The latest editorial from the Australian on the science of global warming cites a cardinal and a historian and no climate scientists:
We can trust that Catholic cardinal George Pell has not had to resort to inside knowledge to play the devil's advocate on global warming. Like historian and political scientist Don Aitkin, Dr Pell has studied the data and rejected the claim that scientific consensus exists.
It's like they are not even trying any more. Nexus 6 goes through the editorial and corrects the numerous errors it makes.
But that was this week. There was another war-on-science piece in the Australian the week before by Des Moore:
However, since the last report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, many qualified scientists have begun to question its basic science
Oh. Who are these "qualified scientists"
Account needs to be taken of the many expert analyses post-IPCC, including 400 who signed the minority US Senate report disputing the IPCC view.
The 400 scientists that Inhofe listed did not sign the report or agree to be listed. The list includes, for example, Christopher L. Castro, who agrees with the IPCC. And Louis Hissink, who came up the worst argument against AGW ever.
Since the last IPCC report, new authoritative research shows about half the temperature increase since 1980 reflects normal heating effects from urban areas.
Authoritative research shows the opposite -- both satellite and surface records show similar trends.
Also, the absence of any increase since 2001, and the fall of 0.6C between January 2007 and January 2008, raises further doubts about the claimed correlation between increases in temperatures and CO2 emissions.
Here you see what happens when you don't keep up to date on your talking points.
The Very Little Ice Age has ended and temperatures are back where they were in Jan 2007.
Indeed, scientific analysis acknowledged in successive IPCC reports shows that incremental warming effects from increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere diminish progressively with concentration. So, why did the IPCC fail also to acknowledge that this analysis suggests even a doubling of CO2 concentrations in the 21st century would increase temperatures during the rest of the century by only 0.3C?
Because it doesn't. See Chapter 10 of the IPCC report.
Scientific analysis of IPCC modelling used to project temperature increases is seriously deficient in taking proper account of the strong increase in surface evaporation occurring when surface temperatures rise. That surface evaporation includes an offsetting process that acts to limit such temperature rises. Why did the IPCC fail to recognise that larger CO2 concentrations will result in much smaller surface temperature rises than the models produce?
This is just confused. The only basis for saying that increased evaporation will cause negative feedback (instead of the obvious positive feedback because water vapour is a greenhouse gas) must be some other model than waht the IPCC uses. Is Moore's preferred model better? It doesn't seem to be..
RE: "qualified scientists"
As they say, "Climate science ain't rocket science!" There millions of scientists and engineers in the world today, and due to the internet, it does not take long for a scientist or engineer to get up to speed on the basics of climate science, meteorology, climate, weather, global warming and greehouse gases, climate change and so forth.
If you took an informal poll "at the bar" at any conference, or workshop, at the water cooler or the morning coffee break, at the pub after working hours or at an informal get together such as a cocktail party, most of the scientist and engineers would probably say about global warming and climate change, "Ya know, all climate, like politics, is local. I haven't experienced any significant change in climate since I was born."
An old Australian mining geologist would probably say, "Those climate computer jocks in New York City should jump on one of those new super jumbo A380A jets, fly to Aldelaide, hop on the Ghan and come my place in Alice Springs where they can experience real climate for once their lifetimes. I'll book some camel tours, and Tim Lambert and I wiil take them around so they can interview the old folks, bushmen and aborinals about our climate. After they discover that climate has changed much since well before the last century, I'll put'em back on the Ghan and send'em up to Darwin for a change of climate."
BTW: It snowed in Vancouver yesterday. I think you guy's climate models are broke. Better get'em fixed!
What's really funny is that last year Laviosier were saying that the IPCC hadn't noticed that the additional greenhouse effect solely caused by carbon dioxide declines logarithmically with concentration. Now this guy has noticed that hey, that equation was always there, so he's accusing them of "failing to acknowledge it". And the feedback effects of water vapour totally undercuts another denialist position, that water vapour is a bigger greenhouse causer than CO2 and that increased CO2 won't lead to more vapour. The denialist Adullamites are all over the place now.
erm Harold
I think you're getting confused between "climate" and "weather"?
snow in Vancouver? Yup, expect more extreme weather events.
Qualified climate scientists? let's start with that famous stratigraphist bob carter. We all know how much rock layering has to do with climate change...
There is something interesting about that logarithmic dependence
lulz!
Harold Pierce, is Naomi Oreskes fat?
Harold Pierce Jnr.
Show us your evidence that supports this speculative idea of yours.
And be careful, there's plenty that can be produced that would demonstrate the exact opposite.
Show us your evidence that supports this similarly speculative (and bizarre) second idea of yours.
And be careful, there's plenty that can be produced that would demonstrate the exact opposite - remember, you're actually talking to a lot of those scientists whom you disparage, who actually attend conferences and workshops.
Even if you were finally acknowledging climate change, the paragraph above is so full of strawmen that there's no room left in the field for the corn.
Harold, have you taken the time to peruse Steven Dutch's web page, linked on another thread here a day or so ago? You would be well advised to spend some considered time there.
Sure seems to be Tim. The modeling uses the premise that more water vapour means more cloud creation, lowering the amount of sunlight hitting the earth, creating a negative feedback.The model also includes the idea that precipitation is a negative feedback. (Clouds at 30,000 feet are very cold) it takes a lot of energy to turn them into rain thus cooling the atmosphere.
Temps are not back to Jan 2007 yet. Giss seems to be on the outs with the rest.
Ice age not yet done, Antarctica is running well ahead of the mean and ahead of last year's record level.
It is true that La Nina is fadeing but it is almost May and the waters from California to Russia are below the mean temp.
If the system is tilting to more La Ninas the very little ice age might just get a bit bigger
kent:
And the probability of that is...? Oh, never mind.
Bernard J.:
You might be interested to know that Harold Pierce is an alchemist.
No no, I'm an alchemist. I have the textbooks and everything. Harold pierce jr is just a poor excuse for a scientist.
Des Moore, ah yes, another political animal who feels his world view being threatened. I love watching these people destroy their credibility.
Harold Pierce sez:
"Climate science ain't rocket science!". Yep, you are right about that, it is far more complex.
Harold Pierce Jr: "Climate science ain't rocket science!"
Not that Harold would know. He knows nothing about either.
Hello Bernard!
I don't have to prove anything, for I am invoking Gavin's principle of "tacit knowledge" aka "gut feel." My gut says that there has been no global warming and climate change for the last 100 or so years and that the activities of humans have no effect on global climate, but in some cases can effect local climate. The simple test for my gut-feel conclusions is to do nothing except add some more Argo buoys so as to get a better estimation of the heat content of the oceans and any changes therein. Roger Sr has been saying for quite some time that using sea and land surface temp metrics is not a good method for estimating global warming. A few more years of Argo buoy data will probably indicate which way the global warming or cooling trend is headed.
BTW 1: Know anybody in Alice Springs? If you do, call'em up and ask them about any climate change.
BTW 2: It snowed again yesterday!
"If you took an informal poll "at the bar" at any conference, or workshop, at the water cooler or the morning coffee break, at the pub after working hours or at an informal get together such as a cocktail party, most of the scientist and engineers would probably say about global warming and climate change, "Ya know, all climate, like politics, is local. I haven't experienced any significant change in climate since I was born.""
Funny, because I have a bunch of relatives who own farms in Queensland and over the last few years most of them have become convinced of the AGW theory precisely because they believed they were seeing its direct effects on their own properties.
Similarly, I know quite a few farmers from when I was working in the Queensland EPA. Most of them used to be rock-solid National Party supporters. Many of them are now openly bitter at what they see as the betrayal of their and their children's interests by the former Liberal/National Federal government here and its policy on climate change.
The last Federal election result would appear to support my anecdotal evidence.
So Howard I HAVE talked about this issue with people from Quilpie; Proserpine, the Isa; Longreach and the Palmer river, for starters.
Have you?
I claim parody troll. No way is anyone that thick.
Left Wing Fox astutely remarked:
My innate response is to agree completely, and I will apply the previously mishandled 'tacit knowledge' gambit to justify the observation without further evidence. After all, if it's good enough for Harold...
Of course, one thing I've learned over time from tossing billygoats is that there is no bottom to stupid. So, sadly, the disconcerting possibility remains that Harold is actually serious, and is busily delving deeper just to prove the no-bottom-to-stupid point.
And that is alarming.
Of course, the corollary to my theorem that 'there is no bottom to stupid' is that it is fruitless to attempt to fill a stupid-hole.
If it hasn't already been done so I'd be amused to see the mathematical proof!
This does not mean however that it is not useful to attempt to cover a stupid-hole so that no innocent bystander falls in...
Hello Ian!
The perceived AGW may be due to the prolonged El Nino condition that started in ca 1990 and was responsible for the long drought. I have read that AU is especially affected by the ENSO. I have also read that there been much mismanagedment of water resources in eastern AU and that development of water storage and distribution projects has been hindered by enviromentalists and procrastination by the gov. More importantly, AU is in general a fairly dry country. Perhaps there is too many people in the east, and the carrying capacity of the land has been exceeded
Since there is a La Nina condition and the PDO is shifting into a cool phase, perhaps then climate will get wetter.
BTW: What is the status of the rabbit population? I've always wondered if the rabbits have eaten so much ground cover over such a long time that the result is loss of too much moisture from the soil. I have read that there is about 20 million (or was it 2 million?) feral pigs running around, and these pigs are probably not too good for the enviroment.
Unfortunately, it seems that I cannot claim dibs on the idea that 'there is no bottom to stupid'.
The consolation though was that the first previous mention that I found is on a thread that is very funny.
Perhaps if I restated it as a formal theorem...
Inactivist HP Jr. on the Titanic:
"It is dry back here in the stern. We are entering a floating phase after a small sinking phase."
guthrie:
I hope the textbook was from before the anti-phlogiston conspiracy took on? This whole idea of "carbon dioxide" a.k.a. "fixed air" a.k.a. "spiritus sylvestre" is a scam, no doubt. :)
At any rate, I find Harold Pierce to be one of the more creative trolls. Whereas other trolls tend to just rehash talking points, HP can actually create his own gems of stupidity.
Seriously, climate science is far more complex and difficult than rocket science. Rocket science is pretty simple, as any kid with a firecracker and a tin can will tell you. I never quite understood how that "rocket science" cliche got started.
Harold Pierce Jnr writes:
Your gut is proved wrong by mountains of evidence. Please read the IPCC AR4 report. I mean really read it. It's not like they don't document what they're saying.
I believe it was started as part of a promotional strategy for the rocket program after World War II. They publicised the fact that the US had brought "rocket scientists" from Germany at the end of World War II (Wernher von Braun etc) and the leaders of the program wanted to impress the public with how they had got hold of clever "rocket scientists". They were pretty clever of course but their main benefit was that they already had a lot of knowledge about how to make rockets work from their work in World War II making the V2 missiles.
Oh dear the Australian has done it again - http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23583376-7583,00.html
"If you took an informal poll "at the bar" at any conference, or workshop, at the water cooler or the morning coffee break, at the pub after working hours or at an informal get together such as a cocktail party, most of the scientist and engineers would probably say about global warming and climate change, "Ya know, all climate, like politics, is local. I haven't experienced any significant change in climate since I was born."
yeah, that'll happen. try it and get back to us. seriously.
"BTW: It snowed in Vancouver yesterday. I think you guy's climate models are broke. Better get'em fixed!"
snowed in Calgary in june the year i was born. hasn't happened lately. june is supposed to be warmer than april. so you don't have to worry that snow in vancouver in april 2008 is a harbinger of global cooling. model back in favor with you again?
northeast US was paralyzed for days in april 1987 under several feet of snow. northeast us is several degrees south of vancouver. so you don't have to worry that snow in vancouver in april 2008 is a harbinger of global cooling. model back in favor with you again?
From the Australian:
Which actually means that January 2008 was 0.74 deg C cooler than January 2007 (GISS's figure). Now we know that January 2008 was actually in 2007, courtesy of the Australian.
Why stop there? January 2008 was colder than December 1925.
I guess March 2008 to too up-to-date for the Australian. The best we can hope for on the 23rd of April is news that was released in early February. They should start being honest and call themselves an oldspaper rather than a newspaper.
James Cook actually crossed the Antarctic circle on the 17th of January 1773. Perhaps Phil Chapman, as an Australian, thinks Cook did everything on the voyage in which he explored the east coast of Australia. My advice to Phil is, don't give up your day job. My advice to the Australian is, give up your day job.
Maybe the thanks should be due you patient folk who've been educating HP Jr who's uttered something sensible at last (#18). That's a first Harold, congratulations to you!
"snowed in Calgary in june the year i was born."
1951, right? My mother first came to Calgary that spring, and had to walk to work in the snow.
Tim Hollo has a look at the Australian's latest effort at the Greensblog: http://greensblog.org/2008/04/23/the-australian-publishes-deliberate-mi…
Not unless you're younger than you sound, Z. I've lived in Calgary, off and on, since 1978 and it's snowed here every month on the calendar. Not necessarily a lot, and certainly not every year, and in the summer months (June, July, August) I've only seen it once or twice and there wasn't much to it. But it was snow.
Come to think of it, it's snowing now. Has been since Friday.