increasing because of global climate change.
During her presentation, she encouraged audience participation by having people make a medical diagnosis of the illness, then form a hypothesis of on how global climate change is connected to that illness…
http://www.theindependent.com/news/local/doctor-contends-that-global-warming-is-a-public-health-emergency/article_42dfc578-a5b5-11e3-b660-001a4bcf887a.html
Reutter does not include who Dr. Ring represents – PSR & Climate 911!
2012: Physicians for Social Responsibility: Physician Tours Country by Bike to Speak Out Against Climate Change
Dr. Wendy Ring is a 27-year PSR member and is doing a bike tour across the country to raise awareness around the health effects of climate change. PSR is supporting her on her tour and we will update with her progress as the tour continues…
I am not a climate scientist, but twenty five years in family medicine have taught me how to translate science into plain English and help people make changes to improve their health. In the absence of leadership from above, regular citizens must take action.
http://www.psr.org/news-events/news-archive/physician-tours-country-by-bike-climate-change.html
Climate 911
We have a PRESCRIPTION FOR CLIMATE ACTION that will lower greenhouse gas emissions AND cause large decreases in the top five causes of death in America.
We use our scientific knowledge to keep up with current research and our bedside skills to inform and motivate our communities and leaders to action.
MEET SOME OF OUR MEMBERS:
(first listed) WENDY RING Arcata, CA
http://www.climate911.org/who-we-are.html
00
Socialism is death!!!
10
Actually its a political philosophy.
But in the finest traditions of this site, never let a fact stand in the way of a damn good rant, pumping on the outrage meter, or between one and a bottle of good port wot??
11
Actually its a political philosophy, when practiced en masse, has led to the deaths of millions.
Hmmm Port. Good idea Cat. Don’t mind if I do 😉
20
As have pretty much all the others i think. Port? Bums up! 🙂
03
Yea, that damn French Monarchy and their policy of “the final solution”.
20
Tell that to the 20 million Russians, up to 100 million Chinese, or even the 12 million victims of the holocaust.
Do not let history get in the way of your diatribe.
[ A warning to all: Don’t start another argument about the holocaust. This isn’t the place or time. ] ED
00
I agree with Ian Plimer that there has been a dumbing of our education system whereas most leave it without an inkling of the importance of Carbon to life itself: it is the basic component of anything organic and some things inorganic such as bone, limestone etc. With hardly an iota of scientific knowledge our bankers, politicians, teachers .. are espousing the virtues of a carbon tax which will do exactly nothing to the world’s temperature which has been static for nearly two decades now. It defies belief that data from models are still accepted as fact when real measurements are very different. I would tend to class those espousing the virtues of a carbon tax as little more than snake oil salesmen.
90
EcoSystemMarketPlace: Althelia Climate Fund Dives Headfirst Into Kenya Project With Wildlife Works
4 March 2014 | Mike Korchinsky goes way back with Christian del Valle and Sylvain Goupille, now the heads of the Althelia Climate Fund, back to their days on the carbon desk at BNP Paribas. Wildlife Works, a developer of reduced emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD) projects that operates the Kasigua Corridor REDD+ projects, had an agreement with the French bank to provide development services for up to $50 million worth of projects.
When the two left BNP Paribas and launched the Althelia Climate Fund in 2011, Korchinsky continued to engage with del Valle and Goupille in the hopes of becoming the first developer to receive financing for a sustainable land use and conservation project from the new fund. Those conversations culminated in last month’s announcement that Althelia will make a $10 million investment in the Taita Hills project, which will cover most of the forest area in the Kenyan wilderness outside of Tsavo National Park, one of the largest national parks in the world, and home to elephants, rhinos, lions, leopards, and hippos…
http://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/pages/dynamic/article.page.php?page_id=10233§ion=news_articles&eod=1
00
Costa Rica opposition group says to scrap 2021 carbon neutrality target
SAO PAULO, March 7 (Reuters) – Costa Rica’s leading opposition group, PAC, expected to win a four-year presidential term next month, will drop the country’s commitment to carbon neutrality by 2021, an official said.
https://www.pointcarbon.com/news/reutersnews/1.4434692?&ref=searchlist
Reuters Point Carbon reports that Reuters Point Carbon says faster fixing could…
Faster market reform could add 40 pct to Europe’s CO2 price – Point Carbon
LONDON, March 7 (Reuters) – Reforming the European Union’s Emissions Trading System (ETS) before 2021 could add almost 40 percent to average European carbon prices, Thomson Reuters Point Carbon analysts said on Friday.
https://www.pointcarbon.com/news/reutersnews/1.4434055
00
conservative website…but figures don’t seem exaggerated to me, in fact they seem conservative!
6 Mar: CNS News Blog: Sean Long: COLD SHOULDER: ABC, CBS Exclude Scientists Critical of Global Warming for More Than 1,300 Days
Like a simple parlor trick, the networks are able to make skeptical scientists vanish, at least from the eyes of their viewers.
In some cases, the broadcast networks have failed to include such scientists for years, while including alarmist scientists within the past six months. ABC, CBS and NBC’s lengthy omission of scientists critical of global warming alarmism propped up the myth of a scientific consensus, despite the fact that many scientists and thousands of peer-reviewed studies disagree…
http://cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/sean-long/cold-shoulder-abc-cbs-exclude-scientists-critical-global-warming-more-1300-days
20
7 Mar: Bloomberg: Matthew Carr: China Calls on Rich Nations to Give $490 Billion for Climate
From 2020, richer countries should give at least 1 percent a year of their gross domestic product to the Green Climate Fund based in Songdo, Korea, China said in a submission published today on the website of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. They should give annual funding of $40 billion this year, rising to $100 billion in 2020, it said…
“Developed countries are responsible for the current and future concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere because of their historical, current and future emissions,” China said. They need to cut emissions 40 percent from their 1990 levels by 2020, it said.
The European Union proposed in January to cut its emissions by that amount by 2030…
The U.S. “would not support a bifurcated approach to the new agreement, particularly one based on groupings that may have made sense in 1992 but that are clearly not rational or workable in the post-2020 era,” the north American nation said Feb. 12 in its submission to the UNFCCC.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-06/china-calls-on-rich-nations-to-give-490-billion-for-climate.html
8 Mar: Bloomberg: Brian K. Sullivan: Aging El Nino Buoys Get Fixed as Weather Forecasts at Risk
Two years ago, Congress cut about 20 percent from NOAA’s climate research branch, including the ocean observation unit that oversees the devices, said Trenberth, who has advised NOAA and shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize that went to Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, for work he did with the organization.
Responsibility for operating the array was transferred in 2006 from the agency’s research branch to the weather service, according to Trenberth.
“In the National Weather Service, their priorities are always on the short-term weather, and the climate aspects and the inter-annual variability aspects just have been lost in the priority system, so that has been part of it,” he said.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-07/aging-el-nino-buoys-getting-fixed-as-weather-forecasts-at-risk.html
00
“China Calls on Rich Nations to Give $490 Billion for Climate”
And just who are all the once rich countries in debt to.?
60
Communism may yet take over the World by bankrolling the purchase of Carbon indulgences.
They must think the West are that gullible from their observation of our Patent & IP law.
30
Composition of air:
http://i50.tinypic.com/2j3h6de.jpg
[Image placed by ED]
30
Jaymam,
I cannot get the image to open. Do you need to share it or something?
00
Don’t bother. Apparently there is more argon in the atmosphere than water.
30
Maybe there is that much Argon in the atmosphere. It might explain the bright purple light caused by a high voltage arc.
Or maybe not. 😉
O2 looks a bit too large also. But a picture is worth 1,000 words. It’s just not worth a few lines of actual numbers. I won’t republish them though. They’ve been seen here more than enough times.
10
Yes there is nearly 1% argon in the atmosphere and nearly 21% oxygen. Water vapour varies a huge amount but is less than 1% in the temperate climates where we all live.
Perhaps somebody could redraw the diagram to make the nitrogen a cube as it’s meant to be. I thought it was OK to just show the front of the nitrogen cube.
But then the single ozone pixel will disappear!
11
Hi jaymam,
I appreciate your graph and the work you put into displaying the proportions of the gasses in the air.
I think the problem is the orders of magnitude that are almost impossible to visualize.
It’s like taking a photo of an elephant and then saying there’s a flea hitching a ride on the elephants back. As soon as we “zoom in” to see the flea, we lose proportion of the size of the elephant. We can’t see both together.
I once tried to make a similar graph using area instead of volume. I started with a 1200 x 1200 pixel image (1,440,000 pixels). By the time I got past CO2 (24 x 24 pixels), I was left with 2 pixels to represent everything else. (I didn’t include water vapour)
10
Sorry, missed the point that you were trying to make.
00
Jayman,
Having some graphic display experience I understand your decision about the Nitrogen cube and the problem of screen resolution with the single pixel being as small as anything can get. But at 9,340 ppm (0.9340%), Argon still looks out of whack to me. Maybe it’s just a problem of perspective with the Nitrogen cube cut short.
00
Thanks jaymam.
What resolution do I have to go too to see the Carbon (CO2 or CH4), or doesn’t it merit a pixel ?
00
Hi Mod, could you replace the image with this one? I had to learn to use Gimp, and not very well!
Composition of air:
http://i59.tinypic.com/2uruk21.jpg
30
Ahh, nice work jaymam,
If you are interested in producing similar graphics, I know of people who would appreciate your help. If so, ask Jo for my email address.
—
Email Sent. – Jo
10
Hi MaxL
Perhaps Jo could send you email addy to me, or mine to you.
You know, I reckon we could easily win the climate debate if only we could post our pictures inline somewhere.
00
jaymam,
Argon looks much better now, as does O2. The proportions relative to Nitrogen stand out well.
00
The amount of water I have shown is what occurs in temperate climates where most of us live. However I have changed my mind. The air in the tropics conatins lot more water, and clearly that has a huge world-wide effect on climate. So I will increase the size of the water cube, and add the percentage figures, next time I do the diagram.
10
just for the record (as we don’t have an unthreaded as yet).
abc saturday extra with Geraldine Doogue had a piece this morning which didn’t sit right with me. no-one but the person being interviewed is named as part of this charitable bankers/lawyers org, Peters Care (whose website doesn’t inspire confidence). towards the end, talk of buying out farmers, co-ops/cluster farms, govt funding will be requiired & so on. farmers might want to listen:
AUDIO: 8 Mar: ABC RN Saturday Extra: Geraldine Doogue: Peters Care farm mediation
A group of volunteer senior bankers and lawyers with rural backgrounds are mediating between NSW farm families in financial trouble and their banks.
The idea is to buy time to prevent farms being sold off, in the hope that better and more sustainable solutions can be worked through…
Further Info: Peters Care provides specialist services to farmers and families in distress, and is limited to the regions within NSW, generally bounded by Gilgandra down to Albury and west.
Guest: Simon McCann
CEO and patron of Peters Care
McCann Brothers Sydney
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/saturdayextra/farm-mediation-group/5288694
Radaris: Simon McCann
Locality: Sydney Area, Australia…
Current: Corporate Finance at McCann Brothers
Past: Product Development at Citibank/Orbian Business & Finance at Lloyds TSB Assistant Commissioner at Australian Securities & Investment Commission see less…
Experience: McCann Brothers (Investment Banking industry): Corporate Finance, (August 2003-Present)
Citibank/Orbian (Privately Held; Financial Services industry): Product Development, (August 1998-December 2001)
Lloyds TSB (Public Company; LLOY; Banking industry): Business & Finance, (January 1997-July 1998)
Australian Securi…
…I do a lot of work for various charities, groups associated with sustainability, and groups associated with regional issues…
http://radaris.com.au/p/Simon/Mccann/
00
I’m pretty sure it has caused my hair to thin. Thanks Big Oil!
/sarc
40
Yes I’m sure it’s caused my skin to wrinkle and I’ve lost some teeth, I also believe I have progressively aged somewhat and at this rate I could end up dying sometime in the future!!.
Thanks a lot CO2 you bastard gas from Hades!!!!
10
Your gonna love this post http://www.salon.com/2014/03/06/the_twisted_minds_of_climate_deniers_5_theories_for_why_they_still_refuse_to_see_reason/
from another leftist online rag not worth the display its written on. Lindsay Abrams, just another brainwashed sheeple. Too young to understand yet given a licence to make ad hom attacks on people who disagree with her stupid conclusions regarding anthropogenic global warming.
20
Lets see Philip complain about the abuse as he did the use of “stupid” for an idea.
20
Question: What is being sustained? Or more to the point, what would not be sustained without the focus of Lindsay Abrams, Assistant Editor at Salon?
Curious people would like to know.
30
Good article, gbees.
It goes straight to the point, the best summation of climate skedticism that I have read yet.
Thanks for the link.
07
Yes BilB, you would think that. It contains no science whatsoever, and is simply a ill-designed attack piece with absolutely no finesse.
I expected her photo at the credit to show her tongue sticking out, Snoopy “Bleeech” style.
Your snide remark says more about you, than it does about Jo’s blog.
80
By the way, that article drew 802 comments.
07
A slow news day, with not much on TV, will do that.
30
BilB
“By the way, that article drew 802 comments”
–
Consensus is not important; it’s the number of subscribers!
10
As that is 1 molecule of CO2 in every 2500 molecules of air, does it do most its warming where it is more concentrated (eg. over the oceans where it has just been released from) or where it has been well mixed to reach to that average level of 1 in every 2500 ?
20
Again zero science, a shameful ‘CO2 can’t do anything because it is a small number’ anti science argument. Which is also against the sites own science that accepts the greenhouse effect.
Finally a cowardly personal attack on a celebrated, much awarded and published, previous Australian of the year, Australian scientist.
The argument? Some comments out of context. You want to talk about bad prediction? What about when Anthony Watts predicted the Arctic would recover from 2010 or his failed UHI research, or when McLean, Frietas and Carter predicted that the world would be as cool as 1956 in 2011? Or virtually every temperature trend prediction by ‘skeptics’.
Shame on all of you.
312
Time to watch the Bolt Report..
Do yourself a favour and watch it, but don’t forget you blood pressure pills. 🙂
61
I watch real science not personal proteges of Gina Reinhardt. A fully paid up lacky for the fossil fuel industries that is an expert in every non science argument from the people who do not accept the science brigade.
07
You won’t find any real science on the ABC,
Maybe you should watch some of BA4 videos. 🙂
40
You defend Flannery on the grounds that sceptics have made dud predictions and then cite the single example for the past three years*.
A common sceptical opinion is that the atmosphere is too chaotic to have faith in predictions. How does one dud prediction destroy the sceptical position?
In regards to Anthony Watts, the ice has recovered to within two standard deviations of the mean. It has recovered to what has been normal since measurements were taken, you ignorant twit.
*A referees comment to the critique of the paper by Foster et. al.
“But as it is written, the current paper [Foster et al. draft critique] almost stoops to the level of “blog diatribe”. The current paper does not read like a peer reviewed journal article. The tone is sometimes dramatic and sometimes accusatory. It is inconsistent with the language one normally encounters in the objectively based, peer reviewed
literature.”
The authors response didn’t pass peer review. What a joke science has become because of you pin up boys, HJ.
61
You are such a gullible fool Vic G.
Evidence from Dr Pablo Clemente-Colon of the recently returned NOAA research expedition to the Arctic
Question: “The Arctic Sea ice extent is the second lowest on record, following last year’s measure, which broke the record. Based on climate conditions you’re seeing, is it possible this warming trend will continue?”
Answer: “The observations indicate both the planet, as a whole, and the Arctic region, even more rapidly, are warming up. The models are predicting this trend to continue in the foreseeable future. The ongoing decrease of sea ice in the Arctic is tied to this warming trend and is expected to continue. It should be noted that most of the thick, multiyear polar ice pack, composed in the 1980s of ice 10 years or more in age, has already been lost from the Arctic due to both drifting into the North Atlantic and melting. To get back to such a pack, we would need at least a 10-year cooling trend, which is not expected, nor forecasted, by any model”
Wake up and feel the rising heat you buffoon!
15
BilB;
“You are such a gullible fool Vic G.
…………..
Wake up and feel the rising heat you buffoon!”
–
Given the stable global temperatures over the most recent 17 years (approx.), the ‘rising heat’ seems to be quite localised!
01
“research expedition to the Arctic”
Did they get stuck in ice, too ?
40
Apologies for your behaviour would be nice BilB.
Here is the plot of ice-coverage. As you can sea, it is still within normal variation.
The ‘reliable’ data is only from 1981. There is actually more data than that. Here is link to splicing of estimates prior to satellite measurements and the satellite data that predates 1979.
There is also a quote from New Scientist written in 1960 that seems a lot like the latest bollocks from the NOAA.
40
‘See’. Did I let the moron get to me?
10
…and f**k you too Michael. You fail to realise that a call of shame from the like of you is like a badge of honour.
Such fake indignation from an obsessed troll typically having a whinge about the content of someone elses blog.
52
Heywood,
Isn’t there a bowl of munchies that you should be snaffling down, or some flees you could be scratching fervently at?
06
Aren’t you overdue for your 2 hourly depression tablets ?
20
Michael,
Would you kindly refrain from annoying the cat with your inane comments and faux critique, there’s a good boy?
42
lol @ Rereke.
Two thumbs down for my post. Let me guess, [snip] that is HJ (AAD) and BilB-o?
[]ED
31
HJ,
JoNovians are just showing their peave that the much vaunted climate skeptic, Judith Curry, has admitted that the global warming continues and concludes with
“There is broad agreement that greenhouse gas emissions have contributed to the warming in the latter half of the 20th century; the big question is how much of this warming can be attributed to greenhouse gas emissions” and then goes on to doubt the results. I suspect that Curry will soon be cut off by skeptic faithful.
I agree with you that this article is a desperate and cowardly highly personal attack on Tim Flannery and his work.
17
Care to give us a source for your quotation BilB?
Or was it just one of your made-up drive-by comments, quoted out of context?
And to remove all doubt, those ten quotations were all uttered by Tim Flannery at one time or another. Perhaps he was being ill-advised? Or perhaps he was just confused, and forgot to take his medication? If you are going to tell porkies, it is best to stay with the same pig*.
*Pig, a term of “affection” used by some politicians to describe spin merchants, given that the term Media Advisor, has now acquired such a bad odor.
30
I love these arguments from you activist tossers.
You are fighting an invisible enemy.
A majority of skeptics don’t disagree that “there is broad agreement that greenhouse gas emissions have contributed to the warming in the latter half of the 20th century”.
Nice try though. Perhaps one day you’ll understand the position of most of the posters here but I doubt it. Much better to whinge and carry on about ‘attacks’ on your idol Flim Flam Flannery and endorsing non-scientific attacks on skeptics. Like AAD/MTR.HJ, it’s an obsession. I wonder if HJs children have succumbed to the heat yet? The way he carries on, you would think they were just about dead.
40
You know, Heyden, if you are not going to accept any research from the scientific community then you kickoff your own temperature studies.
http://www.google.com.au/imgres?q=grumpy+cat+that+thermometer+should+not+have+gone+there&hl=en&tbm=isch&tbnid=znfsh72polI8CM:&imgrefurl=http://pandawhale.com/post/8060/that-thermometer-should-not-have-gone-in-there&docid=8gnl549iw9NaXM&imgurl=http://img.pandawhale.com/post-8060-That-thermometer-should-NOT-ha-Avtp.jpeg&w=612&h=612&ei=IzUcU8X_OYKVkwWb84DgCQ&zoom=1
Hey Bil, who appointed you spokesman for the global scientific community? Or did you just mean Western-Government-Funded-Climate-ScientistsTM?
– Jo
05
If that’s where you put your thermometers, no wonder that are reading so high.
You then take you own temperature with them of course.
30
Who said I don’t?
This comment just proves my point in 40.4.2. You have no idea of the general position on AGW of most of the posters here.
Don’t feel bad though, MtR aka HJ has been polluting the blog for quite some time now and he can’t grasp the concept either.
31
Every argument is presented and accepted here as long as it does not accept AGW. I have had arguents about CO2 even being a greenouse gas, whether the increase is due to man, whether the sun is made of iron, that it is cooling, that extra CO2 is good for us, that there is a huge global conspiracy and everything is doctored and that scientists are all rich and live in the bahamas, etc etc. You have no coherent, comprehensive scientific belief here, as long as it is against AGW it is accepted.
07
This is a blog that exists to discuss alternate theories to the “mainstream” view of CAGW. There are many varying opinions on the subject and everyone is entitled to their opinion. Some of the theories that are raised have merit and some are ridiculous, but can be discussed anyway, such is the freedom of speech allowed by the host of this blog. the fact remains that a majority of posters here agree that the world has warmed, and that man has contributed to some of that warming. The main differences of opinion is the amount man has contributed, net benefit of any warming and the effectiveness and cost/benefit of any remedial action taken.
…but you know this, and continue to sook anyway.
40
Does anyone else hear a sort of whining drone?
30
Do you have any idea how unscientific that description is?
There are natural sources of carbon dioxide. Did you know Australia’s main source of industrial CO2 is a well? Do you know how much more is in the sea compared to the atmosphere (in equilibrium with …. you wouldn’t understand)
If its good for crops, which it is as anyone into hydroponics will tell you, it is good for humans. A guy at a fish store told me its not the fisherman who are his biggest customers of dry ice.
I didn’t come close to buying a place in the Bahamas because I tried to do the right thing when I was a scientist. Certain people got rewarded with $180, 000 to work part time pretending to be a climate scientist. What conspiracy?
30
Actually Jo, not just “Western-Government-Funded-Climate-ScientistsTM?”, but every internationally recognised scientific body in the world. That includes places like China, Iran, Russia etc, on every continent, under every form of government. Please give up this fake conspiracy argument, there is no real logic behing it, It is shallow and demeaning.
Look at Australia, apart from the fact that every politician or party that has supported it has not benefitted from it (quite the opposite), now that we have a non believing Prime Minister that is shutting down climate change organisations and science (we do not even have a science minister anymore), the science has not changed. The latest report by BOM and the CSIRO has been their strongest ever in accepting the science behind climate change and its consequences for Australia. Meanwhile our Prime Minister visits drought areas and say its natural variability. So your argument has no merit, if anything the opposite is the case, you are more likely to get corporate and media support and the support of a public preferring to hear everything is normal by not accepting the science. It is populist politics at the expense of future generations.
05
“visits drought areas and say its natural variability.”
Which is EXACTLY what it is.
Have a look at the NATURAL history of droughts in Australia.
This current dry patch is nothing compared to what has been dished out in the past.
20
Care to prove that,or are we expected to take your word on it again,along with your statement in the Media bias thread that “
to which I challenged you to prove this,on which I’m still waiting on your answer. Back up your statements with proof,or quit spouting this garbage.
50
“The consensus Cook considered was the standard definition: that Man had caused most post-1950 warming. Even on this weaker definition the true consensus among published scientific papers is now demonstrated to be not 97.1%, as Cook had claimed, but only 0.3%.
Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950. Cook himself had flagged just 64 papers as explicitly supporting that consensus, but 23 of the 64 had not in fact supported it.”
Legates, D. R., Soon, W., & Briggs, W. M. (2013). Learning and teaching climate science: The perils of consensus knowledge using agnotology. Science & Education, 22, 2007–2017.
50
I already disproved it to him. He is merely continuing to parrot his lies. Like many alarmists, he has his talking points down, and no facts will stand in the way of him repeating them.
40
BilB;
“I agree with you that this article is a desperate and cowardly highly personal attack on Tim Flannery and his work.”
–
It will be noted that you, perhaps wisely, avoided using the term ‘Professor’ when referring to Flannery and his ‘work’.
01
The people using this blog to express their opinion have always known that the difference in opinion between luke-warm and frigid sceptics is huge. The only thing common is the realisation that the alarmism is not based on science. What you only realised today has been known by many for years. It is ridiculous how you manage to advertise your ignorance in the debate thinking that you had a got-you moment.
20
“Finally a cowardly personal attack on a celebrated, much awarded and published, previous Australian of the year, Australian scientist. ”
Who happens to be a total fruitcake.. like you.
52
I am also amazed at how many people above have run with and accepted the ‘its a tiny amount so it cannot do anything’ argument. Good luck with saying to the policeman ‘my blood alcohol content is only .05% that can’t do anything’.
Just proves how scientifically ignorant most posters here are.
29
Well Michael, would you like to tell us at what level CO2 starts to have a deleterious effect?
60
Heeby jeebies;
“Good luck with saying to the policeman ‘my blood alcohol content is only .05% that can’t do anything’.”
–
A graph showing the correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentrations and blood alcohol levels would be useful.
–
“Just proves how scientifically ignorant most posters here are.”……………Just blow in the bag, HJ!
11
The atmospheric concentration of CO2 is not limited in its effect on global temperature because of its relatively small volume of the gaseous atmosphere but rather because of the relationship that Arrhenius theorised exists between temperature and the forcing effect of CO2 added to the atmosphere.
That relationship is of the form:
T(b)- T(a) = k ln ((CO2(b)/CO2(a))
Where CO2(a) and CO2(b) is its atmospheric concentration at temperature T(a) and T(b) respectively.
Now how is your junior High School Maths?
Do you know what that curve looks like? Did you know that the tangent to that curve asymptotes to zero?
Still with it?
OK what is the tangent to that curve? Did you know it is the rate of change of temperature with respect to change in the atmospheric concentration of CO2?
Thus the rate of change of temperature with increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2 is diminishing and heading to zero. Or in other words there is a “law” of diminishing returns in play.
(Not so with your ignorant reference to imbibing alcohol where there seems to be no such law in place and the progression is from being moderately to being thoroughly pissed without much change in blood alcohol readings)
That is the “settled science” and that is why Arrhenius and intelligent climate scientists since have seen that global warming via the CO2 path can be significant if and only if there is a net positive feedback between CO2 and water vapour.
That is the point of contention. viz is the net CO2/water vapour feedback positive, neutral or negative. If it is not net positive then any extra atmospheric concentration of CO2 will have no significant impact on global temperatures.
Thus the argument is not really about the relatively small CO2 ppm (by volume) but about the nature of the net CO2/water vapour feedback. Maybe some skeptics have missed this point but so have you given your irrelevant comment about blood alcohol readings.
Repeat for slow learners: Not because CO2 is a trace gas but because of its logarithmic relationship with global temperature.
(That relationship was expressed in the form of a forcing but as that is directly proportional to temperature the above equation is generally valid)
50
llew, thanks for your reply, scientists much cleverer than me have investigated the forcing caused by CO2. Complicating the issue is the fact that the atmosphere is layered and all the layers behave differently and have different concentrations of atmospheric components.
So basically I accept the science that has come from multiple areas that have concluded that the forcing from a doubling of CO2 is roughly 3 deg c (within a range but recent science suggests the higher end of the range more likely, so 3 is probably conservative). Arrhenius had a higher range, around 5-6 but that was over 100 years ago and he was examining ice ages as the thought of warming with the meagre CO2 emissions of the time were to long away for them to spend a lot of time on it. This figure comes from the paleoclimate studies, the physics, measurements, and comparing model results to observations to name a few. So yes it does reduce with amount, this is implicit in the fixed forcing per doubling. For instance the change from 280 to 560 will be 3 deg c but then you don’t get another increase to 3 deg c until 1120ppm.
The water vapor feedback is well understood physics and model results match observations. Water vapor is entirely dependent on temperature. The water vapor feedbak was confirmed by Mt Pinatubo where several scientific studies found that the forcing from the volcano matched the models and would not have ocurred without the water vapor feedback as predicted by the physics.
Check the peer reviewed science by Sodden BJ et all and IPCC AR5 chapter 8
26
Poor old CO2, its seems to have all it warming over the last 17 or so years.
Its become so left wing, its stopped work and gone on the dole 🙂
41
” its seems to have LOST all it warming over the last 17 or so years”
where’s my morning coffee !
41
“So basically I accept the science ‘
The only science you know is what’s on that farce of a little propaganda CD you got at your 10 week course.
Not one ounce of real science involved in that at all.
So..
What caused the 1915-1945 period to warm faster than the 1977-2007 period?
Still avoiding answering that one I see. Got nothing…?
41
I have answered that one many times, go back and have a look. Interesting that I tried to have a reasonable scientific discussion, and all I got was nonsense back. Just about says it all really.
05
No, you have avoided it with spewed nonsense once,
But nothing of any scientific merit.
20
Interesting that all you contributed was nonsense.
30
G
LoL! 🙂
Heeby J, you just have to accept that many of the posts here aren’t about science where it doesn’t reinforce the Grupenthunk in some way. Take it as humour about the human condition, and it all makes sense. 🙂
Anyway, came across this one just recently even though its pretty old. Worth a read and some thought after the various weather happenings of 2013/14 which make it look a bit like the context of the original paper may have been a bit narrow.
17
catamon unbellyfeel grupenthunk
–
catamon bellyfeel consensus
00
Hmmmm, I thought the “consensus” was that CAGW was real and getting worse. Seems the “grupenthunk” is on the other foot.
BTW: If you are going to bastardize another language, try to at least get it right. Gruppendenken
10
“that many of the posts here aren’t about science”
Then perhaps you and HJ should actually get on topic and start posting about real science.
Leave your CAGW grupenthunk and parroting in the dustbin where it belongs.
30
Did above, and all I got was nonsense for the attempt.
05
All you posted was regurgitated nonsense.
Try finding some real science… not from your CD, and not from SkS.
20
In reply to some comments above, the sensitivity calculations are wrong because the assumptions are wrong. Planetary surface temperatures are determined primarily by the autonomous thermal gradient which evolves spontaneously at the molecular level in their tropospheres. The gradient (aka lapse rate) does not require any surface warmed by direct solar radiation, or any upward rising advection, or any internal energy generation or energy release through cooling.
If the height of Earth’s troposphere were, say, 10Km more than it is, then the mean surface temperature would be in the vicinity of 30 to 40 degrees warmer than it is. You will not get that “answer” using GH radiative forcing conjectures. Yet you need look no further than Venus and Uranus to see examples of temperatures at the bases of their tropospheres.
40
“scientists much cleverer ” Doesn’t take much, monkeys are much clever than you.
“model results match observations” Again MONUMENTAL B***S*** !!
42
97% of the models come nowhere near reality..
You know that, but you keep lying through your a**e.
You say you have the science behind…….. well, we know exactly where your BS pseudo-science comes from.
42
Griss you are totally making up your figures and ignoring all the science I put forward. The models have been extremely accurate and useful but you misinterpret their purpose and the information we get from them. Firstly, they are projections of certain scenarios and many of them. Because they are trying to give us an indication of where we might be heading. many variables need to be estimated, because scientists are not fortune tellers, and so will never be an exact representation of reality and are not expected to, thats why there are so many different scenarios. They do not know how many emissions will actually be emitted and how fast, how many aerosold, and where, what volcanos will erupt, what the sun will do, what the ocean cycles like PDo and ENSO will do etc.
Over time many of these things will even out, such as the natural cycles in the ocean, and that is why you see many dips and pauses in the long term trend, but with a definate upward long term trend with catch up periods. Others will require small adjustments up and down like solar and volcanos etc. When short term adjustments are factored in the models are extremely accurate and tell us a lot, when the models are compared to observations and big events like Mt Pinatabu, they confirm the science and our understanding, as explained above (conveniently ignored by you). They are continually being improved.
So most people with a basic science understanding and with honesty and skeptism will understand where I am coming from, and this is the second attempt at a serious scientific discussion. Unfortuantely I suspect you will continue making up numbers and only accepting the 5% of the climate system and the science that you think confirms your bias while ignoring the 95% of the climate system and the science that doesn’t.
07
You have NEVER put forward any science.
Its all just farcical propaganda B**S***. Not one tiny bit of science in the whole regurgitated mess.
There is nothing to ignore.
Everyone knows that .. except you, you stupid goose. 🙂
20
Your attempts at science is what Richard Feynman calls “cargo cult science”which was first used during his commencement address at the California Institute of Technology, United States, in 1974, to negatively characterize research in the soft sciences (psychology and psychiatry in particular) – arguing that they have the semblance of being scientific, but are missing “a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty”. Feynman cautioned that to avoid becoming cargo cult scientists, researchers must first of all avoid fooling themselves, be willing to question and doubt their own theories and their own results, and investigate possible flaws in a theory or an experiment. He recommended that researchers adopt an unusually high level of honesty which is rarely encountered in everyday life, and gives examples from advertising, politics, and behavioral psychology to illustrate the everyday dishonesty which should be unacceptable in science. Feynman cautions that “We’ve learned from experience that the truth will come out. Other experimenters will repeat your experiment and find out whether you were wrong or right. Nature’s phenomena will agree or they’ll disagree with your theory. And, although you may gain some temporary fame and excitement, you will not gain a good reputation as a scientist if you haven’t tried to be very careful in this kind of work. And it’s this type of integrity, this kind of care not to fool yourself, that is missing to a large extent in much of the research in Cargo Cult Science.”
50
“Griss you are totally making up your figures”
No, It is a simple calculation.
The main “idea” of “Global warming” is .. guess what.. temperature
So let’s look how these “extremely accurate” models fair in that department
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/model-trend/cmip5-73-models-vs-obs-20n-20s-mt-5-yr-means1.png
At best there are only 2 models that come anywhere near the observed measurements in 2012-2013 .
In fact.. EVERY SINGLE MODEL OVER-PREDICTS THE TEMPERATURE.. and remember, this whole meme started life as global WARMING, but it just isn’t happening.
That leaves 71 models that are wildly inaccurate. 71/73 is approx. 97%
So yes.. the models seriously need some improving, but have a long long way to go.
To correct the massive inaccuracy of those remaining 97% of the models, they first have to admit they have a very real problem.
Pretending that they are in any way “accurate” is just scientific bumpkin, they are wildly inaccurate.
The rest of your post is meaningless waffle. There is absolutely zero science in that waffle.
So either retract your LIE that I am making up figures, or STFU !
20
Griss,
Before he whinges about the limited geographical scope of that graph, try this one.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-90-models-global-Tsfc-vs-obs.jpg
00
From The Guardian UK.
Environment
Climate change
Climate change: surfers told to expect fewer large waves on east coast
Researchers say greenhouse gases will reduce the number of storms that generate big swells by 40%
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/10/climate-change-surfers-told-to-expect-fewer-large-waves-on-east-coast
Now why was I thinking that AWG was going to make storms more severe,tidal surges stronger?
So your cartoonist can now add , flattening the Sea to the list of the crimes perpetuated by CO2 on mankind.
Is this the same CO2 that is whipping the trade winds into a frenzy and driving heat deep in to the Oceans? How perplexing!
71
Rogueelement, you adequately display the blinkered tunneled thinking of those that do not accept the science. The research was specific to waves caused by a specific type of storm being reduced in a specific area. It said nothing about storms in general or the type that are expected to increase in intensity. It also said nothing about the trade winds, storm surges or energy moving into the deeper oceans, as is common with ocean cycles that commonly effect atmospheric temperature. It did however specifically mention rising sea levels and how they will effect erosion on these coasts.
So basically you made it up, either intentionally, or your bias caused you to see what you wanted to see, and ignored what the science was actually saying.
07
“blinkered tunneled thinking of those that do not accept the science”
That is YOU to a tee..
You totally refuse to accept and REAL SCIENCE that is not on your little propaganda mis-information non-science CD
Everything you post is basically a fraud or a monumental mis-statement of reality..
And you are so darn thick that you don’t even know it.
A crazy, brain-washed, moronic fool. !
31
Your hysterical posts are becoming more and more farcical in their hallucinogenic make-believe.
You are being LAUGHED AT. fool. 🙂
51
Well now, the way I see it is this , if AGW has an effect on a specific type of storm in a specific type of area it is a very clever little molecule indeed. Because the entire hypothesis of green house gases causing AGW is based on an experiment carried out in the 1800 s and there is no specification as to which part of the greenhouse will get warmer than any other part or that there will be any variation in airflow trends as they would tend to equalise across the board ,how then does CO2 in a corner of the planet over the sea behave or cause a different reaction to CO2 over any other part of the sea? So East Australia seas are unique in what way to the millions and millions of miles of oceans which are at the same temperature with a similar air temperature?
Seriously , people get paid for this ?
71
lol, this comes from a person who idea of science ad research is rolling on the floor while doing a google search for graphs that you can misinterpret, while ignoring the conclusions and misinterpreting the actual peer reviewed science that I post. This also in response to me needing to explain what the actual science of a post means when it has been completely misinterpreted and misused by somebody who has used his bias to lie about what it says.
Oh rogueelement, displaying the complete inability to grasp the complexities of the actual climate and to simplify to ridiculous childish levels how a climate works. CO2 is a well mixed greenhouse gas that causes energy to increase in the total system because it slows down the loss of energy to space. Every other part of the climate system will react differently to that increase in energy. The oceans land and atmosphere all heat at different rates, the differences in heat and pressure between all the different elements cause weather, jetstreams will change due to the changes in temp differences from one side to the other, the poles will heat faster than the equator and that will change as albedo changes as well due to the melting ice, currents will change a the salinity and temperatures of the ocean changes, currents change what happens to the atmosphere above them, the different layers of the atmosphere react differently, the lower surface warms faster than that above them but the stratosphere will cool and the troposphere layer will rise as the energy increases.
Every region will behave differently and with differing degrees of predictability, though we know that precipitation events wil become more extreme as the increase in water vapor will mean when it come down it come down greater, areas prone to heat waves and drought will likely get worse etc etc. There is much statistical research looking at trends to see how these effects will impact in specific areas, as that is the kind of information that people need to adapt to the changing climate and minimise the damage caused.
[Jo Note for the casual reader: Note the two paras above here is Heeby (aka sock puppet of MTR) effectively invoking the all purpose magical incantation excuse that CO2 will have weird and complex effects. This may be true, but if CO2 doesn’t have the simple effect it is supposed to (raising global average surface temperature trends) then why would we think for one sensible second that “experts” could predict the regional, special storms, when they can’t predict the bigger, more important simple trends? This is another classic case of MTR filling long paragraphs with something that looks superficially like “reason” but which falls apart under even a tiny analysis. Note what he writes after the essentially self contradictory non-point is misplaced condescension. No wonder readers get frustrated. – Jo]
Your feeble understanding is of a primary school level and matches the type of thinking that thinks that when the planet warms by 1 degree it will warm by one degree everywhere at the same time. Sad really, that this level of scientific intelligence is what is delaying action that will affect adversely my grandchildren.
FYI: the oceans temperature is different everywhere, as is its level, it is continuously moving and mixing. Just something for you to think about.
19
Oh they haven’t succumbed to the heat yet? The way you carry on you would think they are close to death.
Still amused that you think that polluting this one blog will actually change anyone’s opinion. Also funny that you think that this one blog is holding up your precious mitigation action. Jo bust be chuffed to think she wields that much power in the debate.
Oh.. I know, you are only here because you have been banned everwhere else for being an arrogant tool. You even had to lie and deceive to get back on here. Obsessed much?
21
Heeby J;
“lol, this comes from a person who idea of science ad research is rolling on the floor while doing a google search for graphs that you can misinterpret, while ignoring the conclusions and misinterpreting the actual peer reviewed science that I post.”
–
Multi-tasking’s the key!
–
20
Congratulations Heeby J.
You’ve managed to condense the entire lunatic warmist mantra into a single 114 word sentence.
Starting with; “The oceans land and atmosphere all heat at…” and ending with; “…troposphere layer will rise as the energy increases.”
Well done! 114 words of complete gibberish.
You may think that what you’ve written is “the” science, but it has been established beyond doubt, on this very site, that you know nothing about science or mathematics (the language of science). In fact, you don’t even understand any of the arguments proffered by “the” science.
I would refute your assertions, but what’s the point? You don’t understand what “energy” is.
41
Guys, how about we…
..
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
30
No let’s not do that.
00
ok . 🙂
00
So Heeby , The troposphere will rise eh? No shit Sherlock? This rise occasioned by excited molecules or warmer than above molecules. yup got that,all them balloons and stuff, yup, got all that about 10 years ago and you forgot the really exciting bit, the higher they rise the colder it gets! And then what happens Heeby? why they cool and fall, inter react with every other molecule in the cooling warming process and that’s how we get such a lovely planet to live on , well apart from the weather which can be a bit shit on occasion.
“CO2 is a well mixed molecule,” nice expression, so its not up there like a big pane of glass or anything?
Of course it couldn’t be anything other than well mixed giveen the competition to race to the top of the Trop and cool down.
The Troposphere expansion and contraction due to local warming or cooling has regulated the Earths Temperature for zillions of years.The interaction with the very cold Stratosphere hes ensured an environment on which man could evolve and funnily enough will continue to do so long after you have bust a blood vessel and shuffled from this mortal coil.
17k at the equator 8-11 at the poles roughly, see that’s the doughnut squeezing the jam (heat) out into the stratosphere.
When you have a thermometer on every square kilometer on planet Earth,in every cubic kilometer of the atmosphere and every cubic kilometer of the sea , come back and talk to me about Earths energy budget, until such time , go tweak your models or I would suggest ask the people at Lego Land to have a go , they have a much better record than CAWG pseudo scientists.
20
Y’know something Rogue…
That is almost the PERFECT reply to a HJ post. 🙂
10
“will affect adversely my grandchildren”
Hey, they have your genes..
What could possibly go wrong. 🙂
10
Does the ICAO modify the stratospheric air transport corridors whenever this happens, given that most intercontinental flights are highly dependent on jet streams, and every aircraft has to be at the appropriate operating height, relative to their direction of travel, and the position of every other aircraft?
10
“Your feeble understanding is of a primary school level ”
I’ll put my primary school maths against yours any day of the week. 🙂
00
Comment reply to Heeby added inline in #44.1.4. Jo
40