Thanks Andrew. Some good points. Thanks for pointing at the paper by Hansen.

Yes, that is correct Marc. The difference between Tim Flannery and Bob Carter, however, is that Tim refers to the peer-reviewed scientific literature and Bob hardly ever does. That is the point that I make within the article - if you do not refer to the peer-reviewed literature, then it would be expected that you have tested your ideas in the peer-reviewed literature. This is not the case with Adj Prof Carter. Hence one has to conclude that his pronouncements on climate change are merely opinions and not scientifically grounded facts.

Ove,
You claim Tim refers to the peer reviewed literature. Which peer reviewed publication was he referring to when he recently made these spurious comments? Any idea?
“There are islands in the Torres Strait that are already being evacuated and are feeling the impacts."
http://manly-daily.whereilive.com.au/news/story/tims-grim-sea-warning/
There are in fact no islands in the Torres Strait that are being evacuated. Another furphy from the climate commissioner. As someone who contributed to the Government's recent report will you let this mistake go uncorrected?

I'm sure Bob Carter can speak for himself but I believe his commentary on the Climate Commission's recent report "The Critical Decade" is full to the brim with references to the peer reviewed literature. It seems you are stretching the truth on this somewhat.
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2011/05/auditing-the-critical-decade-part-ii

I guess if you look at the references to Carter's commentary - most of the references are to unreviewed blog sites and opinion pieces and rarely to the peer-reviewed science on climate change.

As for your comments regarding Tim Flannery, all I can say is that the majority of his commentary refers back to the scientific literature. I'm sure you can cherry pick one or two examples but the fact still remains, the majority of his references go back to the scientific literature and not to opinion pieces and blog sites. The very fact that he supports and refers to the recent report from Climate Commission ( heavily referenced in the peer-reviewed literature) is testimony to the fact that his conclusions about climate change are based on the peer-reviewed scientific literature.

Ove, I had a quick look at the references in Bob Carter's commentary and compared them to the references in the Climate Commissions report, and based on this I challenge your assertion that "most of the references are to unreviewed blog sites and opinion pieces".

Here's the findings:
The Critical Decade: Peer Reviewed papers, government data repositories and government reports 86% Other (books, websites) 14%
Carter's commentary: Peer Reviewed papers, government data repositories and government reports 78% Other (books, websites) 22%

In regard to Tim Flannery you conveniently forget his numerous failed rainfall predictions over the course of the last decade. A record perhaps only matched by your own dismal record in predicting coral mortality following bleaching events. Now how is that latest prediction faring?

From Ove's blog http://www.climateshifts.org/?p=6594
PREDICTION: We will see large-scale mortality of reef-building corals (30% or more) and many other organisms on reefs from Exmouth to Shark Bay along the West Australian coastline (300 km or more). This will occur over the next 1-3 months. Reefs in this region will take more than 10 years to recover.

Indeed. I guess you are meant to ignore the science and just call it a bad decade! And the massive bleaching event which has affected Western Australian recent the first time is driving major impacts within Western Australia's iconic coral reef ecosystems? Another bit of 'climate variability'. Marc continues to ignore the experts, preferring instead to refer to worn out and inaccurate posts from non-experts such as Andrew Bolt and Jo Nova.

Ove continues to just make things up, and throws some ad hom abuse in (all while the employ of the Australian Tax payer, thanks mate, glad to see my taxes in action).

A bad decade-now he's focusing on the weather-there have been many bad decades over the course of the last 200 years.

He ignores the main issues with his failed bleaching prediction for Ningaloo- the issue of extent and of mortality, the former was localised and the later does not appear to have eventuated to the degree he claims. In science this represents a falsification but it seems Ove's ego is too big for this, and he continues to claim his model is correct. Here's what Ningaloo coral expert Tyrone Ridgeway said about recent bleaching at Ningaloo in email to me

"While low to moderate levels of bleaching were observed along Ningaloo reef, it appears that the worst affected areas were in the shallow bays at Bundegi in the Exmouth Gulf and immediately inshore off the beach from areas such as Coral Bay."
Here's what a local dive operator saw:
"Yes, there was a significant coral bleaching effect on certain areas of Ningaloo Reef this summer. The areas most affected are:
Exmouth Gulf (including Bundegi and Exmouth Reefs, Murion Islands), and Coral Bay.
While a significant coral bleaching has occurred there, thus far there is no impact on fish life.
We operate our tours on the west (Ningaloo Reef) side of the NW Cape Peninsula (Tantabiddi Sanctuary Zone) and i am happy to report that there has been a very miniscule/if any coral bleaching there! Our tours continue to run daily on an uninterrupted schedule. The rest of the waterways adjacent to the Cape Range NP have had very little coral bleaching as well – possibly due to a good natural “thermoregulation”."

So we had localised bleaching over parts of the reef and worst affected areas in shallow bays in an areas of reef that have (contrary to Ove's claims) actually seen previous bleaching-check with Tyrone if you don't believe me.

Ove also chooses to ignore the obvious observational bias inherent in recent biological studies on coral reefs, (a common mistake made biologists in studies of the effects of recent climate change). The absence of historical data leads to an over reliance on recent information, however detailed records are only available form the late 1970s.

The necessary studies that would show this was an unprecedented event at Ninglaoo over a long time period (say 400 years) simply have not been done. This would entail examining cores from older corals for stress marks indicative of previous bleaching. Can you point me to a peer reviewed paper that has examined cores derived from older coral for stress marks indicative of past bleaching events for Ningaloo, Ove? Similar studies that actually look for stress marks in core have not yet been done for the Great Barrier Reef-I checked with coral expert Janice Lough at AIMS. Here's what she said in an email..."It will be a while before all the X-ray images of AIMS’ Porites coral collection are available as a digital database. It is only within the last 5-6 years that X-rays of coral slices have been obtained in digital format. We are, therefore, currently digitizing the original X-ray films of all historical material, which is a time-consuming process. These will then need to be linked to the measured density/luminescence vs distance data and dated annual variables currently stored within AIMS Data Centre. In addition we have a 3-year post-doctoral scientist just started at AIMS who, as part of an ARC-funded project, will be making use of the coral core collection/data and associated images to assess the frequency of Porites growth hiatuses in the past."

You'll be please to now i am working on a paper for publication on problems with calcification data. This at my own expense. A very brief look at a few of the long cores reveals very little correlation between data collected in 1997 (Lough and Barnes) and recent data used in the De'ath study published in science in 2010. While this is to be expected given the change in measurement method for annual results between the studies, the overall pattern is quite different. This would suggest that to get a reasonable, repeatable measure of calcification would involve measuring bands from a number of cores taken from a single coral to get an idea of the average yearly calcification values for that coral. If values cannot be repeated for one slice then one core is clearly insufficient. A repeatable result should be obtained for each coral prior to aggregating data from corals across the reef.

If the results are highly dependent on the measurement location then you can come up with anything. Seems you frequently do.

I'm not ignoring the experts Ove. It seems that you are ignoring the fact that so often they are being proved to be wrong, and that my friend includes you.

Where is the abuse Marc? "Marc continues to ignore the experts, preferring instead to refer to worn out and inaccurate posts from non-experts such as Andrew Bolt and Jo Nova." is merely pointing out 2 facts. You do ignore the experts and you do refer to the non-expert non sense of Bolt and Nova.

"He ignores the main issues with his failed bleaching prediction for Ningaloo". The data are being worked up now for a peer-review article. I feel sorry that you have jumped the gun here. Let's wait and see what the peer-reviewed science tells us.

Hard to ignore the experts when so often their predictions, yours included, are so spectacularly wrong. How many times will you call wolf and get away with it?

In regard to your claim that that I refer to posts by respected journalist Andrew Bolt and Science educator Joanne Nova, it would be nice if you could point out where this has occurred above. Some facts would be nice Ove.

I'm sure the data are being "worked up". I hope the raw, non "worked up" data are made available for an independent audit if the study passes a review. Indeed it would be nice for tax payers to see the results of such a review process.

Here's a challenge Ove publish the reviewer's comments of your last 10 papers online so the public can see the rigourous scrutiny your work has had to go through. Publish also the names of the reviewers so the public can see how they relate to you and your institution. Are you up to this challenge?
I'll bet a case of Coopers pale:
1. That a fair proportion of the reviews are soft, with little substance and depth, and
2. that quite a number of reviews will have been done by your mates.

Why don't you prove me wrong with some facts.

The only trouble with publishing the reviewers' comment on my last 10 papers, Marc, is that they are anonymous and hence unavailable. Why don't you write to Science (as an example) if you don't believe me?

Let me tell you about one key feature of anonymous review: And that is, that all of the reviews of my papers have been quite hard-core and quite confronting - in cases where I've had been given a hard time, I have either lost the fight and the paper has not been published, or I have prevailed through subsequent discussion and modification of the paper. Either way, it has not been easy.

Naturally, I expect you to evoke some sort of conspiracy theory and suggest that the fact that I can't divulge the anonymous reviewers ( who, by the nature of being anonymous, I am unable to) is all about a big con job. far from it.

But me let me turn this on its head and ask you to prove that the reviews I've had have been 'soft' as you write. After all, as an honours student in geology, surely you must understand the rigour of the peer-reviewed system. Or is it easier in geology?

I have been thinking about your problem - and have come to the conclusion that you do not you understand the difference between weather (bleaching) and climate change (long-term loss of coral reefs). As I have pointed out many times to ideologues such as Andrew Bolt (plenty of facts here - please see my endless corrections to Andrew Bolts mythologies and misinformation - http://www.climateshifts.org/?p=6713) the accusations you repeat endlessly are flawed and senseless. Try to be a little bit more critical Marc - this sort of nonsense is really getting tiring and I'm getting to a point where I can't help you any further.

Ove,
So no facts again from Ove, just continued bluster.

Proving soft reviews, very well...here's a copy of a letter sent to your university FOI officer this morning.

"Under FOI/RTI legistation I seek access to the following documents:
Comments by Reviewers and editors made on the following papers
published by Ove Hoegh-Guldberg while in the employ of the Coral Reef
Ecosystems Lab, School of Biological Sciences, The University of Queensland."
(list of papers follows)

I've kept the (anonymous) reviewers comments from my small collection of peer reviewed papers, these also quite "hard-core and quite confronting", I'm guessing you have kept yours also. It will make for an interesting blog post on ABC News Watch.

By the way, looking over your last 20 or so papers you seem to be progressing further and further down the list of authors. Your Phd Students and post grads must be getting quite tired of carrying you around. You must enjoy inflating your resume with the proceeds of their labour, I guess they put a high value on your spell checking.

(by the way I have a MPhil- I am getting tired of correcting your mistakes)

No need to get nasty Marc. Good work on the MPhil though and sorry for not realising you had one. I will ignore your insulting remarks concerning whether not my students consider that I am the burden. No doubt if you contact them, they can tell you directly what the truth is regarding your allegation. No need for me to intervene.

What don't understand, Marc, why you're so negative and personal about this issue. It seems a great pity that you can't discuss this issue without slinging mud.

I'm not getting nasty Ove I'm merely pointing out some facts. Let's again examine these. For your last 10 papers listed in The Web of Science here is your author position.
1. Validation of Housekeeping Genes for Gene Expression Studies in Symbiodinium Exposed to Thermal and Light Stress: Last author out of 4
2. Mesophotic coral ecosystems on the walls of Coral Sea atolls: second last author out of 7
3. Ocean acidification and warming will lower coral reef resilience: last author out of 7
4. Coral reef ecosystems and anthropogenic climate change: first of one
5. Revisiting climate thresholds and ecosystem collapse: fifth of 12
6. Regulation of Apoptotic Mediators Reveals Dynamic Responses to Thermal Stress in the Reef Building Coral Acropora millepora: last of 6
7. Climate change impedes scleractinian corals as primary reef ecosystem engineers: second of 12
8. Complex Diel Cycles of Gene Expression in Coral-Algal Symbiosis: last author of 10
9. Gene expression profiles of cytosolic heat shock proteins Hsp70 and Hsp90 from symbiotic dinoflagellates in response to thermal stress: possible implications for coral bleaching : last author of 5
10. Shallow-water wave lensing in coral reefs: a physical and biological case study: second last of 8.

Based on the evidence it seems a reasonable contribution from OveH for 30% of these, but it appears only a token contribution for 70%. Most of the these where Ove's students are the lead author.

Congratulations Ove you are the master of the publish or perish system. Is your name there:
1, Because of a sizeable contribution to the work?
2. As a token thankyou from grateful students?
3. As a means to allow a softer journey through the review system for students yet to get a name for themselves?, or
4. Because you insist on putting your name on all your students papers, afterall where would they be without you?

Marc - I am surprised that you are not aware the last author position on publications in many fields (such as marine and molecular biology) goes to the head of the laboratory or research group. This is to recognise the effort that these individuals put into the science, but also as recognition of the funding, experience, and infrastructure that invariably goes into a project. In our field, this is not insubstantial and my calculations have revealed that studies involving molecular biology or field work can often require substantial costs in terms of materials and supplies required to do the science. Obtaining that funding is not an easy task as I'm sure you know.

Life is too short to keep justifying myself to you Marc. Despite your continual insults, my track record and the cohesion of my research group ( some of the finest young biologists in Australia) does speak for itself.

Anyway, enough of this - I have a lab group to run, papers to write, and an institute to direct.

So it was number 4 then! And these are papers you claim as your own. Shame Ove Shame.

In geology we generally take credit for our own work, and not the work of others. If there has been administrative assistance it typically gets a place in the Acknowledgements.

Marc, I'm confused. Are you still asking Ove to publish the names of anonymous reviewers? Why not ask him who killed Kennedy while you're at it. Surely he'll know the answer to that too.

Yes Chris, it is a strange request indeed.

Anyway, on a more serious note, just wanted to say (to Marc) that the projects you outline with respect to looking for evidence of past bleaching events, and re-examining the data of De'ath et al. 2010, are two very good projects.

A number of people have attempted the first and have been looking for so-called kill or bleaching scars. I don't know what they found any consistent evidence but I think there's some interesting stuff to be done there. And equally, several people have been interested in re-examining Glenn De'ath and Janice Lough's data ... I understand that they are quite happy about interacting with people over the re-examination and that the data are up online. You should contact them.

Perhaps a better place to put your energies as opposed to dreaming up scenarios for how I might mistreat my students.

Chris, I don't expect Ove to provide names that he obviously has no way of accessing. However in the interests of a full and frank discussion I am interested in the reviewers comments on his work, to allow others to judge their quality.These he would have access to. I assume one of his many minions would be able to assemble them. Perhaps he could release them as part of an annual report, thereby gaining another publication credit to add to a list of papers dominated by the work of his students.

If the reviews are as strong as Ove claims then he can only increase his reputation and the public confidence in his work by making them publicly available. If there are soft reviews by "mates" among them, then confidence of these papers would justifiably be diminished, as would the reputation of the journal.

The late great Richard Feynman, in a speech on cargo cult science, stated: "...the idea is to try to give all the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgement in one particular direction or another."

How about it Ove, are you prepared to provide all the information, or just the information that leads to judgement in one particular direction?

Ove, are you prepared to lead the climate science community in regaining trust lost by the climategate scandal, or will you allow the slow malaise and erosion of trust to continue, thereby taking the rest of the scientific community with you? Given the nature of this, and other posts currently on The Conversation, I guess you are determined, with the help of your colleagues to follow the later.

The problem with the people on those so-called expert lists are that they often include people that are exactly the non-experts that I referred to in the article. Having a Ph.D. or being a professor doesn't necessarily equate you to the same expert status as those working and publishing within atmospheric physics and other related fields. In answer to your question regarding whether or not the sun is driving climate change, I refer you to the relevant scientifically peer reviewed literature (e.g. Erlykin 2009; Lockwood 2008 and many others) that reveals among other things that solar activity is decreasing yet warming is continuing. Doesn't seem to be a particularly good fit, does it?

Firstly, my question was not whether the sun was driving climate change. The 60 year cycle in fact appears to be driven by changes in the (relative) centre of gravity of the solar system as you would have read if you followed the links in my site http://earth-climate.com . My challenge is clearly set out: show me (and the world) that the 60 year cycle does not exist in the face of cogent evidence that it does. This is a vital issue pertaining to the validity of all predictions relating to accelerated warming. And, by the way, what acceleration do you perceive since 2002?.

All ideas worth consideration. To fly however, they need to be published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Until then, they are just that, ideas without broad scientific validity.

Correction: The 60 year cycle is blatantly obvious in the temperature data. Take the trouble to read this article and study the plots. Compare them with any other data you have! Let others too form their own opinions about this. (I draw a parallel: in the medical field it took "peers" 20 years to agree on penicillin and the effect of cholesterol - so millions of lives were lost as a result.) http://www.appinsys.com/globalwarming/SixtyYearCycle.htm

I think you have proved my point with these two examples which where the debate was conducted through the peer-reviewed scientific (medical) literature. Look at the papers on penicillin and cholesterol going back to the beginning - - both involved debate in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, not in blogs or newspapers, or on the basis of unqualified opinion.

Douglas Cotton has been pushing his 60-year cycle nonsense throughout the climate change discussions. He displays all the traits of a crank. In particular, he believes he has found a very obvious 60-year cycle in the activity of the Sun that has been completely missed by tens of thousands of astronomers (both professional and amateur). Rather than reflecting on why this may be so, he puts his "theory" onto the net. He also reinforces the key point of the article, that blogs are no substitute for careful science that has undergone peer review.

As you still do not appear to have read the linked item, below is a quote regarding Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics (2010), doi:10.1016/j.jastp.2010.04.015 ...

Nicola Scafetta has identified the change in the location of the center of mass of the solar system (CMSS) as a possible mechanism driving the 60-year cycle. (Scafetta, N., “Empirical evidence for a celestial origin of the climate oscillations and its implications”, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics (2010), doi:10.1016/j.jastp.2010.04.015 [http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1005/1005.4639v1.pdf])

Scafetta shows the following figures described as: “[A- (left)] Rescaled SCMSS 60 year cycle (black curve) against the global surface temperature record (grey) detrended of its quadratic fit; [B- (right)] Eight year moving average of the global temperature detrended of its quadratic fit and plotted against itself shifted by 61.5 years. Note the perfect correspondence between the 1880-1940 and 1940-2000 periods. Also a smaller cycle, whose peaks are indicated by the letter “Y”, is clearly visible in the two records. This smaller cycle is mostly related to the 30-year modulation of the temperature. These results reveal the natural origin of a large 60-year modulation in the temperature records.” (SCMSS – Speed of the CMSS)

Put it through the peer-review system and get t published in a reputable scientific journal, and I look forward to reading it. Given that I am not a planetary physicist (hence unable to judge the veracity of the idea), I will have to wait patiently until that day!

Put what through the peer-review system? I'm not the author of the paper I referred you to - Nicola Scafetta is. I presume the "Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics" did some checks before publishing her paper. Nor have I written any of the articles linked from my site. My site itself is hardly original content - but I'm gratified by the hit rate of nearly 200 a day.

I have not "found it" - see and read in full the published paper referred to above

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1005/1005.4639v1.pdf

and also

http://www.appinsys.com/globalwarming/SixtyYearCycle.htm

before commenting any more - if you are genuinely open-minded.

OK.

So the paper is by Nicola Scafetta, a climate skeptic, who contributes to Heartland Institute reports. He shows that there are quasi-period oscillations in the distance between the Sun and the Centre of Mass of the Solar System. He also states there is a similar quasi-periodic oscillation in the temperature data. He then matches the two sets of data together, assuming a 5-year lag.

I would put this in the plotting stuff against other stuff category of papers (and to be fair, he does state that this is a "phenomenological model"). He suggests the effect could be at the 0.1 degree level, but the suggested physical mechanisms are peculiar. For example, he discusses tides of planets being a mechanism for large solar flares. Very much non-standard astrophysics.

I generally have problems with plotting stuff against other stuff papers when a physical motivation is lacking. (And power spectra in particular can produce unexpected artifacts.) When we know what to expect from the laws of physics, we can quantify whether the results are consistent with our theories and models. The success or failure of models can be quantified.

When we are just plotting stuff against stuff, no such expectation exists. If one does enough plots of various things against other things, one will inevitably find a correlation that appears to be significant, even though it is just a chance event. We do not know how many correlations Scafetta looked into before identifying this particular one.

OK John and Michael - if you want to judge reports on such personal criteria that's your prerogative.

Have a go at this (green) polynomial fit - degree = 5, number of data points used = 240, Coeff of determination R squared = 0.498589

http://earth-climate.com/62yearcycle.jpg

We haven't got to the 11-year maximum in 2012 yet, so why have temperatures peaked around 2002 - 2003 = predicted maximum in 62 year cycle?

Source: http://climate4you.com/GlobalTemperatures.htm#Recent land surface temperature

Yes - sorry about that. (I have a sister "Nicola")

It has nothing to do with Monckton though and, having now studied Nicola's papers in detail and watched his video, I am all the more convinced that he is correct about the 60 (or 62) year cycle and, therfore, that the IPCC has made very profound errors in applying linear trends to cyclical data. Doesn't it make sense to anyone that gravity from the planets affects the oceans - well established in 60 year cycles in ocean currents, levels of fish etc - and thus temperatures. Well even if it doesn't, look at the satellite date (near surface) between 2003 and 2010 and note that there has been no increase - BECAUSE the 62 year cycle has passed a maximum in 2002 and only the long-term trend (0.4 deg C /century) and maybe the 11 year cycle are providing an opposing effect on what would otherwise be a decline for at least another 20 years or so. Check out this strong correlation (by Nicola)... http://earth-climate.com/62yearNS.jpg

I have said everything I else at http://earth-climate.com

Over and out

George - I read your references but they have not adequately addressed the issue of the validity of the 60 (or 62) year cycle. The three extracts below warrant careful scutiny because this IS ground-breaking stuff. But firstly, let me point out we have a problem for GH exponents in that the temperature was slightly lower in the 12 months ending yesterday than in the 12 months ending 31 Dec 2003. See http://earth-climate.com/2003-2011.jpg

This levelling out (actually a decline below the long-term trend) is in keeping with the 62 year cycle which peaked in 2002. So I suggest for a start that this information should lead to open-minded scientists having a closer look at the cycle theory. We are already outside the boundaries of IPCC projections I suspect.

Just supposing there actually ARE cycles longer than the 11 year cycle associated with sun activity. Just suppose Jupiter and Neptune (whose relative position is about the same only every 60 years) just happen to exert sufficient gravitational pull to explain the clearly observed 60 year ocean cycles (that also affect fish supplies and precipitation) - then just suppose these ocean effects (currents etc) affect the temperature a little. THEN, if cycles in temperature DO exist it follows that the IPCC trend analysis is invalid. For a start, the US temp. history since 1880 shows less than 0.5 deg.C in 130 years much like Nicola's 0.4 deg.C per century long term trend.

In the interests of science I strongly recommend everyone really study just three short pages from his booklet which I believe are of vital importance. The critics have not been able to debunk the content of these I believe and probably never will. Nicola will be vindicated if the current level temperatures continue to at least 2020 as he predicted. (Note that ocean temperatures are already declining as he also predicted.) Here are my screen captures of those pages ...

http://earth-climate.com/62yearNS.jpg
http://earth-climate.com/62yearNS1.jpg
http://earth-climate.com/62yearNS2.jpg
.
And, to keep on the topic of this section, let me just add that IMHO there is often a risk that ground-breaking research in any scientific field will be clamped upon by the weight of contrary peer pressure with vested interests in former theories. Many a newcomer must have been discouraged to the point of giving up. It's happened many times in history I'm sure - more than we will ever hear of.

Thanks Andrew. What is sad about the current state of affairs is that unqualified experts appear to be given the same weight in the media as the very best and relevant scientific minds in our country. This is despite the fact that there is a massive scientific consensus in our expert communities. A recent survey estimated that over 97% of climate scientists had concluded that climate change is occurring and is of significant threat to the prosperity of our country. Not only this, but our peak scientific body,Australian Academy of Science, as as well as the leaders of our major scientific organisations (from CSIRO to our universities) have all come out with statements of support for the science and concern about the implications. You would think that this would compel us into action, wouldn't you?

You are right. Communication is central and that we need to be conscious of how people are perceiving science and its outputs. This issue really relates to almost every scientific endeavour - as the world has become more complex, there has been an increasing challenge in getting across the central messages. This has left the public susceptible to individuals who (for whatever reason) choose to masquerade as leading experts on areas of concern from GM to climate science.

Unfortunately, this is probably true.

But, how many are active in research and how many have published on the topic of climate change within the peer-reviewed scientific literature? Try and search using the Thompson-Reuters Web of Science. You will find very few have. All very well to have a Ph.D. or to be called Professor, but it is another thing to have your ideas/scientific arguments properly vetted through the scientific peer review process. Have a look at those lists? How they stack up against the world's scientific academies or indeed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change? What you will find is that 97% of actively publishing climate scientists, for example, support the conclusion that climate change is happening and it is due to human activities (see this paper for the details: http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf)? If you were to consult the medical literature on smoking and cancer, for example, wouldn't you want to go with the 97% of medical experts that say that smoking causes lung cancer (and act accordingly), or would you rather go with the 3% that say there is no link between smoking and cancer?

The solar effect has, continues to be, inensely studied, as for example in "Scientists Uncover Solar Cycle, Stratosphere, and Ocean Connections August 27, 2009"
http://www2.ucar.edu/news/851/scientists-uncover-solar-cycle-stratosphere-and-ocean-connections.

Cosmic radiation has been oscillating consistent with the 11 years solar cycle over the last century. Its effect on cloud nucleation is real. However, water vapor levels and cloudiness are low over polar regions, yet these are the latitudes which are warming the fastest, due to the albedo flip effect induced by ice melting (albedo loss) and the opening of water surfaces (infrared absorption gain).

Does the minor effect of solar radiation, estimated by the IPCC as about 0.1 degrees C since 1750, mean you do not accept the basic physics of the Steffen-Boltzmann law, i.e. black body radiation and the infrared absorption/radiation resonance effect of greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4, O3, N2O), where atmospheric CO2 rose from 280 to 393 ppm (the highest and fastest rise since about 3 million years ago) and radiative forcing increased by +3.1 Watt/m2 since the 19th century, as the consequence of emisison of >330 billion tons of carbon ?

Mr Cotton,
many possible patterns have been suggested, but only the 11 and 22 year cycles are clear in the long term observations.

I am not a climate scientist but that information is available and simple enough for K6-7 children to understand.

The real contention is whether there is breathing space granted by a solar minima event like the Dalton Minimum.

My concern is any time gained by a solar minima event, could be wasted and not used intelligently.

Andrew wrote ...

"Hence the Sun cannot be the dominant source of this latest temperature increase," I totally agree.

" manmade greenhouse gases being the likely dominant
alternative." I totally disagree ...

... and suggest the 62-year cycle explains the rise AND the the slight decline since 2002 (which GH can't explain) -

See http://earth-climate.com/cooling.jpg and a detailed discussion at http://earth-climate.com

Ove picked Lesley Hughes because she is a member of the Climate Commission. Their task is to communicate a wide range of climate issues. Lesley covers impacts and is a good communicator. The technical group supporting the commission has a wide range of skills that go beyond, but include atmospheric physics. Any questions or issue can be referred to an expert who has the core skills in that area.

And since when does legitimate scientific interest represent vested interest? No-one familiar with the Australian research grants system would think of it as a gravy-making facility. Lesley works on climate change because it is such a serious issue. She would much rather work in straight ecology because it is so interesting - but instead she works on what she views to be most important.

That's the ideal, however it's quite different in the real world Andrew, and you of all people should know better.

Hi Marc - do you have a better system? Or should this just simply be about our native and unsubstantiated opinions?

Ove, Yes, as a matter of fact I do know of a better system. It's currently being used by the journal "The Cryosphere". Here's the blurb...http://www.the-cryosphere.net/
"The Cryosphere has an innovative two-stage publication process which involves a scientific discussion forum and exploits the full potential of the Internet to:

foster scientific discussion;
enhance the effectiveness and transparency of scientific quality assurance;
enable rapid publication;
make scientific publications freely accessible.
In the first stage, papers that pass a rapid access-review by one of the editors are immediately published on the The Cryosphere Discussions (TCD) website. They are then subject to Interactive Public Discussion, during which the referee’s comments (anonymous or attributed), additional short comments by other members of the scientific community (attributed) and the author’s replies are also published in TCD. In the second stage, the peer-review process is completed and, if accepted, the final revised papers are published in TC. To ensure publication precedence for authors, and to provide a lasting record of scientific discussion, TCD and TC are both ISSN-registered, permanently archived and fully citable."

I merely point out that it is naive on Andrew's part to frame the present traditional process in such an idealistic way. It rarely happens in the manner he indicates. The manner in which climate science has become politicized has corrupted much of the process (you did hear about climategate?).

Please prove me wrong and take the challenge I put to you above, (ie. provide copies of the reviewers comments for your last 10 papers), or are there some skeletons in your library that you are scared will get out?

As usual, the deniers are showing their true colours. It is entertaining to read the conspiracy theories though. Anyone with thoughts on the vast conspiracy by climate scientists to take over the world?

It was a cunning plan. Step 1: spend ten years at university studying maths and physics and obtain PhD. Step 2: cue deniers/conspiracy theorists...

Hi John (McLean). The peer-reviewed system is a tough one. I estimate that only one in every four manuscripts that I submit them to get published. But it is a good system for vetting science as you know from the comments you received in response to your article. Do you have a perspective on why your response was not published (apart from evoking conspiracy theory)? If so, let's hear them.

All I can say John is that the journal has an excellent reputation as does the research team that found your publication flawed. End of story.

Good point Tim. This is often forgotten.

John, your Quandrant online article was a good example of how publishing rubbish can damage the reputation of a journal. Thanks, I now know that I never need to look at it again.

The only bit that was interesting was your initial quote from Vaclav Klaus about “Today’s debate about global warming is essentially a debate about freedom". It puts you firmly in the camp of being ideologically opposed to climate science simply because you don't like the solution (government regulation). A common thread of people who remain opposed to climate science despite all of the evidence as Naomi Oreskes discussed in "Merchants of Doubt".

Kip, if you behave like a child people will treat you like one so stop the comments like "cause I say so. Na-na-na-naaaa-na!"

Ove's article wasn't criticising "non-believers" (a tag that climate sceptics/deniers like to attach to themselves to suggest that climate science is a religion rather than based on evidence and reason). He was criticising people who do not base their arguments on evidence or submit their ideas to a rigorous checking and validation process (that is what peer review boils down to). Obviously, he is only advancing one argument in this article and he doesn't need to go into climate science in detail. There are other articles in this series in The Conversation that deal with climate science. You are welcome to join in the conversation about them in their comment threads.

John.

You keep on asking this incessant question as if I am the person who should answer the question for you. My whole point in this article is that you need to go to the expert literature - the integrated collective opinion. To refer to anything else is to simply ludicrous.

It is not about me, or you, that is important here. It is the collective process and judgement that allows us to consider the complex facts and analysis that is needed to be able to judge whether climate change is a problem or not.

Focus on the big issues, independent of yourself, and you will be enlightened. Again, it is not about you, or Karoly, or Steffen, or about me. It is about knowledge.

So in answer to your question - the information you need is available through any number of documents from the Climate Commission Report to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 4th Assessment Report. Please read it - otherwise I can only conclude that you are deliberately trying to waste everyone's time.

Regards,

Ove

John, there seems to be nothing that satisfies you. Skeptical Science is a great website with lots of links to the peer reviewed literature. If you think the whole scientific community is in some enormous conspiracy then there is nothing that I or anyone else can say to allay your paranoia.

Kip, I don't follow your reasoning. Ove made the point about Stewart Franks that "The number of articles by Franks since 2000 that involve peer review of his claims that climate change is not happening is also." It is not simply the number of articles published but whether they were on relevant topics that supported the claims being made in their attack on the Climate Commission's report. I thought that was clear and there was no logical falacy. I think you are mistaken in your argument.

Hi Kip, I have been following the ClimateGate non-event. It hasn't changed our basic understanding of how the atmosphere works or the data on rising CO2 and rising temperatures. Lindzen's latest paper was rejected because it wasn't worth publishing. Happy for you to tell me how wrong I am - I'm sure you are going to anyway.

BTW, I'm not a professor.

John, I realise now why you are so touchy about Skeptical Science.

You understandably don't like their post criticising your prediction that "it is likely that 2011 will be the coolest year since 1956 or even earlier" at http://www.skepticalscience.com/mclean-exaggerating-natural-cycles.html

I wasn't aware of the post before.

I noticed that you didn't make any comments on that site to defend your position or explain why their criticisms were wrong. I wondered why?

Walter, you make a good point that "science is determined by reason and evidence". It's a pity that your 6th point contradicts this approach. "Reason and evidence" is exactly what the mainstream climate science community is using to form the view that anthropogenic climate change is real and a major threat to humanity.

Thanks Walter. A few quick responses:

YOU: 1. You dismiss any credibility of Carter et al. without ever addressing the evidence they offer. This is decidedly unscientific.

This is exactly my point. There are two ways for Bob Carter to have his ideas taken seriously.

Firstly, if he were an atmospheric physicist with a bonus side peer-reviewed science record of publishing within this area, then I would be willing to listen to his input on these parts of the climate change issue. But as you see, exploring the objective scientific record (within the 'gold standard' for this Thomson Reuters - see link in original article) we find that he is not published a single article in these fields.

Secondly, if he is not an atmospheric physicist but is pointing to peer reviewed science to support his particular position (based on the findings of relevant experts) then I would feel comfortable in accepting an argument which is well backed up with this literature.

But he is neither a well published atmospheric physicist, or making reference to the peer reviewed literature relevant to the subject. The references at the end of the Quadrant article do not have a single peer reviewed publication in a credible journal that would support the conclusion that the four authors (Carter, Evans, Franks, Kininmonth) had regarding the conclusion that anthropogenic climate change is not happening.

YOU: 2. You expend some effort to show they have not published any peer reviewed papers which show that climate change is not happening. This is both meaningless and misleading. It is meaningless in that any student at Logic 101 level could advise you that proof of a negative is not possible. It is also misleading in that they have never claimed that no climate change is occuring but rather they can find no evidence to indicate dangerous man made change is occuring. There is a critically important difference.

According to their position, they clearly state that anthropogenic climate change is not happening. There is a direct quote "no evidence of global warming at a rate faster than for the two major 20th century phases of natural warming; no evidence of sea level rise at a rate greater than the 20th century natural rise of ~1.7 mm/yr; no evidence of acceleration in sea-level change in either the tide gauge or satellite records; and nothing unusual about the behaviour of mountain glaciers, Arctic sea ice or the Greenland or West Antarctic ice sheets."

The implication here is that it is not being driven by humans. That is in contrast to 97% of the rest of the scientific literature.

YOU: 3. You seem to dismiss any expertise regarding climate on the basis they have not published peer reviewed papers on "climate change". Bob Carter is one of Australia's foremost marine geologists and a specialist in Quatenary climate cycles as revealed in deep sea cores. David Evans was a senior climate modeller with CSIRO unti he became disillusioned by the corruption of science being imposed to suit a political agenda. Stewart Franks is a widely published hydrologist with particular experise in the study of drought/flood climatic cycles in Australia and Bill Kininmonth is a doyen of Australian meterology. All have published extensively in their own area of climate studies. As a biologist studying corals what are your claims to superior experise on matters relating to climate?

This is the exact issue. I am not claiming superior expertise on matters relating to climate - rather, I'm pointing to the very credible scientific communities that are expert in elements of this issue who have published in the peer-reviewed literature and had their ideas tested. That is not the case with Carter, Evans, Franks, or Kininmonth).

I checked their entire publication record since 2000 for any evidence that they had been publishing the idea is that they expose about whether or not sea level, ice sheets or global temperatures are changing. I make that very clear. While two have published credible peer-reviewed articles on largely unrelated issues, there are none on the specific issues that would allow them to conclude that androgenic climate change is not happening (or to support their other claims). For example, the fact that I study marine ecosystems doesn't give me the credibility to discuss ocean heat content or other oceanographic issues. For this, I go to the expert literature. And as long as it is peer-reviewed, and it represents the consensus, then I'm happy to write well backed up and documented statements with respect to what these experts are telling us. Similarly, studying hydrology doesn't make you an expert in climate physics.

YOU: 4. The pre-publication peer review process conducted by most scientific journals is primarily a tool for editorial assistance. It is not a guarantee of quality. The most important peer review comes after publication when findings are open to the entire scientific community to freely criticise. The CRU emails clearly revealed a concerted effort by climate alarmists to corruptly use the peer review process to prevent publication of conflicting evidence in key journals. Arguing that we should put great weight on a demonstrably corrupted process could be seen as an implicit approval of the corruption.

Your conclusions regarding the CRU e-mails fly in complete contrast to the several independent reviews that were undertaken regarding these claims. If you believe that they still are, then you must not think much of the inter-Academy of sciences and other highly credible bodies that were involved in these reviews. I think there's a bit of a credibility gap here!

YOU: 5. Science is determined by reason and evidence, not authority. Attempting to engage in a pissing contest over credentials is juvenile and irrelevant.

Science is determined by reason and evidence but must also adhere to a process that helps distinguish rough ideas and opinion from well supported and argued consensus science. That is what the peer review process provides. This is the reason we have space travel, satellites, modern medicine and many other scientific fields that have generated huge benefits.

YOU: 6.The onus of proof is on those who propose that dangerous man made climate change is occuring. Please advise what you feel is the most compelling evidence in support of this. Then we can have a proper scientific debate.

The important thing about climate change is that it is a body of knowledge not one or two key observations that 'prove it'. I would refer you to the fourth assessment report of the IPCC for the body of evidence you need to take on board for you to understand the compelling evidence in support of climate change and its impacts. If you don't do that, then you will continue to cherry pick the edges of this important body of knowledge, and get it wrong (as you have).