So much for the consensus. In 2012 The Geological Society of Australia (GSA) was one of the few associations to make a slightly skeptical position on climate. For poking their heads above the parapet they’ve had years of headache and debate, and finally have issued a statement saying they have given up entirely on putting out any statement. The debate is so furious and divisive that no position could be agreed on. (I wonder exactly how many of their members are fans of climate models? Was this the work of just a few zealous believers?) I think I’ve hardly ever met a geologist who wasn’t somewhat skeptical.
The back story is that, like most science associations, in 2009 the GSA chanted the litany. (Their 2009 statement is here). They wrote that governments should take strong action to reduce CO2 and that meant paying geologists more to do research and sit on plum advisory committees. How predictable…
1. That strong action be taken at all levels, including government, industry, and
individuals to substantially reduce the current levels of greenhouse gas emissions and to
mitigate the likely social and environmental effects of increasing atmospheric CO2.2. That Earth Scientists with appropriate expertise be included in Australian advisory
bodies…4. That sufficient targeted funding and resources be allocated by Australian
governments,…
That’s when they discovered that their members were furious and did not agree. It caused an uproar. So they surveyed their members (if only all associations would do that) and reissued a statement in 2012 which was more skeptical. Now, after being badgered for another two years they have backed away from the whole debate. It is too divisive to even put forward a statement that does not pander entirely and 100% to the so-called consensus. Read below how tame and banal their 2012 statement was. They merely pointed out some feedbacks were not well understood. But no cracks in the faith are allowed!
This story shows firstly how meaningless statements from most science associations are. Argument from Authority always was, and still is, a fallacy of reasoning. A small committee of six can easily spout a position that many of their own members disagree with. Almost no associations go to the trouble of surveying their members. It also shows how aggressively faithful the believers are. Even a statement with mild truisms that does not profess complete obedience to the approved chant is not allowed.
A comment from Chris on the ABC site in June 2011 reveals the depth of feeling:
The reason you cannot find the link on the Geological Society of Australia web site to their [2009] “policy statement” supporting AGW is that it was withdrawn about 12 months ago after a howling, screaming objection from the majority of GSA members who objected to a “policy statement” that we did not agree with being put forward by 6 members of the management committee (all, I am told, employed by government) without reference to, or approval from, the wider membership. The majority wider GSA membership (some 4,000 members) does not support AGW.
Earth scientists split on climate change statement
Graham Lloyd, The Australian
AUSTRALIA’S peak body of earth scientists has declared itself unable to publish a position statement on climate change due to the deep divisions within its membership on the issue.
After more than five years of debate and two false starts, Geological Society of Australia president Laurie Hutton said a statement on climate change was too difficult to achieve.
Mr Hutton said the issue “had the potential to be too divisive and would not serve the best interests of the society as a whole.”
The backdown, published in the GSA quarterly newsletter, is the culmination of two rejected position statements and years of furious correspondence among members. Some members believe the failure to make a strong statement on climate change is an embarrassment that puts Australian earth scientists at odds with their international peers.
It undermines the often cited stance that there is near unanimity among climate scientists on the issue.
GSA represents more than 2000 Australian earth scientists from academe, industry, government and research organisations.
A position statement published in 2009 said the society was concerned about the potentially harmful effects of carbon dioxide emissions and favoured “strong action to substantially reduce current levels’’.
Their 2012 statement was pretty tame and utterly reasonable:
“Human activities may impact on these Earth-specific factors to cause anthropogenic climate changes, both locally and globally.”
Climate sensitivity
A detailed, scientific understanding of the climate history of the Earth, based on the geological record, is essential to appreciate and quantitatively unravel the various sensitivities contributing to climate variations both short term and long-term. The term ‘climate sensitivity’ is used to describe the change in globally averaged temperature that is caused by a given amount of climate forcing. For example, the sensitivity of global climate to variations in Earth’s orbital parameters (axial tilt, orbital eccentricity and precession) is known to be around 5 to 6°C during glacial/interglacial cycles of the past 2–3 million years. However, orbital forcing alone cannot account for this magnitude of sensitivity — there are complex feedback mechanisms that amplify the orbital forcing, some of which are reasonably well understood and some of which require
further research and testing to be well understood.
How dare they suggest that the direction, rate and scale of the change was not etched in the IPCC tabernacle and needed more study!
Future climate
The geological record clearly shows that the Earth’s climate will change from what it is today. The critical question, however, is the direction, rate and scale of change and consequent environmental effects on essential human activities such as agriculture and settlement patterns. Geological archives of past climate changes merit careful study to better understand Earth’s complex climate system, including the primary controls and feedback mechanisms that cause these changes.
But even so, in 2012 they still polluted their “scientific” methodology with the profoundly unscientific pandering to bureaucracy and authority:
Scientific approach
Science seeks to explain natural phenomena using natural laws, verifiable and reproducible observations and logical analysis; it reaches explanations that are always subject to amendment with new evidence. Our understanding of the geological record of past climate change should be based on the best available peer-reviewed science. The GSA encourages those interested in following the debate on climate science to attach greatest credence to the communications of those scientists commenting within their fields of expertise, as defined by their peer-reviewed publication record.
But even the pandering wasn’t good enough for some members who were angry that the GSA would allow any skeptical position at all.
I would like to know the results of the GSA members survey. Can anyone find a copy? Were these results published? GSA members, please speak up!
What expertise does the The Geological Society of Australia in climate science? Very little
4128
Only 4.5 billion years.
What expertise do you have Mr-Logical-Fallacy?
1264
So how many member of the The Geological Society of Australia published any work on climate science. I suspect it would be a single digit percentage close to zero, their “opinion” in a member survey of trivial importance. Since you appear to have some inside knowledge it would be interesting for you to give us an idea of the relative numbers on each side of the debate. I predict it would have been close to 97:3
386
I dont think I have ever met a scientist who wasn’t somewhat skeptical, that is after all how science works.
759
Thats because you don’t know what a skeptical scientist is.
735
Brian:
‘I dont think I have ever met a scientist who wasn’t somewhat sceptical…..’
–
After meeting you, Brian, who could blame them?
322
Dear Brian, I’ve got bad news. One day you’ll have to grow up and learn to think for yourself. At the moment your grovelling obedience to an archaic bureaucratic process is quaint, but boring. The scientist who is right is the one with evidence and reason, not the one who panders the best to paper-mill.
PS: Since you are pouring scorn on the opinions of Geologists I’ll take it as given that you concede most geo’s are skeptics.
956
” One day you’ll have to grow up and learn to think for yourself.”
Don’t get your hopes up. Brian’s post is a typical example of the “Critical Thinking Skills” that most Western schools are attempting to develop in students these days. It’s not logic-based critical thinking but norm-based.
443
” but norm-based”
I should point out that in this case, ‘norm’ is not short for ‘normal’, but is actually the name of the guy who runs the local ‘dodgy bros’ car sales yard.
164
“Dear Brian, I’ve got bad news. One day you’ll have to grow up and learn to think for yourself”
uummmm.. Nope, I don’t think he will ever achieve either of those.
154
Unfortunately, children like Brian never do grow up. But they also lack the childhood innocence of a Peter Pan. They just have the petulance and temper of a child – in other words, all the bad things about children.
233
Unfortunately as time goes by “children like Brian” do grow up physically but mentally carry petulance and temper into the blog known as Skeptical Science. If you haven’t visited you’ll find more petulance and childish temper than you’d come across in a thousand nurseries and child care centres. Come to think of it perhaps Skeptical Science is a child care centre for those who cannot discuss climate science dispassionately but must have absolute adherence to their version however discredited that version may be.
131
Lord of the flys.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_of_the_Flies
20
Brian:
“So how many member of the The Geological Society of Australia published any work on climate science. I suspect it would be a single digit percentage close to zero”
–
Brian et al:
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/06/climate-science-hopelessly-politicized-geological-society-of-australia-gives-up-on-making-any-statement/#comment-1478643
51
Brian,
You do understand that what is published is not divine? You understand that do you not?
The peer-review process was a farce before its use to promote the religion of AGW. Now it is getting beyond ridiculous and all because it is seen a stamp of divinity. Read the pro and against arguments and use your brain.
Some interesting complaints about Ian Plimer’s views.
The observed rise in global temperature is unusual, both because it has risen so rapidly, and
because human activities are driving the change. Sorry, but the use of fossil fuels has escalated to 10 times the rate now than pre 1950 and still.
Now who do you believe, authority or someone who made a good point?
131
> what is published is not divine
Seems rather too obvious to state; but yes, I agree.
> someone who made a good point?
Your point wasn’t immeadiately obvious from the graphs you linked to. But, FWIW, I’ve deliberately avoided discussing the recent temperature record here; there are subtleties involved that I doubt can be handled in a thread like this.
011
Same to you. Brraaaccckk!!!!
00
No, a fuller answer, [snip] Billy.
Ponder the difference between Witty and Smartarse.
” there are subtleties involved that I doubt can be handled in a thread like this.”
Translation “You’re all stupid”
Doesn’t really add anything to the debate, does it, however you say it?
Witty can be appreciated, even if you disagree with the substance.
Smartarse is automatically wiped as not worthy of serious thought because the Smartarse is intoxicated with words and insults ( Got’em… Yeahhh ) as more important than meaning.
Grow up Billy.
20
Joanne, The real result of “all” with personal integrity, is, “I do not know”, the only correct answer always. Can the the vast earthlings ever accept that correct answer?
200
Will,
That depends.
One view says that we, The Anointed, know exactly how to make the lowly masses follow us to a higher and nobler level of existence.
The other view says that, hey, we’re not that smart, but let’s see what might work and give it a go. If it doesn’t, we’ll try another way.
It is no accident that skeptics can be found among the ranks of those who actually produce things that people might want to buy, while climate alarmists are found almost exclusively in the Clever Words industries — media, academia, PR, NGOs, politics. Makers v takers, in the American vernacular.
As someone recently pointed out, there is only one “conservative” group of people who have jobs in Hollywood — stuntmen.
260
“Clever Words industries”
Nicely put.
10
Palaeontology gives an excellent insight into what climate has been in the past and it’s effect on the earth during those times.
However, we still have little or no certainty as to what changed the climate in past periods. Much the same as now, you clown. We have not got a clue why the climate is changing. Maybe it is just a random result of a number of inputs????
I commend the Geological Society of Australia for their stance.
The majority of organisations and governments who do take a stance on carbon dioxide influencing climate do not have a clue.
I suggest the Australian Geological Society’s members have as much expertise in judging the nuances of the climate debate as do the clowns in the CSIRO and Government departments who study it, because they are not good enough to get a real job.
800
“I suggest the Australian Geological Society’s members have as much expertise in judging the nuances of the climate debate as do the clowns in the CSIRO and Government departments who study it, because they are not good enough to get a real job”.
So true – you are living up to your alias but the poor sods in Academia & Govt, as discussed below, have little choice but to tow the “politically acceptable line” of the time – it will take the Abbott Govt quite some time to undo 6 years of “ALP CAGW Doctrine”, a doctrine that has cost Oz A$ billions so far with little or no benefit.
531
King Geo,
“too right” is old Broken Hill jargon for “that is correct”.
You have a further 7 years with minerals to catch me, but my discipline was not Geology.
60
Problem here is that it seems Abbott may not be that much of Skeptic after all judging by his applauding of Obama’s rhetoric. But may be, just may be he, Abbott, is playing his cards ‘close to his chest’. We can live in hope.
210
“Toe the line”, dammit.
Where do people get this “tow” from?
80
A line, is a nautical name, given to a rope used in managing boats. If you are towing a boat, you are literally towing the line, and hence the boat.
To toe the line, is a theatrical term that means to stand in a proscribed place on the stage.
Now neither of those is relevant to the way the phrase was used (or misused) by King Geo. I was just demonstrating that I can be a right royal pain in the posterior, sometimes.
201
In the days of bare knuckle boxing, the two protagonists stood in the ring in which two parallel lines were drawn. The two protagonists stood up to these lines as they hit each other. If at any time they were knocked off it, they had a certain time within which they had to ‘toe the line’, or forfeit the match. Nothing to do with the sea or the theatre. Sorry Rereke.
100
It is “toe” but nautical as it predates the boxing rules. Sailors would be lined up on deck with their toes along the edge of a specific plank line. A difficult sailor would not take any care to have their toes lined up exactly and would be punished.
A great analogy in the current debate because even a slight deviation from the liturgy gets you’re Wikipedia entry a beating.
100
I believe that “toe the line” is a naval expression/command from the days when ships were built of wood and the crew, when drawn to muster, had to occupy specific places on the main deck according to their watch. Eric Partridge (” A Dictionary of Historical Slang”) defines it as ‘a naval expression’. See also OED.
20
Oops – “tow the line” – a slip of the finger – you are right RoHa – I should have said toe the “politically acceptable line” of the time. I can use this “slip of the finger” excuse because the letter W is next to the letter E on the keyboard.
50
I heard it from gym teachers ( who may have served in the war )
“Toe the line…. By the right dress ”
Toes on line.
Right arm raised, whole line shuffles sideways until your fingertips touch neighbour’s shoulder.
Probably UK armed services morning exercise drill.
00
I have been a geo for nearly 40 years and have never been a member of GSA – now you know why. As I have said before most geos who work in Industry don’t believe in CAGW – we know its complete crap. Unfortunately the same doesn’t apply to geos working in Academia & Govt – they are in a no win situation for obvious reasons – it’s called survival instinct – protect your “job” at all cost and “do research on what you don’t believe in”.
820
40 years in the business, now retired. Never a member of the GSA, but F.AustI.M.M was good enough.
There is too much poor, unexplained science for any Association to make a statement, unless it is to express uncertainty.
591
50 years in the AusIMM (to Fellow), now retired; and I have never taken to the simplistic BS that passes for academic discussion of this subject. There may be something in the confusion between the GSA and the AusIMM a few decades ago on the topic of Resource/Reserves and the requirements for certification of same. That got quite heated for a while …
40
Isn’t that the truth.
To be a geologist, you need to understand the mechanisms of past climates.
So geologists fall into two categories: those who work in the private sector and those who work for government. The latter are required to sing from the official hymn book or there will be obvious employment and career consequences, so their opinions are irrelevant.
Next, try and find a private sector geologist who believes in CAGW. Well, good luck with that, but unless they are wet behind the ears and/or fresh out of university, you will find it a daunting task.
If the GSA and its research was untainted by the bias insisted upon by the donors of government funding, I am sure they would have little problem in releasing a sceptical statement
491
I’m a geo with 25 yrs industry experience – I have never met one colleague who doesn’t sneer at the current state of the ‘argument’, it is the scandal.
The AIG bulletin was always are really good place to read some excellent articles skeptical of the current dogma and with some really good work as to why.
340
And that is what
moronspeople like Brian rely upon.The logic goes:
1. You have to be a Climate Scientist in order to have an opinion.
2. You have to publish a paper on climate science in order to be a Climate Scientist.
3. Only papers conforming to the standard dogma regarding climate science will be published.
Ergo 97% of Climate Scientists managed to get the process “right”, and the other 3% don’t have an opinion anyway.
630
I wonder if Brian would argue with Einstein. That great man hated peer review papers. He didnt think they provided personal opinion or insights. He felt they only the group-think herd-like attitude. (My description not his exact words)
50
That is true. He just published, and his paper sank or swam on its own merits. Those that understood it built on what he had done. Those who did not, carried on with their march into obscurity.
Peer review in scientific publications is a reasonably new phenomena, and as I have said before, it only exists to “protect” the reputation of the editors, who don’t really understand the material. This opens the journals to being captured by a cabal of scientific reviewers, who then act as gate-keepers against ideas that go against their own.
We need to move back to having open journals, where anything can be published by anybody who can present their ideas in the required format, and with the appropriate references. That is starting to happen on the web, and we need to see more of it happening in print media as well.
Of course the snobs will say that, “The journal is only reputable because it has myself, and my esteemed peers, as reviewers”. I would call bullshit to that.
50
> where anything can be published by anybody
We have never had that in the past. Don’t confuse “anyone can publish” with “Einstein wasn’t peer reviewed”.
Nowadays, of course, anything can be published by anyone: blogs are free. If you’ve got an idea hat you think is wonderful, you can write it down in public. Then you run into the problem of getting people to read it, which leads you back to the journals.
26
What comes first, the research or the journals?
The journals are no more than somewhere to collectively store stuff that is related to a specific topic. That can be done, and is being done, very cheaply online. As you say, blogs are (almost) free, and I subscribe to a number of closed online journals within my specialist area(s) of research.
Just because you haven’t heard about them, does not mean that they don’t exist.
They use wiki-like software, but without the uncontrolled censorship.
70
Rajendra Pachauri (Railway Engineer and romance novel writer) is an esteemed Climate Scientist who heads up the UN IPCC; the UN IPCC won a Nobel price while he was the Chairman.
Obviously a climate scientist of Mr Pachauri’s very pertinent qualifications is worth a 100 Geologists.
Brian would agree?
40
you’re right, of course. Professional umbrella organisations are concerned about presenting a political front.
Professionals are usually more concerned about their work than politics.
Brings to mind the old Groucho quip: ” I wouldn’t join any club that would have me as a member.”
Similar to CSIRO, with the chiefs reliant on politicians for funding and employees reliant on the chiefs for their income.
The only ‘pure’ science remaining is the science that is beyond the understanding of your average politician.
‘Climate Science’ is similar to golf. It looks simple enough to easily play well for the average Joe.
‘Tipping points’ and all that, and never mind fluid mechanics, chaos theory, complexity and all that.
10
Glaciology (study of glaciers) belongs to the geology department. Geologists also study past climates from earth layers. Sand layers deposited by meltwater runoff can tell how much snow there was during winter, etc.
The thing why geologist have a big trouble believing all this “exceptional and never before seen climate of today” mantra is that they can see nothing spectacular in the changes we see today. We are not even near the temperatures of the medieval warm period, no matter what the modelers say.
Geologists are not the only ones, The people at the forest studies are also trained to study past climates and are highly sceptical for similar reasons. The thing is that this modern climate exceptionalism seems to reside on only those people studying past climates, who work in the climatology department. I wonder why?
460
Ask yourself:what is a climate scientist and then ask;what is a politicised scientist.I know it wouldn’t make sense to you.
320
This is possibly the most ignorant, bigoted statement – from either side of the debate – I have read on this blog, and there have been some real doozies.
260
Can you please explain?
30
Since there is no such thing as a climate scientist in Australia, the closest qualification would I think be earth science particularly where paleontology evidence is being used. So geology is probably #2 related science after meteorology.
Now since Anthony Watts is a meteorologist, if we get him on here, you will quietly defer to his expertise over your own right?
280
Quote: “..no such thing as a ‘climate scientist’ in [Australia]..”
Climate scientist is an interesting label. What qualifications do you have to be called a climate scientist?
Maybe this comment from a YouTube video can help: …
… “There have been some comments on this video from persons who say ‘These are not climate scientists’!
They are specialists in the field of climate, therefore it is fair to call them climate scientists. If you do not accept this, I have to point out that using this definition of ‘climate scientist’, there are many others who also cannot be called ‘climate scientists’ which includes :- ”
James Hansen – PhD in Physics,
Phil Jones – PhD in Hydrology,
Michael Mann – PhD in Geology,
David Suzuki – PhD in Zoology,
Tim Flannery – PhD in Kangaroo Evolution,
John Holdren – PhD in Plasma Physics.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C35pasCr6KI – ‘Climate Scientists Laugh at Global Warming Hysteria’
280
A priest is normally an expert on one religion only. I think the same thing goes for “climate science”. Where everything has been politizised by the leftist trough UNEP, UNFCCC, IPCC etc etc and their political decided CAGW dogma.
A climate scientist is an spokesperson for that CAGW dogma only?
40
This’ll help get you up to speed.
It’s a big help for beginners that are new to the argument or those just don’t understand.
http://www.amazon.com.au/Taxing-Air-Fallacies-Climate-Change-ebook/dp/B00CY1EOZA/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1401860935&sr=8-1&keywords=bob+carter“>
90
Life of Brian,wasn’t that a Monty Python production,trouble with you B2 is you are not funny,at least BA2 is good for a laugh.
70
100 millions of climate experience through the geological record isn’t enough for you compared to climate scientists with a few drips and drab from a couple of hundred years of the directly human record.
130
The more relevant question is what do climate scientists know about Earth’s climate?
Apparently very little given the monumental failure of their models to come up with anything that corresponds with the observed data.
310
I am interested in looking at papers that represented the state of the Climate Science thinking in the first half of the Twentieth century.
The trouble is, that I can’t seem to find any.
Has anybody got a good reference … ?
120
It’s called the Standard Atmosphere, mate. I have been making this point–that climate science today denies the Standard Atmosphere, which describes a STABLE state, not subject to runaway warming OR cooling–ever since my November 2010 Venus/Earth tropospheric temperatures comparison, which precisely confirms the Standard Atmosphere as the dominant reality on both planets.
130
Thank you Harry. That answers my question very well.
So what that tells us, is that Climate Science in its current alarmist form, has only been around for about forty years or so, or one generation of practitioners.
Hardly an impressive body of knowledge, is it?
160
Huh. No wonder that they call “climate” a period of weather over 40 years………
60
There was the who global cooling schtick. If you search around some people have collected reference lists, but mostly newspaper and magazine articles.
00
I really wish more people had the intelligence to understand what you are saying, Harry.
Earth’s atmosphere is CONTROLLED by the atmospheric pressure gradient and incoming energy (of all types).
And certainly, no tiny changes in trace gases will affect the temperature one tiny bit.
120
I agree wiht your argument that the temperature lapes rate would change with increased wattage from the atmosphere, somewhat offsetting any additional greenhouse effect, but the header for the link you gave was WRONG!
“Monday, November 22, 2010
Venus: No Greenhouse Effect”
Of COURSE there’s a greenhouse effect on Venus, thanks to 90 atmospheres of CO2 plus sulfur dioxide clouds, etc.
See this link from a prior “Watts Up With That” column.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/24/refutation-of-stable-thermal-equilibrium-lapse-rates/
With NO greenhouse effect, thered be NO lapse rat.e
05
Alan,
The fact that there is an atmosphere makes a difference. The pressure of that atmosphere makes a difference. The COMPOSITION of it does not. That is Harry’s point.
40
That’s like saying the atmosphere would be 0 K without greenhouse gasses.
That the atmosphere should be isothermal is suggested by a lower entropy to have a difference in thermal energy between the top and bottom of the atmosphere. There would also be lower entropy with a difference in internal energy between the top and the bottom.
Best to remember that by insisting that an isothermal state is the most stable state that you are saying that the average kinetic energy transfer of a faster moving molecule to a slower one above it is the same as to one below. Molecules do not levitate. A single molecule in a vacuum falls like a feather or a hammer. It slows down as it moves up, and it accelerates as it moves down (and yes, both are examples of acceleration).
40
Alan, my understanding is the atmospheric pressure on Venus is something like 92 Earth Atmospheres. That has a much greater effect on the temperature than the CO2 composition.
00
Rereke
Maybe these is what you might be looking for ;
Climate Change and Anthropogenic Greenhouse Warming: A Selection of Key Articles, 1824-1995, with Interpretive Essays
And this compendium of 2500 items / papers.
The Discovery of Global Warming
eg; Abbot, Charles G., and F.E. Fowle, Jr. (1908). “Income and Outgo of Heat from the Earth, and the Dependence of Its Temperature Thereon.” Annals of the Astrophysical Observatory (Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC) 2: 159-176.
Abbot, Charles G., and F.E. Fowle, Jr. (1913). “Volcanoes and Climate.” Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 60(29): 1-24.
Abetti, Giorgio (1957). The Sun. New York: Macmillan.
Ångström, Anders (1922). “Solar Constant, Sun-Spots and Solar Activity.” Astrophysical J. 55: 24-29.
Arrhenius, Svante (1896). “On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air Upon the Temperature of the Ground.” Philosophical Magazine 41: 237-76. Online here.
Arrhenius, Svante (1908). Worlds in the Making. New York: Harper & Brothers.
Barendsen, G. W., et al. (1957). “Yale Natural Radiocarbon Measurements III.” Science 126: 908-19.
Bello, Francis (1954). “Climate: The Heat May Be Off.” Fortune, Aug., p. 108ff.
Bjerknes, Jacob (1966). “A Possible Response of the Atmospheric Hadley Circulation to Equatorial Anomalies of Ocean Temperature.” Tellus 18: 820-29.
Bjerknes, Jacob (1969). “Atmospheric Teleconnections from the Equatorial Pacific.” Monthly Weather Review 97: 163-72.
Bjerknes, V. (1921). “On the Dynamics of the Circular Vortex.” Geofysiske Publikasioner 2(4): 1-88.
Blair, Thomas A. (1942). Climatology, General and Regional. New York: Prentice-Hall.
And so on down through those 2500 items nearly all of which are dated from the late 1980’s to the present.
I’ve just picked out the early papers from the first hundred or so listed here and my list includes a few of the classic climate papers that laid the foundations for climate studies as they should have and could have and were carried out until the totally corrupted so called science that calls itself climate science came along and destroyed the scientific basis on which those early researchers worked on.
130
Thank you ROM.
About a dozen or so researchers in that period. That was what I expected. It would have been suspicious if there had been none.
Time to go to the library …
90
Geology is crucial to understanding long-term climatological changes. Climate affects the deposition of sedimentary rocks, the weathering of surface features and the oxidation of various minerals, to name only a few effects. All are visible and can be dated in the geological record.
What expertise does Tim Flannery (a paleontologist) or David Suzuki (a geneticist) have in climate science?
100
.. From comment 1478683 above (June 4, 2014 at 10:06 pm).
“Tim Flannery has a PhD in Kangaroo Evolution,
David Suzuki has a PhD in Zoology.”
40
Brian,
Michael Mann’s qualifications in Climate Science: a PhD in Geology.
Any thoughts on that?
90
Mann hasn’t had a typical geo-science education. Mann’s doctoral thesis was ‘A study of ocean-atmosphere interaction and low-frequency variability of the climate system” His background although undoubtedly edited to make him look good, shows his focus on temperature proxies and data sets. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._Mann#University_positions
40
That explains it all:
Concept Design:
The Mann Curve – no too sexist.
The Mann Wave – no too phobic.
The Mann Graph – no too boring
Okay lets go sporting goods
The Mann Bow – no too vague
The Mann Hoop – no too enclosing
Right, what about this, The Mann Hockey Stick?
Yeah it has a ring to it, kinda catchy, yeah lets go with it, so how does it fit.
Well if we manipulate the older data sets and kinda push the current stuff the graph could look like it’s taken a dramatic rise here at the end and if you like, squint and look at it from a distance with a lot of coloured wiggly lines we could say it looked like a hockey stick laying horizontally with its blade vertical.
Would anyone go for it?
Sure it sounds good, they’ll lap it up, and by the time they figure out it was a crock of S##T it will be too late.
Just e-mail the rest of the crew and tell them to send any creative data ideas in to support “The Mann Hockey Stick”, they are gonna love this one.
It sounds good, real catchy – now fit the data around it somehow.
70
But the point is that Mann is not a real geologist in that he is never worked in the real world of geology, and only in academic or quasi-government institutions and therefore he is what he is, which is not very attractive:
Someone of dubious integrity, a purveyor of dodgy statistics, a serial litigator and someone who can rightfully claim to have cost the world economy many billions of dollars in return for no benefit whatsoever.
No, he is definitely not a real geologist.
160
As far as climate change is concerned the geological community is hopelessly compromised by their commercial preoccupation with finding oil, coal, and gas. Their is a vested interest here which makes concensus impossible in this professional group.
It is very opportunistic of Jo Nova to attempt to use this fact in an attempt to create an impression that there is a division in scientific opinion on Global Warming and Climate Change.
117
Bilb – your rank denial of the economics is a bore. Oil and gas fund Unskeptical Science more than they ever funded skeptics because they benefit from the false carbon scare — it gives their expensive products an advantage over their main competitor — coal. Coal is so cheap, so common, and so useful, coal-executives don’t care. They know the world will still be using coal 30 years from now. The carbon tax hurts consumers, it doesn’t make a lot of difference to coal companies. People are still buying what they sell and the profit margins don’t change much.
The vested interests with real motivation are renewables which fall in a hole and die if the government pulls the pin on the carbon religion.
The reason so many geos are skeptics is because they are connected to reality. They have to find stuff and make real products. They see evidence of real climate change (not this pussy-foot tame stuff) every time they drill.
But I’ve told you that before, you had no answer last time and I don’t expect you to acknowledge reality this time either. You need to “believe” skeptics are selfish or your world-view (and religion) would collapse right?
Poor Bil, on the side of big-money, clawing parasites, and religious “science”. Compromised by your need to impress your friends. Unable to think without an ad hom.
200
Jo,
Not quite, people like BilB need to believe to give their life meaning without belief they have no purpose.
80
Energy demand on a per capita basis is largely inelastic, and mostly subject to slow changes.
30
The profit margins do not change at all. The cost is totally passed along to consumers. The cost difference is too great so there is no incentive to try to find a way around any punitive taxes.
10
BilB…
Meet Poisoning the Well
Please return when you have empirical evidence and logic to contribute to the conversation.
30
“their is a vested” – there.
And no, they are not vested in finding fossil fuels. It is called the law of supply and demand. The demand is for energy. And due to price, the supply now is fossil fuels. If you could create a widget that created power from sunlight or wind cheaper than from coal or gas, you would not only be very wealthy, you would change the dynamics of the Supply.
That is Econ 101. Over here, the kids (some of them do at least – those not brain dead) learn that in High school.
10
While I dont claim to know a great deal about geology I have to rely on some friends who actually are geologists. A couple have worked for oil companies so you’ll probably rule them out as ignorant, right? They tell me that CO2 levels within various rock strata and within rocks themselves from within those strata tell the story of weather over the ages and the levels of CO2 vary enormously. They are extremely skeptical as many, if not all of their discipline, are.
To add to the list of skeptics is a professor chap my wife sat next to at a recent conference in Canberra. For the last 40 years his forte has been as a climate scientist with the CSIRO. You wont want to hear this next bit as it probably disagrees with your GW scriptures but he said all the models they use are so wrong it’s an embarrassement.
61
In high court cases there are quite often both majority and minority rulings published. The case is decided on the majority ruling of course but at least opposing views are published.
The GSA have totally wimped out if they refuse to publish the results of their members survey. Their hand-wringing, do nothing, don’t upset anyone attitude is almost worse than actually having a position one way or the other.
480
Again the alarmists are against anything that even looks like a debate. There is only dogma. Dogma first, last and always.
320
How sad that a ( supposedly ) professional body can’t make a public statement which properly reflects the various views of its members. Such a statement would be enormously valuable to society at large – journalists, politicians, bloggers and ignorant suckers like me. I’m not talking “97% consensus” dishonesty, but a statement such as Grant suggests.
200
A democracy requires the active participation of its members to function properly. Any society is a democracy in the small and should never take a public stance which is not approved by the majority of its members.
I am not surprised the Geological Society of Australia took `some stick’ from their membership if they didn’t do them the courtesy of checking with them.
I was the Secretary for a small club for many years. Some decisions went to the committee and were acted on. Anything which was for public consumption was decided on by the committee, but, because it committed the membership to a public position, it was also run past the membership as a whole for modification or approval as required. It was time consuming but necessary. On one occasion, a member found and pointed out what could have been an embarrassing flaw.
Needless to say, the Professional Societies have an obligation to make sure their professionals are consulted and know.
240
Science is not a democracy, what an absurd idea.
328
Now that is interesting.
I wonder how they arrived at the “97% of Climate Scientists Agree” tagline, if they didn’t have a vote.
Surely you are not suggesting that the 97% figure is made up? Please say that it isn’t so.
482
Truly a Roland for Brian’s Oliver. Nicely put.
160
High 5.
40
And Brian does a massive ‘face plant’, with foot in mouth, no less.
Excellent clown work there, Brian !
182
Maybe Brian will have a “light bulb” moment?
80
Like one of those fluorescent jobs that comes on so you can barely see by it !
Give it half an hour, by then you don’t need it.
51
True, Science itself is not democratic, or any other political system. Science simply is.
An organized group of professional practitioners, however, is organized according to some set of by-laws, which specify the method of organization, voting rights, requirements for membership, etc etc etc.
It would be in the best interest of the Geological Society of Australia (not to be confused with the Geological Society of America, whose membership I left due to their stance on AGW/CAGW) to publish the results of their survey, including salient comments from both sides. Names should be redacted from the comments, with the writer’s employment indicated.
This would give meaningful insight into each commentator’s motives, I suspect.
Regards to all,
Mark H.
130
I wasn’t talking about science, but professional societies.
A Society is made of people who associate with each other for whatever reason.
10
Peer Review?
Tallbloke blogs: Scientists letter: Peer review stifles ‘unfashionable’ research
230
abc’S sara knows “most commentators” & “independent experts” know best & sara predicts the 2015 findings for Lowy!
4 June: ABC: Sara Phillips: Concern for climate change is rising
With concern about climate change showing a rise for the last two years of the Lowy Poll, indications are that it will rise again in 2015.
Agreement that climate change should be addressed has not dipped below 80 per cent since the poll began, but the urgency with which it is addressed has fallen…
***Most commentators on the Direct Action Plan have doubted its ability to deliver emissions reductions at a reasonable cost.
Accordingly, concern about climate change has risen again this year.
By next year, we should see a rise again in concern on this measure.
The senate changes over on July 1, just days away. When the new senators take their seats on the rose-coloured leather, the house will be controlled by a motley crew of minor parties, the most significant of which is Clive Palmer’s PUPs. Mr Palmer has given no indication yet of whether his PUPs will vote for or against the repeal of the carbon tax. But given that some of Mr Palmer’s business interests lie in mining, and that he’s been loath to pay his carbon tax debt, there is a sense is that he could order the PUPs to support the repeal.
This would leave Australia’s climate commitments in the hand of the Direct Action Plan.
Given the Direct Action Plan’s current lack of support from ***independent experts and its as-yet-incomplete status, by March 2015, the policy is likely still to be settling in. No evidence of its success (or failure) would be available to assuage the concerns of the — currently 83 per cent — of Australians who believe that climate change should be addressed.
It is unlikely that by March 2015 Australians will be feeling confident that our government is sufficiently managing climate change.
If this is the case, we can expect to see the Lowy poll register another rise in concern about climate change in 2015.
http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2014/06/04/4018585.htm
Sara’s MOST COMMENTATORS links to CSIRO only as the critic.
7 March: ABC: CSIRO casts doubt on key aspect of Government’s Direct Action plan
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-07/doubt-cast-on-governments-climate-change-plan/5305208
Sara’s INDEPENDENT EXPERTS links to August 2013 RN AM piece:
ABC: Coalition’s direct action climate plan could cost extra $4B: new modelling
And a new analysis of that by Monash University together with projects firm Sinclair Knight Merz has found that emissions will rise under the Coalition’s plan by 9 per cent by 2020…
The Climate Institute paid for the modelling. Its CEO is John Connor.
JOHN CONNOR: This, like other independent public assessments before it, shows that unfortunately it only can achieve an increase in pollution, not a decrease…
SABRA LANE: The Opposition’s climate action spokesman Greg Hunt was travelling this morning and unavailable for interview. He told Fairfax the modelling was unprofessional, from a partisan organisation…
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2013/s3826010.htm
70
AUDIO: 4 June: ABC RN Breakfast: Lowy Poll shows concern over climate change
This year is the Lowy Poll’s 10th anniversary, and the Institute’s Executive Director Dr Michael Fullilove joined RN Breakfast.
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/lowy-poll-shows-concern-over-climate-change/5498924
AUDIO: 4 June: Radio Australia: Australians want government to take a leadership role on climate change
Presenter: Emily Bourke
Speaker: Alex Oliver, Lowy Institute, Sydney
http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/international/radio/program/pacific-beat/australians-want-government-to-take-a-leadership-role-on-climate-change/1321452
40
4 June: Guardian: Helen Davidson: Lowy poll: more Australians ‘seriously concerned’ about climate
Forty-five per cent want action now ‘whatever the cost’, as survey reveals a nine-point rise in the strongest response since 2012
The author of the poll, Alex Oliver, told Guardian Australia the five-point bump to the “serious and pressing problem” response is a really significant measure.
“Between 2006 and 2012 the number of people who picked the strongest response – the most activist response – on the climate change issue, that fell year on year to a pretty low point,” she said.
“The weather may have been a factor, and by 2009 with the drought broken and the then prime minister Rudd deferring and then dropping the emissions trading scheme in 2010. Then the Gillard government scrapping it and then announcing it in 2011, all of those may have been playing into that decline, combined with a sense of easing of the weather and easing of the drought.”
Oliver said the changing weather, including a string of record-breaking months, seasons and years across the country, may also have played into the trend reversal.
***“Otherwise maybe the change of government and some sort of awareness that this current government’s policy is a particular sort of policy setting when dealing with climate change,” she added…
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/03/lowy-poll-more-australians-seriously-concerned-about-climate
4 June: SMH: Peter Hannam: Australian public’s climate of dread heats up over warming
The annual Lowy Institute poll found 45 per cent of respondents viewed global warming as ”a serious and pressing problem”, up from 40 per cent.
The five previous polls had shown declining climate concerns…
Policies likely to prompt a return to coal including rising gas prices and the likelihood the government will weaken the Renewable Energy Target (RET), Dr Saddler said…
To keep warming to within the 2-degrees globally agreed goal, annual investment in low-carbon energy would need to rise to $US900 billion and spending on energy efficiency should top $US1 trillion by 2035, said
IEA chief economist, Fatih Birol.
Policymakers “need to provide clear and credible signals that lower risks and inspire confidence if we are to switch investment to low-carbon sources and energy efficiency at the necessary scale and speed,” Dr Birol told Fairfax Media…
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/australian-publics-climate-of-dread-heats-up-over-warming-20140603-39h1a.html
52
seems “Years of Living Dangerously”/Showtime didn’t make the Top 100 ….yet again:
3 June: TVbythenumbers: Monday Cable
http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2014/06/03/monday-cable-ratings-love-hip-hop-atlanta-wins-night-monday-night-raw-hit-the-floor-swamp-people-more/269763/
2 June: Times-Picayune: James Varney: President Obama vs. global warming and the people
Alarum within. Enter KING (Barack Obama). To think those were once stage directions. The play has indeed become the thing.
The glorious moment in American history when Obama was elected president is ancient history. All that calming oceans and healing planet stuff is in the past, and now instead of blind obedience he too often finds his subjects and the nobility standing athwart his noble intent.
His imperial approach to governing manifested itself in a big way this week when Obama unveiled his unilateral plan to save the earth from global warming. Or at least cripple a piece of the American energy sector because, well, global warming.
There was no clamor or desire for this on the part of many American people — global warming consistently ranks nowhere on their list of priorities…
http://www.nola.com/opinions/index.ssf/2014/06/president_obama_vs_global_warm.html
70
Collision of principles in Geology: tectonics and rumblings indicating volcanic activity not far below the surface. A division on religious activism lines from professionalism. The post modern dinosoar disease will no doubt end up in the fossil record.
It’s worth reading all of the Editor’s well directed comment on page 3 in the above referenced statement in 2012 edition of TAG, and contrast it with the President’s thoughts on page 2, quote: “I think we can all agree that reduction of pollution (sic) of our planet is a worthwhile aim, while not getting bogged down in the blame game that is being fought out in the political arena”. It would seem, not so.
Another illustration of the widespread clash of belief systems in once-respected scientific associations and institutions, one claiming the politicised high ground of consensus science, the other sticking fast to established scientific principles. A clear illustration of the divide is illustrated in the Editor’s comments: “In the last few months we received two potential contributors, both submitted in time for this issue. One was a topic that was ‘iconoclastic’ in approach and amounted to something of a personal crusade. The other was more evidence-based with extensive references on the global warming/climate change issue”.
Both authors were advised they would not be published. The contrast in respective response from each author could not be more divergent: “.. the immediate response was agressive and unpleasant, with accusations of censorship.” “…the second response I recieved was courteous and understanding”.
Follow the money, or even the sniff of it. As an extension of the power parable, money corrupts, absolutely free money corrupts absolutely.
110
Yeah, show us your data…(GSA)!
80
As to this so called debate now distilled down to which side of politics you support, that’s why I just love what I do.
At the start, even though I had a solid foundation in my trade, it was still heart in mouth stuff to argue against renewable power, because even then, in 2008, all that was written was that renewables were in fact the way of the future, and everything was bright and rosy.
Now, I couldn’t care less. I know what I know, and have actual data which backs me up.
Even then, nearly every reply I get when I do go somewhere and mention it, is that I only diss renewable power because I supposedly support the Conservative side of the political fence.
I just love it. It’s my badge of honour. They just have no comprehension to argue the facts I put up. Those facts go so far over their heads that they leave vapour trails.
Evidently, I only say what I do because I am supposed to hate the greenies and leftists, and would say anything in an attempt to try and discredit them.
And they are so virulent in their attacks. I can see why some people or organisations would prefer not to comment at all, and therein lies the problem. It gives these people the false impression that they are correct, because they get no response to their virulence, emboldens them, if you will, to become even more strident.
I just fall back on the facts. They have ….. NO answer to that.
Tony.
721
Amen, brother.
Too familiar, your story is.
Aaron.
170
That is my observation too from the time that a wet rag tried to stuff Al Gores Inconvenient fluff piece down my throat – how dare I question this god, this deity who was trying desperately to save the world. Talk about stars in the eyes and concrete between the ears!!
I tried to open a dialogue as I was truly interested in the whole subject, the hysteria and hype was puzzling, what was it that was so certain ? please tell me. To my surprise this person who considers himself to be smarter than most others, could not cite anything other than to rabbit on about the film and mumble about scientific agreement by experts, classic appeal to an authority that he felt I should accept without any quibble or suggestion.
Over the years I have searched for this evidence based material that is confirmed by observations, even tried to make sense of the self proclaimed “science by real scientists”, yes Real Climate, but then when the questions got interesting and obviously qualified scientists asked questions that I would have liked answered, the response was just censorship, denigration and lofty putdowns men of no substance!!.
Who are these people?, well after searching around I started to get answers and also a very healthy suspicion that all was not well in the climatology circus, then Climate Gate! and exposure of the nasty behind the scenes orchestrated team effort, the very unhealthy pressure they were wielding to circumvent the scientific process and the propaganda that they were actively promoting, the tight ring they were drawing around the grant process.
Patting each other on the back, arranging “I will vote for you, and in return you nominate me for an award”, but by hell we will also drag down and throw unjustified muck at any other scientists, blacken their reputations, sully their research, in other words a real black ball process of exclusion to protect their nice little earner.
For a long time I could not understand how these two faced teamers could live with their damage to science, but I have come to realise that where money is concerned the human animal is tempted as a realist, and the so called team had sold their scientific soul to massage that money grant process. I expected other scientists to speak up following Climategate but such was the power of the team and so called professional associations that backed them, that expectation was not realised.
I am just thankful that some scientists were not afraid and spoke up and the sceptical spotlight is slowly bringing truth to the fore. The main stream media likes to live on scares to sell newspapers and that is the last resort for alarmists. When the media finally wake up and demand better standards and exposure of rubbish research, rather than lauding it, there will be a rush to point fingers and say I was just a foot soldier doing what my masters and peers demanded of me in the hope that everyone will forgive and forget “for the sake of science”?
I hope that history will be their judge, especially when the financial damage and lost opportunities are calculated.
361
Tony – any current figures on the real sustainability of the Daylesford Community Windfarm Project.
Had a conversation with a colleague who touted it as a raging success.
I knew nothing about it, but said that it isn’t viable and if all subsidies, grants and ongoing government assistance were removed from the project it would never have seen the light of day.
00
James,
just a short one here on Hepburn Wind, the two wind towers near Daylesford. It may be a community owned operation, but the power is delivered to the grid, not just for Daylesford, which cannot arbitrarily disconnect itself from the grid just because it has these two wind towers.
The total Nameplate is 4.1MW, and the yearly power delivery is around 12,200MWH of power actually delivered to the overall grid, giving this (tiny) plant a projected Capacity Factor of 34%, so on average over a year, then it will be delivering its power for a tick over 8 hours a day. The thing about this is that the towers themselves are connected to the grid, and as there will ALWAYS be power available, it gives the false impression that because the people of Daylesford can see these towers from their back yards, then the thought may be that they are what is supplying their power.
Loy Yang, (both A and B) which supplies a third of Victoria’s total power consumption will deliver this same amount of power to Victoria’s grids in, umm, ….. just less than 5 hours.
Tony.
20
Perspective is a wonderful thing
20
Thank you, Tony.
Pretty much the info I need to look a bit deeper than all the warm and fuzzies when I googled it.
10
So they are admitting that climate science requires debate?
A few months ago this would have required that heads roll!
How refreshing!
170
Professor Ian Plimer is a member of the Geological Society of Australia, and I would believe that his Climate Realist stance would place him amongst the dissenters in the GSA members.
Good reference and read is Ian Plimer’s Heaven and Earth.
210
How interesting 🙂
Anyone understand why the specific heat of ice and water vapour is ~2 while that for water is ~4, double that for ice and vapour?
No?
According to the laboratory experiments of Gerry Pollack etc, the reason water has such a high specific heat seems to be due to the fact that 50% of the incident energy raises the temperature 1 unit, while the other 50% causes electrical charge separation at the interface between the water and the energy source, forming liquid crystal water which is similar to ice structure, but minus a large number of protons. The liquid crystal water is comprised of hexagonal sheets of OH- molecules, much like the molecular stacking of graphite, for example. It’s called the EZ or exclusion zone, and fluctuates rapidly depending on the strength of the IR radiation.
Given that the Earth’s surface is 70% water, this heat loss would be a significant factor in working out the nuts and bolts of thermal equilibrium – and given that Trenberth is obsessed over the missing heat, it does not take too much of an idea to suspect where that missing heat has disappeared to.
This fact alone would render the CAGW argument dead in the water.
231
I patented something similar in 2003; it’s all to do with the Helmholtz double layer adjacent an interface. It stores tremendous energy. The protons are ordered in that layer.
I have observed entropy waves travelling at 7% of the speed of light, equivalent to the rate of tunnelling of protons in ice.
70
I so wish I understood what you just said.
70
Now the Institution of Engineers Australia needs to follow suit and remove its divisive policy statement.
190
I work with engineers and not one of them agrees with the institution statement. Academic engineer professors on the other hand…
250
Engineers Auatralia Policy statement on Climate change and Energy is a gutless statement if ever there was one – sucking up to political correctness of the day!
Geoff W – Sydney
103
Geoff,
You need to remember that one of the primary roles of Professional Bodies is to lobby the Government of the day, on behalf of their members.
Taking a contrary stance to what other Professional Bodies are saying, to the Government, does not help that advocacy.
Nobody wants to be out of step, so the whole charade is sort of self supporting.
I say “sort of”, because there are signs that the wheels are starting to wobble a bit, and may soon fall off the climate scam. Don’t be down-range when that happens, because it won’t be pretty.
190
Let’s all hope that this is the equivalent of a finger being removed from an earth embankment in Holland.
100
… or heads from butts.
120
25 years’ indoctrination in IPCC fake physics, along with other Marxist propaganda, has bred a group of younger scientists incapable of being objective. Present science is based on a complete misunderstanding of the physics and its only hope has been to displace all standard physics by the peer review scam.
This wouldn’t, as it would have in the past, stop science from working because the knowledge is embedded in computers. That is why the IPCC scam has been able to exist: grey heads like me who can work things out from first principles, are few on the ground and the fraudsters have desperately tried to eject us.
However we are made of stern stuff and a dedicated core of stubborn, stroppy, b*astards have delved into the IPCC’s fake fizzicks and are now assembling the real science. The Marxists, really a front for the Corporations embedded in the new fascist States, know this and have set up their trolletariat.
The bottom line is that nearly 18 years of no statistically-significant warming plus direct input to governments is leading to a sea change. The fascists, led by Obama, a front for GE and GS, renewables and carbon traders, are going for their version of the Battle of the Bulge; we in the 101st (Ancient Scientists and Engineers) Division are entrenched in the science equivalent of Bastogne. But the fascists are running out of scientific fuel as the young, despite the propaganda, do include some good minds able to accept the real scientific arguments and are looking to take over the posts of those who are to lose their jobs in academia.
So, groups like Aussie Geologists, who were under the control of Marxist dumbs and dumbers, are leaving Proselytisation of Fake Fizzicks to the even dumber.
290
“The Marxists, really a front for the Corporations embedded in the new fascist States,……” Now THAT’s what I call a consensus!
90
It’s all about Fabian Socialism into which the Marxists have become subsumed. Fabianism devised Eugenics, and like Syndicalism morphs very easily into Fascism, a left wing ideology (NASDP geddit!).
So, what the IPCC scam is all about is international fascism of the Left with the Corporations becoming part of this new Global Regime, a bit like a grown up version of Mussolini’s regime.
60
What’s your take on where the executive power lies – in the Corporations or in the Governments.
For me – it’s mix – depends where you are.
China – State Corporatism.
USA – (Financial) Corporate Statism.
Russia – (Resource) Corporate Statism.
and so on.
00
The idea of getting groups to spout position statements on things they nothing about is a product of Marxism. In the USSR “Trades Unions”, professional societies, youth groups and factories all issued position statements on things they knew nothing about, and all conformed to the dogma coming out of the Kremlin
The method of a few activists politicizing organisations, and getting them to adopt positions that the vast majority of the membership would not agree to is a long-held tactic of the hard-left. In Britain in the 1960s and 1970s this was into the trades unions, who drove moderate people out by hijacking meetings with interminable points of procedure. Then they pulled workers out on strike, wrecking businesses and attempting to overthrow the Government.
After 1979, the hard-left turned their attentions to the British Labour Party, both at local and national level.
Like many climate alarmists – such as William Connolley (the poor chap, whose Wikipedia editing diarrhea of some years ago seems to have been replacing with a similar commenting affliction now) – these hard left people could not comprehend any point of view but their own. Which is why they end up saying nothing about the real world.
20
Very interesting take on the climate debate from the perspectives of geologists. It hadn’t occurred to me that they might be the most skeptical bunch having observed the most historical for the longest period of time. In other words, ecologists have only recently begun studying paleoclimates whereas geologists have been doing so for decades.
140
Industrial geologists in the extractive industries are grounded (excuse the pun) in reality. A plausible theory remains just that until the evidence supports it. A mining company or oil company can’t pay the bills indefinitely with what “might happen”.
60
From the main post:
Not quite the full story
The survey of members was resisted very strongly indeed by the then GSA “Executive” on the grounds that it was jurisdictionally competent of the Executive to make binding statements on all members without polling them. This caused some commotion but the Executive stuck to its’ position, even quoting newspaper letters in the GSA monthly magazine as some sort of reasoned debate. Letters to the magazine Editor went unpublished, but continued editorial comment along the lines of “pathos” abounded. It was absolutely disgraceful
I quit the GSA after 30 years continuous membership on the grounds that if the Executive were making binding statements without membership polls, then they could do it without my annual fees as well
That the wheel seems to have turned after 5+ years of pointless acrimony is good, but I don’t trust the academic advocates within the GSA not to keep trying. They brought this chaos on themselves with bully-boy tactics but they think that works … well, it did for over 5 years
330
Seems to me there is a fundamental difference between field oriented people and theory oriented. The former find targets from application of stringent scientific, data-based theory and application. The latter make some things up.
The difference can be called accountability.
260
Yep 🙂
Nonetheless, I still have good contacts within both the Academe and the CSIRO. They just don’t man the parapets too visibly
80
There are those who work in the real world and there are those who like to perceive what they want from the ivory towers of academia.
Not surprisingly, the wonks on the boards of geological and geophysical societies do not want to poll their members and find out what a bunch of wallies the rank and file think they are.
50
Academic advocates in Engineering will undoubtedly do the same. Academics in general need to be watched at all times!
181
> It undermines the often cited stance that there is near unanimity among climate scientists on the issue.
As noted in the first comment on this thread, it doesn’t, because most geologists aren’t climate scientists. The clue is in the name: its why they’re called “geologists” not “climatologists”. I agree, though, that the 2009 statement looks rather self-serving (so much for the idea of noble disinterested Geo’s contrasted with Evil snouts-in-the-trough Clim’s).
> Argument from Authority always was, and still is, a fallacy of reasoning
This is true; but only as an abstract theorem in logic. In the real practical world, as opposed to the ivory tower world you appear to promote, as a way of acquiring knowledge just about everyone accepts other people’s “authority” for a vast number of statements. You have to; starting everything from zero leaves you at zero, and completely unable to participate in any interesting debates.
258
“because most geologists aren’t climate scientists”
NEITHER ARE YOU !!!!!
322
The Griss:
‘“because most geologists aren’t climate scientists”
NEITHER ARE YOU !!!!!’
–
In fairness to William, this doesn’t necessarily mean that he hasn’t got his snout-in-the-trough!
(W.C. – ‘Evil snouts-in-the-trough Clim’s’)
151
Hey, he’s a failed mathematician that found his cause in life by removing real science from Wikipedia.
I guess that, in a way, that isn’t far removed from the function of a ‘registered’ climate scientist.
Change the facts to suit the manifesto.
261
But geologists infer from rocks what climate was like in the past.
If the IPCC’s ‘positive feedback’ were real (it ain’t because it’s based on fake fizzicks), there would have been evidence of it in rocks.
However, there would be no geologists around to come to that conclusion and I wouldn’t be sitting here typing this comment!
Therefore, the IPCC’s phoney prognostications are the vapourware of a bunch of, at best, incompetent.
300
> But geologists infer from rocks what climate was like in the past
Some geologists do. And some climatologists use their knowledge of climate to infer how rocks might have changed in the past. That doesn’t mean they’re geologists. Face it: while there is some degree of cross-discipline work, geologists primarily study rocks and climatologists primarily study climate. Whatever opinions a bunch of geos have doesn’t much affect what the balance of opinion is amongst climatologists.
137
I would argue that the only people who are competent to understand Climate are broad generalists able to delve deeply into the evidence and the theory.
Having done that myself, i now have a very good idea of what really happens. The IPCC have got it completely wrong. There cannot be any GHG-(A)GW because that would breach the Law of Conservation of Energy. Conversely. the IPCC ‘consensus’ is based on a Perpetual Motion Machine of the 2nd Kind, probably deliberately, to create the scare wanted by the politicians and the carbon traders.
The fact that you are not science trained made you especially vulnerable to this baseless propaganda. As for ‘Climate Scientists’, they are taught fake physics** so they have no chance.
**This became evident in one of the ClimateGate e-mails where CRU people openly boasted about teaching students incorrect physics. – appalling behaviour; they should have been sacked.
220
Quote: “..geologists primarily study rocks and climatologists primarily study climate. Whatever opinions a bunch of geos have doesn’t much affect what the balance of opinion is amongst climatologists.”
I guess this means that scientists like Michael Mann must be quite confused!
His PhD is in geology and geophysics, but he is called a climate scientist (or climatologist).
Full degree record :-
A.B. applied mathematics and physics (1989),
MS physics (1991),
MPhil physics (1991),
MPhil geology (1993),
PhD geology & geophysics (1998).
160
That’s not really accurate. Mann obtained his doctorate in the dept of g&g, but his doctorate wasn’t actually *about* geology at all: the title was “A study of ocean-atmosphere interaction and low-frequency variability of the climate system”. The record (http://www.worldcat.org/title/study-of-ocean-atmosphere-interaction-and-low-frequency-variability-of-the-climate-system/oclc/54219996) says the subject was “Ocean-atmosphere interaction”.
018
It says a lot about the stupidity that geologists, meteorologists, physicists or even chemists do not have a valid opinion because they are not climate scientists. Anybody, even economists, are allowed to pick holes in the science. What’s worse is that some academics would be preferred to be called atmospheric physicists rather than climatologists but apparently this makes them clueless.
120
I would give up Will, they’re not just listening.
A statement in full accordance with their thoughts and you only get thumbs down.
But for various reasons I didn’t think you deserved a thumbs up.
40
Very few (among those many said to be) ‘climate scientists’ or ‘climatologists’ actively study what governs and controls the atmospheric system, and what causes its (natural and other) variations, and the (future) impacts of changes there …
And of those who (say they) do, most are studying GCM – climate simulations. Of which only a few actually work on the numerical models themselves. Maybe some of them even continuously monitor both the real world, and the simulated version, and try to understand what may have caused the differences … particularly if those differences increase over time. But those I wouldthink are very few.
Well …
The rest of the ‘climatologists’ work on other things somehow related to ‘cliamte’: As long as they believe, they qualify by now and then using phrases like ‘climate change’ in their abstracts, discussions, grant applications etc. Or just use it to motivate their interest in some environmental or ecological issues, who knows?
Point in case: Most of them are not better suited to assess the physics of the atmospheric system than your average sixpack Joe. Most of them even have very faint understanding of physics, or even the hard sciences at all.
So how large a portion of those ‘climatologists’ are actually real experts on the questions they are asked to opine about?
I don’t know, but among all those polled climatologists, I would expect a ‘consenus’ that you don’t really have to have any relevant expertise in the field, to be included as an ‘expert’ and thus to opine about the posed questions
Maybe it’s even 97%
120
Climatologists obviously meant in the same interpretation as the term scientologists, whose ‘science’ is such an obvious joke.
It must be terrible to be carrying the burden of being such a blatantly obvious prat, even to yourself. Well, I have to admit, I found myself needing to respond, so I guess I helped provide you with an excuse for your continuing sad existence.
No need to say thank you, as you are very welcome.
60
What discipline do you need to uncover fraud?
30
there’s a point here, but I fail to locate it.
Climate science involved many scientific disciplines. The trouble with alarmists is that they fail to apply discipline. Let’s just call their alarmism intemperate, which is the kindest adjective that I can think of.
BTW, my ‘discipline’ is Philosophy, my area of interest, the philosophy of science.
Look up ‘positive indicator’ and you will begin to understand the fallacy of the warmist alarums.
Reminds me of Nietzshe’s madman who runs through the night carrying a lantern, asking ‘where is God ?’ and supplying his own conclusion : ‘We have killed him’.
This is precisely the logic predicating warmist logic.
Make a huge claim based on a feeling of unease that draws on all the individual insecurities that are part of everybody’s lives, then assign individual responsibility and guilt.
This is how the left works.
On a par with saying that your living a good life is predicated on someone else living in misery.
False on its face, but also damaging those who are truly disadvantaged, because if this is the reasoning then improving somebody else’s life necessarily makes other people even more miserable.
This is the very core of Green thinking.
10
But geologists infer from rocks what climate was like in the past.
If the IPCC’s ‘positive feedback’ were real (it ain’t because it’s based on fake fizzicks), there would have been evidence of it in rocks.
However, there would be no geologists around to come to that conclusion and I wouldn’t be sitting here typing this comment!
Therefore, the IPCC’s phoney prognostications are the vapourware of a bunch of, at best, incompetent.
130
“starting everything from zero”
Which is basically where you are at.
142
“Nullius in verba”
182
and:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Proposed_decision#William_M._Connolley_topic-banned_.28R3.29
141
The hint is in your URL: “proposed decision”. Not, actual decision.
228
You were banned from the topic for 6 months WikiFiddler.
No surprise that someone who believes in your wacky religion is inveterate at ignoring reality.
70
Its a nice phrase. But it is only a phrase. It doesn’t mean, “you should never accept a conclusion that you haven’t personally verified down to the bare facts”. It means something closer to “authority can be challenged”. But that challenge has to be fact-based. Simply saying “I don’t like this, and here’s a blog post by someone else who doesn’t like it, oh and all my friends agree” isn’t good enough. In practice, everyone (including you) gets 99% of their knowledge via accepting authority.
028
nullius in verba literally means “in no words”. What in modern parlance would be “no way!”.
I think you are confusing it with homo non est nomen – “take no person’s word”.
The distinction is often misunderstood.
190
Hi William
I know some people don’t believe everything they read in Wiki, but here’s what it has to say about Henry’s Law.
There’s also a Wiki section on CO2, and it states that there’s 50 tonnes of CO2 in the oceans for every tonne of CO2 in the atmosphere. You can check this for yourself if you like.
And Wiki will probably tell you that the solubility of CO2 in water decreases with increasing temperature. Because it does.
(But don’t take my word for it. If you don’t believe that CO2 displays inverse solubility with increasing temperature; try opening a nice warm can of lemonade sometime.)
Do you think that increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere will cause significant global warming? Because if it does, consider this situation…
A slight elevation of CO2 increases the global temperature. This includes the oceans. And we all know what water does when it warms up, don’t we? It releases more CO2. Because there’s 50 times more of it in the oceans than in the atmosphere.
And then the extra CO2 is supposed to cause more warming.
Which causes more CO2 release.
Which supposedly causes more global warming.
Which releases more CO2
Etc Etc.
Can you see a problem there?
Cheers,
Speedy
180
> Wiki, but
Its all right, I know how it is here: wiki is deeply evil, but you use it anyway.
> increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere will cause significant global warming?
Certainly. And they already have.
> A slight elevation of CO2 increases the global temperature. This includes the oceans.
That’s not really correct, or perhaps is too imprecise to be useful. See for example http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-10-7.html which shows that the deep ocean warming is significantly smaller than the sfc warming.
> Can you see a problem there?
Its a positive feedback, taken of itself. However, because the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing, the oceans are actually a sink for CO2, not a source. So, the flow goes the other way.
026
William
You say:
In other words, the oceans are not saturated with respect to CO2? And you therefore acknowledge that the oceans are sequestering atmospheric CO2 anyway? In which case, what is the problem? Especially as(to quote from the “Evil” wiki again), atmospheric CO2 levels are about 5% of what they used to be 500 million years ago.
You’ll probably try the “kinetic” argument next, but we’ve got a long way to go to reach 8000 ppm CO2 in atmosphere.
Cheers,
Speedy.
130
William
Two other minor points in your reply I need to correct.
You say CO2 has already caused global warming. Maybe, but only if we assume coincidence equates to causation. AGW theory presents a temperature record over a limited time frame and says that CO2 is responsible for any temperature increase over that duration. (Ignoring, of course, any ice ages which occurred while CO2 level was several times higher than the present.) Any “pause” in the warming, as we have encountered in the last 17 years, is simply “natural variability” – despite the increases in atmospheric CO2’s which have occurred in that duration. One would think some peoople are making stuff up as they go along…
And the deep oceans aren’t warming too much, eh? I thought that was where the “missing heat” got to. 🙂 Mind you, I’m with you there on that one – I can’t see how heat can travel from the top 20 feet of ocean all the way to the bottom without warming up the stuff in the middle…
Cheers,
Speedy
150
I have been asking that question for years now and never got a satisfactory answer from any warmista.
We have had CO2 concs orders of magnitude higher than the present over geological time, assuming one believes the geologists and their evidence. Why didn’t the earth turn into a venusian landscape? Clearly their are limits to the temperature variation driven by changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
Clearly the climate models are rubbish for forecasts*, probably because the data is being tortured into making CO2 the key climate driver. This despite historic geological evidence clearly suggesting otherwise.
Though if my basic take on geology is wrong, I am happy to stand corrected.
* It was amusing to see Gavin Schmidt state that all models are wrong in a recent TED talk. It is something that any modeller knows to be trivially true (to paraphrase Lindzen) when talking about complex systems, but nice to see him stating it publicly. As someone who deals with economic models I know this to be true in my field, but climate modellers making public statements about the future warming seem ridiculously certain of themselves. It would be sad and amusing if it weren’t for the billions of dollars wasted pursuing this political field.
80
Quote: (Bulldust, 1:59pm) “Why didn’t the earth turn into a venusian landscape?”
1. Venus (like Mars) does not have a strong magnetic core. Therefore there aren’t any extensive magnetic fields to help protect the planet. Apparently, gases like hydrogen, helium, and oxygen ions, would have been swept away by the solar wind, leaving the higher-mass molecules like carbon dioxide. (“Venus as a more Earth-like planet”, Nature 450, Nov. 2007.)
2. Billions of years ago there may have been liquid water at the surface, which would have evaporated into the atmosphere. (“Searching for Evidence of Past Oceans on Venus”. Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society 39: 540, Oct. 2007.) .. 71% of Earth’s surface is covered with oceans, seas, and lakes.
3. Venus has a very dense atmosphere. It is more than 96% carbon dioxide.
4. The atmosphere’s pressure at the surface is 92 times more than Earth’s pressure.
5. Venus is considerably closer to the Sun, at about 0.72 of the distance from the Sun to the Earth.
6. The equator of Venus rotates at 6.5 km/h or 4 mph. (The Earth’s is about 1,670 km/h or 1,040 mph).
7. Venus does not have a moon. (The Earth’s moon is large compared to the size of the planet, and obviously has a substantial tidal effect.) A hypothesis for the lack of a Venus moon is the strong solar influence, which can destabilize large moons orbiting the closest terrestrial planets, making them spiral into the planet. (“A survey for satellites of Venus”, Icarus 202, July 2009.)
8. Naturally, Venus does not have biomass (or oceans) to absorb some of the CO2, and it does not have a carbon cycle to lock carbon back into the rocks.
40
> the oceans are sequestering atmospheric CO2 anyway? In which case, what is the problem
They’re not sequestering *all* the CO2. Obviously; as we know, atmos CO2 levels are going up (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere; etc). The oceans sequester roughly 25% of human-emitted CO2; if this fraction goes down, things get worse.
> if we assume coincidence equates to causation.
You’ve really no idea about the science you’re “arguing against”; which of course you can’t argue against, because you don’t know it. You’re just fighting strawmen – don’t you find that a bit dull? Why not argue against what people really say (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change)?
> limits to the temperature variation driven by changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
Seems an entirely reasonable thing to say.
15
In addition the ice core data shows that CO2 follows temperature – pretty hard to disagree on that although snake oil Al tried.
The interesting thing with the ice core record shows that as the temperature peaks turn down, CO2 continues to rise for a period until it gets dragged down again by the cooling temperature.
If CO2 is so all mighty then how come it cant drag the temperature back up when it continues to rise after temperature stalls?
40
PY… not sure how that was remotely helpful. Delete Venusian and substitute warm beyond irreversible tipping points or similar. I am sure my meaning was clear. I do realize Venus is quite different to Earth thank you.
02
Wow two reds … impressive. And I was polite. PY was being obtusely pedantic, and I was quite restrained in my response. Guess it’s all about whether you are in the purple circle or not…
In case some here are hard of reading, it was quite clear I was using venusian as an adjective … I was going to put venusian-like, but I assumed venusian would be read as an adjective, as it clearly is.
Seriously people… you are being tribal and the brains are switched off. Or perhaps there are a few false flag Moby types in here?
00
Yes, who wouldn’t like to be in the position to proclaim that one slef is the true and (really only, credible) authority on the matter …
.. without being questioned all the time?
Or put differently:
Who are the true experts on all the remarkable things that snake oil can do for you? (Next time you use it)
Most certainly not the buyers, who at most have tried it once …
70
So the Wiki Editor Supremo puts in an appearance. After the horrible flogging that Pointman dished out to you regarding Climate Science Deprivation Syndrome, isn’t it time for you to toss in the sponge and take up croquet?
BTW – how galling is it not to be able to edit out comments here
342
> After the horrible flogging that Pointman dished out to you
Come on, that was a joke. P was, and is, a coward: he’s only prepared to put up his side of the story. Someone only capable of dishing out a tongue-lashing when the other side is prevented from replying is pathetic. By contrast, if you want to read both sides of the story, I make that available: http://stoat-spam.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/wuwt-pointmans-scorning-of-william.html You pretend to be opposed to censorship, but in fact you applaud it when people you like do it to people you dislike. That’s hypocrisy.
241
I found it amusing, I must confess. So I accept it was a joke, as you say.
But then, why would you go to the trouble of defending your position, if it really was a joke? Surely you do not feel that insecure?
290
Unlike the Guardian, the Conversation and SkS that censor and delete without comment or clear reason, Pointman quoted some of your comments and gave a reason as to why your comments would not be posted. Reason – based on your aggressive zealotry and censorship at Wikipedia over many years and thousands of edits he classifies you as an “undesirable”. Nevertheless he had a lot of fun pulling your strings. As we all did.
Get over it.
331
WC.. Pointman flogged you senseless..
You are just way too egotistical to allow yourself to realise it. 🙂
Your ego is in the way of reality.. as it always will be.
241
I think you’ll find that’s justice, not hypocrisy.
120
He had both sides of the story up when I read it, Willy.
But then we all know you have a blind spot when it comes to other people’s point of view.
130
> He had both sides of the story up when I read it
You’re having reading problems. Let me help you:
* P’s version: http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2014/05/29/the-scorning-of-william-connolley/
* My version: http://stoat-spam.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/the-age-of-unenlightenment-dont-shout.html
My initial comment doesn’t appear at all in his version. He then continues “…You’re barred.” I replied:
He produces a dishonest description of that. I continue:
And so on. So no: he doesn’t have both sides up: he has his side, and a dishonest description that isn’t my side. I know that you’re strongly partial to reading what he says as the truth; but I admit I’m pretty surprised you can’t even see that his account is one sided.
018
Whingeing bloody Pommes …
Eco-Annie.
160
“They don’t like it up ’em, you know Pointman! They don’t like it up ’em!”
Reference: LCPL Jack Jones
120
Cough cough! I’m a Pom (me ) called Annie… I trust you are referring to something I ‘ve missed?!
30
OMG, cry me a river, you poor little child !!!
Tanty time at the WC !!
90
“I’m pretty surprised you can’t even see that his account is one sided.”
WC: Like your WIKI editing was – huh – huh
60
Like how you do on your own blog William?
130
“because most geologists aren’t climate scientists”
Here’s the memo from WaPo’s Capital Weather Gang:
“In reality, any reasonably informed person is “qualified” to talk about climate change science.
Credibly talking about climate change science doesn’t require a Ph.D. in climate science or the publication of academic research papers.
It simply requires a basic understanding of the evidence for climate change and the prevailing view of experts about its causes, starting with:”
240
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Proposed_decision#William_M._Connolley_topic-banned_.28R3.29
80
Good link,ianl8888. WMC really does have his hands full coping with the lazy and biased in keeping the CC subject tracking a true scientific path.
01
Most “Climate “Scientists” aren’t climate scientists. (See above.)
70
WilliamC,
The section of the geology community that are focussed on the discovery and extraction of Oil, Coal and Gas have to be considered as being compromised by their vested interest in achieving the exact opposite if the goals of Global Warming Action. There will be enough people in this group to with self interest as motive force the retraction of the 2009 statement.
—
Yawn — another ad hom from Bil-the-believer. See my reply to your last repetition of the holy-hymn of carbon pawns. – Jo
18
In looking for volume evidence of tarred on geologists, Jo, I came across this article
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/dec/23/british-petroleum-geologist-peak-oil-break-economy-recession
Which you would do well to read and understand. I doubt that you can understand the damage that skeptics such as yourself are doing to the prospects of human adaption to the looming future, even climate change aside. There is almost certainly insufficient affordable oil left for the world to adapt to a renewable energy future. Overlay climate change onto that scenario and the future is very bleak. Soon converting coal to oil products will become a desiradle prospect and the the coal reserves will come under pressure.
I remember what oil shortages felt like, but then that was when it was being with held. Next time around it will be because it is just not there.
—
OK So you didn’t find any evidence to support you last ad hom, but you’d like to transparently change the topic? – Jo
13
There is plenty of evidence, but I was looking for people publishing actively. There are a good number of bloggers who claim to be geologists who take the contrarian position on climate change, but I was looking for numbers and ran out of time for the moment.
Change topic? It is all connected to the same ultimate consequence. What amazes me is the skeptic’s inability to perform even the most basic calculations. A simple compounding (interest) calculation will demonstrate that fixed or declining oil supply with an increasing population and an increasing demand (all commentators project that up to 90% of future global economic growth will occur in non OECD countries ie huge energy demand) will lead to supply shortages and higher prices, or recessions. And all of that has zero to do with climate change. The Geologist featured in the report was talking of the need for renewable energy just to keep economies working at something of their present level as forecasts project that the energy crunch is just a handful of years away.
Skeptics clearly can’t participate in this kind of discussion as it involves modelling, and according to your religion all models are lies, and evil. So no, don’t change the subject even though it should be central to your interests of preserving freedom, income and a high standard of living.
12
So the dog ate your homework. You made an ad hom, which is not only a fallacy but a statement you can’t even back up.
It’s hard living in denial and projecting that onto other people isn’t it?
Surely you must be starting to see how weak your arguments are?
Peak oil might be a good reason to limit fossil fuel use, but we are discussing “Climate change” here. peak oil has nothing to do with whether CO2 affects the climate. You are changing the topic to avoid admitting I am right.
And as for Peak Oil and your bluster: “Skeptics clearly can’t participate in this kind of discussion” — who wrote the biggest most recent peak oil book? David Archibald.
42
I made no ad hom. The argument is well supported by, for instance, geologists such as David Purcel at comment #24 below. Going back through the Oil Drum archive there are any number of “geologists” who express there fossil fuel lovin disdain for climate science. Go have a look for yourself.
11
Dear Bill, you keep telling us not to listen to geologists because of their “vested interests”. You won’t discuss their arguments or their evidence, and you can’t provide any evidence to back your faith up.
Thank you for visiting here as target practice, but please try harder. We are bored.
21
Keep writing.
What has Peak Oil to do with this discussion ?
According to the various chicken little panic about oil running out, just for an example (read the limits of growth), we should all have been starving for the past 20 years at least.
Should you get around to thinking for yourself, BilB and perhaps even reading a book once every so often, you might even conclude that fear for profit lies at the core of every scare.
I am old enough to remember quite a few of these scares, including the warnings of the coming Ice Age in the 70s. The only difference being that in those days people had not been dumbed down enough to believe that taxation could change the weather.
11
Like I said markus, there are those who can use a calclator and those who can’t. In a similar vein the recent Lowey poll in its climate change section identified a trend where those with a higher education level were more accepting of climate science than those with a lower level.
The 2 most imminent dangers facing us are climate change and peak oil. Both are integrally connected and both require the same corrective measures to preserve our living comfort. To fail at one is to fail at both and the consequences will be twice as devastating. With peak oil hitting first devastating economies, then the consequences of climate change will steadily build to make aworld of misery for most mamalian life.
We are behaving like those lottery winners that we used to hear about, the ones who had a bonanza of a time spending money on every luxury right up to the moment that the money ran out. The downslope is extremely rapid and totally devastating.
Fossil fuels have been a lottery win from the geological past, and have we had a good time with the benefits. It is the smart people who keep an eye on their declining bank balance and pull back on their expenditure well before the funds run out.
11
The UK poll was twice as large as the Lowy poll. It asked neutral questions, had more questions, and cross checked opinions to confirm them, and it got more demographic information. The results show that more educated people more likely to be skeptical. The less educated were more likely to still be under the thrall of 20 years of propaganda.
But keep kidding yourself….
21
For evidence refer to geology insider David Purcel comment #24 below.
02
Interesting reasoning Bilb. I think then, following your reasoning, that we have to consider that leading recipients of funding to conduct “climate science” research are also “compromised”.
Thanks for that, I get it.
20
What you are suggesting, MarkD, would only be true where climate research professionals took a contrarian view to geological research and cast doubt on the overall validity of their work. Take that in and…then…you will have it.
03
No Bilb, I know what “vested interest” means. You said it. Do you know what it means?
If you need me to spell it out for you I will.
00
NO, Mark D, knowing and understanding in your case appear to be two different things. Climate science is only affected positively by geology, but the commercial geology of fossil fuel extraction is severely threatened by calls “to leave the carbon in the ground” from climate change mitigation policy strategists.
Fossil fuel extraction is a huge employer of geologists. That is a vested interest.
01
But banker profits, bureucratic power, and renewables investment are not and can never be Vested Interests. Right Bill?
Careful, your hypocrisy is showing…
11
Bilb you are approaching the idiot zone! We all benefit from inexpensive fossil energy. The geologists in the industry are simply doing what we NEED. You make that a conspiracy?
There is no reasonable “climate change mitigation strategy” It is folly and it is politics. There is every bit as much or more VESTED INTEREST on the side that pushes the warmist agenda.
Clearly your vision is occluded by irrational thinking and perhaps your own vested interest. Did you say that you manufacture and profit from technology related to solar energy?
10
Those “industries” are also heavily vested in Wind and Solar (due to the subsidies). They win in any event. So they do not care.
The loser is always the little person.
10
Name for us William all of the contributing scientists to the latest IPCC report who have a PHD in “Climatology”.
Then name all of the contributing scientists who have a PHD in “Geology”.
Then name for us the “big” warmist names in the climate debate who definitely do NOT have a PHD in “Climatology”…. here, let me help you.
Would you like to expand on that list?
You lose, big time.
100
If you only parrot authority then you are not debating.
I do hate this idea that you don’t re-invent the wheel in science, its how you learn. You have to read, accept then imitate to some degree but you never really learn until you figure it out for yourself.
60
As a geologist for the past 47 years and having worked for the government and myself I have met only a few geologists who push the CAGW barrow. Only nature and time will put an end to the junk science we are constantly being bombarded with.
350
“As a geologist for the past 47 years and having worked for the government and myself I have met only a few geologists who push the CAGW barrow. Only nature and time will put an end to the junk science we are constantly being bombarded with”.
With the CAGW comment above in mind I say the following.
To borrow the title from Mark McCormack’s great book “The 110% Solution” – for those not aware Mark McCormack started IMG – International Management group – one of his first clients was the great Jack Nicklaus – both gents – such high achievers in their fields of endeavour – I can see a new book describing the achievements CAGW Alarmists “The 10% Solution” (and we all know who Mr 10% was?) – yes you guessed it a once prominent long serving leader of a particular country – there you are some googling homework if you don’t know who I am referring to.
90
I sometime think the IPCC has been fueling itself with “the seven percent solution”. 🙂
http://www.siracd.com/work_h_cocaine.shtml
30
This is the real problem with the AGW thesis, it is basically advanced by a cadre of apparatchiks who have slithered into positions of influence and who do not represent their constituencies.
GSA obviously needs to put a fire hose through its “management team” and get a balanced representation. This is just evil occurring because good people do nothing.
I would encourage all professional associations comparable to GSA of professionals in the earth sciences, engoneering and the like to formally poll their membership and establish just wahr the intellectual support for AGW is in the technical fields that will have most insight into the maths, physics and chemistry.
161
Here’s something I just posted on WUWT:
Here’s a suggestion for all those scientific societies to implement after the CACA Clamor fades away and you are left holding the bag: Don’t just promise to be a good boy in the future, ensure that it will never happen again, thusly: Establish a “ground wire” to common sense in the form of a Common Sense Committee that is randomly chosen from the membership. Its remit is to be skeptical and hear both sides whenever the society is urged to take some world-saving, far-seeing, progressive stance, or, in brief, to Blunder Again.
Its members will have less need to be collegial with one another and indulge others in their hobby-horses. They will have less fear of being out of step with other scientific societies, because they will not be as identified as permanent or elected officials of the society with its “rep” at scientific confabs or its PC rep in academia. They will be less incentivized to Go With the Flaw.
10
It does make it clear why so many politically-motivated/CO2-panicked management councils of learned societies have been reluctant to survey their members. It seems like a microcosm of the bigger political world in which politicians generally regard the general public as liable to hold ‘the wrong views’.
170
“The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.”
Friedrich Nietzsche
150
Much like the “Lone Wolf” personality trait that is usually interpreted as an individual rejected from the pack when often it’s an individual breaking away to find their own way in the world.
Let’s hope more lone wolves break away from CAGW tainted scientific packs.
80
The Lone bit, I can do. The Wolf bit, not so much at my age.
70
Pretty sure us oldies can out-fox ’em, though. 🙂
30
I bet the AIG saw subscriptions drop and backed right off. I would have left AIG membership is not cheap. Most of the membership are from industry and not Academia
90
I may be wrong, but this looks like good news to me.
90
I’m am an economic geologist, and can tell you that most economic geologists, like engineers, have to deal with the real world. They frequently encounter high levels of uncertainty, and they know how human psychology bulldozes over uncertainty all to easily. They have to keep their ears and eyes sharp because they hear a lot of fakery and bureaucratic convenience when dealing with uncertainty in their particular industry.
Australia has a relatively high level of economic geology, since we have strong mining and oil/gas industries. This means that economic geologists tend to vibrant and well-trained individuals. All this means they also tend to be rather sceptical of the current state of climate science, because they don’t just trust science for science sake-especially in a new scientific field.
They know how politics can affect their own field, so they see it more easily in other fields. And climate science is partly a geologically-based field, they know enough to realise there are major doubts and uncertainties. They know that when morality and politics get involved can sometimes distort the science. And many don’t like getting bullied into simply accepting a position when they know there are major uncertainties.
So it’s no wonder they remain divided and rather sceptical about the extreme forms of alarmist global warming. This is how science is supposed to work, by people who are on the ground, in the real world, and not just dictated to by pompous government committees.
140
Parts of this have been printed before but I think it is very important that it be read by anyone with an interest in what the IPCC have to say and more importantly what the American Physical Society have to say about the IPCC. Fascinating reading :-
http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/climate-review.cfm
Go to the section called Framing Document for Workshop. The responses to these questions should serve to encourage a huge amount of discussion about the settled science.
50
On one side of this debate we have ‘the truth will out’ pretty much laid back although outraged faction
On the other side is ‘the truth will out unless we do something about it’ paid up outrageous faction
40
This post of Jo’s is going down the exact same track as Judith Curry’s Climate Etc current post “AGU: Enforcing the consensus” is also going. Roger Pielke Sr also has quite a disturbing post on his experiences with the American Geophysical Unions elitist governing committee and the Editor of their professional paper..
Also Andrew Monford on his [ UK ] Bishop Hill blog has repeatedly castigated the Royal Society and it’s president Sir Paul Nurse for exactly the same deliberate exclusion and denigration of any skeptical views, even slightly skeptical which the Royal Society refuses to publish in their “Proceedings”.
What it all seems to come back to is that the academic elitist social ladder climbers in the universities have the time, being effectively on the government payroll, are in the right place and have very large university resources close at hand when making the effort to establish themselves in positions of power and influence within the bureaucratic structure of most of these long established and formerly very prestigious professional science bodies.
From there in the eyes of the political establishment, the media and the pubic, being at the top of the power pyramid they can claim and unless openly challenged by a large percentage of their membership , individuals are just smacked down even high profile individuals such as Pielke Sr, to have the backing of their membership in their policy positions and statements and support for what usually turns out, when their field membership is asked, to be policy positions that are unacceptable to most of their membership.
However being in the academic university environment where the end always justifies the means, the opinions of the field membership are disregarded if it conflicts with the ideological position of the carefully filtered senior committee controllers that have, through political maneuvering within academic circles within the profession, firmly ensconced themselves right at the peak positions within the proffessional Societies where if they disregard the neccesary constraining rules of the Society , they can remain in power for what seems to be an indefinite period.
From there they can through further political maneuvering get their brand of ideology into political policy and then apply pressure using their status to try and enforce that ideologically based policy onto the populace at large ; ie Flannery and his drought predictions and the immense costs to the tax payer that a whole series of totally useless and increasingly unuseable desalination plants that were built because of he and others of a similar catastrophic climate ideology convinced the governments of the day that the climate models were going to be correct in their predictions ]
All of these academics of this aggressive ambitious power hungry ladder climbing personality academic types seem to have some deep committment to some generally far left ideology and dogma .
They intend when in positions of power to both remain there and to see to the implementation of their dogma and ideology based agenda and will brook no challenges to their position, power or agenda’s.
In the end it comes down to breaking the power and hold of the university based academics have on the professional Societies
And the usual way to achieve such aims is to simply cut off their money supply.
Academics usually have no other source of funding except that of tax payer origin.
Lose that and they are virtually helpless and extremely vulnerable.
Cutting off their money supply would be accomplished by removing all of their personal and project funding from University control and fund science projects by other means and through other channels, one of which I have already suggested in the allocation of funds AFTER the papers and projects have been openly published with ALL supporting data and then publicly assessed for some months ,
In short using market forces to ascertain the value or otherwise of a paper or research project just like every other professional pursuit has to operate in a capitalistic society.
The fact that the role of the academics and the attitudes of the professional Societies in the manner in which they are now trying to control and channel science down a very specific and very controversial pathways, a scene so anti science in it’s application that it must have those scientists of old rolling over in their graves, is now coming in for fast increasing and generally some very vituperative critiscm. Which probably means that there is a point of nexus approaching where radical changes will appear and be forced either from within or from the outside on to the various professional Societies to the great consternation of some who currently believe they are invulnerable in the high positions they currently occupy within some of the world’s formerly most prestigious professional bodies.
120
Agreed entirely except there is a movement to challenge the small councils which govern these large societies and and the wishes of the membership are going to have to be taken into consideration,some might call it a consensus. The GSA is probably the first to withhold any new guidance ,so the first domino falls,I hope! Canada , Germany and the UK are politically non-officially sceptic.The USA for ,christ knows what reason ,has become a contrarian,having refused to sign up to the Kyoto protocol it is now the World leader in diminishing CO2 emissions.Mostly due to the success of Fracking.
Science may be slow but ultimately it is fair ,ultimately new knowledge imparts new wisdom.
” There is a tide in the affairs of men. Which taken at the flood, leads on to fortune; Omitted, all the voyage of their life Is bound in shallows and in miseries ”
So Shakespeare wrote several centuries ago ,but it remains pertinent , the alarmists have ridden a wave for 30 years , guess what?
That wave has crashed upon the shores of reality.
When the APS either issues a statement which is negative to the last report of the IPCC ,or declines to make a statement based on the fact that there is insufficient evidence,then we shall watch the jesters dance.
70
> What qualifications do you have to be called a climate scientist?
Its a reasonable question, but you’re looking at the wrong place for answers. What you do in your doctorate doesn’t need to have any direct connection to what you do as a scientist. Having a doctorate is a base-level qual, in that typically people expect you to have showed enough ability to get one. But having done that, shifting to new or related fields is commonplace.
What actually “qualifies” you, insofar as that makes sense, is publications in the field. Which Mann, Hansen and so on have.
125
So, you’re saying that publishing in a field outside your field of expertise, infers qualification?
Wonderful . . .
110
Nope. Being able to consistently publish in a field in reputable journals means that *is* your field of expertise.
You’re curiously stick-in-the-mud people. You seem to think that a doctorate, done at the age of 20 ish, should determine your career up to age 60 or beyond. But life isn’t like that; people shift interests as they go on, and, weirdly, some people remain capable of learning through life. If you have an open enquiring skeptical mind, its possible. If you have a closed “skeptical” mind that has pre-determined conclusions, learning is much harder.
221
Not at all. The problem is yours when you state that geologists are not climate scientists “they are geologists”.
I have challenged you above to list this scientists contributing to the latest IPCC report who have a PHP in “Climatology”… or any other QUALIFICATION will do.
Mr Contradiction.
120
“You seem to think that a doctorate, done at the age of 20 ish, should determine your career up to age…..”
It certainly hasn’t determined yours.
You ended up going rapidly backwards. Ended up as a climate change propagandist.
Only place remaining for you is the “S” bend.
102
Yes curiously stuck in the mud William,but I’ll bet most people at this site originally held the view that mans GHG emissions were reason for concern.Enquiring minds being what they are and the release of the CRU tapes pushed the rational mind the other way.What you may think and believe to be true ….
70
So under your thinking anyone with a ‘Phd’ Is qualified to be an Expert In another subject.
Let’s hope your type don’t get In to Medicine or Surgery.
60
No. We could have a more interesting conversation if you’d read what I write. I said ” Being able to consistently publish in a field in reputable journals means that *is* your field of expertise”. To be an “expert”, scientifically, generally there are no formal qualifications; expertise is demonstrated if you can publish consistently. Surgery isn’t science.
27
So William, why do you imply that geologists are not competent to have views on climate?
Read yourself what you write.
10
This is an old joke Bill,
But still a goody
71
I would have thought……. clean the WC after everyone else has left.
32
yeah, but and I think the comment ‘science is about physics, the rest is just stamp collecting’ isn’t actually true.
A physicist doesn’t necessarily know how the ‘stamps’ relate to each other (e.g. stratigraphy showed the world was very old long before the physicists found out), their relative value and how these determine stamp sensitivity. The ‘stamp collectors’ usually point these things out after the physicists have already made up their mind, which happens to suit themselves, prematurely.
00
Here is Mr. Connolley, able to bully again but not quite as good in the good ol’ days at wiki.
Your ilk only survive by fooling people into thinking you can somehow set the rules of engagement. those days are raidly passing.
Too bad for you.
And the climate does not reallly give a care for all of your circular reasoning, ad homs, appeals to authority or popular (rigged) votes.
You have not really changed much since you were busy with the memory hole, have you?
162
\
That is a very profound insight; absolutely true, and perfectly aligned with the target.
100
Professor Robert M. Carter in his excellent book ‘Climate – The Counter Consensus’ points out (page 22) that “It is widely believed, and wrongly, that the study of climate change is the exclusive province of meteorologists and climatologists. In reality, scients who study climate change come from a very wide range of disciplines that can be grouped into three main categories. The first group comprises scientists who are experts in meteorology, atmospheric chemistry and computer modelling, who mostly study change over short periods of time, and are primarily concerned with weather processes (and by extension, climate processes); a second group comprises geologists and other earth scientists, who hold the key to delineating climate history and the inference of ancient climate processes; finally, a third category comprises those persons who study enabling disciplines like mathematics, statistics, and (perhaps) engineering.
I think he ‘nails it’ when he says on page 23 “As a generalisation, it can be said that most most of the alarm about dangerous climate change is generated by scientists in the meteorological and computer modelling group”.
140
So WC does it gall that so many non-climate scientists can see how far from actual science the CAGW theory is?
Will future SATs have the question and answer of: Climate scientist is to Science as sanitation engineer is to Engineering?
– NB only kidding waste collection is far more useful then fake hockey stick creation.
130
Almost none of you have a clue; see for example #23.5.2.2 which is (a) wrong, and (b) not one of you realised. You don’t understand the science well enough to judge it; but that doesn’t stop you making judgements from your ignorance. Does that “gall”? Not really; I’m fr too used to it.
227
You are assuming that anyone takes any notice of your propaganda,so there is a flaw in your belief that anyone gives a **** about you or any of your comments.
I do not believe that you should be banned , I think you are like that gnarly old pike in the pond that everyone wants to catch ,but once caught throws it back. It is seriously too much fun to watch you squirming as you shift from your polarised view on CAGW to one which is slightly more intelligent, but still hesitates on the edge of sanity. At least you are trying to make some sense of it but still coming at it from the wrong direction.
60
It’s junk science… based entirely on an unproven theory. Observations trump theory everytime. Go have a look at the global temperature observations and you might notice that there hasn’t been a whole lot of warming happening lately. Global warming theory doesn’t work all that well without the surface warming.
Seriously, you need to climb down from your ivory tower and have a smell of what you’re trying to sell us. It really doesn’t smell all that good.
130
Skeptical, you need to read the Berkeley “Best” study
http://www.carbonbrief.org/profiles/berkeley-earth-surface-temperature-(best)-study/
….on global surface temperatures. Then sit in the corner with your humble pie to reconsider your future as a “skeptic”, and perhaps change you call sign to “Finally Understanding”.
113
Which part of Henry’s Law do you dispute William? Do you have any SCIENCE to back up that dispute?
100
The WC doesn’t have any science.
He only has propaganda and misinformation.
92
He’s the science equivalent of a shonky used car salesman.
Him and John Cook would make such a lovely pair… if you could stand the nausea
92
“You don’t understand the science well enough to judge it”
And you CERTAINLY don’t, yet you put yourself up as the arbiter of so-called ‘fact’ and ruined Wikipedia because of it.
Your baseline ignorance in the subject has been transferred to what could possibly have been a reasonable source of information.
Your arrogance at assuming you actually knew something, and then altering information to match your lack of knowledge and slimy agenda really has been the most despicable act of your tiny little ego-driven existence.
112
William
I’m writing this in haste during my lunch break – my apologies. If you don’t like what I wrote at 23.5.2.2, I am sorry, but was merely pointing out a logical inconsistency between fundamental chemical measurements and the “projections” we receive from the Climate Science Industry. The point is – if the chain of logic was wrong, then the error came about through assuming the tenets of AGW.
To summarise, I observed that there is 50 times as much CO2 (on a tonnage basis) in the oceans than there is in the air. I also observed that Henry’s Law applies – changes in the CO2 level in the atmosphere will be reflected in changes to the CO2 level in the oceans (and vice versa). I also observed that the solubility of CO2 in water decreases with increasing temperature, and invited you to perform an interesting little experiment of your own to verify this.
I take it you don’t disagree with these?
Next, we consider the possibility of increased CO2 in atmosphere having a significant heating effect on the climate. If this were the case, and the CO2 remained in the atmosphere, then the continued release of CO2 from the oceans (due to reduced CO2 solubility in a warmer ocean), would give us a runaway greenhouse. Clearly, this is not a valid argument because the earth has had plenty of opportunity to do this very thing in the past, and hasn’t. (And at much higher CO2 levels than today.)
It looks like a marginal increase in atmospheric CO2 does not have a significant effect on global warming. This could be due to other confounding factors or just to the plain and simple fact that practically all of the CO2 sensitive infra-red radiation (approx 14 micron wavelength) has been absorbed by the preceding 390 ppm CO2 already in the atmosphere. I am sure you’re aware of the earth’s radiation emission spectrum, and the “notch” that coincides with this wavelength.
You make a point, and a valid one, that increased CO2 levels in atmosphere will tend to increase the CO2 levels in the oceans, unless the oceans are saturated with CO2. In which case, additional CO2 in the atmosphere will be sequestered by the oceans and therefore have no further influence on the earth’s climate. (It would seem that the equilibrium coefficient is about 50 tonnes in the oceans per marginal tonne in the atmosphere. As to the kinetics of equilibrium, the nuclear tests of the 1950’s provided us with a figure of about 4 years to completion, from memory.)
According to Wiki, the earth’s atmosphere had CO2 levels around 20 times what they are today about 500 million years ago. (Quite recent in geological terms and in the last 12% of earth’s history.) We note that the earth did not go into a runaway greenhouse, and neither did the oceans turn into pools of acid. In fact, we had a boom in flora and fauna on earth – the carboniferrous period.
So. If the lion’s share of the CO2 is going to be absorbed by the oceans, and there isn’t a problem with 8000 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere, what are you worried about?
Cheers,
Speedy
60
> Henry’s law
Your discussion of Henry’s law is, I think, missing the main difference between now and the past: that, now, we know full well that human activity is releasing CO2, and we know how much, so we know the atmos concentration is rising because of human activities, and we know the net flux is from atmos to ocean.
In the past (last ice age cycle, say) that isn’t true; and your arguments that rising temps lead to oceanic outgassing become reasonable. Indeed, its part of the std explanation for the observes cycle. Your concern that any positive feedback leads to runaway feedback is wrong, though. Its a common error made by people who think in electrical circuits terms. The entire climate system is stabilised by the R=kT^4 feedback.
> there isn’t a problem with 8000 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere
But there *is* a big problem with 8000 ppm, within the current climate. (Incidentally: for people who are extremely reluctant to accept temperature reconstructions of only the last 1000 years, you’re remarkably unskeptical about what happened 500 Mya ago? Suddenly, we know things about those far off times to whatever level of detail and certainty you require. Take, for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#mediaviewer/File:Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png : its pretty clear that there is a great deal of uncertainty about CO2 levels that far back. Estimates at 400 Mya range from 400 ppm to more than 4000 ppm. You’re immeadiately picking the high values, because you like them, but its not certain.) Anyway, yes, Co2 was likely higher then and the planet was likely hotter. And the two were likely related.
16
William
I’m sorry, but we’ve still got the same Henry’s Law today as we had 100 years ago. The mere fact that we now have a measure of human CO2 emissions doesn’t make them significant, and if you read Ball, 2008 http://canadafreepress.com/index/php/article/3482 (Referenced Rob Carter), it says that human activities account for 7.2-7.5 Gt of Carbon in a total emissions budget of 192-224 Gt C/year. In other words, our emissions are a rounding error.
Historical “natural” CO2 emissions are likely to be even more so in comparison with modern human emissions; given that the earth was more geologically acitive, then CO2 emissions and atmospheric concentrations were appreciably higher. It is incredible – literally – that we can now take human emissions as the predominant factor in global climate.
Outgassing of the oceans will follow the temperature-solubility relationships for CO2 in seawater, no matter what the date is when it happens. (Henry’s Law, again.) It happened even in the mini ice ages and the Vostok ice core data demonstrates that atmospheric CO2 concentrations rose AFTER the global warming events – (which seems to have occurred without our assistance)! Once, as we were discussing earlier today, this outgassing starts, it will increase the atmospheric CO2 levels further – but only if, as some claim, that the CO2 is a potent greenhouse gas. In which case, temperatures will continue to rise and will feed the outgassing cycle. This clearly has not happened, or we would not be having this discussion. And all this is despite the rather high CO2 levels which have been reported in the past. (And which do also coincide with large parts of the ice age periods too, agree? So much for potent greenhouse gas!)
If, as you originally said, the increased atmospheric CO2 concentration simply drives the reaction backwards, then the outgassing stops and warming becomes a non-issue. If, as you subsequently suggested, only 25% of human emissions are absorbed by the oceans, then this suggests an oceanic temperature approximating a very, very warm bath. (Unless you forgot about plant and geological absorbtion of Carbon.) Given the rapid decay in atmospheric Carbon-14 levels at the cessation of nuclear testing, it appears that the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is close to 5 years, and certainly not the 100 + being assumed in many of the IPCC-associated climate models. GIGO wins again.
I am encouraged to learn that you don’t subscribe to the runaway greenhouse story, which seems to have been a fantasy perpetrated by Jim Hansen especially, but also by Albert Gore and his ilk. Can you please make a stand for science and correct their alarmist errors? Much appreciated.
Cheers,
Speedy
Cheers,
Speedy
30
> if you read Ball
Ball is a bozo. Sorry, I could wrap that up in politer words, but the meaning would remain. There was a recent example of this at WUWT which I analysed (http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2014/05/19/atmospheric-layers-the-biosphere-the-boundary-layer-microclimate-and-inadequate-tim-ball-thinking/).
> In other words, our emissions are a rounding error
But we know that CO2 is currently unprecedentedly high. And we know that comes from human emissions. So we know that our emissions are not a rounding error (if you’re one of the people who think that the current rise in atmospheric CO2 levels isn’t human-caused, could you say so outright? We can then (if you really insist) grind through the details of why you’re wrong).
The specific mistake Ball is making is to compare a one-way flux (human emissions) with the large in-and-out fluxes from the oceans and biosphere. Those fluxes are indeed large, as you say, but the *net* flux is small (well, it was in pre-industrial times. Now that we’ve raised CO2 levels, there is a net flux of ~25% of our emissions going into the ocean, and another 25% going in the biosphere, so atmospheric CO2 is only rising at 50% of the amount we’re emitting, roughly. Note that this is also the solution to someone else’s puzzlement as to why the CO2 rise varies year to year).
> increased atmospheric CO2 concentration simply drives the reaction backwards, then the outgassing stops and warming becomes a non-issue
No. Because, as we observe, CO2 is going up. The atmos CO2 is driven out of equilibrium with the oceans; and the re-equilibrium time is long; more than centuries.
> correct their alarmist errors?
Will http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2009/02/15/runaway-climate-change/ or http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/08/21/runaway-tipping-elements-of-no/ do for you?
05
There is no sensible person arguing that human CO2 emissions have not increased and in fact are continuing to increase exponentially.
However, there are a great deal of factors, not just human greenhouse gas emissions which determine how much CO2 remains in the atmosphere. There is also a great deal of scientific uncertainty about this regardless of the assumptions often stated as fact. Exercises like this only go part the way of calculating the carbon budget.
We know for instance that despite massive global deforestation, global bio-mass has increased which is largely due to the CO2 fertilization effect. E.G. http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/14/studies-increased-co2-emissions-are-greening-the-planet/
It is also not disputed that as Ice melts, captured CO2 is released. And as frozen tundra melts, CO2 and methane is released into the atmosphere. in addition, land use releases both CO2 and methane into the atmosphere, so it isn’t all about human industrial CO2 emissions.
You would also know that Methane is removed from the atmosphere (i.e. converted to less harmful products) by a range of chemical and biological processes, which occur in different regions of the atmosphere. These include tropospheric oxidation, stratospheric oxidation and uptake by soils.
Then there is the release of CO2 from the thousands of terrestrial active volcanoes and the millions of sub-sea volcanic features, the large bulk of which are NOT measured.
If the globe is warming there also becomes large tracts of land which are arable for longer periods of the year than there had been in colder times. tundra will give way to grasslands, grasslands to bushes and woods and bushes and woods to forests. All these changes have an impact on the remaining amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
So anyone stating that they can work out exactly how much human greenhouse gas emissions go into the atmosphere (our best guess at the moment is based on countries reporting their emissions), or how much of the human emissions is taken back up in the oceans, or increasing biomass, would be on the same planet as those who think the climate models are accurate representations of reality.
There is just far too much we don’t know.
Sure I accept a warming world will lead to addition release of greenhouse gasses, but given the positive and negative feedback mechanisms which are poorly understood, and climate variability factors which are even more poorly understood and are not accounted for by climate models, such as solar variability, cosmic radiation, cloud formation, magnetic effects and so on, no one can confidently indicate how much of any global warming is due to the addition of anthropogenic greenhouse gases.
To say otherwise is simply wishful thinking, or placing too much value on isolated correlation, which is looking worse and worse as time passes.
When scientists are able to give us an accurate explanation and attribution of global temperature changes, then I’ll be ready to listen and act. But I won’t act on a theory which requires great leaps of faith simply because it is convenient for those who want to reduce global industrialization.
61
Big problem for you William, no matter what you spout, ATMOSPHERIC TEMPERATURE is NOT going up!! Huge fail for you CAGW theories….
30
Morning William
You could well be right – Mr. Ball could well be a Bozo. But that would not change the validity of his arguments, which are that human emissions are approximately 20% of the error band for the total CO2 emissions budget. Looking at the complexity of assessing the CO2 balance, I am surprised how anyone can be certain about the total inputs and outputs, particularly when one considers the literally global nature of the point sources and sinks. Even, for example, measuring the volume of gaseous emissions from volcanos would be a task in itself. So, maybe you’re right – we don’t know for sure how much CO2 is being emitted from all the other sources. But, to be honest, your guess is probably just as good as his.
I don’t think this is correct. Earth has been around for 4.5 billion years, and all the data I’ve seen (even Wiki) says that that the concentrations have been at multiples of this in the past. No runaway greenhouse, much to Jim Hansen’s chargin, I imagine!
The physics doesn’t care where the source of the CO2 is. Once it’s in the atmosphere, a CO2 molecule will try to absorb the 14 micron infrared. If there’s practically none of it left – it already being mopped up by the preceding 390 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere – then the additional CO2 doesn’t have any practical impact on climate. (To quote Churchill in reference to additional nuclear bombs – “It will only make the rubble bounce.” ) Refer Beer-Lambert Law. (Another law, not a theory for you.) It doesn’t matter where the CO2 comes from, it still has the same effect. No doubt we could argue till the cows came home about where it’s all from, but the point is IT DOESN’T MATTER! Unless, of course, you’re in the business of trying to make a buck out of scaring people to fleece a gullible public.
To invoke Occam’s razor, we have had CO2 levels up and down all over the place, and the temperature seems to be doing what it wants to. That ranges from Ice Ages to droughts and everything in between. The simplest and most likely explanation is that the target radiation is well extinguished when we reach the present CO2 levels, and that further increases don’t matter. Which we saw last century – when we had the temperature falls from the the 1940’s to the 70’s, and we are seeing preently for the last 17 years.
The system is not in equilibrium – correct. The earth has been absorbing CO2 in the form of limestone and fossil fuels for billions of years, and the longer term issue (ver longer term) is the extinction of life on earth due to CO2 starvation, which leads to the death of the plant life. It’s still about 600 million years away, but if you want something to worry about, knock yourself out.
Anyway, I’ve got a job to go to and they don’t like it if I spend my time chatting to gents like yourself. But you’re a sport, so I’ll give you a little poem to enjoy while I’m toiling away. A bit tongue in cheek, but I hope you get the message.
Cheers,
Speedy
A Precautionary Tale
We’ve heard it said, and then repeated,
This world of ours is getting heated.
They say we’re to blame for global warming–
(The sometime name of crisis forming),
Which, we’re told, is quite alorming .
(To demonstrate their woes and cares,
We’re shown pictures of some polar bears.)
By “They” I mean the climate Boffin,
Who tells us now and then and often,
The things we can and cannot do,
With that evil substance, CO2 –
And since it’s all so very true,
It’s goodbye flowers, goodbye fauna –
Our world becomes one giant sauna.
And on this basis – it’s then assumed,
We’re all so very, very, very doomed –
With melting of ice, and rise of seas,
The spread of malaria, and other disease,
Temperatures up two smidgen degrees –
All this and more, we hear them shriek –
Or grant their wishes by Tuesday week!
How do these Sages know what they know?
Their wise computer has said it so;
But climate computer appears to be shy,
So please don’t be rude, and ask him why,
If much of the data appear to be high.
(Science is over, don’t ask any more –
Thus it is written, in the Gospel of Gore…)
Carbon’s kept burning, in spite of their fears,
Yet temperature’s FALLEN these latter ten years –
No melting of ice, no rise of the seas,
No spread of malaria, or other disease,
Temperatures FELL two smidgen degrees!
But, worst of worst for these Jeremiahs –
They’re getting quizzed by climate “deniers”!
And a most tiresome lot they seem to be –
Obsessed by – of all things – reality;
Not for them a computer’s contention,
A shouted slogan, a trendy convention,
They’d rather give real data a mention –
And instead of handing us “virtual” truth,
Prefer Boffins to pander to physical proof!?
For if CO2’s risen, and things haven’t got,
Anything remotely, incredibly hot,
Either Mister Doom is running late –
Or else climate models over-state
The ominosity of impending fate.
[And a “Runaway Greenhouse” – were it so –
Would have happened, long ago…]
Yes. A runaway greenhouse – were it so –
Would have happened, long ago.
Because, CO2, in ages past,
Was eighteen times that of Sunday last,
And nothing seemed to go aghast.
A fact that indicates to me,
The climate models’ veracity.
Why this hasn’t happened, we suspect,
Is CO2’s diminishing marginal thermal effect.
Which is to say, that each tiny bit,
Of extra CO2, that we emit,
Yields a less and lesser greenhouse hit.
And models assuming otherwise,
Are nothing more than fancy lies.
We should wonder when the warming crowd
Will explain to us the simple cloud?
Humid air makes warming too –
As surely as the sky is blue;
But what does cloud albedo do?
Strangely, though, the models give
A feedback that’s always posi-tive.
Sadly, “Old School” science has delusions,
Of finding data, and THEN conclusions!
But Boffins who seek the politically correct,
Are advised to examine, then discretely reject,
All data contrary to the case they select.
(By employing this rather basic trick,
They came up with the “hockey stick”) –
A “history” forgetting – now that is sublime –
How earth’s been around a very long time,
In which it’s been hotter and colder and same,
At any CO2 you’d like to name –
And long before people existed to blame!
Yet our planet thrived while CO2 hit the roof –
And that’s what you call “Inconvenient Truth”!
Greenhouse economics are likewise bent –
They ignore the earnings, but count what is spent;
So while it serves no productive role,
The same logic used for sequestering coal,
Applies equally to digging (then refilling) a hole –
Or a carbon tax, that, we’re told with elation,
Combines greenhouse reductions with job creation.
But what does it matter if Boffins are wrong?
If logic is weak, when emotion is strong?
Because; in tilting at mills and chasing wild geese,
We’re discarding the most and retaining the least,
So earth is no better, but Mankind’s decreased.
And in pursuit of a meaningless CO2 drop,
We condemn children to starve for a Bio-Crop.
Clearly, arguments presented for global warming,
Are more for persuading, and less for informing.
In tear-jerking ads, are emotions implored,
With selective reporting, key data ignored –
And most of this isn’t, technically, fraud.
But these and other sneaky tricks,
Aren’t the servants of science, but politics.
So if your politics are that way inclined,
Give them your vote, no-one will mind.
But please don’t, for one second, expect,
The solutions they promise to save or protect.
There is no salvation to be won by this sect.
Because it is founded on a false contention,
Involving polar bears, and computer’s invention.
40
As Einstein said – “If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough” – ergo your “climate scientists” obviously don’t understand it well enough if, as you say, we are all still clueless.
QED
130
The problem is not with the explanations, but with you not attending to them. You don’t understand GR or QM or Godel either: but that’s not a problem with the science or the math or the explanations: its a problem with your attention. Try starting with http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2014/02/16/the-idealised-greenhouse-effect-model-and-its-enemies/ and see if you can follow it.
229
Try winning $10,000 and provide empirical proof that CO2 Causes global warming, the offer has been out there for 5 years , go on a be a hero , win the prize!
200
I stopped when I got to this part:
The thing is this William: Any waffling outside the realm of REALITY is a total waste of everybody’s time (including your own). It’s just waffle.
170
At the end of the day, it all comes down to allegory, and stories of the monsters that go bump in the night, in order to frighten the children.
It is all PR, and that is all it has ever been.
There is no real science (well, not much), because it is all based on unwashed dweebs writing lines of computer code to define mathematical functions that almost, but not quite, align with poorly understood processes that interact in a chaotic fashion. What could possibly go wrong with that?
It is like the Darwin Award story of the guy who “taught” himself to “fly” using Microsoft Flight Simulator, jumped in his brothers plane, took off, and promptly did a vertical loop into the ground.
140
WC – “You don’t understand GR or QM or Godel either”. Big statement from the self-appointed Wikipedia voice of authority and incorrect as usual. How do you know I don’t?
160
Jo – I respectfully suggest you remove Connolley’s posts and any follow ups. Give him the Pointman treatment.
He can always post under an alias if he wants, but that would rob him of the publicity he seeks.
What’s good for the goose and all that…
[Provided he abides by the site rules he won’t be censored. We aren’t Wiki! – Mod]
111
I think you’re making a mistake.
Your blog (along with some other notable skeptic blogs) now represents by far the largest readership in the debate – and the biggest contribution to an informed debate – and that is really bugging the team.
I don’t see why they should have room to foul up discussion when they have been so draconian when the shoe was on the other foot.
To paraphrase someone we all know and love “I’d keep him out of the honest blogs even if I have to redefine what that means” 😉
But your house your rules – fair play to you….
[Jud, you are correct that very many alarmist sites either moderate or selectively edit sceptic comments. They have a team of people to attack any comments which get through. We believe you would only do that if you weren’t confident that you had truth and science on your side. So while it can get boring to keep answering the same challenges from alarmists, we think many of our readers are up to the task. You can also search the Jo Nova site because there isn’t much they could raise which Jo hasn’t already addressed. So provided the debate stays polite and follows the rules, it will be allowed. – Mod]
51
Sun Tsu
100
There is really very little for us left to figure out about these folks.
He is here because he craves attention and he can’t get any on his own tumbleweed covered blog. And if he did you can be sure skeptical posts would get the memory hole treatment.
I don’t think we are learning anything from him at this point.
Rather than feed his ego I’d rather think of him stewing in well deserved obscurity.
But that’s just me…
20
Jud, please consider that Jo’s large readership is there precisely because there is no fear of what the likes of Connolley have to say? Letting the sun shine through the holes in climate science drives readership up. Connolley hates that (wiki evidence) so the effect is better than censorship in multiple ways.
NO FEAR!
50
I don’t see any problem with William Connolley coming here to make a total fool of himself…….
170
My stick was for the mod’s reply Jud
40
Uptick …wretched predictive text !
40
51% Alberta engineers & geologists contra IPCC
Dig deeper into the issues and engineers & geologists are highly skeptical of IPCC’s majority anthropogenic global warming. e.g. see:
Science or Science Fiction? Professionals’ Discursive Construction of Climate Change
Lianne M. Lefsrud & Renate E. Meyer, Organization Studies November 2012 vol. 33 no. 11 1477-1506 doi: 10.1177/0170840612463317
24%+10%+17%=51%!
120
Getting there, but of course the alarmist will say “meh, what do engineers know about climatology?” The answer is that they possibly know a damn sight more than most “climatologists” who know sweet ^&$* all about anything other than their chosen proxy graph.
100
David, would that be the Alberta with huge deposits of tar sands and an an army of geologists and oil entrepreneurs wanting to build an oil pipeline across the USA?
I think that there is a blatantly obvious conflict of interest in the opinions you are citing.
—-
Still can’t find any evidence to back your faith eh Bil? Tough when you have to resort to fallacy after fallacy isn’t it. – Jo
116
Jo I am very upset that a certain cook is using part of my name. Please get him to stop as its giving me a bad name!!!
Bria (Mr)
40
William Connolley: On the subject of Henry’s Law: how many factors affect the partial pressure of atmospheric pCO2 and what are they?
Perhaps you could also give us the benefit of your erudition in your own words (no Wikipedia or other links), and explain how it is that the increase in atmospheric concentration of CO2 has not been consistent, showing for example dramatic fluctuations with rapid growth rates in the late 1980s and a marked slow down in the early 1990s, and indeed virtually zero in the mid-1970s and 60s?
92
You made most of that up. Compare http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/#mlo_full to your words. “nullius in verba”, eh?
If you’re wondering why the wiggly red line wiggles on an annual timescale, the answer is hemispheric asymmetry in the biosphere.
220
That’s just silly William. It’s only Mauna Loa…. one place in the World, conveniently located in a VOLCANO hot spot.
152
Oh not that one again. Its been debunked soo many times, even the Watties don’t believe you: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/04/under-the-volcano-over-the-volcano/
220
No William, you miss the point entirely (and as always, fall for the bait).
You are chiding Carbon500 with only a single record to back up what you say. Don’t you see how patently stupid that is (I bet not).
201
Yeah, you’d think that all these years preening himself in front of the mirror, he would know what stupid looked like.
101
Mauna loa is not a volcano and not one place in the world?
You have fallen far Billy. I am sure you can get that into Wikipedia. But the rest of us just laugh at you.
50
William Connolley: No, I didn’t ‘make it up’. My data came from William James Burroughs in his book ‘Climate Change’, p229. Lest you wonder, among his credentials are seven years working in the UK National Physical laboratory researching atmospheric physics.
His exact words on p227 are: ‘closer examination of the Mauna Loa data shows that the rate has fluctuated dramatically with rapid growth rates in the late 1980s and a marked slow down in the early 1990s. These fluctuations have not been explained but suggest complicated feedback mechanisms between short-term climatic variations (e.g. the ENSO) and the uptake of carbon in the biosphere.’
He refers to figure 8.10 in his book, which is taken from IPCC 1995, fig 2.2.
Annual fluctuations in CO2 levels are also clearly evident in your link.
80
He’s referring to the slope of the black line, William. It doesn’t correlate well with output from humans. At no time did we cut back on our fossil fuel use so the d[CO2]/dt should never drop at all, let alone to zero. The precision of the actual measurements is there to make that call but possibly not as a measure of the change in mean global value.
40
Here is a plot of 10 year moving average of 12 month moving linear regression of CO2 levels.
The smoothed rate doesn’t drop to zero but it shows the drop of 40% in the 90s.
40
I’m a bit baffled. If you’re trying to suggest that the rise of CO2 to 400 ppm isn’t anthropogenic, then that would be deeply silly. So I’ll assume you don;t mean that.
If you’re trying to say that the rise is non-uniform, and doesn’t exactly correlate with human output, and is affected by natural factors, then I entirely agree and so does the IPCC. In which case, we’re back to what I said earlier: you have very dull conversations because you argue with the strawmen you’ve invented, not what the science is saying. I think most of you don’t realise what a backwater you inhabit, unable to escape, because you never learn.
113
“I’m a bit baffled.”
WE KNOW THAT !!!!
71
The WC.. you have NOTHING to offer this blog except your ego….
and NOBODY here is interested in it. !
61
I find it quite amusing at times, to watch his ego override all else.
40
Humans are contributing to rising CO2 levels.
AND THE BIOSPHERE THANKS US.
You must truly hate nature that you want to starve it of the ESSENTIAL building block of life.
But then, you do seem to HATE life.
61
Willy, Stop pretending that I enjoy this. Its actually painful.
You were provided with a reference to what Carbon500 was saying. I have not read the reference, I just did what you should have done before commenting. And you should have looked up why the drop in rate occurred in the 90s instead of pretending that you’re on top of things.
A straw man argument is your first sentence. Get a dictionary.
80
No Vic, it just slides off his ectoplasmic persona.
A thick layer of slime must be penetrated to have any effect.
50
For those people who struggle with which way up to view graphical information there is an animatio to assist them.
http://youtu.be/vA7tfz3k_9A
Stay with it as once it reaches 2012 it then displays CO2 levels back 800,000 years. Then it displays the scientific organisations that underwrite the information.
—-
Good to see BilB switch fallacies. The ad homs were repetitive. Now we’re back to “authority”. The gods of science (at least their 6 person, self appointed committees) have spoken, and bill is ever their obedient blind servant. They should pay you Bil. Do they? – Jo
214
I think that disposes of the “one location” argument.
113
Actually, Jo, it is your ad homs that demonstrate the weakness of you “skeptical” platform. You’ve obvoiusly got zero real substance to your case so in this thread you turned to the oil and coal “men” in a limp attempt to argue a division in the science community regarding climate change. Its a bit pathetic, unless you are using this platform to build your skills as a fiction writer.
214
Bil – I’ve been meaning to say thanks for all your help with this blog. It’s obvious to the onlookers that you have no evidence that upper tropospheric water vapor assumptions are correct, no evidence that CO2 causes catastrophic change, no evidence that if we reduce CO2 we’ll alter global weather, and no evidence that the action would be remotely cost effective either. I really do appreciate you commenting here. People might not realize how weak the believer case is otherwise.
In that sense I was too harsh on you earlier. Sorry, you really are helping us move science forward. Please don’t stop providing logical fallacies for me to shoot down. :- )
133
> all of the contributing scientists to the latest IPCC report who have a PHD in “Climatology”.
Who cares? As I said in 34, and 34.1.1, exactly what you have as your doctorate doesn’t matter much. Its what you publish in that matters.
> or any other QUALIFICATION will do.
You’re retreating into credentialism. Which, on other occasions, you and others here will claim to disdain. No-one cares what “credentials” as in doctorates, etc, practising scientists have. They care what papers they publish.
> Which part of Henry’s Law do you dispute?
None of it. The problem is your not realising that the ocean is a carbon sink. This is the problem: knowing the laws is one thing; knowing which ones actually matter in something as complex as the Earth system is harder.
225
No William. It is you who is trying to say that because they are “geologists” they do not have a valid view on climate.
Like I said: Mr Contradiction.
False.
Also false. You do realise that the earth has been warming for SEVERAL HUNDRED YEARS ….. this includes the oceans, which, according to Henry’s Law means they will RELEASE CO2. It is to be expected that atmospheric CO2 is rising. Man’s contribution to that is minute. Henry’s Law again comes into effect. What happens William?
If we are to believe CAGW theory, then just as descibed by Speedy would be happening. It’s not.
While you are here, please give to us YOUR explanation for the 18+ year hiatus in atmospheric warming.
211
The problem is you not realising that the CO2 in the oceans is in equilibrium with CO2 in the atmosphere. It is also in equilibrium with hydrogen carbonate in the oceans. A small change in ocean temperatures can lead to more CO2 in the atmosphere and ice-core data shows that CO2 lags temperature increase. (please do not cite that horrendous excuse for science that made it through the peer-review process).
110
Vic
The ocean surface is in equilibrium with the atmosphere – and of course we get higher solubility at the poles and lower at the tropics.
At depth, the cold water at high pressure is NOT saturated, so we can get transfer of CO2 to the depths, where it stays around unless it gets raised to the surface. I’m sketchy on how much mixing occurs between the deep ocean and the surface, although it does happen with things like the gulf stream etc. Accurate quantification of this would be difficult and I’m having a wild guess that it’s not included in the climate models.
Bottom line looks bad for the CAGW argument anyway.
1. If the oceans aren’t a carbon dioxide sink, and if CO2 is a significant driver of global temperatures, then the first bit of warming we get will generate a runaway greenhouse.
2. If the oceans are a carbon sink (as seems apparent in the diminishment of atmospheric CO2 over the last 500 million years), then there is not much point in trying to control atmospheric CO2 anyway. It is all headed for the oceans, rocks and plantlife, no matter what we do.
And the overarching consideration is that CO2 is only considered important because it is good at absorbing a particular wavelength of IR radiation and preventing this heat energy from radiating to space. However, the law of diminishing returns applies (we call it the Beer-Lambert Law) to the effect that increased concentrations of CO2 have bugger all concequences if there’s no more (or practically none) of that specific radiation left. (As seems the case, given the earths emission spectrum.)
I’m sort of missing William – he’s a funny guy, reminds me of John Cleese in Basil Fawlty mode.
Cheers,
Speedy
20
CO2 in the deep ocean wouldn’t be in a fast equilibrium with the atmosphere. It would be with dissolved hydrogen carbonate of which there is lot more than the dissolved CO2. The surface waters are also not saturated because neither is the atmosphere so the whole ocean could be a sink or a reservoir depending on the temperature and atmospheric concentration. Sorry, but I forgot how little a temperature rise was need to explain an extra 100 ppm in the atmosphere.
What makes the whole understanding very complicated is the pressure. Lake Nyos is a good example of how deep waters can become super saturated with carbon dioxide which is what would happen if the deep waters of the oceans did warm up.
An interesting side issue is that it is estimated that the Lake Nyos disaster is thought to have released up to 3 Gt of carbon dioxide in a limnic eruption (beer glass being tapped like eruption). The claims that volcanic activity is only a small fraction of human output comes from about 70 volcanic eruptions per year at 3 Gt per eruption. The CO2 in Lake Nyos was seepage as the last eruption was five centuries ago.
20
Vic
Agree. The equilibrium is likely to be much slower than the changes between atmospheric CO2 and surface ocean waters, but they will happen eventually, which means that it’s a general downward trend for atmospheric CO2. Some increases may be possible as a consequence of warming, which is consistent with the large partition coeffient in favour of the aqueous phase (50:1 on a mass basis) and the data we have from the Vostok ice core data, amongst others.
I’m probably being lax in my terminology when I describe CO2 in solution – the bicarbonate ion and dissolved CO2 are going to be in equilibrium with each other in solution, the key variable being the localised pH. H20 + CO2 HCO3- + H+ Either way, it’s CO2 finding a home in the deeps.
The point I was trying (unsuccessfuly) to make with young Bill was that even when your sole source of “information” is Wiki, CAGW doesn’t stack up. If CO2 was a threat, it would have activated long ago. And it hasn’t.
Your point about the amount of gas venting from natural causes is valid and puts the human CO2 emissions into context. And, as per Henry’s Law, the emissions, both natural and otherwise, will partition between the atmospheric and aqueous phases by well known mechanisms with a kinetic rate which appears to give a half life in atmosphere about 5 years. (They used the decay rate for C14 isotopes in the post-atomic test atmosphere to calculate this.) But there is a further issue, namely that whatever additional CO2 is generated is unlikely to find any 14 micron IR radiation left to absorb anyway. So not really an issue unless your reputation and career is based on selling the scare story.
All in all, the CAGW case is less than convincing, to put it mildly.
Cheers,
Speedy
00
The climate kooks were perfectly fine with any society of anything sciencey coming up with statements as long as they agreed with with climate doom. If they back off or moderate from te apocalyptic claptrap, suddenly they are not qualified to an opinion.
The climate kook’s definition of good science is “anything that agrees with my belief in the cliamte catastrophe”.
Well those days are over, WC. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
90
William might offer an explanation for the physics responsible for the ice ages, because all warming observed so far has been the reaction to a previous ice-age, whether little as in the LIA, or large as the Pleistocene or Permian events. No one really understands what causes ice-ages, and their associated mass species extinctions.
The problem today is that the earth has not returned to the thermal state that allowed farming in Greenland, grape growing in England and France that used to be possible during the MWP. Until that happens, the global warming alarm is based on ignorance. It’s like rescuing someone who fell into an icy lake and being alarmed that they are warming back to ‘normal’ body temperature.
Incidentally there are no authorities in science – religion yes, but not science.
(mea culpa – I’m a retired diamond exploration geologist and editor of AIG News which never took a position on global warming/climate change – AIG council recognised it as a political issue, not scientific)
141
> The problem today is that the earth has not returned to the thermal state that allowed… grape growing in England and France that used to be possible during the MWP
Errm hold on, you’re reading from the wrong pages in your copybook. Not “grape growing in England” is wrong (we grow grapes here now) but its the kind of thing you might fool people with; expecting people to believe that they don’t grow grapes in France is just insulting your “skeptic” friends intelligence. Have some respect. I appreciate that you can usually get away with writing this kind of nonsense and everyone will nod along happily, but I’m actually reading what you write. I’m sorry if that wasn’t what you intended.
> there are no authorities in science
That’ll be why you were so careful to provide references for all your statements, rather than relying on your bare assertion.
217
Yes I should have qualified my statement that grapes are still not grown in areas they used to grow them in England and France during the medieval period. I forgot I was dealing with one of the lesser candles on the tree.
151
{{cn}}
“nullius in verba” remember. And how will you account for confounding factors? During the MWP, transport of wine from France was expensive, so growing grapes in now “uneconomic” areas would make sense. Nowadays, transport of wine is cheap.
120
Transport of wine by horse and cart then by sail was the same in the 14th century as it was in the 18th century. Ships might have been better but it was still only across the channel.
Cider history from cideruk.com
Strange how you stick a bauble like “confounding factors” on such a stupid argument.
150
From Israeli Astrophysicits Nir Shaviv:
http://www.sciencebits.com/AR5-FirstImpressions
“One of the statements which wonderfully exemplifies the absurdity of the new report is this paragraph discussing the climate sensitivity in the summary for policy makers. They write:
‘The equilibrium climate sensitivity quantifies the response of the climate system to constant radiative forcing on multi-century time scales. It is defined as the change in global mean surface temperature at equilibrium that is caused by a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C (high confidence), extremely unlikely less than 1°C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than 6°C (medium confidence) 16. The lower temperature limit of the assessed likely range is thus less than the 2°C in the AR4, but the upper limit is the same. This assessment reflects improved understanding, the extended temperature record in the atmosphere and ocean, and new estimates of radiative forcing.’
Now, have you noticed something strange? According to the AR4 report, the “likely equilibrium range of sensitivity” was 2.0 to 4.5°C per CO2 doubling. According to the newer AR5 report, it is 1.5 to 4.5°C, i.e., the likely equilibrium sensitivity is now known less accurately. But they write: “This assessment reflects improved understanding”. How ridiculous can you be?
….
One reason for the lack of improved understanding could be incompetence of the people in the field. That is, all the billions of dollars invested in climate research were not or could not be used to answer the most important question in climate, one which will allow predicting the 21st century climate change. I doubt however that this is the real reason. Among the thousands working in climate research, surely there are at least a few who are competent, if not more.
I think the real reason why there is no improvement in the understanding of climate sensitivity is the following. If you have a theory which is correct, then as progressively more data comes in, the agreement becomes better. Sure, occasionally some tweaks have to be made, but overall there is an improved agreement. However, if the basic premises of a theory are wrong, then there is no improved agreement as more data is collected. In fact, it is usually the opposite that takes place, the disagreement increases. In other words, the above behavior reflects the fact that the IPCC and alike are captives of a wrong conception.”
110
Garbage.
The Bishop of Durham was selling his wine at 3 times the price of imported wine.
00
I think grapes were grown right ‘oop north’ in Roman times…not now though . The wine producing vineyards are further south and we would have found it impossible to grow grapes where we were in North Yorkshire recently.
70
i question the statement “they could not grow grapes” i believe a grape vine could grow in colder temps however the quality of the fruit would be so poor (not ripening enough to [roduce flavours etc) that they abandoned any further attempts. i wonder how many people get confused over this issue.
50
Good point. I grow grapes but even I missed that. In my defense, in a too hot area.
Rather than flavour, it would have been too much acid and too little sugar. Europeans are allowed to add sugar to their wines (while you can add acid to wines in Aus but not sugar) so growing wines in modern times is economically viable without being much warmer.
30
“I believe” isn’t empirical fact. Either they could, or could not, and from what I have been able to discover, no one is growing grapes in areas where the medievalists did in England and France. The reason is then, why not? Because it’s still not warm enough.
And of course Greenland – they still cannot farm those areas that the Vikings were farming at the time – too cold etc. Again not warm enough.
Two possibilities occur
1. The earth’s axis rotation is eternally fixed wrt to space, and that all climate change is due solely to changes in temperature or,
2. The earth’s axis of rotation is not permanently fixed and might careen a little due to external forces. If the latter mechanism operated, then climate change would be due to a change in axial orientation, and not necessarily temperature. Any evidence for this? There is historically but no one believes it. There are archaeological examples of clocks and gnomons being located in areas where they do not work. They could work if they were transported to a different latitude, and one Egyptian water-clock needed a 13 degree shift in latitude to work as designed. Either the time keepers moved the clock to the new location, or the earth careened a little to put the water-clock in a different latitude, and hence the clock stopped working.
The onset of the LIA also corresponded to an error in the Justinian calendar of some 11 days, so a new calendar was proclaimed- the Gregorian calendar which we still use to day. If this error was due to a slight axial orientation change in the earth’s position, or if the earth was moved closer to or further away from the sun, then that might explain the calendar error. It helps to remember that the Europeans were warring among themselves, and I don’t recall any documentation of people acting as astronomers during the medieval period. That only started to be noticed during the start of the Rennaissance, Copernicus, Gallileo, Bruno etc.
Changes in the earth’s axial orientation or position in space is a no-brainer for plasma physics, but remains a challenge for the orthodox chained to their Newtonian beliefs.
30
At least you don’t deny the MWP.
50
It’s such a shame that any scientific community can end up being so polarised due to political interference.
I’ve been saying it for year – every time science has gotten tangled up with ideology (this includes theology), science has been the worse for it.
The current debacle is just a rerun of so many other instances in history.
But hey, nothing motivates people to do stupid things more than the belief they’re saving the world against some conspiracy – you know the sorts of people who believe the ends justifies the means.
101
MadJak,
You’re confusing the commercial vested interests of the fossil fuels (you know, Geoligically sequestered Carbon) industry professionals with the notion that the altruistic aim to preserve the livability of environment is somehow a political ideology.
The methods applied to achieving climate stability through limiting Global Warming become ideological when there is division in ideas, technologies, and timing of applied mitigation efforts. This is the policy and executive end of Climate Change Action. Geologists are ideologically compromised as a profession as a significant percentage of their members are principally involved commercially with exacerbating the Global Warming problem with accelerated Carbon desequestration and atmospheric release.
———————
Oh, darn. Slipped back to the ad hom fallacy. Look out everyone — a “green thinker” is at work. Bil seriously, you have to lift your game. Nearly every comment of yours on this thread is in breach of this blog policy about posting logical fallacies and unsubstantiated insults – Jo
016
BilB,
So in your view only greens are non-ideological and do not have vested interests?
40
Gosh,
That response is not even worth responding to. Utterly pathetic drivel.
00
I know it is not strictly relevant… but Graham Lloyd looks like Murray out of “Flight of the Conchords”.
10
I have always found it bemusing that so many people think that geologists have no idea about climate change and no right to an opinion. The first people to recognise that climate had changed were geologists. Most of a geology degree deals with climate change of one sort or another: sedimentology, coal, oil, oxygen isotopes, glaciology, weathering and reogolith formation, chronological dating, palaeontology, supergene ore emplacement, the water table, soil formation, sea levels, flood events, etetera. I could go on and on and on. The fact is that most geologists have a better understanding and perspective of climate change than any other profession. The term “climate scientist” also enrages me – there’s no such thing. I was also bemused to get an email a few days ago about a guest speaker at JCU (my old Uni), some bloke called Tony Eggleton:
“In Tony Eggleton’s book, A Short Introduction to Climate Change, published by Cambridge University Press, Tony addresses some of the misinformation about climate change. For this special guest seminar, Tony will expand on that chapter and consider the perceptions, distortions and untruths that permeate the denialist literature. Tony Eggleton is a geologist with more than 40 years’ experience as a scientist, most recently with the ANU Research School of Earth Sciences.”
In 20 years of being a geologist this guy is one of about 3 geologists I have heard of that believes in AGW!
120
Chris, would one of them be Prof Robert White at Cambridge university (UK)?
00
The original position statement was published in September 2009 and endorsed strong action to reduce human fossil fuel emissions. The statement was written by the Executive Committee (of that time) with limited consultation with GSA members.
When it was published it received heated debate and threats of resignation from some members.
Two members undertook an informal poll of over 2000 members inviting them to respond to two questions:
1) Did they agree with the Position Statement?
2) Were they approached to express an opinion?
27% of those contacted gave a meaningful response to Question 1 of which 53% opposed the Statement and 47% supported it.
For question 2 only 2% of respondents stated that they were consulted.
Clearly, the opinions of GSA members are deeply divided and consultation of the membership by the Executive of the time was very limited.
—
Thanks for that Lank. Were those results ever published? – Jo
81
From the above it appears that only 40 members were contacted, all supportive of the Executive, and more than half of those said bullshat! What a wonderful way to determine “Policy”!
31
The great irony of having the self appointed wiki-liar posting his drivel about how only climate scientists are qualified to an opinion on the climate issue is that of course he is not a climate scientist. He is just a neverwuzzer hoping to bully and dazzle with bullsh!t and control the conversation by silencing those who dare disagree.
In other words, WC has only an opinion, but he is used to being able to edit his critics and victims into silence. That some political hack like WC holds himself out as the arbiter of how we should consider the questions of climate is Pythonesque in his bald faced derangement.
What a punk.
I suggest ignoring the twit until he learns to actually speak to people.
91
Those members of the GSA that attempted to hijack the good name of the institution with a supportive statement of CAGW without the members’ consent, should be shown the door.
52
That’ll be disconsensus then?
100% agree to disagree. 🙂
Gudonya cobbers!
01
‘Quantifying the Disconsensus’
(PeteB , published: jonova’s blog, June 2014)
–
No data supplied.
01
Some day, in the near future, these so-called ‘climatologists’ will realize that their ‘science’ has a reputation somewhere between that of astrology and scientology.
61
> the ice core data shows that CO2 follows temperature
Its far more complex than that. Many people seem to think that the T-CO2 pix show a constant offset, and of course they don’t. Indeed, the usual T-CO2 pix you’re used to looking at don’t show it at all, and can’t possibly.
> pretty hard to disagree on that
Not hard at all. Try for example http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/03/12/yet-more-tco2-lags/
114
Oh look.. more egotistical preening and pleading that someone will visit his pre-pubescence, inconsequential, meaningless blog
101
Maybe this had been mentioned (there’s to many comments to read through) but they seem to be saying “we’ll reset the date baseline each year, and assume there’ll be change from that point, for which we want research funds to study”.
A perpetual funds machine?
20
> Huge fail for you CAGW theories
CAGW is a strawman invented by the “skeptics”. For the rest, start with http://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/02/25/by-request/ (and for bonus fun, try http://stoat-spam.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/ntz-global-warming-stop-older-than-1997.html).
110
roflmao.. Tamino… roflmao (and no, I am not clicking on any link to your putrid little blog)
And he uses “Cowtan and Way” who tried to add some extra warming to the already adjusted HadCrut by including massive mythical warming from the Arctic.
One fudge , after another… right down the WC line of science.
You seriously are such a clown act , WC
52
The red herring is the idea the climate obsessed have not pushed, lied, back-edited, cheated and stolen to push: that we are facing a climate crisis cause by human CO2.
The cowardly response we see in the parasite class in pretending they have not claimed there is a catastrophe is as anoying as it is predictable.
If there is no crisis, then why do they gin up so many phony stories declaring otherwise?
If there is no climate crisis, then why should we trouble ourselves to ‘fight global warming’?
20
You really need that dictionary.
Isn’t Lindzen a denier (explicitly accused of being like a holocaust denier) because he believes that the sensitivity is 0.6°C per doubling of CO2 rather than estimates of up to 10 times that?
Isn’t Lomborg a denier (explicitly accused of being like a holocaust denier) because he believes a few degrees extra for a doubling of CO2 would not be detrimental to the environment?
Isn’t Tol a denier (explicitly accused of being like a holocaust denier) because he believes that a few degrees extra for a doubling of CO2 would not be detrimental to the economy?
Now name three people who are not deniers who gave An Inconvenient Truth a spray.
41
…not to mention the Pielke’s, Dr. Curry, etc, etc. etc.
Which shows we are dealing with a transparent bully with no regard for the truth. If he does not like something he will just edit it until it fits his desired outcome.
31
Who the f*ck is Tamino?
Please William, according to your own definition of “Climate Scientist”, give us references to “reputable” Journals where the ramblings of this genius have been published. Otherwise STFU:
42
“Who the f*ck is Tamino?”
An insignificant little nobody who likes to pass himself off as a twerp.
His blog ranks with SkS as a total load of BS mis-information and gibberish.
22
You really need to get with it William. Everybody who is anybody on the Warmist side of the climate debate freely admits the “hiatus”, “pause” or whatever else you wish to call it. Why do you think we have Trenberth’s “missing heat” way down in the deep deep oceans where it cannot be measured? You are a denier in the true sense of the word.
82
It was invented by the alarmists like you. And quoting tamino is merely self preening on your part. Try a reputable one next time.
01
[…] read another version of it, plus some wonderfully wacky offerings in the Comments, go to Jo Nova here. Graham Lloyd did a neat piece on it, too, on 4 June in The Australian, but that is behind a […]
01