What about serious global cooling?
David Archibald, polymath, makes a bold prediction that temperatures are about to dive sharply (in the decadal sense). He took the forgotten correlation that as solar cycles lengthen and weaken, the world gets cooler. He refined it into a predictive tool, tested it and published in 2007. His paper has been expanded on recently by Prof Solheim in Norway, who predicts a 1.5°C drop in Central Norway over the next ten years.
It helps to remember that the predictions of scary warming are not based on trends of observed temperatures over time, they are fabricated from the abuse of models. And given the degree of uncertainty about the mechanisms involved in warming and cooling (what was that about the science being settled?) there is nothing inherently implausible about a scenario of cooling.
While I think the positive forcing in climate models suffers from assumptions designed to show something really really bad is going to happen, I think it would be perfectly reasonable for higher CO2 levels to offset somewhat the effects of long periods of low sunspot activity. Which is probably why temperatures haven’t dropped as much as they otherwise might have. Not that they seem to be following the projections of the various climate models either, mind you.
Entropy
27 Jan 12 at 7:00 pm
rafe,
global cooling is more of a threat. it is hard to get passed an ice sheet a mile thick covering all of Canada and much of Europe.
I remember writing earnest high school science essays on the subject of the coming global cooling and possible ice age.
see http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100129892/global-warming-red-faced-climatologist-issues-grovelling-apology/ for the 8 April 1977 Time magazine cover on how to survive the coming ice age, 51 things you can do.
many an alarmist tries to make light of these popular news stories of a global cooling.
Jim Rose
27 Jan 12 at 7:04 pm
I should add that Time magazine did not publish on the 8th april 1977, so i am one of many victims of a hoax.
see http://www.time.com/time/magazine/0,9263,7601770404,00.html for 4th april edition, followed by 11th april 1977 edition
see http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,910467,00.html for 1972 report on another ice age.
Jim Rose
27 Jan 12 at 7:22 pm
Easy on the global cooling line, guys. Statists might want to commandeer private resources and distort optimising behaviour in order to combat it, just like they want to with global warming.
Simple denial is the safer way to go. There’s already a body of unorthodox science to back it and it’s less of a credibility challenge for people who may have a lingering respect for the scientific establishment.
Alphonse
27 Jan 12 at 8:55 pm
So if the ALP and Greenies also take this on board will they introduce a Cooling Carbon Tax to go along with their Carbon Dioxide Tax?
George K
27 Jan 12 at 9:49 pm
I don’t see a problem with a mile thick ice cube for my drinks being delivered by nature to my door.
As long as there is free single malt scotch from the oasis across the road.
Winston Smith
27 Jan 12 at 10:14 pm
There is a long history in AGW circles to explain the lack of warming consistent with AGW theory; it is called the Keenlyside paradigm based on the paper of the same name which offered the excuse that natural variation was temperarily overcoming the AGW warming which would return when natural variation had exhausted itself.
This is bullshit which is obvious to anyone with an IQ over 90 and some modicum of honesty.
cohenite
27 Jan 12 at 10:19 pm
And here is a neat little guide to how anyone can be a really good alarmist:
http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/2012/01/how-to-be-really-good-climate-change.html
cohenite
27 Jan 12 at 10:29 pm
What a complete load of bollocks. David Archibald, author of the worst climate science paper ever of all time anywhere. And that was his first one predicting a drop of 1.5C, I guess he’s shooting for a new record with this one predicting 4.9C.
m0nty
27 Jan 12 at 10:39 pm
You think you know a lot about the internet mont, and maybe you do, but you are stretching yourself on climate. Your link is greenery bollocks.
Lazlo
27 Jan 12 at 10:47 pm
Archibald is just another oil company shill. It’s not as if he was ever a real scientist, not even a geologist like so many other denialists. “Polymath” is a euphemism for “dilettante”.
m0nty
27 Jan 12 at 10:54 pm
Umm OK usual mindless ad homs from the left received. Anything of substance to say?
Lazlo
27 Jan 12 at 10:59 pm
lol stop agitating the warmies, Lazlo.
Gab
27 Jan 12 at 11:03 pm
James Watt tells us that this is how you make a nice cup of tea..
Lazlo
27 Jan 12 at 11:14 pm
Ad hominum attack? Check!
Accusation of oil industry link? Check!
Use of “denier” slur? Check!
A triple-fail from m0nty!
Annabelle
27 Jan 12 at 11:18 pm
Heh. hey, Mont, if the biosphere is warmenating, how come Argo shows overall temperature decline in the biosphere’s heat sink?
Q. How many years of real world observations does it take before a Greenie’s computer models re glowball warmenating are invalidated?
A. Hefty Government grant cheques into global cooling (with the Greenie’s name on them).
Q. When a Greenie says that the AGW hypothesis is his highest personal morality and strongest personal belief: so much so that he will defend these beliefs unto death, what does he really mean?
A. For sale to the highest bidder!
Mk50 of Brisbane
27 Jan 12 at 11:28 pm
It means that he, personally, has not changed his lifestyle beyond some very fashionable units of conspicuous consumption; a Prius rather than a Merc, solar panels rather than a theater room, and so on.
It means he has, with enormous relief, stumbled upon a moral justification for dumping money into prestige goods.
What it does NOT mean:
That he has decided to live a low-consumption lifestyle
That he now drives an old diesel he runs off recycled frying-fat
That he has moved into a smaller home in a less desirable area
That he will not be buying any new gadgets, and is selling several of his old ones.
wreckage
27 Jan 12 at 11:52 pm
Isn’t it odd: Mr Archibald, like Monckton, dabbles in both medicine and climate change. Even if he’s not a geologist, he’s been very interested in drilling, which (if the contributions here and elsewhere are anything to go by) co-relates highly with climate change skepticism; nearly as strongly as does “being a male at the end of his career with too much time on his hands”.
Archibald is impressed with papers by a trio of Norwegians, and at least one other paper they did has been criticised at Real Climate on easy to follow grounds.
Steve from brisbane
28 Jan 12 at 12:22 am
Unless we are going to play the ‘language games’ angle then there is simple point:
‘there are no subjects, only problems’
A subject is mearly an agreed method of looking at a certain problem, not some absolute gold standard free of criticism.
sean
28 Jan 12 at 12:39 am
Is that the best you can do sfb? Mindless, repetitive and brainless ad homs, never addressing the substance of the AGW hypothesis. You make some seriously weird assertions about some peoples’ alleged interests and age. Are you taking drugs?
I don’t know if this is a correct interpretation, because it is challenging to try to imagine your tiny scientific mind, but it is possible that the ‘Norwegians’ you are referring to are Svensmark et al, whose peer reviewed papers on cosmic rays are now being supported by empirical experiments at CERN.
Against that you provide a link to Real Climate (gee, that was clever of you) which is run by Piltdown Mann, inventor of the methodologicaly ‘creative’ hockey stick, Rahmstorff who keeps insisting that his computer models of sea level rise are more true than actual measurments, and Schmidt who keeps ‘adjusting’ the temperature records to suit the true believers’ AGW theory.
These people are lightweight liars and frauds sfb, and you belong to them.
Lazlo
28 Jan 12 at 12:46 am
Lazlo you are a typical, lazy skeptic who didn’t even bother to click on the link to see who the Norwegians concerned are.
The CERN results are of interest but in no way yet prove a significant cosmic ray link.
I noted at my own blog this week a new decade long study of cloud cover and cosmic ray flux which indicates no link. I won’t bother linking to it, because you won’t read it.
Nor will you read anything on sites that are taboo.
You prefer the work of tinkerers with science and medicine like Monckton and Archibald than reading criticisms of their ideas by actual scientists in the field.
Like Mk50, you are not worth debating because your mind is set even while you protest it isn’t.
I’ll still post stuff here as it suits me, so that the occasional reader might see something other than the guff posted here by the incredibly gullible Rafe, who seemingly hasn’t read a thing posted by Jonova towards which he can muster any skepticism.
Steve from brisbane
28 Jan 12 at 1:07 am
Some facts for you sfb. You seem like a young person without fashion sense, but there may be hope for you if you are prepared to use that big thing behind you forehead..
Lazlo
28 Jan 12 at 1:09 am
And what ‘proves’ the UN beloved GCM models sfb?
Lazlo
28 Jan 12 at 1:12 am
What evidence is there that climate models are anything more than elaborate hypotheses?
Lazlo
28 Jan 12 at 1:17 am
Again, impressed with Steve Goddard, a cherry picker extraordinaire whose theorised that he understood Venusian atmosphere better than NASA and soon after no longer appeared at WUWT.
Dumb choice.
Steve from brisbane
28 Jan 12 at 1:21 am
Oh dear, clearly no understanding of scientific method here. Just the postmodern alternate version – rooly, rooly important people say so, so we should stop doing capitalist stuff, so there..
Lazlo
28 Jan 12 at 1:22 am
Lazlo, I’m sharp enough to detect a person not worth debating. You’re one of them.
Steve from brisbane
28 Jan 12 at 1:24 am
That is because you are incapable, we have been here before. You are a lightweight. Now have your toast and off to bed..
Or else tell me about the empirical evidence that supports the alarmist climate models. You can’t. You do not have a clue. You are stupid, just recognise it.
Lazlo
28 Jan 12 at 1:28 am
Says steve Dip Arts Woollwoolla TAFE.
JC
28 Jan 12 at 1:28 am
This is how science is (or is not) done:
1.Make an observation (wow climate seems to be getting warmer)
2.Create hypothesis (this must be because of too much anthropogenic CO2)
3.More observations – the AGW way (create models showing hypothesis is correct and call them data) – the scientific way (collect real world data)
4.Review hypothesis – the AGW way (AGW hypothesis is proved) – the scientific way (the null hypothesis that there is no relation between anthropgenic CO2 and climate warming cannot be rejected)
5. If you are still interested, continue data collection and hypothesis reviewing.
Biota
28 Jan 12 at 7:27 am
For Steve and Monty – I’m sure if you drop by 16 Footers on Tuesday here in Newcastle you’d be able to discuss your thoughts with Mr Archibald. You might wish to bring your peer reviewed climate science papers with you to support your arguments.
Monty may know this already given the similarity of his comment here and one on the Herald article.
Worst snow in 66 years in Davos for WEF, dontcha know. Ain’t it funny!
Bruce of Newcastle
28 Jan 12 at 8:46 am
Perhaps Archibald can explain how a drop of 4.9C will affect global sea levels, since we’ll be entering a new ice age according to his fevered imaginings. That would stuff McCloy’s real estate values, his waterfront mansion would be landlocked! Panic at the beach disco!
m0nty
28 Jan 12 at 8:55 am
Oh, and btw… does this mean Rafe and you lot are “coolies”? Appropriate, since you’ve been mentally hoodwinked into slavery to foreign powers.
m0nty
28 Jan 12 at 9:07 am
jim of brisbane; you say you have linked to a recent paper showing no connection between CR and clouds.
Your linked paper by Laken et al typically uses a model based on TSI or the 11 year sunspot cycle; this is the weakest solar parameter varying by less than 0.1% over the cycle; the model discussed ignores the 22 year cycle discussed in this paper.
Your paper also ignores the well documented correlation between solar activity and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) as the Lu paper shows.
Your paper also observes:
Both of these characteristics are consistent with declining solar and therefore increased CR activity which occurs with a reduced solar output. How do you explain that?
cohenite
28 Jan 12 at 9:31 am
A summary of how Lu’s work has been discredited is here.
Steve from Brisbane
28 Jan 12 at 9:50 am
SFB, you can tell a person by the company he keeps. Eli Rabbett, LOL!
Biota
28 Jan 12 at 9:55 am
He doesn’t split his time between curing cancer and all other illnesses known to Man and amateur climate research.
Steve from Brisbane
28 Jan 12 at 9:57 am
I like eli; he took me under his wing, or should I say paw, when I was just a young sceptic spud waiting to be peeled by such stern task masters as eli.
The rabbit refers to Müller and Grooß’s use of ACE data to rebut Lu’s polar depletion of CFC’s; but ACE data is incomplete as shown by the interpolations of temperature which have to be done in the Arctic circle due to lack of temperature data.
Subconsciously realising this eli concludes: “Probably more to come.”
Try again Steve, bearing in mind we still have to look at the CERN results.
cohenite
28 Jan 12 at 10:03 am
@Wreckage
You’re not an observer of the greenery in Balmain, Glebe and the rest of inner Sydney, are you?
Most penetrating and pithy analysis of our new aristocrats.
Jasbo
28 Jan 12 at 10:17 am
Mont and sfb: the Argo project is very good science indeed. You DO know that it was funded at AGW warmy insistence? That the reason they insisted on such a large, expensive, long term research project was that the world-ocean, as the biosphere’s heat sink, would prove the warming trend irrevocably, and so prove the warming hypothesis with solid data AND support a link to rising CO2 levels AND allow better adjustment of their precious, precious computer models?
The shock in some circles when Argo showed no warming trend at all (and in fact a slight cooling) was palpable.
First, they withdrew the data for a year or so to search for flaws. No luck. Then they looked at the data processing methodology looking for flaws. No luck. Then they tried to insert an adjustment figure so the measured data could be warmed up to match the computer models – but that was after the AGW bubble popped and they got laughed to scorn.
So now they are stuck. THE great warmy data gathering to prove warmenism does not support it at all.
Now, sfb and Monty, how do you guys explain this?
By what mechanism can world-ocean temps be declining slightly if the biosphere really is warming up due to rising CO2 levels?
I look forward to your silence (50% chance), ad hom (25% chance) or bait-and-switch (25% chance).
The one thing I know you won’t do is answer!
Mk50 of Brisbane
28 Jan 12 at 10:34 am
Mk50
Excessive reliance on bold and italics is a powerful sign that someone is a very poor writer.
Les Majesty
28 Jan 12 at 10:36 am
Really Les? I didn’t know that. How insightful.
Carpe Jugulum
28 Jan 12 at 10:41 am
As usual, you are wrong on several counts. The Argo project is good science, but they themselves say:
“First, they withdrew the data for a year or so to search for flaws. No luck. Then they looked at the data processing methodology looking for flaws. No luck. Then they tried to insert an adjustment figure so the measured data could be warmed up to match the computer models”
All about as wrong as you can get. But what else should we expect from you?
Jarrah
28 Jan 12 at 10:53 am
You did not read the article, did you Jarrah?
OK, we have a computer modeller using measurements to validate his models (arse about approach, that). he’s on the warming bandwagon.
He finds that the real world data does not support his models.
So first he cuts off the outliers at the lower end of the dataset bell curve ( “First, I identified some new Argo floats that were giving bad data; they were too cool compared to other sources of data during the time period. It wasn’t a large number of floats, but the data were bad enough, so that when I tossed them, most of the cooling went away. But there was still a little bit, so I kept digging and digging.”)
So he’s cheating – did he cut off the higher-end outliers? No? Why not?
Of course he warmed it up to suit his model! That’s what you do when you delete the ‘cool’ outliers and do not delete the ‘warm’ ones. But warming is not ‘faulty data’ is it?
Note that he uses XBT as his comparative set: well, I’ve used XBT as they are routinely used to find the layer. XBT are a tool of anti-submarine warfare and their accuracy is +- 0.2 degrees. Oh, and they exist to measure a differential, not absolute temperatures. Not made for it, not used for it. All the ASW type cares about is where the layer is and how strong it it.
You cannot use XBT data in this manner.
So then they look at the old XBT data and decide that it’s too warm in the 1960s. So: “But when he factored the too-warm XBT measurements into his ocean warming time series, the last of the ocean cooling went away.”
So by removing the high end XBT data from the 60s (but not the ‘low end’ of course) they ‘cool the XBT dataset’ so they’re comparing to a lower world-ocean baseline temperature, then they remove the ‘cool’ outliers in the later Argo dataset (but not the high end outliers) they warm that data set.
Hey presto! Now the ‘adjusted real world data’ supports their computer models!
This is called ‘manipulation’ – AKA lying.
They then dug out a mountain of old data from many different sources, ‘adjusted’ that via a smoothing model (to get rid of unexplained temperature swings that did not suit their computer models) and again hey presto, their warming computer models are ‘proven’ correct, “the bumps in the graph have largely disappeared, which means the observations and the models are in much better agreement. “That makes everyone happier,” [emphasis added]
And you fell for this?
But you are a warmy, and therefore unable to understand that what they did to the data is invalid.
Mk50 of Brisbane
28 Jan 12 at 11:26 am
“being a male at the end of his career with too much time on his hands”.
Go throw that one at Jo Nova and see how you get on, Stevie boy. I know it’s hard for you to realise, but lotsa girls study science too and don’t count themselves as too long in the tooth or too deprived in the frontal lobes to critique scientific warmery greenery nonsense when they see it either. And there are some really yummy up-and-coming young male scientists in the critiquing enterprise too. Shuffle off in those sandals for a while Pooh, and stick your head in another honey jar as part of your nature studies.
Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.
28 Jan 12 at 12:21 pm
I’m continually surprised how far behind the developements in AGW science the msm is; some commentators at this site show this as well.
Jarrah has linked to a Willis ‘expose’ of ‘problem’s with ARGO; this has been around for a long time and it is unfortunate that, as Mk50 explains, that Willis is now just another of the long line of scientists who accept their modelling over observations. For instance Willis’s latest effort with that other serial offender Lyman:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7296/abs/nature09043.html
Is contradicted by NODC itself:
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/index.html
Notwithstanding that the NODC graph showing OHC has its own problems it still shows that since the ARGO floats were introduced in 2003 OHC has declined. Not only that but so have sea surface temperatures [SST]:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2003/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2003
cohenite
28 Jan 12 at 12:34 pm
Problem is cohenite, for them the science has been settled ages ago. So no need to enquire further.
Biota
28 Jan 12 at 1:36 pm
Climate is a non linear chaotic system and cannot be predicted one way or the other.
It’s like someone observing a Cambrian tribolite during the Cambrian period and from a study of its morphology form the guess that this animal will one day evolve into a dinosaur. Based on what ?
Louis Hissink
28 Jan 12 at 3:14 pm
“as Mk50 explains, that Willis is now just another of the long line of scientists who accept their modelling over observations.”
Actually, Mk50 is blinded by his irrationality. The reason the adjustments were made were NOT because they disagreed with the models. It’s because they disagreed with other data sets – net flux of energy and sea levels in particular. In addition, Mk50 apparently missed the part where is wasn’t Willis originally adjusting XBT data, but someone else entirely. Regarding the heat content bumps, they weren’t just unreproducable by the models, but inexplicable by any physical cause. There was good reason to be suspicious of their accuracy. To characterise any of this as ‘cheating’ or ‘manipulation’ is the real lie. Again, this wasn’t Willis, but Mk50 uses the nebulous “they”, as required by his fantasy of a monolithic cabal of scientific hoaxers.
Jarrah
28 Jan 12 at 3:28 pm
Actually, Jarrah, no science hoax need be assumed to disprove CAGW, although the Climategate comedy exposes a conspiracy of dunces.
All you need to know is that the CAGW theory is publicly presented as “Climate Change” and skeptical critics of CAGW as those “in denial of climate change.”
That’s a tautology defended by a strawman. Not science.
And it’s all they got.
wes george
28 Jan 12 at 4:01 pm
Comment: Really? Which data sets are then the most trustworthy and why? What was the disagreement in data? There’s a slew of questions arising from the article you linked to related to their methodology and their assumptions – and more related to the methodology of the approach. As for energy flux, what is the linking mechanism to sea temperatures? it is nowhere delineated. What is the energy transfer mechanism? And sea levels do not agree with AGW either, go see the data from our own Hydrographer, they are most certainly not rising as the models predict.
Comment: So what? “The two main causes of sea level rise are melting of Earth’s frozen landscapes—ice sheets, ice caps, and glaciers—and thermal expansion. Water expands when it absorbs heat. If you add the amount of thermal expansion to the amount of melting, it should equal the observed sea level rise, but somehow, it never did.” That might be because they are ignoring the third cause of sea level fluctuations: tectonic fluctuations in sea depth. Not accounting for a major variable is appropriate is it, Jarrah?
Comment: Really? Where’s the evidence that they even looked at solar output changes?
Comment: Was there? This is nowhere demonstrated in this article. What the article says is that they saw measurements which disagreed with AGW canon law (their computer models) and so they adjusted the empirical data until it matched their models!
That is not a valid approach. If they adjusted the XBT data by removing the warmest outliers but left the coldest in place, then adjusted the Argo data by removing the coldest outliers and leaving the warmest in place, so that ‘everyone was happier with the result’ when it matched their models, then they are situating the appreciation.
This is the unforgivable sin in an analyst. I have sacked people for doing this: as in ‘security clearance withdrawn, go find another career’. There’s a lot of snivelling afterwards, but tough luck – that gets our guys killed in my previous work.
Nope, these people are apparently situating the appreciationby their own descriptions of what they did: Josh Willis, Catia Domingues, John Church and Peter Gleckler, there may be others.
The only one mentioning ‘monolithic cabals’ is you.
But going along to get along when your funding depends on supporting a politicised and popularised meme? Oh, that’s very common.
What surprises me here Jarrah is your own vacant-eyed credulous gullibility. You swallow this without a second thought, and never even bother to ask ‘hang on, if he’s discarding ‘bad Argo data’ from one end of the bell curve, why isn’t he discarding ‘bad Argo data’ from the OTHER end of the bell curve’?
I’d not employ you as an analyst.
Mk50 of Brisbane
28 Jan 12 at 4:20 pm
Gosh, Mk50. I guess you’re not the type to bring a gun to a knife fight. Instead you pack a bazooka.
Jarrah won’t be able to walk for a week after that reaming. I can see daylight from here.
wes george
28 Jan 12 at 4:46 pm
Where did my comment go? I assume it’s not in moderation, since I don’t have that message. Sinclair, can you check? It’s long enough that I don’t want to try repeating it.
Jarrah
28 Jan 12 at 5:18 pm
Jazza
are you using an Ipad? I just lost a partial comment because the stupid thing ate it up.
JC
28 Jan 12 at 5:25 pm
Lost your comment or lost your marbles in that last bazooka blast?
wes george
28 Jan 12 at 5:30 pm
No, a PC. After I clicked Submit, the page refreshed and the comment simply disappeared.
Jarrah
28 Jan 12 at 5:30 pm
Wes, Mk50 only shoots himself in the foot.
Jarrah
28 Jan 12 at 5:31 pm
That’s it?
Dude, follow the money on this one.
Mk50 of Brisbane
28 Jan 12 at 5:36 pm
got evidence?
Why don’t you explain to us why the Earth is cooling when it should be hotting up nicely?
wes george
28 Jan 12 at 5:39 pm
Hey Rafe, are the warmies agitated enough for you?
Mk50 of Brisbane
28 Jan 12 at 5:41 pm
Hey, Wes, good point!
Jarrah, where’s the troposphere hotspot all the warmie models predict?
How come the ‘melting’ Greenland icecap is getting bigger?
And just why has that pesky Arctic ocean refused to clear itself of ice by 2010 like you bedwetters of the ecopocalypse were yowling about back in the 90s?
And Poley bears. What about the Poley bears! Why are those buggers not extinct yet?
Mk50 of Brisbane
28 Jan 12 at 5:45 pm
Sigh. I’ll try again. This one will be shorter.
“Really? Which data sets are then the most trustworthy and why?”
And you accused me of not reading the article, LOL. When two data sets disagree, then both are questionable until further investigation. Willis was initially reluctant, but eventually conceded it was his set that had the shakier numbers. This was all in the article.
“So what?”
It destroys your false characterisation of Willis as some sort of corrupt scientist concocting evidence to support his personal theory.
“Not accounting for a major variable is appropriate is it, Jarrah?”
Who says it’s a major variable, apart from you?
“If they adjusted the XBT data by removing the warmest outliers but left the coldest in place”
See? You don’t even know that they didn’t seek outliers to remove, but corrected an error, which in turn resulted in a cooling effect.
“then adjusted the Argo data by removing the coldest outliers and leaving the warmest in place”
The cool ones were the ones disagreeing with other data sources (this was also in the article you clearly only skimmed for purported gotchas).
“when your funding depends on supporting a politicised and popularised meme”
Another classic denialist meme, that can’t stand up to the slightest scrutiny. Willis was funded to research, and when he found cooling in the Argo data, did he lose that funding? Was he fired, pilloried, shunned? No.
I wonder how many you got killed in your previous line of work by failing to engage your brain?
Jarrah
28 Jan 12 at 6:02 pm
“Jarrah, where’s the troposphere hotspot all the warmie models predict?”
How come the ‘melting’ Greenland icecap is getting bigger?
And just why has that pesky Arctic ocean refused to clear itself of ice by 2010 like you bedwetters of the ecopocalypse were yowling about back in the 90s?
And Poley bears. What about the Poley bears! Why are those buggers not extinct yet?”
Ah, this laughter does my soul good. Thanks, Mk50.
A quick lesson on the hotspot. The Greenland ice sheet isn’t getting bigger. No scientist thinks the Artic will be ice-free until at least 2030, possibly as late as 2100. No-one said polar bears would be extinct by 2012.
Jarrah
28 Jan 12 at 6:13 pm
And a few more for you, big fella.
OUR CITIES WILL DIE OF THIRSTINESS!
TIM Flannery said: “The water problem is so severe for Adelaide that it may run out of water by early 2009”and Flannery warned Brisbane’s “water supplies are so low they need desalinated water urgently, possibly in as little as 18 months”.
SO why, oh why, Jarrah, is it pissing down here now and flooding the joint?
In 2004, Flannery said global warming would cause such droughts that “there is a fair chance Perth will be the 21st century’s first ghost metropolis”. Well, what a good idea! Perth deserves just that. I’ve been waiting so long that the petit fours for the celebratory Perth abandonment party have gone all mouldy, Jarrah!
OUR REEF WILL DIE OF TROPICAL WARMINESS
Perfessah Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, of Queensland University, is Australia’s most quoted reef ‘expert’ (a real drip under pressure) and in 2006, he warned high temperatures meant “between 30 and 40 per cent of coral on Queensland’s great Barrier Reef could die within a month”.
Well, I was sorting out a coral dredge right then and there – lots of lovely moolah in calcium carbonate, but has the bloody thing died?
Turns out tropical corals LIKE warm water. Little sods have been growing like topsy. Who’d a thunk it, Jarrah?
BEWARE THE HUGE WINDS OF THE GOREACLE! (Well, those who stood behind him knew…)
The Goreacle promised more big cyclones, dammit Jarrah. perfect for insurance scams. But Australia is actually getting fewer cyclones, and researchers at Florida State University concluded that since 2007 the hurricane seasons had the least tropical activity in the Northern Hemisphere in 30 years.
They promised NO MORE SKIING, Jarrah. How I celebrated the impact this would have on inner-city hipster arseholes. But now it’s snowing at Mt Hotham in the middle of summer, Jarrah, and the inner city hipster arseholes are chortling every winter with record snowfalls. Bastards.
Then, buddyboy, they said ISLANDS WILL DROWN as the seas will rise up to 100m by 2100, sed Robyn Williams. Six metres, sed ye Goreacle. The ALP was whining about Tuvalu going under the surf.
Beauty, sez I, more excellent fishing spots and I can have Tuvaluan servants!
But nooooo, every single island is still there, Jarrah! And Casa Mk50 still lacks Tuvaluan servants. The privation is hideous, I tell you.
ROASTY POMS! Then there’s the Brits getting melty and sweaty with roasting heatyness, courtesy of glowball warmenaterisingification. Great, sez I, now even the Zim cricket team will be able to flog enervated pommies at Lords but nooo, instead they have years of record cold, which perks the little buggers up no end.
C’mon, Jarrah.
You’re a warmy, why, oh why, Jarrah, have none of these lovely things predicted by your co-religionists come to pass?
Insufficient blood sacrifice to the Gods of warming and the Goreacle? It’s already tens of millions of bats and birds on the altar courtesy of the giant whirling windmills of ultimate doom.
IS it lack of denarii? But we’ve put tens of billions into the hands of you warmies…
Oh, wait.
Mk50 of Brisbane
28 Jan 12 at 6:16 pm
Imaginary people can’t be killed as such.
badm0f0
28 Jan 12 at 6:17 pm
I am glad you are chuckling, jarrah.
That can lead to questions, like ‘why are people still pouring money to the same people who made these transparently false predictions.’
But only if you think analytically and question.
Mk50 of Brisbane
28 Jan 12 at 6:18 pm
Does believing David Archibald make Rafe a coolie?
AndrewL
28 Jan 12 at 6:29 pm
Gosh, Mk50, you’re not the type of bloke who kicks a man when he’s down, no, you glass the mofo!
Heck, all I want to know why has the Earth been cooling for the last decade when we was promised it’d be hotter than hell by now?
I want to know who to sue for my banana plantation investment outside of Tenterfield going belly up.
wes george
28 Jan 12 at 6:34 pm
Willis is no such thing Jarrah; but like I say the Willis controversy was done and dusted about 3 years ago and yet here you are dredging up junk to prove AGW.
Willis’s initial paper just after the ARGO system came in is here
Willis had a rethink which is discussed here.
Willis’s follow-up, corrected paper is here.
Note the conclusion:
That’s the best you’ve got from Willis until his 2010 effort which IMO really settles the issue as to whether he is a company man.
Since then 2 things have happened; there is now overwhelming observational evidence that the upper ocean is cooling and the Earth is losing heat; and the ARGO’s, the best we have are shot be bits in terms of accuracy. See here.
cohenite
28 Jan 12 at 6:49 pm
Interesting that the Chinese have just announced a carbon tax and are trialling emissions trading schemes in seven provinces. Interesting that the nations of the world (developed and developing) have agreed to come up with a binding agreement to tackle climate change. Interestesting that every major science academy in the world accepts the science of global warming. Interesting that India has set emissions limits on major emitters and has a nationwide carbon tax on coal. Interesting that South Korea and California are setting up cap and trade schemes. Interesting that every body representing earth sciences accepts the science of global warming. Interesting that that all field measurements show a warming trend. Interesting that China and India are both moving to reduce carbon intensity.Interesting that investment in renewables world wide recently outstripped investment in fossil fuels for the first time ever.
Interesting too that the proponents of denial still actively engaged in science could hold their meetings in a phone box; have published next to no peer reviewed studies and are widely regarded with derision by their peers.
Clearly it’s all a hoax and a world wide ‘commnist’ conspiracy. Clearly. What else could it be? The whole world has to be wrong and the tiny band of denialists have to be right. That’s how things work after all. Everyone knows that.
1080
28 Jan 12 at 6:50 pm
Wes
Jarrah’s not actually too bad. Doubtless he’ll be embarrassed by all of this old ardent warmiesermonising in future years after the corpse of the cult finishes rotting away.
The whole thing is now something to ridicule.
it’s passe everywhere except here and among the vast surge of nations following Australia’s lead and racing to bring in a tax on CO2. Oh, wait….
Just take a look at the warmie claims! I mean, it’s hysterically funny.
Mk50 of Brisbane
28 Jan 12 at 6:51 pm
1080 on the other hand is a foul little troll of truly epic stupidity.
But he’s funny.
He actually believes that the Chinese have brought in something like Australia’s $23/t CO2 tax on all private enterprise.
The poor little schmuck does not even understand that it’s a $1.55 tax on selected state-owned enterprises as part of a suite of measures to force them to improve energy efficiency per unit of output.
Something we did without such measures from 1950 to 1970!
Mk50 of Brisbane
28 Jan 12 at 6:56 pm
Who is this fucking 1080 moron? We’re having an interesting conversation pointing out to Jarrah where he is wrong and along comes this crap.
BTW, I compiled a chronology of the Willis papers, beginning with his COOLING paper in 2006 and his subsequent back-tracking papaers in 2008 and 2010 but it is stuck in moderation, I presume because there are 4 links?
cohenite
28 Jan 12 at 7:27 pm
Thanks for the thought Mk50, I have been out all day but the warmies seemes to have warmed up quite nicely.
Here is some more stuff for them to chew on.
Rafe
28 Jan 12 at 7:44 pm
Nice aticle.
hey Jarrah, all sh*ts and giggles, assorted fun, mockery, ridicule and frivolity aside, here’s a serious question.
We have had no global warming for 13 years now while CO2 concentrations have been rising steadily over that time.
In your personal opinion how many years without global warming do you, as a warmist, regard as sufficient to falsify the warming hypothesis?
Obviously, 13 years is not enough – what is?
At what point in time would you personally say ‘yep, it’s bunkum and I was had’.
Mk50 of Brisbane
28 Jan 12 at 7:55 pm
1080,you note that:
what does the Durbin platfom bind anyone to do?
I promise, in the middle of the great recession, that my political successors, many of whom will be from opposing political parties, will make a binding treaty with your successors to do what I am not willing to risk taking to the next election.
What Obama did do to ratify international climate treaties when his party controlled congress? Did the bill even get out of committee?
Jim Rose
28 Jan 12 at 7:55 pm
1080,
In May 1998, the Illinois Legislature passed a bill condemning the Kyoto global warming treaty and forbidding state efforts to regulate greenhouse gases.
Barack Obama voted “aye.” Obama was against it before he was for it. he also forgot to vote present.
Hie campaign later said that the Kyoto treaty did not have “meaningful and achievable emissions targets,” and Obama “did not believe that state agencies in Illinois should unilaterally take steps to implement a global policy on their own …”
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-07-17-obama-coal_N.htm
Jim Rose
28 Jan 12 at 8:00 pm
Even if global cooling occurred, we would still need a Department of Climate Change. Instead of implementing a carbon tax, though, there would need to be a carbon emissions subsidy as we need to increase global emissions. Coal power stations would be back in vogue. Carbon debit permits would be needed rather than carbon credit permits.
Samuel J
28 Jan 12 at 10:52 pm
No response from Jarrah after nearly 3 hours. Maybe having dinner, which is fine.
But eventually please do respond to tell us what evidence would falsify the AGW hypothesis. This offer is also made to sfb, monty, 1080 and anyone who believes in this stuff.
So far none of the stellar scientists who create the IPCC narrative – Mann, Jones, Trenberth, Solomon, Santer etc -have ever stated what would refute the hypothesis. Neither have any of the so-called authorities beloved of the believers such as academies of science, funding authorities, CSIRO etc.
But, Jarrah, if you and anyone else is unable or unwilling to state what would falsify the hypothesis of AGW, then you have an unfalsifiable hypothesis. This, as I am sure you would agree, makes it junk science, in this case provided oxygen by ideology.
I look forward to your answers to the questions posed by MK50 and myself.
Lazlo
28 Jan 12 at 10:54 pm
An unfalsifiable hypothesis is junk science, but is fine in a religion.
I actually have no problem with AGW supporters rating their belief system as a religion. If they choose to believe in AGW that way, well in the end it’s no different from any of ten thousand millenarian cults over two thousand years. They come, flower for an instant and go. Although foolish, it’s a very human thing to believe, for a time, in charlatans.
I very much hope, Jarrah, that you will answer. it would take moral courage: I would never expect a considered answer from THR.
Mk50 of Brisbane
28 Jan 12 at 11:03 pm
samuel j,
yes, I do wonder what would be the policy responses of the green movement to the prospect of a global cooling.
Jim Rose
28 Jan 12 at 11:24 pm
No need to wonder. We went through all this in the 1970s when global cooling was the big scare. As now, the policy response of the alarmists at the time, like Schneider, Ehrlich and Holdren, was the same: de-industrialisation.
NB John Holdren is now Obama’s chief scientific advisor.
Lazlo
28 Jan 12 at 11:28 pm
What Lazlo says is true, The Greens are essentially millenarian fantasists and catastrophists. Every single ‘catastrophe’ they have ever addressed has led to them calling for exactly the same policy.
For global cooling
- the fault of the capitalist industrialised west
- solution; de-industrialisation, lower living standards, living ‘in harmony with nature’ and reparations to the ‘exploited poor countries’
For global warming
- the fault of the capitalist industrialised west
- solution; de-industrialisation, lower living standards, living ‘in harmony with nature’ and reparations to the ‘exploited poor countries’
For climate change
- the fault of the capitalist industrialised west
- solution; de-industrialisation, lower living standards, living ‘in harmony with nature’ and reparations to the ‘exploited poor countries’
For acid rain
- the fault of the capitalist industrialised west
- solution; de-industrialisation, lower living standards, living ‘in harmony with nature’ and reparations to the ‘exploited poor countries’
For ozone depletion
- the fault of the capitalist industrialised west
- solution; de-industrialisation, lower living standards, living ‘in harmony with nature’ and reparations to the ‘exploited poor countries’
and so-on and so-forth.
They are narcissist luddites, it’s a cultic response.
Mk50 of Brisbane
28 Jan 12 at 11:38 pm
Yes, they are all stupid cults. But you have to be careful how you say or type that
Lazlo
28 Jan 12 at 11:57 pm
Ah, no. No, they haven’t. In fact there are now more developed nations saying outright that they’re not interested than previously.
I personally find it interesting that the most often mooted and fervently supported schemes can’t actually work, depending instead on some future government being willing to significantly and permanently lower the taxpayer’s standard of living.
I find it interesting that anything that doesn’t press 40-year old green happy-buttons isn’t being seriosuly investigated.
I find it interesting that current AGW abatement schemes are slaves to Director’s Law.
In short, I find it interesting that there is such fervent support for total bullshit. Assuming that AGW is proven beyond any doubt, why is no-one even proposing to take it seriously?
wreckage
29 Jan 12 at 12:40 am
Many things could – there’s a lot of assumptions. For instance, if the measured absorbtion spectra of atmospehric gases was wrong, that would falsify AGW. If the melting point of water at ordinary pressure were reliably measured at 50 degrees C, that would falsify AGW. So too if we noted that gravity ceased to work, or the sun did not emit energy. There’s innumerable facts that AGW depends on.
PSC
29 Jan 12 at 1:53 am
In fact, the solution was an emissions trading scheme. Alarmists predicted it would end the power industry and have us living in mud huts.
In the end, SOx and NOx were very substantially reduced, but no need for mud huts.
Ditto ozone. The squeals from the aerosol industry were monstrous. But in the end, they adapted, and my kids are much less likely to get skin cancer.
Now some predict that reducing CO2 emissions will have us living in mud huts.
PSC
29 Jan 12 at 2:00 am
PSC
There were readily viable substitutes to CFCs and the size of the market and knock on impact was insignificantly small.
There is no comparison between CFC’s and AGW. Hence why the last AGW confab in Sth Africa was a bust.
JC
29 Jan 12 at 2:04 am
The aerosol industry lobbied otherwise – that there were no substitutes. They also claimed that there were substantial uncertianties around ozone depletion. In 1975 the annual contribution to the US economy from CFCs was supposedly in the order of $8bn – around $30bn in today’s money – and 200,000 US jobs were at risk.
What a surprise it must have been when the world did not end.
Sometimes I suspect the energy industry might be talking their book a little today.
PSC
29 Jan 12 at 2:28 am
“I am glad you are chuckling, jarrah.”
I have to say, you take being wrong four times in a row pretty well. But doesn’t it make you want to think analytically about why you were so wrong four times in a row? Are you questioning your sources yet? Are you re-considering how much analysis you’re really putting into this? You accused me of gullibility earlier, and yet it’s YOU who is swallowing denialist nonsense whole.
“We have had no global warming for 13 years now”
See what I mean? In fact the raw warming trend has slowed considerably, but not stopped. 2010 was the hottest year so far recorded. And you might have heard about other factors influencing global climate – denialists are always putting them forward as contributors to an upward trend, after all. Foster and Rahmstorf used linear regressions to peel away the main short-term factors, and found the trend was 0.163°C per decade from 1979 through 2010, 0.155°C per decade from 1998 through 2010, and 0.187°C per decade for 2000 through 2010. Doesn’t sound like “no global warming” to me. Others have concluded that if it weren’t for an underlying warming trend, we should be in fact be cooling thanks to ENSO, etc.
“In your personal opinion how many years without global warming do you, as a warmist, regard as sufficient to falsify the warming hypothesis?”
A statistically significant period of time. I have repeatedly pointed out in the many AGW threads here on Catallaxy, some of which you have participated in but have clearly forgotten, that traditionally climate trends are considered able to be discerned from chaotic weather patterns only after 20+ years. The barest minimum would be at least 15 years, but that doesn’t give a high confidence level.
Now that I’ve answered, let’s turn it around. What evidence would you accept as supporting the AGW hypothesis, on the balance of probabilities?
Jarrah
29 Jan 12 at 9:57 am
Jarrah, what do you think we should do, given that mild warming and enhanced CO2 would produce as many if not more benefits than harms?
My strategy is to move to Tasmania for a few days:)
Rafe
29 Jan 12 at 10:06 am
Rafe, if your ‘mild’ means less than a couple of degrees, you just may be right. But almost no-one thinks the benefits outweigh the costs if it gets warmer than that. Remember, a true sceptic will go with the preponderance of evidence, not latch onto one book recycling debunked denialist memes.
Jarrah
29 Jan 12 at 10:23 am
Mk50 of Brisbane,
nice post on the uniform response of greens to every crisis: de-industrialisation.
Jim Rose
29 Jan 12 at 10:30 am
Good question. First, lets clear something up. The CO2-centric AGW hypothesis is falsified. I do not dismiss the possibility of another driver which might be valid.
Second, we are in a rather mild interglacial warming period where observed temperatures are explained by solar radiance theory, with no need of an AGW hypothesis to explain observed phenomena.
Now here there’s an interesting issue. I used to think that the CO2 AGW hypothesis had very considerable merit, while being aware that correlation is not causation.
What really falsified the AGW hypothesis for me was involvement assisting a friend’s dissertation research which involved study into the absorption spectra for CO2. It turns out that CO2 simply cannot play the ‘bad boy’ role assigned to it by AGW supporters, it’s actually a physical impossibility.
Prior to that I was made increasingly doubtful of AGW by the wildly enthusiastic involvement of so many of the usual politically extreme suspects – all rent-seekers and/or ideologues, and all far left wing/extreme green. The sound of the barrows they pushed was deafening, and they all wanted taxpayer money. That’s why I volunteered to assist her research and spent weekends recording data measurements – I wanted to know.
SO I’d say that for me elevation of the broader AGW hypothesis to theory level would have to involve discovery of a previously unknown process whereby some human activity was directly impacting a previously unknown major climate driver. That’s essentially a new AGW hypothesis for CO2 centrists, I know.
De-falsifying the CO2-based AGW hypothesis is actually not possible, as atmospheric CO2 in our atmosphere’s pressure range physically cannot act as that hypothesis says it must were that hypothesis to be valid. Venus yes at specific pressures, this planet, no. We just do not have enough atmosphere left after reduction.
But that’s how you falsify an hypothesis: a hundred point supporting it are swept away by one point which the hypothesis cannot explain. So you dump it, do more research and adjust it, or come up with a new hypothesis. What gets my goat about the bulk of warmies (who are scientifically illiterate) is emotive or ideological clinging to a falsified CO2 centric hypothesis. They refuse to follow scientific method.
A second question, if I may, relating to the CO2 AGW hypothesis.
Does not the decoupling of atmospheric CO2 concentration increases from the predicted temperature increases of the various warmist computer models cause doubt in your mind as to the validity of the modelling?
Mk50 of Brisbane
29 Jan 12 at 10:31 am
Can you flesh that out because I find the following video pretty compelling in terms of demonstrating the capacity of CO2 to be transparent in the visible spectrum and opaque in the infrared spectrum.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ot5n9m4whaw
TerjeP
29 Jan 12 at 10:42 am
Isotropy. Beers Law. Photoluminescence. There is a Greenhouse even though the name ‘greenhouse’ is completely misleading.
Anyway Jarrah, what about Josh Willis and his papers which I have summarised above? Or are you one of these guys who raise what you think is a point and when you are shown to be wrong don’t acknowledge it?
cohenite
29 Jan 12 at 10:55 am
Terge: Check the graph here for spectra
CO2 energy absorption is complex and it does different things at different concentrations and pressures (there’s sidelobing, for example) and absorption of one gas (especially the major one, H2O) affects the others.
There’s a mountain of specialist literature etc, decent basic explanations are less common. A decent one is here.
The gust of it is that CO2 energy absorption by volume is non-linear. it’s absorbing roughly 90% of what it can absorb at less than 100ppmv. Greenies etc assume (or propagandise) that the relationship is linear, that’s where they get their boiling oceans and tipping points nonsense from. it isn’t linear, its logarithmic. Adding another 200ppmv will make plants grow faster and better, yet have negligible impact on energy retention in the biosphere.
Mk50 of Brisbane
29 Jan 12 at 11:35 am
PIMF: ‘the guts of it’
Mk50 of Brisbane
29 Jan 12 at 11:38 am
Holy cow, Batman! One complete non-entity in Brisbane and his mate have “falsified” a scientific theory accepted by the world’s scientific establishment. All on their own! Like, wow! Alert the chief scientist. Someone call the Hadley Centre. Send an urgent telegram to the Royal Society. Not sicne the atom was split has the world received such momentous scientific news. And you read it here first. On the Cat, no less.
Here I must acknowledge a grevous error. I have previously described Iq50 as posturing as the “smartest man in the room”. Clearly I was wrong by an order of some magnitidue. Iq50 poses here as the smartest man on the planet. Although I do hate to have to be the one to point out that the role of carbon dioxide (and other gases) as a “greenhouse” agent is basic Physics 101 (American Institute of Physics paper), something that was known, understood and accepted long before anyone began talking about human induced climate change.
A good question, also a basic question that any serious minded person considered long ago when reflecting on this subject. Still, I looked back over what Iq50 and the other deniers here have had to say and considered it again. For a good 30 seconds at least. As things stand, we have every government in the world beginning the process of drawing up a binding agreement to take action. We have every science academy and science body in the world agreeing on the science of climate change. We have the world’s smart money pouring into renewables and other climate change action. Against that we have a small handful of hardcore has-beens, never weres and unpublished nobodies (in this field) contesting the mainstream view. Gee, it’s a hard one to weight up. All governements, all relevant scientists and the majority of investors in this field versus three-fifths of five-eigths of bugger all.
But in any case, here’s my response: when just one, one will do, when just one science academy or respected science body questions the science of human induced climate change, I will review the question. Until then, galloping mediocrities like Ig50 can wear out their keyboards banging away in their spare bedroom in Brisbane and it’s not going to amount to a hill of beans.
Meanwhile Rafe reckons he has serious material to be considered. A letter from 16 (count ‘em, 16), all of them among the usual suspects, published in Murdoch’s right-wing, denialist WSJ. And this, according to Rafe, represents, ummm, something or other. What it does it makes the case against denialism, that is that is has no serious support. Sixteen scientists! Wow. Though I am surprised they could muster that many.
OK, against that, let me offer the following, just for starters. The statement from the G8+5 science academies (including UKk, US, China, Brazil, Canada); and, the list compiled by the Union of Concerned Scientists of bodies, academies and researchers who have signed onto statements about the need to act on AGW, including the American Meteorological Society, American Physical Society, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Geological Society of America, American Chemical Society, National Science Academies and so on and on and on and on.
All of that against Iq50, Rafe and a telephone box almost full with nobodies. Where is the weight? Pretty clear. To borrow a phrase from Rafe – not even close and definitely no cigar.
1080
29 Jan 12 at 12:00 pm
Holy cow, Batman! One complete non-entity in Brisbane and his mate have “falsified” a scientific theory accepted by the world’s scientific establishment. All on their own! Like, wow! Alert the chief scientist. Someone call the Hadley Centre. Send an urgent telegram to the Royal Society. Not sicne the atom was split has the world received such momentous scientific news. And you read it here first. On the Cat, no less.
Here I must acknowledge a grevous error. I have previously described Iq50 as posturing as the “smartest man in the room”. Clearly I was wrong by an order of some magnitidue. Iq50 poses here as the smartest man on the planet. Although I do hate to have to be the one to point out that the role of carbon dioxide (and other gases) as a “greenhouse” agent is basic Physics 101 (see American Institute of Physics paper), something that was known, understood and accepted long before anyone began talking about human induced climate change.
A good question, also a basic question that any serious minded person considered long ago when reflecting on this subject. Still, I looked back over what Iq50 and the other deniers here have had to say and considered it again. For a good 30 seconds at least. As things stand, we have every government in the world beginning the process of drawing up a binding agreement to take action. We have every science academy and science body in the world agreeing on the science of climate change. We have the world’s smart money pouring into renewables and other climate change action. Against that we have a small handful of hardcore has-beens, never weres and unpublished nobodies (in this field) contesting the mainstream view. Gee, it’s a hard one to weight up. All governements, all relevant scientists and the majority of investors in this field versus three-fifths of five-eigths of bugger all.
But in any case, here’s my response: when just one, one will do, when just one science academy or respected science body questions the science of human induced climate change, I will review the question. Until then, galloping mediocrities like Ig50 can wear out their keyboards banging away in their spare bedroom in Brisbane and it’s not going to amount to a hill of beans.
Meanwhile Rafe reckons he has serious material to be considered. A letter from 16 (count ‘em, 16), all of them among the usual suspects, published in Murdoch’s right-wing, denialist WSJ. And this, according to Rafe, represents, ummm, something or other. What it does it makes the case against denialism, that is that is has no serious support. Sixteen scientists! Wow. Though I am surprised they could muster that many.
OK, against that, let me offer the following, just for starters. The statement from the G8+5 science academies (including UKk, US, China, Brazil, Canada); and, the list compiled by the Union of Concerned Scientists of bodies, academies and researchers who have signed onto statements about the need to act on AGW, including the American Meteorological Society, American Physical Society, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Geological Society of America, American Chemical Society, National Science Academies and so on and on and on and on.
All of that against Iq50, Rafe and a telephone box almost full with nobodies. Where is the weight? Pretty clear. To borrow a phrase from Rafe – not even close and definitely no cigar.
1080
29 Jan 12 at 12:08 pm
Could it be possible Mk50, that people have thought of that already?
There’s a simple teaching tool here:
http://forecast.uchicago.edu/Projects/modtran.html
which allows you to adjust the humidity as well as the CO2. That tool is pedagogical, you need a nuch better model to represent the lapse rate etc. But it should give an idea of what happens as you change water vapor concentrations.
PSC
29 Jan 12 at 12:40 pm
1080 brings, once again, the consensus monster to the table and parades it’s dripping, cavernous maw as though it is a sparkling new toy.
All the science academies support AGW because their heads are usually government appointees. In Australia for instance CSIRO is headed by Megan Clark, former head of Rothschild Bank’s Australian division, which stands to make large amounts of money from carbon trading; she has considerable private business interests in ‘sustainability’ projects. That is what is called a conflict of interest, if you present the CSIRO as a source of objective evidence for AGW.
The other part of the consensus fallacy is shown by the experience of Dr Clive Spash who in 2009 when the living ego, Rudd, was proposing an ETS, wrote a paper disparaging the ETS as an effective way of combating AGW. A few months late Clive was no longer at the CSIRO.
To enforce a ‘consensus’ amongst all the little indians the bosses only have to do a Spash once of twice.
There have been a couple of attempts to give scientific rigour to the idea that there is an overwhelming proportion of scientists who support AGW; these were in the form of 2 ‘papers’ confirming the consensus.
The first was by Peter Doran and Kendall Zimmerman, from the department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Illinois.
The Doran and Zimmerman [Doze] survey is of course a farrago, a dolt’s nose-pick and can be ridiculed on a number of counts including the sample size of 2 vagrants, 34 bureaucrats and various odds and sods. Another good account of Doze is here:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/consensus_opiate.pdf
However, the second effort headed by the late Steven Schneider has far greater pretension to academic quality and validity; Schneider’s effort is here;
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html
Schneider states that their selection criteria for distinguishing between climate research winners and deniers/losers was 2-fold:
At the risk of being unscientific I would point out at this juncture that Miskolczi’s 3 papers from 2004, 2007 and 2010, which are groundbreaking in disproving AGW and unrebutted to an almost Einsteinian extent. As with Spash his 3 papers cost him his job at NASA where he was one of their top atmospheric physicists; indeed one of the best in the world.
If one stops even for a brief moment and considers how group-think works one can readily see how the mutual reinforcement would enable pro-AGW ‘scientists’ to dominate such a survey given that they, as the e-mails eloquently demonstrated, effectively control the main climate publishing venues. When you throw in vast political support, vast financial rewards and Kafkaesque treatment of dissenters [again Miskolczi, as well as Spash, is a salutory example] then you can see that an effective scientific monotone, as found by Schneider, will result.
The unfortunate thing is that Schneider’s vomitous paper is being readily used by craven politicians like Combet to justify his government’s position on AGW.
It’s ugly spirit is also being used by trolls like 1080.
cohenite
29 Jan 12 at 12:45 pm
Which people have thought that H2O is the dominant climate gas?
cohenite
29 Jan 12 at 12:52 pm
Metro, 1080
Stop trolling. This is an interesting discussion without you trolling.
Go turn off the fridge and piss off.
Jc
29 Jan 12 at 12:56 pm
Good point.
C.L.
29 Jan 12 at 12:59 pm
And all cohenite brings to the table is the Great Grand Conspiracy Climate Denial Conspiracy Theory. That the world’s leading scientists – men and women of light, of liberty and learning, products of the post-Enlightenment era – are all lying, fraudulent and corrupt, every last one of them. The scale of this group libel dwarfs that of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and is every bit as vile and nonsensical. But sadly, when confronted with the reality that all the governments, the scientists and more recently the investors of the world are as one in accepting the science of AGW it is all they have to fall back on. Sad, pathetic and utterly shameful.
1080
29 Jan 12 at 1:01 pm
This is an interesting thread (all one has to do is ignore the two trolls as they caper and preen in their pitiful ignorance) and Cohenite has squished them anyway.
Beautiful work.
Mk50 of Brisbane
29 Jan 12 at 1:09 pm
Link to some of Miscolszi’s work (see downpage for links)
Mk50 of Brisbane
29 Jan 12 at 1:14 pm
Ummm, that rarest of scientific creatures seldom if ever seen in the wild, an “unrebutted” piece of work. Except of course that it is not. I could blow the Cat’s spam filter supplying rebuttals, but a couple will do. Try here and here. More denialist tripe, a little piddle into the gale of science blowing from all across the globe. And I note that this latest denialist hero is a “former” NASA scientist, now aged 75. Aren’t they all?
1080
29 Jan 12 at 1:28 pm
Cohenite, you’d be infinitely more impressive if you went out, bought a couple of mainstream textbooks on AGW, read them and did the exercises.
But since you ask these are the two books closest to my desk, and I found this in two-three minutes of browsing:
An intro book – Devid Archer, “Global Warming, Understanding the Forecast”: p 73: “if it weren’t for the water vapor feedback, maybe there would be no need to worry about rising CO2 concentrations!”
More advanced – Pierrehumbert’s “Physics of Plentary Climate” is essentially a long treatise on water vapor. An example is page 390 – “without water vapor, it takes an enourmous amount of CO2 to make the earth’s atmosphere optically thick”. But as I said, he just hammers on and on and on with water vapor calcuations thoughout the book and i’m sure there’s a better reference.
OR ask yourself – what’s the almost first concept in a meterology course? Moist/dry adiabatic lapse rate. What controls radiative emmission? Temperature. The idea that for whatever reason people working in climate/meterology just haven’t thought about the role of water vapor until skeptics come along and point out the error of their ways is nuts.
PSC
29 Jan 12 at 1:38 pm
So what if the industry lobbied? Isn’t that to be expected?
As I said there were ready subsitutes PSC. There were subs in an important but not vital industry
Ummm there were substitutes.
It’s not a valid comparison. It’s like saying dolphins and humans are the same species because we have lungs and breathe air.
There are no ready substitutes to such a vital industry like energy.
Nuclear is but the anti-science left blocks it.
Modern Industrial civilization can’t function without a cheap and abundant energy supply.
JC
29 Jan 12 at 1:52 pm
I don’t know how you depict gales of laughter at the sheer stupidity of someone’s comment but that is what I am doing in response to 1080′s links to rebuttals of Miskolczi.
1080 links to 3 alleged rebuttals, none peer reviewed; the first is by Rob van Dorland and Piers M. Forster; van Dorland hates Miskolczi but that is besides the point; on page 2 of their non-peer-reviewed paper they say:
“As a next step using his quasi radiative equilibrium model, Miskolczi calculates the relationship between outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) and the infrared flux originating from the Earths surface (Su). The relationship is a function of infrared optical depth (τA) only”
This is wrong; on page 17 of Miskolczi’s 2nd paper, figure 10:
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/E&E_21_4_2010_08-miskolczi.pdf
Miskolczi measures changes in “the true greenhouse-gas optical thickness”. This is made up of two parts which are depicted in Figure 10. The first is τA which is defined as “the total IR flux optical depth” [page 5 Miskolczi 2007]. This is a measure of the total amount of infra-red or LW radiation which is absorbed between the surface and the TOA. The second is A which is the flux absorbance [page 3 Miskolczi 2010] and is a measure of what wavelengths of LW are being absorbed and transmitted in the atmosphere.
The rest of the ‘paper’ merely restates the SH and OLR disputes.
1080′s 3rd link is to Barton Levinson; and after many years of debating Barton at various places I will not dignify what he has to say.
The 2nd link is to Science of Doom, who I do respect and I know his 5 parter on Miskolczi very well and participated at times in it. SOD mainly dealt with the 2007 and 2010 papers; the 2007 paper is flawed because it follows from the data collected in Miskolczi’s 2004 paper; that data dealt with the optical depth [OD] of the atmosphere; simply put the OD describes how many times radiation leaving the surface of the Earth is absorbed and reemitted by the gases of the atmosphere as before it leaves the Earth at the top of the atmosphere [TOA].
AGW assumes that extra CO2 will increase the OD; Miskolczi observed that the OD had not changed in 60 years; he used official data; Miskolczi was told to develop a theory to explain this observation which contradicted AGW. He over-extended himself and tried to tie the observations in with the Virial Theorem and Kirchoff’s Law; that was in the 2007 paper.
SoD shows quite well how Miskolczi misapplied these ideas.
However in the 2010 paper Miskolczi simply tied the increase of CO2 in with decreases in water vapor levels and the positioning of water vapor levels, which he also derived from observations.
SoD was not as convincing in attacking the 2010 paper.
And the facts remain; the OD has not changed; and since this is the measure of the Greenhouse effect it must mean that whatever has caused the slight warming over the 20thC has not been AGW.
Miskolczi is also fascinating not only because of his work with CO2 and H2O but also because he raises and applies the concept of Maximum Entropy production [MEP], which as an evolving scientific concept can be readily applied to his observations. Keidon’s new paper on MEP and NEGATIVE feedbacks, which directly supports Miskolczi’s findings, is discussed here.
cohenite
29 Jan 12 at 2:10 pm
Bravo, Cohenite. Reading the papers tonight…
(I could never have put that so well)
Mk50 of Brisbane
29 Jan 12 at 2:15 pm
PSC says:
Indeed it is nuts. Take the Lacis paper.
Lacis is mainstream AGW science; his paper says CO2 is the “Principal Control Knob Governing Earth’s Temperature” because CO2 does not condense out of the atmosphere like water. This is spectacularly stupid because the alleged forcing of CO2 doubling of 3.7W/m2, which will occur over decades if not centuries, is exceeded continually, hourly and daily by the evaporative and condensing processes of water which involve energies exceeding a 1000 W/m2.
In addition the AGW argument goes that water levels are determined by CO2 warming; again this is spectacularly wrong as Miskolczi has shown; and have many other papers including this one by Ferguson and Veiser .
Ferguson and Veiser note:
This is a water world, it is constrained by MEP and AGW is a failed theory because it has offered NO observational evidence.
One further point; some dolt said 2010 is the hottest year; this is so triflingly wrong but none-the-less, here.
cohenite
29 Jan 12 at 2:26 pm
So after 150 comments and the warmist true believers still won’t explain why it stopped warming in 1998 even though CO2 keeps rising.
Who is in denial again?
wes george
29 Jan 12 at 3:16 pm
Cohenite:
There may well be a flaw in AGW.
But it’s not going to be one that an heroic skeptic come up with after five minutes thought. Because all of the simple “AGW is wrong because of simple factor XYZ” have already been thought of and discarded by people smarter than either you or I.
If you’re going to find a flaw in AGW, it will probably be something that needs 2-3 days or even a few weeks to get your head around – particularly for simple folk like me. It will require a book-length exposition to cover a single point.
Sorry, but it just won’t be blog post to the effect of “those silly climate scientists forgot to model water vapor”.
PSC
29 Jan 12 at 3:24 pm
aaaaaaahahahahahahahahahaha
Well done, champagne comedy.
Carpe Jugulum
29 Jan 12 at 3:26 pm
Because it didn’t. January 2000 to December 2009 was the warmest decade on record. Throughout the last three decades, the GISS surface temperature record shows an upward trend of about 0.2°C (0.36°F) per decade. Since 1880, the year that modern scientific instrumentation became available to monitor temperatures precisely, a clear warming trend is present, though there was a leveling off between the 1940s and 1970s.
In fact, “The recent record warm temperatures in the last 15 years are indeed the warmest temperatures the Earth has seen in at least the last 1000 years, and possibly in the last 2000 years. “ And nothing some clapped out former NASA scientist now in his dottage says is ever going to change that. Nor what any other of the tiny cabal of denialists has thus far thrown up against the thoroughly tested and accepted science of AGW.
BTW, wonder when Iq50s mate is going to have this paper peer-reviewed and published, the one that turns hundreds of years of physics on its head by proving “that CO2 simply cannot play the ‘bad boy’ role assigned to it by AGW supporters, it’s actually a physical impossibility”. Iq50 should give it to Rafe, he’d publish here. Imagine the glory for the Cat, turning the whole science establishment on its head. Could be a Nobel Prize in it for all concerned. An igNobel for sure.
1080
29 Jan 12 at 4:13 pm
Mk50 – thanks for the link. It was interesting.
TerjeP
29 Jan 12 at 4:18 pm
Peer reviewed papers don’t upset the ruling paradigm by overturning some laws of physics but heretical papers can, by pointing out the fallacies underlying AGW theory and offering a better, scientifically sounder, explanation.
The 34th International Geological Congress is being held in Brisbane this year, and some heresies will be put to counter the AGW hypothesis. No physics will be overturned, rather it will be pointed out that the physics underpinning climate science is somewhat incomplete.
Louis Hissink
29 Jan 12 at 4:24 pm
PSC, the only person here saying this or claiming it is you. (Although the verbose but brain-dead troll 1080 is also using both synapses to try and grasp at it too. At least as far as we can tell from its demi-literate grunts and squeals. For a homo erectus equivalent using a keyboard, it’s not doing badly.)
I have been satisfied for myself that the CO2-centric AGW hypothesis is bunkum for 15 years, but that’s just my personal view.
What really convinced me over time was not so much the additional science but studying how the intellectual debate was stifled and channelled, how information and publication gatekeepers set themselves up, and how a small coterie of people making a lot of money or obtaining access to power out of CO2AGWism operated. It was a classic ‘capture’ of institutions and politics, and so squarely in my field of professional activity over that time period.
People just don’t act that way in normal scientific discourse.
Mk50 of Brisbane
29 Jan 12 at 5:16 pm
Like all trolls 1080 returns to its vomit, in this case the GISS and NASA repositories of AGW evidence. 1080 links to a NASA article about temperatures over the last 2000 years which concludes the current temperature is the hottest. The justification for this is the Hockeystick [HS] first proposed by Michael Mann in 1998. The HS is a temperature record based on tree-rings.
The definitive critique of both Mann’s HS and tree-ring data is by McShane and Wyner, 2 eminent statisticians; their paper is here; it is peer reviewed and published in a prestigious journal which devoted an edition to the paper.
Here is what McShane and Wyner conclude about the use of tree-rings as proxies for temperature data:
The point here is that M&W reject tree-rings as accurate measures of past temperature. Within that proviso they then use the same tree-ring data Mann used and apply a range of different statistical tests to develop their own temperature reconstruction; about this reconstruction they say:
M&W’s conclusion is:
That is, there is a good chance we have had the hottest decade but good chances we have NOT had the hottest year or hottest 30 year period.
And that is the BEST result you can get from using the tree-rings.
cohenite
29 Jan 12 at 5:39 pm
ss.
Pesticide stop fellating youself, it’s embarrasing.
Basically most people aren’t buying what the warmenist doomsday cult is selling, the scam is ending, deal with it princess.
Carpe Jugulum
29 Jan 12 at 5:42 pm
Heh. 1080 luuurves the hockeystick.
How amusing.
Perhaps the most widely debunked and discredited piece of propaganda since the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
I mean, even the den of thieves, liars, charlatans and spivs the IPCC is too embarrassed by it to use it any more.
Mk50 of Brisbane
29 Jan 12 at 5:55 pm
Not even Roy Spencer thinks Miskolczi 2010 is correct.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/comments-on-miskolczi%E2%80%99s-2010-controversial-greenhouse-theory/
You skeptics are all over the shop; you’ll grab any argument as long as it ends with “AGW is nothing to worry about.”
Steve from Brisbane
29 Jan 12 at 5:59 pm
Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit.
It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming–Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html#ixzz1kpS5tlJV
Jim Rose
29 Jan 12 at 6:11 pm
Steve, you are a boofhead; Spencer has trouble with Miskolczi’s Aa=Ed, that is surface up radiation matching atmosphere down radiation; in my earlier post I noted that Science of Doom had critiqued certain aspects of Miskolczi’s theory and essentially that is what Spencer does to; poor old Miskolczi; he had the data and was told to make up an ansatz to match the data which is the reverse of the usual scientific process; and he gets flogged for that.
However, what is not being attacked is Miskolczi’s data about which Spencer says:
This is the point; Miskolczi used official data; if the instrumentation is a problem for his OD, the measure of the Greenhouse effect, then it will be a problem for AGW.
Geez you’re thick.
cohenite
29 Jan 12 at 6:24 pm
I love this bit, Jim:
I’d love to see the ice fairs re-appear, be a lot of fun. of course there’s a bad cost, a heck of lot more people will be dying of cold…
I see 1080′s been trying the ‘million monkeys and a million typewriter’ trick again.
Mk50 of Brisbane
29 Jan 12 at 6:40 pm
No it doesn’t but don’t let that stop you.
badm0f0
29 Jan 12 at 7:00 pm
Mk50 – if the AGW flaw requires more than 5 minutes thought, how can it be summarised in a blog post comment written for a general audience?
Implicit in this whole blog-post-comment style of argument is that the AGW flaw, whatever it is, can be understood and explained in a blog post comment.
PSC
29 Jan 12 at 7:12 pm
I propose that all observations on phenomena related to the weather and climate be henceforth deceased. They cause deep personal problems for people who cannot accept them. There are imperfections in our methods and our data, sometimes imagined and sometimes not. Far better to know nothing, so that we can go back to our assumptions of comfort and normality, rather than accept either we may be able to do something about our situation, or that we should do so by changing our collective behavior. Politics and public relations should in principle triumph over science and the difficult search for truth.
wmmbb
29 Jan 12 at 7:35 pm
I don’t agree. One’s own position can be stated, and perceptions of flaws in the reasoning of other pointed out. Then evidence contrary to an interlocutor’s view can be noted. it’s up to anyone possessed of rationality and honesty to look at that evidence dispassionatly.
A blog discussion can start a process of investigation and thought, it is not able to be that process.
Mk50 of Brisbane
29 Jan 12 at 7:44 pm
They cause deep personal problems for people who cannot accept them.
Ain’t that the truth!!! Just remember those rabid groups who came out of the woodwork at the Copenhagen debacle.
annomer
29 Jan 12 at 7:45 pm
Geez, pro-AGW people are dickheads; here are their qualities:
badmofo says this in respect of the claim that temperature trends stopped going up in 1997:
Can he/she elaborate?
cohenite
29 Jan 12 at 7:54 pm
Jarrah, apart from extrapolations by the model builders, what evidence-based predictions exceed one degree of warming? And what do you think of the credibility of the models, especially the one that Garnaut selected to plan our future?
Rafe
29 Jan 12 at 7:55 pm
Mk50, no acknowledgement from you of being shown to be wrong on several counts? No admission that many of your reasons for believing as you do are in fact baseless? You’re free to hold onto your beliefs if you choose, but if you had any intellectual honesty (which supposedly you hold in high regard), you would concede that the basis for them has been weakened at the very least. I don’t expect a conversion to the mainstream, but a little humility would be appropriate.
Jarrah
29 Jan 12 at 8:02 pm
“Can he/she elaborate?”
Probably doesn’t see the need, considering I gave it a go earlier.
Jarrah
29 Jan 12 at 8:05 pm
Mk50 of Brisbane,
yes, I wonder how much global-warming specific human capital has been accumulated in recent years.
how much of this global-warming specific human capital will have to be scrapped if the warming does not happen as forecast. who has more to lose in career terms if there is no global warming?
Jim Rose
29 Jan 12 at 8:08 pm
And fell flat on your face.
It’s like arguing with one of those knock-down dolls; they just pop up again with the same silly grin on their mugs.
cohenite
29 Jan 12 at 8:13 pm
Jarrah: Que? Where has my assessment of CO2 energy absorpion been ‘disproven’ in your view??
jim: One hell of a lot. it builds enormous inertia and great waste of resources. Just look at our own Dept. Climate Change. For its cost would could have provided secure and safe drinking water for everyone in Uganda.
The tenacity of AGW cultists is testament to its religious and millenarian nature. It’s religion for greens and many secularists, it seems. There are entire institutes involved in this, and all of them are out of a job when the reality sinks home through public policy.
That’s where it’s happening now, as the US, Canadian, Japanese, Chinese and Indian government actions recently indicate. if it is not popular or contradicts government development policy (see India!) then the funding starts to dry up. So the shriller and more cataclysmic become the warmies, which drives away public support… and so the cycle becomes virtuous from my POV.
Mk50 of Brisbane
29 Jan 12 at 8:40 pm
Rafe, every prediction in every field is based on a model of some kind.
So you’re question could be rewritten as: “Apart from predictions which have the property of being extrapolations (i.e. the universe of predictions) what predictions (i.e. members of the null set) exceed one degree of warming”.
And since every point in a null set has every property, this is a truism.
But that’s not terribly informative.
PSC
29 Jan 12 at 9:36 pm
Cohenite…
Not to buy too much into the argument, as it bores these days seeing I think it’s the economics, not science, that carries more import.
Yes it’s essentially true that it basically hasn’t warmed since the late 90′s. I can’t understand how warmies want to deny this.
However it has basically flat-lined at the high elevation, which is a little worrying. Given that people are saying the sun has impacted climate on the cooling side over this time, it’s a little more worrying that the global temp has flat-lined at the high levels and stayed there more or less.
JC
29 Jan 12 at 9:45 pm
“Jarrah: Que? Where has my assessment of CO2 energy absorpion been ‘disproven’ in your view??”
Oh dear. Has your memory failed you so fast? You made a series of claims on 28 Jan 12 at 5:45 pm, all of which I showed were wrong, and which you could have found were wrong with about three minutes of Googling. Then two hours later you made another erroneous claim, again one easily disproved.
You studiously ignored the refutations, presumably because your semi-religious beliefs can’t cope with contrary facts.
This succession of claims represent an unknown portion of your basis for your anti-AGW belief, but considering you made them ahead of other claims, are presumably some of your strongest supporting beliefs. They were all false. Ergo, your anti-AGW belief has been weakened to some extent. Do you even have the honesty to admit this fact? Time to man up, buddy boy.
“And fell flat on your face.”
Cohenite, absolutely no-one has even attempted to show why my reasoning was wrong. As ever, responses to denialists’ questions disappear down the memory hole so they can bring them up later and claim they were never answered.
Jarrah
29 Jan 12 at 9:50 pm
JC, David Stockwell has explored an interesting connection between the sun and temperature in this paper:
David’s thesis, confirmed by very strong correlations with temperature over all time spans is that when the solar anomaly is above average temperature will increase at a rate depending on whether the anomaly is increasing above the average [increasing rate of temperature] or decreasing towards the average [a decreasing rate of increase]. When the solar anomaly falls below the average temperature falls at a rate the inverse of the temperature movement when the solar anomaly is above the average.
This correlation may be temperarily confounded by volcanic activity but basically since 2002 the solar anomaly has started to fall below the average [see figure 2 of the paper] and the temperature drop can be expected to increase after the anomaly moves from positive to negative, with that movement from +ve to -ve responsible for the ‘flat period’ you speak of.
cohenite
29 Jan 12 at 10:12 pm
Oh, this?
The data measurement s have not found it.
Did not say it was. It’s getting thicker.
And down the memory hole goes the IPCC and Goreacular entrail-readings, then: although you may well be right about no scientists having claimed this.
Correct, IIRC they claimed 2010.
Dammit, internet dropping out?? Bloody flooding (and Brisbane was supposed to be all dessicated by now, according to flannery).
Mk50 of Brisbane
29 Jan 12 at 10:14 pm
Jarrah says:
Foster and Rahmstorf used linear regressions to peel away the main short-term factors, and found the trend was 0.163°C per decade from 1979 through 2010, 0.155°C per decade from 1998 through 2010, and 0.187°C per decade for 2000 through 2010. Doesn’t sound like “no global warming” to me.
cohenite
29 Jan 12 at 10:15 pm
And just which prestigious scientific journal has published a peer review paper reporting this. Oh, it’s not a scientific journal, it’s the least reliable, most rabidly denialist newspaper in the UK, the Mail. Not to matter, perhaps it was written by a senior and credible journalist. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. It was written by a hack with as much credibility as Comical Ali. And speaking of Iraq, Rose first rose to prominence peddling WMD propaganda and garbage fed to him by the thoroughly disgraced Ahmed Chalabi. If anything he has surpassed his shonky record there with his record of serial epic failures promoting denialist twaddle (but I repeat myself, given that all denialism is by definition twaddle). Deltoid has a whole file devoted to his fails, and there is another taste of it here.
And strange how Iq50 has gone totally silent on the question of this epic, ground-breaking paper he and a mate worked on up in Brisbane which proves “that CO2 simply cannot play the ‘bad boy’ role assigned to it by AGW supporters, it’s actually a physical impossibility.” He was bragging about it at 10.31 this morning, but called out on it and asked to produce it here, he’s gone quiet on the topic. Strange given that otherwise you can’t shut the empty headed bugger up. You’d think if he had actually disproved one of the basic principles of the physics of climate change, accepted for more than 100 years, he’d be only to happy to publish it. Could it be that this bullying braggart is actually an out and out liar? I report, you decide.
And Iq50, is there any truth to the rumours that for your next trick, you and your mate will split an atom in a vegemite jar, using nothing but a nail file and a pair of tweezers? Anything is possible when you two scientific mavericks get together.
1080
29 Jan 12 at 10:15 pm
Jarrah – sorry, internet imbuggerances. The balloon data does not support the hotspot. it is not there.
The weather balloon data showing the atmospheric warming pattern was finally released in 2006, in the US Climate Change Science Program, 2006, part E of Figure 5.7, on page 116
Hmm. Lots of drool on the site. 1080′s back, isn’t it?
Listen you pathetic window-licking lower order hominid, as I said, FIFTEEN years ago (for you that means both hands plus toes on one foot) I helped out a friend in a research project. It had nothing to do with AGW, it was a laser project using freqs absorbed by CO2. The only one waffling utter bollocks about ‘ground-breaking paper he and a mate worked on up in Brisbane’ and ‘disproved one of the basic principles of the physics’ is you.
And you have a grooming circle.
You also communicate by patterns in your drool.
Look, banana!
That’ll get rid of it.
Mk50 of Brisbane
29 Jan 12 at 10:27 pm
Ignore that last post to jarrah, it got put up before I finished.
Jarrah said:
I presume Jarrah means this:
I have already quoted McShane and Wyner about the fallacy of the present period being the warmest over the last 2000 years, and that 2010 is not even the warmest of the modern era.
As for Foster and Rahmstorf [F&R] and the removal of ENSO to get the ‘pure’ AGW temperature signal; I have already responded to Jarrah’s linking to this paper before on another thread and I repeat what I said then:
This means that after removing ENSO F&R have not found a ‘pure’ correlation between temperature and AGW; who knows what they have found.
But even if we allow that F&W have isolated a ‘pure’ correlation between temperature and AGW, what F&R arrive at is a non-feedback temperature of between 1.4-1.8C per century; by removing all natural variation. This is interesting because in Foster et al’s reply to McLean et al they state that while ENSO/SOI can explain temperature variation on interannual timescales it cannot explain longer term trends. Given this and F&R’s conclusion that TSI is too small to affect trends and volcanoes are one-offs by removing natural variation they have effectively removed NOTHING from the trend.
What they have found is the climate sensitivity to 2XCO2.
And that climate sensitivity to 2XCO2 they have found has a trend much smaller than the 2.5-4, best, 3.2C, offered by the IPCC and AGW.
In short F&R have disproved AGW.
cohenite
29 Jan 12 at 10:35 pm
Interesting. Here’s what Iq50 said at 10.31 this morning: “What really falsified the AGW hypothesis for me was involvement assisting a friend’s dissertation research which involved study into the absorption spectra for CO2. It turns out that CO2 simply cannot play the ‘bad boy’ role assigned to it by AGW supporters, it’s actually a physical impossibility.”
So Iq50 did say he worked on research that “falsified AGW” by disproving the “role” played by carbon dioxide, as accepted by basic physics for more than 100 years. Not often you see someone a) peddling such bullshit b) trying to ignore his own bullshit when called out on it and then c) lying outright claiming he never said any such thing when called out on it again.
So how is the splitting the atom in the vegemite jar experiment going Iq50?
1080
29 Jan 12 at 10:43 pm
1080 this really applies to you.
cohenite
29 Jan 12 at 10:48 pm
You’re making a very strong linearity assumption here.
Over short time periods that’s ok.
But it will break down over longer time periods.
PSC
29 Jan 12 at 10:51 pm
Interesting. Here’s what I said at 10.31 this morning:
So I said that I assisted a friends research that for me (that is, for myself) falsified AGW by showing that the claims of AGW warmies about CO2 were bollocks.
i find it very funny that a window-licking mouth-breather like you can not physically be able to comprehend the entire personalisation part of it.
For an encore performance of epic stupidity, you then made up a load of bollocks and false claims not in the original and imputed them to me.
Seriously, 1080, you have to drop your pants to count to 20 1/100th, don’t you?
What is most amusing about this is that you quote me here not having even understood what I said.
I won’t apologise for not speaking your native tongue: that wonderful 120 word vocabulary language of Cretin, you ill-educated, gap-toothed illiterate nose-picking buffoon.
Now, it’s late, so toddle off and get Uncle Dad and Aunty Mum to tuck you into your cot at the home for wayward inbred genetic rejects.
Mk50 of Brisbane
29 Jan 12 at 11:16 pm
Most of the “denial” is statements along the following lines. Fitting degree five polynomials to a fragment of the data and then extrapolating into the future – as seems to be the practice among Climate Sceptics – is pretty daft. Instead, if you’re dealing with a noisy trend, fit some kind of autoregressive model to as much data as you possibly can, or at least enough to overcome the noise.
PSC
29 Jan 12 at 11:38 pm
“I presume Jarrah means this:”
Sorry, I should have been clear, but I thought you were talking about temperature trends after 1997, because.. well, that’s what you were talking about in the comment I replied to.
Jarrah
29 Jan 12 at 11:56 pm
Interesting, so what you’re saying is that data that’s far back in time, even in a shortish period,carries fairly significant influence to the most recent data.
So tell me PSC, I look at the likely direction of the Aussie dollar and put up a monthly chart that goes back thirty years. I overlay a 10 year stochastic moving average trendline and I should get excited that I have a “trendline” that still most likely pointing down. I then go short to follow the “trend” and wonder why I have lost so much money.
What you’re suggesting PSC is a trick. It’s a trick to give high weight to the earlier periods. It’s bullshit. Ask any trader that uses charts to see the long term trend and they would laugh at that suggestion.
Climate science thinks that bullshit is perfectly reasonable to stick 1.5% our of GDP on for the next 88 years.
Unfuckingbelieable,
JC
30 Jan 12 at 12:06 am
“The data measurement s have not found it…The balloon data does not support the hotspot. it is not there.”
And thus you reveal that you didn’t read the lesson, just as you did not read the original article. Please try again.
“Did not say it was [getting bigger]. It’s getting thicker.”
You do realise that your words are recorded for posterity on this very page? Let me remind you:
Uh oh. Not looking good for you so far.
“And down the memory hole goes the IPCC and Goreacular entrail-readings, then”
I guess you’ll have no trouble linking to these supposed entrail-readings, then?
*crickets*
“IIRC”
Considering you can’t recall the events of the past couple of days, I’m going to have to take your ‘recollection’ with a grain of salt.
Jarrah
30 Jan 12 at 12:06 am
“I then go short to follow the “trend” and wonder why I have lost so much money.”
If climate forcings knew about, responded to and tried to predict the warming trend, you might have an analogy. But you don’t.
Jarrah
30 Jan 12 at 12:11 am
“the entire personalisation part of it”
So it convinced you, but you don’t think it will convince anybody else. Says it all, really.
Jarrah
30 Jan 12 at 12:14 am
You don’t understand what I talking about Jazza.
The older the data is the less influence it ought to have on the current trend.
Reprobates like Tim Lambert were at one time trying to fit a five a moving average with a slow stochastic onto a short period of time and suggesting the trend was up. I think he was using a 5 year trendline line and fitting to a 20 year data period.
That idiot ought to be laughed of campus.
JC
30 Jan 12 at 12:29 am
“You don’t understand what I talking about Jazza.”
I know exactly what you’re talking about. The problem is, you’re comparing chalk and cheese.
The value of the Aussie dollar is not some independent physical phenomenon like global warming, but the result of people making judgements about its worth, what they’ll think its worth will be in the near future, what they think other people think it’s worth, and what they think other people will think it’s worth in the near future, as well as economic fundamentals which are abstractions of millions of people making economic decisions that feed back on each other.
You can’t possibly compare the two.
Jarrah
30 Jan 12 at 12:38 am
basically random within certain extreme tolerances. basically like climate.
The more important point you should have drawn from what I’m saying is that data from 30 years ago is less important than newish data. making the moving average trendline an longer term value is crap science. That’s what they are doing in fact.
JC
30 Jan 12 at 12:43 am
“basically random”
No, completely wrong. People see the value, and change what they’re doing (trades) based on the value, which changes the value. Completely unlike climate.
Jarrah
30 Jan 12 at 12:45 am
jazza.. Whatever.
You obviously don’t believe in random walk. Fair enough.
That wasn’t the main point as I keep saying to you. The point is that they are often using short term data sets and overlaying inappropriate moving average slow stochastic trendline.
This is basically not inaccurate science, it’s filthy science and the fucker doing this stuff ought to be called out as a fucking fraud.
ie. See shiny as an example.
JC
30 Jan 12 at 1:14 am
I wonder if another 10 years of the last 10 years of GAT will change their minds?
dover_beach
30 Jan 12 at 2:49 am
Fancy waking up to this:
Polynomials are not used to predict anything; they are finite and are used to show trends within data sets such as recent temperature movements:
http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/
The higher the degree of polynomial the more information is represented in the trend. Polynomials are autoregressive.
cohenite
30 Jan 12 at 9:18 am
Fancy waking up to this:
Polynomials are not used to predict anything; they are finite and are used to show trends within data sets such as recent temperature movements:
http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/
The higher the degree of polynomial the more information is represented in the trend. Polynomials are autoregressive.
cohenite
30 Jan 12 at 9:18 am
Jarrah
Went to your warmy site and read both versions. What an incoherent mishmash.
basically, the story in an nutshell is:
1. the warmy computer models predicted the development of a ‘troposphere hotspot’.
2. Much was made of this.
3. Crunching the data of millions of actual weather balloon measurements showed it did not exist as predicted.
4. Using satellite data not designed to measure temps in the troposphere, the physical measurements of the weather balloons were dismissed with a new hypothesis – that the energy was not present as heat but as wind shears.
What a load of bollocks. Yet again, measurement is being rejected in favour of hypothesis and computer modelling.
Mk50 of Brisbane
30 Jan 12 at 7:01 pm
For chrissakes, could we perhaps go for fifteen fucking minutes without a Nazi allusion?
You guys throw Nazi references around like a bunch of 13 year olds throwing jaffas in a cinema.
Les Majesty
30 Jan 12 at 7:14 pm
Inbred Genetic Reject 29 Jan 12 at 1:01 pm: The scale of this group libel dwarfs that of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion
me 29 Jan 12 5:55: [mann's hockeystick] Perhaps the most widely debunked and discredited piece of propaganda since the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
A piece of sarcastic reference to what the Inbred Genetic Reject said that sailed miles over the Inbred Genetic Reject’s head, of course.
Lez 30 Jan 7:14: For chrissakes, could we perhaps go for fifteen fucking minutes without a Nazi allusion?
Erm…
1. it’s been over 31 hours since the Inbred Genetic Reject used it, not 15 minutes.
2. The Protocols were actually written in Paris sometime between 1895 and 1899 by an agent of the Russian secret police (Pytor Ivanovich Rachovsky), who is known to have forged other documents for the various intrigues in which he took part. While the Protocols are overtly anti-Semitic it is believed that the great Russian minister of finance, Sergei Witte, was also a target of the Protocols. At the time Witte was the leader of the movement to modernize Russia and limit the influence of the old Russian aristocracy. The Protocols attempt to discredit Witte’s reforms of the Russian economy by linking Witte’s program to a Jewish plot to destroy western civilization.
You did not know any of that, did you?
Let me guess, you are a progressive, right?
Mk50 of Brisbane
30 Jan 12 at 8:48 pm
Bollocks. Just read the title. “It’s all downhill from here”. What is that if not a prediction?
The higher the degree of polynomial the more information is represented in the trend. Polynomials are autoregressive.
What poppycock.
PSC
30 Jan 12 at 8:57 pm