By request here is a new thread for folks to argue with Tim Curtin. Tim, this is the only thread you are allowed to post on.
(Somehow I deleted this portion of my previous post)
Then at slides 20 and 22 we find these statements “All [modeled data] were found to be small or in the wrong direction to explain the observed annual-mean discrepancies”
This is straight-out misrepresentation of the slide (≡ lying?). What Stephens’ slide actually says is:
Observational and modeling [sic] biases evaluated:
Interlaboratory calibration offsets and measurement errors
Interannual variations and long-term trends
Flight-day weather bias
Spatial and Temporal Representativeness
All were found to be small or in the wrong direction to explain the observed annual-mean discrepancies
Observational and modeling [sic] biases evaluated:
All were found to be small or in the wrong direction to explain the observed annual-mean discrepancies
So, both observational and modelling biases were evaluated. As Stephens says, all of the evaluated biases in the system were found to be small or in the wrong direction to explain the observed annual-mean discrepancies. This simply means that the observed annual-mean discrepancies were the result of something other than the evaluated biases.
What is the problem with that?
It certainly says nothing to cast any doubt on the validity of the measured CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere up to the 8km of altitudinal sampling considered in the presentation.
Your prattling at #496 is purely mendacious dissembling in an effort to hide the fact that you are wrong about the mixing of CO2 in the atmosphere. Either that, or you are simply astonishingly incompetent in the interpretation of very basic slides.
And, “No model does well at all times of year. Models that do well in summer do poorly in other seasons”. A case of GIGO?
No. The data (CO2 concentrations) ‘going in’ are solid. There is no garbage, except from your corner.
All that one can conclude from the slide is that the listed models do not account for inter-seasonal variation. Given that there is no indication of whether other model refinements were discussed, or exactly how significant the inter-seasonal variation failures of the models are, it is pure mischief to attempt to imply that somehow Stephens’ measurements of altitudinal CO2 concentration are in doubt. The samplings themselves are rock-solid.
As the conclusion at slide 23 confirms:
“Models with large tropical sources and large northern uptake are inconsistent with observed annual-mean vertical gradients”.
As the conclusion at slide 23 confirms:
“Models with large tropical sources and large northern uptake are inconsistent with observed annual-mean vertical gradients”.
Again, what is the problem with this? It merely suggests that “northern uptake” is not as large as modelled (a big problem for those relying on temperate forests as carbon sinks), or perhaps that “tropical sources” are not as large as was modelled, although the latter is easily dismissed by budgeting for CO2 resulting from land clearance and from burning-off.
It does not refute the measured magnitude of the vertical CO2 gradients, nor does it refute the fact that such gradients are not caused by CO2 being “heavier than air”.
Desperate times call for desperate measures though, don’t they Curtin? Aren’t you ever embarrassed by your clumsy mashing of simple science?
So, now we’ve reached the 500th post on the second thread dedicated to Curtin’s crazy pseudoscience, and it’s probably close to time for shutting this one down too, as the Purveyor of Miraculous Radium WaterTM has consistently failed to back up anything at all of the litany of pseudoscientific nonsense that he has produced.
It’s moments like these when one might benefit from a recap of the story thus far. To that end, I have taken 15 minutes to review this thread, and compile, in no particular order, a sample of “science” according to Curtin.
Read ‘em and weep…
As I said, a it’s just a sampling.
I could have found more, but I wasn’t prepared to wade through every single one of the wrong-headed notions that Curtin has spouted. Perhaps others could append my omission to the list.
Bernard J: You outscore me in number of degrees if not in income, and you must know I have studied no science since my Year 10 in 1955. So when you ask do I stand by my statement that CO2 “is heavier than air, so there is more of it at [sic] real life situations at around sea-level than is measured at Mauna Loa”, I can only refer to Wiki on CO2:
“At standard temperature and pressure, the density of carbon dioxide is around 1.98 kg/m³, about 1.5 times that of air.”
Given lower temperature and pressure at Mauna Loa than at sealevel, I would expect less [CO2] at ML, cet.par.
You complain I neglected to mention your comment that
“…it is [only] adiabatic temperature that controls vertical concentration”.
Sorry! Please correct Wiki, including dVC/dT.
Given the monotonic decrease in temperature with altitude, what does that mean for [CO2]? The measurements you cite seem implausible.
1. all plants respond monotonically and proportionally to increasing CO2 and to increasing temperature, with increased photosynthesis
I NEVER SAID THAT, PROVE THAT I DID
2. the proportion of carbohydrate in breakfast cereal is dependent upon the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere
I NEVER SAID THAT, PROVE THAT I DID
3. there is a global conspiracy of scientists and scientific organisations to defraud the governments and the peoples of the world of their money, and to promulgate ‘lies’ about climate and AGW
4. increased atmospheric CO2 is not acidifying the oceans
TRUE, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE AT ALL THAT IT IS
5. all species have responded to industrialisation and its associated emission with increased biomass (“what I am saying is that the total present populations of most if not all species including ourselves are incomparably larger now than they were in 1750″)
TRUE, THAT IS THE CASE
6. there is no current rate of extinction above evolutionary background (“I have yet to see convincing evidence of any loss of biodiversity at the macro level” [I note that Curtin shied away from offering Jeff a bet regarding this...]) I did not, and
THERE IS INDEED NO SUCH EVIDENCE
7. tropical forest cover is not decreasing
TRUE, BECAUSE WHEREVER THAT MIGHT HAVE OCCURRED HAS BEEN REPLACED BY NEW TIMBER PLANTATIONS OR OIL PALM OR SOYA ALL OF WHICH ABSORB MORE CO2 ANNUALLY THAN THOSE BORING VERY OLD TREES
8. oil palm plantations are “efficient” sinks of CO2
SURE THEY ARE ARE, SEE LAMADE & BOUILLET.
9. oil palm plantations do not impact negatively on biodiversity
THEY DO NOT NOT BECAUSE NOWHERE DO THEY TOTALLY REPLACE 100% OF ALL HABITAT OF THOSE SPECIES. GOOGLE KIMBE (NBPOL) IN WNB IN PNG TO CHECK THAT.
10. wasps are not economically important
WELL THEY DO SOMETHING, BUT HOW MUCH WOULD YOU WANT YOUR SUPER FUND TO INVEST IN A WASP SETUP AS OPPOSED TO BHP?
11. fish farming is a “non-depleting resource”
Of course, by definition it is not
12. the oceans are a magic perpetual buffering system (“The oceans will continue to absorb c 2 GtC of emissions a year for ever just as they have done in the past” [no proof was ever offered though, by TC])
It is available, try Google.
13. avian taxonomists do not know how to account for bird species, whereas he (without the first clue about nomenclature standards and revisions) does
They change their nomenclature whenever it suits.
14. apparently all modelling may be done using a regression
Well yes, it takes one quite a long way, that’s why the IPCC avoids it.
15. gaseous diffusion and convection/mass movement are overtaken by the process of respiration (“wheat etc cannot access CO2 that is more than say 3 meters above ground level”)
Well, yes that is the case, it is for you to come up with contrary citations to refute Freeman Dyson 2007 (my source).
16. using a ‘principle” of 10,000 species, an annual interest rate of -0.0026% (≡ 26 extinctions/million species pa), and 509 years of intervening time, dhogaza calculated 9868.5 species left in 2009 (correct) – Curtin got 2657.7 (Ba-bowww…)
17. after repeated [explanations](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/03/tim_curtin_thread.php#comment-1553762) that the notation [CO2] means the concentration of CO2, rather than atmospheric CO2, he persists in employing the notation in the context of his original usage
I have always used [CO2] to mean the atmospheric concentration of CO2.
18. cannot import two columns of text-format data from a web page to Excel
Guilty, WordPress is a gawd awful system. Tell me how, their ludicrous website does not.
19. “you claim that 7 billion humans embody only 0.0756 GtC, whereas the actual figure is TtC 75.6. I rest my case.” [No, the actual figure is ~0.0756 Gigatons C, and not 75.6 teratons. I rest my case]
20. Arrhenius won a real Nobel for proceeding to calculate that if carbon dioxide increased by 50 per cent from the level in 1896, global average temperature would increase by between 2.9 and 3.7 degrees (erm, [no](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/03/tim_curtin_thread.php#comment-1582623))
Corrected in online version of my paper at http://www.lavoisier.com.au last January. Arrhenius did assert what I said, but the immediate basis for his Nobel (which he himself voted for, the rules were changed the next year) was his other more famous equation.
21. CO2″is heavier than air, so there is more of it at [sic] real life situations at around sea-level than is measured at Mauna Loa”
Well, I confess I left out cet.par., it all depends where you do the measurements, at below 4 km uptakes of CO2 by the biospheres reduce [CO2] below ambient, unless in Sahara.
22. warming should occur immediately in response to atmospheric CO2 increase – thermal mass and thermal inertia do not exist, nor apparently do heats of fusion or of vaporisation
That’s what the IPCC seems to say.
23. sea-level rise should be apportioned between high and low tides
Yes that should be made clear. 1 metre at low tide but nil at high tide is hardly a cause for concern!
It didn’t take long for Tim to skewer himself again and again when he reposnded with a ‘TRUE’ to the following of Bernard’s excellent challenges:
1.all species have responded to industrialisation and its associated emission with increased biomass (“what I am saying is that the total present populations of most if not all species including ourselves are incomparably larger now than they were in 1750″)
Nonsense. Garbage. Bilge. No evidence whatoever. Tim is wrong, wrong, wrong. Because of a huge range of anthropogenic stresses accross the biosphere, from paving and ploughing to damming and dredging to slashing and burning, to biolgical homogenisation, not only is genetic diversity mush less now than it was in 1750, but perhaps 10,000 – 30,000 genetcially disticnt populations are being lost daily (Hughes et al., 1997). Ten-forty per-cent of well studied species (vertebrates, vascualr plants) are threatened with extinction because of human actions; we are well into the 6th great planetary extinction event and the first to be caused by one of the planet’s evolved inhabitats. It doesn’t just seem like Curtin hasn’t studied science since 1955; 1755 would appear to be more appropriate. I know Curtin’s tactic here: because he believs that C02 is the be-all and end-all of planetary primary productivity, then using simple grade-school logic everything that feeds on plants must be thriving. Forget the vast assaults on nature by humans in other ways, forget the fact that 40% of net primary production is monopolized by humans along with 50% of freshwater flows, forget other vastly more important biotic and abiotic processes (many co-evolved) that determine the efficacy of plant-consumer interactions. Curtin’s logic is not even on one dimension here.
1.there is no current rate of extinction above evolutionary background (“I have yet to see convincing evidence of any loss of biodiversity at the macro level” [I note that Curtin shied away from offering Jeff a bet regarding this...]).
THERE IS INDEED NO SUCH EVIDENCE
Bullshit. There is tons of evidence (start with the IUCN). Barry Brook has already sent me a huge list of his publications which provide empirical support. Most of the species found in areas with high habitats loss – especially in the tropics, where there are many more specialized species packed into tight niches – have declined markedly (see papers by Brooks, Balmford, and others testing area-extinction models). And go to my last riposte – the number of endangered species increases every year according to the IUCN. Curtin does not have a clue on this, either.
1.oil palm plantations do not impact negatively on biodiversity
More bullshit. Palm oil plantations are biological deserts. They have huge impacts on local biodiversity by eliminating it. They are effectively sinks for all species except a few generalists like rats and house sparrows. Banana plantations have similar efects. Because most tropical species have very small ranges, the clearing of any size of tropical forest is likely to impact local populations of native endemics. This is why even modest amounts of conversion will heavily impact tropcal biota. And the conversion to oil palm in SE Asia has been massive. Palm oil plantations are an ecological disaster. Period.
1.wasps are not economically important
Parasitoids provide a lot more than ‘something’. Many classical biological control programs have depended on these important little insects to control hugely injurious pests. I recently worked with Microplitis demolitor, one of the most important agents in controlling Helicoverpa armigera in Australia and Africa. In natural systems parasitoids also play an important role in regulating herbivore populations. These insects are the focus of intensive research all over the world.
I have not responded here for a couple of weeks because Curtin has been so repeatedly crushed by Bernard and also Lee, that I could only chuckle as he tried to squirm his way out (unsuccessfully). But, in spite of all that, he comes back with some of the same utterly spent arguments. Here’s a guy who admits not to studying science since 1955 parading on here as a know-it-all in a diverse range of exceedingly complex issues. I can say as a population ecologist that Curtin’s arguments with respect to biodiversity are not only wrong, they are light years wrong.
Dear Jeff. Welcome back!
What I did say was that “the total present populations of most if not all species including ourselves are incomparably larger now than they were in 1750″ Your response: “Nonsense. Garbage. Bilge. No evidence whatoever.” Really, so today’s population of c.6.7 billion people is really just the 0.7 billion or so of 1750?
I have noticed before your complete absence of any quantitative capability. Just give me the total populations of the world’s most prolific 100 species in 1750 and now. Then we can start debating. BTW, Barry Brook is not a reliable source on anything even the time of day.
You went on: “Palm oil plantations are an ecological disaster. Period”. Prove it. Have you ever been to one? Don’t you think feeding some 3 billion people with their favourite cooking oil is worth something?
And you ranted on: “I recently worked with Microplitis demolitor, one of the most important agents in controlling Helicoverpa armigera in Australia and Africa”. How much are the shares? What is the P/E? and dividend yield?
Jeff: I can say as a demographer and development economist that your arguments with respect to biodiversity are not only wrong, they are light years wrong. Totsiens!
Jeff Harvey, here’s a special for you. Enjoy!
The Independent, 11 May 2009
By Martin Hickman, Consumer Affairs Correspondent
The operators of Britain’s first “biofuel” power plants are considering burning palm oil, which is blamed for causing rainforest destruction in south-east Asia.
At least four new power stations are being planned around the UK to burn vegetable oils with the assurance that they will generate less pollution than burning climate-change-causing fossil fuels. Two that would power more than 50,000 homes, at Portland in Dorset and Newport in South Wales, are considering using palm oil.
W4B Energy, which has submitted a planning application to build the £30m Portland plant, says it would use only sustainable supplies certified by the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO). Vogen Energy, behind the plant at Newport, says production of its palm oil would not harm the environment.
FULL STORY at http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/green-power-plants-may-burn-palm-oil-1682650.html
(hat-tip Benny Peiser at CCNet)
I don’t want to be ‘welcomed back’ because your posts annoy the hell out of me. I only returned after reading your pithy response to Bernard’s last excellent posting. I have far better things to do with my time than respond to what I view as your grade level school histrionics.
As for the 100 most prolific species, most if not all would all be considered to be serious pests. Besides us, I mean: Brown rats. House mice. Domestic pigeons. African desert locusts. American, German, and Oriental cockroaches. Any number of injurious crop pests (Plutella xylostella, Spodoptera exigua, other Spodoptera spp., many more), invasive weeds. Varroa mites. All are more abundant because humans have destroyed vast swathes of natural habitat and have created conditions in which hyper-generalists thrive. But the vast majority of species have declined since 1750. By this I mean perhaps more than 95-99%. I have no doubts whatsoever as to this being the case.
Given that humans depend on nature for our very survival, don’t smugly believe that the human population boom can last forever. We are using up natural capital like there is no tomorrow and are headed in the wrong direction. The natural wealth of the planet is being effectively co-opted to look after the needs of the privileged few, and there are bucketloads of evidence to back that up (I have presented this in previous posts and I am sick of rehashing it, just because it bounces off of you). This is hardly controversial, except amongst commerical elites, the rich and some far right economists who appear to like the planet’s natural systems being manipulated to serve about 15% of the world’s population.
Barry Brook is a very responsible and talented scientist who has done a lot of great research on biodiversity and has published some excellent papers in the peer-reviewed literature. Until you publish anything in the field, I suggest you tone down your silly views. Put up or shut up I say. What the hell does a demographer and development economist know about biology, biodiversity and ecosystem functioning anyway? Nix!!!!! I’d welcome skewering you in a debate in my field, Curtin. I studied population ecology and I work in an academic environment where I am surrounded by population, systems and behavioral ecologists. You aren’t.
Finally, you wear your dated neoclassical economics crap on your sleeve when you write, “How much are the shares? What is the P/E? and dividend yield?” when responding to my point about the importance of parasitoids and other biocontrol agents in agricultural systems. Given that most ecosystem services do not carry prices, your view is that organisms involved in seed dispersal, pollination, nutrient cycling, waste disposal, climate regulation, pest control and others that sustain humanity are nevertheless unimportant and/or expendable. My challenge to you: if all of these organisms that play a role in generating these freely provided but life sustaining services were to disappear overnight, how long do you think mankind would survive, Curtin? Given your patent ignorance on the subject of the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning, I wouldn’t be surprised if you said, “Mankind would survive just fine because these services are not captured by markets and thus are worthless”. The truth is completely different. Some things are worth more than the sum of their parts. Were these services to disappear, humans would last about 1-2 years. No longer. Just because full-cost pricing incorporating ecological services has not been internalized does not mean that we can live without these vital services that are freely provided by nature.
The point is this: in my view you and your economic views are dinosaurian, Curtin. I am glad to know that more and more economsits are coming around to understand this fact, too. Your views are late Cretaceous. Soon we will pass into an intellectual Teritary and the ideas of you and your ilk will go the way of the great reptiles.
As for your silly second post, what are you saying? What’s the point? There clearly isn’t a logical one.
What I did say was that “the total present populations of most if not all species including ourselves are incomparably larger now than they were in 1750″ Your response: “Nonsense. Garbage. Bilge. No evidence whatoever.” Really, so today’s population of c.6.7 billion people is really just the 0.7 billion or so of 1750?
Erm, was that just a giant non sequitur that landed on the deck?! That, because human population has increased since 1750, “the total present populations of most if not all species … are incomparably larger” also?!
Come on Curtin, even a kindergarten child wouldn’t try that one on.
Just give me the total populations of the world’s most prolific 100 species in 1750 and now.
Um, strawman. By their very nature of being “the world’s most prolific 100 species”, such species are most likely to have the greatest robustness against ecological disturbances. It’s how they gamble with life. If you had bothered to do your homework about r and k strategists, you might have had an understanding why such a question is spurious.
Nevertheless, in this group of 100 there will be species that are not robust to environmental disturbance: exempli gratia the passenger pigeon (Ectopistes migratorius). Population in 1750: ~5 billion. Population 1914: 0.
For a species whose flocks could be several kilometres wide and 500 kilmetres long, and darken the skies for hours as they flew past overhead, their extinction is an extraordinary indictment of the folly of humans.
If you are interested in ‘prolific’ vertebrate species, then there are many fish that could be added to the list, and probably a few ungulate mammals. And if you go back to the “all species” reference that you originally made, there would be countless species whose populations are less now than in 1750.
What on earth is your point?!
By the way, I am formating several pages worth of quotes to rebut your “I never said that” comments, but for now I will call you on your “BS” comments. In neither case was I “bullshitting”.
You did [incorrectly calculate](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/03/tim_curtin_thread.php#comment-1509458) 2657.7 bird species to be left by 2009 according to your inputs, whilst dhogaza [correctly determined](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/03/tim_curtin_thread.php#comment-1509788) the figure to be 9868.5 species remaining.
And you did [arrive at a figure](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/03/tim_curtin_thread.php#comment-1576047) of 75.6 teratons of carbon embodied by 7 billion humans, when the actual figure is ~0.0756 Gigatons C, as demonstrated by P. Lewis’ [patient demonstration](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/03/tim_curtin_thread.php#comment-1576083).
You can claim “bullshit” all you like, but it won’t change the fact that you screwed up your arithmetic, and that you are lying if you deny this.
Re Barton PL at Ian Plimer
He said: “The changes in temperature correlate highly with the changes in CO2 (r = 0.86 for 1880-2008).”
Really? What are his [CO2] data for 1880-1958? Prior to 1958 there is no real data for [CO2], and certainly none that is comparable with the Mauna Loa series that only began in 1958.
Had he not noticed that the coverage of weather stations in 1880 was barely 30% of the globe, reached 80% only in 1961, and is still only just over 80% now? Check out HadleyCrut.
Most statisticians would consider all global temperature data before 1960 to be non-comparable with data since 1960.
We will find some correlation with CO2 from 1961 to 2000, but not great since, but BPL has yet to disclose what his Durbin-Watson stat is for the regression he reports. Non-disclosure is an offence at least as great as any committed by Plimer.
When BPL joins the anti-Plimer bandwagon, he needs to be Simon-pure with his own stats.
And I still await his comments on my rather compelling crop yields regressions against CO2 complete with the D-W stat.
Definition: economishit, an economist that is economical with the truth, is wont to distortion of facts and is scientifically illiterate.
Cue deletion for profanity?
This task has been giving me the willies because I have twice lost pages and pages of quotes after a recalcitrant Vista, with an autosave that doesn’t seem to want to remember untitled documents, has shutdown without saving anything. Oh for my other computer… This is as much as I am prepared to find again, and this time I really only bothered to poke through the original thread, even though this one is longer, but I think it proves my point and contradicts Curtin’s claims that he “NEVER SAID THAT, PROVE THAT I DID”.
…all plants respond monotonically and proportionally to increasing CO2 and to increasing temperature, with increased photosynthesis
OK, how about these. In some you impute the basis for my claim, in others you are explicit…
[TC thread, #298]( http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/03/tim_curtin_thread.php#comment-1556692): “Yes, but when extra CO2 is pumped into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels etc, the result is demonstrably more photosynthesis, leading to more biomass etc. Hence population growth of most species.”
[Windshuttle thread, #31]( http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/windschuttle_hoaxed.php#comment-1349941): “The useful (in data, if useless in math) paper by Canadell et al (PNAS 2007) and their Global Carbon Project site show that the terrestrial absorption of CO2 emissions has increased from 0.5 GtC in 1958-59 to over 3 GtC today, i.e. by a factor of 6. How does that manifest if not in increased productivity and output of global agriculture, forestry, and livestock?”
[Windshuttle thread, #31]( http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/windschuttle_hoaxed.php#comment-1349941): “George, you are right about correlations and causation, but how do you explain the manifest growth of world food production since 1958 vis a vis the comparable growth of atmos. CO2? You must know that agriculture, forest products, and livestock all depend on photosynthesis which is in turn dependent on the existence of atmospheric CO2. Popper said you have to have a hypothesis, in this case more [CO2] equals more photosynthesis equals more agric etc productivity. What is the evidence from Mauna Loa and FAO? My take is that these data are consistent with the hypothesis, more atmos CO2 (i.e. [CO2])correlates with more global food production.” [This one's a doozy, Curtin, because in this you directly contradict your comment that "I have always used [CO2] to mean the atmospheric concentration of CO2.” Emphasis mine.]
[Windshuttle thread, #37]( http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/windschuttle_hoaxed.php#comment-1351112): “Bernard, taking your points in turn: (1)most serious plant physiologists and ecologists understand that there is a relationship between atmospheric CO concentration and photosynthesis.YES OF COURSE, BUT DO HANSEN, GORE, STERN, GARNAUT, IPCC? THEY ALL INFER THAT REDUCING [CO2] WILL HAVE NO IMPACT ON PHOTOSYNTHESIS.”
[Windshuttle thread, #37]( http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/windschuttle_hoaxed.php#comment-1351112): Me: “(2) However, most such scientists also understand that this relationship is not monotonically increasing,” Curtin: “WHERE DO THEY SO SAY GIVEN ALL EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY?” [emphasis mine]
[Windshuttle thread, #48]( http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/windschuttle_hoaxed.php#comment-1351640): “I reported my own regression of world food production 1980-2003 against [CO2], and global mean Temps in my submission to the Garnaut Review; it showed an adjusted R2 of .98 with the only significant coefficient being that on [CO2], after taking into account auto-correlation tests. Adding commercial fertilizer consumption data, the regression results derived from the data in Table 1 show very high values for the adjusted R2, at 0.99 and for F at 799.97, and a large and strongly significant coefficient (5.76) on CO2, with the t statistic at 36.06. Perhaps surprisingly, the coefficient on fertilizers is marginally negative (-0.047) but not significant (t = -0.67), while that on temperature is larger (0.365) and positive, but also not statistically significant (because t=0.767 so <2). The large negative value for the intercept (–507.9965) represents the negative food production index that would arise if there were zero values for fertilizer use, global temperature, and atmospheric CO2"
[Windshuttle thread, #68]( http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/windschuttle_hoaxed.php#comment-1355383): “I say, which is that there is huge evidence that rising [CO2] has been is and will continue to be (in the absence of ETS etc) beneficial for raising productivity at both global and local levels, ”
[Windshuttle thread, #68]( http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/windschuttle_hoaxed.php#comment-1355383): “I have also done the inventory analysis which shows how either continuing absorption of [CO2] at the present rate can easily deplete [CO2] to the 1750 level of 280 within 60 years if all emissions cease forthwith or by 2012 at latest as demanded by Hansen (in his letter to Barry and Mich Obama, 29 Dec 2008), and even sooner if we take into account the diminishing partial pressure of [CO2] under the Hansen programme, which will actually reduce Pn and crop yields worldwide.” ["partial pressure of the concentration of CO2"? Or did you mean "partial pressure of atmospheric CO2"?]
[Windshuttle thread, #76](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/windschuttle_hoaxed.php#comment-1356664): “I wonder if you or they have ever been to the Gezira cotton scheme south of Khartoum as I have? Believe me it is often 45oC there and its cotton has thriven for over 80 years now. Even in spring (April-May) the mean max is 41, and by August max can reach over 50. In the cooler winter they now switch to wheat. If heat is so bad for cotton’s Rubisco as your authors claim, why does Gezira grow it in the hottest months?”
[Windshuttle thread, #77]( http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/windschuttle_hoaxed.php#comment-1357177): “The solid and dotted Rubisco lines are both higher (= higher Pn) in D than in B, giving the lie [sic] to their final claim that “activase activity per se appears to limit the photosynthetic potential of leaves at elevated temperaturee [sic] even in the presence of high CO2″ ”
[Windshuttle thread, #100]( http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/windschuttle_hoaxed.php#comment-1362997): “Sans [CO2], sans food, period. Sans increasing [CO2], sans increasing food production.”
[Windshuttle thread, #117]( http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/windschuttle_hoaxed.php#comment-1366785): Me: “You appear to think that human ingenuity will forever intervene to postpone any crisis and that, like the late Julian Simon, our population can keep growing for ‘another 7 billion years’. Isn’t this the thrust of what you are saying? That there are no ecological limits on material growth?” Curtin: “Yep, none.” [I originally recorded this for another reason, but as it is tangentially related, and as it is astonishingly ill-informed in the context of biological reality, I thought that include it for fullness and as a reminder of who we're dealing with]
[Windshuttle thread, #119]( http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/windschuttle_hoaxed.php#comment-1366907): “There has NEVER been a case where clear-felling did not give way to higher value production, be it plantation forestry, oilpalm, soy, sugar, or whatever.” [Ditto as per previous comment]
[Windshuttle thread, #124]( http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/windschuttle_hoaxed.php#comment-1380765): “The conclusion that also has to be drawn, that [CO2] is a more potent fertilizer than commercial nitrogenous and phosphate fertilizers”
[Windshuttle thread, #124]( http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/windschuttle_hoaxed.php#comment-1380765): “The food regression (equation 2) also suggests that rising global mean temperature does have a positive effect on agricultural production, even if its coefficient is small and statistically insignificant. Nevertheless it casts some doubt on claims by Parry et al. (2004), the Stern Review (2007: Box 3.4), and Cline (2007) that rising temperatures will always have a negative global impact on agricultural yields.”
[Windshuttle thread, #185]( http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/windschuttle_hoaxed.php#comment-1418458): Me: “Have you qualified the pre-industrial trophic fluxes of the world’s various ecosystems, and compared the data with your projections of flux for the very same ecosystems under the CO2 concentrations anticipated for the future?” Curtin: “Yep, watch this space!” [Again, originally recorded for another purpose than the responses for this post, but tangential, and a good reminder that we're waiting...]
[Windshuttle thread, #253]( http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/windschuttle_hoaxed.php#comment-1434364): “Sod, I will gladly give you star billing in my upcoming CO2 as fertilizer paper (my co-author and I hope to send it off next week) if you can show ANY case where elevated [CO2] has detrimental effects. Jeff and Bernard never could or did, that is why they have given up.”
[Windshuttle thread, #265]( http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/windschuttle_hoaxed.php#comment-1435894): “Truly you and all CC authors at NAS and AAAS are at one with Bishop Usher, not merely ignorant but in a state of denial about the availability of [CO2] relative to food supply.” [Another more tangential comment that production is proportional to [CO2], and included because once again it demonstrates your clumsiness using the [CO2] notation – “availability of the concentration of CO2” is a clunker, and “availability of atmospheric CO2” definitely seems to have been your intended meaning.]
…there is a global conspiracy of scientists and scientific organisations to defraud the governments and the peoples of the world of their money, and to promulgate ‘lies’ about climate and AGW
Supplementary to my [post collecting some of the slanderous comments]( http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/windschuttle_hoaxed.php#comment-1458144) you have made about eminent scientists…
[Windshuttle thread, #126]( http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/windschuttle_hoaxed.php#comment-1383788): “I wonder why Taub et al failed to mention actual protein contents anywhere in their paper? Am I wrong to conclude that like nearly all in this field, anything so long as it Madoffs with OUR money (as taxpayers) is kosher? ”
[Windshuttle thread, #203]( http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/windschuttle_hoaxed.php#comment-1421401): “Sadly, Guldberg is a serial liar.”
[Windshuttle thread, #267]( http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/windschuttle_hoaxed.php#comment-1435974): “And yes, “tens of thousands of scientists in several completely separate disciplines are all liars, conspirators and incompetents” when like you they refuse to accept that on average 57% of CO2 emissions are absorbed by the global biospheres. Name one with the integrity and honesty to issue a press release stating that Smith, Schneider, Field and Solomon and their myriad et als spread deceit when they claim in PNAS and at AAAS that 100% of CO2 emissions remain airborne. You cannot, as there is not a single IPCC AR4 scientist with enough of a shred of integrity to disown those I have named.” [emphasis mine]
[Windshuttle thread, #274](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/windschuttle_hoaxed.php#comment-1437827): “If there were a professional body I could lodge a complaint with I would, having predictably failed with NAS itself. The truth is that climate scientists are answerable to none except themselves…”
[Windshuttle thread, #366]( http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/windschuttle_hoaxed.php#comment-1458144): “Howver [sic] it is true that there is a pro forma issued by PNAS, Nature, and Science which contains the following words to be included in the final sentence whatever the paper actually shows, as in the Crafts-Brandner & Salvucci paper: xyz “should be considered in predicting [abcd] in response to global climate changes”; similar wording is also mandatory in the abstract. The body of the paper as in this case need have no bearing at all on the pro forma.”
[Windshuttle thread, #370]( http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/windschuttle_hoaxed.php#comment-1459856): “So thanks to Lewis we have discovered another pair of Madoffs-with-our-money.”
[Windshuttle thread, #372](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/windschuttle_hoaxed.php#comment-1460077): I have revised my opinion about Nature, I think it is an honest journal, unlike Science and PNAS whenever they publish on CC in areas governed by the likes of Field and Schellnhuber.
[Windshuttle thread, #378]( http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/windschuttle_hoaxed.php#comment-1463045): “If this is not Madoffian malfeasance, what would be? Sure, they are not soliciting investment moneys – but they are soliciting extra research funding from their mates Chu and Holdren, on the basis of the hysteria they are whipping up, and the latter are now well able to gratify their every desire.”
…the proportion of carbohydrate in breakfast cereal is dependent upon the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere
You “never said it” directly, but in the one quote I could be bothered to find after losing so much work previously, you mention proportion of carbohydrate in cereal and then speak of the content of CO2 in the atmosphere.
[TC thread, #81]( http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/03/tim_curtin_thread.php#comment-1495670): “…further to my last but one (#77), please note that in Australia purveyors of breakfast cereals state that c. 79% of a serving of 100 g. of cereal comprises carbohydrate, without saying where that comes from. According to Tim Lambert, it comes from fresh (non-CO2) air. In reality it relies on CO2 in the air at near ground level. I know it’s beyond the mental capacity of fat Al Gore, as he cannot grasp – has not the foggiest idea – that wheat etc cannot access CO2 that is more than say 3 meters above ground level (Freeman Dyson 2007). Emissions are known to raise yields in the immediate vicinity of coal-fired power stations.”
So, perhaps you didn’t mean what I claim, but I was certainly left with the impression, and it lingered from another posting of your which I can not find because I am fed up collecting your garbage.
To finish up though, I find it curious that an economist would say “79% of a serving of 100 g”. Does a different mass of cereal have a different proportion of carbohydrate, even if it is from exactly the same box?
So, a month with nary a squeek from the thread’s eponymous denialist.
Could we dare to hope that he has taken pause in order to actually review his sorry performance, and to perhaps seek out a proper understanding of the sciences that he has to date butchered with his ignorance?
I struggle to believe that it might be so…
Bernard J said: “the idea that humanity can continue to pump carbon dioxide into the atmosphere ad libitum with no future consequence isn’t “pie in the sky”?!
And what of the idea that fossil fuels will always be there to energise human society?
Oh, the irony.”
Posted by: Bernard J. | July 26, 2009 12:27 AM
Yes indeed, so on one hand dear Bernard believes “that humanity can continue to pump carbon dioxide into the atmosphere ad libitum with no future consequence” and on the other “fossil fuels will always be there to energise human society”. Make up your mind mate! If fossil fuels will not always be around, why worry about pumping CO2 into the atmosphere as that will soon if you are right be impossible!
Then on an earlier post I overlooked you said:
“I find it curious that an economist would say “79% of a serving of 100 g”. Does a different mass of cereal have a different proportion of carbohydrate, even if it is from exactly the same box?” Well you should direct that to Kelloggs et al. I tend to believe them when they say 79% of servings of 100 grams comprise carbohydrates derived from atmospheric CO2 + H20. Why don’t you? we should be told and I trust you will approach the ACCC etc if most servings do not contain what makers say they do. BTW, where does the CO2 in the carbohydrate come from? BTW again my gluten free rice flakes have 82% carbohydrates per 100 grams at least some of the time if the makers are to be believed.
Posted by: Bernard J. | May 16, 2009 1:52 PM
You really get under Tim Curtin’s skin!
Janet, with that astounding perscipacity, I would welcome your comments on the following cross-posting from Harry Clark, still “awaiting moderation” after more than 9 hours:
26th July to Harry Clark;
Harry: I would be glad if you would explain to me why it makes sense for the world to reduce anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions by 2050 by the amounts proposed by the G8, by 80 per cent of 2000 levels for developed countries, and 60 per cent globally. The Government sees the ETS as the first step to Australia meeting the G8′s proposed targets for adoption at Copenhagen in December. That means global emissions should by 2050 and forever after be no more than 3.3 GtC, which is 40 per cent of baseline emissions in 2000, which were 8.16 billion tonnes of carbon (GtC).
If the Copenhagen target is achieved, it means that global anthropogenic CO2 emissions will by 2050 be less than the current annual uplift of emissions by the global biota (mostly oceanic and land plants) which was 5.3 GtC in July 2006-June 2007 (www.globalcarbonproject.org, funny that Raupach & Le Quere do not put up post-June 2007 data, surely not because it demolishes Raupach & Canadell’s claims of “weakening” if not “saturated” biota sinks, perish the thought!) This annual uplift of CO2 by plant life manifests itself in the annual increase in global forestry, fish and food crop production reported by the FAO (as well as in the still on-going growth of corals in the GBR), and it has accounted for no less than 57 per cent of total emissions between 1958 and 2008.
None of the IPCC’s scientists, including its Australian contributors like Pep Canadell and Mike Raupach at CSIRO and Will Steffen at ANU, has explained why the world should reduce emissions to 40 per cent of the 2000 level when uplifts average 57 per cent of ongoing post-2000 emissions. Steffen presides over the ANU’s Climate Change Institute, which is having an Open Day (27 July). Like a Madrassa with its singular and undebatable view of the world, this Institute steadfastly refuses either to admit that the uplifts are growing (from 2.3 GtC in 1959-60 to about 6 GtC now) or to inform us what the impact of reducing emissions to below the uplift rate will be on world food supply, and neither features in the Open Day’s Lecture Programme. There are other scientists, but it would not be good for their health to name them, especially not those at the ANU, who are aware that the “partial” atmospheric pressure of CO2 plays a crucial role in plant growth, and that cutting emissions will reduce that pressure with intolerable consequences for global food production and living standards.
Again, Harry, please explain (1) why it will be a Good Thing to reduce emissions to below the current average uptake rate of 57% of emissions, and (2) why you and the even more credulous Quiggins and Steffens of this globe cannot see that biotic uptakes already virtually achieve the G8 target of 60% cut in gross emissions?
Ah, I forgot, the latent racism of most of not all white Australians, Americans and Europeans. It would not take that much (compared to CCS and the like) to raise African cereal yields to North American norms, and that would be enough to bring uplifts to more than 60% of emissions. But they are blacks, why should we lift a finger to raise their standard of living, while imposing G8 targets on them will have the much more satisfying consequence of plunging them deeper into poverty and low life expectancy (as desired by John Holdren no less), by raising their energy costs and reducing their harvests (although ANU’s Steffen says yields have nothing to do with CO2).
Once again Harry, please explain why you and the economics profession have never grasped – and are not prepared to consider papers showing this – that ALL the IPCC, Stern, Garnaut et al projections of increases in atmospheric CO2 in this century are based on the Wigley-Enting-Canadell assumptions that the global biota is or very soon will be totally saturated with CO2, so not a single extra tomato or rose in your garden Harry will ever grow, let alone new trees on your favourite golf courses.
Harry, seriously, please explain the serial dishonesty/stupidity of all “scientific” advisers who propose emission reduction targets to below the natural uptake level. Surely it cannot be that they realise people like Rudd, Obama, Brown et al. are utterly credulous of all bullshit emanating from them when all they can do is salivate about the next round of research grants and tickets to Bonn/Potsdam/Copenhagen?
..and having just watched the ABC on Salman Rushdie’s fatwa, and myself being subject to similar from Quiggin, Brook, and Lambert (except on my thread), will you dear Janet & Bernard J join them and James Hansen and Paul Krugman in calling on some Imam to have me consigned me to hell?
Although the Mauna Loa Observatory has since 1958 provided the core data on atmospheric CO2 levels for all the work of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and people like the 16 co-signatories of the article in Sydney Morning Herald (Raupach et al., August 1), Mauna Loa’s temperature data is never mentioned let alone analysed by the IPCC or “scientists” like Mike Raupach and his associates. Could that be because it shows virtually no relationship between changes in CO2 and temperature? Regressions confirm this, with adj R2 of 0.08 for year on year changes in temp against yony changes in CO2 at Mauna Loa of all places. t=2.5 but not significant. Durbin Watson is 2.5 so no auto correlation.
Plotting Mauna Loa temps since 1955 also shows virtually no trend from 1955 to 1977 or from 1981 to 2005. This plot showing no trend in temperatures at Mauna Loa before or after the PDO shift in 1978 confirms the main thrust of McLean et al.
Suspicion that Mauna Loa temperatures are in effect censored is heightened when apparently (ht to Steve Mc) the sole source utilised by NASA’s James Hansen (head of GISS) for all temperatures in Hawaii is Honolulu Airport, where temperatures have indeed soared since 1960. That is of course related not so much to CO2 as to the arrival of Boeing 707s then and 747s later, with their huge output of heat as ever more of them land, take off, and taxi endlessly on its tarmac.
It appears GISS similarly uses Nairobi’s Kenyatta International Airport temperarture data to represent the whole of East Africa. Again airports which like this one process at least a million passengers a year yield a very satisfying (for GISS) upward trend, thus Christy (2009, at climateaudit) has shown that this airport’s data is not confirmed by the data sets from Nairobi’s actual met. station.
I suspect that when we assemble 2 temperature data sets, one for airports, the other for non-airports and plot both against CO2, we will find as at Mauna Loa and Honolulu the only correlation is at the airports.
That is why McLean et al are on the money, as cohenite understands, and Bernard J does not, there is NO trend between CO2 and temperatures anywhwere except airports and under the air con. vents that Hansen and HadleyCRUT place their trust in.
What a load of garbage…
what an erudite comment! How’s your PhD coming along? Should be the shortest ever on your form to date. Actually I think it is very funny that at the home of the first CO2 measurements there in no evidence of warming. The problem with the IPCC all along has been its reliance on graphs with lines all pointing vaguely in the same direction and then claiming this proved correlation without ever reporting any regressions. To repeat there is NO discernible correlation between temperatures and CO2 at Mauna Loa unless like the IPCC one uses absolute values for both, and then you get an adj R2 of only 0.45 – but even that is spurious with DW at less than 2.
SO AGW means you have to see something at Mauna Loa… Yes of course, how stupid of the rest of the World.
To repeat there is NO discernible correlation between temperatures and CO2 at Mauna Loa unless like the IPCC one uses absolute values for both, and then you get an adj R2 of only 0.45 – but even that is spurious with DW at less than 2.
there isn t a full correlation between any two temperature stations. Tim, you are upon something serious this time. AGW obviously is a myth. keep digging this way!
Dear Nathan and Sod:
First Nathan, you said: “Tim, SO AGW means you have to see something at Mauna Loa… Yes of course, how stupid of the rest of the World”.
Yes indeed! The whole IPCC matra is based on readings of CO2 in the atmosphere at Mauna Loa, as readings at Pt Barrow or Cape Grim or Antarctica etc are little different, and follow basically the same trend. If Mauna Loa CO2 does not induce temperature change at Mauna Loa of all places, there is something wrong with the hypothesis. End of story. Luckily for you dearest Nathan, I won’t be your external examiner.
Sod said: “there isn’t a full correlation between any two temperature stations…”
And if there are none except between those at airports what then? About 75% of BOM reports for Australia are from airports. Ever stood in the airflow from a Dakota or a 747? I have many times, there is a difference!
The whole IPCC matra is based on readings of CO2 in the atmosphere at Mauna Loa, as readings at Pt Barrow or Cape Grim or Antarctica etc are little different, and follow basically the same trend. If Mauna Loa CO2 does not induce temperature change at Mauna Loa of all places, there is something wrong with the hypothesis. End of story.
Tim, can t you even see the logical problem in that small paragraph you wrote?
1) other CO2 stations show the same numbers as Mauna Loa does.
2) so temperature at Mauna Loa should show the CO2 temperature change best.
number 2) does not at all follow from number 1).
Ever stood in the airflow from a Dakota or a 747? I have many times, there is a difference!
Tim, find out what a min/max thermometer is. then you will understand, that a plane starting at 1 pm will have ZERO effect on daily temperature measurements for climate science.
[temperature](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automated_airport_weather_station) is an important information for an airport, especially during landing. you don t think that those guys watching the numbers would notice a huge hike, every time a plane is starting?
“Tim:Ever stood in the airflow from a Dakota or a 747? I have many times, there is a difference!”
“Sod:Tim, find out what a min/max thermometer is. then you will understand, that a plane starting at 1 pm will have ZERO effect on daily temperature measurements for climate science.”
Actually both of you are labouring under a misaprehension. Unlike what you might see on the telly, the majority of Australian airports are like ghost towns. Lucky to get a any plane from one day to the next.
As for 747s or jets or even Dakota sized prop aircraft, they never visit those small strips. Ever.
PS 75% of weather stations at airports?
Show your sources Tim, else I’ll assume it was a number you made up (I know it is much less than that for South Australia).
Oh damn, I can’t resist.
Tim Curtin, do you seriously expect anyone to believe you’ve “stood in the airflow” from a 747 “many times”?
“Many times”? Really? Ha Ha Bloody Ha.
And what were you doing out there on the taxi-way?
So engrossed in thought about proportional rates of change that you wandered onto the tarmac by mistake?
Wait, I know! Counting sparrows!
And what did airport security have to say about this crazy sparrow-counting maniac wandering around “may times” behind a 747 as it was taxiing down the runway at Kingsford-Smith or Tullamarine?
Thanks pals. First, sod said “1) other CO2 stations show the same numbers as Mauna Loa does.2)so temperature at Mauna Loa should show the CO2 temperature change best. number 2) does not at all follow from number 1).
Actually, sod, Mauna Loa is the gold standard for CO2 measurements, especially as the other stations are basically in agreement even if Cape Grim, NZ and Anactica show slightly lower levels and less in-year variation. That being so, it should also be the gold standard for global mean temperature changes. Yet it is excluded by both HadleyCRUT and GISS, who much prefer Honolulu Airport with its huge spike from 1960. GISS also ignores the Honolulu Observatory, which like Mauna Loa shows a flat trend from 1978 to 2005. It is for you to explain why the temperatures at Mauna Lao are not as much the perfect proxy for trends in GMT are its CO2 levels.
stephenk: you can get a listing of the GISS stations from NOAA etc.
GAZ. I spent years flying from African airports where one walks on the tarmac dodging the planes; at Lagos one even unloaded one’s own incoming cargo. But I was anyway using a light touch to make the serious point that it is wrong of GISS to rely on airport temperature trends with their accentuated heat island effect rather than nearby observatories which do not have that. Instead of your own ha ha humour please justify this preference.
Tim wrote “stephenk: you can get a listing of the GISS stations from NOAA etc.”
You are a very odd man Tim. GISS stations never came into it.
You said in post 520:
“About 75% of BOM reports for Australia are from airports.”
I simply don’t believe you. Prove what you wrote.
Mauna Loa is the gold standard for CO2 measurements, especially as the other stations are basically in agreement even if Cape Grim, NZ and Anactica show slightly lower levels and less in-year variation. That being so, it should also be the gold standard for global mean temperature changes.
Exactly why should it “also be the gold standard for global mean temperature changes”?
Do you not understand why you have committed a logical fallacy of such gargantuan proportions that it would embarrass a senior high school student?
stephenk: GISS reports what it gets from the BoM, eg Canberra Airport; there are or were other stations here, like Mt Stromlo, but again both politically and climatically incorrect.
Bernard J: it is for you to explain why temps at Mauna Loa should not be considered the gold standard just as its CO2 measurements are. All the reasons justifying the latter apply to the former. Or does atmospheric CO2 not apply to temperature at Mauna Loa?
But you evidently think it is kosher to use airports as the gold standard for temperatures in Canberra, Nairobi and Honolulu et al. Why would that be?
Curtin tried the same arguement at [Niche Modelling](http://landshape.org/enm/replicating-mclean/) and was promptly slapped down by Nick Stokes and by dear David.
The poor old emeritus just can’t cut a trick…
Hilarious Bernard J!
Here I posted it all in it’s glory here, so Tim can enjoy it all over again…
“Nick Stokes 23 hours ago
This is just a muddled rant. I’ll respond to one claim that’s obviously wrong – that the IPCC does not deal with Mauna Loa CO2 measurements. Firstly, there’s nothing special about Mauna Loa. There is a large network of high quality CO2 monitoring stations eg Scripps , giving essentially concordant results. There’s also a satellite measuring program (with maps).
The IPCC deals with this in detail. There’s a whole chapter 3 of AR3 on atmospheric CO2, including 3.5 specifically on measurements.
davids99us 22 hours ago
Try again Tim with an argument.”
Well thanks for the explanation about your airport perambualtions, Mr Curtin.
Now, can you explain why an airport might have a heat island effect that increases over time? Does the tarmac get blacker or something?
Bernard J & Nathan. Like Nick you are both also high, drunk or incapable of reading. “Nick Stokes 23 hours ago This is just a muddled rant. I’ll respond to one claim that’s obviously wrong – that the IPCC does not deal with Mauna Loa CO2 measurements”.
Please BJ & Nathan, do cut and paste here where I claimed Mauna Loa does not do CO2 measurements. As I have said repeatedly here and at Stockwell’s of course it does those – AND temperatures too, I have them (the temperatures) on file, but the latter are NOT reported by GISS or entered by Hadley. Unlike Honolulu Airport, Mauna Loa’s temperatures show little if any trend ever, and none at all from 1978 to 2005. Do check for yourself using Google if you can with your level of reading skills.
Gaz: do come to Canberra Airport and check the photos of its glory daya when I first got here, and look now; it has a huge business park, massive mall etc etc., and many more plane car and people movements than 10 years ago. None of those release heat I suppose? Check the GISS graphs.
Using good old Google and “Canberra Airport + temps” I just found a Note by the ANU’s fenner School’s Clem Davis which concludes “The results of the cross comparison of daily maximum and minimum temperatures between Canberra Airport and Tuggeranong Automatic Weather Station is suggestive
that there could be an effect commencing to occur at Canberra Airport on maximum and minimum temperatures as a result of development adjacent to the site and thus
impact on its continued use as a Climate Reference Station. Developments commenced in Spring 2006 and were completed in early 2007.”
Although his data were preliminary given the short period since redevelopment he suggests the Airport should relocate its Met stuff.
TC, do you typically define the “glory days” of a city in terms of the timing of your arrival in it?
Which “GISS graphs” would you have me check, by the way?
You are still a very odd man Tim. Giving an answer to questions never asked, GISS stations never came into it.
You said in post 520: “About 75% of BOM reports for Australia are from airports.”
Tim, you are a complete imbecile. Or perhaps a classic narcissist who is completely unable to see their own mistakes.
Heck even David Stockwell said of your claims
“Try again Tim with an argument”
You are an idiot, plain and simple.
If you want to be taken seriously with regard to Urban Heat Island effect (which is a real factor – let’s not pretend UHI doesn’t exist), you need to demonstrate that it has a increasing effect over time and then you need to quantify it. You need to show HOW MUCH of an effect there is.
You are a rambling old fool and I bet you have no idea how to conduct this study, nor will you even attempt to try.
Gaz: try GISS for Honolulu Airport for starters, then Google Honolulu Observatory, and then Mauna Loa temperatures.
Nathan’s integrity – or rather lack of any smidgeon of that – can be judged from his failure to apologise for fasely claiming that I had said Mauna Loa does not measure CO2. Then he hurls abuse at me which had that come from me to him would have led to Lambert’s disemvowelling. Well, when Gaz puts up the GISS graph for Hon. Airport, Nathan will see not UHI but AHI – airport heat island – effect with spendid upward TREND since 1960 that is not matched either at Mauna Loa or Hon. Observatory.
Any correlation between Mauna Lo CO2 and Hon. Airport’s temps is spurious, as there is none between the CO2 and Hon. Observatory temps.
Nathan, instead of abuse just check out the data. If I am wrong, be my guest. But I bet you will not because you can not.
stephenk: I should apologise for loose wording, whatever BOM may send to Hansen at GISS (and it certainly does have more non-airporst than airport stations) he only uses a handful of stations that so far as I can see are mostly airports. I think the 75% claim came from Climate Audit but cannot be sure. I am about to travel overseas so do not have time to do a full check, but you could easily compare the GISS station list with BOM’s list of stations.
I should apologise for loose wording
[Yes](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/03/tim_curtin_thread.php#comment-1637196), although in every case ‘loose’ is a euphemism.
Curtin, you can falsely attribute claims to me a la your peeve with Nick Stokes, but I am neither high, drunk nor incapable of reading. To this end I note that you have not responded with any reasoned surmising as to why Mauna Loa is a reasonable measure of CO2 concentration, whilst not being a reliable indicator of global temperature trend.
Can you not even pretend to engage in a process of suggesting why such might be so? Is science really so inaccessible to you?
If you are going to stand by your astonishing proposition about Mauna Loa, you should at least provide a scientifically scrutable justification for your doing so.
Come on, give it a go…
Bernard J said: “To this end I note that you have not responded with any reasoned surmising as to why Mauna Loa is a reasonable measure of CO2 concentration, whilst not being a reliable indicator of global temperature trend.”
Well BJ, you are finally exposed as being terminally thick.
What I said is the WHOLE TOTAL COMPLETE point of my posts here which is that if Mauna Loa is OK for CO2, why is it not OK at GISS & Hadley for temperature?????????
BJ, once again and again, do get your twins to help you to explain why ML is OK for CO2 with upward trend but not for temperatures, flat since 1978.
Bernard J: I assume you are too busy changing nappies to grasp what I am getting at, so I will try again.
Mauna Loa’s Pieter Tans quite reliably reports monthly increases in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 [CO2](down to 3.3 GtC from June 2008 to June 09, giving implied biospheric uptakes of c. 6 GtC that will be terminated if the G8-Copenhagen mafia get their way). Despite the undoubted increases in [CO2] since 1978, there is NO upward trend in temperature at Mauna Loa since 1978.
For Nathan’s benefit, I repeat: Despite the undoubted increases in [CO2] since 1978, there is NO, NONE, ZILCH, upward trend in temperature at Mauna Loa since 1978. Explain without personal abuse please.
Curtin, if you are terminally unable to consider the answer to your excessively question-marked musing, perhaps you might instead consider why you do not have your proctologist perform your dentistry for you…
As much as I enjoy collecting mantles, it is not me who is “finally exposed as being terminally thick.”
I suspect that a part of your problem is that you are unable to contemplate the fact that CO2 is rather more [miscible in the atmosphere](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/03/tim_curtin_thread.php#comment-1621302) that you accept.
Are you now proposing that temperature is distributed around the planet in the same fashion that a gas is (your protestations to the contrary notwithstanding)?!
If so, please provide a description of the physics underlying this remarkable phenomenon.
I never did what you accused me of.
You made it up. You are a phony and a fake and you aren’t fooling any one round here.
You are a lemming version of Macchiavelli
Bernard J: you said: “Are you now proposing that temperature is distributed around the planet in the same fashion that a gas is (your protestations to the contrary notwithstanding)?!”
No I am not. What I am saying is that if rising CO2 in the atmosphere is alleged (by the IPCC et al) to be causing rising temperatures, eg by 2oC by 2100 or even 2050 in New York, London, Paris, Dubai, Singapore, Darwin, Sydney and even Canberra, whatever their base line temps are, why is it not doing that in Mauna Loa?
Dear Bernard, if you can find time between nappies, it is for you to explain the “physics underlying this remarkable phenomenon” (of no temperature change at Mauna Loa despite the claimed unavoidable and “irreversible” (Solomon et al. PNAS 2009) effects of rising CO2.
Nathan: you are a liar. Scroll back and see what you did say. You are also a nasty piece of work, I pray I never get to meet you.
“why is it not doing that in Mauna Loa?”
For the same reason that changes is Mauna Loa temperatures have poor correlation with the global temperature anomaly.
Not a difficult question.
Some guy etc: The whole theory of AGW etc is that rising atmospheric CO2 causes rising temperatures, on average across the globe, by 2oC sooner rather than later, whatever the start point in the Arctic or the Equator. Thus there should be a precise correlation between the CHANGES in temps everywhere and the CHANGES in CO2 at Mauns Loa. Bad luck for you at your favourite pokey: there is zero – ZILCH – correlation between changes in CO2 at Mauna Loa and changes in Temperature there.
Bull dust. I’ve rarely read such a gross misrepresentation of AGW.
Some guy: you are a perfect example of the great unwashed illiterate/innumerates who cannot marshall an argument. What “misrepresentation of AGW”? AGW means more CO2 = higher temps.
“Some guy etc: The whole theory of AGW etc is that rising atmospheric CO2 causes rising temperatures, on average across the globe, by 2oC sooner rather than later, whatever the start point in the Arctic or the Equator. Thus there should be a precise correlation between the CHANGES in temps everywhere and the CHANGES in CO2 at Mauns Loa” – Tim Curtin
Tim, are you really that dense?
> Thus there should be a precise correlation between the CHANGES in temps everywhere and the CHANGES in CO2 at Mauns Loa.
No. I’m having a difficult time understanding where you might have derived this peculiar notion. There is no reason for any single station, anywhere in the world to “precisely correlate” with global average temperature change. Mauna Loa is not special in this regard. Why do you think it is? I would not expect the local temperature change at this or any other CO2 measurement site in the world to do so.
I dread coming back to this lame redundant thread, but Tim’s inability to understand even the most basic concept of scale in science is disturbing. This has been said over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again a million times but he returns to the same discredited theme. Do some facts just no sink in????
Mark G has nailed it in his post (# 549). Tim seems to think that everything in nature – irrespective of scale – MUST be correlated. This is a grand obfuscation in the way in which complex adaptive non-linear systems function. My colleagues wouldn’t even want to wade into such a debate because they’d realize that it is usually impossible to make correlations at such small scales. As Mark G said, there is no reason – ZILCH in Tim’s own words – to expect a definite correlation between C0 2 levels at Mauna Loa and the temperature there. There are many other factors to consider; the geographic scale is too small to draw such a conclusion and there are many other factors to consider. The scientific community recognizes this. Tim doesn’t.
Here’s an example: there’s no link whatsoever between the loss of spe4cies y and ecosystem function x at a given place. But if other factors are taken into account (the loss of many more species, other biotic and abiotic processes) then we may find a correlation. What we do know is that there are likely to be effects of biodiversity loss at larger scales. This is what Tim needs to try and understand. He’s hand waving frantically over a point that most scientists don’t even bother to think about because they realize such correlations are impossible to make at such small scales. Determinism/predictability are both the features of large scale processes.
Why are we wasting our breath on Tim’s nonsense anyway? Doesn’t the guy ever give up?
Michael: you are a jerk. Try and offer something relevant.
MarkG: you are a bit but not much better. You said: “There is no reason for any single station, anywhere in the world to “precisely correlate” with global average temperature change. Mauna Loa is not special in this regard.”
I never said all stations would “precisely” correlate with CO2, especially those whose temps are not at airports.
But do read the IPCC’s AR4, which does claim that global mean temps (GMT) do correlate (with better than 95% certainty) with atmospheric CO2 as measured at Mauna Loa.
As Mauna Loa’s temperatures show NO correlation with Mauna Loa’s CO2, we have here final total and complete refutation of the AGW gravy train. Oh dear! goodbye to my ticket to Copenhagen.
But could you be kind enough to nominate me for a real Nobel (not a shonky Peace Prize) for me exploding the whole IPCC charade simply by showing there is no correlation at all between changes in CO2 at Mauna Loa and changes in temperature at Mauna Loa?
Jeff: hoe gaan dit? Your English is even worse than your Dutch or my Afrikaans(if possible).
Jeff, you said: I seem “to think that everything in nature -irrespective of scale – MUST be correlated”.
Dear Jeff, just write to IPCC, not me, as that is what they have said in AR4.
You are spot on with respect to Curtin’s recalcitrant inability to garner even a basic capacity for science. I have hesitated in re-engaging him also, but there are some things that I can’t help but rub his nose in – and to hopefully educate any lurkers about in the process.
However, it is a forlorn hope that Curtin might ever actually engage in some rational thinking off his own bat. For example, with respect to his Mauna Loa hilarity, he seems completely incapable of reconciling, on the one hand, Keeling’s reasoning for recording CO2 there in the first place, with the fact on the other hand that Mauna Loa is perched on a bit of a hill, near the equator, in a rather large body of water – and what these conditions have to do with the physics of temperature and of the climate models in general.
Curtin is one of those folk who, if he shows up in one’s science class, has one fervently hoping that the person has a skill in another discipline because he certainly ain’t gonna be making it in the real world of science.
To Bernard J and the rest of my fans: it is cosnoling to find none of you has faulted my data that at the home of atmospheric CO2, there is no discernible impct of that on temperature. Instead we have Bernard’s “science” that although atmospheric CO2 levels are virtually the same everywhere, whether they have an effect on temperature all depends on … well what? Apparently it happens only in his backyard, not at Mauna Loa.
What we have here is probably the greatest fraud since the South Sea Bubble (not that far from Maua Loa) – it certainly puts Bernie Madoff in the shade!
Heat can be stored, transported in atmosphere or ocean, stored, transmuted to latent heat of vaporization, drives winds and mechanical work – or show up as temperature increases.
Tim Curtin apparently thinks heat manifests immovably as temperature immutably and permanently in the exact same manner at every spot on the globe. He apparently thinks that the act of measuring CO2 at a location, somehow privileges the local environment to become immune to any processes that might transport heat and cause the local temperatures to deviate from global averages.
Tim Curtin is a simpleton. I won’t say he’s a liar – he has convinced me that he really IS that stupid.
According to Curtin’s logic, all we need is one monitoring station to know the global average temperature.
I’d call him an idiot, but all the other idiots would sue for libel.
Lee & Michael: instead of abuse, why not just explain how come temps at Mauna Loa and Honolulu Observatory have flat trends and Honolulu Airport alone fits the IPCC mantra, despite the same atmos CO2 in all 3 places.
>But do read the IPCC’s AR4, which does claim that global mean temps (GMT) do correlate (with better than 95% certainty) with atmospheric CO2 as measured at Mauna Loa.
>As Mauna Loa’s temperatures show NO correlation with Mauna Loa’s CO2, we have here final total and complete refutation of the AGW gravy train.
These two things, that you think are connected: they are not so very closely connected.
As far as I know, CO2 is not the primary temperature forcing anywhere in the world. Including Mauna Loa. At Mauna Loa (like everywhere else in the world) the primary temperature forcings are the diurnal cycle, then the synoptic situation, then the annual seasonal cycle. It is absolutely possible for individual stations to have other changing factors that exceed the temperature impact of changing CO2. This is not news to the IPCC. There are good reasons for looking for the CO2 signal in temperature in the long term, global average.
So I return to my original question. You are proposing that Mauna Loa is special in this regard because CO2 is measured there. I am not aware of any reason for this to be true. If you could explain why you think CO2 should be a more important driver of local temperature change at Mauna Loa than elsewhere I think that would go some way to resolving this confusion.
Try height above sea level you dimwit.
And could you try turning down the stupid just a little – it’s hurting my eyes.
Tim Curtin writes:
> Some guy: you are a perfect example of the great unwashed illiterate/innumerates who cannot marshall an argument. What “misrepresentation of AGW”? AGW means more CO2 = higher temps.
What a joke! Tim Curtin, why do you fail to restate your thesis in this pathetic rebuttle? Is it becaues you recognise the gross misrepresentation you have made?
Tim thesis is:
>Thus there should be a precise correlation between the CHANGES in temps everywhere and the CHANGES in CO2 at Mauns Loa.
Tim Curtin writes @ 551:
>As Mauna Loa’s temperatures show NO correlation with Mauna Loa’s CO2, we have here final total and complete refutation of the AGW gravy train…But could you be kind enough to nominate me for a real Nobel …
Tim Curtin, take your meds, your erroneous assumption has been answered [here]( http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/03/tim_curtin_thread.php#comment-1814650) and [here]( http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/03/tim_curtin_thread.php#comment-1814749). Ignoring the erroneous nature of your assumptions doesn’t help your argument.
Does Tim Curtin even take himself seriously?
Tim Curtin says:
it is cosnoling [sic] to find none of you has faulted my data that at the home of atmospheric CO2, there is no discernible impct [sic] of that on temperature.
Mauna Loa is not the “home of atmospheric CO2“. It is merely a place where Keeling decided that he could detect global mixing without urban/industrial interference. And before you babble on about volcanoes, Keeling knew about wind…
Instead we have Bernard’s “science” that although atmospheric CO2 levels are virtually the same everywhere, whether they have an effect on temperature all depends on … well what? Apparently it happens only in his backyard, not at Mauna Loa.
It is science, real science, and not “science”.
It really sticks in your craw that CO2 doesn’t lurk on the ground in bubbles of high concentration, doesn’t it?
As to how temperature is affected by CO2, you have been given clues, and you should understand the high school physics sufficiently to address this point if you have pretensions of playing with data.
Once and for all, are you seriously suggesting that global temperatures at every point on the planet should be displaced by the same constant value at any particular point in time, irrespective of local, regional, and astronomical modifers of the physics of temperature, as a consequence of CO2 increase?
No Tim. I never said what you said I did. Prove it.
Still trying these lemming-style Machiavellian tactics…
Are you Malcolm Turnbull’s political advisor? I see some common elements in your logic.
You are hilarious.
This is a joke thread now. It must be hard for you to take that even skeptics like David Stockwell shoot down your arguments. Even your own side think your arguments are bad.
Bernard J – your final para. concisley puts the AGW case as propounded by the IPCC, just look at their projections of “Global” repeat after me GLOBAL warming. The IPCC trend is marginally varied for NH and SH and there are colourful maps with unverified regional variations, but in all cases the trend is up. BUT real world data from Mauna Lao and the Honolulu Observatory show no trend.
Nathan: you are a liar. David Stockwell made no comment that I have seen, he is not the only david S in the world, he usually signs himself as “Admin”. You grossly misquoted me as claiming that not even CO2 is measured at Mauna Loa, and never retract or apologise. Get your tiny mind around the fact that at of all places, Mauna Loa, there was no rising warming trend from 1978 to 2005.
I see Tim Curtin does not take [himself seriously.](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/03/tim_curtin_thread.php#comment-1816392)
Tim, restating erroneous assumptions doesn’t make you correct, just foolish.
Having never entered the Tim Curtin thread before, I was only aware of his reputation for extreme stupidity, second hand.
Amazingly, it appears those reports are not an exaggeration. Perhaps even an underestimate.
Tim’s reduced to mocking my English. Tim, you are a sad, sad man. I write these posts in haste, because, apparently unlike you, I have other work to do (speaking as a scientist, not a self-righteous pundit like you).
My advice: Get a life.
I case you thought you were wasting your time here, I wanted to let you know that I’ve recently read many of these posts and found them interesting and fun way of extending my understanding.
I’m very appreciative of the effort you’ve put into communicating several points here.
Tim, are you capable of reading?
Read this thread, quite clearly David (the guy with the Indianna Jones gravitar) S exactly what I quoted.
Read what you posted then the responses.
It’s an amazing case of self-delusion that you have. Denial of the highest order…
If you were, uncharitably, put in a hot air balloon with TC then you’d never return to the ground, other than by two obvious methods, one of which would get you incarcerated for life (though pleading extenuating circumstances may make you eligible for parole in short order) and the other way would likely see you past caring about anything ever again, never mind whatever TC had to say on anything.
Hmm, perhaps I’ve jumped from said balloon! Perhaps more people should take this view (he’s been back in my [killfile] for some time now
Oh, and just a thought (I don’t know — and I haven’t got the time to check it out): given that GISS would presumably like a surface temperature land record, and given the paucity of land mass within the Pacific itself (granted, it’s periphery has land mass at/near sea level), wouldn’t the Honolulu station at around 4 m amsl be a better choice than a station about half way to the stratosphere at around 4 km amsl (though such stations within a continental landmass would have obvious appeal to give representative x-sections perhaps)?
Apologies to Nathan, looks like you are right but what he said is ambiguous.
Lewis, if Mauna Loa at 3,500 metres is good for CO2, why not for temperatures? And as there is an Observatory in Honolulu itself at presumably about 4 m amsl, why does GISS ignore its data?
Currently chilling out as I am in Singapore Airport at 29oC, the question remains why does GISS have such a preponderance of airports in its station listing? Why are observatories generally ignored? Why does HadleyCRUT refuse to release its algorithms for getting from airport temps to Global Mean Temperature?
>if Mauna Loa at 3,500 metres is good for CO2, why not for temperatures?
It is clear that it is Tim’s shitck is ignoring the [responses that address his](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/03/tim_curtin_thread.php#comment-1816278) bogus assumptions.
Mmm, yes, playing dumb really suits Tim Curtin (lets call it playing).
>if Mauna Loa at 3,500 metres is good for CO2, why not for temperatures?
Why is Mauna Loa good for CO2?
This has been explained previously; CO2 is a well mixed gas, therefore getting observations of it outside the turbulence of the boundary layer is a good idea.
Why not temperature?
Depends what you mean by “temperature”. Mauna Loa is, as you have pointed out, at 3500m. This is well outside the boundary layer (~2km) and temperatures measured there are not representative of the surface temperature. In any case you should expect there are no useful global conclusions to draw from comparisons with any single site temperature record and global temperature change.
I think you are wrong, try again with some special pleading.
The argument I am trying to make is that the IPCC et al have a hypothesis that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 (hereafter [CO2]) is correlated with global mean temperature (GMT). The IPCC’s AR4 stated that it was more than 95% “confident” that this is the case and that therefore global warming is a function of [CO2]. The upcoming Copenhagen Conference is wholly dependent on this correlation being correct. When we then find that the IPCC’s norm for [CO2] measurements is those at Mauna Loa, and we also find virtually no correlation of temperatures at Mauna Lo with [CO2] then by both Einstein and Popper the hypothesis fails. The reason it fails is because while temperatures are indeed correlated with anthropogenic causes, that cause is not [CO2] which is nothing more than a minor by-product of human activity involving large usage of energy apart from that deriving from fossil fuels. For example we none of us need eat or drink the output of burning fossil fuels unless our food and drink are processed using fossil fuels. However ALL of what we eat and drink has as its main constituent the carbohydrates emerging from use of [CO2] in the photosynthesis process which produces all of what we eat in its primary form – and is the source of all human energy and activity. That activity is what produces warming, measurable now even at South Pole where the US et al have built a sizable town.
And that is why the plan at Copenhagen to coerce the whole world to reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions by at least 60%, i.e. to 40% of the 2000 level, is so dangerous, because that level of around 2-3 GtC is below the current annual growth of new utilization of CO2 emissions now at a level of 6 GtC p.a., which has kept pace with those emissions since 1958, resulting in aggregate absorption since 1958 of 57% of total emissions from fossil fuels etc.
I hope I do not need to go on, but do please note that the history of mankind is based on use of energy in all its forms, not just fossil fuels. The reason there is no correlation between [CO2] and temps at Mauna Loa is clearly not because of the absence of CO2 but because of the absence of any significant economic activity there using energy in any form.
It follows that the IPCC’s scientists have misdirected themselves, to the delight of all too many Green groups who are at the end of the day more opposed to human economic activity in general than they are to global warming.
Still playing dumb Tim? And still misrepresenting the IPCC.
>I think you are wrong
So you say. But you have not shown why I’m wrong.
>When we then find that the IPCC’s norm for [CO2] measurements is those at Mauna Loa, and we also find virtually no correlation of temperatures at Mauna Lo with [CO2] then by both Einstein and Popper the hypothesis fails.
No. I do not “think” you are wrong. You are wrong. You continue to assert this expection of correlation, and yet it is completely wrong. I don’t think there is much more I can say in the matter: I have explained the physics behind this lack of correlation, you have not explained why my argument is wrong. Mauna Loa is not special simply because CO2 is measured there.
On a related matter, it is disengenous to appeal to an actual heavyweight in modern physics (not Popper) and then say:
>…that cause is not [CO2] which is nothing more than a minor by-product of human activity…
If you respected the work of 19C and 20C physics you would not reject it like this. And let’s be clear here: you reject in this statement a hundred years of steady progress in some fairly fundamental physics.
So long as you continue to reject the science in this way very little debate is possible. Your own theory here is very weak: why did your suggested source of heating lead to decrease in temperature from 1940 to 1960? There was a post war activity boom, your theory would predict a spike in heating here. Everything in the actual data however is explainable in terms of the net radiative balance.
Quite frankly, if you really believe any of this you should be buying all the (soon to be) uninsurable coastal properties around Australia. If you are right and modern physics is wrong, then you’ll make a killing.
When we then find that the IPCC’s norm for [CO2] measurements is those at Mauna Loa, and we also find virtually no correlation of temperatures at Mauna Lo with [CO2] then by both Einstein and Popper the hypothesis fails.
Curtin, non-fallacious inductive reasoning is not your forté, is it?
You either know that you are speaking crap, or you are so ignorant that it borders on the dangerous.
Of course, if you continue to dispute this, you will formally frame the hypothesis that you claim to refute, and detail why your refutation is complete.
Oh, and if you think that you deserve a Nobel, I presume that you will publish immediately. Given that [McLean et al](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/07/ahh_mclean_youve_done_it_again.php) were able to publish their ‘material’, and that Cohenite (Anthony Cox) and Stockwell are [doing the same](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/07/ahh_mclean_youve_done_it_again.php#comment-1818988), it seems that your protestations that you would not be published are no longer valid – if they ever were…
Don’t forget – you always have [Quadrant](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/windschuttle_hoaxed.php).
And speaking of publishing, how’s your ["CO2 paper"](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/03/tim_curtin_thread.php#comment-1552887) progressing?
Bernard: Thanks, my paper will be out in October.
MARK: I SEEM TO BE IN GOOD COMPANY
More than 60 prominent German scientists have publicly declared their dissent from man-made global warming fears in an Open Letter to German Chancellor Angela Merkel. The more than 60 signers of the letter include several United Nations IPCC scientists.
The scientists declared that global warming has become a “pseudo religion” and they noted that rising CO2 has “had no measurable effect” on temperatures. The German scientists, also wrote that the “UN IPCC has lost its scientific credibility.”
This latest development comes on the heels of a series of inconvenient developments for the promoters of man-made global warming fears, including new peer-reviewed studies, real world data, a growing chorus of scientists dissenting (including more UN IPCC scientists), open revolts in scientific societies and the Earth’s failure to warm. In addition, public opinion continues to turn against climate fear promotion. (See “Related Links” at bottom of this article for more inconvenient scientific developments.)
The July 26, 2009 German scientist letter urged Chancellor Merkel to “strongly reconsider” her position on global warming and requested a “convening of an impartial panel” that is “free of ideology” to counter the UN IPCC and review the latest climate science developments.
The scientists, from many disciplines, including physicists, meteorology, chemistry, and geology, explain that “humans have had no measurable effect on global warming through CO2 emissions. Instead the temperature fluctuations have been within normal ranges and are due to natural cycles.”
“More importantly, there’s a growing body of evidence showing anthropogenic CO2 plays no measurable role,” the scientists wrote. “Indeed CO2′s capability to absorb radiation is already exhausted by today’s atmospheric concentrations. If CO2 did indeed have an effect and all fossil fuels were burned, then additional warming over the long term would in fact remain limited to only a few tenths of a degree,” they added.
“The IPCC had to have been aware of this fact, but completely ignored it during its studies of 160 years of temperature measurements and 150 years of determined CO2 levels. As a result the IPCC has lost its scientific credibility,” the scientists wrote.
“Indeed the atmosphere has not warmed since 1998 – more than 10 years, and the global temperature has even dropped significantly since 2003. Not one of the many extremely expensive climate models predicted this. According to the IPCC, it was supposed to have gotten steadily warmer, but just the opposite has occurred,” the scientists wrote.
“The belief of climate change, and that it is manmade, has become a pseudo-religion,” the scientists wrote. “The German media has sadly taken a leading position in refusing to publicize views that are critical of anthropogenic global warming,” they added.
“Do you not believe, Madam Chancellor, that science entails more than just confirming a hypothesis, but also involves testing to see if the opposite better explains reality? We strongly urge you to reconsider your position on this subject and to convene an impartial panel for the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, one that is free of ideology, and where controversial arguments can be openly debated. We the undersigned would very much like to offer support in this regard.
Full Text of Translated Letter By 61 German Scientists: (emphasis added)
Mark and Bernard, please note especially the references to no “measurable effect” on global temperature.
Yes I saw this pass my desk a couple of days ago. Basically there’s a bunch of Germans who are bad at physics.
>Indeed CO2′s capability to absorb radiation is already exhausted by today’s atmospheric concentrations
Comments like this are merely an indication of scientific illiteracy.
My responses in CAPs:
Why not temperature?
Depends what you mean by “temperature”. Mauna Loa is, as you have pointed out, at 3500m. This is well outside the boundary layer (~2km) and temperatures measured there are not representative of the surface temperature. I NEVER SAID THEY WERE, BUT NOR ARE AIRPORTS AS ASSUMED BY GISS
In any case you should expect there are no useful global conclusions to draw from comparisons with any single site temperature record and global temperature change.
AU CONTRAIRE, THE AGW HYPOTHESIS IS VERY GENERAL: MORE [CO2] LEADS TO HIGHER TEMPS EVERYWHERE, BOTH AT MAUNA LOA AND HOLULU OBSERVATORY, NOT JUST HONOLULU AIRPORT (OR KENYATTA AIRPORT BUT NOT NAIROBI).
So long as you continue to reject the science in this way very little debate is possible. Your own theory here is very weak: why did your suggested source of heating lead to decrease in temperature from 1940 to 1960? There was a post war activity boom, your theory would predict a spike in heating here.
AND THERE WAS IN MANY PLACES. WHY NOT DO SOME MULTIVARIATE REGRESSIONS, OF COURSE THERE ALWAYS OTHER FACTORS IF NOT FOR THE IPCCWITH ITS 95% DUE TO ANTHROPOGENIC CO2 EMISSIONS. THESE OTHERS INCLUDE THE SOLAR CYCLES IGNORED BY THE IPCC.
Everything in the actual data however is explainable in terms of the net radiative balance.
THE NET RADIATIVE BALANCE IS A FICTION THAT HAS NEVER BEEN DEMONSTRATED EMPIRICALLY; IT IS MERELY A PARAMETER FITTED RETROSPECTIVELY TO MODELS TO TUNE THEM TO OUTCOMES.
Quite frankly, if you really believe any of this you should be buying all the (soon to be) uninsurable coastal properties around Australia. If you are right and modern physics is wrong, then you’ll make a killing.
LET ME KNOW WHEN ROSE, DOUBLE AND NEUTRAL BAY PRICES FOR WATERFRONT PROPERTIES DROP TO MY PRICE RANGE ($300,000 FOR A 5 BEDROOM PROPERTY)
Finally Mark, explain why CO2′s ability to absorb radiation has since 1978 ceased to raise temperatures at Mauna Loa (3500 metres) or Honolulu Observatory (sealevel).
Misrepresenting the IPCC in CAPs still dosn’t make you correct, just foolish.
Keep your jokes coming Tim!
I think the real joke is ‘Tim Curtin is a Joke’.
Tim can you direct me to the bit from the IPPC where they say AGW means temperature has to go up everyplace on the planet. That will prove what a joke he really is.
BTW thanks for the info about the IPCC ignoring solar cycles. Gee why don’t you here about this is so called peer reviewed journals.
And that 95% figure that seem pretty important too. Cheers!
Hi alter ego
Just check out AR4, maps. IPCC also says solar variation has minimal effect.
Yeah see,’Tim Curtin is Joke’, saying the that solar variation has minimal effect is practically the same as admitting that the IPCC ignore solar cycles!
And checkout the maps in AR4 they prove that if the temp has no gone up every single place then AGW is false real. Global warming is not AGW unless it occurs in every spot.
(Which map by the way, the ones for 2030? 2050? what resolution?, Which altitude)
Just 2 weeks for a reply by the well known monkees Mann et al to McLean et al. Clearly no need for peer review!
McLean et al explicitly did not discuss trends, but the monkees claim they did. The monkees have no known ability at regression analysis, no wonder McLean et al is beyond them.
Oh dear,Tim.. hung by your own thread.
I am sure that we won’t see the one and only bonafide Tim Curtin belittling the grade school English manifested in the posts by his alter-alter ego (Tim Curtin is a joke is a joke). Besides, the alter alter ego is him/herself a joke. Let me guess TCIAJIAJ: you have no scientific pedigree whatsoever (like your hero) and yet you have the audacity to belittle the latest IPCC draft, the most reviewed and scrutinized document in scientific history.
I constantly find it amusing that non-scientists with no formal training in certain fields of endeavor forever proclaim themselves to be experts in said fields, and constantly claim that they have found glaring omissions or errors in extensively reviewed documents. What the hell do we need universities for if know-nothings can read a few web sites and become instant authorities? Why spend years studying certain lines of research if a taxi driver or accountant knows more?
Note how Tim Curtin will defend any study, no matter how flawed it may be, that defends his personal position on the subject of climate change. It wouldn’t matter it was in Mad Magazine, a Larouchite rag or in some other crappy source, it would be sound science if it in any way contradicts the dominant scientific view that humans are the main drivers behind climate change. It also wouldn’t matter who wrote the article either, or what expertise they had (or lacked). By contrast, any study, no matter where published, be it Nature, Science, PNAS etc., that provides evidence in favor of the argument that humans are indeed the primary drivers behind climate change, will be ridiculed, labelled as garbage or junk science and the authors, no matter what their pedigree, derided as monkeys, idiots, clowns, dupes, you-name it.
The fact is that the anti-environmental lobby – primary those on the far right of the political spectrum – have been using this tactic for years. I’ve given many lectures on the subject (Princeton, Stanford, Copenhagen, Aarhus, Helsinki etc.) and the more I peruse the ongoing coverage of AGW the more and more I see the denialists resorting to these kinds of smears. Tim Curtin just adds grist to the mill. So does his alter-alter ego, as well as others like Ray and Billy Bob Hall on other threads.
Tim Curtin is a Joke is a Joke, is just Tim Curtin is a joke. I just can’t belive how much of a joke Tim Curtin is.
>saying the that solar variation has minimal effect is practically the same as admitting that the IPCC ignore solar cycles!
Its just so ridiculous.
Arghhh! I have a recursivity headache!
…or it might be from having spent months and months of sitting agog in sheer disbelief at Curtin’s manifestly recalcitrant ignorance of even basic science.
>The AGW hypothesis is very general: more [CO2] leads to higher temps everywhere
No. Reasons I have explained above. Global warming, whatever the source, will not uniformly warm every single point on the surface of the earth. If you think this is the case I suggest you either show the maths to prove it or give me a series of references that do so.
>The net radiative balance is a fiction that has never been demonstrated empirically
This is truly puzzling. You dispute the concept of the net radiation balance (ie: you dispute the theory of radiative transfer) or you dispute the results to date? If the latter can you be more specific?
>explain why CO2′s ability to absorb radiation has since 1978 ceased to raise temperatures at Mauna Loa (3500 metres) or Honolulu Observatory (sealevel).
It is truly worthless to discuss individual stations in a discussion of global climate. Only the mean behaviour of the system is relevant.
Mark G: thanks, no time for full reply at present, but note how GISS obtains GMT from airports where there are upward trends that they superimpose on non-airport stations that do not have a trend. It’s basic averages: take 10 stations of which nine have no signficant trend, then one like Honolulu Airport with a strong upward trend,take the average, and lo! we have trend of the 10. Note also how it is impossible by any means even FOI to get HadleyCRUT asnd UK Met Office to divulge their algorithm for getting GMT fro individial station records. Phil Jones claims it is his intellectual property as he “added” value – I can well believe it! GISS seems no better.
I would be glad to hear any new comments on my finding that temperatures as measured at the Mauna Loa laboratory that provides the standard measurements of the atmospheric concentration of CO2 shows no correlation with changes in that level of atmospheric CO2. Could someone also explain why James Hansen’s GISS, it like the NOAA and HadleyCRUT rely on temperature readings at Honolulu Airport (obviously heavily influenced by the ever growing volume of air traffic since 1960) and at Hilo, a fast growing town at the foot of the Mauna Loa mountain, but refuse to acknowledge the existence of the flat trend temperature readings at the Mauna Loa lab. itself. Why would that be?
When there is a hypothesis that it is the atmospheric concetration of CO2 that is “95% responsible for global warming”, but no warming at all is evident at the pristine location where the CO2 is measured, the hypothesis is demonstrably false.
This is not to say there is no anthropogenic warming, for indeed there is wherever there are large numbers of people using energy on a large scale as at Hoolulu Airport and all other such, and indeed in all urban areas not excluding modern farming areas. The 1st Law of Thermodynamics says use of energy creates heat, the 2nd law says that failure to maintain energy use leads inevitably to increasing entropy and ultimate death of all living matter. That is because heat passes from hot bodies to less hot bodies etc. If we don’t eat and drink our carbon based food and beverages we die…
Replacing coal fired electricity etc with wind etc will do nothing to reduce warming arising from humans’ energy-based activity except to the extent that it reduces such activity – and that is of course the hidden agenda of all too many Greens and their fellow travellers. CO2 is a trivial by-product of fossil fuel energy. None of the IPCC’s dubious formulae for guessing at the radiative forcing of CO2 show that the CO2 generated at coalfired power stations has more than a tiny fraction of the heat potential of the energy produced by the power station itself.
That is why atmospheric CO2 at Mauna Loa has no discernible impact on the temperature there. Ergo, end of AGW hypothesis if that is limited to CO2; there is of course AGW due to economic activity based on energy production and consumption, but that is not what the IPCC’s 95% certainty is about.
My previous post was prompted by Mark at the so-called Australian War on Science thread who said “b shows how CO2 has changed the temperature. c shows how much extra CO2 is there (combine with a and b to show this is sufficient to explain the gross warming signal)”. My post shows there is no basis for the claim in his (b) as there is no evidence for CO2 at Mauna Loa raising temeperature there; the increase in CO2 noted in his (c) is merely a proxy for rising energy use with associated heat efflux. His (a) refers to the bogus hockey stick and all other data associated with P.D. Jones.
Mark: it is time for you and many others to get back to basics of science (eg entropy) and measurement (e.g. avoiding the false temp. data collations and attributions by GISS and HadleyCRUT)
The 1st Law of Thermodynamics says use of energy creates heat, the 2nd law says that failure to maintain energy use leads inevitably to increasing entropy…
See, in my universe I was taught the opposite: that energy use increases entropy.
Keep at it though Curtin. You are simply providing ever more evidence that you yourself are the one who is living in a different universe.
>I would be glad to hear any new comments on my finding that temperatures as measured at the Mauna Loa laboratory that provides the standard measurements of the atmospheric concentration of CO2 shows no correlation with changes in that level of atmospheric CO2.
No new comments are really possible I’m sorry to say. Your persistent assertion of this connection between CO2 measurement at Mauna Loa and global average temperature change is fundamentally mistaken.
>When there is a hypothesis that it is the atmospheric concetration of CO2 that is “95% responsible for global warming”, but no warming at all is evident at the pristine location where the CO2 is measured, the hypothesis is demonstrably false.
No. There will be a multitude of stations in the temperature record that may not (at all, or partially) show the average change in the overall system. In particular I would expect any temperature measurements at the tops of mountains to show less trend, since they are not at all representative of the surface atmospheric layer; they sit outside most of the atmospheric water vapor at the surface, which is after all why people put observatories at such sites.
>This is not to say there is no anthropogenic warming, for indeed there is wherever there are large numbers of people using energy on a large scale as at Hoolulu Airport and all other such, and indeed in all urban areas not excluding modern farming areas.
So you assert that radiative transfer (ie basic physics) is wrong and all apparent “anthropogenic heating” is basically the result of people running heaters? (where by ‘heaters’ I mean all machines that generate heat).
Since Tim Curtin has abused my hospitality by using a sockpuppet to post to other threads, he is now banned and this thread is closed.