I thought 2010 was the year of extreme weather?
http://news.discovery.com/earth/the-2010-a-year-of-extreme-weather.html

Oh my, it appears 2009 was the real year of extreme weather
http://www.unisdr.org/archive/12035

Well bless my cotton socks, it appears that 2008 was actually the year of extreme weather
http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/global-warming/weather-watch-a-record-year-of-extreme-events/2008/12/17/1229189709651.html

Whoops, spot the complete charlie - it wasn't 2008, it was 2007
http://articles.cnn.com/2007-08-07/tech/weather.extremes_1_celsius-degrees-heat-wave?_s=PM:TECH

2006, on the other hand, was a merely the 2nd most extreme weather year on record.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2007/06/04/201469/2006-second-most-extreme-weather-ever/?mobile=nc

Ahhh, remember the Halycon days of 2006?

When will ever see such climate tranquilty again?

Well done Sean. You have spotted a trend.

Check out the guy from reinsurer MunichRe about 5:40 into the video. He has the chart.

I think 2012 will be the year of extremely moderate weather.

Weather which so completely eschews any heat, cold, extreme dryness or wetness or wind. that it must have something really really nasty up its sleeve.

In these times of elevated carbon dioxide we need to be extra vigilant, even when, or perhaps especially when, absolutely nothing happens.

That is a good video, as is this article.

One of the most important points that is made in the video, and a point that Justin alludes to, is that any one extreme event is not climate change. It is the occurrence of more frequent extreme events that is climate change.

Sean Lamb is normally a serial denier, but his posts show that we have a trend of increasing extreme events over the past 6 years or so. This shows a trend in climate, not just one off events. It is good to see that Sean has started to understand just how serious this issue is.

Climate Change is the science of extreme banality.

banal - So lacking in originality as to be obvious and boring

I would think that your behaviour in spamming a climate science discussion fits the definition perfectly.

So Sean, you are saying that climate change is dead obvious and we need to deal with it.

Good to see you're getting with the program.

Have you gone solar at your house and cut down your energy expenditure? We've cut ours down. The wind farm near us is also great for our town and energy footprint.

Virtually all my electricity is from renewables (no smoky coal fire plants for your humble servant), I don't have a car and walk everywhere. I am, after sustained periods of unemployment, incredibly mean with money and spending, since I view income as alternating between famine and feast. So even though I have an OK income today, I always have to save for the day it might be snatched away.

That makes for a very small carbon footprint.

Yes but you are forgetting that the third of January is the eight hottest since records began and the afternoon of the twelfth of May was the thirteen hottest since 1953 and temperatures may be cooling but if you take the last seven and a half years the average was higher than the first two years of the 1950's and Canberra has had its longest series of cold nights for the last thirty two years so it shows the world climate is becoming more extreme

Good to see Sean's amentia continues to develop.

Somewhat like the problem with what to call post post modern, it appears that according to that most reliable of sources, the Guardian, 2012 will be remembered for being the Extreme of Extreme Weather.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jul/10/us-extreme-weather-half-2012?newsfeed=true

I don't where that will leave 2013 - the Extremistly Extreme Extreme weather year?
Talk about abusing the language.

It was, until 2011. And 2011 was, until 2012. Keep it up Sean, even clocks are right once a day (military time).

so based on the preceding few years 2011 was normal?

Has anybody read the report to see whether these claims are actually supperted by the stats - time for the blogospere to do the checking.

keep up the good work Sean, but how dare people like you read this site - Proles aren't alowed you know.

Bloody hell; the trolls have got a cluster f**k going!

Interesting video alright, however I have some concerns about blaming large bushfires on climate change. There are a number of papers that describe large changes in bushfire frequency and intensity without climate change - Due to human activity, especially the amount of deliberate burning undertaken. A doubling in fuel load results in a quadrupling of fire intensity (and fuel load can double over and over again), whereas an increase in temperature by a few degrees has nowhere near that effect.

"...after sustained periods of unemployment..."

No surprise there.

I agree Murray. The only thing I'd feel comfortable linking to climate change would be the dryness of the fuel load and I haven't seen any data on that.

But that is were the loony fringe try to push any aspect of change under the badge of climate change. It hurts the actual valid science and need for changes to our emissions by lumping in conjecture and innuendo.

Trevor - you claimed on a previous thread that climate scientists were like creationists.

I thought that you may be interested in these articles about law to allow creationism and climate science denial to be taught in USA schools.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/13/us-usa-education-tennessee-idUSBRE83C0JR20120413
"The measure, which became law Tuesday, made Tennessee the second state, after Louisiana, to enable teachers to more easily teach alternative theories to the widely accepted scientific concepts of evolution and human-caused climate change. At least five other states considered similar legislation this year."

Basically the same people behind the push to teach creationism in USA schools are behind the push to teach climate science denial.

Here is an article from the American Geoscience Institute's magazine, Earth on the link between climate science denial and creationism.
http://www.earthmagazine.org/article/voices-defending-science-link-between-creationism-and-climate-change

http://ncse.com/news/2012/06/ncses-newton-creationism-climate-change-denial-007457

Yes Murray, The Bureau had much earlieer removed its statement that "Climate Change" was the cause of bushfires and again the records show that more devatating blazes occcurred in the 19th Century. Fewr=er people were affected in the 1850s simply because the p-opulation was smaller, but even then some hundreds were killed in that century.

The IPCC had written a report last year which was the result of a two year project, which showed that extreme weather events were "very unlikely" (about 5%) to be the result of Global Warming and the historical data emphasises that fact.

Pinocchio or Cherry, I'm not sure...

Some events were linked with high confidence, some medium and some low.

Try reading Chapter 3 " Changes in Climate Extremes and their Impacts on the Natural Physical Environment"

In part it says:

"Our confidence in observed changes in extremes depends on the quality and quantity of available data and the availability of studies analyzing these data. It consequently varies between regions and for different extremes. Similarly, our confidence in projecting changes (including the direction and magnitude of changes in extremes) varies with the type of extreme, as well as the considered region and season, depending on the amount and quality of relevant observational data and model projections, the level of understanding of the underlying processes, and the reliability of their simulation in models
(assessed from expert judgment, model validation, and model agreement). Global-scale trends in a specific extreme may be either more reliable (e.g., for temperature extremes) or less reliable (e.g., for droughts) than some regionalscale trends, depending on the geographical uniformity of the trends in the specific extreme.

‘Low confidence’ in observed or projected changes in a specific extreme neither implies nor excludes the possibility of changes in this extreme."

Sorry Tim but you are wrong.

There is a substantial body of research showing that climate change will effect bushfire risk particularly in southern Australia.

Here for example are two recent CSIRO papers from the International Journal of Wildland Fire
http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/WF09073.htm
http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/WF10070.htm

And here
http://www.csiro.au/en/Outcomes/Climate/Adapting/Climate-Change-Fire-Weather.aspx

"The study found that the increase in fire-weather risk is generally largest inland. The combined frequencies of days with very high and extreme Forest Fire Danger Index ratings are likely to increase in south-east Australia by:
4–25 per cent by 2020
15–70 per cent by 2050."

Thanks Mike. I stand corrected. Looks like the dryness and suitable temperatures completely override the other factors. Hadn't seen those papers.

Worth everyone reading this abstract:
"This study used simulation modelling to investigate fire and carbon dynamics for projected warmer and drier climates in the south-eastern Australian high country. A carbon accounting model FullCAM and the landscape fire regime simulator FIRESCAPE were combined and used to simulate several fire management options under three climate scenarios – the recent climate (1975–2005); a moderate climate projected for 2070 (B1); and a more extreme climate projected for 2070 (A1FI). For warmer and drier climates, model simulations predicted (i) an increase in fire incidence; (ii) larger areas burned; (iii) higher mean fire intensities; (iv) shorter fire cycle lengths; (v) a greater proportion of fires burning earlier in the fire season; (vi) a reduction in carbon stores; (vii) a reduction in carbon sequestration rates; and (viii) an increase in the proportion of stored carbon emitted to the atmosphere. Prescribed burning at historical or twice historical levels had no effect on fire or carbon dynamics. In contrast, increasing the initial attack success (a surrogate for suppression) partially offset the adverse effects of warmer and drier climates on fire activity, but not on carbon dynamics. For the south-eastern Australian high country, simulations indicated that fire and carbon dynamics are sensitive to climate change, with simulated fire management only being able to partially offset the adverse effects of warmer and drier climate."

Ian,

I would have to say that if you read your quotation again, you will find that scientifically it says absolutely nothing about anything. It reads like an apology for an inability to understand what the hell is going on. "More or less reliable" "neither implies nor excludes" "expert judgment, model validation and model agreement" are no substitute for results based on sound measurements and accurate, justified theory. However, having followed this problem for many years now, I realise that this is about the best the climatoilogists can do in suggesting that their results may or may not be approximately reasonable, and are subject to a long disclaimer in case they are wrong.

Yes, we indeed have shame up here, and not just for the Heartland and American Tradition Institutes' dumping coal/oil/gas slush funds down under to lie to Aussies about combustion emissions & climate change, etc. I apologize to all Aussies for our inconsiderate behavior.

My personal approach to a creationist is to ask how dumb he/she thinks God is. It's a real ice breaker!

Inventing natural selection is a heck of a wiser way to evolve all the gazillion species we haven't killed off yet. God's wise plan: Day 1: invent evolution of species. Day 2, think about relaxing the rest of the week, because Man will give me a lot of problems soon.
;]
Creationists also have hard times with evolved, drug-resistant hospital infections, or even dog breeding!

Tim,

This was only a simulation using models which are the same as are used by our meteorologial bureau and by the IPCC modellers, so no one should expect them to be very accurate.

There is no doubt that significantly hotter drier days will be more conducive to rapid burning by bushfires but will have no effect in the matter of "lighting more fires". This is just a matter of observation of fires burning in any area, particularly in dry grass regions of inland Queensland on the Mitchel and Flinders grass plains in the early summer before any rains have come.

One doesn't need a computer to see that, but to be significant the temperature difference needs to be a matter of at least 5 to 10 degrees higher than found in winter. The difference in the outback regions can be from 25 C in winter to 50 C in summer and the summer heat of course lasts longer during the day, causing the emission of inflammable gases which in the vicinity of the grass is concentrated enough to make a difference to the burning..

However, the question really is whether the effect of global warming of say 0.8 C will have any significant effect (a climate extreme) on the daytime temperatures in summer. Most of the material put out by the IPCC and others, casts great doubt on this being the case. In fact a recent two year study by an IPCC team concluded that extreme weather events were NOT likely to result from global warming and in some cases the reverse was true. For instance the number of cyclones around Australia has diminished in recent years comapsered to much earlier times. I do believe this is just natural variation and says nothing about whether increased temperatures will in fact be more likely to lead to more extreme events, but IPCC seems to think not.

Of course the real debate is not as to whether Global Warming causes one thing or the other. It is really about whether increases in carbon dioxide will cause global warming.
John Nicol

"This was only a simulation using models..."

The used the FIRESCAPE model which was developed for simulating fire regimes in eucalypt forests of south-eastern Australia and has been extensively used in bushfire research - for example here.
http://www.bushfirecrc.com/projects/b12/fire-regimes-and-sustainable-landscape-risk-management

They could always do some *real* research and set fire to south-eastern Australia.

John Nicol: "... the real debate is not as to whether Global Warming causes one thing or the other. It is really about whether increases in carbon dioxide will cause global warming." No John, it isn't.

John, I changed my opinion when scientific data dismissed my concerns. Science is meant to do that.

The models took into account many things. It is worth reading the papers Mike posted, as I was unaware that the links had been drawn and understood. I'm satisfied that they have taken account of enough data and explained it.

Great link, I will do some reading and might get back to you - starting a new contract on Monday doing native ecosystem mapping which will be quite time-consuming.

Not so lucky with the International Journal of Wildland Fire papers - they want 25 bucks each! - one of the problems in going from research/government into consulting ....

In the meantime, 'they' already have done a lot of research by setting fire to parts of South-eastern Australia. There's the eden burning study:

http://proceedings.com.au/tassiefire/powerpoint_pdf/Fri%201330%20Con%20Hall%20Penman.pdf

I used to work in the same place as the authors and discussed ecological/fire matters quite frequently

Then there is project Vesta. I remember Phil Cheny's presentations and some of the photos and anecdotes were as extraordinary as they were scary.

http://www.publish.csiro.au/pid/5993.htm

Complex business, fire in native vege, lots of variables.

David,

Please go ahead then and tell me what it is about!

I recognise that the current article is about "extreme weather events (including bush fires) and climate change" but the underlying inference is that manmade carbon dioxide will lead to global warming, referred to here as climate change, and hence to increased bush fires.
Do you mean to say that any climate change, say significant cooling, might also lead to these extreme events?

If temperatures make flammable materials drier that will impact how readily they burn. Extreme heatwaves - both for peak temperatures and duration will impact flammability in hot weather. And the amount of warming to date - a fraction of what we can expect if efforts to reduce global emissions fail - is just the beginning. But I think one unexamined aspect of warming is how it impacts cool weather hazard reduction burning. The extent we rely on cool overnight temperatures and dew to do the job of putting fires out is much overlooked. A degree or two warmer overnight can drastically reduce the area where dew will form and thus the area where fires can be expected to self-extinguish. This will reduce the window of opportunity for safe hazard reduction burning, add to risk of fires continuing to burn in inaccessible terrain, increase the risks that such fires will go on to breach containment, and increase the manpower and costs to prevent and control such breaches.

Alex,

You said "My personal approach to a creationist is to ask how dumb he/she thinks God is. It's a real ice breaker!"

My approach:

Creationist - Do you believe in Darwinism?

Me:: - "No". Creationist then looks happy.

Me: - "Because Darwinism is not a belief system. It is science. It is all about whether you accept that the evidence supports the hypothesis based on real world observation, not about whether you 'believe' in it. Faith has no role"

Creationist: - "Do you accept Darwinism as a science then?"

Me: - "Absolutely. The evidence is overwhelming". Creationist looks crestfallen.

The other approach is to detail the ways in which God is a third rate engineer, listing all the design flaws. They really don't like that. I only do that with the hard core ones tho. Most I find to be nice enough people and I don't like hurting them.

Never had a problem with one objecting to evolved drug resistance or dog breeding tho. I find they have no problem with micro-evolution and artificial selection, Just with natural selection driven macro-evolution.

Isn't an increased incidence of thunderstorms one impact of global warming? Isn't thunder produced by lightning? Does lightning never start fires?

Hey Alex,

Guessing that you meant 'broken' clocks ?? ... if they weren't broken, wouldn't they always be right ?? :)

Cheers.

However fires are started we take advantage, when and where possible, of cool, damp overnight conditions to aid putting them out are. I don't know the extent that thunderstorm frequency would be expected to change in a warming world but my understanding is that minimum overnight temperatures rising more than daytime maximums is something we are already seeing. If this makes the window for hazard reduction fires shorter then that can result in greater areas that miss out as well as fires continuing to burn uncontrolled. Didn't the devastating Canberra fires of a few years ago develop from fires left to burn in remote bushland with the expectation that they would self-extinguish?

Hi Ken, I grew up in Canberra and I was working with NSW forestry when the fires burnt Canberra and my brother in law was radio operator for the local volunteer brigades at the time.
The fires were started by dry storms - i.e thunder, lightning, but very little rain, if any. About 27 lightning strikes started fires. 24 of these were in or near the plantations east of tumut and west of ACT. Because of the road network, and professional fire fighters, these were able to be accessed and were all extinguished. The fires in the national park were not easily accessible. It may have been possible to put some remote fire fighters in by helicopter or maybe push in a dozer track for access, but a decision was taken to let them burn.
There was an extended period of drought leading up to the fires, the area had not been burnt for a long time, fuel loads were high and very dry, and it was the middle of summer. There is no expectation that fires will self-extinguish under these conditions. On the contrary they can go for months. And then explode out of the wilderness when the weather turns nasty - this has happened on numerous occasions over the last century.
Then the weather did turn nasty.
Fire rate of spread models have been around for a long time, and a friend who did forestry at uni with me went into the control centre at 9am on that Saturday and told them that the models predicted the fire would be in the suburbs that afternoon ....
If the fire in the national parks could have been put out, it is likely the devastation of those Canberra suburbs would have been avoided. Then there was the environmental damage, eg the water from Cotter Dam was not fit for human consumption for a year, and a lot of the alpine swamps were absolutely toasted.
Climate change or not, we have to get a lot better at managing bushfire - the first Australians were able to do it.

Thanks for that Murray. Canberra wasn't the example I thought, however the value of cool overnight temperatures for making controlled fires more manageable is something I think will be noticed most when it's lost.

You sly, perceptive dog, Mark. Actually, all clocks are 'wrong' since they all drift from one another anyway.

I like that the original GPS designers left out compensation for Special Relativity and wondered why things weren't showing up where they were supposed to be. Clocks on satellites!

Hey Alex ... hold the train, I think you've just discovered something. I'll even market it for you. Would you prefer 'The Cannara Differential' or 'The Theory of Perception' ?? We should patent one of them though ... fast !!.

These scientific devices, invented by man, to measure tools, invented by man, to measure change, sometimes caused by man, just have to be the undoing, sooner or later, of something scientific.

Isn't the fact that we can accurately determine change, with hindsight, but not accurately account for it, even with hindsight, the sticking point with ... hang on, how busy are you ??

I can feel an education coming on :)

Cheers Alex.

You're asking me, Mark? After spending weeks restoring the dashboard electrics of our A-H Sprite, the headlights wouldn't work. I forgotten a ground hidden under a fender cable.
;]

... and then there was light ?? The theory of perception it is then. I've always loved a good theory. Bet you're glad it wasn't a problem with 'the model' :)

Cheers Alex.

Sorry Marc. Sean the troll has already rebutted your argument by pointing out the trend.

yeah I read that bit as well Alan and had a chuckle, thanks for posting. Did you see the author list - wow - talk about the madness of crowds

Was that a chuckle of embarrassment, Trevor because as you say here
http://theconversation.edu.au/the-three-ps-of-climate-change-and-agriculture-7419
"...I am ignorant of climate science"

Or was that a chuckle because you found someone in Alan who is as ignorant of climate science as you.

What is Alan bemused by? - that the rainfall record in 2010-11 was the highest ever at the same time as we had the warmest decade ever. Of course if Alan got his climate science from the shock jocks like Andrew Bolt, he would be surprised.

Never studied any physics Trevor? Warm air holds more moisture - ring a bell?

If Alan got his climate science from climate scientists he would not have been surprised.
https://theconversation.edu.au/droughts-and-flooding-rains-climate-change-models-predict-increases-in-both-5470

"In 1989, at a presentation to the Prime Minister’s Science Council, Dr Graeme Pearman of CSIRO summarised a scenario of climate change for Australia in 2030. He said there would be:
* higher summer rainfall over northern Australia and extending further south.
* possibly drier winters in southern Australia
* more intense rainfall."

That is right Trevor - 1989.

"A Special Climate Statement from BoM in February 2012 summarised the real observed situation in 2010-2011 thus:

“It was notable … that the bulk of the above average rainfall of the past two years fell during the northern wet season … with tropical influenced weather systems bringing monsoonal-like rainfall to much of the continent. By contrast, dry conditions persisted during the 2010 and 2011 April to June period (the start of the early winter rainfall period) across southern Australia. … The high 2010 and 2011 rainfall was therefore not associated with winter-time storm systems, and did not represent a return to normal conditions over the southern Australian winter season. In this way, the recent trend of rainfall reductions in autumn and winter was not reversed by the back-to-back La Niña events.”

Trevor - wallowing in ignorance is just not a good look.

Wow! Did I strike a nerve some where?

Mr Ellice and I were remarking on the writing in the report. - not on the validity or other wise of the results..

If 1408 is said to "surpass" 1407 and that a particular period is said to have been the "equal warmest" on record" I think the language is slanted..

I say let the numbers speak for themselves . (My own private amusement is to use the HADCRUT3 data to conduct a temperature stability analysis. using the Allen Variance.)

.

yeah it gets real nasty when you challenge people's beliefs doesn't it.

I am ignorant because I think the whole premise of what is called these days 'climate science' is in error. As it all seems to start for two false assumptions that is that co2 is the dominant facctor controlling the worlds weather and the futhermore that mans contribution is significant. Fact is whilst co2 is a green house gas and the earth is a warmer place with then without it, the ice cores show a lag between co2 increase and temperature increase co2 increase cannot be causative of temperature increase because it comes after. Second the source of co2 in the atmospere is volcanoes both subaerial and more importantly submarine. Man's contribution is insignificiant.

I realise this view is so far removed from the dogma dominant on this page and am opening myself up to all forms of criticism borering on abuse - but so be it. Evil happens when good mean say nothing - we need to speak up.

I've read a lot of stuff about climate change and not of the alarmist arguments stand up and they will not stand the test of time.

Alan - what the hell are you talking about.

Yes 1408 is larger than 1407. Those figures refer to the rainfall in 2010-11.

The warmest period was the decade 2002-2011.

Trevor - so you now say
"I've read a lot of stuff about climate change"

but here you say
"I am ignorant of climate science"
https://theconversation.edu.au/the-three-ps-of-climate-change-and-agriculture-7419#comment_52419

Thanks for the comment
"Evil happens when good mean say nothing - we need to speak up."

I am still laughing - I suppose you meant "good men" but "good mean" is an appropriate term for someone caught lying through his back teeth.

Trevor Ellice - credibility zero.

Trevor Ellice: "... the ice cores show a lag between co2 increase and temperature increase co2 increase cannot be causative of temperature increase because it comes after." Has any climate scientist said that CO2 (or greenhouse gases in general) are the only factor influencing atmospheric temperature?
Do you accept that the oceans contain dissolved CO2? Do you accept that cooler water can hold more dissolved gases than warmer? Do you accept that, if one of the other mechanisms caused an increase in atmospheric temperature, the oceans would slowly warm? Do you accept that the warmer oceans would emit some of the CO2 dissolved therein? Do you accept that there would be a lag between the warming of the atmosphere and the emission of that CO2?
Trevor Ellice: "... the source of co2 in the atmospere is volcanoes both subaerial and more importantly submarine. Man's contribution is insignificiant." False.

yes I accept warm oceans emit CO2 see thats what controls CO2 in the atmosphere. The world warms (naturally) the oceans emit CO2. Pretty simple stuff really.

gee ya gotta watch what you say around here else get branded a lier.
I noticed a technique to isolate certain phrases and posts to try and attack the credibility of the proponent to delegitimise the argument.

hope I get the latin right this time

- Argumentum ad hominem

It is not an "ad hominem" when someone catches you lying and calls you out on it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Iam sorry Mr Hansen but I rather presumed that English was your first language and that you had experienced the privilege of a good education.

Words have denotation and connotation. The denotation is the definition you will find in the dictionary. The connotation is its emotional meaning - the associations and feelings. The denotation of "larger" is much the same as the denotation of "surpasses" The connotation oL"larger" is neutral. The connotation of "surpasses" is much stronger. Surpasses connotes not just an inequality but a substantial superiority.

So, when we read that an Australia-wide total rainfall surpasses some previous total, we expect a substantial difference., something more than 1mm in 1400mm. . By carefullly choosing to use that word and to use it when none was necessary, the author is commenting on the data in a way intended to mislead or deceive..

"Equal warmest" The phrase itseff is a nonsense. If a member of a set t is the warmest in the set no other member can be equally warm. If there were decades just as warm as 2002/2011 how many were there...

The phrase is a comment on the data by the author.. To make the datat seem favourable to the author's thesis the word warmest has been inserted. and the actual data has omitted.

The deliberate use, throughout a piece of writing, of words or phrases with connotations favourable to the author's thesis is called slanted writing.. It is irresponsible. It is also suficiently annoying to cause the reader to reject the author's thesis.

I should acknowledge reference to Handbook for Writers by Celia Milward.

David,
I fear that you are plagiarising the Catholic Church's Baptismal rite, at the very least in tone.
Rerun "The Godfather" to get my point.

I warn my students to choose their websites carefully. You chose wikipedia. Says it all.

Highest ever in Australia?
And just how long was that period ?
My mother hasn't noticed any climate change.

Indeed, that's why we need a new term, since "deniers" think that demeaning.

I've a humble suggestion: "Avoiders". As in fact avoiders, or FAs. Though, I guess F & A can be assigned different words that might cause further AH anguish to FAs.
;]
By the way, if you don't like Wikipedia, edit it, if you know some facts.

Philip Dowling: "My mother hasn't noticed any climate change."
Well; that's that then.

Her mother didn't either.

Alex,
Thanks for your continuing naivety.
One can edit wikipedia without referring to published facts.
I draw your attention to Mike Carlton's entry. In particular, his lack of tertiary education.

"Those of us who were alive back through the 1940s and 50s can rememer much more horrendous flooding in Australia " -- thought anecdotal data wasn't acceptable to you, John?

Up here, having been around as long as you, all N. America has experienced continual record breaking of temps, storm intensity, etc. for the last decade. But, hey, we only kept some of those records since the 1860s, so whatever you say must be more correct, right?

But, lets discuss the incontrovertible -- isotopic content of air & oceans -- oops, that's off limits to you -- I forgot.
;]

But you Yanks are always boasting of being better and bigger. So what's new.

The Top Ten Signs That You’re A Denier

8. When some alarmist tells you that its warmer today than for at least 500, 1,000 or 2,000 years, you say “the hockey stick has been broken” and mention Steve McIntyre.

According to Steve McIntyre, the infamous “hockey stick” papers produced by Mann, Bradley and Hughes in 1998/99 used flawed data, methods and deliberately misrepresent the uncertainty in their findings. This was done, he argues, to make sure that the medieval warming period was wiped off the climate history books so that today’s warming would seem unprecedented. In other words, he’s suggesting that this was done deliberately and to mislead the public and policy makers. The hockey stick graphic and papers were then used to promote the theory of anthropogenic global warming at the IPCC and in governments around the world.

A climate scientist would argue that while the de-centered PCA method may be inappropriate as a methodology, this is a methodological debate not grounds for claims of fraud. Using a properly centred PCA analysis makes little difference in the end. A climate scientist would also point out that McIntyre and McKittrick use an improper “red noise” model to do their own analysis, thus their conclusions are flawed. A climate scientist would point out that other analyses not using the same proxy measures also find hockey-stick-like graphs of paleoclimate reconstructions.

Tim Ball, Canada’s Climate Denier Extraordinaire is the exemplar of this, although Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick started the meme and keep propagating it.

http://metaclimate.org/2012/01/08/the-top-ten-signs-that-youre-a-denier/

I note you cannot make your argument without using the pejorative term denier. However will you now explain why the Australian paper was withdrawn and why you have not read the Climategate emails which show clearly the conspiracy to hide the medieval warm period. I mean it is there in black and white.

(I'm gonna regret engaging this one...)

Seriously, you are still stuck on the climategate bs? C'mon you can do better than that - even the most nutty conspiracy theorists have moved on from this beat-up.

So far down the denier well hole, your cries are merely feeble squeaks...

The Top Ten Signs That You’re A Denier

2. You get all your news on global climate at Fox News, Climate Audit and Watts Up With That.

Nuff said.

http://metaclimate.org/2012/01/08/the-top-ten-signs-that-youre-a-denier/

Wow, both Marc (with a "c") and Nicol are here! How are those trusts/bonds coming that you're setting up for your descendents, just in case, the tiny chance, that your unsupportable denials are wrong?

Oh, and who's paying you again, Marc & John? We never got straight answers from you, though we've asked often.

"denier" = "pejorative"? Seems lucrative for some, as Glieck & others have documented, John. your cut?

How about "unwitting accomplice to the combustion industry", John? Better? Perhaps more accurate?
;]

Just love that "hockey stick" straw man, eh John? How about Vostok ice cores? Sediments? Fossils? How about the unusually large cyano-bacterial bloom around Antarctica this year

Hope whatever personal compensation you're getting to spam these discussions makes up for what your offspring will think when the bill comes due to them, and all our descendents.

Ian, I am not sure what you like to be called, and I don't care about being called a "denier" since it is now worn as a badge of honour by those of us prepared to stick our head above the parapet, while others of our colleagues still in the emply of CSIRO and universities cannot afford to let it be known that they are not convinced by the IPCC claims.

The use of specific functions involved in the statistical method of Mann should have been subject to analysis using various forms of data which would have shown that it was not correct.

The expected grand effect which Mann's mistake, if you like, had on the promotion of the fear of AGW through its use in the 2001 IPPC report means that whether "fraud" or "mistake", he was culpble of not making sure his analysis of the data was correct. In any case, since the data presumably consisted of a sequence of temperatures with a lot of random noise, obtained from tree rings, it is very difficult to see why some sophisticated function was needed at all to produce the first order curve which would have told him immediately that the MWP was in tact in his data. His persistent claim even after the error was found that he still believed his results were correct indicated that he was dedicated to the result and not to the truth.

Ascientist" would have checked his/her results more carefully. I am not sure what the "climate scientist" you speak for woiuld have done. - probably something similar to what Mann had presented, since he claims to be a climate" something or other.

Now answer the questions if you can
1

Oh John, when the going gets tough play the victim, eh?

Remember, we're waiting for your "scientific" explanations for sea rise, air & sea isotopic contents, Vostok & other ice-core data, and all the recent records set around the world.

Time to not copy the behavior you lay on the IPPC, John. You're the one complaining about checking "results more carefully".

But, avert your eyes, John, for others interested in checked results, here's a recent summary for anyone...
http://online.wr.usgs.gov/calendar/2012/mar12.html

Promise not to look, John?
;]

The issue remains that at some point it was denied that Manne deliberately tried to conceal the Medieval Warm Period. The released Climategate Emails clearly showed otherwise or are you claiming that they were fake?

Now this issue of sea level rise is of particular interest to me because I used to work for the RAN Hydrographer and was told by people at the coal face that we did not have tidal datum for most of Australia withing half a meter, there was no need for it in most circumstances, and now we have water levels within millimeters so when I asked CSIRO for a source I was given a completely irrelevant document and even then after many delays. I politely pointed out the error and repeated the request only to be told he did not have time to respond!

Look up John, look up - in the sky.

"High quality measurements of (near)-global sea level have been made since late 1992 by satellite altimeters, in particular, TOPEX/Poseidon (launched August, 1992), Jason-1 (launched December, 2001) and Jason-2 (launched June, 2008). This data has shown a more-or-less steady increase in Global Mean Sea Level (GMSL) of around 3.1 ± 0.4 mm/year over that period. "

http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_last_15.html

Are you normally this obtuse or do you work at it.

Apparently they have discovered Sir Isaac Newton's emails. Gravity is now in doubt.

John Coochey: "... Manne deliberately tried to conceal ...".
So the vast majority of the planet's best qualified climate scientists collude in a grand conspiracy? Is that probable? Is that delusional?

I suggest you read them, they are readily available

"I used to work for the RAN Hydrographer ..."

Well that settles it. That is just all the evidence I need.

Clearly there is a massive conspiracy at CSIRO to make up the data. It's sealevelgate!

They are no doubt hiding the <incline/decline> * as we speak!

(*delete most sensible option if you are a denier)

Well if you want to play the moron I should not stop you. The Hydrographer in this country is the one responsible and tasked with charting and such aspects as sea levels in Australia, think of ABS and population for example. If you had contact with the actual workers in ABS who told you for example that the Women's Safety Survey had been cooked would you think that grounds for suspicion?

John, when libelling someone it is considered polite to at least spell his name correctly.

As I said before, you are stuck in a myth that even the nuttiest deniers have moved on from.

Is that the best you can come up with? Now answer the questions of you can rather than using this as some sort of distorted Facebook.

Alex, rather than respond to John and Marc with your facetious, smart alec answers and a bunch of links, how about arguing their points. At the moment you are coming across as a bit of a troll yourself.

John Coochey: "suggest you read them, they are readily available". And easily misinterpreted.

In what way? Re interpret them yourself here and now.

Eh? What question? You've lost me.

John you are spraying posts everywhere like a tomcat pissing in the bushes. I corrected the nonsense that the stated about IPCC Climate Extremes report. What other errors would you like corrected?

You're rambling again John. Women's Safety Survey...eh?

Now let's start again.

What job did you do with the Hydrographer that makes you an expert in sea level measurement? What documents can you cite to support your assertion that CSIRO have made up data regarding gauges?

Pose a question, or read elsewhere here, Andy.

Actually the job is totally irrelevant, but I did have daily access to the people at the coal face and that is what I was told. The other issue is that measuring water depths with a tide gauge is rather like measuring human skin thickness with a tape measure the third point was that CSIRO bungled or falsified references and then refused to correct them. You would of course be aware of the NZ scandal.

Nah, Alex. I'm enjoying the lack of refutation being poured out with an enormous dose of name-calling and self-righteous zeal.:)

John, Alex doesn't answer questions. He just criticises and pontificates form his high moral ground.

Still can't come up with any references John? It's said that there are two types of statistics; those you look up and those you make up. You evidently don't do much looking up.

Exactly what reference are you expecting my wages slip or the fact that elements within the NZ bureaucracy falsified data? Would you like a reference that the Normans invaded England in 1066?

Normally I do not bother responding to annoying children but in this case I will make and exception, now tell me if I use any words which are too long for you. The issue is that the experts in the field who handled the subject matter every day of their working lives and had no reason to lie told me that there was no datum within half a meter, now if you asked someone the time would you demand a current degree in horology. And by the way what are your qualifications in oceanography?

OK - so the tree ring data was proving unreliable so they substituted REAL temperature readings for the last 30 years? Is that the huge conspiracy? Is that why we should ignore ALL OF THE evidence for climate change?

Am I missing something here?

Gary,

You said: " Is that why we should ignore ALL OF THE evidence for climate change?"

No, but it does mean that we have no alternative to ignore all the tree ring data for the entire series. That it is demonstrably unreliable for part of the sequence where we have alternative temperature series against which to compare it means, by definition, that none of it can be trusted. After all, who knows whether there were similar divergences elsewhere? What we do know, beyond dispute, is that divergences happen.

The CSIRO has become a tool of government policy.
Scientists could publish without their findings approved by CSERO head office in earlier decades.
Now it has to be massaged by the PR people, to assure it is politically correct.
The only CSIRO scientist that I would listen to these days is a retired one.

Alex,
You remind me of the drunken bore in the pub who keeps reciting the same lines over and over again.
You use rhetorical questions as though they carry any intellectual weight.
Just as the drunk who stumbles out of the pub into the dark, you no doubt experience the sudden withdrawal of a sense of relevancy.
You have my deep sympathy. Have you ever considered a hobby, or perhaps trying to engage with your grandchildren's lives.
Incidentally did you have a grandfather with the surname Hanrahan?

The question is that the Australian paper has been withdrawn so if McKitrick;s analysis is sufficient to achieve that why can it be wrong when applied to Manne's work?

John Coochey: "... what reference are you expecting ... the fact that elements within the NZ bureaucracy falsified data?" That'd be a start.

John Coochey: "... there was no datum within half a meter ...". Where, on the record, is that?

Philip Dowling: "The CSIRO has become a tool of government policy."
What evidence do you have to support that assertion?

Chris Harper: "...we have no alternative to ignore all the tree ring data ...". The vast majority of the scientific establishment has evidently concluded otherwise. The reputable peer reviewed literature has evidently accepted that conclusion.
Unless you can come up with similar support for your assertion, then you're going to look very silly.

John Coochey: "The question is that the Australian paper has been withdrawn ..."
No John. Your full post reads:
"The issue remains that at some point it was denied that Manne deliberately tried to conceal the Medieval Warm Period. The released Climategate Emails clearly showed otherwise or are you claiming that they were fake?"
The answer to which is that the whole climategate beat-up is based on amateurish misinterpretation of selected messages. http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm

If you do not have basic literacy there is no point telling you to read the literature!

Once again listen carefully this time, for the better part of a year I worked with the Hydrographic Service and what was left of the Bathymetric mapping program this was personal communications with people who has spend most of their working life with this data and who had no incentive to lie. I suggest you may wish the contact the RAN Hydrographer who is based in Sydney.

A start would be for you to get off your arse and do a simple Google!

Dr Art Raiche, former Chief Research Scientist at the CSIRO, in a speech on 16th August, 2011:

"The original Scientists of the CSIRO were the best of their day and the CSIRO was a non-Government organisation working with quality science and how useful it was to Australia. (research)

In the 80′s, I noticed we were under increasing pressure to become more “Business like” and the doors were opened to “Management Consultation.”

Layer upon layer of management was created, some intersecting others.

You think that your tax dollars went towards research but a lot of it was devoted to letting them play their management games…. the CSIRO was sent to fancy business schools in the US and Europe and they didn’t learn one thing…

Management learned how to bring the most senior climate scientist under their control. It was OK to think independently…as long as Management approved of it.

We were given very strict, VERY strict guidelines on not publishing anything or publicly discussing any research that could be seen as critical to Government policy. If we did not do it, we would be subject to dismissal.

We had now become a Government Enterprise. We were told by the Chairperson that we Scientists no longer worked for Australia, we had to learn that we worked for the CSIRO."

What evidence do you have that any change at CSIRO perverted the science they did?
The text you cite does no appear on any web site that I can find. Can you substantiate it?

David,

You said: "What evidence do you have that any change at CSIRO perverted the science they did?"

Why would you ask me for evidence of that? It is certainly not a charge I have made. Did you read anything I have said? I suspect you are more concerned about what you would have liked me to have said.

You asked for evidence that the CSIRO could now be considered a tool of government policy, such evidence has been provided. No one bar yourself has used the term 'perverted the science'.

Sheesh.

I also refer you to Dr Clive Splash in 2009. The details of his treatment are readily googleable.

You said: "The text you cite does no appear on any web site that I can find. Can you substantiate it?"

The text of the speech, is readily available, in a number of places, using a wide variety of search terms. I found the following using the term 'Dr Art Raiche'. I chose the following because it also includes a video of Dr Raiche delivering the complete speech, not just the segment quoted.

http://www.nocarbontax.com.au/2011/08/dr-art-raiche-retired-csiro-chief-research-scientist-on-scientists-independence/

John Coochey: "A start would be for you to get off your arse ..." You do it standing up?
John Coochey: "... and do a simple Google!"
I did. I was just waiting to see what you'd come up with. All the hysteria is easily traceable back to climate science denier sites.
Chris Harper: "... alas, very little was in the mainstream press." Probably because, this time, the mainstream press recognised pure fabrication.

From http://hot-topic.co.nz/nz-sceptics-lie-about-temp-records-try-to-smear-top-scientist/ The author of the press release and the “research project” into NZ’s long term temperature record is blogger Richard Treadgold, not unknown to readers of Hot Topic. Unfortunately for him, and for the credibility of any of the members of the NZ Climate “Science” Coalition, Treadgold’s approach to the issue is ignorant, his results meaningless, and he can have no excuse for not knowing he was wrong. Worse, Treadgold, Dunleavy and the rest of the NZ CSC seem determined to smear NZ’s best-known and most respected climatologist, Jim Salinger (who did much of the early work on NZ’s temperature record), based on little more than straightforward lies.

I am well aware of the posting in Hot Topic, I am also aware that that posting is little more than a smear job directed towards science which did not confirm the writers biases.

I am also aware that the NIWA, the statutory body responsible, has vindicated Dr Treadgolds criticisms, and has disassociated itself from the adjusted data series, as I pointed out earlier.

The 'deniers', in this case, were the ones who smeared Dr Treadgold, and, apparently, include yourself. The only fabrications involved were in the data series as adjusted and published.

This, without the smear and abuse, is how science is meant to work.

You asked for factual references, but when provided with them your response is further denial, smear and abuse.

You have the full reference, the NZ Government has dissociated itself from the original action, what more could you want? If in fact you are actually listening!

You said: “The vast majority of the scientific establishment has evidently concluded otherwise.”

No they haven’t, and who cares anyway?

The action in not just failing to disclose the discrepancy between tree ring proxy data and directly observed temperatures, but actively trying to camouflage it, was both unscientific and unethical. A similar approach in the commercial world would have been criminal. Many members of the scientific world expressed outrage at this behaviour, and that it was accepted by those involved in climate science and policy is an example of the extent to which they have been corrupted.

Ethics, like science itself, is not subject to democratic decision making. Ethics is not something which can be farmed out to others, and I am not prepared to compromise my ethical opinion just because it is inconvenient to a group of ethically challenged researchers. That people working in this field disagree with me is immaterial. That those in positions of influence in climate science ans politics are comfortable with this behaviour informs me quite adequately of the ethical standards they are prepared to accept, and I have no interest in their opinion of my standards.

These are not standards which would be acceptable in physics, biology, medicine, or any branch of engineering.
At least, for your own sake, you better damn well hope that they are not acceptable in medicine, tall building design or aircraft manufacture.

Check out the previous job of the current head of the CSIRO.
Massage. Massage.

Really, Andy? Is "self-righteous" "name-calling", or just gutless? Man up, if you want honest discussion, Andy.

No Alex. It's the same as the crap you feel comfortable putting on some of the respondents here. I don't care about you view just your failure to argue your point and your readiness to belittle those you disagree with. I don't think i'm being 'gutless' or need to 'man-up' (whatever the hell that means) but I do know that I'm pissed off with your sanctimonious bs trolling.

Whether CSIRO can measure sea level or not is irrelevant -- thousands of others around the world know how.

And, we'll be doing lots of it up here, because the way ocean oscillations, earth's rotation, Greenland's melting, etc. all work, the US east coast is getting about 4x the increase in sea rise of other locations around the globe.

So Andy: "I don't care about you view just your failure to argue" -- was there an argument in what you've blessed us all with here so far?

But we haven't asked you previous or current job, Philip, yet you want us to listen to you.
;]

"The only CSIRO scientist that I would listen to these days is a retired one." -- and you're not a scientist, Philip, so what would you talk with him/her about? His/her browser settings?
;]

"up here"
Sorry, Alex, you are down there.

Alex,
I am not a mammologist, nor an economist nor a solicitor who can't pronounce Taliban, or hyperbole nor do I confuse tenet with tenant.
So Flannery, Garnaut and Gillard get your attention when it comes to climate change. You are asily fooled.
Al Gore, of course, made it to vice president in your country. Do you listen to him?

You are correct about the browser settings. You must keep things simple for CSIRO scientists these days. Most wouldn't be aware of the signficance of selecting the correct port settings of the 65536 available, nor of the significance of selecting the correct network internet protocol, and of selecting an appropriate gateway address and correct priority of DNS addresses.

Yet another rhetorical question ?
Voluble Yank?

"The arctic has lost ice, at a time and in a quantity contrary to the best computer forecasts we have, therefore indicating that the cause is something other than man made warming."

Chris, please tell me this is a satirical piece...

Ian,

"Chris, please tell me this is a satirical piece..."

Why would I do that? The level of arctic ice melt seen in 2007, and not yet recovered, is well in excess of anything forecast at that time. The models even today cannot forecast it using historical data, even in hindsight.

If the observation does not conform with the hypothesis then the hypothesis needs to be revised, and that melt did not conform with the hypothesis.

Chris, no question the models need improvement but your conclusion doesn't follow.

It's a bit like a doctor saying that the lung cancer is developing more quickly than predicted so that means smoking could not be the cause.

The answer to models not predicting as well as they could is...improve the models. From what I understand this is happening and some of the factors that were initially underestimated were things like the link between ice thickness and the speed at which the ice moves. The other issue is albedo changes (may actually be an even more significant issue for Greenland).

Ian,

The problem is, the models are all we have. No one, apart from the occasional nutter, denies that CO2 will result in warming. A doubling in concentration will, if no other influences are involved, result in about a 1C increase in temperature. The issue is what other influences are involved.

The models make certain assumptions - hypotheses - about these influences, and these lead to predictions. Those predictions then need to be tested against real world observations. If the observations do not conform with the predictions then the hypothesis needs to be revised.

Gaia is not cooperating with the predictions, therefore the hypotheses need to be modified. The level of warming seen in the last seventeen years pretty much invalidates the original hypotheses. Rather than assuming the net feedback is positive, we now need to start wondering if the net feedbacks might be negative. In other words, rather than amplifying the effect of CO2 they may even be damping it.

What is beyond question is that we have no explanation for what we are currently seeing. It is contrary to the forecasts.

And your analogy is a little unrealistic. We largely understand the relationship between toxins in smoke and the prevalence of lung cancer, but we understand little about climate feedbacks at this point. The science is just too young and complex for any such claim to be taken seriously.

Chris

I don't really understand what you are trying to say - the level of warming of the past 17 years is not inconsistent with the expectations is current climate models and the addition of carbon dioxide physically cannot lead to a net negative feedback (not models, physics) in our current atmosphere. And we do have an explanation of what is currently happening; with respect, I think you are exaggerating the uncertainties and not acknowledging what is well accounted for in climate models (global especially, regional needs more work).

I'd suggest you have a look at some of the more recent papers on arctic sea ice modelling as they are getting better all the time. I can dig up a couple if you are interested.

And yes, my analogy is not perfect but just as we understand the links between smoking and cancer, we understand the mechanisms that cause long term changes in climate (a generalisation but a fair one I think) - but of course more work is needed.

In support of what Ian & others say, the focus on models is silly and irrelevant to the actual data.

The earth's average surface air temp has been stable since the last ice age within + or - 1/2 degree C. But, in the last decades, we've succeeded in raising average temps 0.9C (as of last year) without doubling CO2.

That increase occurred (not "modelled", but "occurred") despite:

a) the present solar activity cycle being in a 90-year trough, thus the present 11-year maximum cycle is muted, and

b) the vast aerosol cloud from India across SE Asia providing a net cooling of over 1/2 deg C (satellite measured, not modelled), and

c) the earth's orbital configuration in the ~90k-year Milanovitch Cycles being appropriate for cooling and even initiation of an ice age.

So, the actual measurements, that earth is now net 1/2 Watt per square meter biased toward net warming, the sea rise measurements that are ~50% due to thermal expansion, and all the the measurements, not "model" outputs, make clear that unnatural warming has been occurring, despite our CO2 increase being only 390/280.

The reasons are also not model outputs but measured -- methane emissions from exposed tundra & warmed underwater methane ices; increased solar absorption & heating of polar waters due to ice loss,; increased solar absorption via soot deposits on snow masses; increased agricultural GHG emissions -- N2O, CH4, etc.

And, that's the short list of real measurements, not "model" outputs.

Hiding global warming denials in critiques of models and IPPC or other straw men is silly and unscientific. Could be other things too, depending on financial interests of those involved in the misinformation.

The bottom line that deniers studiously avoid, is their inability to wave awy the realities of sea rise and isotopic contents of air & sea that show real effects of our naive, even crass, CO2 pollution and entry by no choice of our descendents into the Anthropocene.

A recent summary for those interested...
http://online.wr.usgs.gov/calendar/2012/mar12.html

So Chris thinks that if things happen faster than models suggest, there's no problem denying the changes? Or, the models are wrong, which is right, but their being wrong means climate science & physics & chemistry are wrong?

Just trying to get through to the core of the manipulative denier-speak here -- not easy!

Yes, models are wrong when they don;'t fully model reality. Climate models have long made assumptions. The IPPC forecasts have always been wrong, on the low side of impending disaster. Just can't make deniers & combusters happy!

Fortunately, we have real measurements and, if someone wants models to work better, they can be made so. But reality is not found in models. That's why we use two different words: "model" and "reality".

The reason ice loss in the arctic has been underforecast is that some of the positive feedback mechanisms were left out of models because folks didn't think things would go so bad so fast and that we'd actually be reducing emissions, as recommended years ago. Oops.

But, hiding in criticisms of "models" is kind of a wimpy way to argue against global warming, sea rise and acidification realities anyway.

Chris, you're gonna get the Berthold award for most words saying the least, if not careful.

If you don't understand how historical temps and other parameters of reality are measured via ice & sediment records, then study. It's not our job to educate you so you can argue with yourself.
;]

As for things deniers think they understand as gotchas -- Little Ice Age, Medieval Warming, those all fall within the remarkable, 10,000-year stability of our climate since the last ice age (the real one). The problem naively using the LIA or MW to argue for natural variability explaining our present temp rise is that they're directly related to real physical effects beyond earth -- solar activity, as well as to earthly effects, such as volcanism.

The problem deniers/combusters have is the reality that we haven't entered a cooling period & perhaps next ice age on historical schedule, because we've succeeded in countering cooling effects like the orbital Milankovitch Cycle.

We've geo-engineered a novel epoch in earth's history. Our descendents may rightly spit on our graves for being so dumb or crass (take your pick).

I think if computer models get it wrong then the models need to be adjusted. don't you? It doesn't matter in which direction they are wrong either. Wrong is wrong.

Where do I claim that physics & chemistry are wrong? What a strange claim.

You said: "But, hiding in criticisms of "models" is kind of a wimpy way to argue against global warming"

The models are the entire basis of the IPCC arguments. They are the basis under which the forecasts are made and the observed changes are explained. Far from criticism of them being 'wimpy' arguments centered around them are central. The models, in fact, are the only argument we have. The validity of the models is what the whole discussion is about. After all, no one, bar a few extreme nutcases, claim that warming isn't happening - the entire discussion is based around the causes and the quality of the data.

You said "But, in the last decades, we've succeeded in raising average temps 0.9C "

Between 1880 (or there abouts) and 1940 (sixty years) the temperature rose by about half a degree without any significant component of that being due to human activity. Then 'til now,(seventy years) the temperatures have risen by about another half degree, approximately half of which is attributed by the IPCC to human activity. That is, about one quarter of one Celsius is attributed to to us.

Is the permafrost melting across vast tracts yet as a result of rising temperatures and releasing methane? I have seen no reports that this is happening to any significant extent. The best data we have indicates that the seas are not warming to any significant level, so the undersea clathrates are also not releasing methane.As to the rest of your points, sure, but the overall effects need to be subject to quantitative analysis, modeled, in order for their effects to be determined. The validity of the models not only is no straw man, but are at the centre of the entire discussion. If the models are not valid then we have no argument at all, just a bunch of assertions.

And, the use of the word 'deniers' is inappropriate, abusive, and has no place in any discussion about science. It is a political term who's sole purpose is to attack the person, not the argument, and is beneath anyone who has anything real to contribute.

You said: "the level of warming of the past 17 years is not inconsistent with the expectations is current climate models"

I quote Gavin Trenberth: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."

In fact, a seventeen year, or ten year (depends on what trends you are looking at) hiatus is totally at odds with the forecasts. It simply cannot be explained by the hypotheses we are working with. The question is, do we modify the hypothesis or do we ignore the observations? The tragedy is, in the politically charged atmosphere which surrounds this issue, the observations are often what are discarded.

You said: "the addition of carbon dioxide physically cannot lead to a net negative feedback"

Sure, neither can the addition lead to a positive feedback, using the same argument. Nonetheless, these feedbacks occur as a result of secondary effects. The question still to be settled is what the net effects are, and the extent to which they modify or amplify the effects of the CO2 on temperature.

I would argue that rather then my exaggerating the uncertainties, the reality is that too often they are unjustly depreciated.

Alex,

What makes you think I don't understand how historical temperatures and "other parameters of reality" are measured?

Is it possible I understand all to well and as a result see complexities where others, less informed, see simplicities?

Whether it is true or not only discussion will show, but you must admit that it is a possibility.

Don't worry, I don't see it as your job to educate me, nor is it my job to educate you, even if it seems necessary.

See? Patronising is easy, but it achieves little other than to annoy your opponent. This may be a reasonable approach when dealing with a political opponent, but it really has no place when discussing issues of science.

In fact, in matters of science, I am always willing to be educated or have my understanding expanded.

Alex,

You said: "In support of what Ian & others say, the focus on models is silly and irrelevant to the actual data."

Twice now, here and below in another thread, you have indicated that the models are not important, or not the issue, or irrelevant, or something.

I am sorry, but nothing could be further from the truth. The data is meaningful only in the context of the hypothesis, and the models are a codification of that hypothesis. Without the models the data are just a bunch of numbers signifying noise rather than information. Information can only be extracted from the data by applying rules of analysis abstracted from the hypothesis, and the models are those rules.

No rules, no information.

In fact, the predictions obtained from those models are the basis of the entire discussion, and the basis of every policy either enacted or proposed. No valid model = no usable forecasts = no meaningful policy is possible.

The models are central, they are core, and if there is a question about their validity then it needs to be exposed to the light, not brushed aside.

It is actually Kevin Trenberth and the reference was to his paper "An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's global energy" lamenting the lack of observation systems to track all the energy flow through the climate system.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Kevin-Trenberth-travesty-cant-account-for-the-lack-of-warming.htm

If you are going to copy and paste from climate denier blogs, at least get the names right.

An automated spambot could do a better job.

Chris

It's hard to argue with selective quotations but I get what you are saying. I prefer to rely on the evidence presented. One area that seems to be overlooked in the 'earth has stopped warming' scenario is the ocean heat content. Again, this is not modelling, it is empirical evidence. It would be interesting to see how this is explained by alternatives to the mainstream climate science, especially what the alternative equilibrium position will end up wrt global temperature.

Again, I'm not completely clear on what you mean regarding carbon dioxide but the net forcings for the various atmospheric components, with the exception of clouds, are pretty well known (ie the range of values are documented if you would like them).

And like Mike, I use the term climate change denier here because some of the wackier posters here are well-known from other forums for completely disregarding the facts and frankly trying to derail the discussion with conspiracy theories, lies and distortions. The only word that fits is denier. (I have not said the same about you).

Chris, the fact remains that the vast majority of the best qualified people on the planet disagree with you. You say they're wrong. I say you're not qualified to know.

Chris Harper: "Is it possible I understand all to well and as a result see complexities where others, less informed, see simplicities?"
Given that you're disagreeing with the best minds on the planet, in fields where they hold qualifications and you don't, that comment speaks of hubris verging on psychopathy.

David,

You said: "Given that you're disagreeing with the best minds on the planet"

Damn, and there I was thinking I was just disagreeing with Alex's point.

Alex, kudos to you, that David holds you in such high regard.

And besides, seriously, where did I disagree with them? I thought I was just pointing out a possibility, not asserting an established fact.

David, you are aware that anyone can become a lay expert in pretty much any subject with a few weeks or months reading, aren't you? Not a professional, but an expert nonetheless. You have no idea of my background, no idea of my qualifications, and no idea of my level of expertise, but you feel qualified to liken me to a psychopath.

More abuse from a commenter here? Can't anyone discuss these matters without descending into that type of language?

What has happened to civility these days?

Ian,

My understanding is that Trenberth has put forward the notion of increased ocean heat as a plausible but untested hypothesis to explain the lack of warming, but that it remains just that. Again, it is my understanding that no data has been produced at this point to either support or refute it.

As to 'denier', it is thrown around with gay abandon, and was designed to be pejorative. It is a deliberate propaganda link to holocaust denial, and I find it repugnant in every circumstance. It Godwinises the discussion every time it is used, and regardless of how uninformed some people are, I have never encountered a climate sceptic who truly deserves to be equated to a NAZI apologist. I don't know you, but I suspect you are better than that.

Chris Harper: "... there I was thinking I was just disagreeing with Alex's point."
You know better. Your position is at odds with that of the vast majority of the best qualified.
Chris Harper: "I thought I was just pointing out a possibility ...". In the process asserting that you see what thousands of better qualified people don't. Hubris indeed.
I stand by my assessment.

"I have never encountered a climate sceptic who truly deserves to be equated to a NAZI apologist."

I guess history will be the judge of that. It all depends how succesful they are in delaying action and what the costs of that delay turn out to be.

It might turn out to be that they are far worse than NAZI apologists.

I have never encountered anyone who has objectively looked at ALL of the facts and continues to DENY that we need to take action.

Gary,

What an unutterably foul statement.

'Tis true though - climate deniers could cause far more damage than holocaust deniers could.

This is an extremely important issue with extremely significant ramifications.

Yet you prats just wade in without doing any research; without checking anything you have heard or read from these BS deniers; you treat it like it is some sort of game for your own personal amusement. WTF?

Gary,

You're serious, aren't you?

Wow.

David,

You said: "You say they're wrong."

Who am I saying is wrong?

You said: "I say you're not qualified to know."

Good for you.

'best minds on the planet' oh Gawd you must be taking the piss. Reminds of Marvin the robot from The Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy, he had a brain the size of a small planet. The PHD's who are imbedded in the climate gig - just ordinary dudes, I think, making their way thru the universe and picking up the change along the way.

Agreed Trevor. They're ordinary guys, not super(wo)men :)
Most take their profession seriously trying their best too, as I understands it. And they peer review their results to get them checked for possible errors before they present them. In fact, they act as most other serious professionals with a conscience.

They are not a conspiracy. Just guys and gals doing their best to understand the probably most complicated 'machinery' we can think of.

Earths Climate.

Chris Harper: "You're serious, aren't you?"
I guess that pretty much sums it up. You just don't get it.
The worst case of global warming is a planet that could not support anything that we might recognise as life. You (yes, I do mean you) would then be responsible for billions of human deaths. Not to mention the extinction of all life on Earth.
This is why some of us regard your behaviour as diabolic.

Wow.

I point out that there are points where the model forecasts don't match real world observations and imply that the models may need revision as a consequence, In other words, I propose that normal scientific procedure be followed, and suddenly I am responsible for billions of deaths...

I mean, WOW.

Chris Harper: "... I am responsible for billions of deaths...". Possibly; if you keep denying climate science.

David, all you have done is criticize Chris rather than his argument. Does this mean you support the shrill cries of the genocide accuser, Koolaid guzzling Gary? I know I'm not commenting on the topic but I am sick to death of the insults and accusations that you and others are throwing at those who disagree with you. If you don't trust their sources because you think they're part of some great Heartland funded denialist conspiracy at least have the decency to argue the points that you believe are wrong.

The warmistanis have long run out of civility - if they ever had any

I am not accusing anyone of genocide - yet. I am just saying you are playing a very dangerous game and you should be doing a lot more research and thinking about the issue before presenting us with your opinions.

I refer back to Chris Harper's original post. He makes a series of controversial statements that fly in the face of the whole of scientific knowledge and provides absolutely no evidence to support his assertions. Either he was deliberately trying to deceive people or he was just trying to provoke a reaction (trolling).

I'm not completely sure what the Koolaid reference means - but I suggest that if you truly believe AGW is a huge global conspiracy then you are the one in need of it.

Alex

The number and severity of tornados in the US has declined in the last 30 years. Also, 2011, the year we're all being urged to remember as the year of extreme weather, is only 6th place in the tornado stakes since 1950. 1957, 1965, 1971, 1973 and 1974 were each way ahead of 2011.

Those IPCC models have let us down yet again.

And global surface temperatures have not risen for 15 years.

Gary,

You said: "He makes a series of controversial statements that fly in the face of the whole of scientific knowledge"

I gave a brief overview of some of the issues where it is commonly recognized that real world observation conflicts with the computer model forecasts, and he can make the above statement while having labeled me the denier.....

Gary, are you denying the antarctic sea ice extent is much what I wrote? Have temperatures, globally, risen significantly since 1995? Did the temperature not pretty near flatline for the last ten years?

Seriously?

I haven't provided evidence because none of what I had to say was in the least controversial. Including the reality that there has been no significant increase in extreme weather events over the last century.

"As to ocean warming, the best system of measuring ocean warming is the Argo Project, s system of 3000 buoys cruising the worlds seas at a depth of 1km, constantly sampling the waters. Since Argo started in 2003 it has detected no statistically significant increase in ocean temperatures."

Here is the real measured increase in the oceanic heat content in the UPPER 700m.
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

And Antarctica is losing LAND ICE at an accelerated rate:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm

And the Arctic is steadily losing sea ice:
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/index.html

Gary,

I refer you to:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2012/2012GL051106.shtml

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 39, L10603, 5 PP., 2012
World ocean heat content and thermosteric sea level change (0–2000 m), 1955–2010
S. Levitus et al

“The heat content of the World Ocean for the 0–2000 m layer increased by 24.0 ± 1.9 × 1022 J (±2S.E.) corresponding to a rate of 0.39 W m−2 (per unit area of the World Ocean) and a volume mean warming of 0.09°C.”

0.09C in 55 years…..

Oceanic heat content increasing:
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

Antarctic losing LAND ICE:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm

Arctic is steadily losing sea ice:
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/index.html

And Greenland is losing ice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet
(Note on this page: if the entire Greenland Ice Sheet was to melt - 7.2M global sea level rise - it is 2-3km thick)

The problem is that there are so many models that one of them will be nearly right. It is like betting on all the horses in a race, and then showing everyone the winning ticket.

OK! I am awarding a points decision to Chris Harper!
Chris has generally maintained focus on the arguments. Whereas, others have received yellow cards again and again for personal attacks.
Judging by the level of 'off-topic' and personal attacks that are now on the record in this "conversation" I can only conclude that:

Yes we do have the politicians that we deserve

Best minds on the planet ?
If I wanted to find those I would go looking for retired merchant bankers in Monaco.

Incorrect.
They are doing their best to keep their job, and land the next Government research grant.

Gary
What's all that speculative stuff about ice got to do with the title of this article. There is no balance or serious attempt to get at the underlying reality of recent weather.

Its very misleading.

No - focusing on one measurement of global temp (surface temp) over a relatively short period of time and ignoring all of the other data is misleading. I was providing balance. The planet is still warming.

Speculative? This is empirical evidence.

oh - do you mean the link between increased heat and more extreme weather?

Are they the ones that caused the GFC?

Yes, the methane increases have been noted, along with CO2 increases, as arctic lands become uncovered and permafrost thaws. the potential is huge. sonar even shows great methane volumes bubbling up out of methane ices (clathrates) that naturally occur along continental shelves, especially in the N. Atlantic.

Arctic CO2 measures now show 400ppm, compared with lower latitudes now at 390ppm. Remember too, that CH4 oxidizes ito CO2 and water, so methane evolution increases CO2 & water vapor air contents.

Trevor Ellice: "... oh Gawd you must be taking the piss.". No Trevor.
I was thinking of minds like Carl Sagan, who said: "... Venus is an ominous reminder that in a world rather like the earth, things can go wrong. There is no guarantee that our planet will always be so hospitable." and Stephen Hawking, who said: "We don’t know where global warming will stop but the worst case scenario is that the earth will become like its sister planet Venus, with a temperature of 250 degrees C ...". Those quotes are transcribed from a youtube video (www.youtube.com/watch?v=mu1PicT0TMU, I think).
You evidently think you're something special, but I'll take their opinion over yours.

Chris, models come about because of some basic understanding of science & math that we put together to try to generate further results that might be observed, but haven't yet. They're entirely dependent on what we've already observed, what we think we can write down as algorithms to use what we've observed, and what computational ability we have to actually perform those algorithms we've developed to use the data we've seen in order to hopefully elaborate on the data into new regions of time/space/process, etc.

Models aren't reality, though the data we try to give them are derived from reality by as faithful a measurement effort as we can make.

Thus, models only just approach our theories in therms of accuracy, but may expose weaknesses in those theories or in the models themselves, depending on further comparison of model outputs with real data. The Higgs boson 'discovery' is an example of a model making a broad, wishful prediction, and real data showing how to narrow the model's structure to make a better representation of reality.

So, yes,models aren't the central point here, despite FAs having their weakness of hiding in the inevitable errors in model outputs (predictions), especially for one of the most complex tasks humans have ever asked of models -- simulate earth, air, fire & water.

To meet the computational limits of technology, all such complex models make assumptions and leave things out. The latest computing gear lets us get down to sub-kilometer modelling of climate, but some things are still left out -- arctic reflectivity was, for instance, so IPPC 'predictions' of arctic sea ice loss have been under the much larger actual loss, etc.

Making models central to an argument just adds an irrelevant, synthetic discourse. The actual measurements are what models will always be tested by, so that's the sense in which I use "irrelevant". The FAs love the models because, whether they understand it or not, they smell blood in the very real effects of our limited computational ability to presicts anything anywhere at any time.

In other words, models provide FAs with lots of straw men to strut over as they knock them down, while they carefully avoid discussions of real temp/precip/sea-rise/acidification measurements that have nothing to do with models, but everything to do with why their, and our, descendents will be pissed at us. The FAs play a Fool's Wager as if it were conservative. That's the evil they do to others who may not be expert enough to see through their fluff.

.

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." -- is a false statement. A model perfectly 'predicts' the past 38 years of N. hemisphere avg temps, using exactly 4 parameters: CO2 content of the air, volcanic activity, solar activity, and the Pacific Oscillation (El Nino, La Nina) -- see AAAS annual meeting presidential address for 2010. It was a result unscientific folks like Monckton found no counter to, so never mention.

Given what we know of the solar, orbital, CO2 and other relevant parameters, some from ice cores (like Vostok & Greenland), plus sediments & fossils, we see excellent matches back for the depth of the ice cores (>600,000 years for Vostok) and beyond. This is all publicly available on line.

Chris, what the IPCC says is based on many contributions and many model predictions. That's fine, but you seem to assert that if the models aren't right we change them -- indeed true, because no models or computing gear are up to the task of simulating an entire planet at the level of detail we might wish for. No one has said they are.

All that has been done with the models is to build a variety that take account of as many things each scientist or group thinks are important, at the resolution that can be achieved with the computing power available.

Perhaps in the future, as computing power further evolves, we'll get perfect predictions of what we see today, and the mess we're in then. So what? We now know how to predict banking failures from banking deregulation -- so?

Sea rise needs no model. Ocean acidification needs no model. Effects of both are visible. Just as walking across a street against a red light without looking needs no model.

This fetish with proffering the many models and then shooting down their predictions is indeed wimpy. It's certainly not science. No one expects models to be arbitrarily 'predictive' -- that's why they're called "models", and it's why data are used to correct them.

So, a model of sea ice loss in the Arctic will now need more power to model Arctic ice, because reflectivity was left out before to allow computations to converge in our lifetime, etc. If you want some discussion of current model status, look here...
http://online.wr.usgs.gov/calendar/2012/mar12.html

But the global warming, sea rise & acidification aren't controlled by models. They're controlled now mostly by us.

you guys really are on another planet - Venus it would seem. Tell me does Venus have liquid water oceans

Actually, you could yourself go examine the various papers comparing all the models so far published, Philip, and probably learn something.

But, again, model bashing is just a crutch for Fact Avoiders.

Toby, you apparently don't understand why air temps are more variable than water temps, or what influences air temps around the world. It was laid out elsewhere here that only 4 recorded parameters are needed to perfectly model avg. temps for the past 40 years: CO2 content, volcanism, El Nino/La Nina, and solar activity.

Don't know where you get your numbers, but they don't match official reports and you must now know that 26 US states are in the worst drought since 1956, with >40,000 US municipalities reporting record high avg. temps fror the last 12 months -- higher than any prior record.

But, if you want to get facts, talk to insurers about our storm damage increases, they've already been adjusting rates & coverage to reflect the reality that you seem not to grasp. Others do. You should talk with them, before misleading others here into joining your apparent Fool's Wager.

Models actually come about by academics wanting to justify a bigger and better "toy" to play with.

Models to be useful must predict. None can do so reliably.

I have. You haven't.

Alex,
You are so naive. Insurers tell you the facts that will result in further premiums being written or that will justify higher premiums.

They didn't cause it. Flawed government policies did. But they did take advantage of it.

"But the global warming, sea rise & acidification aren't controlled by models. They're controlled now mostly by us"

So the models tell us. However, if these things aren't happening in the manner and timescales predicted by the models. and they aren't, then the models are wrong - and the models are all you have.

The observed data simply don't support the assertions, so the hypothesis needs to be reexamined. It is core practice in every other branch of science, why should climate science be exempt?

Don't abuse the messenger, abuse those who made the overblown predictions in the first place.

Now, your comments about banking deregulation are way off topic, and I would argue to be very questionable.

Bank deregulation caused the failures and the GFC huh? Nothing to do with the politically expedient but economic and commercial insanity of the Community Reinvestment Act, the utterly insane financial policies of the Clinton and Bush era governments or the equally disastrous policies of the European governments and the European Union? Not much room there for even the possibility of any Kondratiev cycling either. Sigh, the idea that banking was ‘deregulated’, as opposed to some shackles being slightly loosened, is simply counterfactual; blame bad regulation and government incompetence, not deregulation.

I agee Alex. The methane 'bomb' may become a dark horse here, nobody knows what a melting tundra will do to the global climate, we can just make educated guesses. You have both methane from rotting vegetation, etc, and CO2 released there. The same goes for the shallow waters in the Arctic that is getting warmer and where you have frozen methane just under the surface. . Look up 'Arctic methane Natalia Shakhova.' if anyone is interested. He and his coworkers has done extensive field research on this.

But it is still CO2 that is the big villain in this, not methane.

Eh, She, not He. Write to fast for my fingers here.

To make amends :)

Here is a recent interview with her http://www.skepticalscience.com/arctic-methane-outgassing-e-siberian-shelf-part2.html

There are several points she take up, as if they can prove that those outgassings they've found is of a recent origin, or not. Dr. Natalia Shakhova and Dr. Igor Semiletov are both very interesting to read.

What might be of interest which ever way one lean there is what they've found so far in form of outgassings "the amount of methane annually escaping from the ESAS is equal to that escaping from the entire World Ocean."

best post I've seen on this site - well done sir

I think the best defence against the inquistion is ridicule - Woody Guthrie had on his guitar and message that read this machine kills fascists - well we need another that destroys climate dogma.

Probably would have been more fruitful to expend your "weekend reading" in science and data, like sea rise, acidification, isotopic fingerprints of human combustion, Marc. But, hey, as a geologist, you're not paid to do that right? As we continue to ask, Marc, who pays you?

Hi Alex,

Just as I'd thought we'd lost you, you've returned with a vengeance. Did someone let you go on holiday ?? :) (or make you take them on one)

Cheers Alex

Was finishing up the dashboard of one of our old English cars plus some nuclear review stuff, Mark. I see you folks down there have been busy with web 'productivity'! I'll try to catch up tomorrow.

Old english cars ... nice. I had a friend many years ago who completely restored a Worsley Princess. It was stunning. You strike me more as a Rover fan ... a pair of 3500's perhaps ??

Web productivity, Hmmm, that's an interesting take. You've witnessed random acts of open mindedness and objective thought but didn't think to alert me to them ?? :)

Cheers Alex.

Well. Mark, we have 2 cars into which Sir William Lyons never allowed a Rover V8...
www.jag-lovers.org/include/iv3.php3?zx=SdADyw4IiM8ED8ZK%2FZfkxwPODP6dnc8GzAc41s2j3L1HN6OfvET8PwvO2gpCvAwPi5jc98kfRd3dxDz4QPvS1Qw3CUz81dj998kfQdTHBkW8CxTZ1PdC9kk21doFMQo%2BMdrPBUD2QjzKyw4FxUk21pm8NQJMO6Od9wvMCTCdnsgCBxEEnp%2FPTNAS%2F5iZzgMPDwGWlsYEyTrwoQ%3D%3D

www.jag-lovers.org/include/iv3.php3?zx=SdADyw4IiM8ED8ZK%2FZvkxwPNCQCenskIygc41s2j3L1HN6OfvET8PwvO2gpCvAwPi5jc98kfRd3dxDz4QPvS1Qw3CUz81dj998kfQdTHBkW8CxTZ1PdC9kk21doFMQo%2BMdrPBUD2QjzKyw4FxUk21pm8NQJMO6Od9wvMCTCdnsgCBxEEnp%2FPTNAS%2F5iZzgMPDwGWlsYEyTrwoQ%3D%3D

www.jag-lovers.org/include/iv3.php3?zx=SdADyw4IiM8ED8ZK%2FZnkxwLOCwWam8oHygcYtq2j3L1HN6OavET8PwvO2gpCvAwPi5jc98kfRd3dxDz4QPvS1Qw3CUz81dj998kfQdTHBkW8CxTZ1PdC9kk21doFMQo%2BMdrPBUD2QjzKyw4FxUk21pm8NQJMO6Od9wvMCTCdnsgCBxEEnp%2FPTNAS%2F5iZzgMPDwGWlsYEyTrwoQ%3D%3D

www.jag-lovers.org/include/iv3.php3?zx=SdADyw4IiM8ED8ZK%2FZjkxwPPEQWXmMsIyAcYtq2j3L1HN6OZvET8PwvO2gpCvAwPi5jc98kfRd3dxDz4QPvS1Qw3CUz81dj998kfQdTHBkW8CxTZ1PdC9kk21doFMQo%2BMdrPBUD2QjzKyw4FxUk21pm8NQJMO6Od9wvMCTCdnsgCBxEEnp%2FPTNAS%2F5iZzgMPDwGWlsYEyTrwoQ%3D%3D

And, this is like our oldest automotive possession, whose dash is just now restored. It's what has allowed us to be in Healey club tours, to which we've 'til now had to bring a Jag!..

www.conceptcarz.com/view/photo/758920,12983/1962-Austin-Healey-Sprite_photo.aspx#photo
www.vicwhit.com/Spitfire/sprite.html

Hi Alex,

Love the Jag's ... but little number 65 might just win you a few more hearts :) Guessing that your Christmas list would permanently include a couple of things like 'E-Type' and 'XJS' then ... or can you feel a Bentley coming on ??

Mark Chambers: "What if one of these arguments turns out to be completely incorrect ..." Indeed. Then again, how many "what ifs" are there? Is "What if" even a sensible question?
My question would be "What's the risk?". Taking only worst-case scenarios:
the worst case I've seen on taking action against climate change is that in the Stern Report - a 1% reduction in GDP;
the worst case of climate change is a world unfit for humanity, posited by Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking;
if that's too much for you, then try the "... substantially reduced human carrying capacity of the planet ..." of the pentagon report.
Which risk do you want to take?
By the way; if anyone knows of a credible more severe risk from taking action against climate change, I'd be pleased to hear it.

Hi David,

How many what if's are there ?? Well, there's really only one. What if we get it wrong ?? We just can't afford to so all I'm suggesting is that the people who understand climate change the most spend a lot more of their time making sure that the answer we have today isn't the 'climate cane toad' of tomorrow, and far less time defending answers that they weren't even responsible for finding.

If criticism of climate science isn't intelligent, it's not really criticism. If climate science can't stand up to criticism, well, it's not really science. 40 years ago, based on the information at hand, scientists were predicting another ice age. If another 40 years of research has proven the opposite to be true then it's lucky we didn't act on preventing an ice age too hastily isn't it ??

The question for you David is this ; Do you think that climate scientists will learn anything else about climate change after 'another' 40 years of research, or do you think that they know it all now ??

Cheers.

You say we shouldn't really change anything until we fully understand what the effects will be?

I agree - we should not be gambling with the climate of our planet by pushing CO2 levels to where they have not been for nearly 1000000 (that's right 1 million) years.

Sean Lamb: "... would have sunk without a trace if I hadn't ...". Delusions of grandeur or delusions of relevance?