Comments Black Wallaby has made

Peter Martin on Aussie Bushfires (part 2)

Dammit, It's raining up in Queensland again, and the fifth one day cricket game decider between Oz and the Kiwis, is washed out.  (last I looked)

Meanwhile, as further clarification on your following comment:

It may be worth noting that the gap between the above bushfire events is: 88 years, 30 years, 14 years, and now 6 years. Which is what you'd expect, of course, if the Aussie climate was indeed getting warmer.

Out of the original list of nearly 30 major bushfires in Victoria alone, since 1850, I picked five, upon which you made the above observation.  
That of 1969 was a particularly memorable shock to me because of the tragedy of 17 people dying from a grass fire, just weeks earlier, on the first four lane highway I had travelled on immediately after getting off the plane from England.  This particular fire was atypical of all other major fires.
That of 2003 was of truly massive proportions, somewhat like that of 1939, and of long duration in Victoria.  However, unlike the tragic 1939 fires, no human lives were lost, and it is largely forgotten in Victoria except by mountain and bush-lovers.

Thus, I might just as well have excluded these two atypical fires from my list of five:

1969 - 8 January
280 fires broke out on the 8th of January 1969. Of these, 12 grass fires reached major proportions and burnt 250,000 hectares. Areas seriously affected included Lara, Daylesford, Dulgana, Yea, Darraweit, Kangaroo Flat and Korongvale. Twenty-three people died, including 17 motorists at Lara, trapped on the Geelong to Melbourne freeway. The fires also destroyed 230 houses, 21 other buildings and more than 12,000 stock.

2003 - Eastern Victorian (Alpine) Fires
Eighty seven fires were started by lightning in the north east of Victoria on 8 January 2003. Eight of these fires were unable to be contained and joined together to form the largest fire in Victoria since the 1939 "Black Friday" bushfires. Burning for 59 days before being contained, the Alpine fires burnt over 1.3 million hectares, 41 homes and over 9,000 livestock, with thousands of kilometres of fencing also being destroyed. Areas affected include Mt Buffalo, Bright, Dinner Plain, Benambra and Omeo.

Then we would have had for the big ones:

1851, 1939, 1983, and the one now in progress.  (please pray for low winds)

So what were your sums, and conclusions again?On CNN, ABC, WashPost, and AP blow Australian wildfire, drought, heat-wave story posted 9 months, 2 weeks ago 14 Responses

Peter Martin on Aussie Bushfires

Thanks Peter for your reasoned contribution to the debate, but let`s look more closely at your first point.

It may be worth noting that the gap between the above bushfire events is: 88 years, 30 years, 14 years, and now 6 years. Which is what you'd expect, of course, if the Aussie climate was indeed getting warmer.

The estimated size of the current bushfires so far is reportedly about 330,000 hectares, compared with  210,000 on Ash Wednesday + another less tragic 216,000 nearby in 1983, 1.3 million in 2003, (that's without NSW and the tragic ACT fires),  1.4 - 2.0 million in tragic 1939, and 5 million in 1851.  
So, the tragedy of bushfires tends to be measured not in terms of their size, but in human life and assets loss.    
In the current fires, it is a matter of chance that those townships-no-more were in their paths. Kinglake near me was particularly tragic, but it could be argued that it is perfectly designed for fire disaster when there is a northerly wind, because the long escape road is parallel to the fire-front, atop what is almost an escarpment.
Once fires are started, commonly by lightning, (and ignoring the plight of the fire-fighters themselves), those 1,000+ degree centigrade flames pay little head to the ambient temperature.  The speed and ferocity of a bushfire front is exponentially related to wind speed.  As I write, it has been rather cool right now and ever since the 8th, but I just heard on the radio, that residents in parts of Healesville should be alert for ember attack.  So, around there, the wind seems to have picked-up.  (perfectly still here ~40 minutes away by car)
The savagery of these fires has been from a combination of circumstances, but primarily strong northerly wind, followed by very dangerous southerly reversal as a cool front came through. Other factors include fuel accumulation and adequate planning etc, but all other things being equal, there does NOT appear to be any connection between global warming and wind speed.  (or lightning strikes or arsonists).  

You also wrote:

According to the Australian BOM, who do incidentally provide excellent data on historical weather and climate, there are parts of central Australia which have been warming at 0.6 deg C per decade for the last 40 years.
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli_chg/trendmaps. ...
And where did the high winds originate which were responsible for recent record high temperatures in Melbourne and Adelaide?  Yes. Where else but central Australia.

I hope you are not suggesting that the high winds from the desert heart were a consequence of the temperatures there.
It is actually the consequence of high and low pressures systems moving across typically from west to east.  The closer together that the isobars are, the stronger the wind.  A case in point was the recent SE heatwave, where there was mercifully almost no wind.
Otherwise, I have no difficulty with what you wrote, but I think you need to understand the Bob_FJ post over at Harmless Sky, concerning the magnitude of anomalous temperature regional variation.  That post will probably appear here shortly, dare I say.On CNN, ABC, WashPost, and AP blow Australian wildfire, drought, heat-wave story posted 9 months, 2 weeks ago 14 Responses

On Bushfire + AGW Politics and Stuff:

(from a post I made elsewhere on 11/Feb/09)

1. When the 3-day heatwave hit Melbourne at the end of January, there were a lot of asinine comments connecting it to AGW. For instance our great federal minister of that stuff; Penny Wong made that connection, but I suspect that 18 months (?) ago, when she was not "the authority", that she could not even spell anthropogenic!
   
2. When various climate experts and that "qualified climate scientist" Joe Romm made the AGW connection to serious infrastructure failures in Melbourne, they overlooked the fact that Adelaide's heatwave was much worse both in temperature and duration, and yet they did not have such failures. (For instance, Melbourne train services collapsed in a big way because of buckled rail-lines. It turned out that since Melbourne rail was privatised, the scheduled program of replacing old rotten timber railway sleepers had fallen badly behind.... Even red-gum is inferior long-term to concrete!)
   
3. Speaking about Adelaide, which although much hotter for longer, it was nevertheless very quiet on the bushfire front etc, and how about this exquisite gem:
   

Atmospheric scientist Warwick Grace... ...South Australian Research and Development Institute (SARDI) Climate Applications Unit claims:
"...Adelaide, with 15 days over 35 degrees, returns a one in 3,000 year event."... [yes 3 thousand...  blah blah blah] ...The all-time national heatwave record was set in Marble Bar in northern Western Australia, which had 160 consecutive days at or above 37.8 degrees celsius (or 100 degrees fahrenheit) in the summer of 1923-24."

4. One of my favourite mountain towns only ~75 to 90 minutes away in my camper-van, (cruising); a winter base-camp for the Lake Mountain XC ski resort, and holiday destination for Melburnites to escape summer heat is apparently no more. It is still closed-off as an arson crime-scene. It has (had) magnificent forest walks and waterfalls, and scenic lookouts. Fortunately, most of it's inhabitants appear to have escaped, via a good road, one of three, in the right direction. Marysville was also one of my favourite places for "Sunday lunch"
   
5. Nearby my beloved Marysville, there are (were?) some groves of the largest hardwood trees in the world. (Eucalyptus Regnans, or Mountain Ash). They are awesome, and challenge the Californian redwoods. Unfortunately this eucalyptus, one of about 600 species, is unique (reportedly) in having no resistance to wildfire. There was a tragic case of Tasmanian Forestry killing the biggest giant a few years ago during a "controlled" burn-off, that was intended to reduce fire risk. I intend to post some magnificent photos of E. Regnans new growth forest from the massive 1.4 million hectare fire back in 1939 sometime, just to show that not all is lost to future generations.
   
6. Kinglake (and Kinglake West) was tragic. Atop the Kinglake Ranges, some ~30+ minutes north of me, it is almost on an escarpment, with difficult very narrow windy and dangerous roads climbing up it with sheer drop-offs to the side. Only one of them is sealed. There is a good east-west road along the top, but apparently this was roughly parallel with the fire-front. I saw video scenes of cars all piled-up on that road, and burnt-out. Kinglake and it's National Park and en route to Toolangi etc, is another favourite of mine
   
7. Prior to this wildfire (7 Feb) there were other fires on the go in Victoria NSW and S.A, but without strong winds. There were announcements that the conditions on that Saturday were predicted to be worse than the very tragic fires in Victoria and S.A. back in 1983. (75 killed and 2000+ homes destroyed and more). People were advised (5-6 Feb) to the effect; You must decide whether to stay and defend your assets, OR, you must leave in plenty of time, before the fire gets there. Boy, that is quite a matter of judgement eh.... All your belongings and home or business or livestock whatever at stake, and how quick-bad will it be?????
   
8. The situation is that despite all the tragic history of bush and grass fires, few seem to be aware. For instance, I have seen video of people hosing and beating-out flames wearing just shorts and shoes. (Radiant heat from flames at over 1,000 degrees C; Wot's that?) One young lady decided to run from her burning house but did not have time to put shoes on and suffered badly burnt feet!
   
9. Last night I was half listening to an expert on radio from an Oz university, before I pricked-up with, (paraphrasing): Staying to defend your house is OK because it only takes about 15 minutes for the flame front to pass. [Uh? No mention of wind speed or anything thought I]. Then he continued: So, if your house does catch fire, [despite your measures], just hang around as long as you can, and then make a dash for it, by which time the fire-front will have passed, and it will be OK, providing you have a plan and have cleared sustaining incendiaries such as loaded sheds or log piles whatever around your escape route. [And have predicted the correct direction to escape through the smoke etc]. This was after helicopter videos show whole townships totally burnt down! This expert deprecated the idea of dugout protection, because of the possibility of asphyxiation or toxic gasification.
   
10. I think I'll end with one question [asked on that thread]: Has anything been learnt from the long history of wildfires in Oz? The Victorian bushfires in 1939 were comparatively massive, and one of the lessons learnt was that low-tech dug-outs saved very many lives, providing that they not only protected the occupants from killer radiant heat, but also ensured adequate protection from toxic gases. There were big losses of life where there were no dugouts or the latter issue was not covered. The Royal Commission that followed recommended the simple use of dugouts to save human life in all fire-prone areas. How many lives have been saved since in dugouts? I have not seen any evidence of it!
    

ChristophersJ had some issues (Feb 7)

"You [BW] are 100% right. Nobody [e.g. Joe] should be taking small, individual events and claim AGW without some kind of demonstration of a long term trend, globally, and make a highly likely association with the greenhouse effect. OK. Now. What is your motivation?..."

You also asked of me:

"...can you point us to a time where you were supportive of any climate science finding that DID link AGW to greenhouse gasses..."

I am in full agreement that greenhouse gases such as CO2 result in an AGW response.  However, "the system" is extremely complicated, and there are peer reviewed studies arguing that net feedbacks, clouds being one major component, are either very small or negative.  (= GOOD NEWS)   The IPCC relies heavily on computer modelling to predict AGW, but since some of the inputs have an accepted low level of understanding, they really have no scientific value.

Andrew Dessler is a climate scientist that is active on Gristmill, and the following very important issue, (abbreviated), still remains unanswered after 40 posts:
Spencer, Braswell, Christy, and Hnilo, published in the same respected journal as used by Andrew... ...the aforesaid paper appears to strongly contradict the main claim in Andrew's lead article, and it is customary in science to mention the work of others in kindred matters!   Please try and understand this issue on negative feedbacks , taking you in at post #36.On Australia faces collapse as climate change kicks in posted 9 months, 3 weeks ago 50 Responses

Australia faces collapse [from climate change]

Apparently, this screaming headline by Joe Romm, and a lot of other rubbish that gets him excited comes from the UK newspaper; "The Independent" (under "World News", not in their "Science" category)

Here is one gem from that rag, so let's look at the first item, (some others already addressed):

Most of the south of the country is gripped by unprecedented 12-year drought. The Australian Alps have had their driest three years ever, and the water from the vast Murray-Darling river system now fails to reach the sea 40 per cent of the time. Harvests have fallen sharply.

For a start, the severity of drought anywhere in Oz is difficult to define, both temporally and spatially.  The five main parameters relating to drought assessment in the SE that occur to me are:

1. Rainfall on farming land, it's timing and distribution, (Re cropping and animal stock)
   
2. Flow rates of the Murray-Darling river system
   
3. Annual rainfall in the mountain catchments. (Which have an influence on 2)
   
4. Storage levels in reservoirs, which are largely a consequence of 2) and 3), complicated by controlled demand for irrigation and environmental flows, and increasing human population.
   
5. Other weather conditions, and bushfires in the catchments.

If we consider the Murray-Darling system, it has certainly been worse in the past, with for example, a period of zero flow in the Darling for 364 days recorded in 1908.  

Concerning rainfall on farming land, the harvest increased in 2008/9,  (see posts above), and the massive sheep and cattle losses of the late 1880's and early 1900's have not been repeated.

# In case you have difficulty reading or zooming the composite graphics, I'm about to post an alternative layout.On Australia faces collapse as climate change kicks in posted 9 months, 3 weeks ago 50 Responses

Whiskerfish raises some good points;

Although cricket is a touch off topic, there is perhaps a global warming connection.  I've noticed an apparent correlation, and when I have time, I mean to plot a graph to show it more clearly.   With the world's best team, you may have noticed that their performance has tended to plateau in recent years and has fallen sharply in the last year... just like the global average temperature.  Whilst many other lesser cricket nations are  positive or negative to this trend, these are arguably just regional variations, as seen in regional temperature records.  I have not yet understood the significance of this correlation, and wonder if you may have some thoughts on it.

A strong correlation between temperatures in South-East Australia (and North America), is wind direction, speed, and duration.  In the recent SE heatwave, we had a sustained low wind speed northerly.  Tomorrow, (Saturday) it is forecast to blast up again to 43C with a strong northerly, and there are comparisons being made to the conditions prior to the 1983 Ash Wednesday bushfires, when 75 people were killed and over 2,000 homes destroyed.  It should be a fun day for firebugs, (yes "humans"), and catastrophic alarmists like Joseph Romm and ChristophersJ.   Fortunately, the forecast for the following day is a comparatively chilly 20C, as the wind reverses to southerly

Ash Wedneday quote, (My emphasis added):

The Ash Wednesday fires consisted of some of the most devastating bushfires
Australia has ever experienced, sweeping through parts of Victoria and South
Australia.
Weather conditions leading up to the Ash Wednesday fires:
Between April 1982 and January 1983, Victoria experienced severe drought conditions and little rainfall...

On longer time-scales, civilizations have of course been ended by local climate change.  About 500 years ago, the great Angkor city civilization was abandoned, apparently as a consequence of a change in monsoonal patterns.On Australia faces collapse as climate change kicks in posted 9 months, 3 weeks ago 50 Responses

Amazingdrx, you jump to conclusions easily

I think alternative energies to coal in Oz, should be discussed.

HOWEVER, IT IS OFF-TOPIC ON THIS THREAD!

That's all, it's not complicated really.
It is broadly discussed on other threads.On Australia faces collapse as climate change kicks in posted 9 months, 3 weeks ago 50 Responses

Picoallan, your interesting post

It depends what you read really, and how you define the severity of a drought, (not easy). Consideration should also be given to the greatly increasing population and cropping demands, the human interference in sustaining a regular flow, with reduced flooding of the Red-gums etc, and reduced flushing-out of the system, and more. Like I said initially, it is complicated and I'll try and work through your concerns in due course.

I believe I read somewhere that around a century ago, (before much human influence), the river went dry for a period of six months and another period of 364(?)days. This recently known natural history, is now not allowed to be repeated by people who think they know better.

Meanwhile I had a post ready to go, following, which touches one of the concerns you raised about the CooyongOn Australia faces collapse as climate change kicks in posted 9 months, 3 weeks ago 50 Responses

Of Camels and Boats

Further my post entitled; Australia faces collapse as climate change... And; the photo of Camels crossing the River Murray at Mildura in 1914, in severe drought:
I described a recent tragic speed-boat death on the river, to illustrate that the river is currently very different to way back in 1914.   Perhaps a recent photo may have been more convincing, So here we go;   View east along Murray River towards wharf (Mildura) On Australia faces collapse as climate change kicks in posted 9 months, 3 weeks ago 50 Responses

Eli Rabbet claims:

"A correction   Andrew is right -The Easter Bunny"

So, for example; is Andrew Dessler "right", to not mention the peer reviewed scientific paper by Spencer, Braswell, Christy, and Hnilo, published in the same respected journal as used by Andrew?  The point is that the aforesaid paper appears to strongly contradict the main claim in Andrew's lead article, and it is customary in science to mention the work of others in kindred matters!On There is no negative feedback in the climate system posted 9 months, 4 weeks ago 51 Responses

What Joe Does Not Say, Part 3:

At the following site there is information on ground station near-surface air temperature trends from 1951 to 2006, providing for statistical significance there are at least 35 years of good data available
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/gjma/  If you click on the third penguin icon down, it opens an interesting map, showing 11 stations in East Antarctica, and 4 on or near The Peninsular.  (It also shows the southern tip of Patagonia which is of geological significance, as discussed in Part 2, above.)

Unfortunately, the statistical uncertainty is expressed differently to the 50-year study raised by Joe, but put simply, the stronger the colour in the vertical bars, the higher the confidence level.  From this it can be seen that the trend in East Antarctica is rather flat, although the confidence levels are not high.  On the other hand the warming trend is strong in the Peninsular, with high confidence levels.

Here is part of the abstract quoted by Joe, including his bold emphasis:

Here we show that significant warming extends well beyond the Antarctic Peninsula to cover most of West Antarctica, an area of warming much larger than previously reported.  West Antarctic warming exceeds 0.1 °C per decade over the past 50 years, and is strongest in winter and spring. Although this is partly offset by autumn cooling in East Antarctica, the continent-wide average near-surface temperature trend is positive. Simulations using a general circulation model reproduce the essential features of the spatial pattern and the long-term trend, and we suggest that neither can be attributed directly to increases in the strength of the westerlies. Instead, regional changes in atmospheric circulation and associated changes in sea surface temperature and sea ice are required to explain the enhanced warming in West Antarctica.

And here is an extract from a NASA release  http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=8239   that discusses the same 26 year satellite record which was calibrated and extrapolated to 50 years, using surface station measured air temperatures  (my bold emphasis added):

Making a long-term record out of data from different sensors is challenging because each sensor has its own quirks and may measure temperatures a bit differently. None of the sensors were in orbit at the same time, so scientists could not compare simultaneous observations from different sensors to make sure each was recording temperatures exactly the same. Instead, the team checked the satellite records against ground-based weather station data to inter-calibrate them and make the 26-year satellite record. The scientists estimate the level of uncertainty in the measurements is between 2-3 degrees Celsius.

Here are some observations on the above:
1]  The 50-year study (Mann et al) declares: "the continent-wide average near-surface temperature trend is positive".  This implies that East Antarctica is warming, (on which much has been trumpeted elsewhere), but the magnitude is not given.  (Uh?)
2]  The 50-year study declares that West Antarctica warming exceeds 0.1 degree C per decade, but the NASA quote referring to calibration of satellite infra-red surface radiation to near surface air temperature gives that"a level of uncertainty in the measurements is between 2-3 degrees Celsius"  Hmmmmm!
3]  The 50-year study declares:  "changes in sea surface temperature and sea ice are required to explain the enhanced warming in West Antarctica"
a]  Part 2 above shows that there is tectonic activity around West Antarctica, but of course this is in the field of geology, not "climate science".
b]   Other information shows a net increase in sea-ice area for the whole of Antarctica.
4]  The 50-year study declares: "Here we show that significant warming extends well beyond the Antarctic Peninsula to cover most of West Antarctica, an area of warming much larger than previously reported."   Well actually this has been known since at least 2004 and was certainly published by NASA in April 2006;  e.g.  http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=6502On Nature: Antarctica has warmed significantly over past 50 years posted 10 months ago 3 Responses

I Can't Avoid The Off-topic Tamino Fun

Sorry, but in the `2008 Weblog Awards`, for the category `Best Science Blog', there were 142 nominations, some of which were multiple, (up to six) and some duplicated others.  A search for Tamino OR `Open Mind`, (Tamino's weblog) revealed that he had been nominated only twice.  Thus, he did not make it to the final ten.  (neither did Joe Romm)  The clear winner was `Watts Up With That', and BTW, a clear loser at only 1.8%, was RealClimate, cohort with Tamino.

Nominations @:   http://2008.weblogawards.org/nominations/best-science-blo ...On There is no negative feedback in the climate system posted 10 months ago 51 Responses

What Joe Does Not Say, Part 2:

Here is a link to the NASA graphic of Antarctic surface temperatures, 1982 - 2004, discussed in Part 1:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=6502
Notice two things; a) Pronounced warming of the waters and land around the Peninsular and West Antarctica, and b) The Peninsular is the northernmost part of the continent.
Another map in part 3 below will show a geographical similarity between the Peninsular and Patagonia, (the southern end of the Andes), and close proximity and alignment between them.
There is a later version of the NASA graph: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=8239 ,1981 - 2007 in which the temperature variation is less stark, but there are caveats, which should be considered.  (See Part 1 above)

This is a lead-up to some work by geologists, including assessment of tectonic activity, rifting, and volcanoes, that may explain some of the differences between East and West/Peninsular.  Clearly, this would have no connection with AGW.  The second citation also implies that what we are seeing recently is nothing unusual:

"Crustal Motions of the Bedrock of the West Antarctica"  (Lots of volcanoes there etc)
http://www.ig.utexas.edu/outreach/polar/pepperoni/pdfdocs ...

Here is an extract from: http://sp.lyellcollection.org/cgi/content/abstract/202/1/ ... that might be of interest.
... "Second, the present-day WAIS appears to be in a near maximum configuration that has existed at several times since 9 Ma but was rarely exceeded..."

Study of both papers in full is recommended.
There is more;  a step at a time!On Nature: Antarctica has warmed significantly over past 50 years posted 10 months ago 3 Responses

What Joe Does Not Say, Part 1:

As usual, Joe is cherry-picking and spinning some of the information that is available about Antarctica, with his usual over-the-top rhetoric.

SOME of the points NOT covered by Joe include increased snowfall, and the alignment of West Antarctica, particularly the Peninsular, geologically with Patagonia and the tectonic warming implications.  (Non Anthropogenic) However, there is so much stuff that is not discussed, that I'll have to do it by instalments.  Of course he will not entertain what geologists have to say, because they are not qualified to comment on "climate science".  (Let the reader decide):
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(Instalment 1)  Here is an extract from a NASA release, http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=8239 on a 26-year satellite survey, which was last updated about 3 months ago (my bold emphasis added thrice):

The map is based on thermal infrared (heat) observations made by a series of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration satellite sensors. Because the satellite is observing energy radiated from the Earth's surface, the image shows trends in skin temperatures--temperatures from roughly the top millimeter of the land, sea ice, or sea surface--not air temperatures.  Making a long-term record out of data from different sensors is challenging because each sensor has its own quirks and may measure temperatures a bit differently. None of the sensors were in orbit at the same time, so scientists could not compare simultaneous observations from different sensors to make sure each was recording temperatures exactly the same. Instead, the team checked the satellite records against ground-based weather station data to inter-calibrate them and make the 26-year satellite record. The scientists estimate the level of uncertainty in the measurements is between 2-3 degrees Celsius.

For those of you who would like to see typically what Joe does not include, I urge you to study the full release, and to take special notice of the following image link: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=6502
This image has much relevance to my next post.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A couple of quick interim notes on Joe's referenced 50-year survey  article in Nature:

a) One of the authors is Michael E. Mann, the inventor of the discredited Hockey-stick graph which "cancelled" the well established MWP and LIA.  That authorship alone, should compel rationalists to look more carefully at other evidence that is out there!!!
b) An AFP report on the paper @  
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5i2WPmF ...  includes the following statement:  
The work is based on a 25-year archive of observations by satellites measuring the intensity of infrared light radiated by the snow pack. These were buttressed by data from automated weather stations deployed around the Antarctic coast since 1957.
(more on a 35-year ground-instrument survey later)On Nature: Antarctica has warmed significantly over past 50 years posted 10 months ago 3 Responses

Igcarey wrote in part, in his comment 3:

...On a geologic timescale, Earth's temperature does in fact violently oscillate, experiencing enormous swings (in excess of 10°C) - leading the climatologist Willie Broeker to call it an "angry beast". While this indicates that the climate system may have limits on its outside parameters, that is much different than the existence of a "damping effect" which would (by definition) presumably act to prevent such wild swings...

Putting aside the difficulties in defining what is the "average global temperature"#, using the absolute Kelvin temperature scale, the average global T commonly stated is 288K. (~15C)  Of this, 33 degrees is commonly presented as the Greenhouse effect.  It seems that YOU are arguing that if we are say 1 degree "too hot" right now, the normal range prior to the Miocene (23 million years ago), was maybe 277 - 287K, or crudely speaking, a thermal variation of about 3.5%.   In biological terms that would indeed be very severe WRT food supplies etc, if it occurred with today's large and widespread population, but in physical terms, it is actually quite a small variation

However, within the most recent 23 million years, embracing the Miocene epoch,(which is quite a long time ago), it is reported@ that the T variation is only 6 degrees C, or crudely, in absolute thermal terms, is a variation of only ~2.1%

Now here is an extract from Wikipedia on the more recent Pliestocene, an epoch going back 1.8 million years, which is quite a long time ago:

Pleistocene climate was characterized by repeated glacial cycles where continental glaciers pushed to the 40th parallel in some places. It is estimated that, at maximum glacial extent, 30% of the Earth's surface was covered by ice.

The T variation of the Pliestocene together with the Holocene through to today appears to be@ about 4 degrees or crudely ~1.4% thermally in the last 1.8 million years.

Note that the ice age on the transition into the early Holocene did not result in extinction of modern humans, although the Neanderthals that appear to have been more genetically adapted to the cold did paradoxically disappear, maybe as a consequence of competition/superior technology from ex African Homo Sapiens.

If you are complaining that Spencer's "thermostat" has only been thermally accurate to within ~1.4 % in the last 1.8 million years, you should perhaps consider the low frequency planetary etc cycles$, which are historically more significant than the CO2 "Hot Armageddon" hypothesis that you and others prefer!

#E.G. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070315101129 ...
@E.G. Ref Climate history: http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm
$ E.G. Milankovitch, for a startOn There is no negative feedback in the climate system posted 10 months, 1 week ago 51 Responses

AAARHHHGG! Des, you got me you s....

I went to bed (here in Oz time) and suddenly realised what you tried to do.... It's called "change the subject", by trolling if necessary.
Now I'm up again, to say scratch it!
Don't change the subject!
Concentrate on the issues that Andrew Dessler raised.
You really are quite naughty Des!On There is no negative feedback in the climate system posted 10 months, 1 week ago 51 Responses

Andrew, what about clouds and stuff?

I'm surprised that you can confidently assume that the work by Roy Spencer  and others is too optimistic.
In your latest work on water vapour with Zhang and Yang you show a positive ~2 W/m^2, but I seem to recall Spencer suggests higher negative values than that somewhere.  (= Good news)

The IPCC, Graeme L Stephens, and others, have described how extremely difficult it is to understand the complexity of clouds in their formation, structure and what they do WRT to climate.  

And, then there is this, with abstract quoted:
On the twilight zone between clouds and aerosols (GRL)
Koren, Remer, Kaufman, Rudich and Martins
http://climate.gsfc.nasa.gov/publications/fulltext/koren_ ...

Cloud and aerosols interact and form a complex system leading to high uncertainty in understanding climate change. To simplify this non-linear system it is customary to distinguish between "cloudy" and "cloud-free" areas and measure them separately. However, we find that clouds are surrounded by a "twilight zone" - a belt of forming and evaporating cloud fragments and hydrated aerosols extending tens of kilometers from the clouds into the so-called cloud-free zone. The gradual transition from cloudy to dry atmosphere is proportional to the aerosol loading, suggesting an additional aerosol effect on the composition and radiation fluxes of the atmosphere. Using AERONET data, we find that the measured aerosol optical depth is higher by 13% ± 2% in the visible and 22% ± 2% in the NIR in measurements taken near clouds relative to its value in the measurements taken before or after, and that 30%−60% of the free atmosphere is affected by this phenomenon.

The Numbers Don't Lie you (?) say:

And, I quote in part from your (?) lead article from AFP, that being but a commentary on a scientific paper, not the paper itself:

...It calculates that West Antarctica has been warming by 0.17 degrees Celsius... ...per decade over the past 50 years. This is even more than the Peninsula, where the average rise is estimated as 0.11 C... ...per decade...

Well that is quite interesting, but should these "un-lying numbers", (which are not from direct measurement), be compared relatively with some other information such as the generally EXTREMELY cold conditions in Antarctica, even in summer, and for relevance to some other stuff going on?

For instance, here is an interesting 2007 graphic based on ACTUAL near-surface temperature measurements for periods of over 35 years, (citing as requested; www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/gjma.)  It's not easy to follow, but it has some interesting features signposting what I have to elaborate next:

http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/gjma/emperor2.gif

a) Notice that most of the observed directly measured warming is in the Peninsula area of  West Antarctica, that is to say that the East (The bulk of Antarctica), is generally rather flat or cooling!
b) Notice the proximity of Patagonia, (the southern end of the Andes mountains, that was undeniably thrusted-up by tectonics),  and its similar geological features to that of the Antarctic Peninsular:  Think tectonic fault lines!

OK, let's forget the glaciologists and climatologists for a moment, and go and consult some "Coalface type scientists" called geologists.

Have you ever wondered why the WAIS, (West Antarctic Ice Sheet),  behaves so very differently to the East? (BTW, the East is where the bulk of the important GROUNDED ice is, as distinct from FLOATING ice-shelves and sea-ice)
Have you ever taken note of the tectonic considerations, and noticed the Peninsular alignment with Patagonia, and their apparent geological similarities

Here is an extract from: http://sp.lyellcollection.org/cgi/content/abstract/202/1/ ... that might be of interest.
..."Second, the present-day WAIS appears to be in a near maximum configuration that has existed at several times since 9 Ma but was rarely exceeded..."

Here is another interesting one:  "Crustal Motions of the Bedrock of the West Antarctic"  (Lots of volcanoes there etc)
http://www.ig.utexas.edu/outreach/polar/pepperoni/pdfdocs ...

There is more stuff on this aspect of (non-anthropogenic) WAIS warming available if you are interested.
Any thoughts on that?
Have you seen the NASA image of "Hot water" all around the Peninsular area (2004) , and maybe wondered why that might be so, relative to the whole?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
One step at a time!On Study shows global warming hitting all of Antarctica posted 10 months, 1 week ago 2 Responses

Bob Wallace; Run that by me again pls:

You wrote:
A 240v 70amp outlet is the equivalent of two electric dryer outlets ganged together.

In Oz, standard power outlets are 10 amp on 240 V AC/50 hertz, typical of MOST of the World.
We pride ourselves as being an advanced nation, possessing good technologies.
When you talk of electric dryers, you mean electric cloths dryers?
I have one for emergency use, which I may have used once or twice per year, which is rated at 1930 watts, (or ~8 amps x 240V)
Are you saying that a typical dryer in USA draws 8,400 watts, or 35 amps x 240 V?
I thought your domestic supply was on 110 Volts AC/60 hertzOn Photos from Plug In America's inaugural parade posted 10 months, 1 week ago 18 Responses

Sorry Bob Wallace but I could not help

smiling with your:

"If you use the optimal - 240v 70amp - then the recharge time is four hours."

Need I elaborate?On Photos from Plug In America's inaugural parade posted 10 months, 1 week ago 18 Responses

Bob Wallace on heavenly bodies:

Now, is it your opinion [B'Wallaby] that the sun shines differently on different bodies in our solar system?
Would it not be the case that if the Earth warming that we are experiencing is [partly] due to solar influence that other entities being struck by rays from the same star would be also heating, and not cooling, as some are?

What you ask appears to be very simple and logical, however, the detail science is very complicated. Bodies of different orbits, rotational presentations, (and speeds), atmospheres, materials, atmospheric circulation, albedos, thermal lag, magnetic fields, internal energy, and, and..... Will have different thermal responses to solar inputs which BTW diminish very rapidly according to the inverse square law with distance from the Sun.  Another problem is that T's cannot be directly measured but are inferred from other data, sometimes using changing methods over time.  The claims made on both sides of the debate, are really not to be taken too seriously, and are full of conjecture and exaggeration.

You only have to refer to your own SourceWatch link on Climate change skeptics, to see that various scientists contradict each other on their observations and causative hypothesese.  In your SourceWatch rebuttal section, that site refers to far distant Uranus as cooling; ref 47.  However, here is an extract from 47, (1998) which paints a rather different and puzzling picture:  (My bold emphasis added twice)

We observed a stellar occultation of the star U149 by Uranus from Lowell Observatory and the IRTF on Mauna Kea on November 6, 1998. The temperatures derived from isothermal fits to the Lowell lightcurves are 116.7 § 7.9 K for immersion, and 124.8 § 15.5 K for emersion. The secular increase in temperature seen during the period 1977-1983 has reversed. Furthermore, the rate of decrease (¸1.2 K/yr) cannot be explained solely by radiative cooling. Although the temperature structure of Uranus' upper atmosphere may be related to seasonal effects (e.g., the subsolar latitude) or local conditions (e.g., diurnally averaged insolation), these observations suggest nonradiative influences on the temperature, such as adiabatic heating/cooling or thermal conduction.

I think the latest rebuttal hypothesis for Mars is dust storms and albedo changes.  (smile)

I hope this helps you understand the complexity of the science better BobOn The ocean is absorbing less carbon dioxide posted 10 months, 1 week ago 61 Responses

Max, further to your latest post;

Please forgive me for intruding, but I can't contain myself in the face of such Wally-Wallace-BS.
Max, you listed ten (10) links relating to solar stuff, as requested by Wallace.

He responded with:

I first opened the Georgieva et al link and here's a copy right out of the abstract...

So let's get this right Bob;  You had a list of ten (10) links to study, and for some weird reason, you allege that you scanned down the list and FIRST selected #9 (# nine out of ten).

Oh really?  Would not most rationalists start from the top of the list?
Do you have any comments on #9 in its full context OR on the other nine links?

Max, again, sorry to intrude into your exchange with.....On The ocean is absorbing less carbon dioxide posted 10 months, 1 week ago 61 Responses

Human Power wrote in part:

[1]...we should all at least acknowledge that the worst-case [AGW] scenario is really not something we should risk...
[2]...Is it thus rational to continue driving around in cars and heating and cooling houses to comfortable temperatures

Footnote^:  Here are some laughable examples of energy WASTE by Americans in particular:
a)  In a TV documentary on an Australian Antarctic base, the Aussies said they get-on very well with the Americans, but they hated visiting their base because it was uncomfortably over-heated!  (HOT whilst sub-zero outside)
b)  During the 80's, when I worked in the USA, in summer, I would shiver at desk if in shirt sleeves and need to wear a jacket, (top-coat), but because of the heat outside, carry the said jacket when outside.  In winter, I could work at desk in shirt sleeves, and take-off my jacket!On The ocean is absorbing less carbon dioxide posted 10 months, 1 week ago 61 Responses

Bob Wallace

Why don't you take your swipes to Joe's blog? He'll answer you there.
I prefer this weblog because it is an excellent broader ranging site including a far more lenient editorial policy that allows criticism of the leads, unlike Climate Progress, (and real Climate)  Experience related by Max and Brute over at Harmless Sky is that some of their posts "evaporate" or remain unanswered, and they are reluctant to bless those sites with hits, as I am.

I doubt that he regularly reads the comments on this one.  
That could be true, but I hope it is not

As for that popularity vote... ... those sorts of polls are generally meaningless.  
Joe does not seem to think so;  he opened his lead with a plea for us to vote for Pharyngula!On 'Anti-science syndrome' plagues the right-wing as well as blogosphere posted 10 months, 1 week ago 10 Responses

Andrew Dressler opened his lead article with:

Tuesday, I received an email from Marc Marano, staffer for Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.). Usually, these are vectored straight into my junk folder, but apparently my computer's spam filter has a sense of humor, because this email made it into my inbox. And what I saw astounded me.

And that is before we even start to dissect his allegedly more "scientific" allegations!On Marc Morano agrees that only experts in climate feedbacks can make judgments on climate posted 10 months, 1 week ago 18 Responses

David Roberts on Trolls

Per the MS dictionary; (Meaning #7 - blogoshere) Troll vi:  fool Internet user into responding: to lure other Internet users into sending responses to carefully designed incorrect statements

David, I don't understand why you should be proud of Andrew Desslers incorrect statements in the lead article..... A surprising admission and also OFF TOPIC!
You also spoke in the plural.  Joseph Romm is one I know of that is also first class at spin and misrepresentation, but who, and how many do you have in mind?
On Marc Morano agrees that only experts in climate feedbacks can make judgments on climate posted 10 months, 1 week ago 18 Responses

Ian Forrester, really, is that so?

If you visit Roy Spencer's website, (www.DrRoySpencer.com), you will find that ALL of his articles have a WordPress setting of COMMENTS OFF.  Thus there is nothing unusual about this particular article not being offered for blog comments.  (he does not want to run blog comments on anything).  However, very clearly in large font, so that it can't be missed, immediately below, you should be able to see:

E-mail:
Roy@
DrRoySpencer.com

If you or others were to take-up THIS INVITATION with the sort of quality you have above, with absolutely no scientific value, then it becomes appropriate for him to leave you in his spam folderOn Marc Morano agrees that only experts in climate feedbacks can make judgments on climate posted 10 months, 2 weeks ago 18 Responses

MORE SPIN

Hi Andrew,
Still at it I see; misrepresenting what certain rational scientists and others that you disdain are ACTUALLY meaning in what they say.  (per context etc)
May I recommend to any passers-by, that they read the linked article above by Roy Spencer in full.

BTW;  Can anyone see the logic in Andrew's following statement?

"And since Marc Moreno sent out a link to this post, he obviously agrees that Inhofe's list is a pile of rubbish." On Marc Morano agrees that only experts in climate feedbacks can make judgments on climate posted 10 months, 2 weeks ago 18 Responses

Results from 2008 Weblog Awards

For: Best science blog, out of ten:
Winner:  Watt's Up with That:  37.6%
Second:   Pharyngula (See my post above):  32.5%  
Third:  Climate Audit (A rather "serious" scientific site):  10.9%
Oh dear!:  Real Climate:  3.8%

Hey Joe, I notice that your own Weblog, (Climate Progress, is it?), did not make it into the ten science blogs voted on.  I wondered if you may have been placed into a different category, so went to The 2008 Weblog Award Poll Navigation Page.  Amongst the 50 odd categories listed, there did not seem to be one that fits your weblog, so maybe you should contact Weblog Awards, and mention that you seem to have been overlooked.On 'Anti-science syndrome' plagues the right-wing as well as blogosphere posted 10 months, 2 weeks ago 10 Responses

Wind Turbines

Jon Rynn, you wrote in part:

how did the European and Japanese get ahead of the U.S. in manufacturing wind and solar?... ...I suppose it has something to do with all kinds of industrial policy, though, but this is being done through private firms.

Yep, how about you check this link: British commentary
On The VC models are to blame, not the green technologies posted 11 months, 1 week ago 34 Responses

Joe's Analysis of Sea Level Graph (Contin)

Joe, further to my post above, I would like to query this statement of yours in your lead article:

"Does it look to you like the recent data shows that the rate of sea-level rise has slowed, as Watts says, let alone stopped, as Inhofe suggests? If so, I suggest you get your eyes checked..."

I've since been through your references, and could not find anything suggesting that sea-level rise has stopped, as you say here:
"...rate of sea-level rise has slowed, as Watts says, let alone stopped, as Inhofe suggests?..."

Would you please advise where you got this "stopped" accusation from?On Inhofe recycles long-debunked denier talking points posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 7 Responses

APS versus Monckton

Has anyone been able to dispassionately analyse the significance of the penultimate post above, versus the mocking out-of-context nonsense from Joseph Romm?On Viscount Monckton, a British peer, says his paper was peer-reviewed by a scientist posted 1 year, 3 months ago 8 Responses

APS versus Monckton (July 31)

Here is some background with an extract from the initial issue of  July 2008 APS newsletter, Physics & Society:

This editor [Me, Jeffrey Marque] invited several people to contribute articles that were either pro or con. Christopher Monckton responded with this issue's article that argues against the correctness of the IPCC conclusion, and a pair from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, David Hafemeister and Peter Schwartz, responded with this issue's article in favor of the IPCC conclusion. We, the editors of P&S, invite reasoned rebuttals from the authors as well as further contributions from the physics community.

However, later, and clearly against the spirit of this, the on-line newsletter had the following red flag added  SOLELY against Monckton's article on the index page, and WITHIN his article. (without consultation with the author)

The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review. Its conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community. The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article's conclusions.

Monckton protested to APS, and as of  July 19 the index was revised to delete the flag, and some time later, it was also removed from his article:

Articles  [Index - revised]
A Tutorial on the Basic Physics of Climate Change. By David Hafemeister & Peter Schwartz
Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered. By Christopher Monckton

As of  July 31 (EST Oz, 10:30), BOTH articles now contain at their head, a more "carefully worded" disclaimer in normal black font; thus:

The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review, since that is not normal procedure for American Physical Society newsletters. The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007: "Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate."

Quite apart from the fact that existing APS disclaimers and policy WRT to authors views make the insertion of such flags unnecessary, the APS semantics, (Monckton claims that his article WAS peer reviewed), and the APS internal political conflict, the the APS does not appear to have responded adequately to Monckton's complaints!

Watch this space!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oh BTW, Monckton's article includes:

Acknowledgements
I am particularly grateful to Professors David Douglass and Robert Knox for having patiently answered many questions over several weeks, and for having allowed me to present a seminar on some of these ideas to a challenging audience in the Physics Faculty at Rochester University, New York; to Dr. David Evans for his assistance with temperature feedbacks; to Professor Felix Fitzroy of the University of St. Andrews for some vigorous discussions; to Professor Larry Gould and Dr. Walter Harrison for having given me the opportunity to present some of the data and conclusions on radiative transfer and climate sensitivity at a kindly-received public lecture at Hartford University, Connecticut; to Dr. Joanna Haigh of Imperial College, London, for having supplied a crucial piece of the argument; to Professor Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology for his lecture-notes and advice on the implications of the absence of the tropical mid-troposphere "hot-spot" for climate sensitivity; to Dr. Willie Soon of the Harvard Center for Astrophysics for having given much useful advice and for having traced several papers that were not easily obtained; and to Dr. Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama at Huntsville for having answered several questions in connection with satellite data. Any errors that remain are mine alone. I have not received funding from any source for this research

India you say?

Madrad,
Given that the Indian government has recently declared that it will ignore the IPCC CO2 apocalypse hypothesis, because it is in disbelief, and wants to IMPROVE the lot of its millions of poverty stricken citizens, I thought I would do a Google on your assertion that the Indian National Science Academy is a supporter of that hypothesis of doom.

I found various websites that might be relevant and digitally searched for relevant keywords to support your assertion, but found nothing.

Can you illuminate me with some evidence of your claim?On 'Global warming stopped in 1998'--Only if you flagrantly cherry pick posted 1 year, 4 months ago 170 Responses

Paleocon, you wrote in part:

If you really cared about Earth, you would get in front of the mass migrations and buy up the land where humanity will flee to as the climate changes. You could then use this wealth to actually do some good.

I see Fundie's getting out in front of legislation and regulation to get rich, but they don't seem to bet any of their own money on the climate actually changing significantly.

BRILLIANT!On The Freakonomists weigh in on the effects of warming posted 1 year, 4 months ago 14 Responses

BTW Madrad

I was testing this site to see if an image could be directly displayed, but not to my knowledge.
May I suggest you open the image @
http://regmedia.co.uk/2008/06/02/antartica_full.jpg
And then with a second window split below have the relevant text for comparison.On 'Global warming stopped in 1998'--Only if you flagrantly cherry pick posted 1 year, 4 months ago 170 Responses

~Pie*10^8

I'll have to think about that for a bit, but thanks for your help.
That includes quantum theory too?
Wormholes?On 'Global warming stopped in 1998'--Only if you flagrantly cherry pick posted 1 year, 4 months ago 170 Responses

Barry Schwarz Re Phil Jones

Here is a comment I made at another place, you may find interesting:

from Max: The Hadley "scientists" are also firm believers in and proponents of the AGW hypothesis, but they may be a bit more adverse to jiggling their record to prove their point.

Dear old Phil Jones, Briffa and Osborn are also great Hockey-Team enthusiasts and have helped to cancel the MWP (Medieval Warm Period).

According to this series of lead articles, they do appear to jiggle their data, but perhaps not as brazenly as GISS.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?cat=52On 'Global warming stopped in 1998'--Only if you flagrantly cherry pick posted 1 year, 4 months ago 170 Responses

Low Arctic sea-ice cover in 2007

Des Emery,
Check out:

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/quikscat- ...On 'Global warming stopped in 1998'--Only if you flagrantly cherry pick posted 1 year, 4 months ago 170 Responses

Barry; have you thought of:

Taking-up stand-up comedy as a career?
I couldn't do it, but I reckon you have a brazen chance if you have the confidence to do it!On 'Global warming stopped in 1998'--Only if you flagrantly cherry pick posted 1 year, 4 months ago 170 Responses

Barry; Try again. Read it carefully:

Check-out again my:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/4/175028/329#com ...
Take your time!

In your response:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/4/175028/329#com ...
I can see no logical connection either with the single point you picked-out, or the remainder of the issues I discussed which you did not comment on.
I don't know what you are trying to achieve, but please bear in mind that observers of this thread, may well be assessing your credibility!On 'Global warming stopped in 1998'--Only if you flagrantly cherry pick posted 1 year, 4 months ago 170 Responses

BTW; come end of 2008

What the heck are Hadley to do this time?On 'Global warming stopped in 1998'--Only if you flagrantly cherry pick posted 1 year, 4 months ago 170 Responses

According to Hadley

The following link to their webpage dated April 08, shows a different method for the last ten years, compared with your Email Barry.

They had to revise it back then because they did not like the results, what with last year being cold.  Notice the orange curve #1.

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/smoothing.htmlOn 'Global warming stopped in 1998'--Only if you flagrantly cherry pick posted 1 year, 4 months ago 170 Responses

Barry Schwarz, your comment #88

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/4/175028/329#com ...

Hi Barry,
I get the impression that you are a youthful enthusiast wanting to learn more about the AGW debate, and maybe trying to test your very own doubts in that arena .   I would like to help you, but in your latest response to me in your #88, I feel that you have not understood what I tried to explain to you, and so, I will not devote much more of my time to you.  (If you continue in that vein)

Barry, it takes time to understand all this stuff, and you are barraged with media and political crap from people whom have NO understanding of the science.   You demonstrated a lack of knowledge concerning Phil Jones et al, (part of the Mann et al stable) and James Hansen, although at least, you are apparently not entirely happy with Gore.  
In the Australian perspective you may be impressed by the Garnaut initial Armageddon report on Oz,  for less than 1% of the Earth's population, and the equivalent of the UK Stern report.   Do you know who and what Garnaut is?:
http://www.newmatilda.com/2008/02/25/who-ross-garnaut%3F

I'm sorry Barry: when you ask questions such as:   "What 2008 figure?", after me having supplied it to you, with its clear pictorial difference to your earlier figure, and date related information, I'm puzzled as to what you mean......and I have little patience to respond.

I would truly like you to learn more!    The following is HIGHLY RELEVANT to some of the foregoing stuff:
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/07/02/what-a-di ...
I recommend that you digest it all, including the many reply posts, with an approach to understanding it.On 'Global warming stopped in 1998'--Only if you flagrantly cherry pick posted 1 year, 4 months ago 170 Responses

Barry "Black" commented:

"We're way off topic. Is there another venue where we can continue?"

I can't think of one for the moment.
Neither have I known any blog-thread to NOT wander-off the original topic.  It is the typical nature of the beast.

You could of course as a purist, raise your own lead-post somewhere, and try and keep it under control.

It doesn't come to my mind at the moment but I know of a site where I have posted my own blogs.  If you are interested I could elaborate.On 'Global warming stopped in 1998'--Only if you flagrantly cherry pick posted 1 year, 4 months ago 170 Responses

Hey Kup....Peak Oil

Here is a very quick answer to yours:

•  I am not at all concerned by the increase of a few parts per MILLION of CO2 in the atmosphere! It is trivial compared with the comparatively vast amounts of water in it's almost supernatural three phases.  (including latent heat transfer in its phase changes, various cloud generations, water vapour, {by far the greatest GHG}, and whatnot)

•  I am very deeply alarmed by the "peak oil" situation, which in reality I think is not in the future, but is ramping-up right now.   Demand and speculation etc, is apparently outstripping resources, (supply), real, or politically otherwise.  The consequences are potentially very grave in my view, especially for the poverty stricken third world.

•  Of course, there is an urgent need to develop alternative mobile fuels and feedstocks for the chemical industries such as plastics, but this is nothing to do with the AGW alarmism in my view.

Barry; sucked-in by Phil Jones et al?

Max,
(And, Barry, please note:)
I don't wish to interfere with your exchange with Barry, but just a couple of things I should mention so that you can be aware that Barry ought be well familiarized with some of this stuff.
Re: his visits primarily to my ClimateAudit BB thread:  "A strong UHI effect indicator?" under "Surface Record".  
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1)  Perhaps to fill-in the perspective a bit first; Barry's Hadley reference does not appear to have a date, but it is notable that the year 2007 bar is coloured green, which means in Hadley lingo that it was an estimate back then; whenever.  Thus, Barry perhaps should be aware that:
This also means that the Hadley MSU bit in the last ten years was under the old method before Hadley became embarrassed by cold weather over the past 12 months or so and had to change their coding to show a new preferred arbitrary trend, as an implied continuation of 21-point smoothing.  (which cannot be done without MSU "data" 10 years into the future!)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
2)   Hadley wrote in part, back then whenever:
"Another way of looking at the warming trend is that 1999 was a similar year to 2007 as far the cooling effects of La Niña are concerned. The 1999 global temperature was 0.26 °C above the 1961-90 average, whereas 2007 was 0.37 °C above this average, 0.11 °C warmer than 1999."

What a load of old bollocks!   (additional expletives edited out)  Take a look at the ENSO  together with the PDO on:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3287/2615685346_eeb693e1a3 ...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
3)   Barry, should also be well aware that there is a typical "correction" after any up or down spike, and that the sharp reversal of T in 1999 & 2000 after the high of 1998 is thus not unusual.   It is all over the Hadley bar chart if you look.   Incidentally, after an initial objection/ query from Pliny, an alarmist mathematician on the BB, I explained this statistically significant correction with him, and he did not contest my view.  (but in true form, changed subject)
(BTW, I still have difficulty as to why 1998 air and sea global average was significantly hotter than 1997, when most of the measured oceanic cyclic warming was in 1997, followed by cooling in 1998)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
4)   Barry should also be aware that the later Hadley presentation which is part of the comparisons in the link I post above, shows a break-over in the smoothed curve with a suggestive broken blue line, ending at 2006.   So why did they stop short at 2006?   Well maybe because the raw data suggests a sharp down-trend from thereon that they don't like to see, somewhat similar to what happened around 1940?   Ho Hum!On 'Global warming stopped in 1998'--Only if you flagrantly cherry pick posted 1 year, 5 months ago 170 Responses

Info for Barry Schwarz

Here is a post I made on another site to someone that claims to be a professor in computer science.
(an AGW alarmist)

David Benson,
Putting aside for the moment that you have still not answered some severally repeated questions, I now present to you a comparison between the Hadley picture on global surface air temperature including raw annual averages and 21-point smoothing, and that of ten-year block averaging by Tamino. To further the debate, I actually broke my general principle, of not to open any link to Tamino et al or any like fundies, for not wanting to increase their website hit-counts. However, curiosity overtook me on this occasion, and it reaffirms that I should try to continue to follow my earlier principle in general.

I have already commented that as an engineer, (retired), I CANNOT possibly approve 10-year block averaging in this matter. (where there is a lot of noise). I'm further shocked to discover that Tamino appears to do his 10-year averaging, not as a centre-mean, 5 years each side, but as an end of block average. (EACH point is the average of the preceding ten years, not five years each side! (Gadzooks, and toss me over with a sparrow feather!)

David, if you are computer scientist, it is most disappointing to me that you have been sucked-in by Tamino. Please study the following graphical mark-ups which show that Tamino transmits great-big-heap-merde!
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3171/2611917765_9f96c36086 ...

Additionally, you do not seem to want to admit that the Hadley raw annual data shows a plateau back in 1940, and that the current plateau is looking ever-more similar.
Please check this: my quickly and crudely prepared comparison:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3061/2611926499_8b1dd2688d ...
On 'Global warming stopped in 1998'--Only if you flagrantly cherry pick posted 1 year, 5 months ago 170 Responses

5 + 5 years

Barry Schwarz wrote:

I began on this thread, and am still interested in a response to my simple attempt for the last ten years. Because it is so simple, I am surprised that it hasn't been addressed in the posts since I put it forward. What is wrong with it (apart from the obvious shortcoming that 10 years is too short to establish a climate trend)?
The average temperature of the last five years is greater than the average temperature of the previous five, therefore the trend for the decade is warming.
If you can point out the problem with my very simple analysis, I can take a step down the road to learning better on this subject. I'm not so good at math, but I'm quick to grasp things conceptually.

The quick simple answer I have is that your method of analysis is too simple.

Furthermore, if you can show in your belief system that there is a slight incline in T over the last decade, so what?

Let me draw a comparison with mount Kilimanjaro in Africa.  Most people will agree that atop this massive, it is a plateau.   However, if you try to walk across it, it will be far from flat and quite exhausting!!!!!!!!!
(nevertheless, it IS a plateau)On 'Global warming stopped in 1998'--Only if you flagrantly cherry pick posted 1 year, 5 months ago 170 Responses

HELLO Christophersj; found you again

You seemed to have abandoned us on an earlier thread after some reality questions were raised with you.  Your last post was @

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/6/12/102024/948/#co ...

It would be nice if you were to grace us with your wisdom on the later unnswered mattersOn U.S. federal report details climate change's impact on weather extremes posted 1 year, 5 months ago 29 Responses

Mad Mac Sanity

Nicely put by you!

I often scratch my head, so badly that I end-up with splinters under my fingernails.
Why is it that environmentalists cannot abide GOOD NEWS?
It is so incomprehensible!
Self flaggellation?
Bi-polar disorder?
I don't get it!On Mainstream media misses connection between global warming and Midwest floods posted 1 year, 5 months ago 120 Responses

Savvy thou Savee

Savee419 wrote in part to Brute:

".....Why are you visiting a website that focuses on environmental news and commentary if you have nothing positive to contribute? "

HOWEVER; brute is contributing very positively by trying to communicate to you alarmists, things like; there is nothing unusual about the recent weather.  So too is Max, and that there is no reason to blame recent events on AGW.

You should not ignore this GOOD NEWS....oh thou prophet of doomOn Mainstream media misses connection between global warming and Midwest floods posted 1 year, 5 months ago 120 Responses

Reply to Barry Schwarz

I must congratulate you on your big response, but disappointed you have not read the BB posts that I linked to.  Unfortunately, I simply do not have the time or stamina to respond to all this stuff, so will beg your leave.

Just a couple of tips, and quick parting points:

•   Long posts such as yours that contain many links are often put into the mediation/spam queue, so you need to wait rather than re-post.
  
•   It is best not to split out individual sentences as quotes, and debate them out of full context....It can be quite irritating to the other party.
  
•   Blogger  JAE over on the BB is I understand, a chemist in background but has extensive knowledge of physics including quantum theory.  He is a valuable contributor to the science under debate there on many threads.  If you would like to express your views  on his scientific competence as you have here, why not post there?   To be fair, you should!
  
•   Please note that when you quoted me:  "There is an immediate political response to this fairly neutral opening";  that `fairly neutral' does not translate to `totally neutral'
  
•   Yes I have read 3AR and AR4 WG1 with the exception of some chapters which I deem unimportant.  I have also read the AR4 WG1 expert review comments to the first and second order drafts, which are huge.  (~11,000 comments?) These are important too, you know, including the stuff which was "ignored" by the IPCC authors.
  
•    In your search for the truth you might also be interested in "List of errors and omissions etc in IPCC AR4 Report"@  http://www.climateaudit.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3& ...
  
•    If you are looking for a debating site where you will be heard, (and not edited out), there are a bunch of guys there that are feeling lost, because two ardent alarmist AGW warming physicists have departed the site, leaving them alone.  May I suggest you take a look @
  

Sorry Barry, you are obviously very keen and hardworking...... I admire it, but it is more than I can spare in my priorities!On 'Global warming stopped in 1998'--Only if you flagrantly cherry pick posted 1 year, 5 months ago 170 Responses

Welcome back TP

Hey Tasermons Partner,

I've just noticed your fingerprints on the recent comments list.
Did you have a nice holiday?
We missed you
Awaiting your wisdomOn Alaska legislature looking for polar-bear skeptics posted 1 year, 5 months ago 159 Responses

Graphical smoothing again

Hi Barry,
As a matter of principle, I do not open links to SkepticalScience or RealClimate (or Tamino/RayPierreH references), because in the first instance, I hold little credence for what they claim and manipulate.  Furthermore, the last thing I want to do is give them any benefit by increasing their website hit-count.

However, I will quickly answer what you wrote, quote:
"Elsewhere I put it that 1998 is an anomaly and it would be statistically valid to excise it (and other spikes downward or upward similar in magnitude) from the profile in order to get the underlying trend. For the same purpose, in some reconstructions the ENSO signal has been removed - el Nino and la Nina - to reduce the amount of noise from 'weather'."

How much do you excise and under what rules?  Regardless, you cannot "legally" do that unless you also excise the typical two year reversals which follow such spikes.  How do you do that?  Add a bit on?  How much for year 1 and year 2?  Please study the Hadley graph more carefully, and you should be able to see that the repetition of this internal "correction" over the 150 years is so remarkable and frequent, that 1999 and 2000 is just more of the same, and 1998 is just a typical spike.  The net smoothing of each spike with the following 2-year reversals is in effect an internal correction to the noise you worry about.  As far as I am aware, Hadley and others issue the raw data and apply smoothing techniques without excising anything.   Why do you think that Hadley and even GISS, and others are not smart enough to do the excising that you discuss?
Is it Tamino(?) trying to pull a fast one over you!

BTW, I posted @ 7:33 PM blog-time, and you responded @t 8:05 PM.   Even if you saw my post instantaneously, which would be "lucky", that would give you a max of 32 minutes to digest the information I gave, go and find your reference, compose a reply, and post it.   Please demonstrate a little more care-time if you would like me to continue explaining things to you.  It took me about half an hour to do my quickie post....I was watching the clock.... but it was easy and all in my head, and I had immediate access to my links.

Let's see how we go here before I respond to some other points that you raised.

Regards BobFJ (AKA Black Wallaby)  (Of NE Melbourne Oz)On 'Global warming stopped in 1998'--Only if you flagrantly cherry pick posted 1 year, 5 months ago 170 Responses

Blame global warming-The list

Hi John Bignell,
Sorry, I should have said your list, not brute's.

I also remember in Essex and London the very common lament:
It's The Bomb you knowOn Mainstream media misses connection between global warming and Midwest floods posted 1 year, 5 months ago 120 Responses

Welcome!

Hi Barry Schwarz,  You wrote in part:

"Firstly, it's my understanding that the period is too short to establish a climate shift - 30 years is the minimum recommended by the WMO. In that regard, I don't think the period covered in this topic is sufficiently long. Nevertheless.."

I would recommend that you do not select short spans of data from tabulations.  (and 5 years is definitely too short!). It is much better and easier to understand trends from graphical representations on a less selective and wider time-span, both sides of what you are considering.

I present to you a link to a marked-up version of the relevant Hadley (UK Met Office) data which may better explain what appears to be happening over the last ten years, compared with what appears to be a remarkably similar event around 1940
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2131/2458648692_1701416471 ...
It will take a year or three to be absolutely sure or not, but I can also show strong evidence of a regular periodicity, that appears to be  breaking-over right now.

Please note that the Hadley graphical data comes with an arbitrary 20-year (or 21-point) smoothing, which breaks-down in the final ten years.  To apply the same code logic through to say 2007, data is required through to 2017, which of course is impossible.  Thus, debatable methods are used by Hadley for the last ten years.

That will do for now.  If you would like to digest this and then ask any questions, please do.

Regards BobFJ, (AKA Black Wallaby) On 'Global warming stopped in 1998'--Only if you flagrantly cherry pick posted 1 year, 5 months ago 170 Responses

And another thing....

....that Jabailo forgot to include is that in these exchanges of views between fundies and rationalists, if the fundies are desperately losing the debate and/or are outnumbered, they sometimes use yet another defence ploy:
The dreaded ID conspiracy!

Like perhaps Brute, Jabailo and me are all one and the same person but under a range of ID's.On Mainstream media misses connection between global warming and Midwest floods posted 1 year, 5 months ago 120 Responses

More Christophers stuff

Christophersj wrote in part:
"...This is the same misunderstanding that caused FOX News to misquote Al Gore's NPR interview a few weeks ago. Gore was careful to acknowledge both sides of this understanding I have written above..."

Are you aware that most of the world does not watch/listen/read FOX news?   What is it?  Should I in the antipodes understand what you are saying?

Christopphersj also wrote in part:
"...But I think Black Wallaby knows that the real science tells a more realistic truth and is pointing out more foolish statements to forward his agenda..."
(My emphasis added)

There are actually several aspects in the AGW (Armageddon Grievous Weather) debate, of which ONE of the commonest is media reporting of the most recent worst-ever disastrous bit of weather which is obviously caused by AGW.   Thus, in this aspect alone, I cannot see why you think it is foolish to point out that the recent worst-ever weather has been exceeded by even much worse ever events in the past.

Please explain the logic of your criticism.
Please also explain: what is my agenda in your eyesOn Mainstream media misses connection between global warming and Midwest floods posted 1 year, 5 months ago 120 Responses

Oh really Christophers?

Christophersj wrote in part, my emphasis added:
"...Virtually ALL climatologist who have peer reviewed published findings about Anthropogenic Global Warming have said this:
"While Global Warming cannot be linked directly to an individual weather event because of other factors, the science says that extremes in severity and number of both drought and wet storms are more likely with more CO2 in the atmosphere, than with less."
The science only talks about rates and severity over time -- NOT specific weather events..."

Oh really? Can you point me to any peer reviewed papers that say this?   I'm aware of various pronouncements of an opinionated nature, and media, but have not stumbled upon anything scientific.  I know for instance, that Chris Landsea, an eminent hurricane expert resigned from the IPCC when "that big mouth" Kevin Trenberth publicly contradicted his expertise, with crap, and the IPCC club would not support Landsea probably because of Trenberth's entrenchment in the club.   I've seen a lot of rubbish, but NO SCIENCE.  Please enlighten me.On Mainstream media misses connection between global warming and Midwest floods posted 1 year, 5 months ago 120 Responses

Remember that bad hurricane?

Per Wikipedia;
At least 1,836 people lost their lives in Hurricane Katrina and in the subsequent floods, making it the deadliest U.S. hurricane since the 1928 Okeechobee Hurricane. The storm is estimated to have been responsible for $81.2 billion (2005 U.S. dollars) in damage, making it the costliest natural disaster in U.S. history. The catastrophic failure of the flood protection in New Orleans prompted immediate review of the Army Corps of Engineers, which has, by congressional mandate, sole responsibility for design and construction of the flood protection and levee systems.

As I understand it, it was not a particularly bad hurricane; its just that there were some bad circumstances.  But what about that hurricane, 80 years ago, per Wikipedia:

In south Florida at least 2,500 were killed when storm surge from Lake Okeechobee breached the dike surrounding the lake, flooding an area covering hundreds of square miles. In total, the hurricane killed at least 4,078 people and caused around $100 million ($1 billion 2006 US dollars) in damages over the course of its path.

What were the man-made to CO2 levels in 1928?On Mainstream media misses connection between global warming and Midwest floods posted 1 year, 5 months ago 120 Responses

An Alaskan opinion on polar bears

http://community.adn.com/adn/node/123321

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) today released the following statement in response to the Department of the Interior's decision to list polar bears as "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act.

"I am disappointed and disturbed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's decision to weaken the Endangered Species Act by listing the polar bear as threatened despite the steady increase in the species' population. Scientists have observed that there are now three times as many polar bears in the Arctic than there were in the 1970s.

"Never before has a species been listed as endangered or threatened while occupying its entire geographic range.

"This decision was made without any research demonstrating dangerously low population levels in polar bears, but rather on speculation regarding how ice levels will affect Arctic wildlife. Worse yet, today's decision cannot and will not do anything to reverse sea ice decline.

"Instead, this action by the Fish and Wildlife Service sets a dangerous precedent with far-reaching social and economic ramifications. It opens the door for many other Arctic species to be listed, which would severely hamper Alaska's ability to tap its vast natural resources. Reinterpreting the Endangered Species Act in this way is an unequivocal victory for extreme environmentalists who want to block all development in our state.

"The manipulation of the Endangered Species Act was highlighted by Kassie Siegel, the lawyer who wrote the legal petition for the Center for Biological Diversity. Ms. Siegel made no attempt to disguise her group's intent when she said that the effort to list the polar bears was to `try to make the point that global warming is not some future threat'. This statement confirms that these fringe environmentalists are simply using the polar bears to advance their extreme agenda.

He goes on...

I only hope he has not ground-down his teeth in justifiable angerOn Alaska legislature looking for polar-bear skeptics posted 1 year, 5 months ago 159 Responses

Repeating

Hey you Tassie Devil

AKA Tasermons Partner,
Just a few points:

1. I think I can claim primacy with a fourth repeat of you to respond to a) b) & c)
   
2. What makes you think I did not read the DOI report, and that I should not consider other reports which may not agree with it or show a different situation elswhwere?
   
3. I'd still like to know if it makes your heart pulse-rate increase when you see a polar bear on film attacking a mature large seal
   
4. It's a bit like "If you show me yours, I'll show you mine"
   

Wow!

Tasermons Partner,
For the first time, I have no disagreement with you!  I'm so disturbed by that, I'm not sure if I will sleep well tonight.  I may have to turn the radio up real loud or something to stop my brain spinning.  If I don't sleep well, I may even send you something really shitty tomorrow, so brace youself!

BTW, why do you run-away from the recent thread, starting from:
http://www.grist.org/news/2008/05/07/alaska/index.html#co ...On GM acknowledges that it lost the bet on big vehicles posted 1 year, 5 months ago 7 Responses

For potential taddy daddy

If you do succesfully have a progeny of hundreds or thousands of little taddies, look at it this way.  It might be an improvement for the biosphere!  (Although it is rather complicated to confirm that)

You may nevertheless have something to be nominally proud of for a change!

Go for it.....go froggy humpyOn 'There is no consensus'--If this is not consensus, what would consensus look like? posted 1 year, 5 months ago 109 Responses

Warmest decade on record

Back in the 1940's, when there was little build-up in CO2, it was the warmest decade on record. Then there was a significant cooling period, just as CO2 started to accelerate.
Check it out if you don't believe me!On Why does the Post let conservative columnists make up climate facts? posted 1 year, 5 months ago 6 Responses

Too hard

I guess the questions to Dr Dessler, the author of the lead article, inviting comment, are too hard for himOn Global temps may drop this year but, alas, world still warming posted 1 year, 5 months ago 132 Responses

According to GISS

The average temperature anomally for the past ten years has been ~0.6C.
= a plateauOn Drudge hijacks headlines to sell global warming denial posted 1 year, 5 months ago 5 Responses

Relieve your frustrations

Is this perhaps the bullfrog breeding season?
Go clasp your strong forearms around one of the opposite gender, and make taddies, daddy.
Feel proud about something for an absolute change .... lots of little taddies!
Don't be scared of being naughty....have fun!On 'There is no consensus'--If this is not consensus, what would consensus look like? posted 1 year, 5 months ago 109 Responses

The loneliness of polar bears!

"NDISC: May 5, 2008; Overview of conditions of Arctic sea-ice
For the month of April, Arctic sea ice extent stood at 14.49 million square kilometers (5.59 million square miles), which is 0.61 million square kilometers (0.24 million square miles) greater than April 2007, but is still 0.51 million square kilometers (0.20 million square miles) less than the 1979 to 2000 average for April."

Those poor polar bears!  At ~500 square kilometres range per bear in April, (ignoring ice-shelves and a lot of land), how can they ever find any humpy?  I bet they can't wait for August to come with a more sensible range!On Alaska legislature looking for polar-bear skeptics posted 1 year, 6 months ago 159 Responses

ReTasermons Partner at 10:17 AM on 27 May

WRT our following exchange:
ME:  "And, Ah yes, volcanoes long, long ago, the complete solution for everything, with precise records of the particulates and gasses regional distributions and regional longevity, reduced albedo on snow/ice, etc and whatnot! "
YOU: "Yes, you're absolutely right of course, it wasn't volcanic activity at all...it was magical pixies! Okay, please show me links to scientific papers which claim the cool period was caused by somethin' other than volcanic activity."

Dear TP, to help you understand my cynical/satirical comment better, (I hope !), I've added emphasis to four, two, and two, key words.  What you need to understand is that nature is complicated, and that there are commonly multiple reasons for natural cycles, not just one cause.  If you would be kind enough to answer my questions a), b) and c) above yours, I will be in a better position to give a fuller answer
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You quoted me thus
"d) Could you please expand on what you mean by:
"...you're confusin' the temperature data with melt data..." "
And came back with a lengthy explanation which I translate to mean:
Ice melts faster the warmer it is relative to freezing point, and melts a greater net amount the longer it is warmer than freezing point.
Gee! After 5 years doing full-time maybe 10% specifically thermodynamics, that would never have occurred to me.....I'm indebted with your advice TP
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In reponse to my puzzled enquiry about your reference to ice-cores on sea ice, you gave some links and then wrote in part:

"...Most of it refers to samples from Greenland, Antartica, and various glaciers (since, as ya said, those are more common), but there is some data from both Arctic sea ice as well (though records don't go back as far)..."

In case you are not aware, let me advise that there are basically four basic types of ice, and/or firn within the realm of where you have wandered:

•  Ice-sheets, eg, Greenland and Antarctica grounded ice (1)
  
•  Ice-caps, that are somewhat similar, but far more dynamic on high mountains (1)
  
•  Ice -shelves:  basically extrusions from ice sheets that are floating on water
  
•  Sea ice, comprising frozen sea water, (at ~2C compared with fresh water 0C)  (2)
  

Would you be kind enough to single-out the ice-core data for sea ice, because that is what we started off discussing, and it is unfair for you to link to mostly irrelevant material

As I have explained, I won't be back on broadband until 1, June, so take your time. On Alaska legislature looking for polar-bear skeptics posted 1 year, 6 months ago 159 Responses

Oh my great crystal balls !!!!!!!!

Scaley Anteater wrote at 11:09 PM on 29 Apr:

"...Sell the bass boat unless you have a diesel outboard. The Navy is going to have lots of scrap steel handy for making bicycles."

Well now, barely a month later, in Australia, the price of diesel has soared quite painfully.  Is it similar in the USA empire?

Do you understand why?On If biofuels are sustainable, we should be able to show it posted 1 year, 6 months ago 26 Responses

Ice-cores V ice samples?

Re Tasermons Partner at 6:49 PM on 26 May

"Tis a miserable damp winter day here, and I've sat-down early, with a glass of Cabernet-Merlot + cheese, unusually early:

Earlier you wrote about ice-core samples, and I mentioned that that stuff is normally talked about WRT the two big ice-sheets, and not sea-ice that I'm aware of.  As you may be aware, sea-ice is annually deciduous, and sheds to warmer waters together with iceberg calving.  It is pushed-out by extending ice-shelves and wind etc

I see that you seem to be hedging your bets now, re millennial records, and the difference between ice and firn, and the difference between ice sheets and sea ice.   (with ice-shelves in-between)........will that do for now?

You also wrote:  Could provide some links...
Well why don't you? ......but see my following post...... I will not download until 1, June earliest.On Alaska legislature looking for polar-bear skeptics posted 1 year, 6 months ago 159 Responses

More reading is recommended TP

I say young chappy, you have been astonishingly disrespectful of your elder's advice.  So exquisitely so, that I would describe it as very naughty, and your mommy should spank you.

A recommendation was that you should carefully read Brute's long post above....maybe it was too long for you in one day, but take care, take your time, and possibly come to comprehension with a more prolonged effort.

For instance why do you claim that recent ice melting in the Arctic is unusual, when records outside of the brief satellite data, show that it was warmer in the early 1900's?   Did this information fail to register upon your first reading?On Alaska legislature looking for polar-bear skeptics posted 1 year, 6 months ago 159 Responses

Albedo, (Reflectivity) in high latitudes

In an exchange with Robco1 @  12:24 AM on 23 May, I wrote:
I have just stumbled upon a tabulation of various Earth albedos, and extract four lines, that seem to suggest that you are just shooting the breeze, from:
http://www.udel.edu/Geography/DeLiberty/Geog474/geog474_e ... ...
Material........Percentage of light reflected
Fresh snow......................80-95
Old snow.........................50-60
Water (Sun near horizon)...50-80
Water (Sun near zenith).....3-5
You were saying. Robco1?
Ask me if you do not understand the data, or advise if you have conflicting data

It was to be taken in the context of earlier discussions.  The crux of the matter, is that this source of data, (Udel), publishes what seems counter-intuitive, that water can reflect sunlight at about the same level, or even more than old snow, when the sun is low in the sky.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Enter Peter Martin @ 8:23PM on 23 May, and 6:49AM on 24 May
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Notice that in his extensive obfuscation, he does not say that Udel are wrong, but wanders-off into his contrary opinions and alarmism by others, etc.  He even accuses ME of not defining old versus new snow as published by UDEL.  

Others may rise to his bait, (trolling), but I prefer to ignore itOn Alaska legislature looking for polar-bear skeptics posted 1 year, 6 months ago 159 Responses

Re; Peter Martin

For the benefit of readers here, he has come across from New Statesman Magazine @
http://www.newstatesman.com/environment/2008/01/global-wa ...
Currently there are 1364 posts just on this huge thread.  He is the sole AGW alarmist there and his efforts arguing against many rationalists can be commended for his persistence.  However, he never answers hard questions, changes subject, and obfuscates in a tireless manner, for which I no longer have patience to respond to him directly.

For instance, in his post above @
http://www.grist.org/news/2008/05/07/alaska/index.html#co ...
He wrote in part:  
"You (Black Wallaby) don't define what you mean by old and new snow. From my limited experience on ski slopes I can't say that I have noticed much difference. All clean snow is highly reflective, and sunvisors are always recommended to guard against the glare from the snow. You don't get the same glare from water."

What a load of waffle!
1)  I don't define anything, I am merely quoting data from:
http://www.udel.edu/Geography/DeLiberty/Geog474/geog474_e ...   If he disagrees with this data source, he should give grounds why he thinks they are wrong
2)  Standing on snow with normal reflection is geometrically very different from reflection from the sun low in the sky from water
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
May I suggest that the data from Udel (Link immediately above) is probably more reliable than Peter Martins unbacked opinion and guesswork
On Alaska legislature looking for polar-bear skeptics posted 1 year, 6 months ago 159 Responses

Amazing sludge

Hey amazngdrx,
Could you please translate what you wrote above into common understandable English language?
That way, I and other passers-by may comprehend what you are trying to sayOn Drudge hijacks headlines to sell global warming denial posted 1 year, 6 months ago 5 Responses

There is more

Hi Randy,
You might find some entertainment in reading some of Andrew Dessler's blogs on Gristmill, here is his site CV:

I am a professor in the Dept. of Atmospheric Sciences at Texas A&M University. My research focuses on the physics of climate change, in particular, climate feedbacks. I spent 2000 as a Senior Policy Analyst in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. While there, I became extremely interested in how science gets used in policy decisions. I have also published a book, The Science and Politics of Global Climate Change: A Guide to the debate (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2006).

He is a master of avoiding the hard question, but his more recent threads have been less strident in his pursuance of AGW alarmism, and less in character assisnation of other scientists who disagree with him.

I could fill you in with detail of some of the more interesting threads if you are interestedOn 'Global warming is part of a natural cycle'--This idea is one short step above appealing to magic posted 1 year, 6 months ago 39 Responses

Yehbut wot about the data & science?

Robco1 wrote way up there @
http://www.grist.org/news/2008/05/07/alaska/index.html#co ...

"Nice try, Bob. [Black Wallaby]  Not even close. Heck, this was even demonstrated on a Discovery Channel TV show with an infared monitor in the arctic circle. 23 hours of summer sunlight more than make up for the angle. Ice and snow reflect up to 70% of sunlight, but darker water only about 10%. Maybe BHP can send you to NZ's South Island in a month, and you can test it for yourself on a glacier? ;-)"

I suspect Robco1, from various things you have said that you are either brainwashed by RealClimate, or/and, are without any scientific background.  Let me give you a tad of tuition concerning that awesome substance; water.   Among many other amazing (God-like) things, it has a surface tension layer which has significant optical properties.  It has zero reflective qualities with normally opposed light, but as the angle approaches the horizontal, it is like a mirror.  This can be seen by observation of the Sun setting over water, depending to a degree on the water roughness.

I have just stumbled upon a tabulation of various Earth albedos, and extract four lines, that seem to suggest that you are just shooting the breeze, from:
http://www.udel.edu/Geography/DeLiberty/Geog474/geog474_e ...

Material........Percentage of light reflected
Fresh snow......................80-95
Old snow.........................50-60
Water (Sun near horizon)...50-80
Water (Sun near zenith).....3-5

You were saying. Robco1?
Ask me if you do not understand the data, or advise if you have conflicting dataOn Alaska legislature looking for polar-bear skeptics posted 1 year, 6 months ago 159 Responses

Some answers

Tasermons Partner asked a question above at click here:

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/5/2/115552/7430#com ...

And a response and other interesting stuff followed.

Wherfore fart thou TP
On Next decade may see rapid warming, not cooling posted 1 year, 6 months ago 8 Responses

Succinctly....

Concerning the numbers, elucidated by Brute, and the contrary views of Canadians concerning the USA's strange legislation........

The question is...........?

(Goodie goodie greenie fundies, please offer your valued wisdom)
On Alaska legislature looking for polar-bear skeptics posted 1 year, 6 months ago 159 Responses

CO2 regionality and validity

Hi Davkel,
Sorry for delay here is that study that questions the validity of the published data from Muana Loa and also ice cores etc

http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/np-m-119.pdf
On Climate change must be examined over decades, not years posted 1 year, 6 months ago 68 Responses

But what about the numbers?

Repeat from 10 may 2008

Oil Consumption, partly revised 10, May 2008:
USA:  20,730,000 bbl/day  (~25% of the world usage)  (0.068 per capita)
China: 6,534,000 bbl/day
India:  2,450,000 bbl/day
The World:   82,234,918 bbl/day

Ref: Germany: 2,650,000 bbl/day   (0,032 per capita...less than half of the USA)
Ref: UK: 1,827,000 bbl/day   (0.030 per capita; less still)

Re:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con-energy-oil- ... ... ... ...

Population Clocks
U.S. 303,917,023   (~4.6% of the World)....(~12.5% of India + China)
World 6,663,106,867
06:29 GMT (EST+5) Apr 23, 2008

Other sources:  Population of India and China:  ~ 2,450,000,000 (corrected 10 May)
Germany  ~82.5 million (2004), projected 80.3 million by 2015.
UK   60,943,912 (July 2008 CIA est.)

Anyone interested?
On How to get people to pay attention to peak oil posted 1 year, 6 months ago 45 Responses

Polar bears endangered

Are Canadians worried?
What are they doing?
Don't they have large numbers there?
On Polar bears threatened, but drilling in their habitat still OK, says Interior posted 1 year, 6 months ago 13 Responses

BTW Dogthrush

Have not seen you for a while on "Alas Alaska", so you may have missed this photo of a cuddly grizzly-polar hybrid>

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/images/be ...
On Bush admin to list polar bears as threatened; advocates pledge to continue the fight posted 1 year, 6 months ago 12 Responses

Bears are very inquisitive & intelligent!

This is what would happen IF, repeat IF, the Antarctic ice melted a great deal.

Dark females would move north, because they know that "size does count"
White males would move south looking for more "humpy"
Dark males would be pushed further south by bigger white males, and would be less able to pass-on their genes
Interfering fundie greenies would set up "arctic seal" sanctuaries to protect them from excessive predation by the bears, when the seals birth on exposed rocks.
White bears would learn from the darkies to modify their diet, especially to increased vegetarianism, fish catching and stuff.
(Because it would be less cold, the whites would not need so much high-fat diet)
Forgotten dark genetic tendencies would tend to re-emerge in the whites
Biological diversity would be increased by greater hybridisation.

Doesn't seem too bad to me.
After all, black humans seem to survive OK in Detroit, and it's tough enough for the whites!  (although many humans have some social mores about hybridization)

BTW, I don't know if the Australian expression "humpy" is universal, but see this photo of an Oz road-sign which explains succinctly:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3286/2496677998_46fb7aa3e9 ...
Zoom-out if necessary

Oh, and here's an excellent photo of a grizzly-polar hybrid:  (Grolar, grizlar?)
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/images/be ...
Cute and cuddly, aren't they?.... Why not set-it-up as wallpaper on your desktop?

Oh and BTW......Try this:
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/03/arctic-se ...
Bad news for shipping and peak oil!
Bugger!   Just as the Vikings were thinking of returning to Greenland too!On Alaska legislature looking for polar-bear skeptics posted 1 year, 6 months ago 159 Responses

Can't trust what part of NASA?

GISS maybe?

Right....For instance....This has got to be a load of crap....what utter nonsense @

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/quikscat- ...

EXTRACT:

"...Nghiem said the rapid decline in winter perennial ice the past two years was caused by unusual winds. "Unusual atmospheric conditions set up wind patterns that compressed the sea ice, loaded it into the Transpolar Drift Stream and then sped its flow out of the Arctic," he said. When that sea ice reached lower latitudes, it rapidly melted in the warmer waters.

"The winds causing this trend in ice reduction were set up by an unusual pattern of atmospheric pressure that began at the beginning of this century," Nghiem said..."
On Human-caused warming is resulting in a broad range of impacts across the globe posted 1 year, 6 months ago 5 Responses

Polar bears

Here is a recent report showing that polar bears are highly adaptable and intelligent.

http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s3i33312

Does it bother you guys that they can also hybridize with the GrizzlyOn Alaska legislature looking for polar-bear skeptics posted 1 year, 6 months ago 159 Responses

On piccolo funghi

I also like the various blue cheeses, especially Stilton.....ecstacy with adrop of red!On Alaska legislature looking for polar-bear skeptics posted 1 year, 6 months ago 159 Responses

But GISS also published this:

Check this out and you will see that there has been a plateau for the last decade:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.lrg.gif

In other words the average temperature anomally for the last ten years has been about 0.6 degrees COn Drudge hijacks headlines to sell global warming denial posted 1 year, 6 months ago 5 Responses

Sorry Dog Fungus

I should have said penultimately aboveOn Alaska legislature looking for polar-bear skeptics posted 1 year, 6 months ago 159 Responses

WIKIPEDIA?

TP, are you aware how wiki is constructed, and how, especially on emotive issues, it can be agenda driven?

It can be a useful starting point but great care must be taken to check the wider realm of information especially when emotional issues are involved.On Alaska legislature looking for polar-bear skeptics posted 1 year, 6 months ago 159 Responses

Albedo and heat

Robco1 wrote in part:

"...don't you think that loosing the reflectivity of all that bright white ice will have an, um, effect on global systems?..."

Did you know that most of the heat in high latitudes actually comes from the tropics?

Did you know that the albedo of ice up there is not hugely different to that of water, when the sun is low in the sky?  (take a look at the sun over water near sunset)

Did you know......oh that will do
On Alaska legislature looking for polar-bear skeptics posted 1 year, 6 months ago 159 Responses

Yep, it's all about priorities

We could spend millions or billions of $ supporting a micro eco-system in antlantic waters.....how many species up there compared with warmer climes?....or we could spend it on relieving the SUFFERING of millions of humans.

That's if something untoward happens up there of course.   You, know, whilst meanwhile it gets colder in the AntarcticOn Alaska legislature looking for polar-bear skeptics posted 1 year, 6 months ago 159 Responses

T.P's, Confusion

Tasermons Partner,

You are wrong and confused about many things with polar bears.  Here are a couple, just as a quickie:

1)  You wrote:  "Polar bears are usually extremely territorial animals."
Untrue according to your Wikipedia link.

2)   You misunderstood this exchange:

ME: If polar bear predation became too great in Alaska, then I'm sure the US authorities would set-up sanctuaries, after culling the bears if necessary.

YOU: That's the whole point of listin' polar bears as endangered.  Endangered species get those sanctuaries.  They wouldn't get culled though.

Silly boy; The reason for culling the bears if necessary was that they might proliferate be eating too many seal pups which would become more exposed to predation by the bears.

3)  In another exchange:

ME: How about fixing the suffering of humans in Africa?

YOU: Poor countries, particularly those in Africa, are expected to be the worst hit by climate change.  To help out those people, we need to limit it.

You don't seem to be aware of what is happening NOW to many millions of humans, and the DO-ABLE things that are not being done.  When I have more time I may enlighten youOn Alaska legislature looking for polar-bear skeptics posted 1 year, 6 months ago 159 Responses

But what are the scientific facts?

In post #1 above, LGT made some sincere pleas, and gave a link to some Oxfam reporting, which included in part, (my emphasis added):
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
" ...[1]   Now, accelerating climate change is bringing more floods, droughts, extreme weather and unpredictable seasons. Climate change has the potential to massively increase global poverty and inequality, punishing first, and most, the very people least responsible for greenhouse-gas emissions - and increasing their vulnerability to disaster..."

Well actually, according to the scientific data out there, "global warming" has DEFINITELY NOT been accelerating over the past decade, but rather the opposite.
Here is a brief introduction to the topic in the following Hadley global temperature record, with added comments by me.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3140/2461371188_3f2ee147fa ...
This png file may be slow to open, and zoom out required.

If you are prepared to study this, and see that it is good news, I can add additional evidence, expanding on that good news.  If you don't understand it, please say.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"...[2] Though the colossal crises such as the African famines of the early 1980s, the Bangladesh cyclone of 1991 and the Asian tsunami cause an enormous loss of life, the new worrying trend is the increase in small to medium-sized disasters. The death toll caused by these disasters has risen..."

The Asian Tsunami was caused by an undersea earthquake which had no connection with climate change.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Please also visit my comment @

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/5/5/11626/26588#com ...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Don't get me wrong, I'm not minimising these disasters, but bringing them into perspective and what might be controllable cause.

BTW, what do you think about the MILLIONS of human deaths and appalling suffering which could be eliminated by the "civilised world" if we wanted to?On Right wing doctors audio clips to distort Al Gore's comments about cyclone Nargis posted 1 year, 6 months ago 24 Responses

SORRY HERE IS THE LINK

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3140/2461371188_3f2ee147fa ...On 'Global warming stopped in 1998'--Only if you flagrantly cherry pick posted 1 year, 6 months ago 170 Responses

Wolverine

You are totally wrong in your assessment.  For instance:

 "Proponents of the conference are concerned that a polar-bear listing would adversely affect Alaska's economy."

I was unaware, (and am uninterested) of the matters in your quote above.

The topic was polar bears, and even if all the ice disappeared, they are highly inquisitive and intelligent predators.  Don't they also eat kelp and a few other things than seals?

We could always do food drops if necssary..... Bugger the millions of human beings dying from other problems

I am against alarmism and loss of priorities in the goodie goodie greenie movementOn Alaska legislature looking for polar-bear skeptics posted 1 year, 6 months ago 159 Responses

Conservation alarmism

Tasermons Partner,
You entirely miss my point about Eastern Grey Kangaroos in Australia.

They have benefited from human disturbance of the landscape as a consequence, of increased grazing and water availability, and are at plague proportions in some areas, necessitating culling.   Yet, we get theses goodie goodie greenie alarmists protesting and talking endangered species!

When it comes to your comments about lack of adaptability of polar bears to a hypothesised change in environment which might be warmer than the MWP or the earlier Roman Warm Period, when they survived, this amounts to the same sort of goodie goodie nonsense.  

Bears are amongst the most curious and intelligent of predators.  Furthermore, IF and when their favourite diet can no longer hide under the snow, the seals will be forced to birth on rocks just as with today's UK grey seals.  (who's cubs still have signature white coats from the ice age)   The bears may then gorge on easier to obtain prey until a new balance is reached, possibly interfered with by a new generation of goodie goodies

Polar bears may have a favourite diet of arctic seals, but did you know that they eat other stuff, including fledgling birds in some areas?   I also doubt that they have their preferred diet in warm-climate zoos, where they seem to cope OK

Meanwhile goodie goodies; what about the MILLIONS of HUMAN BEINGS dying horribly in Africa etcOn Alaska legislature looking for polar-bear skeptics posted 1 year, 6 months ago 159 Responses

Peak Oil

LGT, Thanks for pointing out that the populations of India and China are measured in billions, not millions.

What is interesting is that you appear to have been the only person to spot the mistake.  This post has been hanging around since 23 April on at least four threads/sites....maybe five from memory.

I'm puzzled why it seems that people are not interested in these applling numbers.

Your other comments are much more complicated, and I may comment tomorrow.On How to get people to pay attention to peak oil posted 1 year, 6 months ago 45 Responses

Yes, a "gay" perspective was inevitable

Fair enough!
Nevertheless testosterone driven males can find the video interesting, even without the sound.  Also, KMP a straight woman above implied she was a bit turned-on.

But so what, the video will generate a wide variety of views, especially in the extreme by those caught masterbating in youth by their mommy or other authority.

But what about the numbers
See:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/5/7/17111/15550#com ...On How to get people to pay attention to peak oil posted 1 year, 6 months ago 45 Responses

More on CO2 flux

Hi again Davlek
You gave the following link, to an article and subsequent blog concerning CO2 fluxes
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate ...

And, I was impressed by the very first post copied below.  It is very recent, today:

By John, Channel Isles
Fri May 09 05:02:33 BST 2008
Catherine,

The first 'flaw' in your article starts with your first fact. You compare two data sets. One from bubbles in ice from the Vostok surveys over 420,000 years that show a variance of 180ppm to 300ppm using CO2 lab measurements. And another form of measuring, atmospheric, of CO2 from modern times, namely over the last 50 years.

Any good scientist will tell you ligning up 2 different data sets, using different collection techniques and different measuring techniques is not very good science. This punches a small hole in your argument.

Second problem is geographical difference. The Vostok records are from polar regions. The modern measuring is from Mauna Loa, Hawaii an equatorial/warm region. This punches another hole in your argument.

Finally what nobody at the IPCC has recognised in any report 1998 to 2004 is knowledge of the CO2 Solubility Pump. Indeed it's barely mentioned in the IPCC 2007 Report.

If any climate extremists understood this they'd appreciate that CO2 is dissolving in the oceans of Polar regions scrubbing CO2 from the atmosphere resulting in lower CO2 measurements.

Similarly they'd appreciate measuring in Hiwaii in warm waters where CO2 is outgassed leads to higher CO2 measurements.

That's a mighty big hole in your argument.

And it gets worse. Hawaii is next to the biggest outgassing, the Pacific Ocean, on the planet. And scientists are on record as waiting for strong trade winds (sea winds) further increasing CO2 levels as huge plumes of CO2 outgass over Hawaii.

And it gets even worse (pretty bad already). The Vostok ice-cores measurement intervals are every 1,000 to 2,000 years. So to measure a peak in CO2 over 420,000-700,000 years the chances of measuring a peak is 3.5%.

So when the IPCC and other climate warmers claim we are enduring the highest CO2 levels in 700,000 years there's actually a 96.5% they're not near the truth. That's even without counting in all the problems with measuring CO2 mentioned above.

And that's just addressing the first 'fact' you mention in your article. I could go on and on and on what's wrong with your 'facts' but we haven't the space here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I must find that paper on Mauna Loa, it gets even worse!
On Climate change must be examined over decades, not years posted 1 year, 6 months ago 68 Responses

Our posts crossed

High Des Emery,
I agree with your outrage at the LGT Gobble Gobble.

It was LGT that provoked me to make my "Reality" postOn How to get people to pay attention to peak oil posted 1 year, 6 months ago 45 Responses

BTW Re: Wikipedia

Davkel,

Wikipedia can be agenda driven by its contributors and others whom choose to edit it, and this is very apparent in the emotive issue of AGW!   Sorry!On Climate change must be examined over decades, not years posted 1 year, 6 months ago 68 Responses

That's nice

Welcome aboard Davkel.

It's good to greet someone with an inquisitive mind on this site.  I guess that you have worked-out that Mister Nice Guy is referring to YOUR enquiry.  Furthermore, I think that probably his analysis on this occasion is good.  It is what I thought might be the case without researching it.

If you were to enquire further on the CO2 balance in the atmosphere, whether the numbers published from Mauna Loa volcanic island at over 3000m in mid pacific are relevant to global average and things like that, then it might be like opening Pandora's Box.

For instance, I think it is agreed that about 50% of the CO2 that is emitted from burning fossil fuels, is not actually evident at Mauna Loa.  Thus it must have gone somewhere else.

It is also generally agreed that the oceans are a VAST sink of CO2 both physically and biologically.   Furthermore that because of the physio-chemico factors governed by upwelling and downwelling of waters of varying temperatures and salinity, wind and wave action, air temperature and whatnot, that the flux of CO2 in and out is so VAST and complicated, that any margin of error in its nett determination exceeds the observed increase at Muana Loa.

Thus the whole thing is a can of worms!

However, in terms of the debate on climate change, all we can do is just live with the published numbers from Mauna Loa

(A similar situation exists with the so-called global average temperatures....although GISS may be starting to back-pedal there)

Regards, BobFJ  (Black Wallaby)On Climate change must be examined over decades, not years posted 1 year, 6 months ago 68 Responses

What's your grudge GJP?

I live in the North East, (Montmorency), and I think it is lovely.

Nearby are mountains and beautiful forests including rainforest.

have you checked-out the areas immediately outside of downtown Detroit, Denver, LA and a few etc's?

I can ride my bike along the Plenty River and Yarra river trails in continuous parkland for some 40Km into the brilliant Southbank Area in the City.  I can also go outwards a long way to say Diamond Creek, all in parkland.

Any city of about 4 million has suburbs.  In the case of Melbourne's Western suburbs, for some reason beyond my ken they do not plant many trees, but in the East it is very leafy.
take your pick!

What is your choice in where you live?
Maybe you should move to Adelaide?On A modern city can be remade posted 1 year, 6 months ago 12 Responses

Interesting video

I couldn't get any sound, dammit!
Did I miss anything?
(If I had been listening.)On How to get people to pay attention to peak oil posted 1 year, 6 months ago 45 Responses

Staying Calm 2

Oh BTW, I was not being USA-centric in the above.  It is said that if the USA economy catches a cold....so does the world....On IPCC likely too optimistic about recoverable coal posted 1 year, 6 months ago 20 Responses

UH?

I suppose I should respond to Tasermons Partner on the following exchange:

TP  Words to the effect: does that graph include land clearing?

BW  No....Why did you ask?  Neither did they discuss the price of pickled herrings.

TP  Wow...I was mistaken.  Ya obviously know very little 'bout the factors behind climate change.  Land use patterns have a direct effect on climate change.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

BW response:  Please be aware that we were discussing a graph relating the use of fossil fuels, (~GHG's), to increasing global temperatures over the last~150 years.

Yes I'm aware of many other things that can affect global temperatures, including some that you did not mention, however those other data would need to be depicted on separate graphs.

If you still do not understand, please ask
On Climate change must be examined over decades, not years posted 1 year, 6 months ago 68 Responses

AGW disasters

kmp wrote in part:

"...Don't get me wrong; I believe that, in aggregate, unseasonable weather, violent storms, plagues of locusts, etc., are related to human-caused climate change,..."

Well that is very interesting.  Do you have any evidence to back-it-up?

Do you know the reasons why Chris Landsea resigned from the IPCC?

Do you believe that severe cold such as the collapse of 172,000 power pylons in the Chinese electrical grid last January, is caused by AGW, and if so, Why?

The loss of the Spanish Armada?  (BTW, those big boats were driven by wind-power before anyone ever heard of CO2)

I look forward to your expanded wisdom.
On Myanmar cyclone is a portent of disasters to come posted 1 year, 6 months ago 8 Responses

Confusion? How about the evidence?

Nice work Bob T!
Twas a bit scientific though for the clientelle here!

I'll throw-in my tuppeth though......wasted though it may be:
Hands up anyone who has studied the 2003 paper of:  L.B. Klyashtorin & A.A. Lyubushin!  (K & L)

No?  Well what they did was show very logically, back in 2003 that there is an ~60-year low signal in climate fluctuation, with another peak commencing at about that time.  (prior to publishing in 2003)  Guess what?   In 2008, the evidence for that is looking much stronger.  It is good news if it continues to be true for the next 60 years!;

1. People worried about New York swamped by tidal waves will have a reprieve
   
2. Scientists worried about the potential return of a "Little Ice Age", eg...... Re: solar cycle 24 has gone all funny, and the PDO etc,  may perhaps gain comfort from (K & L)

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2357/2473007422_0f83ed191d ...

Source is identified thereon

Regards, BobFJ  (Black Wallaby)On Next decade may see rapid warming, not cooling posted 1 year, 6 months ago 8 Responses

What to do on a damp and dull afternoon!

I did some colouring in MS Paint!... great fun....long ago I used to hobby-enjoy wax and dry pastel painting, and some of my works are represented in UK, USA and Hong Kong!

I also opened this late afternoon, a bottle of Oz-Audi Cabernet Merlot @ $2.99c  (Currently ~US$ 3.20c, maybe $2.80c soon?), which so-far on glass # ~1.5,  is surprisingly tolerable.

I also thought that if MNG is around, and since he has often displayed wont to gist Grist readers, he might help in my endeavour:  In particular, a very eager person; namely; Tasermons Partner, has been very busy around the place, but has demonstrated some difficulty with an earlier tri-element graph in simple monotone.  SO, at great effort, I've added all these colours to it, and notes explaining things as best I can.  Gee, I hope he can sort the relevant from the irrelevant, after my huge effort!

Hey, give it a click @

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3234/2470502310_99908b19a6 ...

Oh, and BTW, your wisdom on it might be interesting MNG!On Climate change must be examined over decades, not years posted 1 year, 6 months ago 68 Responses

Precautionary principles

It is maybe NICE to uphold precautionary principals, but one has to take into account matters like cost effectiveness and quality of life.

I noticed that recently a surfer in California was killed by a shark.  Does that mean don't go in the water?   We get people nibbled a bit by sharks in Oz too, but people still take the risk.

I like bush walking in Australia in areas where it is necessary to keep an eye open for snakes of about four common varieties which are deadly, including the brown with triple action venom. I have actually stepped on a tiger snake, and footfalled within a shoe-width of another, but jumped clear oK on both occaisions.  I still go bushwalking.

Back in the early 80's, I spent time in Ontario and Michigan, and was astonished that most Canadians and Americans simply refused to wear seat belts even when they were fitted to their cars. Women in particular were concerned about crushing their clothes or their breasts. Then the US introduced passive seat-belts to force these idiots to wear them.

Gee it's nice to have "democracy"

The problem that I have with applying a precautionary principal to AGW, is that ther is NO direct evidence for it whereas there is plenty of evidence against it.

Unfortunately it is not like deciding to wear a seat belt or not, and the millions in poverty and suufering are left-out in the outer.

On the other hand there are some other risks that have potentially devastating effects not only on the selfish developed world, but also those other neglected hundreds of millions.  

The precautionary principal can also result in demonstrable errors.  For instance, the banning of DDT may have saved a few Bald Eagles, but there is also an argument that it has cost hundreds of millions of HUMAN lives.  On the other hand, the loss of those lives would hardly have affected the comfort that MNG enjoys.

There is an interesting blog:  Precautionary principle vs unintended consequences @  

http://www.climateaudit.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3& ...

With over 700 comments, and 6,000 views.

Max may wish to add to these quick points, which i did in a hurry; 'scuse any spelling/typo'sOn Climate change must be examined over decades, not years posted 1 year, 6 months ago 68 Responses

Maybe this helps

A useful graph concerning the acceleration of fossil fuel usage since the industrial revolution, and the non-correlation of CO2 with the warming and cooling periods can be found here:

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/FuelvsDT.jpg
On Climate change must be examined over decades, not years posted 1 year, 6 months ago 68 Responses

The wisdom of MNG Part 5 of 5

(= An expansion on MNG's fatherly advice to readers above, on how to read global temperature graphs)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now let's take another look at the Hadley graph considered in part 4, but without the changes which illustrated the similarity of raw data trend in the past decade, with that around 1940.  This time, it is marked-up only with colour changes and notes to indicate certain features which seem to highlight the existence of natural cycles, rather than a cause of warming via CO2.  Please open the link below, and read the notes appended.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3140/2461371188_3f2ee147fa ...
Depending on your browser, you may have too zoom out.  (With MS IE v7, go to menu Page-Zoom)
The original, if you want to, is at:
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/n ...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Some brief recapitulations from parts 1, 2, and 3:
1]   Some alarmists whilst originally enthusiastically embracing the high spike in 1998, now argue that it should be ignored in assessing trends over the last decade.  This is despite that both 1999 and 2000, were clearly sharply downward "corrections", a feature often found in "noisy" data.

2]  Even the GISS data at:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.lrg.gif
shows a plateau which by "eyeball" appears to give a flat average of ~0.6 C over the past decade, this being a sudden change from the previous warming.

3]  The methods of smoothing of the raw data used at different sources varies, and is arbitrary, depending on what kind of result is desired by the source.   In the case of some paleo-dendro studies, the treatment used over the final 20 years or so is blatantly false.  Such corrupted data has been published in peer reviewed journals and by the IPCC  (see part 2 for more detail)On 'There is no consensus'--If this is not consensus, what would consensus look like? posted 1 year, 6 months ago 109 Responses

Teaching with slide-shows

Hey Tasermons Partner,

I've got some lovely slide-shows.....you show me yours, and I'll show you mine!

Do you come from Tasmania maybe?
Papua New Guinea?On Climate change must be examined over decades, not years posted 1 year, 6 months ago 68 Responses

Futures stocks in Climate Change.

Hi Jabailo,
I'm pleased you liked my notated Hadley graph @
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3140/2461371188_3f2ee147fa ...
Although I guess it is bad news for AGW alarmists.  

The interesting thing is that I simply describe the data that is already there, no alterations, but with the aid of that great tool @ "Flickr.com", I've only just realized the potential benefits in making simple explanations, with an accessible URL for a picture of my own!

It is fascinating; your analogy with the stock exchange, which is another example of noisy data!   As far as I can see, it is totally valid!

Here is an example;     some of us rationalists have pointed out that over the last decade, the global temperature trend is flat, even with the sus' data from GISS.

Oh no! say the alarmists, you can't use 1998, because that spike was not caused by CO2.  Hmmmmm, well even if that is true, what about 1999 and 2000, which were, in the words of the share market, sharp corrections.  (I guess Oz terminology is same as USA)

By perusing the whole of the Hadley graph it is apparent that in nearly every case where there is an unusually large spike, either up or down, it is followed by typical corrections!  Thems be the facts!  (It raises an interesting question concerning the full cause of 1998)

So let's go back to the 2001 IPCC report, where they, among other things exaggerated the Hockey-stick by using the obsolete 1998 spike, which now they say had nothing to do with CO2.  Still, they impressed a lot of policymakers by using a scary number ~25% above the known trend at the time!

I wonder if Tasermans Partner took the trouble to digest my post above?   No comment anyway; not that it matters.On Climate change must be examined over decades, not years posted 1 year, 6 months ago 68 Responses

The wisdom of MNG Part 4

(= An expansion on MNG's fatherly advice to readers above, on how to read global temperature graphs)

To recapitulate, (largely from Max), there are four common sources of global temperature graphs, (Hadley, UAH, RSS, and GISS).  The latter; GISS, run by James Hansen, MAY be tainted in accuracy, because GISS data has significant differences to the other three, his inappropriate political art of AGW exaggeration and activism can be well demonstrated, and errors in GISS data have recently been exposed.  However, despite some scepticism on accuracy, GISS do provide an accessible graph of monthly data for the last ~10 years @ link:  http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.lrg.gif

From this, it is clear that a linear trend "eyeballed" through this ten-year period (decade) is at least a SUDDEN plateau!

There are diverse arguments that can be presented relative to this "eyeball" trend, but the FACT remains that SOMETHING has dramatically changed over the past decade, relative to the preceding significant warming period.  The cause cannot be claimed to be positively known, but that is NOT the immediate issue!  The immediate issue is that there has been a sudden ten-year change!

One of the challenges from "those that don't like good news" (alarmists) is that it is "unfair" to consider 1998 because it was a high spike.  (Although the IPCC and Mann et al ETC, have orgasmed on it previously).  However, alarmists ignore the fact that 1999 and 2000 were LOW spikes, amounting to a "correction".  Furthermore such "data behaviour" is typical of other up and down spikes in the long-term temperature record, the share-market, and all sorts of other stuff.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Just to make matters more complicated, the different data sources use different trending methods. (also known as filtering or smoothing).  Hadley use a 20-year span, (21-point), and GISS a five-year (6-point, or 2.5-year each side).  Interestingly GISS do not cheat on the last 2.5 years, whereas Hadley do "invent" stuff on their last 10 years of smoothing.  If you are losing me, see parts 1, 2, and 3 above.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~  
In consideration of these complexities, I think the best way is to take the Hadley data, and DELETE their preferences in assumptions for the last ten years of constructed smoothing data.  (eg 2007 through 2017, see earlier parts 1-3).  After-all their arbitrary method can't be all that good, because they had to change recently when they did not like the results.  (failing their EXPECTATIONS)
It can be shown that the "high inertia" of wide time-span (20-year) smoothing results in an over-shoot upwards beyond any suddenly occurring plateau, # but no matter, to be consistent, please see my mark-up and text on a Hadley graph, as follows:
Largest size (broadband)
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2131/2458648692_1701416471 ...
OR, smaller size for impatient dial-up users:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2131/2458648692_a1442bf86f ...

Regards, BobFJ    (Black Wallaby)

NOTE: # With say GISS 5-year smoothing, as MNG may imply above, detection of a plateau occurs earlier, with less over-shoot.  A flattening-off will thus be seen sooner.  Whatever, both such methods of trending are selectively arbitrary!   To keep it simple let's look at Hadley pears compared with Hadley pears: bugger the GISS pineapples!

Part 5 to follow.On 'There is no consensus'--If this is not consensus, what would consensus look like? posted 1 year, 6 months ago 109 Responses

Let's have a NICE analysis of the important!

Here are some sickening numbers concerning oil consumed around the World, which hopefully will put things into a more rational perspective:

USA:  20,730,000 bbl/day  (~25% of the world usage)  (0.068 per capita)
China: 6,534,000 bbl/day
India:  2,450,000 bbl/day
The World:   82,234,918 bbl/day

Ref: Germany: 2,650,000 bbl/day   (0,032 per capita...less than half of the USA)
Ref: UK: 1,827,000 bbl/day   (0.030 per capita; less still)

Re:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con-energy-oil- ... ...

Population Clocks
U.S. 303,917,023   (~4.6% of the World)....(~12.5% of India + China)
World 6,663,106,867
06:29 GMT (EST+5) Apr 23, 2008

Other sources:  Population of India and China:  ~ 2,450,000
Germany  ~82.5 million (2004), projected 80.3 million by 2015.
UK   60,943,912 (July 2008 CIA est.)

Let us imagine a future when Americans suddenly awake to the possibility that oil-in-ground may not be able to keep-up with increasing World demand.  Furthermore, that aircraft carriers and cruise missiles will not be able to ensure a "fair share" of it for them!  (And, that some peoples in this shared World, whom "own" it, do NOT LIKE such attitudes)

Let us imagine a future when Americans suddenly awake to the fact that other developed nations of high "life quality" use roughly half the amount of oil per capita!  Will they ask why?

Whatever, there currently seems to be an urgent need to develop bio-fuels, despite some negative aspects that may be attached to them.

Try to imagine how American life-style would be affected if auto fuel became as scarce as hen's teeth!

Oh yes, that's right; plug-in electrical cars.   Just dig-up more coal to make the electricity to power them, and put-in a bit of infrastructure here and there, whilst trying to catch-up on other crumbling infrastructure like concrete bridges etc

Still, the bridges need not be so strong, because most cars will start to get really really small, apart from the odd  "look-at-me" Hummer/Humvee (?) with several tonnes of batteries aboard.

Say, what is the greatest threat to our consumerism lifestyles:

A)  A hypothesised small temperature rise in some places, accompanied by gradual sea level rises with pre-emptive coastal defences to be developed over the decades.

OR

B)  A hypothetical but more evident calamity with diminishing oil-in-ground?

OR

C)  NOT allow millions of HUMANS to suffer, starvation, no clean water, no electricity and horrible diseases etc etc

And that's without discussing any politics!On 'There is no consensus'--If this is not consensus, what would consensus look like? posted 1 year, 7 months ago 109 Responses

Oil in ground

A quicky for you guys:

Have you really thought about the FULL consequences of none of that liquid stuff at fuel stations.

What about emigrating to Brazil, or breaking over the border, or..................

JMG, thanks your latest comments, will talk laterOn If biofuels are sustainable, we should be able to show it posted 1 year, 7 months ago 26 Responses

Could this be a problem:

Here are some sickening numbers concerning oil consumed around the World, which hopefully will put things into perspective:

USA:  20,730,000 bbl/day  (~25% of the world usage)  (0.068 per capita)
China: 6,534,000 bbl/day
India:  2,450,000 bbl/day
The World:   82,234,918 bbl/day

Ref: Germany: 2,650,000 bbl/day   (0,032 per capita...less than half of the USA)
Ref: UK: 1,827,000 bbl/day   (0.030 per capita; less still)

Re:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con-energy-oil- ... ...

Population Clocks
U.S. 303,917,023   (~4.6% of the World)....(~12.5% of India + China)
World 6,663,106,867
06:29 GMT (EST+5) Apr 23, 2008

Other sources:  Population of India and China:  ~ 2,450,000
Germany  ~82.5 million (2004), projected 80.3 million by 2015.
UK   60,943,912 (July 2008 CIA est.)

Let us imagine a future when Americans suddenly awake to the possibility that oil-in-ground may not be able to keep-up with increasing World demand.  Furthermore, that aircraft carriers and cruise missiles will not be able to ensure a "fair share" of it for them!  (And, that some peoples in this shared World, whom "own" it, do NOT LIKE such attitudes)

Let us imagine a future when Americans suddenly awake to the fact that other developed nations of high "life quality" use roughly half the amount of oil per capita!  Will they ask why?

Whatever, there currently seems to be an urgent need to develop bio-fuels, despite some negative aspects that may be attached to them.

Try to imagine how American life-style would be affected if auto fuel became as scarce as hen's teeth!

Oh yes, that's right; plug-in electrical cars.   Just dig-up more coal to make the electricity to power them, and put-in a bit of infrastructure here and there, whilst trying to catch-up on other crumbling infrastructure like concrete bridges etc

Still, the bridges need not be so strong, because most cars will start to get really really small, apart from the odd  "look-at-me" Hummer/Humvee (?) with several tonnes of batteries aboard.

Say, what is the greatest threat to our consumerism lifestyles:

A)  A hypothesised small temperature rise in some places, accompanied by gradual sea level rises with pre-emptive coastal defences to be developed over the decades.

OR

B)  A hypothetical but more evident calamity with diminishing oil-in-ground?

And that's without discussing any politics!On If biofuels are sustainable, we should be able to show it posted 1 year, 7 months ago 26 Responses

James Hansen just came out

Golly Gosh, I didn't know he was a biologist as well!

(Donald, yours crossed mine)On By caring for God's creatures, we avert a second flood posted 1 year, 7 months ago 20 Responses

wow power leveling ?

Hello User ID 19464  (ss....www)?

How did you end-up here; poor thing?

Should we try to find you some medical help?

Do not be alarmed, help is at hand, and there are others like you, so do not feel alone:

Josullivan58
Atreyger
Pangolin
Jbullfrog

To name off-hand but four!!!!On 'Global warming stopped in 1998'--Only if you flagrantly cherry pick posted 1 year, 7 months ago 170 Responses

Whoops

Sorry in my penultimate post above, for Fig 6:10a read Fig 6:10bOn 'There is no consensus'--If this is not consensus, what would consensus look like? posted 1 year, 7 months ago 109 Responses

The wisdom of MNG Part 2

Further to my part 1 above; we ended up showing that in a long term data set, ie 150 years, various arbitrary codes can be used quite well to filter or smooth the up and down spikes in say annual data, (noise), to give a desired type of long-term trend line.  In the case of Hadley, they use an arbitrary 20 year smoothing, where for each point on the graph, the data for 10 years each side are treated with an arbitrary computer code of their selection.
Different data sources may be treated arbitrarily differently in any combination of both parameters.  A further problem of choice comes when the end of the data-set is reached, so in the case of Hadley at say end 2007, data through to end 2017 is required, which of course is impossible.  No problem!  We can create other code of our choice to fill-in the last ten years of unknown information!

Again, there are various ways that this can be done, but arguably, such "statistical" treatments become of doubtful value over a short-term, and many would argue that an "eyeball" trend with a transparent ruler is as good as any fancy statistical development in that case.  If you click (+Ctrl)? on the following link, which was kindly provided by MNG
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.lrg.gif
It gives unsmoothed monthly data from GISS for about ten years.   Blind Freddie can see, without any need to treat it statistically, that this short data span is virtually flat.   However, it is possible to use arbitrary techniques in variety to show something different, including what you as an individual would prefer to see.

For those of you that don't like to hear good news, I can sense that your hackles are rising, but the fact is that I will next identify information in the IPCC reports of 2001 and 2007 which confirms that such cheating has been published quite brazenly in both peer reviewed journals and by the IPCC.

The most obvious was the disgraced "Hockey-stick" of Mann et al 1999, somewhat exaggerated in 2001 in the TAR's in all possible corners and at podia etc.  It had a 40-year smoothing, to flatten trends as much as possible.  (Any greater may have raised eyebrows?). However, that aside, what I come to is that, as above, the last twenty years of absent data had to be "invented" somehow, to complete the 40-year smoothing.  This is where it gets really tricky, because since about 1997/8, (Openly; Re: Overpeck, Hughes and also Esper), the dendro's were scratching their heads over the issue that despite temperatures going up, and forestry experiments showing that increased CO2 gives improved growth, the rate of tree-ring growth since around 1960 was reducing, sharply opposite to expected trends.  This has been coined  "The Divergence Problem", (unsolved), and has not had a lot of IPCC or Media discussion.  (After-all, it hardly projects confidence backward for a thousand years!)

So, the problem faced by the dendro's was that their proxy data was plunging down, opposite to the red instrumental data for a while on regular smoothing, but by doing a flip-flop on the last 20 years of data, (yet another method of data creation), we have a nice (desirous)  upturn at the end.  See the blue 40-year smoothing in Figure 2 in MBH99 @
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/millennium-camera.pdf ...

I give you the actual paper link rather than IPCC 2001, because you may be surprised at some (entirely) other things in the paper, that are not common knowledge, or reflected by the IPCC 2001, if you are courageous enough to study it.

When we come to the 4AR, 2007, WG1, there is the famous spaghetti graph, (Fig 6:10a) which includes a barely visible subdued version of the hockey stick buried in there, and a sneak preview of the gradual return of a  MWP and LIA.  There are a whole bunch of dendro' thingies with the same little upturn-cheat at the end, but this time they are said to have a 30-year smoothing, not 40-years.  Oh well!  Why not!

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html  (Go to Chapter6)

Hey look, I want to watch some TV that interests me, so I'll come back tomorrow probably with part 3.

I see that Jbullfrog has got the hots on something he did not understand in the tweaking by Hadley, so I`ll try and comment on that too tomorrow.On 'There is no consensus'--If this is not consensus, what would consensus look like? posted 1 year, 7 months ago 109 Responses

Too hard

I guess the questions to Dr Dessler, the author of the lead article, inviting comment, are too hard for himOn Global temps may drop this year but, alas, world still warming posted 1 year, 7 months ago 132 Responses

Gas pedal

YawnOn 'There is no consensus'--If this is not consensus, what would consensus look like? posted 1 year, 7 months ago 109 Responses

Environmental Concerns

Hi Michigan Pete,

Hope you have been enjoying your global warming in Michigan!
This report on a proposed cull of overcrowded kangaroos, may make you smile.  
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Outrage at kangaroo cull  

Sharri Markson;  Sydney Daily Telegraph
March 16, 2008 12:00am
JAPAN is using the slaughter of hundreds of eastern grey kangaroos in Canberra to undermine Australia's anti-whaling crusade.

Japanese television and radio yesterday covered a small protest over the culling of as many as 500 kangaroos in the northern suburb of Belconnen.

Tokyo Broadcasting System reporter Hiroki Iijima said Japanese people would regard the kangaroo cull as hypocritical.
Read Full Story @
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23381 ...
~~~~~
BLOG Responses; 59

I am ashamed to call myself an Australian and we all should be this is a bloody disgrace.
Posted by: Sarah of Glenmore Park 5:16pm today
Comment 59 of 59
~~~~~
Most foreigners believe there is only one type of kangaroo rather than the 47 or so different ones. Not all are endangered and some, like the eastern grey are in plague numbers. And just a little reminder to the the Japanese, humpback whales are an endagered species !
Posted by: sg of syd 5:14pm today
Comment 58 of 59
On 'Global warming stopped in 1998'--Only if you flagrantly cherry pick posted 1 year, 7 months ago 170 Responses

Obfuscations?:

Jbullfrog, you wrote to Max:

[A]  "This temperature record you keep talking about, Max, is not "observed facts." Nothing in science is. It is a set of data collected, reported, and interpreted by humans, using their own senses and some equipment. The tools, actions, and methods involved are all susceptible to error, as is any attempt to measure or interpret data."

You should try to understand that the IPCC and the World treat the surface temperature record(s) as a fact(s).  Further, that we are stuck with them, at least for the period prior to quality satellite observations.   Furthermore, it is known that they are unreliable in several ways, (See earlier posts) but they are the facts that we have to discuss.

To help you understand how the usage of `Fact' is generally applied, here is a paste from the MS Encarta dictionary:  (I have taken the liberty to bold some words at the start)

fact [fakt]
(plural facts)
n

1.  something known to be true: something that can be shown to be true, to exist, or to have happened  
   
2.  truth or reality of something: the truth or actual existence of something, as opposed to the supposition of something or a belief about something based on fact

3.  piece of information: a piece of information, e.g. a statistic or a statement of the truth  
   
4.  law actual course of events: the circumstances of an event or state of affairs, rather than an interpretation of its significance
   

5.  law something based on evidence: something that is based on or concerned with the evidence presented in a legal case  

Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You go-on to say Bullfrog, [with my emphasis added]:

"Who are you to say this one temperature record is correct, or more brashly, to say that it proves anything, when there are so many other temperature records that suggest the opposite? Clearly there is some explanation, but who are you to decide what it is?"

I find the whole statement baffling, but particularly the bold bit.   I wonder if you should elaborate a bit more
On 'There is no consensus'--If this is not consensus, what would consensus look like? posted 1 year, 7 months ago 109 Responses

You like to debate; Bullfrog?

In response to your debating with intelligence post headed "Useless"

Aha, so it looks like you agree that the polar bear, so oft pitifully pictured marooned on a splinter of ice lapped by cruel waves would do fine, even if all the ice melts.  What about those poor arctic seals that currently hide under the snow though?   Crikey!  Well, they'd have to adapt the same way they did in the past.  (Somewhat like the UK grey seals),  Of course they would have to birth on rocks, and the predators would flourish, but they will probably survive in reduced numbers.  Of course, mankind can step-in and interfere with nature and set-up survival zones for the seals, if the activists were sufficiently active, as undoubtedly they would be.

Meanwhile, with warming oceans, at the top of the food chain, photosynthetic life would flourish in ever increasing areas, coral would grow in new areas, and so-forth.   Looks pretty rosy to me!

I must quote your next bit of  debating with intelligence:  

"...Or do you believe that our government will succefully plan for the mass migration of coastal folks and the careful dismantling and cleansing of all the potentially toxic facilities and infrastructure near the ocean? I only see these scenarios as extreme if you believe one of these two things. Or maybe you imagine you'll just hop on a plane to somewhere that's "not affected" by what's going on..."

I don't think those thousands of scientists that you worship at the IPCC have gone that far have they?   Got any references?

PS  Your penultimate sentence context, and the first few lines not quoted are not entirely clear to me
On 'Global warming stopped in 1998'--Only if you flagrantly cherry pick posted 1 year, 7 months ago 170 Responses

Adaption

Jbullfrog

Putting aside some of the extreme imaginations in your post above, here are a couple of questions for you:

How did polar bears manage to survive the MWP, and other warm periods (warmer than today) in recent millenia?  How do they survive in warm climate zoos....are they fed live seals?

The UK was mostly covered with ice during the last ice age, but several species continue to enjoy staying-on there.  They still have signatures of their ice-age background.  For instance, baby grey seals still have white fur, but seldom see any snow.On 'Global warming stopped in 1998'--Only if you flagrantly cherry pick posted 1 year, 7 months ago 170 Responses

Making up a story just for fun:

Tom Philpott continued his lead article spin, by adding to it with a post:

"...Still, it's a bit much for a well-fed German [Angela Merkel] to talk about the "second meal" in India as if it were an extravagance, and defend her nation's biofuel mandates as perfectly normal and even "green." Of course, per capita, Germans consume many more food calories, and higher on the food chain, than Indians."

Ok Tom, you gave a reference to a Reuters article  "...Bad Food Policy...".  I've now read it several times.  Where do you get your interpretation?   Surely, Merkel is saying that the newly developing countries are beginning to "catch-up" with the expectations and normalcy of the "comfortably developed" countries!  What is your agenda here?  Do you have some other references that reflect what you say of her?

BTW, I have no German blood or other vested interest in that country.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here are some sickening numbers concerning oil consumed around the World, which hopefully will put things into a more rational perspective:

USA:  20,730,000 bbl/day  (~25% of the world usage)  (0.068 per capita)
China: 6,534,000 bbl/day
India:  2,450,000 bbl/day
The World:   82,234,918 bbl/day

Ref: Germany: 2,650,000 bbl/day   (0,032 per capita...less than half of the USA)
Ref: UK: 1,827,000 bbl/day   (0.030 per capita; less still)

Re:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con-energy-oil- ...

Population Clocks
U.S. 303,917,023   (~4.6% of the World)....(~12.5% of India + China)
World 6,663,106,867
06:29 GMT (EST+5) Apr 23, 2008

Other sources:  Population of India and China:  ~ 2,450,000
Germany  ~82.5 million (2004), projected 80.3 million by 2015.
UK   60,943,912 (July 2008 CIA est.)

Let us imagine a future when Americans suddenly awake to the possibility that oil-in-ground may not be able to keep-up with increasing World demand.  Furthermore, that aircraft carriers and cruise missiles will not be able to ensure a "fair share" of it for them!  (And, that some peoples in this shared World, whom "own" it, do NOT LIKE such attitudes)

Let us imagine a future when Americans suddenly awake to the fact that other developed nations of high "life quality" use roughly half the amount of oil per capita!  Will they ask why?

Whatever, there currently seems to be an urgent need to develop bio-fuels, despite some negative aspects that may be attached to them.

Try to imagine how American life-style would be affected if auto fuel became as scarce as hen's teeth!

Oh yes, that's right; plug-in electrical cars.   Just dig-up more coal to make the electricity to power them, and put-in a bit of infrastructure here and there, whilst trying to catch-up on other crumbling infrastructure like concrete bridges etc

Still, the bridges need not be so strong, because most cars will start to get really really small, apart from the odd  "look-at-me" Hummer/Humvee (?) with several tonnes of batteries aboard.

Say, what is the greatest threat to our consumerism lifestyles:

A)  A hypothesised small temperature rise in some places, accompanied by gradual sea level rises with pre-emptive coastal defences to be developed over the decades.

OR

B)  A hypothetical but more evident calamity with diminishing oil-in-ground?

And that's without discussing any politics!On Food vs. fuel debate, German edition posted 1 year, 7 months ago 11 Responses

Yawn

Whenever will GreyFalcon post something meaningful?

Why does he run (or at best obfuscate) from rational questions posted on other threads?

The raptor has no clawsOn New server farm projected to use 103 MW of power posted 1 year, 7 months ago 20 Responses

Stuff above

Perhaps Russ's "asceticism" may be too mysteriously aesthetic or phiosophical for me at the moment, and I might have to try reading it a few more times another day when feeling more fresh and chirpy, but in general, in a whole bunch of posts above, I cannot find anything useful to digest.

A word that springs to mind is:

Waffle,

Or possibly:

Gobble Gobble Gobble, as found in turkey-speach
On Your last chance to be heard about Cape Wind posted 1 year, 7 months ago 54 Responses

If Merkel said that above:

I'm shocked.....horrified.....and hope she is totally alone in her opinion in Europe!

However, her nation pales to insignificance when it comes to the thoughtless abuse of auto-fuels in the USA.  
Many Americans would wish to continue driving grossly  non-functional; huge; unnecessary great chunks of iron; gas-guzzlers, (Long a huge joke in the rest of the World),  so consequently if there is something true in the hypothesis of "Peak Fuel" then there is clearly an urgent need in the American psyche for bio-fuels to be advanced, by the most "advanced" nation on Earth.

After-all, it only needs a bit of a wobble in the crude-oil suppliers around the World, and it does not matter that Americans buy it in gallons, whereas in all of the world elsewhere it comes in litres, like buying the more treasured milk, (That's about a quarter gallon, or a quart).  In USA, auto-fuel could yet get as dear as it already is in Europe!  (Over there it is currently heavily taxed and considered a valuable resource.)   Contrarily in the USA, it is apparently considered a given right to take from the apparently diminishing supply in the rest of the world.

You know; for example; although Bush "secured" Iraqi oil; that is not evident yet......just watch this space for possible developments, that may not be controllable by USA aircraft carriers and/or cruise missiles whatever!

Non importa:

In that world out there, MILLIONS suffer awfully and MILLIONS die, leaving their MILLIONS MORE loved ones in GRIEF from quiet simple things like not having dehydration salts costing a few cents per child, or clean drinking water, or no electricity for cooking.

So try cooking your several meals each day burning twigs or goat or dog-turds from your garden.   See how you go, breathing-in the smoke from the fire!On Food vs. fuel debate, German edition posted 1 year, 7 months ago 11 Responses

Max to Dr. Dessler

Hi Max

Since Andrew is not famous for responding to questions in the area of his expertise, may I suggest that you Email him direct @

adessler@tamu.edu

Drawing his attention to your post:

http://www.grist.org/news/2008/04/04/world_temp/index.htm ...

Regards BobFJOn Global temps may drop this year but, alas, world still warming posted 1 year, 7 months ago 132 Responses

The infinite wisdom of John+

This scholar wrote in part above:

"I had a quick read through Max's reference "Rhodes Fairbridge [That Black Wallaby quoted], and the idea that the solar system regulates the Earth's climate"."  

Fine;
That's an encouraging start!
Let us know when you have read it through properly, wont you?

BobFJ, hoping to be really nice.

Oh and BTW, we look forward to the benefit of your careful and thoughtful analysis of it.On Similarities between the skin cancer and climate change 'scams' posted 1 year, 7 months ago 173 Responses

Intelligence testing

Seems to have gone quiet here since I brought-up the subject of IQ testing, since several alarmist fundamentalists whom took part in it, all failed.

Funny, but sad really!On Global temps may drop this year but, alas, world still warming posted 1 year, 7 months ago 132 Responses

The Sun and stuff

Hi solarmeter

I have not yet digested  your  http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/30/1440/87125#com ...
In part because I don't yet figure some of your acronyms.  (I am not expert in this area, but can probably understand it if I can find time)

As a quickie, I'll just mention one thing at the moment, and I quote you:

"Before you guys keep all your eggs in the various surface/sea temperature data files (some probably including readings like from my dad's old circa 1926 "thermometer" still hanging outside his north-facing window)... you might want to include some modern solar irradiance metrology in your warming/cooling "prediction" considerations."

I'm not sure what you mean by "you guys", but me, Max, and other rationalists talk about the published global T's because that is what we are stuck-with.  However, many of us think it is a nonsense's in real terms.  Have you explored this on the WattsUp... site and Climate Audit etc.  Some of it is sickenly hilarious....amazing photos etc!

Ask me for links if you like!

Regards, BobFJ,  (web nickname Black Wallaby = Australian marsupial, kangaroo-like)
On Similarities between the skin cancer and climate change 'scams' posted 1 year, 7 months ago 173 Responses

In Australia, we call it 'whinging'

Elbarto complains:

That Max dominates this thread! Re: http://www.grist.org/news/2008/04/04/world_temp/index.htm ...

Oh really? Well I support Max not only because I agree with him, but he seems to be outnumbered by the following fundamentalists on this thread alone, espousing great heaps of nonsense, and absolutely NO (Zero) contribution to the debate:

Robco1
ViridianSeattle
tico89
MisterNiceGuy
Tasermons Partner
GreyFlcn
Grevangelical
Pangolin
elbarto
SKenzie
caniscandida
spaceshaper
MarkUK

Elbarto, what are you raving-on about?
Do you have any sense of balance?On Global temps may drop this year but, alas, world still warming posted 1 year, 7 months ago 132 Responses

So what is a climatologist?

Re: A fundamentalist statement up there @
  http://www.grist.org/news/2008/04/04/world_temp/index.htm ...

Are any of you alarmists prepared to define:

'Climatoologist' ?On Global temps may drop this year but, alas, world still warming posted 1 year, 7 months ago 132 Responses

A measure of intelligence quotient. (IQ):

Recently, whenever I feel a bit low, I go back to the following April fools blog @
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/31/155730/362

Quite hilarious!
Amongst the early suckers were:

caniscandida  (= Dogfungus, Twice)
MisterNiceGuy

Before, wow, much to my surprise josullivan58 (whom I thought, maybe mistakenly, a touch low in IQ) actually spotted  the joke.
No matter, despite her enlightening post, the more well-known suckers kept going abysmally :

Tasermons Partner
biodiversivist
MisterNiceGuy  Made an excuse that it was not yet April 1 in his time zone when he made his silly pronouncements.  (But should he not go by the facts rather than the date of year?)

It's good to have a chuckle once in a while!!!!!!!

But whom else is it worth debating with?

BobFJOn Global temps may drop this year but, alas, world still warming posted 1 year, 7 months ago 132 Responses

Solar irradiance and global warming/cooling

Hi Solarmeter,

Reur same subject @
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/30/1440/87125#com ...

It sounds like a very interesting project that you have going there.  Do you think that you can find a way to get it published somewhere, sometime?

It's very interesting to see some of the developments occurring on the solar front in recent times, and as you know, it's not all about sunlight as the AGW crowd seem to think.  There are a few other effects of considerable complexity and variety in the particle emissions from the sun, magnetic fields, and solar system gravitational effects etc.   The reluctant onset of cycle 23, lack of sunspots, and comparison with cycle 14, etc is very interesting, as is the 5-year programme with over 50 scientists at CERN.

Max found this very interesting summary by Richard Mackey, entitled
Rhodes Fairbridge and the idea that the solar system regulates the Earth's climate
http://www.griffith.edu.au/conference/ics2007/pdf/ICS176. ...

There were a few surprises in there for me. For instance, the variation of the barycentre of  rotation of the Sun, caused by the planets never occurred to me, but it is plainly a fact of science.  Here may be some of the missing bits in the Milankovitch theory!

I saw another interesting solar paper somewhere, I think it was over at ClimateAudit, and I'll try and dig it up.

If you have not seen the Mackey presentation before, enjoy some intriguing stuff.  It all makes sense to me.

Regards,  BobFJ

PS, I had some enjoyable times in Windsor and Leamington on the shore of  Lake Eirie in the 80's.   Were you in the area around 1983, when the Detroit river froze over in April, and the adjacent year in April, they were water skiing?  It's called regional variation!On Similarities between the skin cancer and climate change 'scams' posted 1 year, 7 months ago 173 Responses

Another gamble

Steve McIntyre is very capable of understanding data and spotting anomallies, and without cooperation from GISS, eventually got them to admit that the hottest year in USA was 1934.

Giss quietly corrected their little graphs last August I think it was.  (Did you hear Hansen screaming the good news in the media?)

Would it not be cute to gamble that 2020 will not be warmer than 1934 in the USA?

I'm not really a gambling person and doubt if the trouble of drawing-up a contract with John+/MNG would be worth the effort. Also, I may not live that long, being fairly ancient.

Max, perhaps you should consider the possibilty of a spike in 2020.On Similarities between the skin cancer and climate change 'scams' posted 1 year, 7 months ago 173 Responses

Funny...............

John+ says he is very busy, yet had time to rapidly enthuse on an academic "dorothy dixer", which serves no value in this debate.

Oh, and of course, Tamino, an Oracle of ultimate wisdom and truth, just like Mann et al!  It's always good to have such excellent references.

 On Similarities between the skin cancer and climate change 'scams' posted 1 year, 7 months ago 173 Responses

Conversation A & B Contin:

I should haveadded a fourth comment to the above:

A:  Hey Mount Kilamanjaro has a beautiful big plateau
B:  (An AGW expert) No it hasn't, I have some ATM data which I can plot, treat statistically, and prove to you that it does not have a plateau.
A:  Eh?.....Just look at it....it's a plateau, as plain as the nose on your face...here's a photo....LOOK!  
B:  No, you see you can't just consider the upper parts alone, you have too make a two kilometre horizantal smoothing including the lower slopes which are steeply climbing. That way we can prove that the top part is not a plateau at all.On Similarities between the skin cancer and climate change 'scams' posted 1 year, 7 months ago 173 Responses

Back to the lead article

Hi Solarmeter,   Reur  Ultraviolet and AGW @
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/30/1440/87125/#co ...

There are many parallels in the account you make, and how alarmism spreads from some spotty little study or opinion by "experts", or just pure politics etc.

I once chatted with a bright young thing who was doing a study on bone density loss in lactating women.  I forget the numbers exactly now, but I asked what her sample size was and was surprised how modest it was at about 50.  I asked if the participants were specially selected  in some way and the reply was no...random.  So I then reeled out a bunch of potential group differences that I thought might have a bearing on results, and that the individual group size would then become very small indeed.  She seemed to go into mild shock for a while.   EG some mothers modify their diet, smoking, drinking etc during pregnancy and lactation, or don't have the bad habits.  Some even take dietary supplements, and so-on.  Exercise, Genetics, body weight, age, medications, the possibilities are endless.  

We also see studies which give contradictory results.  Also, alarmist statements that a certain medication increases risk of some serious side effect by say 5%, but whilst discarding the benefits of the medication, and forgetting to say that it is say a 5% increase on the current rate of 3% which is not much at all.

Remember all that hype about the ozone hole?  It cost big bucks to "fix" and was trumpeted as a triumph.  Funny how it's gone quiet lately, and I think it was 2006 when it reached a record size....haven't checked lately.

Personally, I have always been puzzled how melanoma can occur on the soles of the feet, if exposure to sunlight is an important cause.  However, over exposure may well do, and intuitively makes good sense.

We also know that over-exposure to other good things, can be bad for you.

Your parallel interest in the hype on AGW, just draws another parallel

Regards,  BobFJOn Similarities between the skin cancer and climate change 'scams' posted 1 year, 7 months ago 173 Responses

Pangolin's afterthoughts

Hi Pangolin,

I found your afterthoughts, (penultimate post above), on Thermo' a touch confusing, and internally contradictory.  (I think)

Just a couple of things:

a)  Here is a paste from an on-line dictionary for the word endothermic:

1.  warm-blooded: maintaining a constant body temperature despite changes in the temperature of the environment  
   
2.  absorbing heat: describes a chemical reaction in which heat is absorbed. See also exothermic

b)  The reason why walking moderately quickly on burning coals does not hurt bare feet is that charcoal is a very poor conductor of heat, and a good insulator.  Walk slowly , and you will find they are very hot indeed.

BobFJOn Global temps may drop this year but, alas, world still warming posted 1 year, 7 months ago 132 Responses

MNG....The SUBJECT is:

Re:  http://www.grist.org/news/2008/04/04/world_temp/index.htm ...

Briefly:
The subject is the apparent plateau in the raw data over the past decade and less. The decade starts early in 1998 and ends recently.  Max has also looked at 2001 till now etc.  The subject does not include consideration of the years before 1998, or even the LIA or MWP.  We are discussing what has actually been observed over the past decade, and make no forecast for the future.

THAT IS THE SUBJECT

For more relevant information, please refer:
http://www.grist.org/news/2008/04/04/world_temp/index.htm ...
http://www.grist.org/news/2008/04/04/world_temp/index.htm ...
http://www.grist.org/news/2008/04/04/world_temp/index.htm ...
And the links thereinOn Global temps may drop this year but, alas, world still warming posted 1 year, 7 months ago 132 Responses

This getting silly spakest Oracle

Greyfalcon oracle wrote in part:
"Yes it's gonna be colder in 2008.
But enjoy it while it lasts, because it won't be for long."

Tell me oracle, who enjoys being cold? ...It's good to know the recent short-term trend does not worsen eh?

And the oracle did further announce in part:
"... and it's gonna be a lot hotter...
(And yes, climate change isn't caused by a single variable, however here are four of the big ones)
Solar Irradiance
Volcanic/Other Airborne Dust
ElNino/LaNina
Greenhouse gases."

Why just four?   What about clouds....and?  And for example:
Tell me oracle, have you deeply considered why the unusual lack of sunspots parallel with the cold 2008 so-far, why the puzzling reluctant start of cycle 23, why the logical comparisons made with cycle 14, the developing  barycentric theory of orbital dynamics of the Sun, the influence of the field reversals and other magnetic stuff and various non EMR emissions from the Sun WRT the Earth's magneto-sphere, and a few other BTW's?

Oh, and why dost thou keep avoiding comment on that 5-year programme at CERN involving over 50 scientists from around the World?

Still, it's good that you can forecast the climate with such confidence, although when you say:  "...it's goanna be a lot hotter.", do you actually have a time frame or magnitude for that?

Still, it's reassuring to learn that it is not lizard be colder!

With awe and respect,  BobFJOn Global temps may drop this year but, alas, world still warming posted 1 year, 7 months ago 132 Responses

John+ wants a "kill-file"?

See above:  http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/30/1440/87125#com ...

That's a truly interesting proposal!
If I understand correctly, he believes (together with MNG, both of them in a very sensitive fashion), that everyone should be sweet and nice in debate.  I totally agree with this as a concept, and try, but it is not the reality on the Dr. Dessler blogs.  (Or many other blogs)  I doubt if the reality can be changed by the wise philosophising of MNG/John+.

Me, Max, Benp, Jabailo, Darth and other rationalists whom seem to be targets in this have been called things like trolls, and liars, by Dr. Dressler himself.  Other less educated people with little understanding of the science have resorted to insults like idiot, rock-for-brains, and much more.  
However, do we go-off in a huff and refuse to debate with Dr, Dessler after such insults?  No!  We love to debate Andrew!

Could you MNG/John+ indicate where I or others have done such insult to you?

Please give us the opportunity to apologise, for I for one have tried to follow your guidelines, and know not what hurt I have caused.

 Regards BobFJ On Similarities between the skin cancer and climate change 'scams' posted 1 year, 7 months ago 173 Responses

I think Max meant to say:

Since all records show that global warming stopped in January 2001 (the official beginning of the 21st century),...

Rather than 2100, which must be a typoOn Similarities between the skin cancer and climate change 'scams' posted 1 year, 7 months ago 173 Responses

Pollution

In the penultimate post above, Stinkycheese, raised some good points about the need to reduce pollution, and I agree.  Hopefully, the move to greater efficiencies will have this effect at least in the developed World.  In fact there have already been improvements made over the decades.

His analogy:

"Meanwhile, the Model T got the same mileage as my fiancee's 2001 Ford Focus, but hey, why innovate?"

is getting around a bit and is not a good one.
If his fiancee drove her Ford Focus at the speeds and acceleration rates of the Model T, she would probably get excellent mileages, not to mention lower pollution and safety etc.

I have a friend in Belgium who owns a model T, and laughed recently that he was going flat-out along a narrow road, when a farm tractor honked for him to allow passing.

yes progress has its compromises

Burn more coal in the poverty stricken countries to generate electricity would be a good idea to reduce environmental degradation by reducing wood fire and dung cooking and heating.  Apparently millions die each year from such current practiceOn Why did Nature run Pielke's pointless, misleading, embarrassing nonsense? posted 1 year, 7 months ago 17 Responses

Just eyeball it!

Here are the Hadley Centre HadCRUT3 annually smoothed graphs:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif  Other data sources are somewhat similar.

The wiggly black line is an arbitrarily selected 20-year smoothing of apparently unpublished code which was selected to give a desired low frequency smoothing. By definition, there is no data available for the last half cycle of 10 years, (See my earlier posts), so there is apparently an extrapolation coding to "invent" that missing data through to ~2018. (Also see link below)

However, if we draw a vertical line at 1998, and then black-out everything to the left, that becomes irrelevant, and we can then purely consider the trend from thence forward.  Notice that 1998 is a high spike, which is followed by two down reversals which virtually neutralize it.

Now don't worry about what sort of statistical treatment of whomever's choice might be applied to this 10-year period, or any part of it; just eyeball it and you should be able to see that the trend over that short period is flat.  It's quite simple really, no need to make a meal of it!

PLEASE READ @: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2955
For greater understandingOn Similarities between the skin cancer and climate change 'scams' posted 1 year, 7 months ago 173 Responses

Graphical temperature trends

Hi John+,
After seeing your exchange with Max on this topic earlier today, I realized that two of my posts on another thread to MNG may well be of interest.  
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Graph smoothing for trend

Attn MNG,
Have you heard the expression: "you can prove anything with statistics'? There is another coarser one about knickers, you may have heard.
Did you know there are quite a variety of filters, and whatnot, which can give different outcomes over a long-term data set. However, these do not make any sense at all over a short term period. Max is perfectly correct in taking a linear trend over the past ten years or so. Nothing else would be meaningfull.
Incidentally, the infamous hockey-stick (MBH99)
used a 40-year smoothing, with an end-cheat of 20-years, but what sort of filter I do not know.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hadley smoothing of annual temperatures

Hi MNG, Further to my penultimate post above:
In your reference recently to a trend graph, I was surprised to see that the annual trend graph was stated to use a: 21-point binomial filter. I had not heard of such a filter before and it was late, so I let it pass. My puzzle was that if this was a weasel-name for 21-year smoothing, then the smoothed line should end 10.5 years short of the end of the data. To explain more; a 21-year smoothing, (of which there are several varieties) means that for any point in the data set, all the data for 10.5 years either side of that point is treated mathematically to obtain a smoothed trend at its centre. This is done, in order to eliminate noise, and emphasise low frequency trends.Thus, at the end of the data set, there is no data available to the right of that point. Why 21 years? Well it can be any period in order to achieve a desired result in smoothing. As I mentioned before MBH99 employed 40-year smoothing.
So the question remains; where did Hadley find additional data out to about 2018?
So, I went to a data expert's site, and here you have a more detailed review @
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2955
Enjoy your reading. BobFJ
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
John, I strongly recommend that you read the linked article.  It is a scientific site, and the prime author is an undisputed expert with data handling, statistics and computer code.

Regards,  BobFJ

Oh correction; for 10.5 years read 10, and for 21 years read 20, (20 years = 21 points!)On Similarities between the skin cancer and climate change 'scams' posted 1 year, 7 months ago 173 Responses

Hadley smoothing of annual temperatures

Hi MNG, Further to my penultimate post above:

In your reference recently to a trend graph, I was surprised to see that the annual trend graph was stated to use a: 21-point binomial filter.   I had not heard of such a filter before and it was late, so I let it pass.  My puzzle was that if this was a weasel-name for 21-year smoothing, then the smoothed line should end 10.5 years short of the end of the data.  To explain more; a 21-year smoothing, (of which there are several varieties) means that for any point in the data set, all the data for 10.5 years either side of that point is treated mathematically to obtain a smoothed trend at its centre.  This is done, in order to eliminate noise, and emphasise low frequency trends.Thus, at the end of the data set, there is no data available to the right of that point.  Why 21 years?  Well it can be any period in order to achieve a desired result in smoothing.  As I mentioned before MBH99 employed 40-year smoothing.

So the question remains; where did Hadley find additional data out to about 2018?

So, I went to a data expert's site, and here you have a more detailed review @
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2955

Enjoy your reading.   BobFJOn Global temps may drop this year but, alas, world still warming posted 1 year, 7 months ago 132 Responses

Dr. Dessler and obfuscation

Hi Andrew,
Reur   sceptical obfuscation
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/30/1440/87125#com ...

"Black Wallaby-
Thanks for your response. It's now crystal clear that you completely made up the "theory" that a warming world would lead to degassing of CO2 from the ocean.
For the lurkers: there's only one legitimate scientific theory, and that's increasing CO2 leads to ocean acidification. If you want to see the science behind it, you can read the IPCC reports. See Chapter 5 of the WGI report."

I'm pleased with the comments from Max, whilst I was away for a few days, and I guess your unkind accusation of me is now seen as unfounded.
I don't see anything worthwhile adding other than querying your use of the word `lurker'  My mother-tongue is of the mother-land of the English language, and my understanding of `lurker' is that it is a far from complementary address, in all usual contexts.  Since certain bloggers on this site like to obfuscate about the meaning of certain words, in a moment of insanity, I invested $41 on the most substantial Anglo-Oz dictionary I have ever owned.  (The respected Macquarie Concise)  It confirms my understanding of that word.
What meaning do you have in Americano, and at whom was it aimed?

In the furtherness of international understanding!
Regards, BobFJOn Similarities between the skin cancer and climate change 'scams' posted 1 year, 7 months ago 173 Responses

MNG inaccuracies #3

Hi MNG,
Reur:  Oceans, CO2, and pH for average folks
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/30/1440/87125#com ...

You wrote as a preface:
"For the benefit of Grist readers who are not familiar with chemistry, I have assembled a brief description of oceanic CO2 absorption, emission, and pH, which I hope will give these readers a general understanding of this subject."

This appears to be in response to Max's post to Dr. Dessler at
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/30/1440/87125#com ...

However, I would comment that most readers would have learnt by now what CO2 and pH means WRT the oceans.  On the other hand you do not explain the significance of pCO2 or DIC, or the interrelationship of carbonate or bicarbonate, which chemically may have a lot of readers, (or average folks as you call them), rather puzzled, including me.  Thus you do not help them adequately with the chemistry.

In fact, most of what you say relates to physical and other processes for which YOU appear to have an agenda and personal belief

For instance, you say:

"Some measurements have been made which support this estimate, but more research is being conducted to refine the knowledge in this area."

Please advise where did you get this spin?  What measure of magnitude are you claiming, with what measure of confidence?  What do you mean by refine?

And another for instance, you say:

It is important to note that there are biological and chemical mechanisms within the oceans that can slowly sequester some of the dissolved CO2, and by so doing, slowly mitigate the pH decrease caused by CO2 absorption. However, it is not clear that these mechanisms can work quickly enough to fully mitigate the anticipated pH changes brought on by rapidly increasing atmospheric CO2 levels.

More conditionals, more unscaled parameters, more opinion without references, more assumption by simply not mentioning the opposite possibility that CO2 may be out-gassing more rapidly than in your opinion.  (It's solubility reduces with increasing water temperature AOTBE)

I submit that this is a biased and inaccurate summary
Perhaps you should also place a few "I think" or "not all scientists agree" statements too.

Regards  BobFJOn Similarities between the skin cancer and climate change 'scams' posted 1 year, 7 months ago 173 Responses

MNG inaccuracies 2:

Hi MNG, Reur:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/30/1440/87125#com ...

You wrote in part:
"In an earlier comment on this thread, someone pointed out that elevated atmospheric CO2 levels are predicted to warm the oceans and increase oceanic CO2 emissions. This was appropriately described as a "positive feedback" which would increase warming.
That commenter also noted that oceanic CO2 emissions raise oceanic pH, and asked how it is possible for oceanic pH to continue to drop if oceanic CO2 emissions rise due to warming...
... The short answer to this question is that the oceans are currently estimated to be absorbing 7 billion tons more CO2 per year than they are emitting..."

That someone is probably me; Black Wallaby.  I commented on the views of two camps in climate science with opposing views, which, as I pointed out above, have no evidential adequacy.   You do not address the core issue which is:  How can these opposing scientific opinions exist in parallel, bearing in mind that with current resources, neither can be proven either way.  The short answer is not your estimated 7 billion tons of CO2 per year, but: we don't know which of the plausible possibilities is correct, or their scales.

When you say "it has been estimated", you give no indication of where that estimation came from.  The absence of an estimation for the opposite opinion,  which is probably of several orders of magnitude more difficult to determine, should not be argued as proof that increased out-gassing from warmer water does not exist.  (although you make no argument but just ignore it).  Finally, are you aware that the estimates of ocean CO2 flux, (last time I looked), were so huge that a mere 7 billion tons would be an extremely bold estimate VV the error margins on the estimated flux.

You also wrote:

"...Given sufficient warming, it is possible that the oceanic CO2 emission and absorption rates might become equal; however the global average temperature at which that equilibrium occurs may be harmful to both land and aquatic plant and animal species that are adapted to lower temperatures..."

Do you have any references for these ocean warming assumptions etc?

* I submit that this summary is unbalanced and inaccurate*On Similarities between the skin cancer and climate change 'scams' posted 1 year, 7 months ago 173 Responses

MNG philosophies continued

Hi MNG

You  give long and detailed multi-post advice as to how us bloggers should behave in their correspondence.  In general, I find your opinions to be quite sound, if perhaps over-ideological.  However, there is one behaviour of yours that is very unsatisfactory per my philosophy.   That is; your tendency to  treat earlier comments as anonymous; interpret them in your own way; and then elaborate them for the alleged  benefit of other readers, as if they were unable to form their own opinions.   (and/or do not wish to post, for clarification or objection, whatever, for whatever reason)

Anyone who wishes to compare the sources with your opinions, especially when it is buried way-up-there in a long thread, is, unless prepared to work-on-it thus left with;  "trust me", I, MNG am the oracle!

May I suggest that political correctness can be over-done?    If I would like to know what you are talking about, I would like to see some clues.  Give the commentator you speak of an identity, or better still, the short-cut link to his/her post.   Grist has incorporated a feature on-site for that purpose.  Just right-click the date at the foot of each post and then click "Copy short-cut", and paste it into your post, where it is appropriate.   That way, there is no need to go searching for it; one click, and you are there.  

I am also wondering if when you make one of your summaries, that if you are challenged on a point of accuracy, that it is unimportant, and it is the end of debate as far as you are concerned.  A case in point can be found at:  http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/5/214956/5753#com ...

Incidentally, I sometimes wonder if it is worth debating with some of the AGW alarmists anyway, because they mostly refuse to believe certain facts that cut across their belief systems.  (sometimes with extreme abuse.... Even Dr Dessler is guilty of this sometimes).   What encourages me to keep going is that there may be some rational people who quietly observe the debate.   BTW, I have been fully retired for ~13 years, and do not work for "big oil" or anyone.   As Max mentioned somewhere,  ~4 million PEOPLE (yes; human beings) alone are thought to die each year from drinking polluted water and from inhaling smoke from cooking and heating fires.  That e.g. is where the money should be spent, not on the "we think" self perpetuating politics of the IPCC!

Sorry, I got carried away there, the question I was to ask is:  Do you know how many "quiet visitors" there are to these threads?

Regards,  BobFJOn Similarities between the skin cancer and climate change 'scams' posted 1 year, 7 months ago 173 Responses

Cosmoclimatology Continued

I've brought to the attention of AGW alarmists, on various threads, that there is a dedicated international team of over 50 scientists working at CERN on Svensmarks findings.

The reaction from the alarmists is akin to a stunned Mullet;

Quoting CERN on their 5 (five) year programme:  

"The collaboration comprises an interdisciplinary team from 18 institutes and 9 countries in Europe, the United States and Russia. It brings together atmospheric physicists, solar physicists, and cosmic ray and particle physicists to address a key question in the understanding of clouds and climate change. "The experiment has attracted the leading aerosol, cloud and solar-terrestrial physicists from Europe; Austria, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Switzerland and the United Kingdom are especially strong in this area"

It's odd that the alarmists do not react favourably at the possibility of good news.On Research finds (once again) that climate change is not caused by cosmic rays posted 1 year, 7 months ago 16 Responses

Wendigo's complex system

Hi wendigo,

Yes, I agree, but the T versus CO2 relationship alone, (= all other things being equal), is not a complex system, therefore, obviously there must be something else that causes departure from that simple characteristic relationship.
Thank you for further demonstrating my point.  On Global temps may drop this year but, alas, world still warming posted 1 year, 7 months ago 132 Responses

Phase relationships....?

Hi MNG,    Reur subject post #7 above:

"...But regardless of the phase relationship between the coil flow and our hand motions, we always knew that our hands were driving the system.
The idea that a driving function and a driven function must always be in phase is wrong. The phase relationship depends on the responsiveness of the functions.
It is thus also wrong to think that there can be no cause-and-effect relationship between functions which are sometimes (or even always) out-of-phase..."

Your "slinky" toy may seem a good analogy, but bear in mind that it is a very "pure" purpose-built machine, which has no significant inefficiencies, and all the +/- impulses and elastic reactions are in-series in special appositions.  Another thing is that it is not really driven by the hands, but by utilizing bio-feedback of hand-eye-brain, to learn and tune a skill for a desired result.  A subtle error in skill in trying to achieve desired complex interactions, and I imagine, (I have not tried a slinky), the result would be "disappointing".  Can you think of any natural process that is analogous to your more complex intelligence driven synchronicity skills on a special machine?

Also, your special purpose-built machine would not work if it was less perfect, say with randomly varying diameters of the coils, or something with different responses were to be linked in parallel, (as distinct from in-series), to it etc.  In free-fall, the machine would behave differently without the downward gravitational force on your "rainbow" shape, and so-on.  A clever (and very, very patient) engineer, could probably accurately calculate the weird relative movements and phases etc, if all its material and metrology details were known.  This again makes the machine very different to what happens in climate change matters.

The greenhouse theory as it is applied to an increasing level of CO2 in the atmosphere requires that all other things being equal, the average surface air temperature, will increase in a progressive but complex way.  (~logarithmically)

Whilst there has been a general rise in both parameters over the last century or so, there was a pronounced cooling period from about 1940 to 1958, depending on source and smoothing method.  It was also arguably ~flat from about 1950 to maybe 1978.   It has also been ~flat for the last ten years, and 2008 may well net a down-trend for eleven years. (again, depending on source and smoothing/trending techniques used)

Remember, that the AGW theory, all other things being equal, should show a progressive rise in temperature, with the progressive rise of CO2.  Not only are the down, or flat trends uncharacteristic of this simple progressive relationship, but the very sharp rise for two decades prior to 1998, is also uncharacteristic.  

There are several possible causes for these deviations:
a)  There is something else causing temperature change other than, or in addition to increasing CO2.........and/or
b)  The data contain errors, and/or c) are not representative of realistic parameters.  

Concerning b)   Bad data can be proven in part, and c) What the heck is a global average temperature anyway, and does recent infra-red measurement of CO2 on a volcanic Hawaiian island at over 3,000 metres altitude represent a global average anyway?
But that's all another L  O  N  G story!

Regards,  BobFJOn Global temps may drop this year but, alas, world still warming posted 1 year, 7 months ago 132 Responses

Too much of a good thing is bad

Hi MNG,
Reur:  PEL's for living things

Nice to see you are back and adding some calm more philosophical aspects to the debate.

It is interesting, and surprising to me that 10% CO2 in air results in asphyxiation, but I imagine it would be slower and less awful than a 10% lungful of water, (whatever that is).
I have always imagined that drowning is not the best way to die, going on my experience of a relatively small amount of water "going down the wrong way".   I think I've heard that a small amount of CO included with CO2 makes it quite peaceful if you want to part the good life.
Photosynthesis dependent life forms love CO2 of course, and have evolved in the overall biological processes such that at ~20% O2 and ~ 80% N2 everything is fine, and there is not too much oxygen about.  However, I read somewhere that greenhouse tomatoes just love 1,000 PPM of CO2, and their attendants have no complaints.  I seem to recall that less than 200 PPM CO2, can become a real problem for some plants, depending on other factors too.

Concerning the hype about increasing acidity in the oceans, and how it is going to destroy calcareous life-forms and hence the whole life chain, there are....well!....read-on:  

a) Take one branch of climate science, and they say that as the oceans get warmer with AGW, because cold water can absorb more CO2 than warm, when it warms, there will be an increased out-gassing of CO2.  (= alarming positive feed-back and a further acceleration of warming)

b)  Another group(s), possibly led by marine biologists, contradicts a) by saying that despite less capable absorption capacity of warming water, it is holding ever increasing concentrations of CO2, and thus increasing in acidity.  (carbonic acid)

c)  More correctly, group b) should say that the pH (may) be reducing, OR the alkalinity is reducing, but of course increasing acidity sounds a bit more scary, than reducing alkalinity.  One paper states in part:  "surface ocean pH is estimated to have dropped from near 8.25 to near 8.14 between 1751 and 2004,"   (A drop in pH of 0.11 over ~250 years, in the alkaline range; neutral =7)

d)  However, the whole topic is very complicated indeed:  For instance, the quote in c) above almost becomes a joke when these complexities are properly considered.  I refer you to the link below which takes you roughly to the middle of a more scholarly forum, on page 2 of 3, as a good starting point for understanding some of the issues.

http://www.climateaudit.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3& ...

Your rational comments on this would be appreciated.  I think you will find the link interesting; there's even a bit of philosophy at the end, page 3.

Regards, BobFJ

P.S. have just returned from a few days break.On Similarities between the skin cancer and climate change 'scams' posted 1 year, 7 months ago 173 Responses

According to Gristmil Records

Re: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/5/214956/5753#com ...

Go to any post from josullivan58, and click on her name at the foot, and it is a link to her personal details, where you will find

View josullivan58's comments
Email: josullivan58@hotmail.com

Click on comments and it will initially take you to the first 25 of her comments.  Use the live search facility in your browser for the word puppet, and you will find that she has used "sock puppet" in at least eight of her posts since 10/Feb/2008.  one such usage was in the context of sock puppet theatre, so she would appear to understand her usage.  I listed them above @

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/5/214956/5753#com ...

JoDullivan, please seek medical helpOn The Heartland conference recycles the usual climate change skeptics in its speakers list posted 1 year, 7 months ago 287 Responses

Catching up with J+ bit by bit

Hi J+, Reur
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/5/214956/5753#com ...
You wrote in part:

"Black Wallaby:
You say "could be rude and suggest that your comment is syllogistic..", well it is not really a formal syllogism, but it is similar logical construct. The main difference is that a syllogism is either true or false, but a logical fallacy is false."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Erh, actually, you have lost the context maybe by quoting me only in part.  Perhaps you should review what I actually said, partly in jest:

I could be rude and suggest that your comment is syllogistic, even sillygastromatic, but because I am a gentleman, I prefer to hope that you simply did not understand what Max was saying, and that perhaps there is still hope for you to learn. Max's post contained a lot of useful information that you were probably not aware of, since otherwise, you ought adopt a different attitude. I actually think that Max's post was very clever indeed, but you need to understand that it was a satirical presentation of some IMPORTANT facts, and that satire almost by definition does not follow YOUR black or white rules and definitions. The only conclusion I can draw is that Max's revelations were either: a) "above-your-head" OR: b) Simply dismissed because of your attachment to your dogma.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hey look, I want to make a post to "Really Nice Cool Guy", that I drafted earlier off line, and it is now a little after 10 pm local time, so bye for now.

BobFJOn The Heartland conference recycles the usual climate change skeptics in its speakers list posted 1 year, 7 months ago 287 Responses

Sheep-Shaggers Unite

Hi again dog-fungus, (sorry, Caniscandida)

Are you trying to confuse maximusdresmus, me, or both?  You're probably succeeding.

What's your problem with Tasmania and penguins any way?

We gave you sheep-shaggers our common bushy-tail possums, what else do you need?  Additional Australian social benefits? What else?  Disease free apples?

I give-up!
You ungrateful lot!On The Heartland conference recycles the usual climate change skeptics in its speakers list posted 1 year, 7 months ago 287 Responses

But also Mister Cool Nice Guy

Further to the above;
In your infinite wisdom, I now notice that you truncated the question, (and hence its reply) which originally in-full was:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Erh, have you MNG heard of 'satire'

Have you heard that it might be an alternative to wakopedia OPINIONS on phylosofee?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Your wisdom was thus not as embracing as it might have been, if you were sincere in understanding.

BTW, do you agree that most philosophy is a matter of opinion, and generally pertinent to whom else in the field that you followOn The Heartland conference recycles the usual climate change skeptics in its speakers list posted 1 year, 7 months ago 287 Responses

Concerning IQ check on Lovely Jo

Further to my post above, you should have noted a few earlier clues, like Max's keyboard use of an umlaut(?), topics etc, that the evidence is very strong that he lives in Switzerland. (The German bit probably) He appears to have retired to bed some 3 hours ago, saying it was late where he lives. For me, I can tell you that it has been "cold" and showery today in Melbourne Australia, and that yesterday we had violent storms, deaths, injuries, and a power outage of some 12 hours in my area.  Hence in part, no posts from me yesterday.  Nevertheless it's looking good tomorrow and I may take a break of 2 or 3 days in the mountains NE of Melbourne Australia.  (approaching 5:30 pm local time, Thursday)

This is fun!

 On The Heartland conference recycles the usual climate change skeptics in its speakers list posted 1 year, 7 months ago 287 Responses

Just for fun:

I thought I'd check just how many times Lovely Jo Sullivan has used the description "sock puppet" on Gristmill recently even though she claims never to have used it, or to even know what it means.  Here are eight (8) of them by (abbreviated) comment and number, (Her # 1 is just above) under her user ID:

9) Re: Four hundred skeptics? Try 19
manacker/black wallaby protests too much
manacker and black wallaby are the same person. Reading his comments is like sitting through an episode of sock puppet theater.

10) Re: Four hundred skeptics? Try 19
Don't feed the trolls
manacker and his sock puppet black wallaby are applying lesson 1 and lesson 2 from Nexus

17) Re: Another one bites the dust
Pangolin is right
"Oh, and please, please quit the chatty, "hi norm" bit. We know you're all sitting in the same room."
Yes we do know, manacker and black wallaby are sock puppets of the same person. They both misuse the term blog. Manacker/black wallaby here is some ...

19) Re: Hurricanes and global warming
manacker = black wallaby
There is no difference between manacker and black wallaby. Its the same person with a different sign on name. They are sock puppets.
The writing style is the same. Both make comments in poetry. Manacker makes a point of writing "bye for now" or saying ...

20) Re: The 'Inhofe 400' Skeptic of the Day
Oh I forgot
black wallaby (manacker's sock puppet)
"Please stop taking-up unfertile page-space and go elsewhere"
Yes that's right, gristmill is black wallaby's blog and black wallaby decides who can make comments here and what the comments should be. For ...

21) Re: More on statements by scientific organizations
Don't bother
manacker and his sock puppets have no interest in science.
They are using the same strategy that tobacco lobbyists and the creationists are using.
Its creating a controversy that doesn't exist to push a political view.
manacker does not need to ...

25) Re: Happy birthday
I though manacker was on a break
manacker:
"Like I said, figures don't lie..."
No accurate figures don't lie, but manacker and his sock puppet black wallaby do lie constantly.

26)  A new study
There a study that applies to manacker's and black wallaby's comments.
Study: 38 Percent Of People Not Actually Entitled To Their Opinion
"American society currently has a drastic oversupply of the kinds who don't have any good or worthwhile thoughts whatsoever. We could actually do just fine without them"
http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/study_38_perc ... ...
manacker and what seems to be a sock puppet black wallaby are firmly in that 38%.
by josullivan58 at 6:46 PM on 10 Feb 2008

Strange that she should "forget" all this!
Usually such unusual word combinations and usages are easily remembered!   You know; rewmember by association?

Oh BTW jo', as another check on your IQ, the local time here, where I live in Melbourne Australia is a little after 5 (five) pm.On The Heartland conference recycles the usual climate change skeptics in its speakers list posted 1 year, 7 months ago 287 Responses

Wisdoms

Hi John+,

Responding to your:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/5/214956/5753#com ...

Thank you for you're your advice, but I did not realize that you were such a sensitive person!
Let me give you some advice in return:

Always try and maintain a sense of humour in debate
Always bear in mind that if you repeatedly evade responding to certain issues, as you have, then it may well irritate the other party.  It may also send a message to observers of the debate that puts you in a bad light.  (trying to phrase it nicely

You also wrote in part:

"In the past on this blog you have tried to rewrite history to make a point of yours (and a rather insignificant one as well)..."

That would be me lying about some historical event would it?
Anything in particular that has upset you?

Take it easy John;  have you seen some of the stuff that "Lovely Jo", Frankbi, Mark UK and a few etc's come out with at times?   On The Heartland conference recycles the usual climate change skeptics in its speakers list posted 1 year, 7 months ago 287 Responses

More Cross obfuscation

John+,

Here follows an extract from your:

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/5/214956/5753#com ...

However I think that the interesting thing is that less than a year after this was published he is publishing work that says the altimeter method he used is not a reliable method (as I outlined above).  This is critical since it really shows what his thoughts were about his work.  Do you think it is reasonable for a scientist to think that his work is - as you put it - .  ... such very important work, of strong new evidence one year and then less than a year later to highlight 4 problems with it?  To me it seems much more likely that he was well aware of the potential problems with the altimeter method and thus did not push to get it in.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You John can speculate as much as you like, but why should anyone accept your speculations as Boojum-true?

The fact is that Wingham had his paper published in PRINT on 15/June.....BTW that's after 2/June, not that it matters.

I have not actually read the full 2007 paper that you refer to.  (BTW have you? or have you perhaps relied on accounts by others like RC on it?). However, regardless of what it may or may not truthfully say, it is irrelevant to the conclusions drawn by the IPCC for the specific eleven-year (11-year) period from 1992 - 2003, as elaborated by the IPCC in the SPM.

Even the IPCC can only draw on prevailing knowledge.  They are not capable of fortelling scientific opinions into the future!

Cross-boy, you may be superhuman, but as far as I am aware there is no evidence of this in the IPCC.On The Heartland conference recycles the usual climate change skeptics in its speakers list posted 1 year, 8 months ago 287 Responses

And another thing Cross boy

Hi John+,

Here is an extract from my:  http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/5/214956/5753#com ...

The context of the discussion is that the IPCC made certain claims of ice-melt for the whole of Greenland and Antarctica for a specific ELEVEN-YEAR period, (1992 - 2003), claiming a consequent sea-level rise. Davis pointed to contrary snow accumulation in Antarctica, but the overall treatment was deficient, so it was easily dismissed by the IPCC. Along comes Wingham later in 2006, and those deficiencies were addressed, showing that the IPCC conclusions were wrong for Antarctica for THAT whole period, (1992 -2003), within the PREVAILING knowledge. (For 1992 - 2003). However, this work was not even mentioned in WG1, Ch.4. The excuse of an initial deadline exclusion of it is not a valid reason for such very important work, of strong new evidence which contradicted the IPCC's conclusions for 1992 - 2003. In contrast to that atypical exclusion, within that chapter alone, the following nineteen (19) post-cut-off works WERE indeed included and discussed, some of them extensively, even in figures, and even after modified figures:-

Mote, 2006; Qin et al. (2006) modified from Duguay et al., 2006; Cullen et al., 2006; Klein and Kincaid, 2006; Monaghan et al., 2006; Box et al., 2006; van de Berg et al. (2006); Zwally et al., 2006; Thomas et al., 2006; Legresy et al., 2006; Velicogna and Wahr, 2006; Mitrovica et al., 2006; Rignot and Kanagaratnam, 2006; Ramillien et al. (2006), Hanna et al., 2006; van den Broeke et al (2006); Mitrovica et al., 2006 ; Dupont and Alley, 2006;

So why the cherry-picking?

Funny how the IPCC can squeeze-in 19 (nineteen) other late works in just Ch.4 alone, when it is a convenient truth for them!
Furthermore, your discussion of even later works, or any spatially and/or temporally different data, to the FULL 365/24/7 coverage of 1992 - 2003 is irrelevant to the core issues.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As far as I am aware, you have not properly responded to the above.
Of particular note is that you continue to obfuscate that Wingham 2006 did not meet the second order draft cut-off date.  Well neither too, did all those others bolded for emphasis above!

You also ignore that the second order draft for EXTERNAL review is superseded by the so-called final draft which is entirely INTERNAL and subject to further reviews.

Please advise in detail how YOU apply YOUR conclusions as to why the IPCC "excluded" Wingham 2006, whereas those conclusions do NOT apply to a statistically significant number of other papers which also failed to meet the same deadline.

BTW, if this was a law-case, it might be taken into consideration that those other papers which were accepted by the IPCC authors, (after cut-off) were either written by the authors, or their colleagues, or were sympathetic to the vested interests of the authors

Regards BobFJOn The Heartland conference recycles the usual climate change skeptics in its speakers list posted 1 year, 8 months ago 287 Responses

Oh BTW Cross boy

Hi John+
I've just read through my two posts above to see if they might need further clarification, and I notice in the penultimate that unless you do indeed have a scientific background, you may have difficulty in understanding some of the points.

For instance, you may try to understand footnote 7) as a simple statement of fact or scientific perfection, whatever.
However I had assumed from an earlier post of yours that you UNDERSTOOD that the perhaps lay-simplicity concept of air flowing over a wing, is actually very complicated, thus indicating that you might be some kind of scientist.

Thus I spoke to you as a scientist, assuming among other things that you were familiar with lab-work etc.

Keeping it short, I recoiled in DISMAY at the banality of the elaboration in footnote 7.  If you cannot understand that, then we are talking on different wavelengths.

Regards BobFJ

PS... oh BTW, although your prior use of 'vortexes' is used 'commonly' (as in the 'by the lower classes'), as the plural of 'vortex', is not 'vorteces' more culturaly correct in the English language?  (Given that you like to pilosophise and define various language processes in a rather pompous, even if irrelevant manner)On The Heartland conference recycles the usual climate change skeptics in its speakers list posted 1 year, 8 months ago 287 Responses

Catch-up with Cross boy

Hi John+

When I opened at about 5:15 pm local time, I saw that this blog is up to comment #234, and as far as I am aware, you have not responded to my comment # 93 from way-back, which was in response to yours.  It is repeated below,for your convenience and for any rational visitors whom may pass by:  

Validity of Ice-Core Data
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/5/214956/5753#com ...

Hi John,
Reur post: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/5/214956/5753#com ... ...  #77
You wrote in part, concerning CO2 lagging behind T:
"My gut feeling is that 800 is not too long - especially with the resolution we are seeing. If the oceans are a significant source of CO2, then it would be a while before they finished out gassing. Perhaps the increase in temperatures increased plant production in the early rise which absorbed the CO2 keeping levels roughly constant. But it is just a guess on my part."
We have both mentioned likely increased plant growth with increasing T & CO2, but you prompt me to remember that it has been said that it is the marine element that is the greatest CO2 absorber, AND, the CO2 levels should have a rapid out-gassing response to increasing T. (In the surface layers, so what the outcome is, I think is tricky to say) Also the land-plants pose a complex picture, because among other things, their stomata or pore size in the leaves have to reach a careful balance with need to maximise CO2 up-take, whilst minimising transpiration loss of water. I seem to recall somewhere that terrestrial plants are on the verge of "real discomfort" at around 200 PPM or below and require more water to survive. And of course, for example, greenhouse tomatoes just love 1,000 PPM. Whatever the outcome is, it's complicated and speculative.
Anyhow there are many hypotheses floating around, and they can't all be correct. We can simply disagree. You think 800 years lag is OK, I think it is too long. (Unless a graded response rather than a sudden switch-on after 800 years could be shown). You also mentioned earlier that the work by Loulergue suggests a shorter lag period. Have you read the paper and rejected it?
Apart from that, I show below my "pegs in the ground" in descending order of importance;
1) Even if the ice core data is accurate WRT proxy T, CO2, and when in time relative to today, the first two parameters are for those local conditions only. Those local conditions are in extremely uninhabitable zones and comprise an extremely small sample of the Earths surface. Thus, they give no indication WRT average global conditions, or even for the regions where people live. This truth is scarcely known in the media etc.
Of significantly lesser importance:

2.  There appears to be a consensus that CO2 lags behind T increase, by maybe 800 years
   
3.  Glaciologists cannot agree on the relative age of the gas trapped in the ice, versus the age of the ice itself. There may be some logic in the argument that it is greater in Antarctica than Greenland, but the spread of hypotheses that I'm aware of; 83 to 6,000 years seems excessive. (See footnote 3)
   
4.   Glaciologists argue that the air that is trapped in ice in bubbles at the instant of full closure, whatever and whenever that is, is the same as the air above the surface of the snow, at that time, at say a depth of around 90 metres. The quantum theory of gaseous diffusion seems to be their mainstay argument, but I find this to be a rather dodgy hypothesis. (See footnote 4)
   
5.   Satellite observation shows ever increasing extent of surface melting in recent years in Greenland, and there must be at least annual crusting, but also percolation into the firn seems likely, altering the isotope ratios. Incidentally, recorded temperatures in Greenland were similar in the early 1900's but we don't hear much about that. Crusting has also been observed in bores in Antarctica. Some have indicated that the diffusion discussed in 4) is not possible because of the impermeable layers this creates.
   
6.  The question remains as to whether the gas bubbles trapped in the ice, (some at enormous pressures and reducing size), remain identical chemically to the air from which they originated. To assert that this is so, is an assumption because not all of the processes can be understood or TESTED. Those that think the assumption is true, and have spent years or decades working on it are not likely to accept any hypotheses which contradicts their beliefs. Jawolowski is the most prominent critic, and to me, some of his hypotheses seem to be strongly supported. Others maybe less so.
   
7.   The question remains as to whether the several methods of extraction of the entrapped gas in the cores, and the removal of the cores, their transport and pressure release, etc., does not result in contamination and/or chemical reactions. To assert that this is so, is an assumption....Ditto, Ditto, as in 6) and see footnote 7)
   
8.  There are a variety of contradictory hypotheses in the literature. Not all of them can be true. I've just seen that you and Max are getting a bit carried away by some of Z's political rhetoric. Not much to do with his science, and even if he is totally wrong, there is something very fishy about the remainder in the literature. But why worry? The glaciologists are well funded. They will continue their work ad nauseam, just as the Dendro's do, and maybe domani domani we will get more sense. Meanwhile, all that matters really, is item 1) above.
   

P.S. Still have to catch-up on your other stuff
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
3) Continued:
Extract from: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.htm
Because air bubbles do not close at the surface of the ice sheet but only near the firn-ice transition (that is, at ~90 m below the surface at Vostok), the air extracted from the ice is younger than the surrounding ice (Barnola et al. 1991). Using semiempirical models of densification applied to past Vostok climate conditions, Barnola et al. (1991) reported that the age difference between air and ice may be ~6000 years during the coldest periods instead of ~4000 years, as previously assumed.
Make what you will of the following subject graphic:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/vostok.co2.gif
4) Continued:
Gaseous diffusion can be demonstrated as follows: Hypothetically, take two sealed containers one filled with air of "zero age", and the other with air say "1-year old", and with all other things being equal, (AOTBE), connect them with a small pipe. Because individual gas molecules are randomly moving in all directions at a speed related to their individual energy levels, EVENTUALLY the air from the two sources becomes evenly mixed even though it is apparently motionless. That is to say that the "average air-age" in both containers will become 6 months old, not 1-year and zero, as initially. The colder it is, the longer it takes. Now, instead of just two containers, make it say 1,000 with each progressively containing air "1-year older" so that the total age difference is 1,000 years. (AOTBE but none of the connecting tubes in line-of-sight of each other) Now try and figure-out how long it will take before all the containers have an average air-age of 500 years. Now consider the air cavities in a 90-metre thick layer of firn. They are probably randomly connected with micro-fissures, but mostly in the horizontal. What.... maybe 10 million + to the 90 cubic metres?.....just a guess. How would you model this? I've left out a few considerations/ complications for the sake of brevity!
7) Continued:
Extract from http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.htm
...Ice samples were cut with a bandsaw in a cold room (at about -15°C) as close as possible to the center of the core in order to avoid surface contamination (Barnola et al. 1983). Gas extraction and measurements were performed with the "Grenoble analytical setup," which involved crushing the ice sample (~40 g) under vacuum in a stainless steel container without melting it, expanding the gas released during the crushing in a pre-evacuated sampling loop, and analyzing the CO2 concentrations by gas chromatography...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You also did not respond to the latter half of my following post:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/5/214956/5753#com ...
Would it not be a good idea to address the issues above, or are they technically too challenging for you?On The Heartland conference recycles the usual climate change skeptics in its speakers list posted 1 year, 8 months ago 287 Responses

Philosophical Ellusions

Ah yes,

By definition, phylosofee is philosophical!

Erh, have you MNG heard of 'satire'

Have you heard that it might be an alternative to wakopedia OPINIONS on phylosofee?On The Heartland conference recycles the usual climate change skeptics in its speakers list posted 1 year, 8 months ago 287 Responses