Barry Hunt, CSIRO, on global warming

From the ABC

A CSIRO scientist is warning authorities not to interpret floods in eastern Australia and snowstorms over Europe and North America as signalling the end of global warming.

NASA research shows that 2010 is the hottest year on record.

Barry Hunt, an honorary research fellow at the CSIRO’s Marine and Atmospheric Research unit, says global temperatures will continue to rise even if there is another cold snap.

“Over the last century, the global mean temperature has gone up by 0.8 degrees [Celsius], and that’s the extent of the global warming, but at the same time, we also have natural climatic variation, and you don’t get one or the other, you get them both. They interact,” he said.

“I found that even up to 2040 and 2050, you can still get cold snaps under greenhouse warming.

“These last two or three months, you get them over Eurasia, or North America, and you can get temperatures 10 to 15 degrees below present temperatures, and that’s just natural variability, pulsing back briefly, overwhelming the greenhouse warming.

“The climate deniers think that unless you’ve got constant warming, every year, that greenhouse warming has gone away. And they forget about the natural variability.

“We should expect now to see the global warming trend take over again.”

Mr Hunt says although climate change sceptics are very vocal, the evidence is clear.

“The scientific basis is very sound,” he said.

“The basic long-term trend over the next 100 years is for a steady global warming, and over most of Australia we can expect to see rainfall decline.

“Despite the variability from year to year, there will be a long-term drying trend over most of Australia.”

Brenda Ekwurzel, Huffington Post

The hallmark of winter is cold, at least in North America.

Even with climate change, you’re still going to wake up on a January morning and see snow falling. I walk to the bus stop, too, so I know about cold ears and fingers. As a climate scientist, I have plenty of compelling facts at hand about global warming, and trust me. You may want to remind your friends that weather is different from climate. It may seem counterintuitive, but we have strong evidence that heavier snows are actually one of many links scientists have uncovered between climate change and extreme weather

Enough already. I ask again: what physical evidence would need to be presented to overturn theories based on climate models? It is insufficient to assert that no matter what the temperature and rainfall, it is automatically consisted with a global warming hypothesis. It is time for people such as Hunt to mark a line in the sand which, if crossed, would mark a mea culpa.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

205 Responses to Barry Hunt, CSIRO, on global warming

  1. jc

    They don’t need to because they have the weather-isn’t climate schtik and climate-is-a-30-year-thingi to rely on.. of course the 30 years is a perpetual 30 years and never has an end to it that continues to roll on into perpetuity.

    Look, to be honest I’m think there is a good case for AGW however this year’s cold spell in the northern latitudes doesn’t dispel warming.

    However I would say that if the situation hasn’t changed by 2018 or so then all bets are off and the worst screamers need treated like deranged loons.

  2. jc

    oops…. need to be treated….

  3. hc

    This is just silliness and repeats errors made and refuted on uncountably many occasions. Any time series has trend, cyclical, seasonal and random components. Global warming relates to trend not to cyclical features of a series.

    We know el nino events can shape cyclical changes in temperatures and rainfall for several years while other ocean current temperature trends might drive cycles of up to 10 years. None of the scientists who analyze such features dispute the facts of climate change.

    Interactions between these short and medium term cycles and climate change are now a research area. Does global warming increase drought duration and frequency and so on.

    Why sprout this nonsense? Why repeat known untruths?

  4. hc

    Climate change does increase the variance of temperature and rainfall outcomes as well as average temperature. Again you can read of the reasons for this in any text on climate.

    Again why repeat known untruths? These arguments are so common that you must be aware of them. They are discussed at length in the IPCC reports and in texts on climate science.

  5. FDB

    “I ask again: what physical evidence would need to be presented to overturn theories based on climate models?”

    Let me answer again, so that perhaps you will stop asking.

    Evidence that over a sustained period, global average temperatures stopped rising.

    Perhaps a smallish detail from your own post escaped you Samuel. I’ll reproduce it again for you here:

    “2010 is the hottest year on record”

    Does this then strike you as a good time to be making fresh and imperious demands of the AGW community? Or might it be a better year in which to STFU?

  6. C.L.

    “the AGW community”

    ?

    Is that like Jonestown?

    Hilarious: a CSIRO ‘scientist’ comes to the rescue of warmening. Has this dude ever invented anything?

  7. C.L.

    Does the CSIRO agree with Shiite warmenist Tim Flannery predicting the imminent physical manifestation of Gaia?

  8. Mr Hunt asserts that “over most of Australia we can expect to see rainfall decline”.

    According to the B.O.M. rainfall timeseries on its web site ( covering from 1900 to 2009,i.e. without accounting for the recent deluges in 2010 ) rainfall has INCREASED over the continent as a whole by about 17% ( 18.2% in the southern part and 21.7% in the northern part)!

    In Eastern Australia it has INCREASED by about 6% and in the Murray Darling Basin INCREASED by about 7.8%. Only in SW WA and Tasmania has measured rainfall actually DECREASED ( by 15.5% and 8.8% respectively). Since both have higher rainfall than the rest of the place ( in Tassie it is by about a factor of 2) this is hardly end of the world stuff.

    I am not an honorary anything, I am a working engineer with 30 years practice and am well over this torrent of melodramatic tosh coming out of the AGW lobby.

    I conclude that Mr Hunt is another AGW snout in the trough producing the usual through his backside.

  9. val majkus

    Fortuitously Dr. Don J. Easterbrook has a guest post today on http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/28/2010%e2%80%94where-does-it-fit-in-the-warmest-year-list/#more-30425
    his point is to answer the question of ‘which is the hottest year on record’, we need to look at a much longer time frame?centuries and millennia.
    So where do the 1934/1998/2010 warm years rank in the long-term list of warm years? Of the past 10,500 years, 9,100 were warmer than 1934/1998/2010. Thus, regardless of which year ( 1934, 1998, or 2010) turns out to be the warmest of the past century, that year will rank number 9,099 in the long-term list.
    The climate has been warming slowly since the Little Ice Age (Fig. 5), but it has quite a ways to go yet before reaching the temperature levels that persisted for nearly all of the past 10,500 years.

  10. Sid Vicious

    I see the old ‘climate deniers’ got a run as usual. It just doesn’t have the same impact if Penny Wrong isn’t saying it.

  11. Gab

    Climate “scientists” are accurate with their prognostications based on (adjusted because the raw data doesn’t suit) Climate Models. Regardez la liste of just some “predictions”. Ah but, it’s “weather” not “climate” and yet did they predict floods and very cold winters with excessive snow? No, just the opposite, in most cases. And now the emergence of the Ahbut defense: Ah but global warming consists of droughts and warmer winters and colder winters and there will be floods. Are they predicting climate or weather here? The Ahbut defense covers all climatic “anomalies”, just have Faith in the scientific models. Unless of course you’re the IPCC which provides a cautionary note:

    “…we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled nonlinear chaotic system, and therefore that long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

    (HT Barry Woods, WUWT)

    And just why have scientists – who dare to challenge global warming theory – earned the bastardly titles of ‘skeptics’ and ‘deniers’? Isn’t science based on questioning, probing and challenging? Ah but, we must have faith in the adjustments, permutations and interpretations of the climate models, and no questions asked. Just believe.

    My crystal ball gazing also tells me, based on the coupled nonlinear chaotic system, we are in for droughts, and floods, and colder winters, and hotter summers, and milder summers and milder winters. Ah but that’s weather, not climate.

  12. ken n

    Gawd, I’m sick of reading about climate change. No one says anything new, no one is going to convince anyone to change their mind.
    The politics and whether and what action should be taken might be worth talking about but not whether the earth is warming and why…
    Still, you all seem to have having fun so go at it.
    I’m trying to work out a filter so these threads don’t appear in my reader.

  13. Paul Williams

    Gawd, I’m sick of reading about climate change.

    If the govt would stop trying to adjust the planetary temperature via the tax system, we would all lose interest.

  14. Gab

    Predicting the climate future is easy, however ‘predicting’ the past is a little troublesome for the climate models. Of course it could just be that the actual observed data was wrong.

  15. dover_beach

    HC:
    We know el nino events can shape cyclical changes in temperatures and rainfall for several years while other ocean current temperature trends might drive cycles of up to 10 years. None of the scientists who analyze such features dispute the facts of climate change.

    Are there no cycles that oscillate for periods longer than 10 years?

    Climate change does increase the variance of temperature and rainfall outcomes as well as average temperature.

    Why is ‘climate change’ used as a synonym for changes in CO2 concentrations? Mightn’t changes in variance be explained in part by land cover change, aerosols, natural variability, and so on?

    FDB:
    Perhaps a smallish detail from your own post escaped you Samuel. I’ll reproduce it again for you here:

    “2010 is the hottest year on record”

    Does this then strike you as a good time to be making fresh and imperious demands of the AGW community? Or might it be a better year in which to STFU?

    Whenever I look at this figure I find the above claim even more unconvincing.

    Ken:
    Gawd, I’m sick of reading about climate change. No one says anything new, no one is going to convince anyone to change their mind.

    This could be said about any topic.

  16. Paul Williams

    NASA research shows that 2010 is the hottest year on record.

    Not according to the satellite record.

    The climate deniers think that unless you’ve got constant warming, every year, that greenhouse warming has gone away. And they forget about the natural variability

    No, that’s not what sceptics think. Ten years ago, AGW alarmists were saying that temperatures would continue to rise after the 1998 el nino.

    They have been forced to acknowledge natural variation since, as the temperatures varied from their predictions.

  17. hc

    DB, what I was saying was that the interaction effects between trend increases and cycles are being studied. Trying to come up with better medium term forecasts.

    One of the British groups that supports climate science claims we might have a 20 year cycle followed by secular increases that produce greater tab expected temperature increases-caused by ocean temperature effects.

    The silly stuff about temperatures not have risen over past 10 years is as silly as this post -apart from being false the claim neglects distinction between trend and cycles.

    Ken I have some sympathy for your views but denialists have tried to reverse action on climate change. The nonsense of posts such as this one need to be refuted.

  18. johno

    ‘Why sprout this nonsense? Why repeat known untruths?’
    Harry, I would direct this comment to Barry Hunt and the CSIRO 🙂

  19. ken n

    OK refute away, hc.
    I don’t believe that those you call “denialists” (and I still find use of the term about anything except the holocaust highly offensive) have had any significant effect on the political reluctance to take any action.
    I have been convinced for a long time that no politician is going to take more than token action. You can say they should or must but they won’t.
    The politics and why politicians won’t take decisive action that will cause pain is a more interesting thing to consider. They cannot even be frank and honest towards their electors.
    That reluctance of course applies to many issues, not just climate change. And to all sides of politics.

  20. Samuel J

    HC: this post makes no claims. It merely asks what evidence would be required to overturn the extant theory. If you think no evidence would overturn the theory – say so. Otherwise, let us know what type of evidence would be sufficient to – dare I say it – turn you into a ‘denialist’ (I’d drop these types of loaded terms by the way they are not helpful)

  21. Paul Williams

    Anyone who calls questioners of the AGW hypothesis “deniers” is a wanker.

  22. Gab

    Positive proof of global warming.

    Lighten up, the world’s not going to end for another 50 years.

  23. Ev630

    Anyone who calls questioners of the AGW hypothesis “deniers” is a wanker.

    Spot on.

  24. dover_beach

    One of the British groups that supports climate science claims we might have a 20 year cycle followed by secular increases that produce greater tab expected temperature increases-caused by ocean temperature effects.

    Interesting but speculative.

    The silly stuff about temperatures not have risen over past 10 years is as silly as this post -apart from being false the claim neglects distinction between trend and cycles.

    How do you know the ‘trend’ is not confounded by the current hiatus?

    BTW, I think Samuel J’s question needs a reflective answer. At the moment, the phenomena that is “consistent with” AGW is staggeringly broad.

  25. johno

    Harry has belled the cat when he says ‘denialists have tried to reverse action on climate change.’ He has made up his mind on the proposition put by some that human activity is have a significant impact on global temperature and the higher temperature will have a catastrophic adverse impact. As an AGW believer he has no interest in pursuing a scientific evaluation of the arguments and evidence for and against this proposition. His response to challenges to his beliefs is to dismiss them as ‘nonsense’ and ‘untruths’.
    This is not a scientific approach, this is the approach of the advocate who seeks to discredit his opponents rather than answer their arguments.

  26. Keith

    If anyone was doing scientific enquiry on the subject, then we might expect there were more than two “camps” and overall a lower level of mud slinging and name calling going on.

    Here’s the thing though. Genuine scientific enquiry has been prevented through the deliberate attempts to restrict access to the data, and the adjustment methods used to maintain the data series remain confidential within certain institutions. In some cases the original data is claimed to have been “lost” (CRU).
    Now we need to ask ourselves, if the above situation was encountered in another scientific field (say drug trials for instance), what would be the appropriate response to any appeal for scientific acceptance ?
    Or on a more mundane level, if an ATO auditor asked you to justify your last tax return, would you expect him/her to be satisfied if you were to tell them your records weren’t available and they should just trust you ?

    The asymmetry in potential damage from (we are told) climate change compared to the availability and validity of temperature records seems ridiculous in comparison.

  27. Judith Sloan

    I wonder whether this Honorary Research Fellow was given approval of the Board and/or CEO of the CSIRO to publish this ‘trust me/I’m a scientist’ piece. I would like to know what is the refutable hypothesis here because these scientists seem to want to have it every which way: too hot, AGW, too cold, AGW; too dry, AGW; too wet, AGW; climate, not weather.

    Many of these scientists have made some bold predictions however: eg. that NY/the UK will never see now again, Sydney will run out of water, etc. Were they talking about the weather then? Because they were sure wrong if they were talking about climate.

  28. Aqualung

    The HuffPo passage refers to “Extreme Weather”.

    Is “Extreme Weather” to be understood as climate, or as weather?

  29. CRAIGY

    1..How many IPCC computer models predicted this?
    2..Are events like these factored in ,or are they deleted because they fall outside the parameters they set ?
    3..Name calling (denier) is childish!
    4..I dont like being LIED too!
    5..Have a nice day!

  30. Louis Hissink

    Getting the physical evidence is quite simple – Frank Davis has shown that the idea of CO2 being the source of the downwelling IR as back radiation is non physical (http://frank-davis.livejournal.com/132165.html)and eliminates CO2 as the source of the IR and thus heating but he neglects to then explain where the measured downwelling IR does come from. If it isn’t coming from CO2, then where?

    I have previously suggested it comes from the electrical currents passing through the earth’s atmosphere as a result of the earth’s interaction with the plasma of space. Electric currents generally pass in and out of the earth at the polar regions, as well as a broad equatorial band that, because of the earth’s axial tilt, oscillates around the equator producing the cyclone season during the southern hemisphere summer period, from the Van Allen Belts.

    The earth-system isn’t a simple ball in space receiving solar radiation but an electrically conductive sphere in a dynamic space plasma as part of the solar homopolar motor system.

    And in the spirit of sound science, this electrical model of the earth-system, sun and solar system is based on the known and tested theories of Heaviside-Maxwell and Lorentz. In this model the solar system can be approximated as a homopolar motor.

    The refutation of AGW using plasma physics is pretty conclusive but the problem is that communicating this to the existing climate scientists is much like talking to them in an alien language, since none of them seem to be familar with this branch of physics.

    And it requires a paradigm shift not too dissimilar to the Keynesians replacing their ideas for those of the Austrian School.

  31. hc

    Refuting the AGW hypothesis would require a alternative explanation for the secular increase in global mean surface temperatures that has occurred since 1900 and evidence that the accelerating rate of increase over that period has ended.

    This contrary explanation and contrary evidence do not exist. Natural factors cannot explain the increase after 1950 and there is not evidence at all that trend rates of temperature increase are reversing.

    Why are you guys clutching at straws? There is no credible body of science that suggests the contrary. Find it, publish it and it would be the biggest scientific discovery in decades.

  32. CRAIGY

    So the last Ice Age was caused by the lack of CO2. Where did it go? I hope it doesn’t happen again.

  33. hc

    Hissink can’t claim a Nobel gong for the greatest scientific discovery in decades – the refutation of AGW- because climate scientists don’t understand his physics. That is not credible. Publish yout theories!

    I preferred the older lies that they were pushing AGW and excluding other views because they were chasing research grants.

  34. Samuel J

    HC – I don’t agree. To refute the AGW hypothesis does not require an alternative explanation. Surely it just needs to show that the AGW hypothesis does not make testable predictions.

  35. hc

    It does make testable propositions but they require decades of data to establish trends and to this point the data strongly supports AGW.

    Ex post or explaining the past the theory works well. The alternatives do not.

  36. chrisl

    hc :. The null hypothesis is that nothing is happening.It is just weather. YOU need to show that something IS happening. We don’t need an refute the AGW hypothesis. It is unproven and unprovable.
    Which I could have explained to you if you hadn’t banned me from your blog!

  37. daddy dave

    We don’t need an refute the AGW hypothesis.

    You can’t anyway. We have to wait decades before it’s refutable even in principle.

  38. Paul Williams

    You can’t anyway. We have to wait decades before it’s refutable even in principle.

    You can refute it by looking to see if the theory of anthropogenic greenhouse warming predicts atmospheric temperature changes that would not occur if the warming was due to some other cause. Then look to see if those changes are occurring. If they’re not, then AGW is not happening.

    As for the accelerating rate of temperature increase since 1900, that’s pure chartmanship.

  39. Perhaps SIRO could do some research on how to fix the vast areas of the MDB that are now wasteland due to the proliferation of acid suphate
    soils. I read it here the other day. Some clever academic bloke wrote it so it must be right.

  40. daddy dave

    You can refute it by

    Well yes, but all the falsifications to date are disputed by proponents of the theory, which is why we might as well declare it to be unfalsifiable.

  41. Louis Hissink

    HC,

    It’s not my physics but an established branch of established science under the auspices of the IEEE. And it’s hardly a scientific discovery either – electrical engineers involved in telecommunications, satellites etc are fully aware of the plasma connection with the earth-system.

    As for AGW – it was never a scientific theory to begin with – scientific theories are framed to explain observations of an existing physical phenomenon using extant scinetifically verified knowledge.

    AGW has not yest occurred requiring a theory for its explanation. Instead it’s a prophesy couched in technical jargon which has morphed rhetorically into a pseudoscientific theory.

    And the hallmark of pseudoscience is its infinite flexibility in accomodating contradictory measurements. The problem is that when all “so called” abnormal weather is offered as proof, then non are.

  42. C.L.

    …it would be the biggest scientific discovery in decades.

    Maybe the biggest since the ‘discovery’ of an imminent ice-age back in the 1970s.

  43. Gab

    ‘discovery’ of an imminent ice-age back in the 1970s

    Yes however that imminent Ice Age is as a result of Global Warming, oui?.

  44. Louis Hissink

    DAddy Dave

    “which is why we might as well declare it to be unfalsifiable” and thus not a scientific theory and thus incapable of being refuted by any physical evidence.

    This is the problem – the elevation of AGW to the status of a scientific theory in the first place.

  45. hc

    “And the hallmark of pseudoscience is its infinite flexibility in accomodating contradictory measurements. The problem is that when all “so called” abnormal weather is offered as proof, then non are”.

    Louis, Its a hypothesis about trends not cyclical variations. Arrrrrrrrrrrrgggggggghhhhhhh!

  46. Gab

    Damn it Louis you used the ‘W’ word!

  47. ken n

    Go home hc, there is nothing for you here.
    You are just punishing yourself.

  48. chrisl

    hc: These are the people you have to convince to introduce a Carbon Tax/ETS
    Good luck with that.
    At the moment they are laughing at you

  49. Louis Hissink

    hc,

    you can’t even get that right – a hypothesis about trends – what, we now have various AGW trends to contend with? Geologically what has been happening over the last 100 years is nothing remarkable, apart from the obvious fact that the earth is still recovering from the LIA, and until the balmy conditions that the Vikings enjoyed in Greenland return, any positive trend in the global temperature has to be interpreted as the earth still being on its way to MWP temperatures – we have quite a way yet to go.

    If and when Greenland returns to the MWP state, and the temperatures still keep rising, then perhaps we might start wondering what else is going on.

    It’s a little like you falling through the ice on a pond you mistakenly believed would support your weight – into the cold water you go, and you nearly freeze and drown to death, but lucky you, a passer-by rescues you in the nick of time and you slowly recover. Like you after your cold water trauma, the earth also experience a cold trauma,the LIA, and like you, also has not returned to a normal state. In your case it’s a matter of hours to get warm again, the earth, a matter of centuries.

    The real problem is working out why the LIA occurred at all, and to date no one has yet offered a plausible explanation. So if we really don’t understand what causes the earth to cool, then that also means we will have some difficulty in explaining why it warms from that cooling.

  50. Gab

    Don’t agree with you on that one ChrisL, imo. There’s disagreement and even a few puckish comments, but actually laughing at HC, no I don’t see it that way at all.

  51. Keith

    Trends, cycles… and every hypothesis reliant on data of unknown integrity, and original data “lost”.
    Yet all of this data was enumerated, collated and stored using taxpayers funds. Now it can be modified, distorted, lost seemingly at will by a select few using secret statistical techniques, who remain unaccountable to their creditors.

    ….and to this point the data strongly supports AGW. Too easy really.

    You might want to check RSS’s submission to the Oxburgh review to understand how abysmally the data has been handled.

  52. hc

    Go back and work in a mine Louis, What you offer is gobbledegook – read your statement it is pure shit. I will accept Ken’s urgings and shoot through. I am weary of feeling the need to respond to this crap.

    In my imperfect view the case for addressing climate change is important and indeed overwhelming.

    But yes, I’ll advance this sort of proposition elsewhere. Not to Vatican bigots and ratbag physicists.

  53. C.L.

    Harry the sleazy old Presbyterian ape takes his bat and ball and runs home crying.

    Adios, Harry. It’s been a revelation (to some) just what a violently mooded old clown you really are.

  54. Big Dumb Fu

    That sound is the shattering of an agw disciple’s glass jaw.

  55. Dangph

    I have an alternative explanation for climate change. First we must make the observation that of all the natural sciences, climatology is one of the dorkiest. Youngsters with scientific talent get into physics and biology. If climatology were a sport, it might be badminton.

    But now all of a sudden, climate scientists are popular. People are throwing money at them. They are being interviewed on the TV. They are hanging out with cool people who talk about cool things like social justice. They are hanging out with beautiful creative types like Cate Blanchett. They are heroic: they are literally saving the world.

    All sorts of people need these climate scientists to lend their projects an air of scientific respectability. Climate scientists have their science badges, and like anyone they like to be important. It’s a beautiful symbiotic relationship.

    In short they’ve been slingshotted from a world of drabness into a world of glamor. And they don’t know how to handle it. Their impartiality suffers. Not being deep thinkers, they haven’t thought much at all about things like epistemology and the philosophy and history of science. They are unprepared. They don’t have strategies for maintaining objectivity.

    They begin to subconsciously tweak their results—all for the good of the planet and humanity of course!

  56. Pingback: TALKING ABOUT THE WEATHER « DUCKPOND

  57. PSC

    Yet all of this data was enumerated, collated and stored using taxpayers funds.

    Indeed ken. And data storage has costs – or it did in the 80s.

    Thankfully to my knowledge no original recordings were ever discarded.

  58. rog

    “Don’t argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”

    Catallaxians certainly have the experience.

  59. dover_beach

    Another ten years of the last ten years and AGW will be refuted.

  60. Samuel J

    Dangph – the path of righteousness.

    Reminds me of William Shanks who spent over 15 years trying to calculate PI and made an error after 527 decimal places rendering the rest wrong. But at least he died not realising his mistake.

    History is replete with persons who have spent years of their lives and built a reputation in a particular field only for it to suffer to posterity.

    My prediction: in 25 years people will look back at this period and shake their heads at the naivety of scientists and policy makers who peddled the AGW nonsense.

    They will go the way of Trofim Lysenko of which they have much in common.

    Meanwhile, humans will adapt to the changing climate, as they always have.

  61. rog

    Choose which of the following options most reflect those of catallaxians;

    1 there is no global warming
    2 there is global warming and it is man made
    3 there is global warming and it is not man made
    4 there is global warming and the causes are unknown

  62. MarkL of Canberra

    FDB:

    Evidence that over a sustained period, global average temperatures stopped rising.

    The data from ARGOS proves that the biosphere’s heat sink, the world-ocean, is cooling. Only slightly, but cooling. Goodbye, AGW. Need more? Insolation is decreasing.

    Now, Gillrudd the Lipstick Dipstick knows all of this. However, there’s a $12-18 Bn hole in forward spending estimates to fill.

    So she’s deliberately prostituting Pwong and Bob the Brown Hatter’s religious beliefs as an excuse to rip us all off for more tax.

    Simple as that, really.

    The PM&C staff I work with are fully aware that what drives global climate is insolation and that the climate system is a chaotic system, and hence cannot be predicted by computer models even when they are honest, and not the last two decade’s crop of gigo which always result in ‘gimme money for my grant’ as the punch line.

    Now, Loius Hissink hits the nail on the head here. We do not even partially understand the energy transfer dynamics of the solar system (helloooo Rhodes Fairbridge!), but we do know that large amounts of energy are transferred in teh manner he describes, and this on top of the truly gargantuan amounts of energy from simple insolation. Compared to those energy flows, human-generated energy is negligible.

    Finally, the AGW hypothesis assumes an extremely fragile natural system with negative feedback loops! This is demonstrably false, the effects of such negative feedback loops are NOWHERE evident in the 3.8 billion year geologic record.

    AGW hypothesis proponents make extraordinary claims – they must therefore provide extraordinary proof. And ONE piece of hard evidence falsifies an hypothesis.

    ARGOS was set up as an experiment to prove the AGW hypothesis. If glowball warmenating was correct, then the world-ocean must show a clear warming trend. No choice. It’s the heat sink. That’s why the project(which is excellent science) got funded.

    We now have over a decade of data from 3000+ robots

    The world-ocean shows a slight cooling trend.

    There can be no glowball warmenating. AGW is disproved by a project the warmies themselves set up.

    MarkL
    Canberra

  63. whyisitso

    Weather is not climate as the warmists keep telling us. One of the few truths the hc’s keep ramming down our throats! However skeptics do need to be careful as the current cold, wet weather will eventually turn into another hot dry spell, with droughts and bushfires becoming the prevailing phenomena.

    Then of course hc, Penny Wong, Flannery and others will forget that weather isn’t climate and proclaim that the returned conditions are proof positive of AGW.

  64. daddy dave

    Choose which of the following options most reflect those of catallaxians

    The temperature has shown a slight increase over the past century; but fears that this will lead to some kind of climate armageddon in the future are conjecture.

    Even if the climate is going to change for the worse over the next century,
    a) it can’t be stopped (there will never be a workable global strategy); and
    b) our best bet would be to stick it out and make adjustments to changes as they occur, innovating our way to an adapted solution. We’ll have several decades to do so. This isn’t long in geological terms but is a very long time in social/technological change.

  65. FDB

    Gab – what is your honest opinion regarding the quality of statistical analysis in the article Blair links to there?

  66. jc

    But here’s the problem, FDB which is why I continue to say the top of this field needs to be cleaned out.

    The head of the IPCC is an out and out crook. The senior participants caught in PhilJonesgate were found to be perverting the peer review process.

    And you have the audacity to be calling out bolt? You nimrod.

  67. C.L.

    Good article:

    The Utter Futility of Reducing Carbon Emissions.

    Even with the calculations used by the warmists, virtually nothing would happen if man never produced another CO2 molecule.

    So what is it about?

    On the other hand, if you’re looking to make money from the trading of carbon allowances (carbon credits), then it makes a great deal of sense. If you’re looking to control the way the modern world makes energy, then it makes perfect sense as well. If you’re trying to save the world from capitalists, it’s highly desirable to reduce “dirty” carbon emissions.

    If your mission is to extract money from developed nations and give it to those countries that have been robbed of their right to burn fossil fuels to grow their economies, then it is the moral thing to do. If you are in the renewable energy business, it makes perfect sense to support the reduction of carbon dioxide “pollution.” If you’re one of hundreds of environmental corporations whose mission is to save the planet at any cost, then shutting down all sources of man-made carbon dioxide is quite sensible.

  68. rog

    Even better credentials

    Art Horn spent 25 years working in television as a meteorologist

  69. FDB

    Unbuch your frilly panties JC – I wasn’t “calling out” anybody – I simply asked Gab a question about the quality of scholarship in the article she linked to Bolt linking to.

    You seem very defensive of Bolt – perhaps you have an opinion similar to mine about the quality of the paper yourself, and you’re lashing out rather than admitting that it’s not particularly sound?

    Also, you should by now be aware that the IPCC is the peak governmental (i.e. political) body in the area of climate change.

    If you want to “clean” out climate science, you’re going to have to read, enderstand and explain what is corrupt about the scientific journals and reports themselves.

    Best of luck with that.

  70. FDB

    Well, at least Dover Beach has made a concrete, if completely baffl;ing, prediction. Another ten years of record high temperatures will disprove AGW apparently.

    MarkL – nice handwaving. Accepting your claims at face value – if insolation is decreasing, the oceans are cooling, yet 2010 is the warmest year on record, then what’s your explanation for that? Sounds like an iron-clad argument for AGW to me. Do you have any feet (or ammo) remaining?

    By the way Samuel – now that I’ve answered, AGAIN, the question in your post, would you acknowledge that I’ve done so and promise to stop asking it? Otherwise, one could be forgiven for thinking you’re not serious in asking it. Not me though, I’d never be so judgemental. I’d rather give you yet another opportunity to do the honourable thing.

  71. C.L.

    Art Horn spent 25 years working in television as a meteorologist

    Al Gore is a failed divinity student and Sex Poodle.

    Rog has a junior certificate and used to be a chippie.

    The head of the IPCC is a railway engineer.

    FDB is a drummer.

    Care to respond to Horn, Rog? No, of course you don’t.

  72. MarkL of Canberra

    FDB:

    MarkL – nice handwaving. Accepting your claims at face value – if insolation is decreasing, the oceans are cooling, yet 2010 is the warmest year on record, then what’s your explanation for that? Sounds like an iron-clad argument for AGW to me. Do you have any feet (or ammo) remaining?

    Do not accept my words at face value. Check them for yourself. ALWAYS go to the raw data.

    FDB, the question you should be asking is ‘who is saying it’s the warmest year evah, and on what data is that based?’

    So I tracked it back from a warmtard’s viewpoint (via HuffPo) to McClatchy, which had an article by a journo at the Sacramento Bee, which said:

    Scientists at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies reported recently that the average global temperature was higher over the past 12 months than during any other 12-month period in history. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has released corroborating data, adding that the past four months, including June, have each individually been the hottest on record as well.

    The NASA findings were based on data from 5,000 weather stations around the world, said scientist Reto Ruedy, co-author of the study. Scientists used temperature anomalies, or departures from the baseline, rather than absolute measurements to account for differences in the instruments of individual stations.

    The average global temperature, computed over a 12-month period, reached a new record in May and held steady for the month of June, he said. This was despite the recent minimum in solar activity, which should have had a cooling effect on Earth.

    Apparently, Ruedy said, the solar cycle “has much less impact than the warming trend.”

    NOAA research meteorologist Tom Knutson doesn’t find that surprising. The trend has existed since records began in the late 1800s.

    The new finding comes on the tail of a NASA announcement that 2000 to 2009 was the warmest decade in history.

    “This is just the tip of the iceberg,” Knutson said. “The models are projecting a substantial warming into the 21st century.”

    Then I searched for the study. See http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2010november/

    Well, it caveats the claim with a ‘may’. Oh, and the title is “GISS Surface Temperature Analysis
    2010 — Global Temperature and Europe’s Frigid Air
    By James Hansen, Reto Ruedy, Makiko Sato and Ken Lo” so it’s the same old crowd, using ONKLY data which supports their claim!

    It’s ONLY the surface station data!

    Oh, so the methodology is flawed, and does not include the bulk of the data (surface stations are only a few % of the temp data collected, satellites collect vastly more).

    Any alarm bells ringing yet, FDB?

    So hang on, me old drummer, this is a computer modelled prediction based on land station temps only, and from the Goddard mob… where the king of all the warmies james ‘Hockeystick graph’ Hansen dwells. He’s the principle author.

    So we have the same claims by the same discredited people, based on land-based temperature records which we KNOW have been ‘adjusted’ ever upwards without valid explanation!

    THIS is believable? Please. Why should the words of a known spiv and con-man be believed when they reinforce his very own con? This is merely a High Priest of AGW insisting that his canon is Gaia’s holy word! (And send me more cash, believers!)

    Would you believe similar reporting about how harmless tobacco smoke is from thetobacco industry? No? So why should this carry any more weight?

    This is merely Hansen’s latest effort. Why is the satellite data not incorporated? Oh, that’s right, they cannot ‘adjust’ it upwards to ‘prove’ warmenating. Goddard does not control that data.

    SO this report has teh major AGW warmenting players using only data they control to say what they have been saying for 20 years, all the points on which their careers have been built.

    So what?

    Now, what are the debunkers saying? See:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/28/2010%e2%80%94where-does-it-fit-in-the-warmest-year-list/

    That notes that it’s been a lot warmer than this for most of the last 10,000 years (so the argument overall is much ado about nothing). Oh, and the GISS tactics are hilariously analysed at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/25/do-we-care-if-2010-is-the-warmist-year-in-history/

    So once again, FDB, they sucked you in. Why so gullible as to accept anything at face value?

    MarkL
    canberra

  73. rog

    Huh? Looks like an outbreak of mad cow disease among Catallaxians.

    Whilst it is difficult to measure and then extrapolate the data there is consistency in the results.

  74. Dangph

    Samuel, another example of science going astray is peptic ulcers. The scientific consensus–consensus!–was that they were caused by stress. Too much stress produces too much stomach acid, which causes ulcers. But now we know that most of them are caused by a bacterium.

    Science always muddles its way to the truth in the end. But it doesn’t always take the most direct route there.

    And it seems clear to me that in the case of AGW, science is being pulled off-course to some degree by political forces.

    What shits me is being called a science denier by scientific illiterates and by innumerates. (Journalists in particular are shamefully innumerate.) They invoke the word “science” as if it were a magical charm.

  75. rog

    As the man says, always check the data

    Watts grew up around Cincinnati, Ohio and reportedly attended Purdue University, studying Electrical Engineering and Meteorology. Watts’s “About” page mentions neither his Purdue attendance nor whether he graduated. Watts has not been willing to say whether he graduated.
    “Anthony began his broadcasting career, in 1978 in Lafayette, Indiana.”

  76. C.L.

    Watts’s “About” page mentions neither his Purdue attendance nor whether he graduated.

    Barack Obama’s academic records are sealed. In 2008, he promised to make the oceans go down.

    Warming leader Al Gore dropped out of divinity school. He believes the earth’s core is “several million degrees.”

    Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMrxC-qEHb8

  77. MarkL of Canberra

    Ummm, Rog.

    So what?

    MarkL
    Canberra

  78. rog

    I was thinking the same thing

    Why should the words of a known spiv and con-man be believed when they reinforce his very own con? This is merely a High Priest of AGW insisting that his canon is Gaia’s holy word! (And send me more cash, believers!)

  79. rog

    For the record, I don’t believe in an entity called Gaia.

  80. rog

    Oh, so you were merely projecting. My mistake.

  81. MarkL of Canberra

    OK. So you have proof that Watts has made several hundred million dollars from his activities (like Gore), and/or built a career and garnered tens of millions in grants (like Hansen)?

    So back up what you say, Rog… unless you have nothing but bile and snark, of course.

    MarkL
    Canberra

  82. rog

    Whilst I have your attention, did you know that the Argos data actually showed up previous errors?

    No, I didn’t think so.

    The old XBTs were too warm.

    Carry on marching.

  83. rog

    You make up a lie and ask me to prove it? Not even JC would be so silly.

  84. dover_beach

    Well, at least Dover Beach has made a concrete, if completely baffl;ing, prediction. Another ten years of record high temperatures will disprove AGW apparently.

    Baffling? If temperatures don’t rise over a period of twenty years then AGW as it stands now would need major revision, irrespective of these temps being so-called ‘record highs’.

  85. MarkL of Canberra

    Sophistry: your implication in 4:08PM is that Watts is a spiv on the lines of Gore and Hansen.

    Nice ‘run away like a little girl’, though.

    Oh, Argo uses expendable bathythermographs (XBT)? That’d be news to them. They think they are using 3,356 robotic floats in three models, which cycle between the surface and 2,000m depth.

    Silly chaps, Wodge knows so much better!

    Now, the military uses XBT, they are essential for anti-submarine warfare; you use them to find and update data on the layer. So the statement that they gave false info is one I know to be bollocks.

    MarkL
    Canberra

  86. Gab

    Dear FDB

    what is your honest opinion regarding the quality of statistical analysis
    Even though you neglected to respond to my question the other night, I won’t do the same.

    The objective: “…to assess the scientific consensus on climate change through an unbiased survey of a large and broad group of Earth Scientists.”
    Perhaps “large and broad” refers to their physical build as only 77 were suitable to answer question 2.

    Let’s look at the numbers:

    10,257 Earth Scientists contacted, out of which
    3149 responded, most of these “Earth Scientists” were ditched. That left
    157 are self-proclaimed Climate Scientists. But only
    77* were deemed “specialists” by Doran & Zimmerman based on two criteria: their self-proclaimed status as a Climate Scientist and have had only two peer-reviewed papers published. So much for the “large and broad”. Unless 77 is deemed statistically significant from a population of approximately 20,000 working climate scientists. I don’t think so.

    Further, their objective stated “Earth Scientists” yet most of these were ejected because they were not “specialists”. Slim pickings at best, but apparently we are to believe that 77 bona fide Climate Specialists represent the views of all Earth Scientists.

    75 of the 77 selected respondents answered ‘yes’ to question 2. Now if the ‘science is settled’, then I would expect all 77 to say ‘yes’, non? Note also that “significant” had no quantifier, eg was it assumed to be ‘catastrophically’ or ‘most’ or ‘greatest’ or ‘mostly’ or ‘somewhat’ or ‘mildly’ significant in the mind of the respondents? I know, details, details…

    Apparently, “overall”, 82% of participants answered ‘yes’ to question 2. However 97.6% of these respondents were rejected John West-like. Their opinion matters not.

    So that leaves only 77 respondents and from these “specialists” it has been proposed, and subsequently promulgated by the meeja, that 97% of climate scientists agree that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures (up or down, not sure, was never specified).

    Imho, this “study” is a flimsy appeal to authority at best and just plain deceptive at worst.
    What sinister ploy are these knuckleheads up to?

    Now be gentle with me, I’m only an average Joette.

    (* 79 in the final selection but only 77 answered question 2)

  87. MarkL of Canberra

    Pfft. Add ‘exclusively’. PIMF.

  88. rog

    Mark! Mark! Mark!

    You are now running around in tighter circles

    There was a proven error in XBT data which, when corrected, lowered available XBT data.

    All measuring devices have error which needs to be corrected, some call the process calibration. Who knows, Catallaxians might well call it something else.

    Argos are not XBT, why did you think that?

  89. MarkL of Canberra

    Silly fellow. See above.

    MarkL
    canberra

  90. FDB

    Gab – I didn’t ask for your regurgitation of the criticisms made elsewhere about the original paper. I asked what you thought about the quality of the linked paper, which responds to it.

    Answer my question.

    If you consider your latest response to be an answer to my question, I’ll proceed on that basis if you like. That (implied) basis being that you have no problems with it.

  91. DavidJ

    FDB, for someone who’s peak lifetime achievement has been a trail of mediocrity and failure, you really do excel at being rolled gold fuckwit. Congrats!

  92. Gab

    I didn’t ask for your regurgitation of the criticisms made elsewhere

    You pompous ass. I can think for myself.

    I asked what you thought about the quality of the linked paper, which responds to it.

    Yes alright FDB, I read the sourced article and thought it somewhat unstructured so I sourced the original published comprehensive summary instead. The linked above is a report FDB, it is not a statistical survey. And no I don’t just blindly agree with everything that is pro-AGW. I am skeptical about the skeptics also.

  93. FDB

    “comprehensive summary”

    FAIL.

  94. FDB

    DavidJ – inferiority complex WIN!

  95. CRAIGY

    I WAS enjoying the chat about the CSIRO bloke and his lies. Can ya get back to it please.??

  96. DavidJ

    DavidJ – inferiority complex WIN!

    Ah FDB you magnificent bastard, you have zinged me again.

  97. Gab

    Good point Craigy, except “lies” is a rather harsh. Do you have proof that Hunt is telling porkys?

    After digging around I found the original of the interview with Hunt.

    It’s amazing just how much coverage one CSIRO “scientist” is afforded. Ah but is he a “climate specialist”?

  98. Gab

    FDB I have noticed that you did not respond to MarkL. Does this mean you agree with his statements?

  99. CRAIGY

    If a bloke says, “Over the last century, the global mean temperature has gone up by 0.8 degrees [Celsius], and that’s the extent of the global warming,” Not 0.7 or 0.9 but exactly 0.8. Then makes predictions with certainty? And he wants to be believed?.

    Not by me , but alot of people will.

  100. JM

    > what physical evidence would need to be presented to overturn theories based on climate models

    Evidence that CO2 lasers don’t work would be good.

    But since they do, I don’t think that is likely to be forthcoming.

    Give it up guys. The physics was in around 100 years ago.

  101. JM

    MAGB, we don’t rely on statistics to create models of how the universe works.

    We’ve only got one sample, how do you suggest we get within an acceptable confidence interval? This is not something that we can repeat 100 times and observe each time.

    What we do is we build up theory – by which I mean validated, accepted physical law, not “a hunch” – over several dozen centuries and then prove it by building things like lasers, atom bombs and computers.

    Now since all those devices work, and are all based on the same theory – which is the same theory proving that increased CO2 warms the earth – I don’t think stats has much of a role.

    (Other than determining the exact magnitude of climate sensitivity that is.)

    The question was “what physical evidence”, not “what mathematical evidence”.

    Show me that a CO2 laser doesn’t work and then I’ll believe that increased atmospheric CO2 doesn’t warm the earth.

    Get cracking, you’re going to have to rebuild several centuries of physics and physical observation.

  102. CRAIGY

    The question was “what physical evidence”, not “what mathematical evidence”.

    Physical evidence is measured with math dude. And presented as such.

    just sayen,

  103. JM

    Craigy, physical evidence is represented by the burn a CO2 laser will give you when removing your tats.

    Just sayin’

  104. jc

    JM

    One close analogy i can give you is right from my own neck of the woods, which happened quite recently.

    One of the most basic things fin market participants are aware of is when a government or its agency-in this case the Fed-prints more money, the value of the currency ought to fall. This is about as close to your stupid Co2 laser analogy as you can find.

    Since the Fed announced its policy the US Dollar has gone straight up instead of down. confounding a large number of people.

    This is the sort of thing that occurs in essentially chaotic systems.

    Suggesting that you can directly figure out the climate with at the most 150 years of temp records (ignoring the paleoclimate fraud of the hockey stick) is laughable.

    We can make an inference, however the smugness of people like you and others that think we have all the answers is disturbing.

    Now I don’t think its wrong to arrive at at inferred conclusions. However to bet 1% of GDP growth over the next 90 years on this kind of thing is potentially tragic.

    I notice you’re applying the same sort of faulty blind logic to this as you did the debate over the NBN when you had a stream of people telling you that avoiding the obvious was silly. You’re doing it again on this subject.

    You don’t seem to understand inference and and you seem to understand things like trades offs. Perhaps you do, which then makes you just another lying leftwinger.

    We don’t know enough about this most complex , chaotic system to be acting so fucking smug about things kiddo.

    If you wish to advocate for change in the way we derive our energy needs then advocate for nuclear energy hoping that through massive scaling we will be able to get the price down through coal. If you can’t do that then please STFU with your stupid examples like the laser as you don’t know enough.

  105. C.L.

    Did they have CO2 lasers during the coldening scare of the 70s?

  106. JM

    JC, it is far from a stupid analogy. It’s a shedload from being an analogy at all.

    CO2 lasers use CO2 gas to emit infra-red.

    ie. exactly the same process that causes global warming. No analogy at all.

    You are the one using a stupid analogy. Come back and talk when money rises to the same level of reality as being able to cause a physical burn on my arm and send me to hospital if the nurse overdoes it.

  107. jc

    JM

    Come back to do what exactly?

    You’re trying to tell us that CO2 in the atmosphere is the same as a fucking laser? You freaking moron.

  108. jc

    CO2 lasers use CO2 gas to emit infra-red.

    Yes doofus and a motor car engine uses oxygen to create energy/ heat. So oxygen is also a green house gas.

    Stop it this bullshit, as this is the same sort of whacked out demented crap you were going on with on the NBN thread where no amount of reason could cause you think that that spending what will amount to $80 billion when it’s all said and done is a waste of money.

  109. JM

    > You freaking moron.

    Learn some physics. Can I suggest this Wiki page as a starting point.

    CO2, like many other things, absorbs and re-emits electromagnetic radiation. That’s the stuff that makes the ground warm from the suns rays and also lets you see things when light reflects off them.

    (And coincidentally gives rise to the colors you see, but that’s another story.)

    CO2 happens to particularly like infra-red. Which is why it is useful in infra-red lasers. Put some CO2 in a tube with a full mirror at one end and a half-mirror at the other, shove some power into it and eventually (ie. within a couple of micro-seconds) an infra-red “death ray” will pop out the half-mirror end.

    Same process in the earth’s atmosphere. Exactly the same process. But no “death rays” there, just a warmer earth (the core reason being that lasers involve coherent light, whereas the Greenhouse Effect does not).

    JC, money is important but it can’t overrule basis physics. Get over it.

    CO2 warms the earth. We’ve increased it’s atmospheric concentration by about 40% over the last century or so through the burning of fossil fuels.

    Fact.

    Not a nice fact, and it has nasty implications, but still a fact.

  110. C.L.

    It isn’t a “fact” and even if it was it doesn’t particularly matter. It’s been hotter before in civilisational history. Stop wetting your pants, Wiki boy.

  111. rog

    It isn’t a “fact” and even if it was it doesn’t particularly matter.

    That is CL and Catallaxy in a nutshell. Climate change is a contact sport to be played to win.

  112. dover_beach

    Evidence that CO2 lasers don’t work would be good.
    But since they do, I don’t think that is likely to be forthcoming. Give it up guys. The physics was in around 100 years ago.

    Because CO2 lasers work we know the effect of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere?

    JM, we’ve been here before, a doubling of CO2 only gets you about 1.2 degrees and even this figure hasn’t been satisfactorily established. So you are going to need much more than radiative physics to get anything above approx. 1.2 degrees for a doubling.

  113. MarkL of Canberra

    JM

    Your effort at making a point is breathtaking in its vapid simplicity.

    Your smugness is as deep as the Challenger.

    Therefore you really have not the slightest idea what you are saying.

    Of course CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Why, it provides what, nearly 5% of the total effect? H2O provides the other ~95%.

    Did you know that the IR absorbing effect of CO2 is saturated at about 60ppm?

    No?

    Did you know that CO2 shares a lot of its absorption spectrum with H2O?

    No?

    Thought not.

    Now, oh mighty genius, please answer my standing question for greentards and AGW cultists. Been asking it for 5 years. No greentard/gaia worshipper has ever been able to answer it. Most run away, crying. Let’s see how you do.

    During the Ordovician-Silurian (450-420mya) and Jurassic-Cretaceous (151-132mya), global glaciations, with pack ice at sea level at the equator occurred when atmospheric CO2 levels were over 4000ppmv and 2000ppmv respectively. (Ref: Berner, RA and Kothavala, Z., 2001, GeocarbIII: A Revised Model of Atmospheric CO2 over Phanerozoic Time, American Journal of Science 301, 182-204.)

    Today it is below 400ppmv.

    How and why did this occur, when the computer models you believe in assure us that over circa 450ppmv we will have runaway greenhouse, something which is completely unrepresented in the global geological record of the last 3,800 million years? (which, BTW, is prior to the development of an O2-rich atmosphere on this planet)

    I await the learned response from your titanic intellect with bated breath.

    MarkL
    Canberra

  114. CRAIGY

    OK JM, You sound like a clever lad. What was the average temperature during the last ice age? What was the CO2 level,before,during and after? And what do you think caused the fluctuation(if there was one)?
    PS. i’ll let you think i have tattoos( which i haven’t) if you let me think you look like that little dude with glasses who mimics pop songs on YouTube. Hehe I love that little guy.

  115. JM

    Guys it doesn’t matter s**t what the CO2 concentration was at some remote time in the past.

    What matters is the delta over the last 100-150 years (and particularly the last 50), how fast it has risen (fast!) and whether it correlates with a very fast temperature rise over the same period (it does).

    And all of that correlation is causation because we have the physical explanation for it. CO2 lasers wouldn’t work if that physical explanation was wrong.

    The numbers align with the theory. The theory is correct.

  116. FDB

    You’re seriously asking that question again MarkL – and claiming I didn’t slap it down for nonsense a month ago?

    Chutzpah – I’m impressed.

    So anyway, your little ice age story tells us precisely nothing of value, as usual. Of course there was lots of CO2 – there weren’t any fucking plants to turn it into terrestrial C and oxygen, were there?

    Of course the presence of high CO2 concentrations wasn’t enough to suddenly turn the ice-age around – ice and snow are incredibly poor at absorbing warmth and emitting IR, so there’s nothing for the greenhouse effect to work with, is there? Neither the minor CO2 warming nor the major H2O warming (as there’s very little water vapour in an ice age) would get any purchase.

    Go on – ask the same fucking dumb question some time in Feb. Maybe you’ll luck out and nobody with any knowledge or imagination will be around to point out your idiocy.

  117. CRAIGY

    JM. Sorry mate, if thats your foolproof process , I cant agree. Seems too weak and narrow .
    Anyway, you enjoy the rest of your year.
    Toodles

  118. JM

    Craigy: “I can’t agree”

    Why not? Don’t just run away, tell me why. Maybe I’m wrong.

    Or maybe you’re just blowing smoke.

  119. MarkL of Canberra

    JM

    Guys it doesn’t matter s**t what the CO2 concentration was at some remote time in the past.

    What, the laws of physics have changed since then? Pure handwavium.

    What matters is the delta over the last 100-150 years (and particularly the last 50), how fast it has risen (fast!) and whether it correlates with a very fast temperature rise over the same period (it does).

    So JM thinks that nothing is to be learned from past experience in geological time. More handwavium and denial of basic facts. Today isn’t even very warm by historical, let alone geological standards. There used to be temperate rainforests full of dinosaurs at the south pole. But none of that matters to JM!

    Warmie doomscreamers claim that once over 450ppm there will be a runaway greenhouse effect and nothing can stop it.
    Yet, we had a global glaciation at ten times that CO2 level.

    JM sez “Don’t you worry about that!”

    Of course you do, becuase it shows that the 450ppm tipping point is raw sewage, designed to scare people and extract cash.

    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

    Provide it.

    And all of that correlation is causation because we have the physical explanation for it. CO2 lasers wouldn’t work if that physical explanation was wrong.

    Too busy laughing to answer… you seriously think that ‘AGW must be true because CO2 lasers work’.

    Dude.

    The numbers align with the theory. The theory is correct.

    Bollocks. The hypothesis (not a theory) is disproven by the geological record.

    FDB

    and claiming I didn’t slap it down for nonsense a month ago?

    No, although you did embarrass yourself by displaying deep ignorance about basic science. People accepted it, after all, you’re a drummer, and not scientifically literate.

    So anyway, your little ice age story tells us precisely nothing of value, as usual. Of course there was lots of CO2 – there weren’t any fucking plants to turn it into terrestrial C and oxygen, were there?

    What I love about this statement is the three layers of internal self-contradiction. Impressive achievement in a mere two sentences.

    You did not notice them when you wrote this, did you, FDB?

    Of course the presence of high CO2 concentrations wasn’t enough to suddenly turn the ice-age around – ice and snow are incredibly poor at absorbing warmth and emitting IR, so there’s nothing for the greenhouse effect to work with, is there? Neither the minor CO2 warming nor the major H2O warming (as there’s very little water vapour in an ice age) would get any purchase.

    As usual, you miss the entire point.
    A global glaciation does not magically appear one day. If warmie doomscreamers like you are right, and 450ppm is a sooper dooper catastrophic tipping point, then how did the global glaciation develop?

    The world over those epochs was a high CO2 concentration world. It was always over 450ppm. Our atmosphere is deeply impoverished in CO2.

    So tell me, oh mighty muso, how a global glaciation can even start if you warmies are right, and 450ppm+ ALWAYS causes runaway warming?

    Go on – ask the same fucking dumb question some time in Feb. Maybe you’ll luck out and nobody with any knowledge or imagination will be around to point out your idiocy.

    Heh, the final resort of the warmie loser, ad hominem and abuse. How banal.

    MarkL
    Canberra

  120. FDB

    “So tell me, oh mighty muso, how a global glaciation can even start if you warmies are right, and 450ppm+ ALWAYS causes runaway warming?”

    You’ve predicated your question on a false premise. A strawman, that is. So it answers itself.

    Is it your contention that high CO2 concentrations caused the glaciation? As I said when you trotted this sheer nonsense out last time – there are other things which affect climate, and affect it much more than do greenhouse gases. Something else caused the glaciation then – something completely separate to CO2 concentration, and something particular to that period in geological time.

    Please provide a detailed explanation of the relevance of your example to current climate science. You seem to think that jibbering on about CO2 ppm during a glaciation hundreds of millions of years ago is some kind of knockout argument with respect to current AGW. I believe you’re simply wrong about that. If there is relevance, you’re going to need to explain it, preferably with reference to what actual climate scientists are saying.

    You’re way out of your depth here Mark – if all you’ve got as a flotation device is this iceage crap.

  121. JM

    > What, the laws of physics have changed since then? Pure handwavium.

    No they haven’t Mark. But since you seem to have invented your own private set perhaps you could enlighten us as to how they work.

  122. JM

    > The hypothesis (not a theory)

    So you’re saying that CO2 doesn’t have radiative properties? That those same radiative properties that underlie the workings of a laser are somehow different if the CO2 molecule isn’t contained in a glass tube but is free in the atmosphere?

    How does the CO2 molecule know that Mark? I’m all ears.

  123. JM

    > you’re a drummer, and not scientifically literate.

    I’m not a drummer Mark. And I am scientifically literate, qualified in fact. Unlike you.

  124. MarkL of Canberra

    JM – your boast is highly unlikely given your words on this thread. An example is your silly bait-and-switch in your second eruction of drivel above.

    FDB, not a strawman at all. Check what the high priests of AGW have said over the last decade abiout 450ppm and tipping points (you cannot shut James Hansen up on the issue of tipping points!). Check their predictions of runaway global warming post-450ppm, they postulate a 450ppm ‘tipping point’ which initiates a positive feedback loop.

    No such event is present in the geological record. Not in 3,800 million years.

    The point raised here is obvious to all but the AGW cult believer. The geological record disproves the warmie hypothesis of ‘450ppm CO2 tipping points’ and ‘runaway global warming’.

    That’s why you attempt these amateur bait-and-switch efforts, like your fourth sentence above. And it is why you absolutely refuse under any circumstances to address the point: if, as claimed by warmy computer models, runaway global warming is caused by atmospheric concentrations of CO2 over 450ppm, how did global glaciations develop when CO2 concentrations were above that level?

    I am not making this claim – warmies are. it’s up to the claimant to prove the claim.

    The answer is actually obvious – the warmy claims, and the models they use, are complete garbage.

    But no warmy can possibly admit that, it’s heresy within the AGW cult’s belief system.

    MarkL
    Canberra

  125. dover_beach

    JM, the radiative properties of CO2 only get you about 1.2 degrees per doubling; the current theory postulates 2-6 degrees per doubling; ergo, it is built on far more than the radiative properties of CO2.

  126. FDB

    Mark – I wonder why you didn’t address anything I said, or answer any of the questions I asked.

    Wait, no I don’t.

    It’s because you’re a blowhard intellectual fraud.

  127. Jarrah

    if, as claimed by warmy computer models, runaway global warming is caused by atmospheric concentrations of CO2 over 450ppm, how did global glaciations develop when CO2 concentrations were above that level?

    Because CO2 isn’t the only factor in climate change. Milankovitch cycles are the most important factor in triggering glaciation and deglaciation.

  128. MarkL of Canberra

    Rather, FDB, it’s because I am hardly likely to fall for such a simple bait-and-switch.

    And it is why you absolutely refuse under any circumstances to address the point: if, as claimed by warmy computer models, runaway global warming is caused by atmospheric concentrations of CO2 over 450ppm, how did global glaciations develop when CO2 concentrations were above that level?

    I am not making this claim – warmies are. it’s up to the claimant to prove the claim.

    Now, so far, your respionses have been:

    Airy handwavium: “Oh, I dismissed this ages ago” when you did not.

    False imputation: “Is it your contention that high CO2 concentrations caused the glaciation?” No, that’s YOUR thought, projected on to be quite falsely, and you then proceed to dismiss something I have never said at all: “As I said when you trotted this sheer nonsense out last time …”

    Assume my claim is correct and prove it incorrect: “Please provide a detailed explanation of the relevance of your example to current climate science.”
    Nope. Not my responsibility at all. I am not making the warmie AGW claim nor the 450ppm CO2 concentration tipping point claim. I do not have to prove them incorrect, with the claimant lies that responsibility.
    And all it takes to demolish the claim (the hypothesis) is one piece of verifiable and replicable evidence that it’s BS.
    Global glaciations at much higher CO2 concentrations do that – which is why you are so frantically skittering around the issue.

    Proof that you have nothing at all lies in that skittering, your airy dismissal of the point without any supporting evidence, your desperate efforts to imply that it’s too long ago to count (what, the laws of phyics changed?), your resort to ad hominem, and finally, your inevitable silence.

    And the next time it comes up, you’ll merely repeat the same cycle – after all, you know, and I know, that you can find no basis for the warmist claims beyond flawed computer models.

    All you show here is that you are a cultist warmy who has swallowed the con hook, line and sinker. And you are utterly unwilling to admit you’ve been gulled. I accepted the warmist arguments back in the 90s as available facts supported their case. As more facts became available and various blatent conmen moved into the field for profit, I changed my assessment.

    You’re inability to accept a changed assessment is very normal. It takes a highly educated personality of high confidence and strong character to actually change their assessment when more facts become available. I’ve had decades of doing that professionally. You have not.

    Jarrah: Yes, and many other variables too, few of which are understood. How easy it is to gull simple ill-educated people, though, with a simple, scary story, some razzle-dazzle, and one demonised item. It’s a sure road to riches for conmen like Gore and Flannery. Hell, it’s made Gore a billionaire. Yet, they always fall for it, as FDB has done.

    MarkL
    Canberra

  129. Jarrah

    “Jarrah: Yes”

    So why are you crapping on, if you know the answer?

    “As more facts became available and various blatent conmen moved into the field for profit, I changed my assessment.”

    There is no field of human endeavour immune to the predations of con men and women. To dismiss an entire academic discipline because there are unscrupulous or opportunistic individuals on the sidelines is idiotic.

  130. MarkL of Canberra

    Jarrah, who is dismissing and entire discipline? I am dismissing the conmen, and the simplistic focus of the AGW warmie cult solely on CO2.

    It’s a hell of a lot more complex than the warmie cultists claim.

    Why do you think I keep referring to Rhodes Fairbridge?

    And his Eustatic Fluctions During the Holocene is just a start point.

    MarkL
    Canberra

  131. C.L.

    Warmenism is an ‘academic discipline’? Do its members agree with Tim Flannery that Gaia will soon be manifested physically?

  132. Gab

    Another paper. Paulo Cesar Soares examining the correlation between temperature changes and evil CO2.

    “The absence of correlation between temperature changes and the immense and variable volume of CO2 waste by fuel burning is explained by the weak power of additional carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to reduce the outcoming window of long wave radiation. This effect is well performed by atmosphere humidity due to known increase insolation and vapor content in atmosphere.”

  133. C.L.

    Interesting, Gab. No link, says peer-reviewed science.

  134. C.L.

    LOL. No, I mean no link ‘between temperature changes and the immense and variable volume of CO2 waste by fuel burning…’ 😉

  135. FDB

    Once again, you have failed Mark.

    I’ve been very clear and quite correct, while you are a blowhard fraud.

    You are repeatedly claiming that ‘climate scientists’ think CO2 is the only factor determining global average temperature.

    In actual fact, nobody has ever made that claim.

    So, worse than merely being wrong, you are actually lying.

    It’s not a good look mate.

  136. Gab

    peer-reviewed science.

    However it has not been reviewed by the climate specialists frequenting Catallaxy.

  137. FDB

    Also, you shouldn’t bandy ‘ad hominem’ around like this. Look it up.

    I’m not saying you’re wrong because you’re a blowhard intellectual fraud (which would be ad hom), I’m saying you’re a blowhard intellectual fraud because you’re wrong (which is a reasonable and considered judgement).

  138. dover_beach

    FDB, feel free to answer 2dogs long-standing unanswered question re chaos, weather vs. climate and El Nino/ La Nina.

    BTW, where has MarkL ever made the claim that “CO2 is the only factor determining global average temperature”?

  139. FDB

    D_B:

    “if, as claimed by warmy computer models, runaway global warming is caused by atmospheric concentrations of CO2 over 450ppm, how did global glaciations develop when CO2 concentrations were above that level?

    I am not making this claim – warmies are. it’s up to the claimant to prove the claim.”

    I have repeatedly explained why this is a ridiculous question, based on a claim nobody has ever made. Mark seems impervious to reason on this matter.

  140. FDB

    Oh, and what was 2dogs’ question?

  141. CRAIGY

    FDB
    “”You are repeatedly claiming that ‘climate scientists’ think CO2 is the only factor determining global average temperature.
    In actual fact, nobody has ever made that claim.””

    Im just a dumb working nobody (the majority of voters) just listening in to learn a bit. But im sorry to tell you that all we get from climate experts is CO2 this and CO2 that, CARBON is death.Tax on CARBON. Its THAT perception we’ve been fed. They haven’t nominated ANY other culprit. Sometimes METHANE is mentioned,but most of the time, folks think thats about farting.

    I’m just sharing the view from down here, at the bottom of the intellectual hill

  142. MarkL of Canberra

    FDB:

    Once again, you have failed Mark.

    Yeah, yeah, more skittering and self-impoprtant claims about yourself. You have still fasiled to address how a 450ppm ‘tipping point’ can exist if there were global glaciations where the planet’s atmosphere was above that concentration.

    I’ve been very clear and quite correct, while you are a blowhard fraud.

    Yawn. So an AGW warmie cultist claims his cult has the true and holy word. What a surprise that you consider me a heretic.

    You are repeatedly claiming that ‘climate scientists’ think CO2 is the only factor determining global average temperature.

    Nope. I have never made that claim and that is verifiable. This is YOUR claim, made now, and not mine. Just another bait-and-switch variant in fact. I have consistently said that “It’s a hell of a lot more complex than the warmie cultists claim.”

    The ONLY person to say “CO2 is the only factor determining global average temperature” in this or any other thread here is YOU, at 1542 on 2 January 2011.

    In actual fact, nobody has ever made that claim.

    George Monbiot has. Al Gore has. You just did. The fact of Copenhagen being about a desired outcome to regulate CO2 and no other gas gives the lie to your statement.

    So, worse than merely being wrong, you are actually lying.

    I am lying about claims you make yourself, then impugn to me? That’s a sad and shabby little argument to make.

    And still you skitter around the issue you do not dare to answer:

    I am not making the warmie AGW claim nor the 450ppm CO2 concentration tipping point claim. I do not have to prove them incorrect, with the claimant lies the responsibility to prove their claim.
    And all it takes to demolish the claim (the hypothesis) is one piece of verifiable and replicable evidence that it’s BS.
    Global glaciations at much higher CO2 concentrations do that – which is why you are so frantically skittering around the issue.

    I keep returning to this – my point – because you cannot face it and will spin any tissue to avoid it.

    It’s not like watching you skitter is fun, it’s actually rather pitiable.

    I’m not saying you’re wrong because you’re a blowhard intellectual fraud (which would be ad hom), I’m saying you’re a blowhard intellectual fraud because you’re wrong (which is a reasonable and considered judgement).

    Sophistry. You are still attacking the person and not addressing the point. Again, sad and pitiable, it just shows you have nothing left, but that your pride forces you not to admit reality.

    if, as claimed by warmy computer models, runaway global warming is caused by atmospheric concentrations of CO2 over 450ppm, how did global glaciations develop when CO2 concentrations were above that level?

    I am not making this claim – warmies are. it’s up to the claimant to prove the claim.”

    I have repeatedly explained why this is a ridiculous question, based on a claim nobody has ever made. Mark seems impervious to reason on this matter.

    You are either not well read or dissembling: this is merely more smokescreen and skittering. Look at the ‘papers’ presented at Copenhagen. Look at the ‘solutions to AGW’ proposed by the warmie cults and green fascists like Bob Brown, they all revolve around taxing/limiting/trading CO2 to their own profit. Watch Gores execrable cli-fi flick ‘An Inconvenient Truth’, where CO2 is presented as the only culprit. Look at their risible computer models, which are all about CO2 and even treat the planet as a closed thermal system. Look at Craigy’s description of his perceptions. Listen to presentations from Dept Climate Change. Look at the ‘corrective policies’ Pwong espouses, every single one of them revolves around CO2 reductions.

    It is not possible that you can have missed this: so it’s just more skittering, dissembling and such. Not even a nice try, FDB, it’s so clumsily transparent.

    MarkL
    Canberra

  143. FDB

    Mark – that’s some seriously lame bullshit right there.

    It is the professional opinion of a large majority of climate scientists that rising atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations are responsible for recently observed warming. That’s all, that’s it.

    BTW, what is your own opinion regarding the cause of the global glaciation 450 million years ago? I think it might have been an asteroid impact or something.

  144. FDB

    Craigy – that’s a fucking huge chip on your shoulder mate.

    If you want to learn about climate science, you’re clearly smart enough to research it a little yourself. These are intelligent professionals doing the best job they can, not some nest of frickin’ vipers.

    Don’t rely on the media to inform you – and CERTAINLY don’t rely on Catallaxy!

  145. Gab

    You really can be a nasty little man at times FDB.

  146. rog

    How has agw turned Gore into a billionaire?

  147. Jarrah

    MarkL, you seem to be very confused. Many factors affect climate, but the one that we humans can do anything about is our own extra CO2, which also happens to be a very important factor.

    That’s why many want to reduce CO2 emissions – because there’s very little we can do about solar insolation, albedo, the amount of cloud cover, the amount of water vapour, etc. (Ignoring for the sake of simplicity the various feedback loops)

    Climate change happens all the time. But when we should, all else being equal, be heading towards cooler temperatures, we are in fact experiencing a sustained temp rise of alarming rapidity. This will have knock-on effects for most of the planet. These two facts are irrefutable, the rest we can argue about, including the nature and scope of the knock-on effects and how to deal with them.

    But when your whole argument revolves around propagandists somehow negating the work of thousands of very serious scientists, then you’ll get short shrift from FDB or me or anyone who is interested in genuine criticisms. You should take a leaf out of dover_beach’s book and stick to contentious details instead of raving about cults and fascists.

  148. MarkL of Canberra

    FDB:

    It is the professional opinion of a large majority of climate scientists that rising atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations are responsible for recently observed warming. That’s all, that’s it.

    What remarkable hubris they have. Ignoring the fallacies in logic of the argumentum ad verecundiam and the argumentum ad populum, you miss Gore and Hansen’s tipping point arguments etc etc. In this case also, if there is the claimed linear relationship between CO2 concentration increases and temperature, then the argument is false. In the last decade CO2 concentrations have kept going and global temperature has declined.

    Oops.

    Then we get to the global glaciations….

    BTW, what is your own opinion regarding the cause of the global glaciation 450 million years ago? I think it might have been an asteroid impact or something.

    No idea – becuase nobody has any idea, just varying hypotheses. Climate is a chaotic system which we do not understand, and one where we know very few of the variables and nothing about how they interact. We onkly got the first basic understanding of how global marine heat transfer system work a few years ago!Everything affects climate, from cosmic ray flux to massive (and before 2010 undiscovered) electrical energy transfers between the solar flux and the biosphere.

    For Al Gore it’s money. Al Gore knows it’s CO2 and wants to trade CO2 credits, as this will make him a multi-billionaire. He already buys CO2 credits from himself to pay for his own emissions. And yet, people believe this bloated spiv with a massive direct financial interest! For Bob Brown it’s political power. For Pwong – would she be a Minister without the AGW scam? Would Flannery have commande $52,000 per speaking enaggement without it?

    Follow the power and the money.

    MarkL
    Canberra

  149. FDB

    You’re not really a serious person, are you Mark?

  150. rog

    So..how did agw turn Gore into a billionaire?

  151. MarkL of Canberra

    jarrah:

    Many factors affect climate,

    Which is what I’ve been saying consistently: see my posts above.

    but the one that we humans can do anything about is our own extra CO2,which also happens to be a very important factor.

    There is no evidence it’s important in any way, and much that it is not.

    So why is it necessary to do anything, other than adapt to how climate alters over time?

    That’s why many want to reduce CO2 emissions – because there’s very little we can do about solar insolation, albedo, the amount of cloud cover, the amount of water vapour, etc. (Ignoring for the sake of simplicity the various feedback loops)

    Why is any action necessary? Your argument here is circular.

    Climate change happens all the time. But when we should, all else being equal, be heading towards cooler temperatures, we are in fact experiencing a sustained temp rise of alarming rapidity.

    Might be true, might not be. If we are experiencing a warming spurt, so what? generally, that benefits human civilisation by expanding arable cropland areas. And we do not even really know if we are, as so much raw data has been arbitrarily adjusted upwards to support the warmie arguments!

    This will have knock-on effects for most of the planet. These two facts are irrefutable, the rest we can argue about, including the nature and scope of the knock-on effects and how to deal with them.

    And if the facts are not irrefutable? becuase there is much evidence pointing to deliberate manipulation of the data by people who gain personally from such manipulation.

    But when your whole argument revolves around propagandists somehow negating the work of thousands of very serious scientists, then you’ll get short shrift from FDB or me or anyone who is interested in genuine criticisms. You should take a leaf out of dover_beach’s book and stick to contentious details instead of raving about cults and fascists.

    Hmm. a question. The reference was: Berner, RA and Kothavala, Z., 2001, GeocarbIII: A Revised Model of Atmospheric CO2 over Phanerozoic Time, American Journal of Science 301, 182-204.)

    These are scientists. Yet, you characterise their research – contrary views to your own – as ‘propaganda’, and then you fall back on argumentum ad verecundiam and the argumentum ad populum again.

    You do know that reliance on a fallacy in logic actually invalidates your argument, don’t you?

    You do understand that there are more scientists and papers out there disagreeing with AGW than agreeing with it? You do understand that many of the IPCC’s conclusions were refuted by the authors of the papers they used, as they said the IPCC had deliberately misused their conclusions to mislead policy makers?

    The sort of points you make are why I use the term ‘cultic’ in reference to AGW. Contrary data is dismissed out of hand, and a small number of blatant con-men making money off the scare yet are regarded as infallibly correct.

    You have just illustrated this, and quite clearly.

    MarkL
    canberra

  152. C.L.

    FDB and Rog obviously skipped Ken’s New Year’s advice. FDB’s responses consist of ‘fucking’ and ‘bullshit’ and other highly convincing arguments. Poor old Rog resorts to sarcasm having realised his junior leaving certificate has left him at something of a disadvantage as a scientist.

  153. MarkL of Canberra

    Wodga, you simply cannot be so dull:

    Gore is getting rich from environmentalism, not just by being paid a whopping $175,000 per speech but by using political pressure to force government policy in a direction that benefits his business interests.

    Gore is founder and chairman of the Alliance for Climate Protection, an outfit that seeks to “persuade people of the importance, urgency and feasibility of adopting and implementing effective and comprehensive solutions for the climate crisis.” It has launched a $300 million advertising campaign to coax Americans to embrace the carbon-lite lifestyle and to put pressure on their political leaders to lower national carbon emissions.

    But Gore is also chairman of a green investment firm called Generation Investment Management, which is a member of the Copenhagen Climate Council, an international collaboration of businesses and science bodies that promotes climate-change mitigation strategies and invests in companies that are environmentally friendly—including firms that produce renewable energy and low-carbon technology. So Gore uses one of his multimillion-dollar organizations—the Alliance for Climate Protection—to put pressure on government to promote the low-carbon lifestyle, which furnishes one of his other multimillion-dollar organizations—General Investment Management—with booming business.

    Gore is also at the forefront of a very vocal effort to encourage the Obama administration to put a price on carbon. That is, to follow in Europe’s footsteps by creating a carbon-trading scheme whereby the wasteful byproduct of everyday manufacturing would be priced. Only those who pay for the “right” to emit carbon would be allowed to do so. When this was first introduced in Europe in 2005 under the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme, a “pass” cost 30 euros per ton of CO2. When you consider that a large coal-fired power station can produce 20 million tons of CO2 per year, you see how the carbon levy works as a Big Government tax.

    Gore and other members of the Copenhagen Climate Council, including the world’s largest producer of wind turbines, Vestas, present their demands for carbon-trading schemes as altruistic efforts to clean up the planet. In truth, these green-leaning profit-making machines stand to gain significantly if the activities of their less green competitors are hampered by government demands

    Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/al-gores-2009-7#ixzz19rOc4rBR

    If Gore were in the oil industry, the left would be howling for prison time, with such blatant conflicts of interest as he has.

    MarkL
    Canberra

  154. rog

    It is a genuine question CL, how did agw turn Gore into a billionaire?

    Capt Mark! appears to be unable or unwilling to supply the irrefutable evidence.

  155. rog

    Is that the irrefutable evidence?

    John Carney, from ClusterStock and DealBreaker.com

  156. C.L.

    Many factors affect climate, but the one that we humans can do anything about is our own extra CO2, which also happens to be a very important factor.

    That’s why many want to reduce CO2 emissions – because there’s very little we can do about solar insolation, albedo, the amount of cloud cover, the amount of water vapour, etc. (Ignoring for the sake of simplicity the various feedback loops).

    Good Lord, what dishonesty, what pretentiousness. I’m sure warmenists do speak about and pretend to calibrate a suite of factors in play in relation to temperature but it’s simply tendentious and ridiculous not to acknowledge that CO2 is touted by them as the boo-hiss panto uber-villain in the piece. Central to the warmenist belief system is mankind’s sinfulness in relation to Gaia; hence the very name given to their faith: AGW. Warmening icon, Tim Flannery, has even warned that Gaia will physically appear to chastise us if we continue our CO2 gluttony.

    Many factors affect climate, but the one that we humans can do anything about is our own extra CO2, which also happens to be a very important factor.

    Almost makes it sound as though the warmening movement has reluctantly concentrated on “extra” CO2 (LOL) only because, like the mountain, It Was There.

    Not true. It was always centrally important to the AGW cult that man – especially capitalist man – be responsible.

  157. MarkL of Canberra

    Ah, Wodga, you whimper and wail to be spoonfed, and then reject any information provided.

    Why don’t you get off your lazy backside and look for yourself?

    A good place to start is Al Gores annual tax return – they are public domain in the USA.

    Or look at GIM’s website and investment strategies and contrast them with what Gore’s lobbyists push his buddies in Congress to fund with public money or the legislate.

    Find out for yourself. There’s l;enty of palces to start in what I’ve just said.

    Your next trick will be to claim that these wordsw mean there is ‘no evidence’. Be aware that that old trick is not much used even by young kids these days. it’s just too transparent.

    MarkL
    canberra

  158. Jc

    Look for the answer yourself quadger, you lazy bum.

  159. CRAIGY

    FDB
    I dont have a problem with the people on the ground,gathering data and researching scientific areas.I do have a problem with the INFO that is spread to the masses. Its the so-called experts, not the scientists! After all, its the general public will ultimately decide with their vote, who’s policies get the nod,not the scientists.Why call it a CARBON TAX if its a CO2 TAX or a GREENHOUSE GAS TAX? Carbon is part of many molecules, which of them is proven to have effects?

    Also,If you read sarcasm into any of my posts, it is unintentional.Please don’t reply sarcasm.

  160. Jarrah

    “Yet, you characterise their research – contrary views to your own – as ‘propaganda’,”

    Sorry if I wasn’t clear, but I meant Gore et al, not contrarian scientists. I was agreeing with you. You’re screaming about behaviour, when what matters is evidence. And the state of play in that arena looks more one-sided than an Ashes Test.

    “Why is any action necessary?”

    This is certainly up for debate, as there is far more uncertainty about knock-on effects than the underlying measurements.

    “generally, that benefits human civilisation by expanding arable cropland areas. ”

    You would know, would you? 😉 In fact in some places arable land would increase – Greenland and Siberia are two likely examples. But once we take into account reductions in arable land due to desertification, rainfall pattern change, sea level change, glacier melt, river stress, then are we better off?

    This is not mentioning all the other problems that AGW could bring, to keep the discussion manageable.

  161. Jarrah

    “Good Lord, what dishonesty, what pretentiousness.”

    CL accurately describes himself.

  162. MarkL of Canberra

    Sorry if I wasn’t clear, but I meant Gore et al, not contrarian scientists. I was agreeing with you. You’re screaming about behaviour, when what matters is evidence. And the state of play in that arena looks more one-sided than an Ashes Test.

    Oh, OK, I did misunderstand, sorry.

    Yes, I am screaming about behaviour, as some behaviours affect evidence. I expect a scientist to tell me what he did, tell me what he did not do, tell me what the results are, tell me what he thinks about those results, and tell me how I can replicate them.

    Yet we have proof (the Darwin Airport temperature record, coder comments in the CRU modeller codes and many others) that AGW-favouring persons have added arbitrary warming ‘adjustments’ to the raw data!

    The comment on expansion of arable land (and extension of growing seasons) comes from studies contrasting agricultural use patterns in Europe and Asia during the Medieval Warm period to those of the Maunder minimum.

    Yes, there are certainly other variables involved – the Four Horsemen if nothing else.

    MarkL
    Canberra

  163. Mr Hunt concluded: there will be a long term drying trend over most of Australia.
    I don’t agree, with the exception of the south half of WA.
    Over the past 30 yrs both cylcones and anti-cyclones in the southern hemisphere have moved south. Initially this did decrease rainfall over the Eastern side of Australia, but now (say last 5 yrs) there is increased summer rainfall over Qld and NSW. This trend will continue as the summer cyclones that traditionally crossed the Timor Sea are now reduced to an upside down horseshoe troughs over northern and eastern Australia.
    Unfortunately we can expect floods in Qld and northern NSW in future years.

  164. rog

    That is a pretty weak response

    Why don’t you get off your lazy backside and look for yourself?

    I know that Catallaxy is an irony free zone.

  165. MarkL of Canberra

    Well, why don’t you? There’s stacks of data available from a simple google search.

    After all, you rejected the data I provided as you did not like the alleged ideology of the author. (What, you never examine both sides of an issue?)

    So start googling and stop asking to be spoon-fed.

    MarkL
    canberra

  166. rog

    Listen here Capt Mark!

    You are the one demanding irrefutable evidence yet is unable to supply the same

    start googling and stop asking to be spoon-fed.

    In other words you have no evidence.

  167. Jc

    You have no evidence”

    Quodger is now doing dumbed down, poor imitations of birdie.

  168. MarkL of Canberra

    You are SO predictable:

    MarkL 1839:

    Your next trick will be to claim that these words mean there is ‘no evidence’. Be aware that that old trick is not much used even by young kids these days. it’s just too transparent

    Wodga 1956: In other words you have no evidence

    Laughing at you, here.

    MarkL
    canberra

  169. MarkL of Canberra

    FDB’s down to:

    You’re not really a serious person, are you Mark?

    Proof that you have nothing at all lies in that skittering, your airy dismissal of the point without any supporting evidence, your desperate efforts to imply that it’s too long ago to count (what, the laws of phyics changed?), your resort to ad hominem, and finally, your inevitable silence.

    His silence will descend soon enough.

    And next time, he’ll claim he ended this debate in victory. Sad, that the gullible cannot admit being gulled.

    MarkL
    Canberra

  170. daddy dave

    I know that Catallaxy is an irony free zone

    Not with you around, and your brand of bitter, cynical sarcasm.

  171. MarkL of Canberra

    Aaaand yet more demolition of the Warmist stance on CO2 as the devil incarnate:

    Warming Power of CO2 and H2O: Correlations with Temperature Changes
    Author: Paulo Cesar Soares

    ABSTRACT

    The dramatic and threatening environmental changes announced for the next decades are the result of models whose main drive factor of climatic changes is the increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Although taken as a premise, the hypothesis does not have verifiable consistence. The comparison of temperature changes and CO2 changes in the atmosphere is made for a large diversity of conditions, with the same data used to model climate changes. Correlation of historical series of data is the main approach. CO2 changes are closely related to temperature.

    Warmer seasons or triennial phases are followed by an atmosphere that is rich in CO2, reflecting the gas solving or exsolving from water, and not photosynthesis activity. Interannual correlations between the variables are good. A weak dominance of temperature changes precedence, relative to CO2 changes, indicate that the main effect is the CO2 increase in the atmosphere due to temperature rising. Decreasing temperature is not followed by CO2 decrease, which indicates a different route for the CO2 capture by the oceans, not by gas re-absorption. Monthly changes have no correspondence as would be expected if the warming was an important absorption-radiation effect of the CO2 increase.

    The anthropogenic wasting of fossil fuel CO2 to the atmosphere shows no relation with the temperature changes even in an annual basis. The absence of immediate relation between CO2 and temperature is evidence that rising its mix ratio in the atmosphere will not imply more absorption and time residence of energy over the Earth surface. This is explained because band absorption is nearly all done with historic CO2 values. Unlike CO2, water vapor in the atmosphere is rising in tune with temperature changes, even in a monthly scale. The rising energy absorption of vapor is reducing the outcoming long wave radiation window and amplifying warming regionally and in a different way around the globe.

    Full paper:
    http://www.scirp.org/Journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=3447&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=ijg13&utm_campaign=01

    MarkL
    Canberra

  172. dover_beach

    FDB:
    I have repeatedly explained why this is a ridiculous question, based on a claim nobody has ever made. Mark seems impervious to reason on this matter.

    Sorry, FDB, but MarkL’s question does not reduce to the claim that CO2 is the only factor.

    Oh, and what was 2dogs’ question?

    This was (from the Humility Please thread):

    On the difference between climate and weather, note that El Nino/La Nina/ENSO is a climate phenomenon, not a weather phenomenon.

    So if you want to assess how well a GCM can predict climate without being bogged down with chaotic weather, try looking at how well they predict El Nino. This would be a very valuable pursuit for a climate model, so it isn’t something they would shy away from only out of lack of interest.

    But the GCMs in use at present are quite bad at predicting an El Nino, so Sam is right in his assertion that we can not predict climate. I will happily withdraw that statement when I am shown a GCM that can reliably predict an El Nino.

    Jarrah:
    But when we should, all else being equal, be heading towards cooler temperatures, we are in fact experiencing a sustained temp rise of alarming rapidity. This will have knock-on effects for most of the planet. These two facts are irrefutable,

    How is the claim the we should be descending towards cooler temperatures both a fact and irrefutable?

  173. FDB

    “Sorry, FDB, but MarkL’s question does not reduce to the claim that CO2 is the only factor.”

    Arguably not, but you must agree it’s ridiculous, and I have answered it anyway.

    As for 2dogs’ comment – that’s not a question. What response does it invite?

  174. dover_beach

    It invites a response to the claim that climate is not chaotic (which of course it is from at least to multi-millennial time-scales) by suggesting that El Nino/ La Nina, like many other oscillations (AO, NAO, etc.), are unable to be predicted by climate models even though the latter claim to model climate phenomena.

  175. dover_beach

    Arguably not, but you must agree it’s ridiculous, and I have answered it anyway.

    Arguably not? More likely, definitely not. As to it being ridiculous, no, the ridiculous claim is that we are on the verge of a climatic tipping point.

  176. FDB

    Mark’s big gotcha question about a past glaciation was based on the idea that climate scientists say that (and I quote) “450ppm always causes runaway warming”. So how did a global glaciation develop with much higher greenhouse gas levels than that?

    Since nobody makes the above claim, the whole thing is ridiculous. As I’ve repeatedly said, and Mark has studiously ignored, something other than greenhouse gases must have been at work in causing the glaciation in question.

    Yet he keeps asking, and pretending I haven’t answered.

  177. FDB

    Which leaves us with what climate scientists actually DO say (which varies considerably and is the subject of legitimate debate). Basically, this is that current warming is best explained by increased GGs in the atmosphere, and that under currently prevailing conditions 450ppm would cause runaway warming.

    Not that it should have caused runaway warming or prevented a glaciation 450m years ago. I’ve also explained why you would in fact expect high CO2 levels during a global ige age – no plants, and high albedo.

  178. dover_beach

    What of the similar claim that we are in danger of reaching a climatic tipping point which is behind CAGW? Surely that doesn’t make the ‘whole thing’ ridiculous.

  179. dover_beach

    and that under currently prevailing conditions 450ppm would cause runaway warming.

    There is precious little evidence for the following claim; there is so little evidence that we do not even know whether 450ppm would achieve anything more than 1.2C leave alone runaway warming.

  180. FDB

    As I said DB – plenty of room for reasoned objections, questions about assumptions etc, but Mark’s supposed knockout gotcha regarding a very poorly-understood paleo-climatic event is, frankly, ridiculous. For the reasons I’ve repeatedly explained, both this time and last time he brought it up.

    If you’d like to have a sensible discussion using relevant evidentiary examples and sound reasoning then tops – I’d prefer that too.

  181. MarkL of Canberra

    FDB, you have answered nothing and understood nothing. Your empty claims notwithstanding, your ‘arguments’ here have been:

    29 Dec 1255: an assertion about 2010 being the hottest year on record which actually tracks back to a heavily caveatted report which does not say what you said it did.

    30 Dec 1340: another assertion that 2010 was the hottest year on record, again merely a claim without basis and based on a reporter’s flawed interpretation – it’s obvious you did not read the article, just the headline.

    31 Dec 1146: another baseless assertion that you answered all possible claims long ago but stranegly lack the ability to do so again. Oh, and liberally sprinkled with abusive epithets.

    31 Dec 1258: unsuccessful bait and switch, much skittering to avoid the issue

    1 jan 0933: more skittering, and whining about others not falling for your transparent bait-and-switch

    2 Jan 1542: more skittering, ad-hominem, another bait-and-switch, a clumsy effort at projection and recasting the issue. More whining about people not falling for your transparent tactics to shift ground

    2 jan 1545: argumentum ad hominem

    2 jan 1559: more skittering, mor whining about why the bait-and-switch, recasting and projections are being pointed out and laughed at

    2 jan 1734: use of argumentum ad verecundiam and argumentum ad populum

    2 jan 1806: argumentum ad hominem

    3 Jan 1156: FDB declares his overwhelming victory in all respects over everyone.

    FDB – you have not put up any logical, reasoned, referenced, supported argument whatsoever in this thread.
    It’s a staggeringly pathetic performance which reflects your understanding of the current climatological debates to have the depth of a car park puddle.
    What you obviously regard as your ‘in depth knowledge’ is starkly revealed here to be nothing more that the very shallowest of main stream media memes. basically, you skim headlines and think this proof. Pathetic.
    Your entire knowledge can be summed up as “CO2 bad, tax it”.
    That’s it – the bumper sticker understanding of a “useful idiot”.
    No wonder you declared your victory at 1156. You have informed everyone here that you entered a battle of wit and specialised knowledge utterly innocent of both, but religiously convinced of your righteousness.
    This is a genuinely pitiful way to argue.

    MarkL
    Canberra

  182. dover_beach

    FDB, where is the evidence suggesting that 450ppm threatens runaway warming?

    I note also you have chosen to ignore the problem 2dogs raised.

  183. FDB

    Mark – I conclude that you are a fool on the basis of your poor arguments. That is the precise opposite of an ad hominem argument. Exactly 180 degrees off course, champ.

    I hope you’ll eventually absorb my correction on this matter – I think this is the fourth of fifth time I’ve explained it to you.

    Also, I answered you question, explained why it was stupid, and offered you some free related information. Rather than thank me, you completely avoid the issue and just make shit up. Even DB isn’t bothering to defend your iceage silliness any more.

  184. MarkL of Canberra

    In answer, FDB, go and google “450 ppm tipping point”.

    You’ll get 11,900 results. Have a look at the top ones. This is the standard warmie claim so as to demonise CO2 and render it taxable.

    Here’s a sample extract from GISS:

    Based on climate model studies and the history of the Earth the authors conclude that additional global warming of about 1°C (1.8°F) or more, above global temperature in 2000, is likely to be dangerous. In turn, the temperature limit has implications for atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), which has already increased from the pre-industrial level of 280 parts per million (ppm) to 383 ppm today and is rising by about 2 ppm per year. According to study co-author Makiko Sato of Columbia’s Earth Institute, “the temperature limit implies that CO2 exceeding 450 ppm is almost surely dangerous, and the ceiling may be even lower.”

    http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20070530/

    Your efforts at recasting the glaciation issue are jejeune. They are merely a way to try and dismiss the issue, it’s more skittering.

    because if the warmie models are correct, such a glaciation is impossible. You’ll get a tipping point at 450ppm leading to inexorable greenhouse, and sucha glaciation cannot occur. yet the atmosphere prior to those glaciations was already over 450ppm, then the glaciations happened, and (as the Vostok cores show for recent if smaller events) AFTER it got colder, CO2 concentrations rose. Vostok puts the lag at 500 years.

    The issue you absolutely refuse to acknowledge is that the warmie computer model and tipping point allegations cannot possibly be correct.

    That explodes your bumper-sticker ideological stance on teh demoniisation of CO2. And that’s why you cannot ever address that issue, but constantly bait-and-switch, use logical fallacies, shift ground and try to recast the argument.

    It’s actually quite sad to watch you jitter and skitter on this issue.

    MarkL
    canberra

  185. FDB

    “if the warmie models are correct, such a glaciation is impossible”

    Incorrect. One could easily be caused, for example, by an asteroid or series of large volcanoes, regardless of CO2 concentrations. I’ve said this already, and you’ve read me saying it already. Will you pretend it hasn’t happened AGAIN?

    “AFTER it got colder, CO2 concentrations rose. Vostok puts the lag at 500 years”

    Of course they did. The low temps and frozen water made for near-zero vegetation and very high albedo. I’ve said this already, and you’ve read me saying it already. Will you pretend it hasn’t happened AGAIN?

    It’s interesting that you suggest I have merely dismissed the ‘issue’ of long-past glaciations and their relevance to current predictions. Most people regard having their arguments dismissed as utterly irrelevant and misguided to be a bad outcome – somehow your ego turns that into a plus!

    “It’s actually quite sad to watch you jitter and skitter on this issue.”

    You know what’s really sad? Projection on such a scale. Your poor little mind must be all in knots.

  186. dover_beach

    FDB, again, how about addressing 2dogs problem and providing evidence that 450ppm threatens runaway warming?

  187. MarkL of Canberra

    Sorry, FDB, I am actually interested not in what you think, but how you think and what that does to your ability to process facts. That’s why I have expended considerable resources and analysed your comments rather deeply.

    They just do not say what you claim, of course. That’s fascinating.

    You are resolutely self-deluded, even in the minor matter of defining argumentum ad hominem. You use only one of its two definitions, the second, below.

    1. An argument based on the failings of an adversary rather than on the merits of the case.

    2. A logical fallacy that involves a personal attack.

    (http://grammar.about.com/od/ab/g/adhomterm.htm) see the examples.

    You conducted a definition 2 ad hominem on 31 Dec 10 at 1146:

    You’re seriously asking that question again MarkL – and claiming I didn’t slap it down for nonsense a month ago?

    Chutzpah – I’m impressed.

    So anyway, your little ice age story tells us precisely nothing of value, as usual. Of course there was lots of CO2 – there weren’t any fucking plants to turn it into terrestrial C and oxygen, were there?

    Go on – ask the same fucking dumb question some time in Feb. Maybe you’ll luck out and nobody with any knowledge or imagination will be around to point out your idiocy.

    You then tried to recast this as comment on the argument – bit late for that, and not even a nice try, but profoundly revealing of how you process data.

    Now, I do understand that I am engaging in discourse (which I have kept calm and civil) with someone who actually knows very little about the topic and understands little of what they do know.

    My aim has been not to ‘win the argument’ – how it that possible where my interlocutor does not understand the issue in any meaningful way – but to try and understand how and why you have adopted one view and refuse to alter it irrespective of how the facts change.

    This is a seriously valuable thing for me, I apply this knowledge in my professional field as it helps me understand my assigned ‘enemy targets’. As the old saying goes, “if you understand how your enemy thinks, it is easier to kill him.” Not that I am killing anyone of course. But I am using this knowledge operationally.

    So I do not care one iota that you claim victory to satisfy your own delusions. it’s the power of the delusions and how they affect your thinking that intrigues me.

    MarkL
    Canberra

  188. MarkL of Canberra

    Oh, FDB:

    “if the warmie models are correct, such a glaciation is impossible”

    Incorrect. One could easily be caused, for example, by an asteroid or series of large volcanoes, regardless of CO2 concentrations. I’ve said this already, and you’ve read me saying it already. Will you pretend it hasn’t happened AGAIN?

    I think you missed or ignored my replies. However, a small amount of research shows neither excessive vulcanism at those times, nor an iridium layer and appropriately fractured dusts. There seems to be no known ‘catastrophic’ cause for either glaciation.

    And the atmosphere contained over 450ppm CO2 prior to the glaciations.

    So how can the warmie insistence on a 450ppm tipping point and positive feedback loop be correct?

    Ah, that’s the issue you cannot under any circumstance address….

    Cue more skittering.

    MarkL
    Canberra

  189. FDB

    “So how can the warmie insistence on a 450ppm tipping point and positive feedback loop be correct?”

    The claims about a 450ppm tipping point relate to GG concentrations and their predicted effect under current conditions, not under largely unknown conditions from 450 million years ago. That is the salient point which renders your argument irrelevant and ridiculous, which in turn makes you a buffoon.

    Which logical fallacy did I commit, by the way, that you feel justified in applying the second (weasel’s) definition of ad hominem? The parts you’ve bolded make my defense very nicely – I repeatedly referred to your stupid question, and concluded that IF you keep running your threadbare argument, it would be idiocy on your part.

    Feeling someone’s been a bit mean to you does not constitute suffering an ad hominem attack.

    “to try and understand how and why you have adopted one view and refuse to alter it irrespective of how the facts change”

    What view, what facts, and what change? You’re just making shit up again, aren’t you?

  190. dover_beach

    The claims about a 450ppm tipping point relate to GG concentrations and their predicted effect under current conditions, not under largely unknown conditions from 450 million years ago. That is the salient point which renders your argument irrelevant and ridiculous, which in turn makes you a buffoon.

    Where is the evidence that under current conditions 450ppm looms as a tipping point for runaway warming?

    Or should I enjoy the silence?

  191. CRAIGY

    yes dover
    This is a question id like answered

  192. FDB

    Well, empirical evidence is tricky, because we’re not there yet and lag times are expected to be fairly long.

    The idea that there would BE global climatic tipping points seems sound, but I don’t understand the maths involved well enough to say whether 450ppm is an accurate figure or not. There is considerable disagreement within climate science about this, which tells me I should be wary of backing any particular figure.

  193. dover_beach

    That reads like arm-waving, FDB, but at least it purported to answer my question. This still cannot be said about 2dogs well-posed problem.

  194. MarkL of Canberra

    What view, what facts, and what change? You’re just making shit up again, aren’t you?

    Those in my arguments, and in the links and references provided.

    You know, all the stuff you have so carefully ignored lest it threaten your shallow level of understanding of this issue

    Nice arm-waving while skittering, though.

    If you support the warmie concept of tipping points, you should understand that these depend on positive feedback loops existing in the climate system (processes which amplify and extend the trend: ie, runaway glowball warmenating). You should also be aware that there is no known evidence of these in the geologic record since the formation of an O2 rich atmosphere. Quite the opposite, in fact.

    There is of course absolutely no evidence that 450ppm is a ‘tipping point’ for anything unless it’s James Hansen’s ego. Unless you count gigo warmie computer models and the baying of the likes of Al Gore as evidence.

    MarkL
    Canberra

  195. FDB

    You seem to have somehow missed an important aspect of the AGW theory Mark. I’ll give you a clue – it’s the bit that starts with ‘A’.

    Why would you look to the geological record for evidence of what happens when human activity on a massive scale pumps loads of CO2e into the atmosphere, raising levels of greenhouse gases above what they would otherwise be?

  196. dover_beach

    Why would you look to the geological record for evidence of what happens when human activity on a massive scale pumps loads of CO2e into the atmosphere, raising levels of greenhouse gases above what they would otherwise be?

    Because we might be interested in seeing if natural increases in CO2 lead to increases in temperatures in the past. Is there nothing to learn about the influence of CO2 in the atmosphere by looking at the geological record?

  197. MarkL of Canberra

    Good grief.

    FDB, it’s varied over time from 6000ppm+ to the current extreme low of ~385ppm.

    Which is the ‘natural’ level?
    Why is, say, 387ppm of which 2ppm is caused by human activity ‘unnatural’ compared to say, 387ppm where the additional 2ppm is caused by a volcano?

    Are you implying that because people are involved, the laws of physics alter, FDB?

    That it’s somehow different when industry vents CO2 into the atmosphere as compared to when a volcano vents CO2?

    That people are not part of the natural system?

    There’s an underground coal seam fire in the Hunter valley. Been burning for millennia, millions of tons of coal has been burned. How is this different to digging it up and burning it?

    Vast volumes of oil and gas seep into the ocean every year to be eaten by bacteria, releasing CO2. How is this different to burning it?

    Do you understand that at this juncture in geological history, the atmosphere is impoverished in CO2 compard to the rest of geologic history?

    I know you are at fact’n’logic rock bottom here, but that’s not an excuse to start tunnelling deeper.

    MarkL
    Canberra

Comments are closed.