Strange, I could have sworn that all the measurements that have been made align with the models. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

So unless you are accusing thousands of highly respected scientists of professional lying (for which you would need to provide significant proof, like your own Earth temperature measurements from satellites), then you have to admit that the temperature data is matching the models. Since this is clearly the case you are either denying the data or you must have some amazing data of your own to publish.

I also love your statement about carbon dioxide having little impact on global temperatures. What a lark! You know that CO2 is one of many greenhouse gases and this discussion is actually about all the greenhouse gases humans are increasing in the atmosphere. You also know that these greenhouse gases are the reason our little blue planet isn't a frozen iceblock, all thanks to less than 0.5% of our atmosphere! So you seem to want to conveniently ignore the underlying physics involved here, which I think most rational people would term denial as well.

Sigh - usual claptrap. Mr Nicol, you know, or should know, that the science of AGW and the IPCC reports are based on far more than just models.

There are multiple lines of evidence for the existence of AGW

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Human_Fingerprints_1024.jpg

You appear to be in denial of all of them.

What cynics and pseudo-skeptics such as yourself cannot understand (presumably because you are incapable of it) is that a rational, skeptical person can possess a strong belief based on evidence yet be willing to alter it in the face of evidence

I started out (more than decade ago) extremely skeptical reasoning that insolation was more important than GHG's and that the heat capacity of the oceans was so vast any impact of rising GHGs would be miniscule. My study of the science and the evidence over a period of time (having the advantage of being a trained physicist) gradually convinced me that I needed to alter that belief. I have done so.

I would welcome any convincing evidence to enable me to alter my views once more.

But such evidence would have to do either or both of (1) demonstrate that there is a high likelihood (as opposed to a small possibility) that climate sensitivity is much lower than the IPCC consensus of 3 degrees C associated with a doubling of CO2, and/or (2) provide compelling evidence of a driver of the observed climate change that is "natural" coupled with an alternative explanation for the observed multiple lines of evidence establishing the reality of AGW

I am yet to see anything other than selective cherry picking of isolated facts, usually mis-represented by those with a pseudo-skeptical approach to the topic, such as yourself and your gish gallop of victimhood above, in attempts to deny the existence of AGW.

Ahh science as seen through the SS Kookite filter, backed with Harrigan's tear jerking story of climate redemption. Quick stop those coal fired electricity plants this instant - the proof is in!

Thank you Tim Scanlon for your response to my comment.

First I should ask you if you could point to the paragraph in the article for which you gave a link, which makes any comparison between the "models" and the data. I am a slow and ineffective reader and was unable to find any such reference.

Most if not all of the article seemed to be aimed at justifying the use of different recording stations and showing that indeed there was warming from 1880 to the present, a fact which even a so-called denier does NOT deny. Yes, there has been warming. What I am waiting for is someone to tell me why it MUST be because of increases in concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

For your interest, I give here a quopte from the AR$ IPCC 2007 Chapter 8:
"8.1.2.2 Metrics of Model Reliability
What does the accuracy of a climate model’s simulation
of past or contemporary climate say about the accuracy of its
projections of climate change? This question is just beginning
to be addressed, exploiting the newly available ensembles of
models." This seems to be a pretty honest assessment of where they are at at the present time. But how this vital testing of the models against real live measured values of climate characteristics can have been left for twenty years after serious modelling first started is somewhat of a mystery. In most if not all, real scientific analysis, the testing of thepry against experimental results is,carried out as soon as possible. Many tests of both special and general relativity were carried out within a few years or even months of the reults being obtained by Einstein and other subsequent analysis. Many of the resulots such as the bending of light by gravity were known before the advent of relativity explained the known effects which were known to be different from the results obtained simpy from the principal of equivalence..

The IPCC are at pains to explain that by tweaking the models it is found that they have the capability of reproducing some of the characteristics of known climates - mainly the temperature of the globe - but still have difficulty in handling cloud formation and distribution, circulation patterns from convection and the absence of the signature - heating above the tropics - is a mystery.

Nevertheless they do indeed show that the models can be constrained, as will always be required because of the chaotic nature of the models - the mathematical structure/science of chaos was indeed discovered through attempts to accurately model the atmosphere - and doing can allow them to reproduce some aspects, though by no means all of the global climate.

Reproducing regional behaviour of course is another matter, and one could well argue that unless a model can be used to represent the REGIONAL DISTRIBUTIONS of humidity (another embarassingly difficult, but very important, parameter to represent), temperature, convectional effects etc., then it is hardly able to reproduce any of the parameters accurately, since the temperature of the globe does depend on all of these factors.

To be able to add a component of energy, ascribed to absorption by carbon dioxide, and find that this leads to a result for the temperature alone, similar to the measured values, is hardly an exciting scientific revelation. But this is essentially what the modellers are doing.

They claim that they cannot represent the known temperature increases without invoking CO2 effects. However, since many other input parameters are not accurately known and the output values of others are not found to be correct, it is a bit rich to say, as they do, that they have "a high level of confidence" in global temperature determinations by the models.

Tim, when there is a publication which shows that the output from the models can represent the known distribution of climate factors over the earth to within 10% or even perhaps within 25% error, I will accept that the output from the models is reasonable. If you can show me such a publication right now I would be delighted. Even the global temperature of the past 15 years does not follow the predictions by the modesl as is accepted by all of the major climate institutes. This has lead to various speculative comments involving the possible release of SO2 and other aerosols, suggestions that there is still an "underlying" warming - what ever that might be.- and confident statements that warming will resume very soon.

We will just wait and see if warming does resume and whether the improvements to the models will allow thewir out put to match known climate parameters of the past or future.. John Nicol joncol18@bigpond.com

John, I tire of your comments and condescension. Your throw-away final statement is typical of your complete lack of evidence for claims you make, whilst demanding minutiae and detail from anyone else, the best part being your dismissal of any linked evidence via cherry picking or red herrings. Your throw-away "we will just wait to see if warming does resume" is completely at odds with the record temperatures and events that are being recorded (e.g. http://www.the-cryosphere.net/6/821/2012/tc-6-821-2012.html).

I like how you target the IPCC and cherry pick from a report that is 5 years old. I'm pretty sure that there have been a few scientists publishing since then. In fact I think there was someone called Muller who confirmed a bunch of land measurements, which matched the other studies, which matched the models and confirmed the human fingerprint of climate change.

So to be quite honest, your statement about accuracy and acceptance is just straight up denial. Not only are you ignoring current measures that fit with previous modelling, you are then expecting models to be doing something they are not designed to do. Your claims to accuracy show that you either don't understand models - a predictive tool for analysis of TRENDS and prediction of said same - or you haven't been reading the outputs and conclusions and looking at how well they relate to the measured long term trends we have experienced.

Further to this, my original link to the data measurements for temperature: you honestly couldn't find any relation between those data and the models? Did you actually go to the page or just leave your eyes closed or not bother to compare the data? For someone claiming to be a scientist in this field you are either displaying more denial or extreme laziness.

I forgot to add: John Nicol also did not engage my original questions and statements, but instead invented a rambling diatribe meant to distract people. His claims about models being inaccurate is not supported sufficiently for the level of his claim. If he seeks to dismiss an entire field of science (climate modelling) he has to provide some very big amounts of evidence.

My main statement to him in regards to his position was about his position on the reality of a greenhouse effect and how can this known effect have anything other than a consequence when we have increased the underlying basis of it. His failure to address this point shows John's denial.

"John Nicol also did not engage my original questions and statements, but instead invented a rambling diatribe meant to distract people."

That's standard behavior from John Nicol. I'm used to his unbelievable fabrications such as when (while discussing the eminent climate scientist Syukuro Manabe who he was trying to confuse with a biologist) suddenly came up with the line:

"The Manabe to whom you NOW refer"

http://theconversation.edu.au/think-tanks-talking-points-deepen-the-divide-over-climate-change-5119#comments

As if I ever intended to refer to anyone else. He then continued with one of his usual fiction-filled diatribes:

"of course, his publications were in the same period as those of Callendar, the 1950s -early 60s,"

Anyone with half a brain could easily check that Manabe's latest publication was last year: http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/results.php?author=1070

Nicol's capacity for self-delusion or intellectual dishonesty is breath-taking.

A slap with a damp sponge hardly represents a killer blow, here's Curry's reply...

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00195.1

Considering uncertainty, a more accurate statement of our contention would have been: The large uncertainties in both the observations and model simulations of the spectral amplitude of natural variability precludes a confident detection of anthropogenically forced climate change against the background of natural internal climate variability.

A bit desperate to quote an apparently anonymous comment the way you do, perhaps you can provide a link to it, or its authorship.

It's only location on Google is here-perhaps you made it up?

Thanks Michael. It appears to be authored by a certain "CompFedUp" in a comment on the SS site.

Ian Smith, it pains me to point out that you quote an anonymous blogger as an authority on climate change! Did this practice spill over from your CSIRO career?

Hey, I just noticed that some CSIRO people are blogging at around 10AM, Monday.

That is during work time. I'm paying your taxes, so get back to work and blog during your own time.

Gerard Dean

I think he's "retired".

Ian,
Sure thing, think whatever you like. The topic at hand was the identity of someone you quoted as an authority in criticising a paper by Judy Curry. Turns out that "authority" was an anonymous blogger. If you used to rely on anonymous bloggers in your CSIRO career, so be it, but I'm sure CSIRO's rigorous peer review system would have pulled you up on it.

The word "authority" was not used. The word "commentator" was. It appears you have trouble understanding more than just science Mr Hendrickx

So Ian relies on anonymous "commentators" for his view of the science, not much better. On a par with you though.

You really haave a problem with admitting error don't you Mr Hendrickx? Along with your talent for not sticking by your espoused principles and mis-representation of published science.

For the record, when I refer to blogs/commentators or even news articles I make it transparent - just as I do with links to published science or links to authoritative credible bodies who publish data. Ian made it clear he was using the word "commentator" - and it is clear from many of his posts that he does not rely on such to the exclusion of other sources.

My record on TC in that regard speaks for itself. That fact that the best you can manage is sloppy slur is rather typical of your approach. Ever wonder WHY you get so many red marks??

You might make it transparent when you refer to and rely upon junk science and cult like blogs, however in this case Ian Smith certainly did not. If anyone else had used an anonymous quote as support I suspect your reaction might be a little different. Once again your hypocrisy clear for all to see.

You mean cult like blogs such as WUWT that you regularly use??

A site that brags about using the discredited falsifies of Science, Lord Monckton?

A site the Guardian columnist George Monbiot described as "highly partisan and untrustworthy".

Whereas David Suzuki recommends Skeptical Science for accurate science on the topic of climate change. "There are many credible sources of information, and they aren't blog sites run by weathermen like Anthony Watts".

Or perhaps you DO refer to the fact that I frequently link to the pubclicly referecned science on SKS who won the 2011 Eureka Prize for Advamcement of Climate Change Knowledge

http://eureka.australianmuseum.net.au/index.cfm?objectid=987D1F90-1F70-11E0-85AB005056B06558

And were a finalist for the Presidents Prize by the Institute of Physics in London

http://www.physics.org/toplistdetail.asp?id=12

It would seem your judgment about what is "junk science" and a "cult like blog" is significantly out of step with many others

So Marc, I'll leave it up to others to make any judgements they feel required about hypocrisy from someone who publicly states

""The role of the scientist in this debate, is as it has been: to continue to diligently report the facts, test the theories, to be honest, to be skeptical, to avoid hyperbole, to properly outline the errors and uncertainties, to avoid activism."

Cheers, keep up those red marks for "assisting" people won't you?

Perhaps you should make it clear that you are retired, so any future confusion may be avoided.

PS I have nothing to apologise for.

Understandably difficult for you to avoid activism Mark, when all your sources are activists.

Ciao!

Ian, I think Marc collects deceased Norwegian Blues :-)

Alex, are you being a little harsh on Muller?

My understanding is that he's a physicist who was (and may well continue to be) pretty clueless about gas-radiation interaction, but is capable of doing a bit of stats.

That he allows his views to be modified by evidence suggests that his mind is not closed enough to be a genuine Denialist.

A good point about complexity - when we're discussing a policy response to AGW, it's not just scientists versus deniers.

For example, you can argue we need action on AGW, but a carbon price is the wrong way to do it.

Cap & trade worked perfectly here in the US on sulfur emissions from our coal plants. We used to lose the paint off our cars and kill trees in eastern forests until that policy eliminated almost all wet sulfate emissions.

Combustion folks don't pay for most of what they need -- a source of oxygen and a sink for emissions and heat.

The Space Shuttle, at least, paid for 2 of those 3. The combustion industry is simply what we get when we're lobbied up to the neck for subsidy.
;]

Thanks James.

Indeed, it can be argued that a pricing mechanism is the wrong way to go about addressing climate change. It can equally be argued that, in a society composed of individuals who are free to choose what they do and how they do it, a pricing mechanism is the optimal way to engage the members of that society in a given issue.

Chris, good points. I personally have severelly curtailed my Jet Travel for the last decade or more. Going interstate only when necessary and overseas just once since 1999 (although admittedly for a long trip with my family).

But given emssions from jet travel are comparable on a per km travelled per individual basis to a single person travelling in a compact car and that it accounts for 1.6% of emissions, it's not the pareto focus.

Road transport accounts for 10% of our carbon footprint. Cars are responsible for the bulk of these emissions.

The real issue though is how we generate our electricity and how we consume it.

Here there are a number of ways we can, as individuals, take small steps. Lighting and items on stand-by are low hanging fruit. I know many who are doing just that.

So, while I agree with you "secondary denial" exists - it's in some wasy easier to address in a gentle fashion than the deep seated psychological denial that there is even an issue practiced by the small number (but disproprotionately vocal) pseudo-skeptics

Whooooaaahhh

Doctor Harrigan finally fesses up and admits that is it worthwhile cutting air travel.

To be fair, Chris Harries does put it better than me as well as accepting that he too, like me, is in the energy use mode just like everyone else.

Well done all around. Things are looking up so much, I might go out and do some work on my Tiger Tank.

Gerard Dean

Mr Dean - I really wish you would stop this faux concern trolling. There is no "fessing up". I think it is worthwhile doing anything within reason to reduce emissions. I am just sick and tired of you professing concern and accusing others of hypocrisy in relation to this matter by choosing to focus exclusively on what the data shows to be a relatively minor issue.

Hey Doctor Harrigan

My line was tounge in cheek because I know that you won't have deserted your views, views that you have nailed into my brain many times. Sometimes I cannot work out if we are having a debate, an argument or a good old fashioned stoush.

I hope you noticed that I fessed up as well. And we do agree that Chris Harries wrote a good comment.

Now, I am off to my Tiger Tank

Gerard Dean

Hi Mark,

The example of air travel was just that, an example. But it's a very relevant one. Yes, a seat on a jet flight is roughly the same (per kilometre) as traveling the same distance in a compact car. But would you choose to drive to London? Being able to fly 10,000 kilometres means we are happy to take that easy choice, otherwise we most likely would not take the trip.

I also raise air flight as an example because its the fastest growing greenhouse gas emissions sector. Most other areas of greenhouse pollution have flat lined or are even abating (in wealthy countries) – as we've reached saturation levels of consumption in many areas.

But I take your general point. And I don't point the finger at anyone in particular. Each of us is trapped in a society that, through its built infrastructure and culture, draws us into a consumptive way of living. We don't need to feel guilty at all about that, that is until we learn about the consequences and then decide not to do our darndest to break free from it.

I think we are at that juncture when people realize the enormity of their personal footprint but don't have the inclination to do anything about it. To do that requires a lot of courage and preparedness to swim against the tide. That switchover should become easier as society around us starts to change behaviour. Above all, humans like to do what the majority do.

Chris Harries: "I also raise air flight as an example because its the fastest growing greenhouse gas emissions sector."
I wonder; does the emission of pollution at altitude affect its impact?

Good question David. The short answer is yes

The IPCC has estimated that aviation is responsible for around 3.5% of anthropogenic climate change (through radiative forcing not just direct emissions), a figure which includes both CO2 and non-CO2 induced effects - so that's over and above its raw emssions. But it has to said that there is a fair degree of uncertainty round that estimate.

My only concern is that cherry picking one activity isn't helpful - especially when for some such activities are difficult to avoid.

I think it's more productive to try and explore and make available the widest range of steps people can take and allow them to make their own choices - which is what a carbon pricing mechanism (be that cap & trade, tax on emssions or tax on fossil fuel consumption) is supposed to help drive.

Mark,

I'm not sure that air travel qualifies as a sacred cow here.

An extraordinary volume of air travel is business related.... and it grew by over 25% in the last two years. http://www.executivetravelmagazine.com/blogs/air-travel-news/2011/4/14/study-corporate-travel-spending-will-jump-69-percent-this-year We now have the technology to at least minimise such travel with interweb conferences and the like.

This can not only reduce emissions but can also be a useful means of reducing costs. However there is a perk element to it - at least for the first few years. It is not a sustainable perk.

Mark / Peter,

People talk about 'love miles'. That is, the need to fly long distances to see family members and close friends who live half a planet away. I would probably rank that need above business needs in terms of priority. And it's no fault of our own that during the era of cheap fossil-fuel energy we were able to choose to live thousands of kilometres from many of our loved ones.

We can legitimise the need to fly, but we can't, on those grounds, erase the consequences. Nor do I think the solutions are necessarily all that easy to come by. I often refer to flying because in an hour of flying we can use up our entire year's ration of carbon.

But I agree with Mark, we can feel guilty about all sorts of behaviours. I don't like to press guilt buttons. I know plenty of people and families who challenge themselves. My original comment was not about what precisely each of us do and don't do, it is about society's general preparedness to change behaviour, even knowing that our behaviours risk making life very hard for our immediate grandchildren.

That 'secondary denial' response is universal. According to Paul Ehrlich we don't know how to respond to long term threats because there is nothing in our evolutionary history that tells us to do that. So we focus what's right in front of us.

I can't blame anyone for acting out their evolutionary instincts. As people of science we still need to be able to focus on that barrier, because it is the elephant in the room – to use an over used phrase.

Hi Peter,

I do not think I ever argued for Airline travel to be a sacred cow?? So I'm not sure why you imfer it?

As I have said. I would prefer to encourage all possible avenues for reduction - air travel included - but not to single out any one "demon" (which is the problem I had with Mr Dean's approach) nor to be pre-scriptive.

People need to be free to make (reasonaable) choices that reflect their circumstances and needs without imposed value judgements based on one type over another.

That's the advantage of a price on carbon

Sorry Mark ... misunderstood.

It's just that I think international travel is one of the easiest ones to cut down on. It is largely discretional. Not necessarily easy but not an essential piece of life... only recent.

Whether or not it is "easiest" to cut down on depends I think on one's circumstances and needs. Not something I wish to make a judgement on behalf of others. But happy to encourage such reductions through suitable price signals that reflect their real environmental cost as well as to point out, promote and make available suitable alternatives - from abstinence through to technological alternatives (skype etc)

The average 'family' car does at least 20,000km a year many do twice that. So that's at least a trip to Europe a year. 90% of cars on freeways around Australia, taking people to work only have the driver in the car. Are we genuinely serious about AGW as they tell us the polls indicate? Hand on heart how many drive just themselves to work? What is the age of your new fuel efficient car and how many tonnes of 'carbon' went into the atmosphere so you can save $20 on your fuel bill every week?

We, believers and non believers (I think the use of the word denialist is academic arrogance at it's worst, the use of it has shown that even science can get down and dirty) pay lip service to AGW. What city in Australia has the infrastructure to get cars off the road? How many of you commuters out there run car pools or do you drive to work alone? Ever been to Basle during a working day? It does work, or at least it did when I was there in the 90s, no cars in the city.

Air travel is an interesting topic though, not because we fly hither and thither (is that how you spell it?) and, as a nation, just love our O/S holidays, but because we also demand our fresh, often organic food, to be available where and when we want it whether it be in season or not.

There is always someone to please us, so they fly it in. Certified organic food gets flown around the world and into Australia by the plane load. Price doesn't come into the equation we want it and we are rich and able to pay for it. Zambia recently pleaded with the EU to continue to allow them to air freight 'fresh' food into Europe as their economy relied on it.

Ever wondered where the old 747s go when they stop carrying people? Into the air freight trade carrying food to meet our epicurean demands, someone will no doubt correct me, but a 747 uses something like 40% more fuel than the Airbus. That's a demonstration of our concern about the future of the planet?

What food you may ask, well, asparagus from Chile, Kiwi Fruit from Mexico, 'baby' sweet corn from Thailand, the list is endless, the most bizarre has to be cherries from the USA. Someone buys them, not us we say we care about the environment!

If it's something like onions, yes we have had onions from the USA as well as oranges imported into Australia, then they come by ship and they are not sailing ships either!

When we do nothing about our food processing industries going overseas so they can process food grown overseas, often in China, and then import it into Australia via NZ (NZ has an FTA with China) with whom we have a long standing FTA, we cannot be seen to be serious about arguments for and against AGW and the use of fossil fuel.

My sister-in-law bought a packet of frozen sweet potato chips the other day. Country of origin? Canada.
Perhaps someone with a better knowledge of the climate than I can tell me where in Canada the soil stays warm enough for long enough to grow sweet potatoes? Or did Canada import them from Mexico or the USA?
What name was on the label? Mr McCain you've done it again!

In case anyone is in any doubt we grow great sweet potatoes in Australia, heaps of them. McCains have gradually moved off shore. I rang them up the other day to determine the origin of a packet of frozen mixed veg, on the packet was, Produce of NZ from local and imported product. The answer I got was the peas were from NZ and the beans and broccoli were from China. They were bought in the shop that is keeping prices down, down, down.

We are just as bad in Australia, we air freight lamb (dead of course) around the world. We also airfreight live breeding cattle to many counties including Russia.

Better stop now, could write a book on the (your) two faces of AGW when it comes down to us getting what we want, when we want it and the temporary amnesia, which afflicts the majority when it comes to making the decision on the real cost to the environment of what we purchase.

Am I holier than thou? Not sure, I'm in my 70's and I ride a fairly big scooter. My wife drives a 1996 Golf cabrio, which is very economical, and my 12 foot dingy has a sail and two oars. So I do my best.

Hello Roger, Ontario is Canada's main potato growing region. While sweet potatoes are only a small fraction of the overall crop the development of short season varieties has meant it is slowly growing in volume. As to origin of your packet of sweet potato likely it came from the USA, China, Israel or France.

Dave,
Thanks for that. I did visit Canada in the 90s on an Ag trip and did see potatoes in Ontario and when we were told of the number of frost free days they have to grow the crop, I did wonder about sweet potatoes.
As the sweet potatoes were probably imported into Canada and are labelled as product of Canada, it makes the story even more interesting.
I am also interested, but not entirely surprised that my contribution on air freight and food being flown around the world was deemed to be not worthy of comment except be marked down. Why I wonder why when it's such a rich nation's waste of fuel, which we are told, by so many contributors, is a finite resource.
I can do no more than conclude that many believe in the need to reduce what has now been called 'carbon' is less important than addressing the unnecessary practices in which as a society, we all indulge and I suspect ignore at our leisure as we drive alone to work.

You asked:

Sweet potatoes are:

* Cultivated in over 100 developing countries

* Over 95% of the global crop is produced in developing countries

* Mostly produced in Asia (over 120,000,000 tons every year)

* China accounts for about 90% of worldwide sweet potato production

Some questions should never be asked - or even hinted at.

http://www.all-about-sweet-potatoes.com/sweet-potato-production-consumption.html

With respect, you missed the point. The stats you quote are well known.

In Ontario Canada, if they are lucky they have 120 frost free days.

Sweet potatoes need a soil temp of about 17c and take a lot longer than our well known spud to grow.
Therefore I could not understand how Canada could produce sweet potatoes, let alone export them processed and frozen to Australia and claim them as being a product of Canada.

So, presumably it's cheaper to move sweet potatoes around the world, process them on the other side of the world rather than get them out of Queensland or WA. Maybe the Chinese processed them, sold them in bulk to McCains who packaged them in Canada and exported them to Australia? What a waste of fossil fuel and I wonder what the Chinese farmer got paid?

Our major food chains scour the world for 'cheap' food. The cost to Australia is the loss of our food processing or value adding industry. I have all the stats if you want them. Just having a look at a programme where the Chinese are sending fish to Canada to be processed and canned.

Wonder if it will reach our shelves as produce of Canada?

Of course it will Roger... Product of Canada loud and proud. That who added the value.

I'm amazed that those figures of Red China's stranglehold on the global kumara business are widely known as you say.

Why are we not jumping up and down? Where is Gillard on this? No wonder all the sweet potatoes are now red... infiltrated since the creamy white root vegetables of my childhood! How they must laugh those Politburea robots!

I'll betcha the salmon'll be pink already!

I agree James Jenkin. Since the fundamental reason for the debate is the suggestion that increases in the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide will lead to further global warming, the ONLY matter worthy of serious debate is the underlying science of the behaviour of carbon dioxide and its radiation.

In the current context of the agreed very large uncertainty as well as the growing evidence that the climate is controlled by changes in solar and interplanetary effects - similar changes which cause the ice ages in larger scale influences - there is room for proper discussion betwen scientists on the various aspects of claimate. To maintain a singular allegiance to the results from models as those supporting the views of the IPCC are wont to do, is not to debate but to stifle necessary discussion.

There is no way that anyone from the very small, closed "climate science" community funded strongly by Government and closetted in Universities and the highly politicised CSIRO, will openly discuss, let alone debate, any aspect of the science behind the proposition of anthropogenic global warming.

Even on this forum, any comment on the science is met with unmitigated abuse as is evident on this very page, with not even the suggestion of a scientifically determined fact.

John Nicol jonicol18@bigpond.com.

"growing evidence that the climate is controlled by changes in solar and interplanetary effects"?

John, that remark is a straight-out disingenuity on your part.

Your anti-science comments are not met with unmitigated abuse. Criticism of your remarks on this subject is richly warranted.

John, the federal budget is rather simple to predict since it is only one year ahead and most revenues and expenses are relatively simple to ascertain. Yet, the govt and treasury often get it wrong. And yet, the govt is to have us believe that the many years ahead forecasts by climate scientists with little or no experience in statistics or forecasting and forecasting a nonstationary process, is reliable?

All of which are overblown or recycled myths, none of which change the physical reality of increased heat being retained

http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/43307/2/JGR_2009JD012105%5B1%5D.pdf

producing multiple impacts on the earths climate system

http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/

(inlcuding increases in oceanic ph not shown above)

supported by multiple lines of evidence that we are the cause

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Human_Fingerprints_1024.jpg

How far do wish to stick your head in the sand? You realise what is exposed when you do so??

When I can prove a given school has lied I do not trust it again "used Mike's trick to hide the decline" substituting actual temperature records when surrogate data does not give the right answer. Remove the Mediaeval warm period. Suzuki claiming spring was coming earlier to his home town, quick check of the temperature records showed it had got colder....But when are you moving to smaller premises giving up eating beef and tearing up your driving licence?

Clearly you wish to continue your exposure stance

None of your has antyhing to do with the physical evidence.

But I'll respond to just one - "Used Mike's trick to hide the decline" - Do you actuall have any idea what this quote taken out of context actually refers to??????

The "decline" refers to a decline in northern tree-rings, not global temperature, and is openly discussed in papers and the IPCC reports.

Your are either seriously ignorant amd misinformed or being deliberately mis-representative.

EXACTLY repeating the type of mis-representation of Schneider referred to in the article above.

Now I know why you are hiding your head in the sand. Shame

Coochey is one of the people who use "the arts of persuasive “debate”: politicians, barristers, evangelists (of all stripes), and PR people" that this article is about. As such he used some of the dishonest tricks of argument that were referred to above in http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Clear_Thinking/Informal_Fallacies/Tricks/tricks.html These were (in just one comment):

1. Invalid sampling, or quotation out of context in this case

2. Inadequate definition and

3. False Dilemma

Actually I have read the entire work in context. The issue is and I will try to keep it simple so you can understand, is that if tree ring do not match temperature changes when we know what they temperature was then there is just a smidgin of a chance they do not show changes for periods were we do not have records. By the way have you heard the one about climate scientists getting death threats? That was an international hoot once yet again they were debunked.

Actually that comment simply proves Chris O'Neill's point below and also that you have no understanding of the science involved.

I'll try and keep it simple for YOU since you like to indulge in disparaging language

If you can provide any evidence for your pseudo-skeptical unfounded doubts that "tree ring do not match temperature changes when we know what they temperature was then there is just a smidgin of a chance they do not show changes for periods were we do not have records" then you are free to refer to it.

I note you do not

The "decline" does not refer to a "decline in global temperature" as often claimed. It actually refers to a decline in tree growth at certain high-latitude locations. This decline began in the 1960s when tree-ring proxies diverged from the intrumental temperature record.

"Mike's Nature trick" has nothing to do with "hide the decline". "Mike's trick" refers to a technique by Michael Mann to plot instrumental temperature data on the same graph as reconstructed data over the past millennium.

The divergence of tree-ring proxies from temperatures after 1960 is OPENLY DISCUSSEDin the peer-reviewed literature and the last two IPCC assessment reports. So your slut about "hidng" is just that, a sur and a false one.

Tree-ring growth had been found to match well with temperature and hence tree-rings are used to plot temperature going back hundreds of years. However, tree-rings in some high-latitude locations diverge from modern instrumental temperature records after 1960. This is known as the "divergence problem". Consequently, tree-ring data in these high-latitude locations are not considered reliable after 1960 and should not be used to represent temperature in recent decades.

http://eas8001.eas.gatech.edu/papers/Briffa_et_al_PTRS_98.pdf

The paper above explains this well.

Perhaps you should try and actually understand the evidence before you make unsubstantiated claims based on apparent ignorance.

THANKYOU FOR MAKING MY POINT FOR ME! In other words when it fits our pre conceptions they are valid but when they do not they are not?

Que? Is that debate or argument?

Actually once again thank you for making my point. One critical issue of objective analysis is that two experts should make much the same interpretation of the same data. For example if two egyptologists are given the same script they should come up with much the same translation. Obviously if two skilled translaters were given the task for a modern language we would expect some difference. If they come up with widely different ones, as seems to happen with for example ancient Mayan, the suspicion is that one or both do not know what they are talking about. Now the results of extreme actions are usually easier to judge than more minor ones. Falling off Black Mountain tower v falling of roof of house. Outcome of first certain, of second uncertain. Tim Flannery is on record as saying if all human activity ceased it could take a thousand years for temperatures to drop. Andy Pitman of the ANU when asked the same question said twenty to thirty. When Ian Chubb, now Chief Scientist and formally ANU Vice Chancellor went on ABC 666 "to defend the science" I asked him who was right because both could not be. His answer was quote "I would not have a clue, not a clue". So if he does not who does and who will answer the question? Sometime later two self styled climate scientist went on air (sorry I did not catch their names, I was driving) when asked the same question all they could say was to the effect it was complicated. So if the science is settled (sic) will someone please answer my question?

No John, it's palin you have no understanding. tr actually reading the science. I tire of trying to inform the evidence immune

See, in particular, if you can understand the meaning of this graph which is in the paper

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Divergence_Tree_Growth_Temp.gif

Not much point answering John. There is no "right answer". There is no answer that will appeal to you or that you will accept.

If you scraped the surface a bit you'll find that plenty of Egyptologists clash over meaning and interpretation. From my neck of the woods it's the old joke isn't it - 3 economists = 5 opinions. It's not a short answer test, well not for the serious scientists. It is certainly well beyond "T or F".

There is probably no greater set of mathematical problems greater or more complex than those faced by scientists modelling climate. There are estimates. These are available if you look. But they rely on assumptions and weightings. It's like weather forecasting - but bigger. There are likely, probable and overwhelmingly likely outcomes. But nothing is guaranteed.

Complicated arithmetic - have a crack at it.

But this question is based on the premise - on the insinuation - that "none of these climate fellers know what they're talking about". Now that is a different assertion and the one you should really try and address.

Well, Egypt to one side who is correct Flannery or Pitman, and how come our Chief Scientist admits he does not have a clue?

NOW ANSWER THE QUESTION!

NOW ANSWER THE QUESTION WHICH IS CORRECT?

Stating the facts about your arguments. If you don't understand them then, as Barry Naughten implied, look them up: http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Clear_Thinking/Informal_Fallacies/Tricks/tricks.html

Ok, Apparently you do not understand the meaning of the graph or the science. No need to shout. Just go and have a good lie down :)

And the answer is? Flannery or Pitman. I would go with Pitman because Flannery supports 100 meters Day but owns two beach front properties on the Hawkesbury.

"Flannery owns two beach front properties on the Hawkesbury"

This is a dishonest trick of argument because Flannery's buildings are well above sea level.

Barry Naughten has provided a very educational article by pointing out a list of "Dishonest Tricks of Argument": http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Clear_Thinking/Informal_Fallacies/Tricks/tricks.html . These tricks describe denialists' like Coochey's techniques quite well.

John, if you have to resort to poisoning the well then you can't have much of a credible argument. As Chris has already pointed out, the comments about Flannery are nothing more than a cheap attempt at scoring points by discrediting a well-known individual.

LOL, thanks for that Ian, brightened my day.

The only difference though is that the Black Knight was amusingly entertaining :)

And at least the Black Knight had something to fight with - even if it was only his teeth

But Ian even false teeth can give one a nip in a sensitive region of the anatomy.

Are we talking about the Black Knight or old professors who cannot bear to fade away?

Either way these teeth are patently, demonstrably and knowingly false. That's why they are here in the public sphere rather than in the scientific journals of the discipline.

Yet more links to activist sources!
Here's a nice paper by Lindzen that suggests your car is not running into an object but has been driving around and around in circles wearing the same ruts deeper and deeper, perhaps you should put on the demister so you can see for yourself.

That paper is behind a paywall, but you can read the introduction. The rest is well worth the admission ticket.

Climate physics, feedbacks, and reductionism (and when does reductionism go too far?)
R. S. Lindzen
THE EUROPEAN PHYSICAL JOURNAL PLUS
Volume 127, Number 5 (2012), 52, DOI: 10.1140/epjp/i2012-12052-8

Mr Hendrickx. You have a weird view of the world if you characterise the journals "Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society" and "Philosophy of Science" (the journal of the US Philosophy of Science Assoation) as acitivist>

It's clear you've neither read the papers nor understood what they are saying.

If you did you might find much to agree with from Leonard A Smith - a mathematical physicist with impressive credentials http://www2.lse.ac.uk/CATS/WhosWho/Lennypage.aspx

That you then link to Lindezen - the Merchant of Doubt, a member of the Heartland Institure, who has recieved vast funding from the Oil Indsutry to promote his peculiar brand of skepticism is telling. He was for many years periodically paid large sums of money by Phillip Morris to defend their product against claims that smoking was detrimental to the health of those that smoke and/or others present when they do so.

The man is clearly an "activist" by any measure - just a paid one for hire.

I suppose though, from some one who supports Plimer and Monckton - your trotting out of Lindzen is no surprise. Your pseduo-skeptic approach to this matter hardly fits with your professed statement of the role of the scientist ", to be honest, to be skeptical, to avoid hyperbole"

I didn't characterise the journals as activist, I characterised the authors of the papers you cited, oh and you also Mark Harrigan, someone daft enough to make inane comparisons between the climate and a car trip.
These activists have no credibility outside a narrow clique of fellow travellers and history will judge them as harshly as they have judged Lysenko.

Good to see you have cleared up the ambiguity surrounding your title.

You used the words "Yet more links to activist sources!" when I linked to published papers from those respected journals. Clearly you WERE trying to characterise them as activist journals. You did NOT mention the individuals.

I, on the other hand, was quite careful to focus my comments on the author, rather than the journal, to which you linked.

You double standards know no bounds Mr Hendrickx.

...and activism extends to infinity., Mr Harrigan.

Alas stupidty and ignorance has even fewer limits. Something for which you provide a continual demonstration

What Marc Hendickx claims (in a quadrant article)

""The role of the scientist in this debate, is as it has been: to continue to diligently report the facts, test the theories, to be honest, to be skeptical, to avoid hyperbole, to properly outline the errors and uncertainties, to avoid activism."

What he means
""The role of the scientist...."
(read:the role of the geologist with poor understanding of atmospheic physics)

... in this debate"
(read: promulgation of pseudo-skeptic progaanda in response to evidence and to shift ground whenever it gets shaky - which is usally fairly quickly)

" is as it has been:"
(add: until Marc Hendickx got into ill- informed grand standing, misrepresentation and ad-hominem)

"to continue to diligently report the facts...."
(read: to highly selectively mention out of context elements designed to support a denialist view of AGW or to misrepresent those that do not)

" test the theories,"
(read: except any of the more outrageous denialist non-science ones on offer because they might dupe people into the direction Mr Hendrickx wants),

"to be honest"
(read: to be honestly offensive as much as possible),

" to be (insert prefix: pseudo-) skeptical,"

" to avoid hyperbole...
(except where it can be used to denigrate anyone who supprts AGW in which case use as much of it as possible - see above)

" to properly outline the errors (focusing on typos from anyone offering evidence but ignoring any mis-statements from the crank brigade) and (magnify) uncertainties (so as to create as much doubt as possible), to avoid activism" (except where it suppors the cause of AGW denial in which case to cheer it on by regularly linking to and qouting the blogs of its adherents .)

Mark,
Hope you feel better now because it adds nothing to the debate.

I'm a bit worried about you Mark, You seem to be getting yourself into quite a lather with those less than nimble typing fingers. Perhaps you need to take a breather and drive yourself around the block in that car of yours? Make sure you do swerve to miss that small object sitting in the middle of the road. Or how about a tropical holiday? I hear the Maldives are nice this time of year.

Ciao

I do feel better.

But I would accept that as a fair criticism. It would even be balanced if you offered the same feedback to Mr Hendickx who routinely offers such contributions, which add nothing and are extremely frustrating.

I would offer, as exculpa, the rest of my contributiuons which are substantive (whether you agree with them or not) and ask that they be taken into consideration into any fair consideration of my overall contribution.

Over to you Roger :)

When ever I watch you fellows going at it I can't help but think, 'Come in Spinner'. You may be too young to know the derivation of the saying, but it is applicable, in my view, of course.

Roger, I have no problem with the verbal windup.

But I think you are being disingenous. You accuse me of "adding nothing to the debate" and then make a virtue out of sitting on the sidelines and offering a potshot? And having no balance in your pot shots?

I think that makes you about as useful as a one legged bloke in a butt kicking contest. Only my view of course :)

Pot shots, by their very nature, have no balance. They are shots at a pot which is a moving target.

Butt. What is the definition of 'butt'? I am assuming it is something we have acquired from the Americans? If you had replaced 'butt' with 'fanny' our American cousins would have understood, yet our Australian brothers and sisters may have been offended?

I suppose the effectiveness of a one legged person kicking 'butt' depends totally on their ability to recover from the act of kicking. Mine is exemplary.

Disingenuous obfuscation still lacking any contribution

A pot shot is "A criticism made without careful thought and aimed at a handy target for attack"

If that's the only contrinution of substance you can make I think I'll dismiss your flimsy attack at my contributions to the debate

Thanks - interesting links.

You're welcome Fred.

I am actually indebted to Peter Sommerville for referring me to Lenny Smith as a source. Although somewhat amusingly he did so in support of his claim that "some major economic decisions are being promoted on the basis of shonky predictions by shonky models". In fact the references establish a quite different position.

Funny how sometimes those who wish to avoid dealing with the reality of AGW and it's implications will jump on a headline or a sentence and choose to twist it in their heads to match their confirmation bias but fail to inquire deeply enough to realise it's true meaning

No doubt he did so simply because Prof Smith has given a realistic assessment of the limitations of models - especially in regard to specifics of future weather/climate at anything less than a continental scale.

I hope you enjoy reading them :)

Thanks for the citation Mark. Much appreciated - but I must remind you the quotation cited was actually later modified as to its true intent. I know you are aware of that.

I have been off-line since I referred you to Lennie - probably over a week ago now. Hence my failure to respond to your blog where you first cited the Smith and Stern paper. I saw your citation but my blogging time is strictly limited by other priorities, perhaps fortunately. But I am not out to convert anyone either. I am comfortable with my position on this topic, as I am sure you are too.

I am glad you found the Smith and Stern paper. I actually have a preprint copy supplied to me directly. I didn't reference it directly - instead I referenced the New Scientist interview, as it put his argument much more succinctly and in plain language much more intelligible for ordinary folk. I am not sure you were able to read the interview (it does have a pay wall) so for completeness I have copied it below - just in case. Modelling is a special hobby of mine so I have have a not inconsiderable library of references.

There is another very recent article in New Scientist which may also interest you. Personally I believe one needs to read widely and in depth to develop one's view on these matters. The article is

Climate change: The great civilisation destroyer?
New Scientist, Issue 2876
06 August 2012 by Michael Marshall

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21528761.600-climate-change-the-great-civilisation-destroyer.html

My apologies for the pay wall - but you find these everywhere. Sometimes you just have to pay to learn.

It is perfectly possible for different people to read the same thing and form, not incompatible, but different conclusions. It depends on the extent of their knowledge and personal biases. I will let you take from the article what you deem to be important. But it does advance a very interesting hypothesis.

Lenny's interview is below. Enjoy.

==========================
Are climate scientists overselling their models?
New Scientist, Issue 2685
04 December 2008

At the UN climate negotiations under way in Poland this week, politicians will be poring over forecasts of climate change. It's an opportune moment for physicist Lenny Smith to challenge the climate modellers who he believes are overselling their results. Human activity really is changing the global climate, he tells Fred Pearce, but we must stop pretending that we know the details of how it will all play out

You work with climate models, but you have issues with them too. Why?

The temptation to interpret model noise as forecast information invades our living rooms every night. TV weather-forecast maps look so realistic it is hard not to over-interpret tiny details - to imagine that the band of rain passing over Oxfordshire at noon next Saturday requires postponing a barbecue. Rain may indeed be likely somewhere in the area sometime on Saturday, but the details we see on TV forecasts are noise from the models. I think we are having exactly the same problem with climate projections.

Does this mean the models are useless?

They are certainly right on the basic story of global warming. Man-made climate change is real. However, there is a risk that something important will happen that is not predicted by any of today's models - and they cannot give us trustworthy forecasts of climate for regions as small as most countries are. The bottom line is that the models help us understand pieces of the climate system, but that does not mean we can predict the details.

Why do the forecasts go wrong?

You may not have the right initial conditions to start your forecast; you may not know the right equations; or you may not have the computing power to use these equations.

A forecast from a model is sometimes sensitive to the initial conditions, and a way round this is to run the model using various scenarios. This is called ensemble forecasting. The challenge then is to interpret the results. Suppose that 30 per cent of the simulations in an ensemble weather forecast say it will rain tomorrow. That doesn't mean there is a 30 per cent chance of rain.

Some weather forecasters feel their job is to provide "certainty", even when it is repeatedly wrong. Providing even a useful probability distribution would be counted as failure.

Do similar issues arise over climate projections?

Yes. If modellers are asked for detailed forecasts about what will happen, say, in south-east England in 2060, some feel that it's their job to provide the best available information. They then report whatever today's biggest computers spit out, even if they know those results are not robust.

Suppose different models give simulations for precipitation in 2060, ranging from 20 per cent less rainfall to 40 per cent more rainfall. The average is a 10 per cent increase, but is that value of any use to decision-makers? We don't know how to turn those numbers into a trustworthy probability forecast. Maybe we should just accept we don't know the details.

Next year, the UK Climate Impacts Programme [largely funded by the British government] will unveil a "weather generator" that will allow corporations or government agencies to print out hourly weather patterns for beyond 2060, with a spatial resolution of 5 kilometres. Understandably, many users think they can use this information to work out how big to build reservoirs or flood defences. How much detail should people believe? Where does insight from the laws of physics end and meaningless happenstance from model details kick in?

Do you worry that the doubts you express about climate models could fuel the arguments of climate sceptics?

Yes I do. Effective application of climate science hinges on clear communication of which results we believe are robust and which are not. Any discussion of such limits can be abused by those seeking only to confuse. But failing to discuss these limits openly can hinder society's ability to respond, and also compromise the future credibility of science.

How do climate scientists react to your criticisms?

Most of the working scientists, especially the younger ones, are worried about over-interpretation. In some countries, though, national research centres are charged with both advancing the science and selling their results commercially. This must be a difficult position. It is hard for a salesman to lead his presentation with uncertainty, even if that's what the science says.

It's interesting to compare these debates with what happens in other disciplines. Seismologists practically throw rocks at each other when arguing about earthquake predictions. The climate community presents a more unified front. That's not unreasonable, because the basic physics does make sense and deserves unanimity. The downside is that if someone goes too far in interpreting model results, they don't always face proper scrutiny.

So should we believe the reports produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change?

Broadly yes - we understand a lot. You have to read the qualifiers carefully, though. In the most recent report, for instance, there is an explicit acknowledgement that the range of simulations in today's models is too narrow. That is, future warming could be greater or less than what is suggested by the diversity between models in the report. It's good that the qualifier is in there, but it is a hell of a qualifier to find on page 797.

Doesn't this risk undermining the science of climate change?

It could. I see three dangers for climate science. The first is politically or financially motivated naysayers. The second is academics new to climate science and to forecasting physical systems, like those who don't see the difference between forecasting the next full moon, which is straightforward, and the next stock-market crash, which is not. They are exploited by the naysayers.

But perhaps the greatest danger is climate scientists blatantly overselling what we know. That could bring everything down and cost the world valuable time.

So what should policy-makers do?

They could help by asking scientists to explain what we know, rather than posing questions they would like answered in an ideal world.

And what use are the models?

For advancing our understanding, they are fundamental. For decision-making, even given their uncertainties, they can help minimise our vulnerability. They are also a source of information about what might plausibly happen - even if they cannot yield probabilities on what will actually happen.

That is fair enough. In the real world we don't usually expect certainty, and don't have much use for averages - but we do need information about plausible risks. When I cross the street, average statistics about cars and how they are driven are of less value to me than the sound of a bus heading my way. Models help us listen for that bus. So let's forget the spurious certainties, and even the spurious probabilities, and concentrate on what matters.

How did you get interested in the whole issue of uncertainty in modelling?

In New York I worked with Jim Hansen, the climate scientist, and looked at the codes of the early computer models. I did my thesis with Ed Spiegel, an astrophysicist who had worked on chaos since the 1960s. I had to grapple with uncertainty at every turn.

These days, my work involves ways to better interpret and improve our models. Some of that is about climate and weather, but I also study fluid dynamics and signals in everything from the national electricity grid to simple circuits. You'd think an electric circuit was completely predictable, but it isn't.

Profile

Lenny Smith gained a PhD in physics from Columbia University, New York. He is now professor of statistics at the London School of Economics and a senior research fellow at the University of Oxford, as well as the Oxford Centre for Industrial and Applied Mathematics. His research focuses on the improvement and interpretation of numerical models. In 2003 he won the Royal Meteorological Society's Fitzroy prize for distinguished work in applied meteorology.

Read the papers Peter. It is quite clear Lenny Smith does NOT support your contention that policies to mitgate are "shonky policies based on shonky models"

"Lenny Smith does NOT support your contention"

Peter has made number 11 on the list of Dishonest Tricks of Argument, Formal Fallacy. Increases in the level of uncertainty do not mean the expectation of damage (or risk-weighted damage) from higher CO2 is less.

In case anyone's forgotten, the fact remains that the vast majority of the best qualified conclude that we face substantial risks from global warming, for which we're probably responsible. (http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm) Unless that majority changes, the Peter Sommerville's of this world are on a hiding to nothing.
For those who can't decide what to believe, maybe you don't need to decide. Just assess the risks, then manage them.
http://manpollo.org/downloads/high-res/files/01-How%20It%20All%20Ends.mp4
Peter; before you respond, whatever you're about to say is probably covered here http://grist.org/series/skeptics/ and here http://www.skepticalscience.com/

Peter Sommerville, you stated "I am comfortable with my position on this topic, as I am sure you are too."

No, I am not comfortbale - far from it

Your comment illustrates quite well I think the difference between a pseudo-skeptic and a real skeptic.

A pseudo-skeptic thinks they are right, because they feel comfortable with their position - hence are unable, or unwilling, to see and accept evidence that might shift them

A real skeptic is NEVER comfortable with their postion but is always willing to alter their beliefs in the light of evidence.

It is quite clear you have not understood what Lenny Smith is saying but would appear to be seeing his comments about models through your own confirmational bias about whether or not policy presciptions to address AGW are valid.

Do you remember the coyote? He was "quite comfortable with his position" too - until he looked down.

You cannot assess whether or not you are right or wrong by how comfortable you feel with your view. This is a common human fallacy. You can only assess whether or not you are right or wrong in the light of evidence.

I suggest you watch this short video "On Being Wrong"

http://www.ted.com/talks/kathryn_schulz_on_being_wrong.html

In fact I recommend it to anyone reading this thread as it is highly relevant to the "argument" vs "debate" issue. It does not reference climate science at all - what it does do is examine very well how easy it is for us to be wrong even though we think we are not.

Only one comment David. I have never suggested that global warming is not a problem. My concern has always been about the proposed solutions and the science behind them. Some people have closed minds and blinkers on their view. Trends are already in place that are irreversible. All that coal and gas we are exporting to China is not going into making bitumen for roads. Likewise the USA has reduced its dependency on oil imports from 60% to 40% and it is highly likely that in the not too distant future they will be exporters. Germany is building coal powered electricity generating facilities because in the artificial carbon market that has been created these are more economical. This is the real world.

You have lost some credibility with me Mark because, until I cited Lenny's interview, you had never heard of him. It says something about your research skills.

Lenny's paper does support my contention - the climate models are flawed and do require sensible interpretation. I could write a thesis on this but this is not the place todo so. I suspect in any event you are not open to a sensible discussion on this.

But my invitation to a coffee remains open !

A long polemic Mark. You do have a propensity to lecture.

I have been looking at the time stamps on your blogs and I have to admit to some concerns. Haven't you anything better to do?

You are clearly highly motivated, otherwise you would not spend so much time blogging - not only here but elsewhere. You you may find this satisfying intellectually - you are certainly well above some of those with whom you debate - but at the end of the day what do you hope to achieve?

The world is moving on. Our exports of coal and gas to China are increasing. Little of this is ending up as bitumen. The USA via its shale oil has reduced its dependency on imports from 60% to 40%, and in a relatively short period it may well be a nett exporter. Germany is building coal powered electricity plants at a rate of knots. 12 GW already completed and about 20 more in the pipeline before 2020.

In the face of what's happening all the debate that you so avidly participate in here is pointless. Already, people are seriously talking about geo-engineering instead of carbon taxes or emission trading schemes. I can supply references if you require them, but if you look you will find them.

Meanwhile I invite you to enjoy what I enjoy.

https://picasaweb.google.com/112718135993264532096

And that invitation to a coffee remains open.

Well Peter - your comment makes you lose some credibility with me. Your comment "until I cited Lenny's interview, you had never heard of him" to disparage my research sckills - amounts to a "nyah nyah! I saw it first"

Irrelevant and puerile. What matters is what these references say and your misunderstanding and misrepresenation of them

From the conclusion of http://www2.lse.ac.uk/CATS/publications/papersPDFs/80_AdaptationtoGlobalWarming_2010.pdf

"Is adaptation cheaper and more feasible than mitigation?
The answer is that we do not know, and this fact alone means that an
approach based primarily on adaptation is not realistic or, as it stands,
rational. Without mitigation, the range and scale of impacts will be much
greater, and the costs of adaptation—both monetary and otherwise—will
rise, and eventually our capacity to respond will fall. If we focus on
adaptation to the exclusion of mitigation, then we can be almost certain
that the impacts to which we will have to adapt will be much greater.
Indeed, they might be beyond our ability to cope without incurring substantial
human suffering, economic costs beyond anything known in history, and social and political upheaval on a global scale. We can all agree
that immense impacts are bound to kick in at some level of global warming;
the question is, at what level? In a risk-management framework,
uncertainty in the science suggests the need for mitigation with adaptation,
and the greater the uncertainty, the greater the need for mitigation. A
rational preference for relying on adaptation as the primary response
requires a deep certainty as to the impacts to be adapted to; today’s science
cannot provide that basis. Reducing emissions may be a daunting political
and social challenge, but without it the prospects for successful adaptation
become even more daunting."

Any rational reasing of this from Prof Smith simply DOES NOT support your contention that the the current policies of mitigation are either dubious or based on dubious models.

It is plain you have not understood what Lenny Smith was saying.

An encouragement to watch a video can hardly be considered a polemic.

At 24 words longer than your reply (less than 10%) it hardly seems justified to call it long.

why not watch the video and see? and then read the papers by Lenny Smith which you seem to be steadfastly refusing to do, instead shifting the discussion.

(Yes, it's a problem that so much pent up investment is aimed at buring sequestered carbon - perhaps if the anti-nuke brigae were a little more opne minded that would be less so)

I think I have said this before but I will repeat it. Different people will read the same material and come to very different conclusions. It depends upon knowledge and personal biases. So we will have to agree to disagree. I am still up for that cup of coffee!

Peter Sommerville: "Already, people are seriously talking about geo-engineering"

What do you mean "already"? They've been doing that for years.

Chris,

Isn't this how we got into this mess in the first place - engineering ourselves into the promised land?

Seems they only have one answer to every problem - more of the same.

"Isn't this how we got into this mess in the first place"

Yes, but dilettantes like Peter don't realize this. (Rather ironic of him complaining about someone's lack of research skills. Pot, kettle and black.)

Peter, would you be so kind as to explain to me how it is possible to conclude that policy efforts to mitgiate are wrong headed based on dubious models based on the conclusion I have quoted. It seems to me to be far more than simply a different conclusion. It seems to me you have reached a false conclusion unsupported by the references you quote.

But I may be missing something. You haven't explained your logic or exactly what your problem is with the idea that action to mitigate is required or else action to adapt may not just be more espensive, it may be beyond us, although I have invited you to do so

Clearly Chris you do not understand the meaning of the term.

I did. I didn't learn much. Sorry!

From the video, the papers by Smith or both?

I don't have to Mark. The reality is that the major emitters are walking away from it. That was evidenced in Copenhagen and reinforced in Rio.

The problem you and your ilk have is that your solutions, based on your models are simply not going to be adopted. That is the reality. You have lost the argument, so you need a different strategy.

Some of the wiser heads are beginning to recognize this. Others, such as Hansen , are still trying to whip up fear as a means to reverse the trend.

I am all about rational and manageable outcomes. I would have thought with your six hat experience you would have been the same, but evidently not.

The predictions of the models have been oversold - a point Lenny alluded to. For example there is a spread of at least 4C in the predictions of different models based in the same scenarios. In the 90's the spread was as high as 9C. These are significant variances that cannot be ignored.

The modellers recognize that their models failed to predict the relatively stable average temperatures the earth has experienced over the last 15 -20 years. This has been rationalized by theories about increasing sulphur compound concentrations in the upper atmosphere - but this was-not included in the models. The question one must ask is what else has not been included.

Climate models pretend to foretell the future - they are the basis of the policies you advocate. My opinion, and you can accept this or reject it is that they are simply too unreliable. That is not to say they should be ignored - it is simply to say their limitations should be recognized. That was Lenny's point.

Now it is time for me to go to bed. But the offer for a coffee over which we could discuss these issues face to face is still open. Over to you.

I'm sorry Peter but there is no consistent logic to your reply at all. First you argued that the policy was dubious because the models were uncertain and quoted Lenny Smith in support of that argument.

But Smith himself says (in one of the papers, neither of which I suspect you have not read)
http://www2.lse.ac.uk/CATS/publications/papersPDFs/86_SmithStern_Uncertainty_2011.pdf

"Scientific understanding of the mechanisms of the climate system and their likely responses reinforces the view that the risks are signficant and that a delay in action can be very costly" (P16) and

"The case against action has to sucessfully argue that the risks are small not merely that the outcomes are uncertain" (p18)

In other words the fact that there is a spread today of around 4 degrees in the models is not an argument for inaction

If you look at other predictions (sea ice, sea levels) if anything the results have been at the HIGH end of prior predcitions.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

You appear to have a fundamental MIS understanding of climate models. They are NOT pretending to fortell the future. They are attempting to ascribe a range of uncertainties to what the future MIGHT be. And the science points out that the risks are significant.

That is word for word what Smith is saying. You have completely misunderstood him as my quotes from his paper show.

Now you appear to be saying that the major emitters share your conclusions and that they have decided not to reduce emissions because the "models are uncertain"?? If so they are clearly NOT listening to Lenny Smith.

I would suggest to you the reasons for the failures in Copenhagen and Rio are far more politically and economically complex than that - not least because it is politcially difficult to take action - especially in the face of the paid fossil fuel lobbies who resist change at every turn.

But, if someone can claim to have learned nothing from wathcing Kathryn Schultz's video - then I guess you cannot contemplate being wrong.

Pity

Hi Mark

I would just like to say thank-you for your well-reasoned posts. You have consistently backed up your comments with evidence and tried to explain the science to people who often (as evinced above) dont want to understand.

It is also fascinating to see the various manoeuvers used by people when you present evidence to them. Sometimes they call you names, sometimes they change the basis of their argument and sometimes they play a passive-aggressive game that really defies categorisation.

You really have a great deal of patience!

Allan,

Thanks for that. I've been away for a bit and just picked this up. I'm sure not all my "adversaries" would agree with you but I do appreciate it.

It's an issue I care about - both in the public and personal arena (I've managed to reduce my personal/household carbon footprint by more than 20% just through a few simple measures - it's actually not too hard if you are conscious about it and try and grab the low hanging fruit).

Sometimes my patience does wear thin - and am guilty of geeting too involved and passionate - but dealing with the various different views helps me gain a deeper understanding of the topic.

Cheers

Mark, It is intriguing that even when you present evidence some of the people here just ignore the evidence and simply repeat what they said before. As if that magically makes the evidence disappear!

Even the old 'unreliable models' canard gets a regular work-out here. The only way a person can still raise that issue (with a straight face) is if they ignore the last 20 years of observational evidence showing the increasing robustness and accuracy of the models. The SLR modelling is remarkably good as well and the only modelling that has not been very good is the Arctic SIE - and they have underpredicted the rate of destruction (hardly a cause for skeptics to celebrate).

You have to work really really hard at ignoring the evidence to not accept the reality of climate change AND the most likely magnitude of the impacts.

Agree Allan. Alas avoidance of cognitive dissonance with ones world view trumps rational apprehension of evidence unless you really DO doubt your own position.

Pseudo skeptics act with a world view "I am comfortable with my belief on this topic, and therefore because it feels right I must be right."

They don't understanding that the feeling one has is the same whether or not one is right or wrong - it's only when we find out we are wrong that we are feel bad - and hence we avoid it. At the same time that self confidence in their belief literally blinds them to contradictory evidence.

That's why it is hard and requires effortful attention to be a true skeptic. You must NEVER be comfortable with your beliefs but always be willing to alter your beliefs in the light of evidence.

I, personally, would really welcome some solid consistent evidence that climate sensitivity is unambiguously low - (not "might be" low) in other words that the risk of warming associated with a doubling of CO2 being more than 2 degrees is vanishingly small

No one has yet produced any :(

Mark
I'm not sure if it is just cognitive dissonance or something else.Whatever it is, it turns obviously intelligent people into closed-minded reactionaries.

And I think you'll be waiting a while for convincing evidence of low sensitivity, given the large number of papers that essentially back up the IPCC projections. The MIT report released earlier this year presnted a good summary of the state of play.

Hi Mark,

I am returning briefly to this discussion - despite having more pressing things to attend to.

Interesting use of alliteration. Also name calling. You are interesting - a consultant promoting De Bono's six hats yet you only wear one. I have deliberately worn one hat in my interactions with you yet you have failed to recognise it. Strange how one can be so blinded despite one's professional calling.

Pseudo Skeptics - a new term to describe those who have much in common with you but some differences too. This is starting to sound like the inquisition.

The first requirement for intelligent discourse is establishing common ground. That, as I suspect you are well aware, is not possible in this medium. Certainly my sojourn here has demonstrated that. This is a medium for posturing at a distance - not a medium for intelligent debate. The nastiness and vitriole expressed here would never occur in face to face discussions. Or if it did there would be consequences to be faced.

And indeed, face to face discussion would expose the charlatan from the expert. No time to do a Google search.

I repeat - I am interested in pursuing a discourse on this topic - but in an environment that disables anonymity. As a a professional De Bono aficionado I am sure you understand that. Once again - it is over to you.

Otherwise have a great weekend - I am taking a 7 year old grandson hiking.

Yes Allan,

The real lunacy is the failure to understand that mitigation/emissions reduction is a process, not an event. And a lengthy one at that.

By the time we wait to discover whether or not climate sensivity is low or high it will be too late to do anything about it if it is high. That not only means the costs of mitigation will be enormous but there will be unavoidable consequences that we many not even have the capacity to adapt to.

On the other hand if it is low and our migiation steps have been more than necessary it is relatively easy to slow them down.

I stick by my car analogy on another thread. We know there is a potential hazard up ahead but we don't know exactly how hazardous - only that it could quite possibly result in a serious smash if we hit it too fast and that this is a realistic scenario - although we might get lucky and find it's a hazard that just causes a few bumps.

What would you do? Slow down? or step on the gas?

Hi Peter. Brief reply.

Putting on my White Hat

Pesuo-skeptics is not my term. Google Lawrence Torcello and the ethics of skepticism (or pseudo skepticism) to learn more.

The Hats are not categories you assign or boxes you put things in. They are attention directing techniques or "windows you look through". Therefore it is invalid to label anyone as wearing a particular hat, especially only one. You can only call for a particular hat (attention direction) to be used or changed - either singly or in a requested sequence

Red Hat

Cheers :)

I think your analogy is a good one but perhaps it misses one element. What if the person in the car believes that no such hazard can exist on the road? His peer group and life history means that accepting the evidence that there is a hazard on the road will lead to potential conflict with people he values? That the person he listens to on the radio says that 'hazards on the road are witchcraft'?

The thing I find odd about skeptics (or more accurately fake skeptics) is that risk minimisation and mitigation are deeply conservative values but, in response to climate change, they are described as radical responses to the problem. That takes some amazing mental gymnastics to achieve!

Contrary to some others, I think this online forum is an excellent way of discussing the issues. As you have shown here, if all you have is opinion and no evidence to back it up, you are quickly exposed.

Interesting to see an advertizing clergyman complaining about "polemics".

I prefer FA (fact avoider) to "denier" because the latter is bland, despite the Good Father's re-interpretation of "denier".

Being an FA makes clear the intent to hide from and fail to discuss, facts. Like sea rise, acidification, isotopic fingerprints of our combustion industries, etc.

But, I do like the merged AE, Father, reminds me of the cute Latin teacher we had in high school.
;]

"This is polemics"

This is a faulty assumption, number 31 on the list of dishonest tricks of argument: http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Clear_Thinking/Informal_Fallacies/Tricks/tricks.html

Barry Naughten's argument is not intended to establish the truth of climate science, it merely points out that its opponents use dishonest tricks of argument. It doesn't in itself falsify or intend to falsify contrary belief. Just because it shows that opponents use dishonest tricks doesn't necessarily mean their beliefs are false. As such, it is not a polemic.

Have a read through the list of dishonest tricks of argument sometime Father. You may learn something.

By the way, if someone spreads lies but does not believe they are lies, does that make them a liar?

Had fun reading your list of 'tricks'. Many thanks.

One reason for seeing the current climate arguments as 'religious;' is the frequency with which the words "I believe" appear!

Another reason for suspecting that it has become a religion for some is the argument from numbers on one side or the other of the debate. It is not unknown in history for a majority of people with a particular religion to lean on the minority in order to make them see things the local or invading majority way. (Or die, as in the Middle East today or in Spain in the Middle Ages).

And Mr O"Neill, please must you talk about 'lies' like that? You are making my case for me.

Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle, Father.
;]
Yes, people lie. But you're a man of the cloth, so you know all that.

If you believe evidence points to the sun coming up tomorrow, is that a sign of your religion? Could be a sign of observance of facts, eh?

Father Æthelwine: "One reason for seeing the current climate arguments as 'religious;' is the frequency with which the words "I believe" appear!" So you think that belief is peculiar to religion? Are your fellow anti-scientists free of belief?
I believe that the vast majority of the best qualified say that we have a problem with global warming and that humanity is probably responsible. My belief is based on Oreskes 2004 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686), Doran 2009 (http://tigger.uic.edu/%7Epdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf) and Anderegg 2010 (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract), among others. What evidence do you have to the contrary?
Father Æthelwine: "... the argument from numbers on one side or the other ...". So Democracy's a bad thing?
I believe the rest of that paragraph is a number 3 dishonest trick.
There's no denying that the majority is not always right. That brings us down to risk management:
- what might happen if the majority is right?
- what might happen if the minority is wrong?
Sagan and Hawking answered:-
Carl Sagan: "The runaway greenhouse effect on Venus is a valuable reminder that we should take the increasing greenhouse effect on earth seriously."
Stephen Hawking: "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 ..."
So what's your assessment of the risks?

"the worst case scenario is that the earth will become like its sister planet Venus, with a temperature of 250 degrees C ..."

The contrarians will say, "Yeah, yeah, yeah. Venus is closer to the Sun. So what?" Well, in spite of being closer to the Sun, less sunlight is absorbed by the surface of Venus than is absorbed by the surface of Earth, less than one-third. So Venus is managing to generate 250 deg C with less than one=third of the power that Earth absorbs. Such is the power of its "Greenhouse" effect.

Thank you for a variety of replies. So absorbed have some people become in proving their point that scientific process has flown out of the window. This is unhelpful to any debate. My contribution, to which some of you object, was simply to suggest that this site was meant for grown-ups. I did not push either side of the argument. Go figure.

Disingenuous obfuscation to hide an inability to admit commissio of a fallacy is a form of misrepresenation of the truth.

This topic is about "Climate science and policy: the tension between ‘argument’ and ‘debate’ "

You made a provocative and false statement

"Climate 'science' has become a religion"

unsupported by any evidence - clearly indulging in a debating tactic in support of those who deny the science and the policy prescriptions on offer to deal with it.

In doing so you demonstrated either a deliberate, or ignorant, understanding of the nature of religious belief versus belief based on evidence.

The scientific process, which you appear to know little about, is abundantly clear that observation of multiple phenomena - increased levels of GHGs, increased oceanic and atmoshperic heat content, isotopic concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere and the ocean, decreasing oceaninc pH and rising atmospheric temperatures more than reversing the slow decline intemperatures over millenia - sufficient to throw our climate into a state of change to reach levels never seen in human civilisaation.

As a result the sensible policy approach is to take steps to reduce our burning of sequestered carbon in the soil (oil, coal, gas) in excess of the natural CO2 cycle to cope, to mitigate these imapcts as much as possible.

You have offered nothing but polemic, and ill founded misrepresentation polemic at that, as a contribution

It's beginning to look like, in "Father Æthelwine", we have another troll. The name is undoubtedly false; yahoo email accounts being notoriously easy to falsify.

Nah David .. he's real - well sort of. I checked him out a few months back. A priest in an Eastern Orthodox Church in England ... an outlier.

http://www.antiocheurope.org/en/clergies/details/45/Aethelwine

Strange innit who one meets on the interweb

Venus receives twice the amount of all Electromagnetic energy including twice the amount of cosmic particals which have very energy and are absorbed by both the atmosphere and the volcanic surface. Just as on earth volcanos are heating the atmosphere being at thousands of degrees C.
The is no creditable evidence that the GHGE exists only the "belief of the Cult of the AGW's"

http://climaterealists.com/5783
ALAN SIDDONS   HEADLINE STORY   JOHN O'SULLIVAN   NASA  
NASA in Shock New Controversy: Two Global Warming Reasons Why by John O'Sullivan, guest post at Climate Realists

NASA covered up for forty years proof that the greenhouse gas theory was bogus. But even worse, did the U.S. space agency fudge its numbers on Earth’s energy budget to cover up the facts?

As per my article this week, forty years ago the space agency, NASA, proved there was no such thing as a greenhouse gas effect because the ‘blackbody’ numbers supporting the theory didn’t add up in a 3-dimensional universe:

"During lunar day, the lunar regolith absorbs the radiation from the sun and transports it inward and is stored in a layer approximately 50cm thick....in contrast with a precipitous drop in temperature if it was a simple black body, the regolith then proceeds to transport the stored heat back onto the surface, thus warming it up significantly over the black body approximation..."

Thus, the ‘blackbody approximations' were proven to be as useful as a chocolate space helmet; the guesswork of using the Stefan-Boltzmann equations underpinning the man-made global warming theory was long ago debunked. If NASA had made known that Stefan-Boltzmann's numbers were an irrelevant red-herring then the taxpayers of the world would have been spared the $50 billion wasted on global warming research; because it would have removed the only credible scientific basis to support the theory that human emissions of carbon dioxide changed Earth’s climate.

But, until May 24, 2010 these facts remained swept under the carpet. For the Apollo missions NASA had successfully devised new calculations to safely put astronauts on the Moon-based on actual measured temperatures of the lunar surface. But no one appears to have told government climatologists who, to this day, insist their junk science is 'settled' based on their bogus ‘blackbody’ guesswork.
NASA’s Confusion over Earth’s Energy Budget

But it gets worse: compounding such disarray, NASA, now apparently acting more like a politicized mouthpiece for a socialist one world government, cannot even provide consistent numbers on Earth’s actual energy budget.

Thanks to further discussion with scientist, Alan Siddons, a co-author of the paper, ‘A Greenhouse Effect on the Moon,’ it appears I inadvertently stumbled on a NASA graph that shows the U.S. space agency is unable to tally up the numbers on the supposed greenhouse gas "backradiation." Why would this be?

In its graphic representation of the energy budget of the Earth the agency has conspicuously contradicted itself in its depiction of back-radiation based on its various graphs on Earth's radiation budget.

As Siddons sagely advised me, "This opens the question as to WHICH budget NASA actually endorses, because the one you show is consistent with physics: 70 units of sunlight go in, 70 units of infrared go out, and there’s no back-flow of some ridiculous other magnitude. Interesting."

Climate Sceptic Scientists’ Growing Confidence

Thanks to Siddons and his co-authors of ‘A Greenhouse Effect on the Moon,’ the world now has scientific evidence to show the greenhouse gas theory (GHG) was junk all along.

As the truth now spreads, an increasing number of scientists refute the greenhouse gas theory, many have been prompted by the shocking revelations since the Climategate scandal. The public have also grown more aware of how a clique of government climatologists were deliberately ‘hiding the decline’ in the reliability of their proxy temperature data all along.

But NASA’s lunar temperature readings prove that behind that smoke was real fire. Some experts now boldly go so far as to say the entire global warming theory contravenes the established laws of physics.

Is the Stefan-Boltzmann equation applicable to a three dimensional world ?

Inconvenient truth of IPCC's AGW theory | Climate Clash
http://climateclash.com/?p=1123
Feb 13, 2012 ... The limits of carbon dioxide's influence on world temperature → ... 3. Planck response based on Stefan-Boltzmann law. In 1976, Cess obtained .... numbers equation is not applicable to a three dimentianal configureation why …

arXiv:1009.3974v4 [gr-qc] 13 Mar 2012
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1009.3974
of Hawking radiation corresponds to that of a three-dimensional (3D) thermal body obeying the Stefan-Boltzmann law. However, recently there has been an ...
Does the Trenberth et al - Watts Up With That?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/26/does-the-trenberth-et-al-%E2%80%9Cearth%E2%80%99s-en...
Oct 26, 2011 ... The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change ..... Stefan- Boltzmann is a three dimensional law, not one dimensional as so ..... One of the requirements for S-B to apply is that the surface geometry does ...

The grapheme Æ at the beginning of my name is of Norse origin. Saint Æthelwine was bishop of Lindsey (Lincoln) from AD 680 to AD 692 and gained the nickname 'Virsanctus'. I doubt if I will ever deserve to be called Virsanctus try as I might.
So Norse my name may be, but strictly unrelated to trolls of any sort. Like St Paul (just about the only way I'm like him!) who worked as a tentmaker and did not get paid for his missionary work, I give my services to the Orthodox Church and earn my living in Politics. As a horticulturist too I like to keep up with scientific ideas about the climate, but find 5th form words like 'liar' and 'denier' encourage me to move on until I come across some science; after all horticulture is a science - we have a horticultural group in the Society of Chemical Industry, for example. So far I have not come across the words 'liar' and 'denier' in our publications.

Good to meet you. You seem interested in horticulture, so you must be OK. If interested, there's a note about me as you scroll down. Keep up the good work.

Peter Ormonde: "A priest in an Eastern Orthodox Church in England ...". If so, then we have a priest who behaves like a troll. It takes all kinds, I guess.

Assuming for the moment that you are who you purport, it seems you have faith that global warming poses no risk. What is the basis of that faith?

David,

The orthodox branches of christianity permit a much stronger role for their priests in public affairs and politics... BIG role in Greece and Russia. Sadly almost invariably on the dark side ... backward-looking and more concerned with institutional power than the poor or the meek. Regularly harnessed by the status quo to haul the true believers back into line.

Bit like Islam actually - don't agree with separation of Church and State at the bottom of it - a state of virtue - a public polity informed and constrained by the notions of clerics.

Strange to find a very nordic looking pom tied up with them though. Nice hats.

Beanie Kid - David's reply wasn't aimed at you. Do keep up.

We know that your approach is not based on, er, faith. That, for all its lack of evidence, is a belief system that requires internal self-consietency. Not something you undertsand or exhibit.

If you must do such voluminous repetitive cut and pastes maybe you could focus on understanding the satellite data and the reasons behind why the earth and the moon have such different temperartures, despite receiving roughly the same solar radiation per unit of surface area. and despite the fact the geothermal heat from the earths core is several orders of magnitude too small to make up the difference

I notice you've been unable to provide any reply, let alone a concise one, to those facts.

"the reasons behind why the earth and the moon have such different temperartures"

Ah but he does have an explanation. It's caused by a substance called "not CO2".

Chris, it's actually worse than that -- water vapor is our dominant GHG, so his mystery material is "not CO2 or H2O".
;]

Thanks Roger - nice paper - do you understand what it means?

Two points.

1) The data is only from a small area of the planet (Northern Scandanavia) so you have to be cautious about applying the findings to globally averaged temperatures

2 ) Despite the efforts of the denialist bloggosphere to spin the results it means (that up until recently the planet was in a cooling trend.

Have a look at the graphs half way down the page

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1589.html

Esper says

"Our results suggest that the large-scale climate reconstruction shown by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) likely underestimate this long-term cooling trend over the past few millennia"

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120709092606.htm

Now, I wonder what it is that might have reversed that trend? Increased GHGs perhaps?

No reason at all. Forget it. As if I was the only one to go off topic? I, obviously erroneously, presumed this new research may add to the debate. But if that offends you 'Hon Old Fellow', so be it.

I'll leave you all to your little slanging matches, which are, again obviously, on topic.

I will not make assumptions as to the tone of your reply.

Mark,

Thanks for that, answer to your first question, I'm trying, being a mature (+70+) student can be a challenge.

I had seen the first ref you gave, I will now have a look at the science daily ref.

As for your last question. Could be couldn't it?

Thank you for your reply.

R

Mr Smith,
http://www.nature.com/search/executeSearch?sp-c=25&sp-s=&sp-q=tree+rings

This has already been discussed by people who know what they're talking about: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/07/tree-rings-and-climate-some-recent-developments/

I'm presuming you want to read people who know this subject which I agree is not consistent with asking for comment in this blog.

David,

Having just arrived home from a 3 day hike in bloody awful weather I find this rather puzzling remark in my "The Conversation" email folder. Yes, I know how to play with the flags - it is very simple and I have published the technique. That doesn't mean I do. My solitary comment on this thread has so many red ticks it is not funny. I could remove these if I choose, but frankly I have neither the time or the inclination. Yes, the flags are being played with, but not by me. Have you ever wondered why the red counts on average,are so much higher than the blue counts? But then you are not a statistician, nor are you a psychologist.

In the meantime, enjoy some of my hikes and road trips - this is how I spend my time rather than endless blogging like some of the poor souls playing the cleverness game here. There are more constructive ways to be "green".

https://picasaweb.google.com/112718135993264532096

Peter, that's what happens when you put yourself in the frame.

A weak excuse David. And I thought you believed in data and evidence!

Peter Sommerville: "A weak excuse ...". No need for excuses, when we have the evidence of your history and the data in the flags.
I note that the administrators have apparently wound back the manipulation. An effective and efficient approach.

They have made some improvements - but how would you know? Only if you have been playing the game. Have they stymied you?

No matter. The improvements are to be applauded which is what I wanted. But they are not complete. There are still holes that let manipulators manipulate.

You sound like a crackpot, Berthold. It'll be fun seeing your "explanations", if any, when the Arctic sea ice completely melts in the not-too-distant-future: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Plot_arctic_sea_ice_volume.svg

Chris again you imply that the reason all the ice in the arctic circle will melt is because of an increase of CO2 from 380ppm to say 500 ppm. Yet there is no experiment that shows that increasing the CO2 causes any temperature change.
A real look at history has shown that the amount of ice has varied from miles thick layers ( the Ice ages) to very little ice., maybe even ice free. So What.
Man and nature adjusts. There can be very many benefits to such a condition.
In all likelihood, neither one of us will live to see what happens 50 years from now. Everything is speculation ,looking in a fortune teller's crystal ball is just as meaningful.

February 25, 2010
The Hidden Flaw in Greenhouse Theory
By Alan Siddons

Insulated by an outer crust, the surface of the earth acquires nearly all of its heat from the sun. The only exit for this heat to take is through a door marked "Radiation." And therein lies a tale...

Recently, I chanced upon an Atmospheric Science Educator Guide [PDF] published by NASA. Aimed at students in grades 5 through 8, it helps teachers explain how so-called "greenhouse gases" warm our planet Earth.

These guides are interesting on a number of levels, so I recommend that you look them over. But what caught my eye was this:

Question: Do all of the gases in our atmosphere absorb heat?
Answer: (Allow students to discuss their ideas. Don't provide the answer at this time.)

Indeed, that's a good one to think over yourself. Almost all of what we're breathing is nitrogen and oxygen -- do these gases absorb heat? Lakes and rocks absorb heat, after all, and thereby reach a higher temperature. So can nitrogen and oxygen molecules do the same?

Well, I won't keep you hanging. After allowing students to discuss it, the instructor is instructed to give them the final verdict.

Answer: No. Only some gases have the unique property of being able to absorb heat.

These are the infrared-absorbing "greenhouse gases," of course, substances like carbon dioxide and water vapor, and not nitrogen and oxygen.

Now, is something wrong here? Most definitely, for NASA has a finger on the scale. Let's review a few basics that NASA should have outlined.

Heat consists of vibrating and colliding molecules. The motion of these molecules jostles their electrons around, and this emits light. Heat and light are thus strongly related, but they aren't the same. For instance, heat can't actually be radiated; only the light that heat brings about can. By the same token, light itself has no temperature because temperature is an index of molecular motion, and a beam of light isn't composed of molecules. In short, "heat" can be regarded as molecular excitement and light as electromagnetic excitement.

Observe how NASA describes this relationship, however.

Question: What is the relationship between light and heat?
Answer: Things that are hot sometimes give off light. Things under a light source sometimes heat up.

Utterly false. Heated masses always emit light (infrared). Always. That's a direct consequence of molecules in motion. And while it's true that some substances may be transparent to infrared light, it doesn't follow that they can't be heated or, if heated, might not emit infrared. Yet NASA's misleading formulation implies precisely that.

There are three ways for heat (better to say thermal energy) to move from one zone to another: by conduction, convection, and radiation. Conductive heat transfer involves direct contact, wherein vibrations spread from molecule to molecule. Convective transfer involves a mass in motion: expanded by heat, a fluid is pushed up and away by the denser fluid that surrounds it. Radiative transfer arises when molecules intercept the light that warmer molecules are emitting, which brings about a resonant molecular vibration -- i.e., heating.

Heat is transferred and absorbed in several ways, then, and no substance is immune to being heated, which means that all gases absorb heat -- contrary to what NASA tells children.

So how does NASA go wrong? By consistently confusing light and heat, as you see in the illustration below, where infrared light is depicted as heat. Elsewhere, NASA expresses heat transfer in terms that pertain to radiant transfer alone:

The Earth first absorbs the visible radiation from the Sun, which is then converted to heat, and this heat radiates out to the atmosphere, where the greenhouse gases then absorb some of the heat.

Nowhere in its teacher's guide are conductive and convective heat transfer even mentioned. By selective context and vagueness, then, NASA paints an impression that only light-absorbing substances can be heated. Thus, since nitrogen and oxygen don't respond to infrared, NASA feels justified to say that "only some gases have the unique property of being able to absorb heat."

Astonishing.

But a mixup like this raises a deeper question: Why does NASA go wrong? Because it has a flimsy yet lucrative theory to foist on the taxpaying public, that's why. As the space agency explains in the Main Lesson Concept, the core idea of greenhouse theory is that downward radiation from greenhouse gases raises the earth's surface temperature higher than solar heating can.

To make this idea seem plausible, therefore, it's crucial to fix people's attention on the 1% of the atmosphere that can be heated by radiant transfer instead of the 99% and more that is heated by direct contact with the earth's surface and then by convection. NASA is stacking the deck, you see. If they made it clear that every species of atmospheric gas gets heated mainly by conductive transfer, and that all heated bodies radiate light, then even a child could connect the dots: "Oh. So the whole atmosphere radiates heat to the earth and makes it warmer. All of the atmosphere is a greenhouse gas."

Crash, boom, there goes the theory. And there goes the abundant funding that this fear-promoting "science" attracts so well. For what CO2 and water vapor emit is miniscule compared to the buzzing multitude of heated nitrogen, oxygen, and even argon, all of it radiating infrared, too. Keep in mind that thermal radiation from this forgotten 99% has never been proposed or imagined to increase the earth's temperature, although by the theory's very tenets, it should. You simply take the NASA formulation:

Greenhouse gases absorb heat that radiates from Earth's surface and release some of it back towards the Earth, increasing the surface temperature ...

...and make allowance for conductive transfer, too...
All gases in the atmosphere absorb heat from the Earth's surface and radiate infrared back towards the Earth, increasing the surface temperature.
Consider too that since most air molecules are infrared-transparent, they can't be heated by the infrared that CO2 and water vapor emit. This means that downward radiation from "greenhouse gases" can only explain how the earth's surface might get warmer, not the rest of the atmosphere. This underscores, of course, how much the surface is heating this 99% by conduction and convection alone, since radiative transfer can't do the job.

To repeat: Irrespective of the manner of transfer, all gases absorb heat, and all heated gases radiate heat (infrared light) in close proportion to their temperature. Major gases like nitrogen and oxygen, then, do not just radiate heat to the earth below, but the total of this radiation vastly exceeds what minor players like carbon dioxide and water vapor contribute. Ironically, another NASA publication [PDF] reinforces this point.

In solids, the molecules and atoms are vibrating continuously. In a gas, the molecules are really zooming around, continuously bumping into each other. Whatever the amount of molecular motion occurring in matter, the speed is related to the temperature. The hotter the material, the faster its molecules are vibrating or moving.

Electromagnetic radiation is produced whenever electric charges accelerate - that is, when they change either the speed or direction of their movement. In a hot object, the molecules are continuously vibrating (if a solid) or bumping into each other (if a liquid or gas), sending each other off in different directions and at different speeds. Each of these collisions produces electromagnetic radiation at frequencies all across the electromagnetic spectrum.

... Any matter that is heated above absolute zero generates electromagnetic energy. The intensity of the emission and the distribution of frequencies on the electromagnetic spectrum depend upon the temperature of the emitting matter.
Accordingly, any heated gas emits infrared. There's nothing unique about CO2. Otherwise, substances like nitrogen and oxygen would truly be miracles of physics: Heat 'em as much as you wish, but they'd never radiate in response. 

Yet this amounts to a double-whammy. For meteorologists acknowledge that our atmosphere is principally heated by surface contact and convective circulation. Surrounded by the vacuum of space, moreover, the earth can only dissipate this energy by radiation. On one hand, then, if surface-heated nitrogen and oxygen do not radiate the thermal energy they acquire, they rob the earth of a means of cooling off -- which makes them "greenhouse gases" by definition. On the other hand, though, if surface-heated nitrogen and oxygen do radiate infrared, then they are also "greenhouse gases," which defeats the premise that only radiation from the infrared-absorbers raises the Earth's temperature. Either way, therefore, the convoluted theory we've been going by is wrong.

An idea has been drummed into our heads for decades: that roughly 1% of the atmosphere's content is responsible for shifting the earth's surface temperature from inimical to benign. This conjecture has mistakenly focused on specifically light-absorbing gases, however, ignoring heat-absorbing gases altogether. Any heated atmospheric gas radiates infrared energy back toward the earth, meaning that the dreadful power we've attributed to light-absorbing molecules up to now has been wildly exaggerated and must be radically adjusted -- indeed, pared down perhaps a hundred times. Because all gases radiate the heat they acquire, trace-gas heating theory is an untenable concept, a long-held illusion we'd be wise to abandon.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_hidden_flaw_in_greenhouse.html at March 01, 2010 - 09:10:34 AM CST

Wow, Berthold, how did you control the verbosity this time!

Who are you top demand anyone else provide an experiment of something you haven't bothered to study. Why are you more important than anyone else? So far, we see no reason to suggest you're interested in facts. But, if you wish, stop wasting our time and yours and study what Tyndall, Arrhenius and others did over 100 years ago to demonstrate what you claim doesn't exist, that keeps you from freezing at night..

Your handlers won't be happy with you exposing such personal ignorance. Even Exxon admits the existence of GHG effects.

But, remember, we're not trying to convince you of anything. You can maintain any level of ignorance you wish. We're just pointing out fluff, so that others don't get misled.

Sea Ice Extent

http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/#seaIce

"September Arctic sea ice is now declining at a rate of 11.5 percent per decade, relative to the 1979 to 2000 average"

But Mark, how can we trust satellites when Berthold 'knows' so much more about 'reality'?
;]

Dunno. But we can trust the Beanie Kid to make even the namesake of dead guitar player Jimi look good by comparison. Amazing eh? Whoda thunk it?

Well, I don't want to disappoint the intellectual gnats either but the data from Nasa only goes back to 2000 because, as the information explains - it's making a comparison with the baseline average for 2000 - it would help the Beanie Kids understanding if he actually READ what he is so ready to dismiss

No mater

here's the data back to 1953

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/mean_anomaly_1953-2009.png