Remember how Ian Plimer claimed that he could not recall where his dodgy figure 3? Well now he has resorting to lying about the source. In a talkback radio debate (about 4 minutes from the end) with Steven Sherwood, Plimer claimed that the graph came from page 21 of Klimafakten, a book published by the German government in 2001. That’s a straight-up lie.

The graph came from Durkin’s Great Global Warming Swindle. I’ve overlaid the graphs below so that you can see that they are identical. Just put your mouse on the graph to change it to the Swindle one. Notice that he copied the labels on the graph and the comparison to the right.

i-e1aa2fd7c048a807e77dc6592a293231-plimerfig3.png

And no it’s not possible that Klimafakten copied the graph from the Swindle, since it was published before the Swindle. Nor is it possible that both got it from the same source, since Swindle copied it from the Oregon Petition, but got the horizontal axis wrong, an error that Plimer faithfully reproduced.

And the Swindle graph was only ever included
in the initial broadcast in the UK — it wasn’t in the version shown
in Australia or released on DVD. So Plimer didn’t get it directly from the
movie. He must have got it from one of the websites that posted
screenshots of the graph. But all of those pages were criticising
Durkin for posting an incorrect graph of temperatures. Plimer knew
that the graph was wrong and decided to include it in his book anyway.

And just to remove any doubt here, in a debate with Barry Brook before Plimer’s book was published, he showed the Swindle graph and Brook told him that it was wrong, and that even Durkin had retracted it.

The best match I can find to Plimer’s claimed source is this book. It was published in 2000, not 2001 and it wasn’t published by the German government but rather edited by someone who works for the German government, but by Plimer citing standards, that’s a perfect match.

If anyone can lay their hands on a copy and check page 21 for me, I’d much appreciate it. Plimer fans should have an especially strong incentive to do this, because if I’m wrong I’ll end up with egg all over my face. But I’m not.

Update: bluegrue tracked down a copy of Klimafakten:

I have located a copy of Klimafakten by Ulrich Berner. All data of the figures are sourced in the appendix. On page 21 you find two figures. Fig 2.9 depicts Friis-Christensen and Lassen (1991), temperature and solar cycle length. Fig 2.10 is Svensmark and Friis-Christensen (1997), cosmic ray flux and global cloud cover. In chapter 11 there are several figures using smoothed GISTEMP data around page 210. All of the figures are faithful reproductions of the original data, none of them has a fudged time axis like the figures of Durkin and Plimer. Berner’s Klimafakten is definitely not the source of Plimer’s figure 3.

Thanks to Jo Abbess, I have a copy of Berner’s figure 2.9:

i-c5cf573bc234fe48162ad99243fa3d71-klimafaktenfig2.9.jpg

That’s obviously different from Plimer’s figure 3.

Comments

  1. #1 janama
    May 17, 2009

    lee – you didn’t argue anything – you just said “For Christy to say they have “found” this, that they know it, is simply not true. And Christy knows that.” and made statements like “and that therefore he is not to be trusted.”

    Both Christy and Spencer argue the feedback mechanisms in Models are incorrect and create higher predictions of temperature change, and as I pointed out before even Hansen admits they over estimate – like the difference between 5C and .5C – that’s a major difference and you can’t just dismiss it by saying they are lying.

    If your life depended on the difference between .5C and 5C wouldn’t it be reasonable to get to the truth of the matter?

  2. #2 James Haughton
    May 18, 2009

    Janama, before you argue that clouds (= water vapour) create negative feedback, I suggest you read [this summary](http://climateprogress.org/2008/10/26/study-water-vapor-feedback-is-strong-and-positive-so-we-face-warming-of-several-degrees-celsius/)of recent research in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.
    Incidentally, both Grieg and janama are running a “the specific graph doesn’t matter, it’s the sum total of evidence that matters” argument. This is of course the same reason that Christy’s disputing of Hansen’s particular set of projections from 20 years ago doesn’t matter (if it was correct, which it isn’t). But they seem to think that greenhouse science stands or falls on one graph. Hit on the head by a Hockey Stick syndrome?

  3. #3 janama
    May 18, 2009

    James – from your link

    “The existence of a strong and positive water-vapor feedback means that projected business-as-usual greenhouse-gas emissions over the next century are virtually guaranteed to produce warming of several degrees Celsius. The only way that will not happen is if a strong, negative, and currently unknown feedback is discovered somewhere in our climate system.”

    But the southern hemisphere and the tropics have remained the same temp for the past 30 years – only the NH shows temperature rise.

    http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/hemitemps.jpg

    and the last 8 years have remained static or have dropped globally

    http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/RSS.jpg

    doesn’t add up- does it, all thoses additional forcings aren’t working!

  4. #4 Chris O'Neill
    May 18, 2009

    pajama:

    But the southern hemisphere

    average over the bottom 5000 metres of troposphere

    and the tropics have remained the same temp for the past 30 years – only the NH shows temperature rise

    Fine if you live somewhere up in the troposphere. Pretty irrelevant, like pajama, if you live on the surface.

    and the last 8 years have remained static or have dropped globally

    Thanks for the weather report. How long will it take you to learn that measurement of climate, and hence measurement of climate change, takes at least 30 years of data.

  5. #5 mark Byrne
    May 18, 2009

    Janama,

    The north is warming faster [as predicted](http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/antarcticfactsheet) by land/ocean ratio.

    The equitorial latitudes are warming slower than high and mid latitudes, as predicted and is a signature of greenhouse induced warming.

    Global temperature is rising at [0.155 K/decade](http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_description.html) despite masking from aresols.

  6. #6 Hagar
    May 18, 2009

    As a viking raider, I am not uncomfortable with evading a few icebergs. I am however very concerned that the statement below may be true and would like some informed commentary:

    Glacial ice cores have the unique capability of yielding measurements of ancient atmospheric chemistry from air samples that are captured as bubbles within the ice. It transpires that inferred changes in past temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration in such cores occur in close parallelism. In detail, however, the changes
    in temperature precede their parallel changes in carbon dioxide by between ~800 and 2000 years (Mudelsee 2001). Thus carbon dioxide cannot be the primary forcing agent
    for temperature change at the glacial-interglacial scale.

  7. #7 janama
    May 18, 2009

    Chris O’Neill – the troposhphere contains 75% of the atmmosphere’s mass according to Wiki – I think it’s relevant. The graphs I presented were 30 years long which you now confirm is a measurement of Climate – not weather, thank you.

    Mark Byrne – the land to ocean ratio of the NH is around 1:1.5 whereas the SH is 1:4 – you would still expect a rise in temp in the SH at the appropriate ratio yet there isn’t any evidence of this, in fact one of the largest land masses, Antarctica, has one small area the western penninsular showing extensive warming yet the majority remaining static or cooling and the sea ice increasing.

  8. #8 Mark Byrne
    May 18, 2009

    Hagar,

    The correlation between temp and CO2 in the Vostok ice cores does show about an [800 year lag](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/) for CO2 in most cases.

    We didn’t initiate the other six cycles of dramatic warming in the past 600 k-years. In these cases however, CO2 rises amplified the warming initiated by Milankovitch cycles.

    CO2 rises have been found to initiate global warming, such as occurred in [Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum](http://books.google.com/books?id=8-m8nXB8GB4C&pg=RA1-PA442&lpg=RA1-PA442&dq=eocene+IPCC+FAR&source=bl&ots=hxioA4raLX&sig=vp7NhM6YOrPWrmwWMscaJkNnkr4&hl=en&ei=fg8RSpexDNeOkAWCs-m4BA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10#PRA1-PA442,M1) about 55 million years ago.

  9. #9 Gaz
    May 18, 2009

    Hagar: “Thus carbon dioxide cannot be the primary forcing agent for temperature change at the glacial-interglacial scale.”

    In the recent (geologially speaking) past the ice ages and warmer interglacial warmer periods have been instigated by changes in the Earth’s orbit and axis, which affects the amount of sunlight hitting various parts of the Earth.

    This in turn affects how much heat is retained in the sea and the atmosphere. This seems to be pretty well accepted by scientists working in the field.

    This heating then causes greenhouse gases, mainly the gases dissolved in the the sea, to be liberated in the same way CO2 bubbles out of beer when it’s warmed up.

    These gases in turn trap more heat in the atmosphere and the oceans. The additional heating liberates even more greenhouses gases, which cause even more heating, and so on.

    This process takes a long, long time, because it takes a long time for the oceans to heat up so much that the heat they’re giving off balances the heat coming in from the hotter atmosphere, at which point the oceans stop heating up.

    That’s why the ice cores show CO2 concentrations rising long after the initial change in temperature.

    The additional amounts of CO2 have a declining effect, so there’s no “runaway” heating.

    What’s happening at the moment is that greenhouse gases released by humans, rather than changes in sunlight, are starting the process.

    So the intial heating can come from either the sun or from humans releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, or from some other source of greenhouses gases like, in the long-distant past, the weathering of rocks or massive super volcanoes.

    The process will continue in much the same way, with further liberation of greenhouse gases as the oceans warm, no matter what started it off.

    In other words, just because sunlight caused previous global warming, doesn’t mean nothing else can cause it.

    This is all very well known and there are many places you can find this explanation.

    All I can say is that if someone (eg Adjunct Professor Bob Carter, who Google tells me is the source for your quote) has presented this argument to you as a proof that humans are not causing global warming, they are assuming you are either ignorant, stupid or gullible.

    Anyway, it’s really a sleight of hand, because the global warming we humans are causing is not happening at the “glacial-interglacial” scale, but much faster than that.

    So, technically it’s true, but it’s also a red herring in the context of an argument about human-caused global warming over a relatively short time frame.

  10. #10 Mark Byrne
    May 18, 2009

    Janama:

    you would still expect a rise in temp in the SH at the appropriate ratio yet there isn’t any evidence of this…

    Who would expect that Janama? Where is consideration for ocean currets? where is your accounting for variance of latitude and solar incidence?

    …one of the largest land masses, Antarctica, has one small area the western penninsular showing extensive warming yet the majority remaining static or cooling and the sea ice increasing.

    Since systematic measures began (1957) through 2006, temperatures across Antarctica [rose an average]( http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n7228/abs/nature07669.html) of 0.2 degrees Fahrenheit per decade.

  11. #11 Bernard J.
    May 18, 2009

    Hagar.

    I can only assume that as a Viking raider the technologies available to you are so outdated that you have no way to understand that your argument has long ago been refuted, and repeatedly so, and that once you emerge from your mead fugue you will understand this and remove the over-tight helm from your head.

  12. #12 Chris O'Neill
    May 18, 2009

    Hagar:

    Thus carbon dioxide cannot be the primary forcing agent for temperature change at the glacial-interglacial scale.

    No-one argues that CO2 produced more than a minority of the temperature change between glacial and interglacial conditions, i.e. the CO2 change probably produced about 2 deg C of warming associated with this change while the overall temperature rise was more than double this. Our problem is that we’re well on the way to increasing CO2 far more than the increase at the end of the last ice age.

  13. #13 Chris O'Neill
    May 18, 2009
    Fine if you live somewhere up in the troposphere. Pretty irrelevant, like pajama, if you live on the surface.

    pajama:

    the troposhphere contains 75% of the atmmosphere’s mass according to Wiki – I think it’s relevant.

    You have an amazing gift for argument by red herring. The consequences of global warming are mainly caused at the surface: melting ice-caps, ecological disruption, evaporation, and climate alteration depends to a large extent on the amount of surface warming.

    and the last 8 years have remained static or have dropped globally

    Thanks for the weather report. How long will it take you to learn that measurement of climate, and hence measurement of climate change, takes at least 30 years of data.

    The graphs I presented were 30 years long which you now confirm is a measurement of Climate – not weather, thank you.

    Whatever happened to your 8 years claim? Obviously you’re no longer defending your claim that what happened in the last 8 years has something to do with climate forcing. Thanks for the goal post shift. By the way, in case you’ve forgotten already, those graphs are not as relevant as the surface record.

  14. #14 Nils Ross
    May 18, 2009

    I just thought I’d note that the Australian has linked another vapid opinion article praising Plimer’s book: by Janet Albrechtsen this time. Sometimes Janet writes some clever things, but science obviously isn’t her strong point. It’s a pretty textbook example of “AGW is bad for right-wing politics; I am right-wing; therefore I do not believe in AGW; therefore AGW is not real.”

  15. #15 bluegrue
    May 18, 2009

    janama,
    even your global RSS data shows, that the years 1999 to 2009 were on average .2°C to .3°C warmer than the years 1979 to 1989. Contrary to your claim, the [southern hemisphere has warmed](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/mean:60/plot/rss/mean:60/plot/gistemp/from:1979/mean:60/plot/hadcrut3sh/from:1979/mean:60) (5-year mean values), too.

  16. #16 Harold Pierce Jr
    May 18, 2009

    RE #63

    “…changes in aerosols (the culprit for the 1940-1970 cooling)…”

    This is incorect. See “Cyclic Climate Changes and Fish Productivity” by L.B. Kykashtorin and A.A. Lyubushin.

    http://alexeylyubushin.narod.ru/Climate-Changes-and-Fish-Productivity.pdf?

    (Note: Replace “-” with “_” for link to work. If this doesn’t work, use Google search on title or the authors)

    They show by analyses of a vast amount of climate and fish data that there is a world climate cycle of about 60 years. The 1940-1970 period was a cool phase of the cycle.

    This cycle peaked in the warm phase in about 2000 and is now heading into a cool phase that will last for another 30 years.

  17. #17 janama
    May 18, 2009

    Thanks bluegrue – I’ll stick with climateforyou’s chart if you don’t mind.

    http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/hemitemps_2.jpg

    it’s accurate to this month of may. Notice how the NH is taking a dive as well, it’s their weather.

  18. #18 Greig
    May 18, 2009

    [Ian Enting] “internal consistency is essential for any scientific theory”

    Ian, I completely agree. And so does Plimer. That is precisely the issue he is illustrating throughout his book, that there significant inconsistency on AGW theory, and so it is falsified.

    As I said in The Australian Letters section, I agree with most (but not all) of your critique. Certainly Plimer has been somewhat sloppy and inconsistent. Plimer appears to have taken a “scattergun” approach, presenting a lot of information, some of which he does not support properly. But he also, in my opinion, accurately hits the mark many times, something that you do not acknowledge. He is correct and accurate often enough to convince me that the science of climate change is far from settled.

    I note also that you appear to believe that Plimer is presenting a theory. He is not. He is dismantling a theory by showing its inconsistencies. There is a big difference. It means that Plimer does not need to be completely consistent in order to convey his conclusion.

    Finally, I do not believe, as Tim Lambert does, that Plimer is being dishonest. Claims that he has lied are inappropriate and unprofessional. I find it remarkable that Tim’s UNSW colleagues have not forced him to withdraw.

  19. #19 TrueSceptic
    May 18, 2009

    48 Greig,

    This thread is about Plimer’s use of a graph so obviously fraudulent that even its originator replaced it with another (less obviously fake but equally dishonest) graph immediately after the first broadcast of his pack of lies (TGGWS). Any use of this graph is inexcusable and can only be described as denialist.

    You are here supporting Plimer’s use of this graph.

    You are supporting denialism.

    As for scepticism, AGW “sceptics” are the least sceptical people you will find. They believe any garbage, no matter how blatantly dishonest or contradictory, that supports their belief, in the face of a huge body of peer-reviewed science, that it’s not warming, and even if it is it’s nothing to do with us and anyway what’s wrong with it being a few degrees warmer?

    It goes without saying, but I’ll say it anyway, that these credulous, arrogant, ignoramuses are nearly always right-wing nuts who, to support their extreme delusions, have to imagine some great left/green conspiracy has taken over mainstream science. I sometimes wonder if they have no idea how transparent they are.

  20. #20 Barp
    May 18, 2009

    AAAAAAGGGHHHH!!!

    Flying Monkeys!

    Oh, and ‘Lee’ (if that’s your real name) you typed “ned” instead od “end”!

    Haw, haw, hawwww, AGW PWWNEDDDD! YeeeeHaaaa!

    Or, at least, that appears to be the state of the debate at this stage. Perhaps after another decade or so of debate we could hold a discussion about whether any action should be taken.

    Murdoch Rocks!!

  21. #21 Nathan
    May 18, 2009

    Greig, you said
    “…that there significant inconsistency on AGW theory, and so it is falsified. ”

    Like what? Where is it inconsistent?

  22. #22 Barton Paul Levenson
    May 18, 2009

    Greig writes:

    CO2 levels do not correlate strongly with global temperature. ie on the basis of this alone the hypothesis is falsified.

    Look again. I get r = 0.86 for 1880-2007:

    http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960/Correlation.html

  23. #23 Michael
    May 18, 2009

    Nathan, having you been paying attention?

    That spiffy graph of Plimers is as clear a demonstration of the “inconsistency” that one could ask for – temps are going up and down, therefore they can’t just be going up.

    If you weren’t so busy worshipping at the alter of Al Gore, you would see this.

  24. #24 Deen
    May 18, 2009

    Michael: that would only be an “inconsistency” if mainstream climatologists would have said that temperatures will only increase and never, ever, ever decrease.

    Good thing that’s not what they are saying. If you weren’t so busy obsessing over Al Gore, you’d see this.

  25. #25 Ezzthetic
    May 18, 2009

    worshipping at the alter of Al Gore

    I used to wonder what Terry Eagleton meant when he said that God is not a person in the sense that Al Gore arguably is.

    Turns out, Gore has alters, and you can worship them like a God. But you just can’t be sure it’s him.

  26. #26 Bernard J.
    May 18, 2009

    That spiffy graph of Plimers [sic] is as clear a demonstration of the “inconsistency” that one could ask for – temps are going up and down, therefore they can’t just be going up.

    If you weren’t so busy worshipping at the alter of Al Gore, you would see this.

    Michael, if your point is that temperatures should be rising monotonically in lockstep with CO2 increase, perhaps you could explain why temperatures don’t monotonically increase from post-midwinter to post-midsummer, and monotonically decrease from post-midsummer to post-midwinter.

    Can you do that for us, please?

    It amuses me that Denialists are vociferous in speaking about all of the non-CO2 forcings of global temperature when trying to refute that CO2 has a warming effect. Then, when it comes to denigrating the correlation of atmospheric CO2 concentration with temperature, they immediately forget the existence of these other factors, and the inherent variability within them.

  27. #27 bluegrue
    May 18, 2009

    May be I go to the wrong places, but I do not see people here worshiping Al Gore or even cite him. On the contrary, the people arguing, that AGW is happening, are usually the ones who can back up their arguments citing the peer reviewed literature. Funny that.

  28. #28 Michael
    May 18, 2009

    Bernard J. you’re simply reinforcing Plimers point, as Greig has pointed out.

    Temps are going up and down all the time. Like yesterday for instance…and last year. Plimer showed this on that highly instructive graph. He was just highlighting the inconsistency of the theory of AGw….and we all now agree that internal consistency is important. Geig made a very valid point on this – Plimer is not proposing a theory so he doesn’t need to be consistent. Likewise, he is not a climate scientist so he doesn’t need to get the graph completely right to the nth degree. It just helps illustrate the point.

    What is important is the conclusions that Plimer draws, not how he gets there.

  29. #29 Deen
    May 18, 2009

    What is important is the conclusions that Plimer draws, not how he gets there.

    Please tell me this guy is a Poe…

  30. #30 sod
    May 18, 2009

    Temps are going up and down all the time. Like yesterday for instance…and last year. Plimer showed this on that highly instructive graph. He was just highlighting the inconsistency of the theory of AGw….and we all now agree that internal consistency is important. Geig made a very valid point on this – Plimer is not proposing a theory so he doesn’t need to be consistent. Likewise, he is to the nth degree. It just helps illustrate the point. What is important is the conclusions that Plimer draws, not how he gets there.

    i really hope that this was a joke.

    the graph is NOT highly instructive. it is simply wrong.

    the false graph seems to show, that temperature goes up and down a little. the real graph shows that temperature went UP nearly always. he gets a wrong conclusion from a wrong graph!

    in general, you don t “highlight the inconsistency” in another persons work, by using false data.

    his book has the title: “Heaven and Earth – Global Warming: The Missing Science”. he better had a theory with such a title!

    getting a graph right, after having been told that it is wrong, doesn t require to be a climate scientist. 8actually you don t need to be a climate scientist for any work on graphs)

    why didn t he admit, that the graph was bogus and just an “illustration” of some points he wanted to make?

  31. #31 Bernard J.
    May 18, 2009

    his book has the title: “Heaven and Earth – Global Warming: The Missing Science”. he better had a theory with such a title!

    Sod, I think the title is emminently appropriate: the science is absolutely missing from Plimer’s book.

    Granted, “Heaven and Earth – Global Warming: Missing The Science” would have made it clearer for the Denialists to understand where he is coming from.

  32. #32 TrueSceptic
    May 18, 2009

    127 Blue,

    The Al Gore obsession is a sure sign of the climate skeptard/deniot/ASS sufferer. We see the other signs here as well, of course. http://climateprogress.org/2009/01/05/anthony-watts-up-with-that-anti-science-denier-website-weblog-awards/

  33. #33 TrueSceptic
    May 18, 2009

    132 denidiot, doh!

  34. #34 Dan L.
    May 18, 2009

    > Michael: Plimer is not proposing a theory so he doesn’t need to be consistent. Likewise, he is not a climate scientist so he doesn’t need to get the graph completely right to the nth degree. It just helps illustrate the point.

    **-boggle!-**

    Another illustration of why it’s a waste of time to argue with most deniers. They’re sunk so deep in cluelessness they’re out of reach.

  35. #35 Greig
    May 18, 2009

    [Sod] “the real graph shows that temperature went UP nearly always”

    What do you mean by “nearly”? The real data (eg Hadcru3 and WoodForTrees.org graphs) show that temperature and CO2 do not correlate strongly, in particular note the periods 1900-1910, 1940-1970 and 1998-2009. Although it is clear there is some correlation (as so POSSIBLY SOME CAUSATION) which Plimer acknowledges throughout his book. Plimers point is to illustrate the inconsistency, and so give pause for thought.

    [BP Levinson] “Look again. I get r = 0.86 for 1880-2007:
    http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960/Correlation.html

    There is SOME correlation, nobody denies that, but it is clearly not strong, and it does not imply causation.

    [Nathan] Greig, you said “…that there significant inconsistency on AGW theory, and so it is falsified. ” Like what? Where is it inconsistent?

    You should read Plimers book, where he illustrates that with numerous examples that are well referenced, ie the support data has not made it onto Enting’s or Brooks’s critiques.

    This thread has focussed on one graph, and led some people to believe that Plimer book is all wrong. You are throwing the baby out with the bath water. You need to read the book. To quote Plimer, your mind is like a parachute, it doesn’t work unless it is open.

  36. #36 sod
    May 18, 2009

    What do you mean by “nearly”? The real data (eg Hadcru3 and WoodForTrees.org graphs) show that temperature and CO2 do not correlate strongly, in particular note the periods 1900-1910, 1940-1970 and 1998-2009. Although it is clear there is some correlation (as so POSSIBLY SOME CAUSATION) which Plimer acknowledges throughout his book. Plimers point is to illustrate the inconsistency, and so give pause for thought.

    we definitely are NOT looking at the same graph. here is the real one:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1875/to:2010/mean:132

    and i am curious: what was CO2 like in 1900-1910?

    why would you look at 1998 to 2009?

    did you ever here of other forcings, having an effect on climate?

  37. #37 sod
    May 18, 2009

    There is SOME correlation, nobody denies that, but it is clearly not strong, and it does not imply causation.

    r=0.86 is pretty strong. the causation is known because of physical properties of CO2.

    This thread has focussed on one graph, and led some people to believe that Plimer book is all wrong. You are throwing the baby out with the bath water. You need to read the book. To quote Plimer, your mind is like a parachute, it doesn’t work unless it is open.

    you must have missed the other threads, dealing with different errors.

    and talking about parachutes, Plimer and those who defend him mostly sound like they jumped once to often without one, and landed head first…

  38. #38 Sally Johnson
    May 18, 2009

    Oh real good one SOD. You truly are good for a laugh aren’t you. How did you get so hysterically funny? Watch one too many episodes of Keith Oberman perhaps?

    You are today’s Worst Person in the Woooorld!!!!

  39. #39 bluegrue
    May 18, 2009

    Greig #135
    > The real data (eg Hadcru3 and WoodForTrees.org graphs) show that temperature and CO2 do not correlate strongly,

    This is expected, as it is well known, that not only CO2, but TSI, aerosols and others play a role, too. Let’s take an artificial example. You have a function
    f{x} = a x + b sin{x} + c {-1 if x between 30 and 60; 0 else}
    defined in an interval x=0..100, where a=0.01, b=1, c=0.3. You will get poor correlation of f(x) with each of the three terms, however combining them you get a perfect match. You could still apply your’s and Plimer’s style of argument to “show” that for any single term there are “inconsistencies” and that the correlation to f{x} is obviously bad.

    Or look at it this way: You have a jar with 100 dollars. Each morning you take an arbitrary amount up to 20 dollars out of the jar and put it back in the evening. At noon each day you also take 10 cent out of the jar, that you never replace. Obviously, as the 10 cent are negligible compared to the daily fluctuations, they don’t matter and the jar will never empty. Right?

    That’s the kind of pseudo arguments (a.k.a. fallacies), that Plimer and other denialists offer.

    P.S.: I’m still waiting for an answer regarding my banker example in #88. Would you trust him?

  40. #40 Sally Johnson
    May 18, 2009

    BLUEGRUE SAYS: “This is expected, as it is well known, that not only CO2, but TSI, aerosols and others play a role, too.”

    How convenient! You cannot judge AGW arguments just on CO2 you have to factor in everything we Alarmists ‘think’ is bad.

    This is another attempt to create global climate models are unable to produce an output that is verifiable. In other words the output can neither be proved nor disproved. What grounds do those who use these models have to refute observations made by others to the effect that there is no believable evidence of the postulated dramatic adverse changes produced by the models?

  41. #41 bluegrue
    May 18, 2009

    > How convenient! You cannot judge AGW arguments just on CO2 you have to factor in everything we Alarmists ‘think’ is bad.

    Nature is complex. Welcome to reality.

  42. #42 Dave
    May 18, 2009

    Greig:

    > Observed global warming during the last 100 years cannot be explained by the increase of GHGs alone.

    Sally:

    > How convenient! You cannot judge AGW arguments just on CO2 you have to factor in everything we Alarmists ‘think’ is bad.

    Perhaps if we locked these two in a room their two contradictory (and yet both denialist) viewpoints would cancel out, perhaps even reaching some sort of (ahem) consensus?

  43. #43 TrueSceptic
    May 18, 2009

    135 Greig,

    This thread is about this (fraudulent) graph. I know that denialists are delusional but surely even you can understand that?

    It is about the use of a graph so obviously fraudulent *that even its originator* replaced it with another.

    It would help if you just admitted this, so we can move on.

  44. #44 TrueSceptic
    May 18, 2009

    140 Sally,

    Honestly, it seems that you’ve just been fed this stuff by some anti-science wingnut.

    Please, find out stuff for yourself. It’s not that hard, assuming you’ve got some basic maths and thirst for knowledge.

  45. #45 Nathan
    May 18, 2009

    Greig

    “This thread has focussed on one graph, and led some people to believe that Plimer book is all wrong. You are throwing the baby out with the bath water. You need to read the book. To quote Plimer, your mind is like a parachute, it doesn’t work unless it is open.”

    Sure this thread has focussed on the grpah, but there have been a number of threads about his book on this site. And on other sites.

    I don’t need to read the book, I have read plenty on AGW.
    Now, where is the inconsistency in AGW. You claimed there was inconsistency, where is it?

  46. #46 Mark Byrne
    May 18, 2009

    Grieg writes:

    “You should read Plimers book, where he illustrates that with numerous examples that are well referenced, ie the support data has not made it onto Enting’s or Brooks’s critiques.”

    I’m sure Plimer does say many things that are not contradicted by science. One of his tactics I’ve noticed is to state non-controversial points like- climate has changed many times in the past- and then act as though this is at odds with climate science.

    [Re your assertion of being “well referenced”, Plimer’s misrepresentation of references used has been exposed on other linked posts].

    Grieg writes:

    This thread has focussed on one graph, and led some people to believe that Plimer book is all wrong.

    Grieg, this thread has focused on one point, and how well supporters of Plimer have danced to first try and deny, then downplay, minimize and justify this most obvious and graphic distortion. There is a lesson in this, though I’m sure some would find it uncomfortable to face-up and learn from this.

    Some of Plimer’s other misrepresentations, errors and distortions are being exposed elsewhere, as several of us have already shown you.

    If you believe Plimer has a convincing credible case, you’ve failed to present evidence of that here.

  47. #47 Michael
    May 18, 2009

    Please tell me this guy is a Poe…” – Deen

    OK,OK. I just have to test it iut now and then and see if Poe’s Law can be overturned. The answer is still no.

    But I did learn something – it’s wondefully liberating, this denialist stuff. You can say anything. It’s the science equivelant of suddenly finding that gravity has been waived just for you, and you can fly. You’re not constrained by the chains of logic, reason or objective reality – Plimers graph is wrong, but hey, it doesn’t matter that he’s using the graph as the evidence for natural variability in climate, because his conclusion is correct. Makes perfect sense when all that matters is the utility of interpretation – it’s true if it’s useful for it to be true.

    A parody of post-modernism.

  48. #48 Mark Byrne
    May 19, 2009

    [Here Janet Albrechtsen](http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/janetalbrechtsen/index.php/theaustralian/comments/a_tale_of_two_worlds/) demonstrates the Plimer trick that I described @146:

    Plimer’s work confronts that mindset. It introduces inquiry where previously there was only professed certainty. He says that we do not know everything. He challenges the notion that we can explain climate change according to one variable (CO2) or an even smaller part of that variable (human induced CO2). To hand the field of enquiry to atmospheric scientists who focus solely on CO2 emissions means “abandoning all we know about planet Earth, the Sun, and the cosmos”, he says.

    Forget even the detail that we’ve exposed Plimer on here, what is his core take away message for the punters? He constructs his case by setting up a straw man.

    The central point that people leave with is the erroneous belief that the climate science says we can explain climate change according to one variable (CO2). He simiply bluffs people into beliving that the science doesn’t quantify and factor in the known climate forcing factors that have been found to drive past climate changes.

    If Plimer has a genuine argument why wouldn’t he make that the central take home issue for punters?

  49. #49 bluegrue
    May 19, 2009

    Grieg writes:
    > This thread has focussed on one graph, and led some people to believe that Plimer book is all wrong.

    Let’s have a look at Plimer’s first few pages, [**Correction** *these are from a book by Marcel Leroux, not Plimer*] available as a preview on amazon. I’ll denote the parts I’m talking about as page.paragraph.sentence

    1.1 The first thing we learn is, that the greenhouse effect is just a “fad” as many others, like (my selection) acid rain or the ozone hole, all of which are implied to be no problem any longer. Plimer fails to mention, that we invested huge amounts of money to reduce SO2 and NOx emissions. Even if rarely covered by the media, the damages to the forests are still with us. The same goes for the ozone layer. CFCs were identified as the culprits and replaced. The ozone hole seems to be contained, but is still very much alive and kicking due to the long half life of CFCs in the upper atmosphere.

    1.2 If you put 100 people into a 200m² room, you are installing roughly 10kilowatts of heating power, CO2 has nothing to do with the room heating up. The toxidity of CO2 is not a consideration in the current debate, as we will not reach that level. Reconstructions set the highest level of atmospheric CO2 since the Cambrium at 2,000 ppm.

    2.1 _”So we do not have to resort to complicated models, to tell us that an increase in CO2 brings about, theoretically, an increase in temperature.”_ In conjunction with 1.2, this implies an utterly wrong mechanism of heating; the heating in 1.2 has __nothing__ to do with CO2, other than it being a waste product of the human body. Plimer also implies, that all that those scientists, who contributed to the IPCC reports, are doing with regard to CO2 is “It must be true” bar room chatter.

    2.2.1 “Warm is better than cold” trope: Couldn’t Canada do with a few more degrees, ey mate? How about changes in precipitation? Plimer contends, that temperature is the only thing that people worry about, whereas the temperature rise is just an indicator of much more involved changes.
    2.2.3 _The average person is lulled into mindless acceptance._ How stupid of me to be a physicist and having read up on the subject. Yeah, I’m just mindless, Plimer says so and hence it must be true.
    2.2.4 Comparing seasons to climate?

    2.2 Overall: Warm is better than cold. Neglect the accompanying changes in precipitation. Neglect the stress put on the biosphere and crops by rapid changes in climate.

    3.1 “Pollution and Climate” is the heading for a rant against vilifying professional skeptics.
    3.2 Complaining that people who warn about AGW do not all carry the Pure Altruist party card. As if this mattered for the science. Smart move. This way you can accuse any scientist working in the field as just ensuring his job.
    3.3 Projections are set to 2100 to make them infalsifiable in our lifetime; the lack of reporting on cooling is due to careful triage – Hello, conspiracy, nice to meet you.
    3.4 Sensationalism is the main driver of AGW stories, not something truely worrisome.

    Not a _single_ paragraph without misdirection in the first two subchapters. Not one. I find paragraph the 100 people in a room especially objectionable, as it plays on laymen’s lack of understanding of AGW and physics in general. Sorry, I give up on the book at this point.

  50. #50 Dirk Hartog
    May 19, 2009

    And another quote from Janet Albrechtsen:
    As Plimer writes towards the end of his book, “There is no use for an honest scientist who says ‘I don’t know.’ Yet uncertainty is the crux of science whereas certainty underpins religious beliefs. The politicians and the public prefer to hear scientists give confident black-and-white answers and make confident predictions.”

    Strangely, it is the IPCC that is attaching probabilities to its pronouncements, whereas Plimer is 100% certain that human-induced CO2 emissions have no effect on climate.

    Plimer displays all the characteristics that he criticizes others for.

  51. #51 bluegrue
    May 19, 2009

    ___YIKES___

    __MAJOR__ mistake on my part. The pages I was taking apart are NOT – repeat NOT – by Plimer. I mixed him up with

    [_Global Warming – Myth or Reality?: The Erring Ways of Climatology_ by Marcel Leroux ](http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/reader/354023909X/ref=sib_rdr_prev2_ex1/275-9390002-2280634?ie=UTF8&p=S00V&ns=1#reader-page)

    I am sorry for the mix-up.

    @Tim:
    Could you please prefix an appropriate note on my original post #149?

  52. #52 Gaz
    May 19, 2009

    Bluegrue: “Sorry, I give up on the book at this point.”

    Me too.

    I’ve been lent a copy to read and it really is hard to find an entire paragraph that isn’t let down by a blatant misrepresentation, an unsubstantiated claim or one sort or another, a giant non sequitur, a claim – explicit or implicit – that’s just plain wrong, or a footnoted reference that either doesn’t back up the point being made or simply contradicts it.

    (And don’t get me started on the graphs!)

    It’s virtually unreadable unless you abandon all your critical faculties and ignore the implied insult that Plimer thinks you, the reader, are so gullible and stupid that you’ll accept what he has to say despite the obvious dodging and weaving around the facts.

  53. #53 bluegrue
    May 19, 2009

    For my defense, here’s the search that brought me to Leroux’s book:
    [google: “sample pages” “Ian Plimer” “Heaven and Earth”](http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=%22sample+pages%22+%22Ian+Plimer%22+%22Heaven+and+Earth%22)
    I still managed to not notice author or title on the amazon pages.

  54. #54 Gavin's Pussycat
    May 19, 2009

    Bluegrue #151:

    > MAJOR mistake on my part.

    Eh, does it matter? Who cares! Don’t worry, be happy. Truth is just a social construct anyways… So you reviewed the wrong book… but it COULD have been the right book, and in a philosophical sense, that’s what really matters. On the emotional level, all the time you KNEW you were reviewing Plimer. So… wrong book, big deal. All that matters is that the conclusion is correct.

    Lighten up!

  55. #55 bluegrue
    May 19, 2009

    Funny how this rationalization, that seems to work so well for Greig and others, does not work for me. I still feel stupid for making a pretty stupid mistake, just as I felt the urge to correct it.

  56. #56 Greig
    May 19, 2009

    [Bluegrue] “Sorry, I give up on the book at this point. ”

    Bluegrue, you have admitted that you have only read 3 pages of Plimers book. [Later we discover that as of now, you haven’t read any of Plimers book]. And yet, you wax lyrical here as if you know everything about Plimer and his arguments. Post#149 is not a critique. You have not mentioned anything about science, nor identified any factual errors, in the way that for instance Ian Enting does. Your post is merely an illustration of how a Leroux’s book challenges your ideological prejudice.

    Here is one example:

    [Bluegrue] “Overall: Warm is better than cold. Neglect the accompanying changes in precipitation. Neglect the stress put on the biosphere and crops by rapid changes in climate.”

    In H+E, Plimer provides several references that support that humans have previously thrived in a warm climate, and suffered in cold. Plimer also provides fully referenced evidence to suggest that the current rate of warming is not unprecedented. His contention is that the current warming may not be necessarily bad.

    Your assertion that changes in precipitation and the rate of warming will result in a net negative impact on humans is not only unsupported by you (ie it is an assumption on your part), it is also not supported by the IPCC.

    I could go on, but now I could not be bothered with anyone who calls someone else a “denialist” on the basis that they hold a differing view, especially when they have made no attempt at all to read and understand that person’s argument. What astounds me is that you so arrogantly believe that you hold the moral high ground.

    The same goes for TrueSceptic, Sod and others. Your parachutes are not functioning.

  57. #57 GWB's nemesis
    May 19, 2009

    Greig, you’re not Tim Curtin in disguise are you by any chance. You are starting to sound a lot like him!

  58. #58 mark byrne
    May 19, 2009

    [Here is a link](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWJeqgG3Tl8&feature=channel_page) to an excellent youtube series by a fellow named greenman3610. This clip is on the very same strawman that is the main message from Plimer. Once you have watched this clip, click on greenman3610 to see the rest of his series.

    Greig, don’t bother, greenman3610 cares about facts, acuracy and faithfully represents his sources and the climate science without gross distortion. I.e. he is not open minded by Plimer’s and your definition.

  59. #59 Deen
    May 19, 2009

    Greig:

    His contention is that the current warming may not be necessarily bad.

    Depends on where you live and what you do for a living. It’s rather selfish to forget about the ones who are negatively affected just because you’d like it to be a little warmer.

    You also might want to check out this link:
    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/05/why_should_america_prevent_cli.html

    Greig, you are defending a guy who you agree is saying:
    1. Climate change is not happening
    2. If it is happening, it’s not a big problem.
    3. If it is a problem, it’s not my problem.
    That’s denialism. Pure and simple.

    Also, here’s a simple simple test to see how open your mind is: is there any conceivable evidence that will convince you that there is a rising trend in the average global temperature, that the rise of CO2 levels is mainly responsible, and that human activities are the most likely cause of the CO2 increase? If so, what would it look like? Please provide a concrete example.

  60. #60 timwells
    May 19, 2009

    Dean,No one says that the temperature has not been rising.The proof that CO2 is responsible would be,
    1]CO2 LEADING temperature in the vostock icecore data.
    2]CO2 giving a consistent warming profile in the 20th/21st centuries.
    3]A greenhouse hotspot in the troposphere which would verify the IPCC models.

  61. #61 Deen
    May 19, 2009

    Hmm, that link got botched. Let me try again: [click here](http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/05/why_should_america_prevent_cli.html)

  62. #62 Greig
    May 19, 2009

    The YouTube video is itself a strawman.

    Contrary to the implication of the clip from the Swindle in the intro, sceptics do not argue that the Caillon et al study shows that GHGs play no role in global warming. Certainly Plimer doesn’t, as he states many times throughout his book.

    The Caillon et al study that shows temperature preceeds CO2, is important because it illustrates that whilst GHGs may enhance warming, they do not dominate the process. If GHGs dominated the process, then there would be a runaway feedback effect. There isn’t. There are clearly negative feedback mechanisms. Therefore increased CO2 does not necessarily mean a correlating magnitude in increase in temperature. The sceptic argues that whilst the GHG effect obviously exists (basic atmospheric physics), until all factors (eg negative feedbacks) are quantified, then AGW cannot be fully quantified. The argument that MOST of the warming in the 20th century is due to human activity is not yet supported until all factors are considered.

    Let’s compare this to Al Gore’s howler in An Inconvenient Truth where he implies that the Vostock ice core data demonstrates that CO2 correlates with temperature, therefore CO2 CAUSES temperature variations, and then assumes that significantly increased CO2 will necessarily result in significantly increased temperature. Caillon et al study shows that this is an ASSUMPTION based on a misinterpretation of the data, it is not a fact. This did not stop AGW advocates from repeating this distortion of the truth, for their own means. So who is being dishonest?

    The video provided an excellent overview of how Milankovitch cycles work. But it left out two pieces of key information. It didn’t mention:

    1. the positive and negative feedback mechanism provided by water vapour, which overwhelms CO2 and methane greenhouse warming, and provides both buffering and a negative feedback effect.

    2. the effect of ocean circulation and its fundamental relevance to the cycle of ice ages. This is a howler, because by ignoring this, the video leaps to the absurd conclusion that glaciation in the N hemisphere impacts globally by changing GHG concentrations, which is actually wrong. Ocean circulation provides that mechanism, and changes in ocean circulation can and do have a significant impact on global atmospheric temperatures.

    The impact of ocean circulation and mixing, changes in atmospheric pressure (such as the ENSO and PDO), evaporative cooling and clouds are all factors that are yet to be fully quantified, and incorporated into scientific theory. Therefore, it is is premature to be assuming the results of computer models run decades into the future are correct, since they are based on incomplete data. We do not have sufficient information for making correct policy.

    To paraphrase the video, I am astounded the depth of dishonesty of the paid professional climate advocate community, in the way they argue that the science is settled. It is not.

  63. #63 Barton Paul Levenson
    May 19, 2009

    Greig writes:

    [BP Levinson] “Look again. I get r = 0.86 for 1880-2007: http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960/Correlation.html

    There is SOME correlation, nobody denies that, but it is clearly not strong, and it does not imply causation.

    Do you understand what a “strong” correlation is? Pearson’s product-moment correlation coefficient only goes from -1 to +1. A value of r = 0.86 is extremely strong. It means 76% of the variance is accounted for. That means that for 1880 to 2007, we can account for three quarters of the changes in temperature from carbon dioxide alone. Every other factor — sunlight, albedo, aerosols, other greenhouse gases, atmosphere-ocean heat exchanges — only accounted for one quarter.

    Please take an introductory course in statistics. Or just buy a used textbook on Amazon and work the problems. Brase and Brase’s “Understandable Statistics” is a good one. Or go to Barnes and Noble and buy the “Statistics–Demystified” book from the science and math section. And be sure to work the problems.

  64. #64 Greig
    May 19, 2009

    [Deen] “Greig, you are defending a guy who you agree is saying: 1. Climate change is not happening 2. If it is happening, it’s not a big problem. 3. If it is a problem, it’s not my problem. That’s denialism. Pure and simple.”

    Plimer does not say any of those things in his book, which you have clearly not bothered to read.

  65. #65 Barton Paul Levenson
    May 19, 2009

    Greig writes:

    The Caillon et al study that shows temperature preceeds CO2, is important because it illustrates that whilst GHGs may enhance warming, they do not dominate the process.

    Under what circumstances? What dominates the process depends on which process is happening and under what circumstances.

    Let me be specific. In a natural deglaciation, temperature rises first, due to changes in the distribution of sunlight over the Earth’s surface, which is in turn due to Milankovic cycles in the Earth’s orbit. Warmer water holds less CO2, so CO2 bubbles out of the ocean. The CO2 in turn raises temperature further.

    That is NOT what is happening now. The oceans are presently a net SINK for carbon dioxide, giving off 90 gigatons of carbon a year but taking in 92. We know the source of the new CO2–fossil fuels. That was shown by its radioisotope signature back in the ’50s.

    If GHGs dominated the process, then there would be a runaway feedback effect.

    Nonsense. It’s a converging series, not a diverging one.

    The sceptic argues that whilst the GHG effect obviously exists (basic atmospheric physics), until all factors (eg negative feedbacks) are quantified, then AGW cannot be fully quantified. The argument that MOST of the warming in the 20th century is due to human activity is not yet supported until all factors are considered.

    What factors haven’t been considered? Modern climate models account for greenhouse gases, sunlight, aerosols, albedo, cloud cover, and atmosphere-ocean heat exchanges. What are they missing, specifically?

    the positive and negative feedback mechanism provided by water vapour, which overwhelms CO2 and methane greenhouse warming, and provides both buffering and a negative feedback effect.

    NONSENSE! Rising temperatures put MORE water vapor into the atmosphere–google “Clausius-Clapeyron law” to find out why. And water vapor is a powerful greenhouse gas. Water vapor feedback makes CO2-induced temperature increases worse.

    the effect of ocean circulation and its fundamental relevance to the cycle of ice ages.

    What relevance would that be? I can’t think of one. Ice age cycles affect ocean circulation, but there is very little effect the other way around.

    This is a howler, because by ignoring this, the video leaps to the absurd conclusion that glaciation in the N hemisphere impacts globally by changing GHG concentrations, which is actually wrong. Ocean circulation provides that mechanism, and changes in ocean circulation can and do have a significant impact on global atmospheric temperatures.

    Where are you getting this stuff? Changes in ocean circulation can affect regional temperatures, but unless the composition of the atmosphere or the albedo of the ocean changes, or perhaps the amount of aerosols it gives off, changes, it’s not going to affect the mean global annual surface temperature.

    The impact of ocean circulation and mixing, changes in atmospheric pressure (such as the ENSO and PDO), evaporative cooling and clouds are all factors that are yet to be fully quantified, and incorporated into scientific theory. Therefore, it is is premature to be assuming the results of computer models run decades into the future are correct, since they are based on incomplete data. We do not have sufficient information for making correct policy.

    You’re partly right on clouds. The thrust of your statement is wrong, however, because you’re assuming that if we don’t know everything, we know nothing. No. Wrong. We know enough to know what the problem is and how to fix it.

    To paraphrase the video, I am astounded the depth of dishonesty of the paid professional climate advocate community, in the way they argue that the science is settled. It is not.

    I am astounded at how often deniers attribute dishonesty when they just can’t understand what the climate scientists are talking about. I am even more astounded at their militant unwillingness to educate themselves about the subject. If I wanted to argue about a scientific point, I’d study the science–and that means reading textbooks and peer-reviewed articles about it, or even taking a course in it–not getting stuff off tendentious web sites or popular books addressed to laymen.

    Get off your lazy butt and actually learn some climatology. I can recommend good sources IF you want to get started.

  66. #66 Robin Levett
    May 19, 2009

    @Greig #162:

    The Caillon et al study that shows temperature preceeds CO2, is important because it illustrates that whilst GHGs may enhance warming, they do not dominate the process.

    Can we start from the basics? What is your alternative explanation for the fact that Earth’s surface temperature is 30K higher than it’s black body temperature? You need an alternative explanation – because your argument above depends on GHGs being insignificant in explaining that discrepancy.

  67. #67 Deen
    May 19, 2009

    Plimer does not say any of those things in his book, which you have clearly not bothered to read.

    Greig, that was based on how you, a supporter of the book, have been characterizing it:

    1. “The 20th Century like any other time period was one of both warming and cooling.” = “it’s not happening”
    2. “In H+E, Plimer provides several references that support that humans have previously thrived in a warm climate, and suffered in cold.” = “It’s not a big problem”
    3. “His contention is that the current warming may not be necessarily bad.” = “It’s not my problem”.

    Based on the arguments of people who are defending this book, and the reviews it’s getting from the scientific community, I think I have more interesting books I could spend my time on instead.

  68. #68 elspi
    May 19, 2009

    “Dean,No one says that the temperature has not been rising.The proof that CO2 is responsible would be, 1]CO2 LEADING temperature in the vostock icecore data. 2]CO2 giving a consistent warming profile in the 20th/21st centuries. 3]A greenhouse hotspot in the troposphere which would verify the IPCC models.”

    That is absolutely priceless:

    1. “Chicken cannot lay eggs as the have been observed to hatch from them” (I said at the time that I was stealing that)

    2. El nino (and may other things) doesn’t exist.

    3. Let me just ignore the unique signature of CO_2 warming as predicted by the models(cooling in the stratosphere) and instead pretend that the models predict a troposphere hot spot instead.

    The just goes to prove the old saw: “When all you have is a shit spreader, everything looks like it could us some fertilizer

  69. #69 TrueSceptic
    May 19, 2009

    149, 151, 153 Blue,

    I know how you must feel.

    I wonder, though, how long it would’ve taken for any of our “sceptics” to have noticed your mistake if you hadn’t owned up? ;-)

  70. #70 Chris O'Neill
    May 19, 2009

    Greig:

    The Caillon et al study that shows temperature preceeds CO2, is important because it illustrates that whilst GHGs may enhance warming, they do not dominate the process.

    No-one who understands the science argues that CO2 dominates the warming at the end of ice-ages. The CO2 rise at those times probably causes about 2 deg C of warming which was only a minority of the warming at the end of ice-ages. Our problem is that we’re on course to increase CO2 by far more than at the end of the ice ages.

    The impact of ocean circulation and mixing, changes in atmospheric pressure (such as the ENSO and PDO), evaporative cooling and clouds are all factors that are yet to be fully quantified, and incorporated into scientific theory. Therefore, it is is premature to be assuming the results of computer models run decades into the future are correct, since they are based on incomplete data. We do not have sufficient information for making correct policy.

    Assuming Greig’s assertion of uncertainty (which also ignores other sources of information about climate sensitivity) means we do not know if increasing atmospheric CO2 is correct policy and thus is a risky policy.

  71. #71 TrueSceptic
    May 19, 2009

    156 Greig,

    You are entitled to your own opinions but not to your own facts.

    This is *nothing* to do with “differing views”. It is to with dishonesty and misrepresentation. It is your failure to sceptically look at the arguments that makes you a denialist, regardless of anything we say.

    You have *still* not admitted to the dishonesty of the graph that is the subject of this thread. Why is that? Are you *denying* that it is fraudulent, excusing it as a lapse, or what?

  72. #72 bluegrue
    May 19, 2009

    > Later we discover that as of now, you haven’t read any of Plimers book

    Later ___I___ _told you right away_, that I have made a stupid mistake. Not much for you to discover, is there?

    Have I read Plimer’s book? No. However, I _have_ watched his talk
    “Human-induced Climate Change: A Load of Hot Air”
    held at the Sydney Mining Club on Nov 6th, 2008 on youtube {Parts [1](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VDDNgl-UPk), [2](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRwTbMj6Hx8), [3](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4s1lkdNOPVA), [4](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWiv5QAZAJM), [5](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIpo2Jhi3I0)}
    I presume the talk carries the main points of his book; feel free to correct me, if I am wrong.

    __”Climate is cyclical”__
    All of his examples employ cyclical forcing, like Milankovitch cycles or solar activity, which are not damped out by the inertia of the climate system. Being cyclical is in these examples a characteristic of the forcing, not the climate system itself.

    __”Climate models predict hot spot in the troposphere”__
    Plimer compares model results for equilibrium after doubling of CO2 with current radiosonde data. He neglects to mention, that only about 50% of the CO2 forcing used in the model run is realized so far and that we are still in the transient state, the radiosonde data being for the period 1979-1999. Plimer fails to mention papers showing large biases in radiosonde data like [_Biases in Stratospheric and Tropospheric Temperature Trends Derived from Historical_, WJ Randel and F Wu, J. Climate, 2094 {Oct 2005} ](http://acd.ucar.edu/~randel/JCli_2006.pdf) To quote:
    > The net effect of the jumps is a systematic tendency for spurious cooling in the radiosonde data at each of the identified stations. This tendency for artificial cooling in the radiosonde data is likely associated with changes (improvements) in radiosonde instrumentation over the last several decades; for many stations the observed jumps are coincident with changes in the radiation correction applied to the data. While the LKS data have undergone adjustments to minimize such changes (which reduces the tropical stratospheric trends compared to unadjusted data; Lanzante et al. 2003b), the detailed comparisons here show that problems persist at many stations.

    The paper is not only highly relevant, but rather hard to miss, as it is explicitly cited in the report where Plimer’s graph originated: [S&A Product 1.1 by the CCSP 2006, page 116](http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/default.htm)
    > Another noticeable difference is that the HadAT2 data show a relative lack of warming in the tropical troposphere, where all four models simulate maximum warming. This particular aspect of the observed temperature-change pattern is very sensitive to data adjustments (Sherwood et al., 2005; Randel and Wu, 2006). Tropospheric warming in the observations is most obvious in the NH extra-tropics, where our confidence in the reliability of radiosonde records is greatest.

    Plimer also fails to mention, that we have tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling, something hard to explain with e.g. solar forcing, which would warm _both_.

    __Solar cycle length__
    Plimer argues that global temperature and solar cycle length are strongly correlated using [E. Friis-Christensen and K. Lassen, Science, 1991](http://chemistry.oregonstate.edu/~drapelan/danetemp.gif). After 1980 the correlation [breaks up dramatically](http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/homes/chris). He further implies, that solar forcing is ignored, which is simply untrue, read any IPCC report.

    Of course he was still passing off the 1885 to 1988 temperature data as 1880 to 2000 in his “120 years of thermometer measurements” plot. Funny, how he got the time scale right for the same data in his solar cycle plot. Did I mention, that the plots follow right after another?

    __Doubling CO2 at 385ppm has no effect__
    [Part 3, time mark 7:00](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4s1lkdNOPVA), you’ve got to see this to believe it. Plimer argues, going by his words in conjunction with his graph, that 20ppm of CO2 are responsible for 1.5°C of the CO2 warming effect, a rise from 280 to 420ppm will have an effect of less than 0.1°C! He further says, “only the first 200ppm or so have an effect […] [at 395ppm] double it, it does nothing” and “we have seen in past geological environments CO2 contents of __5%__, we didn’t have a tipping point, we didn’t have a runaway greenhouse.” 5% is 50,000ppm nothing we have come even close to for the last 500 million years, it must have been way before the Cambrian explosion or even the advent of multicellular life on Earth. Before I forget, for comparison the IPCC reports a likely value for equilibrium climate sensitivity to be in the range of 2 to 4.5°C for doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial level.

    Greig,
    feel free to point out if I have missed one of Plimer’s most “compelling” arguments. Oh, and I am still waiting for a reaction regarding the banker in #88 or my take on the correlation fallacy in #139.

  73. #73 bluegrue
    May 19, 2009

    #169 TrueSceptic

    Thank you for the sympathy. :)

  74. #74 t_p_hamilton
    May 19, 2009

    TimWells said:”Dean,No one says that the temperature has not been rising.The proof that CO2 is responsible would be, 1]CO2 LEADING temperature in the vostock icecore data.”

    That would be like saying that dry and windy conditions are not responsible for wildefires because they started with a cigarette.

    “2]CO2 giving a consistent warming profile in the 20th/21st centuries.”

    It does.

    “3]A greenhouse hotspot in the troposphere which would verify the IPCC models.”

    Actually, there is a midlevel tropospheric hotspot in the tropics, as predicted by models:

    “Warming maximum in the tropical upper troposphere deduced from thermal winds, by Robert J. Allen & Steven C. Sherwood
    Nature Geoscience 1, 399 – 403 (2008)

    Abstract

    Climate models and theoretical expectations have predicted that the upper troposphere should be warming faster than the surface. Surprisingly, direct temperature observations from radiosonde and satellite data have often not shown this expected trend. However, non-climatic biases have been found in such measurements. Here we apply the thermal-wind equation to wind measurements from radiosonde data, which seem to be more stable than the temperature data. We derive estimates of temperature trends for the upper troposphere to the lower stratosphere since 1970. Over the period of observations, we find a maximum warming trend of 0.65plusminus0.47 K per decade near the 200 hPa pressure level, below the tropical tropopause. Warming patterns are consistent with model predictions except for small discrepancies close to the tropopause. Our findings are inconsistent with the trends derived from radiosonde temperature datasets and from NCEP reanalyses of temperature and wind fields. The agreement with models increases confidence in current model-based predictions of future climate change.”

    Of course Tim Wells understands none of this, given that his point 3] shows ignorance that this denier talking point:

    1] is about the tropics
    2] is about midlevel troposphere heating faster than the surface
    3] happens for ANY cause of warming, because of the increased humidity

  75. #75 Lee
    May 19, 2009

    re the CO2 lag tripe.

    I heat my home in part with a modern high-tech wood stove, allowing me to use retired almond orchards (cycling in biological time) for fuel, instead of natural gas (cycling in geological time).

    Heat output from the stove is controlled by controlling the air flow. There is a feedback involved.

    I open the damper a little, air flow increases a little, the fuel burns hotter, driving more exhaust up the stovepipe, therefore puling a stronger draft, therefore increasing air flow even more, therefore increasing the combustion of the fuel. A positive feedback with a gain less than one, increasing until it converges to a new higher airflow equilibrium, with higher heat output.

    Note that higher air flow precedes hotter flame, andthen a feedback mechanism leads to still higher airflow.

    There is of course another process involved. Over time, the fuel is consumed and heat output gradually declines. I throw another log on, airflow declines at first as the cold log decreases combustion – but gradually the log catches fire and gets hotter, airflow increases, and the fire burns hotter.. etc.

    In one case increased combustion lags air flow, and air flow is is causal for increased combustion. In the other case, increased combustion leads air flow. IN both cases, increased air flow and a feedback between combustion and air flow are necessary for any significant increase in heat output.

    You “CO2 leads temperatures” denialists are engaged in an argument that would deny that my stove can put more heat out when I add fuel to it.

  76. #76 Gavin's Pussycat
    May 19, 2009

    bluegrue #155:

    > …does not work for me.

    Separates the men from the boys, doesn’t it.

  77. #77 Greig
    May 19, 2009

    [Greig] the effect of ocean circulation and its fundamental relevance to the cycle of ice ages.

    [BPL] What relevance would that be? I can’t think of one. Ice age cycles affect ocean circulation, but there is very little effect the other way around.

    BP Levinson, I am gobsmacked, are you seriously saying you don’t understand this? Ocean circulation is directly linked to previous abrupt climate change observation in the paleoclimate record. For one example, it is generally considered that the closing of the Isthmus of Panama about 3 million years ago may have ushered in the present period of strong glaciation over North America by ending the exchange of water between the tropical Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. ie change in ocean circulation is the root cause of ice ages.

    [BPL] Changes in ocean circulation can affect regional temperatures, but unless the composition of the atmosphere or the albedo of the ocean changes, or perhaps the amount of aerosols it gives off, changes, it’s not going to affect the mean global annual surface temperature.

    Complete rubbish. Ocean circulation and mixing can and does affect mean global temperatures. Levinson, go back to school. The fact that you don’t even know this, and that it is not fully incorporated in IPCC modeling, demonstrates my point exactly.

    What is more, there is a strong correlation (94% confidence) between global temperature anomaly and observed cyclical ocean air pressure variations (as demonstrated by NASA’s Roy Spencer), and it is not even considered in the mainstream apparently because it doesn’t implicate CO2.

    The theory is incomplete.

    [BPL] The thrust of your statement is wrong, however, because you’re assuming that if we don’t know everything, we know nothing. No. Wrong. We know enough to know what the problem is and how to fix it.

    Wrong. We know so little, that we assume there is something to fix, and have fooled ourselves into thinking we can fix it.

    [BPL] If I wanted to argue about a scientific point, I’d study the science–and that means reading textbooks and peer-reviewed articles about it, or even taking a course in it–not getting stuff off tendentious web sites or popular books addressed to laymen. Get off your lazy butt and actually learn some climatology. I can recommend good sources IF you want to get started.

    [laughing] So arrogant, and yet so ignorant. Clearly a feedback loop.

  78. #78 Greig
    May 19, 2009

    [bluegrue] “Plimer also fails to mention, that we have tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling, something hard to explain with e.g. solar forcing, which would warm both.”

    Strawman. Plimer does not argue that solar forcing is the sole cause of currently observed climate change.

    Perhaps you should consider how changes in ocean circulation and air pressure might cause the observed heating of the troposphere, and cooling of the stratosphere. See http://www.drroyspencer.com/

  79. #79 Greig
    May 19, 2009

    [Chris O’Neill] “Assuming Greig’s assertion of uncertainty (which also ignores other sources of information about climate sensitivity) means we do not know if increasing atmospheric CO2 is correct policy and thus is a risky policy.”

    Trying to reduce CO2 emissions is an inherently risky policy because it increases the cost of energy, which undermines the global economy, and impacts the fundamental basis for human standard of living. Some people think this is irrelevant, but they are usually rich, spoiled individuals who are unaware that 5 billion humans currently live in poverty.

    To make the decision to reduce CO2 emissions we must have solid demonstrable proof of the benefits of reducing those emissions. This proof of benefit has not yet been sufficiently quantified, because the science is incomplete.

  80. #80 sod
    May 19, 2009

    For one example, it is generally considered that the closing of the Isthmus of Panama about 3 million years ago may have ushered in the present period of strong glaciation over North America by ending the exchange of water between the tropical Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. ie change in ocean circulation is the root cause of ice ages.

    a pretty singular event, isn t it?

    Greig, too much of your claims are based on Spencer blog posts. why not try to quote a scientific journal and a couple of different authors for a change?

    Trying to reduce CO2 emissions is an inherently risky policy because it increases the cost of energy, which undermines the global economy, and impacts the fundamental basis for human standard of living. Some people think this is irrelevant, but they are usually rich, spoiled individuals who are unaware that 5 billion humans currently live in poverty.

    i am really happy, that we are currently ruled by poor, unspoiled individuals, who have understood that your energy dependence on arab oil is not a risky policy. thanks!

  81. #81 Dave
    May 19, 2009

    Greig:

    > Strawman. Plimer does not argue that solar forcing is the sole cause of currently observed climate change.

    You totally miss the point. Plimer claimed there was no tropospheric hotspot. Not only is this untrue, but the “hotspot” he mentions is just an indicator of *any* warming from *any* source, eg. the solar forcing that was offered as an example (note the eg!). Not only that, but models predict stratospheric cooling if the forcing is CO2, something else that has actually been measured.

  82. #82 bluegrue
    May 19, 2009

    Greig wrote
    > Strawman. Plimer does not argue that solar forcing is the sole cause of currently observed climate change.

    Wrong call. Name me a forcing other than GHGs that leads to simultaneous tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling. Also a nice attempt to ignore everything else I brought up. I take this as a sign, that I have covered Plimer’s main points.

    > Perhaps you should consider how changes in ocean circulation and air pressure might cause the observed heating of the troposphere, and cooling of the stratosphere. See http://www.drroyspencer.com/

    I have [first hand experience](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/05/ian_enting_is_checking_plimers.php#comment-1634675) of the “quality” that you may encounter on Spencer’s site. Given this experience and further considering, that you yourself could not be bothered to supply a direct link to the post in question, I’ll pass up on your proposed wild goose chase on his site and wait for him to publish this idea in a reputable science journal.

  83. #83 Jeremy C
    May 19, 2009

    It would be nice to debate with a skeptic sometime. Pity all those denialists keep shoving them out of the way.

  84. #84 Mark Byrne
    May 19, 2009

    Grieg @162

    Contrary to the implication of the clip from the Swindle in the intro, sceptics do not argue that the Caillon et al study shows that GHGs play no role in global warming. Certainly Plimer doesn’t, as he states many times throughout his book.

    Durkin shows the 800 year lag of CO2 in Termination III from the Vostok ice cores, then cuts to the quote from the psudo-skeptic saying, “So the fundamental assumption, the most fundamental assumption of the whole theory of climate change being due to humans is fundamentally wrong.”

    Thereby giving the impression that the fundamental assumption of climate science is that if there ever is a case that CO2 doesn’t lead temperature, then it is disproved.

    I’ll be back to address the remaining points later.

  85. #85 Greig
    May 19, 2009

    ““So the fundamental assumption, the most fundamental assumption of the whole theory of climate change being due to humans is fundamentally wrong.”

    This is not the same as saying:

    “GHGs play no role in global warming”.

    However I agree that there is a misleading implication here. I definitely do not agree with the implication presented in the Swindle, in the same way I do not agree with Al Gore’s implication in An Inconenient Truth that the Vostock ice core data implies a causal relationship between CO2 and temperature in paleoclimate observations.

  86. #86 TrueSceptic
    May 19, 2009

    Greig,

    Well, how about it (171).

    *You have still not admitted to the dishonesty of the graph that is the subject of this thread. Why is that? Are you denying that it is fraudulent, excusing it as a lapse, or what?*

    You are here defending Plimer’s use of this graph. Kindly do so and stop attempting to change the subject (standard denialist MO).

    If I were Tim Lambert, I’d do what (ironically) Watts or McIntyre would do and block all this off-topic misdirection.

    Funny, eh?

  87. #87 Greig
    May 19, 2009

    TrueSceptic, I don’t normally respond to people who call me a denialist, as such behaviour characterises you as somewhat disinterested in fair debate. However, I will relent. Let me reiterate my position as previously expressed to Tim Lambert:

    Rather than call Plimer a liar over the sourcing of the graph, please advise: what is you point? Is the conclusion that Plimer reaches regarding the graph correct, or not. If not, what does the graph really look like, and why is Plimer’s conclusion therefore wrong. Accusing Plimer of lying sounds hysterical and very unprofessional. Even worse, considering it looks likely that Durkin and Plimer appear to have used the same source, Klimafakten (originally from Euskara Klimazientzia), exactly as Plimer says, ie he wasn’t lying but simply mistaken about the year of publication (2000 rather than 2001).

    Now TrueSceptic, unless you have a copy of Klimafakten and can categorically state that Plimer did not source it from there, then you are (as is Tim Lambert) just guessing about Plimer supposed dishonesty.

    Now take your unsubstantiated allegations elsewhere.

  88. #88 Gaz
    May 19, 2009

    Actually, rather than “accusing Plimer of lying sounds hysterical and very unprofessional”, I’d say Plimer’s use of a graph that was not just phony, but that was world famous for being phony, makes him look “hysterical and very unprofessional”.

    As does the following graph in the book, which purports to deny the relationship between CO2 and global surface temperature. The graph covers a period of – wait for it – 6 1/2 years!

    And the graph before it was discussed in the earlier thread “The science is missing from Ian Plimer’s ‘Heaven and Earth'” on April 23. It purported to show models were wrong on the basis of absurdly short term deviations from the averaged model projections.

    In short, the problem with the graph in question in this thread is not so much that it is embarrassing for Plimer – who claims to have overturned decades of scientific endeavour on its head and therefore you’d think should have known better – or that it is being used to support a silly argument..

    No, the problem is that it’s so typical of the rest of the book. You get the same sort of thing on just about every page.

  89. #89 GWB's nemesis
    May 19, 2009

    Greig said: “Even worse, considering it looks likely that Durkin and Plimer appear to have used the same source, Klimafakten (originally from Euskara Klimazientzia)…”

    Greig, your reference to “Euskara Klimazientzia” is frankly hilarious – reread Marion Delgado’s post (#28) from which you have gained this source (reproduced below). Did you not realise that he is spoofing you?

    “I have to defend Dr. Plimer here. While it was quoted in a now-remaindered edition of Klimatfakten (a small footnote in the 2nd paperback edition), the graph was originally published in Euskara Klimazientzia, a prestigious Basque climate science journal. The author was Tibetan, abstract had been translated into Basque, which is how I was able to recognize it.”

    Did you really think that there is a Basque climate science journal to which a Tibetan author had submitted an abstract? Really? Did you not even check the name with a quick google search?

    I think this explains your inability to get your head around the reasons why Plimer’s use of a fabricated graph is such a big issue.

  90. #90 Greig
    May 20, 2009

    “Really? Did you not even check the name with a quick google search”

    Yes, and I found this: https://zientziaberri.wikispaces.com/Atmosfera-klima+

    I cannot verify whether Plimer was honest in stating that the figure comes from Klimafakten. Can you? If not, you do not have the right to make assumptions.

    But all this nonsense completely misses the point. Plimer does not draw any conclusion form the graph other than to state the OBVIOUS, that there has been warming and cooling during the 20th century. So why does it matter where he got the graph?

    This thread is like a witch hunt rather than a discussion about science.

  91. #91 ChrisK
    May 20, 2009

    Greig,

    I’ll delurk for a moment to suggest you might be missing something.

    You said:

    “…considering it looks likely that Durkin and Plimer appear to have used the same source, Klimafakten… ”

    From Tim’s original post:

    “Nor is it possible that both got it from the same source, since Swindle copied it from the Oregon Petition, but got the horizontal axis wrong, an error that Plimer faithfully reproduced.”

    Durkin got it from the Oregon Petition, Plimer got it from Durkin, either directly or indirectly.

    You said:

    “So why does it matter where he got the graph?”

    From the original post:

    “Brook told him that it was wrong, and that even Durkin had retracted it.”

    It’s not just about the source of the graph. The graph is known to be dodgy. It has incorrect data in it.

    Surely you’re not arguing that it doesn’t matter if your data is correct, so long as you draw the right conclusions from it?

  92. #92 GWB's nemesis
    May 20, 2009

    Greig

    You still miss the point. You said “originally from Euskara Klimazientzia”. It is not – you fell for it hook, line and sinker without even bothering to do the most basic of checks. Prove me wrong.

  93. #93 Greig
    May 20, 2009

    [ChrisK] Durkin got it from the Oregon Petition, Plimer got it from Durkin, either directly or indirectly.

    Says who? I would suggest some form of proof should be provided, rather than expect me to simply accept this. I am disinclned to agree (on his word alone) with someone who would create a web page dedicated to calling a respected scientist a liar, and without proper proof.

    [ChrisK] Surely you’re not arguing that it doesn’t matter if your data is correct, so long as you draw the right conclusions from it?

    Not quite. My point is that the fig 3 graph could be replaced with any of the graphs that have been deemed correct on this thread, and Plimer’s conclusion would still be correct. Therefore the source of and accuracy of the graph is irrelevant to Plimer’s argument.

    Now if Plimer had drawn a conclusion about the start and end date of periods of cooling, or that the cooling was large compared to the warming, then I would be baying for blood along with the rest of you. But he didn’t make any such claim.

  94. #94 bi -- IJI
    May 20, 2009

    Shorter Greig:

    The fact that Plimer’s graph is virtually identical — down to the botched horizontal alignment — to Durkin’s graph is not proof that Plimer got the graph from Durkin.

    However, I found a wiki that calls itself Atmosfera-klima and Zientziaberri. Thus by the SAME STANDARDS OF PROOF!!! I have shown that a journal titled Euskara Klimazientzia does actually exist.

  95. #95 Lee
    May 20, 2009

    Greig, I’ll say it again:
    That graphic ITSELF is statement from Plimer. The graphic ISELF says something about the periods and amount s of warming, and what it says is WRONG.

    Plimer DID draw conclusions about the start and end dates of the cooling, and about the relative amounts of the warming and cooling. He did so IN THAT FUCKING GRAPH ITSELF!!!!! That is what graphs do – they convey information. The information in that graph is wrong.

    Plimer knew it was wrong – he knew it was fraudulent – before the book was published, because he had been told so before the book was published.

    greig, here’s a free tip for you. When you find yourself forced to defend willful use of incorrect information, you’re likely not on the side that has the information on its side.

  96. #96 Chris O'Neill
    May 20, 2009

    Greig:

    Plimer does not draw any conclusion form the graph other than to state the OBVIOUS, that there has been warming and cooling during the 20th century.

    What’s OBVIOUS depends on how the graph is doctored. In a genuine graph the obvious is that there has been far more warming than cooling and that there has been much more warming since 1970 than before.

    So why does it matter where he got the graph?

    It wouldn’t matter if it wasn’t doctored. Since it has been doctored, the source has some bearing on whether he was dishonest or just recklessly incompetent.

  97. #97 Dirk Hartog
    May 20, 2009

    Greig makes some useful points. We don’t have proof of where the graph came from (although given how Tim’s credibility would be affected if Klimafakten was indeed the source of the graph, and that no one has yet found a copy of it despite the incentive to do so, one suspects that perhaps Tim is right). And if Plimer’s argument was independent of the graph, then perhaps one could excuse including it.

    However, on the other side, Plimer’s book is primarily about global warming and CO2, so you would hope that he would at least have reliable graphs of temperature and CO2 as a function of time. Even if Fig 3 is from Klimafakten, it doesn’t excuse the fact that it is wrong. Why go to some obscure, almost unobtainable, out-of-date publication from a random individual in Germany when it is easy to find reliable up-to-date data from NASA, Hadley, etc?

    And the graph of CO2 versus time in figure 52 is equally bogus. It is from a bizarre paper in Energy & Environment that no scientist in the field would give the time of day to.

    In both cases these graphs are used by Plimer to further his erroneous arguments. The first graph is used to show that temperatures go up and down, and the IPCC doesn’t have a clue why [wrong]. The second graph is used to show that CO2 goes up and down in a few years by more than it has done since before the industrial age [also wrong].

    So, Plimer uses erroneous graphs to reach erroneous conclusions. At some point Greig needs to take a step back and look at what this is telling him.

  98. #98 jemima
    May 20, 2009

    That from false premises one can draw any conclusions one likes is something of which Greig is well aware intuitively if not formally. Probably he’d need some schooling in logic or maths or science to understand it explicitly. But he defends a trained scientist who does it wilfully, knowingly, with intent to deceive (Plimer) then goes on and on, and on again, about hysteria and “professionalism” – it’s laughable!

  99. #99 Mark Byrne
    May 20, 2009

    Grieg @ 187

    …considering it looks likely that Durkin and Plimer appear to have used the same source, Klimafakten (originally from Euskara Klimazientzia), exactly as Plimer says

    Greig, we know where Durkin got his chart, he manufactured it from an out of data chart from the Orgean petition. But he fudged the axis so 1980 data was fudged to read as 2000 data. If he’d used Klimafakten, Don’t you think Durkin would have cited it in his defence when charged with breaching Ofcom protocol. He didn’t and he was forced to amend his chart. But Plimer seem much more attached to that curve.

    Is the conclusion that Plimer reaches regarding the graph correct, or not. If not, what does the graph really look like, and why is Plimer’s conclusion therefore wrong.

    Grieg we’ve been over this as well, yet you seem very attached to discredited arguments. Plimer drew readers to the idea of cooling and warming and then used to fake data to show a fake scale of warming and cooling. Its value is propaganda value. Just like Plimer’s take away line to the punters is misleading propaganda – climate science is ignoring the forcing factors other than CO2. And – Climate science is ignoring that climate has changed in the past.

    Why isn’t his ‘take-away’ point for punters something real? Why have’y you conveyed anyone of his supposed credible arguments?

  100. #100 Mark Byrne
    May 20, 2009

    Grieg @ 162

    The Caillon et al study that shows temperature preceeds CO2, is important because it illustrates that whilst GHGs may enhance warming, they do not dominate the process. If GHGs dominated the process, then there would be a runaway feedback effect. There isn’t. There are clearly negative feedback mechanisms. Therefore increased CO2 does not necessarily mean a correlating magnitude in increase in temperature.

    The Callion paper show nothing of the sort Grieg. Let me use Caillon’s own words:
    Caillon:

    …The sequence of events is still in full agreement with the idea that CO2 plays, through its greenhouse effect, a key role in amplifying the initial orbital forcing…
    … the situation at Termination III differs from the recent anthropogenic CO2 increase…we should distinguish between internal influences (such as deglacial CO2 increase) and external influences (such as the anthropogenic CO2 increase) on the climate system.
    … the recent CO2 increase has clearly been imposed first, as result of anthropogenic activities, [this different from deglaciation where] it naturally takes, at Termination III, some time for CO2 to outgas from the ocean once it starts to react to climate change that is first felt in the atmosphere. The sequence of events during this Termination is fully consistent with CO2 participating in the latter ~4200 years of warming. The radiative forcing due to CO2 may serve an amplifier of initial orbital forcing, which is then further amplified by fast atmospheric feedbacks…that are also at work for the present day and future climate.

    In short, Caillon shows us that the current anthropogenic warming is quite different to deglaciation warming. Fossil fuel combustion has tipped the balance of natural carbon cycles and driven CO2 levels to a level approx 40% higher than anything the world has seen for the entire Vostok record (600ky). We have found CO2 to be the dominant factor of current warming.

    We now face a series of major amplifying feedbacks with no know regulating feedbacks on the horizon. The Eocene Thermal Maximun indicates it may take approx 100,000 years for natural systems to sequester the amount of CO2 we are set to liberate by 2100.

    Grieg you are stepping way out side reality with your spin.

Current ye@r *