An astronomer reviews Ian Plimer's book

Quick, somebody call Phil Plait!

So - are you going to allow Prof. Plimer the oportunity to reply to the feather dusting Prof. Ashely dished out?

I note that over a similar period Prof. Ashley has only been lead author on 3 papers and similarly NONE relate to climate science.

"Plimer claims that scientists such as himself, who do not agree with the consensus, are labelled deniers, "yet their scientific doubts are not addressed". Nothing could be further from the truth. All of Plimer's arguments have been addressed ad nauseam by patient climate scientists on websites or in the literature."

Well - why not present just one item of evidence to support your statement instead of having us trust your assertions?

Tim - where do you get the idea that Prof Ashley is more qualified to comment on climate science than Prof Plimer? Oh that's right - he's from the same University as you are - down the hall is he??

what a joke!!

The Australian's performance over the past few days is a good sign. If this keeps up, we may yet have to welcome it into the fold of reasonable papers.

Shorter janama: I ignore all your science so that I can claim you have no science!

NOT ON THE SAME SHELF

Actually, in one small way (perhaps word nitpicking), I disagree with Michael Ashley, whose review otherwise was superb, both in content and writing.

I don't think Plimer belongs on the same shelf with Velikovsky or von Daniken ... but on one lower, if the reviews at all accurate...

because I think that pseudo-science and anti-science are *different*, even if the latter sometimes employs the former. Plimer's book sounds much more like anti-science.

Consider ideas, maybe on their way to hypotheses or strong theories, or maybe on the way to the trashcan.

SCIENCE

An idea may have some plausibility, but not get the data & mechanism to support it for a long time (Wegener on continental drift), or not get the data, and also get refuted pretty guickly (Lindzen IRIS).

An idea may have some plausibility, even if mechanisms are not well-understood, but the size of the effect keeps getting bounded, but the originator keeps on, and keeps thinking it's a bigger effect (Svensmark & cosmic rays).

At some point, continued emphasis goes from real science into being non-science (where there just isn't evidence) or pseudoscience (where the evidence is overpoweringly wrong).

PSEUDO-SCIENCE

Someone has ideas that really make no sense, violate physical laws, fail any serious testing. Assuming they actually believe them (not always obvious, but at least some of the time), their goal is to get their ideas accepted, ideally by scientists. They may attack mainstream theory, but primarily to advance their own. I think Velikovsky fits this, i.e., I think he actually believed what he was saying.

Of course, The Skeptical Inquirer, Carl Sagan, James Randi & co have long chased pseudo-science around.

I think von Daniken is more in the "pseudoscience sells to the public" camp, although one never knows. Hhe might believe this stuff.

At least this category is sometimes amusing, or inspires good science-fiction stories.

ANTI-SCIENCE

Here, the goal is not so much to get some idea accepted, as to obscure knowledge, for which people have coined the term agnotology.

A common technique is that of throwing up a blizzard of ideas and references, not to convince professionals, but to confuse the public about some inconvenient scientific knowledge.

As compared to structure-building of the "Great Wall of Science analogy, anti-science is more like a Big Smog Machine trying to hide the Wall from the public. They usually could care less about convincing any scientists.

Often anti-science uses pseudo-science arguments.
This is especially amusing when it uses multiple, contradictory pseudoscience to claim that the mainstream is wrong. This is like the ability to "believe six impossible thigns before breakfast", except that one can believe many more and mutually-incompatible things, and if any of them disappears, quickly switch to another. That's fairly different from the dedicated pseudoscientist.

Obvious anti-science cases include Intelligent Design (for religious reasons), cigarettes-are-not-so-bad (economic reasons), and anything-but-CO2-limits (various reasons).

However, detailed anti-science tends to be done by people who ought to know better, i.e., people who actually know how science works and have done some. I would reserve the *lowest* shelf for anti-science.

Alternatively, given Plimer's title "Heaven and Earth", a reconsideration of Dante's circles might be instructive.

janama reminds me of [this guy](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhRUe-gz690).

Janama, if you think Plimer's book is good then you are an idiot.

Gotta love the phrase "The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass", though.

It sounds like a follow-up to The Orb's "A Huge Ever Growing Pulsating Brain That Rules From the Centre of the Ultraworld".

janama: Note that Ashley makes no claims in the quote about Plimer's arguments about climatology - only about solar astronomy, a field in which he is obviously an expert...

Nathan - 20,000+ copies of the book suggest maybe you are wrong.

John Mashey - Velikovsky spouted ideas about Mars causing the Red Sea to part so the mythical Moses could pass through - von Daniken carried on about aliens.

Professor Plimer is simply discussing today's science - there is no religious overtone nor is he bringing aliens into the discussion.

I find your comparison to Professor Plimer ignorantly offensive.

Hey j, can you even read??

John says,
"I don't think Plimer belongs on the same shelf with Velikovsky or von Daniken"

> Nathan - 20,000+ copies of the book suggest maybe you are wrong.

Or that 19,999+ other australians are idiots too.

Janama, you have a whole lot of learning and growing up to do before calling John Mashey 'ignorant'.

ah dear... I found myself laughing at Janama's comment "20,000+ copies of the book suggest maybe you are wrong." I thought it was the denialists who kept telling us that science isn't decided by a popular vote...

Goodness me. Please janama - piss off and take the culture wars somewhere else.

janama :

I note that over a similar period Prof. Ashley has only been lead author on 3 papers and similarly NONE relate to climate science.

Prof Ashley's most technical comments on Plimer were on Plimer's astronomical misinformation.

"All of Plimer's arguments have been addressed ad nauseam by patient climate scientists on websites or in the literature."

Well - why not present just one item of evidence to support your statement instead of having us trust your assertions?

He did actually. Why don't put your brain into gear and start reading it instead of making patently false assertions. For example, immediately after the above quote, Prof Ashley pointed out:

To appreciate the errors in Plimer's book you don't have to be a climate scientist. For example, take the measurement of the global average CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. This is obviously important, so scientists measure it with great care at many locations across the world.

Precision measurements have been made daily since 1958 at Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii, a mountain-top site with a clear airflow unaffected by local pollution. The data is in excellent agreement with ice cores from several sites in Antarctica and Greenland. Thousands of scientific papers have been written on the topic, hundreds of scientists are involved from many independent research groups.

Plimer, however, writes that a simple home experiment indoors can show that in a week, CO2 can vary by 75 parts per million by volume, equal to about 40 years' worth of change at the present rate. He thinks this "rings alarm bells" on the veracity of the Mauna Loa data, which shows a smoothly rising concentration.

While it is undoubtedly true that if you measure CO2 in your home it could vary by large amounts from day to day -- depending, for example, on whether you have the windows open or closed, or how many people are in the house at the time -- this is not the right way to measure a global average. That's why scientists go to mountain-tops or Antarctica or to the isolated Cape Grimm on the Tasmanian coast rather than measuring CO2 in their living rooms.

Incredible as it may seem, this quality of argument is typical of the book.

As we can see from this example, you don't need to be a climate scientist to see how incompetent Plimer's arguments are. Of course, there are those who are so blinded by their political ideology that they, like Plimer, will be taken in by the most ridiculous arguments.

Professor Plimer is simply discussing today's science - there is no religious overtone nor is he bringing aliens into the discussion.

I'm not so sure.

That whole "Iron Sun" image - it's so steampunk.

One can imagine the denizens of the Iron Sun communicating with the Selenites of the Moon, perhaps also with the inhabitants of the Hollow Earth.

Hey, guess who stepped up to the plate to defend "The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass"...

Ah! Oliver "Iron Sun" Manuel. His origonal work on this topic back decades ago was legit (he found some odd combinations of elements in meteorites), but he whomped it up into a theory of the sun's being built on the core of an old super nova that was quickly rejected. He started hanging out with the deniers several years ago, I think to get more air time for his theories. He is quite vague as to how the sun's being iron rather than hydrogen helps promote the whole "solar cycles" thing.

More background here:
http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com/2007/09/theres-new-denier-in-town-or-who…

20,000 copies of a bible for the church of denial with Plimer the messiah. A few more copies and he will be up there with Michael Crichton, R.I.P.

It is hard to understate the depth of scientific ignorance that the inclusion of this information demonstrates.

[pedant]I assume he means it's hard to overstate Plimer's ignorance.[/pedant]

If that 20,000 copies thing is true, this could be the end of our sca....um science funding.

You don't OVERstate DEPTH, you UNDERstate it.

I was going to write something about janama's comment, but i think all possible combinations of riposte have been covered!

James Haughton, in that Marohasy thread we have Graeme Bird, Louis Hissink *and* Oliver K Manuel all supporting Manuel's "Iron Sun" theory. Which one were you referring to?

I wonder if the Australian ran Michael Ashley's review because they realised ordinary punters (- 20,000 of course) were smelling something not quite right about the Australian's enthusiasm about Plimer's book and denialist views in general.

Don't forget the Australian believes it is a great judge and influencer of Australian and global affairs. As evidence I offer the slogan on their masthead, "The heart of the nation" which they announced with great fanfare last year completely oblivious to the hubris associated with such a statement.

However, if they loose their reputation completely in an area that is important to them, AGW and associated responses, then they loose their influence in a major aspect of Australian policy for the next x number of years. I don't believe they want to change their war-on-science stance (Leigh Deyton excluded) but they need to be more careful about how they express themselves. So, perhaps they will now hang Plimer out to dry given the rather massive and public body of evidence concerning his book.

lose, not loose. Oops!

Jeremy C raises an interesting point.

The Australian's audience is likely to be the educated right, rather than the tabloid-reading right. To this end, the OZ putting too many of their eggs into Plimer's increasingly fraying denialist basket risks alienating much of their remaining readership - whilst they may be conservative, educated readers might not to be too excited about relying on such poor journalism.

At some point the conservative professional community is going to wake up (if they haven't already) to the fact that the Oz and science do not ride on the same bus. Given the already parlous state of this rag's readership, they can't afford to lose much more of this market - whilst the tabloid masses might be happy to eschew science for ideology, I suspect that their educated cousins are rather more pragmatic...

If I was Murdoch, I'd be telling the editors to pull their heads in, and leave the pseudoscience to the tabloids in the stable. Otherwise his flagship will sink faster that it aleady is.

I confess I know about Plimer only via sites like this but this quote from Ashley's review leaves me in no doubt that Plimer is incompetent, delusional, or simply and shamelessly dishonest.

"He recycles a graph, without attribution, from Martin Durkin's Great Global Warming Swindle documentary, neglecting even to make the changes that Durkin made following an outcry over the fact that the past two decades of temperature measurements had been mysteriously deleted."

There can be no excuse for using any version of Durkin's graph. To use the first, despite it being amended by Durkin (into something equally but less obviously dishonest) is simply unbelievable. Can Plimer really be trusted to tell anyone the time of day?

Tim, 8 Ezzthetic,

"Plimer probably didn't expect an astronomer to review his book. I couldn't help noticing on page120 an almost word-for-word reproduction of the abstract from a well-known loony paper entitled "The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass". This paper argues that the sun isn't composed of 98 per cent hydrogen and helium, as astronomers have confirmed through a century of observation and theory, but is instead similar in composition to a meteorite."

Am I the only one who's starting to think that Plimer's book might've been ghost-written by Louis Hissink? ;-)

bi -- IJI:

> Shorter janama: I ignore all your science so that I can claim you have no science!

Slightly less shorter janama: Unless *all* of the science is explained in *every* post, it does not exist!

re: #15 sevisme

re: von Daniken & Velikovsky.

Yes, I am familiar with them, having acquired, read (as much as I could take),and marked them up in the early 1970s. Reading a little such material is always good practice for critical thinking, and some is amusing light reading on long flights.

(Warning: possible coffee keyboard alert).

VELIKOVSKY

Worlds in Collision (1950)

[With Peak Oil here, perhaps it's time to send spaceships to Venus, which "must be rich in petroleum gases".]

Earth in Upheaval (1955)

[Planets can zoom around in bizarre ways that totally break orbital mechanics, but continental drift is impossible [Chapter VIII]. Note: the date is important, but I distinguish between "impossible" and "not yet enough evidence to be sure".]

VON DANIKEN (& CEREALOGIST HEIRS)

Gods from Outer Space (1970)

Any odd-looking painting or sculpture portrays aliens.

Presumably, aliens gave up their earlier activities in favor of crop circles,disucssed lately at JQ. von Daniken was superceded by *cerealogists*.

Here's a 2007 analysis of the "insectograms" that started appearing in 1990/1991, although the alien offering a data disc, photos 11&12 puts the insectograms to shame.

(Spoiler alert: see those before going further. Great photos.)

Here I recommend the nice sociological study of crop circles by Jim Schnabel, Round in Circles (1994).

p.274:

(During 1990/1991, Doug&Dave had invented insectograms, thinking they would be "the height of ridiculousness", but were eagerly received by the "Delgadonian" subgroup of cerealogists (not Marion!):

"A picture of an insectogram near Stonehenge appeared on the cover of the *Cerealogist*. Inside, George Winfield described how the strange formations had attracted the mystified attention of Mick Jagger's brother Chris, Lord Haddington, and even Lord Carnevon."

It's hard to comment seriously. I looked up (Scottish) John George Baillie-Hamilton, 13th Earl of Haddington: Among other things "He was a photographer with the ... Patron Centre for Crop Circle Studies."

Ahhh, Scottish lords, "interesting" beliefs. That rings a bell, somehow. :-).

p.276 (of Doug & Dave, just before they spilled the beans)

"And it was clear that unless they stopped now, it would never end. *No matter how improbable their design, someone would always believe them*." (emphasis mine)

But, this stuff lives on my pseudo-science (and debunking thereof) shelves, not my anti-science shelves, where Plimer would fit better, were I to buy it.

However, whether pseudo- or anti-, Doug&Dave's last quote is worth repeating:

*No matter how improbable their design, someone would always believe them*

Further on Velikovsky, would anybody be surprised to learn that Quadrant was printing articles lauding his work, in 1983, many years after his theories were demolished? See 'Velikovsky become respectable' by David Stove, Oct 1983. from the first paragraph: "Who is the most important thinker of the present century?...My answer is, Immanuel Velikovsky."

Looks like a new argument is becoming popular in the anti-science crowd -- argument by number of copies sold (or number of blog hits or blog comments). The blog-related version has to be new because of the technology. But the number of copies of book sold seems new. The Berlitz Bermuda Triangle crowd in the 70s, as I recall it, didn't use it, even though that book sold over 1 million copies. Nor did Velikovsky fans or Von Daniken fans.

But, if one does want to use it, then Velikovsky and Von Daniken (and Berlitz, and "The Jupiter Effect", and by another order of magnitude "The Late Great Planet Earth) are at least 100 times truer than Plimer's offering. This usually causes no pause for fans of that argument because they also tend to be believers in such things. Still, for those few it does create a pause, it'd be a good idea to spend more time examining why it is you find one of the set to be reliable but not the others.

"Nathan - 20,000+ copies of the book suggest maybe you are wrong."

Actually, it seems the claim of 20,000+ sales is the item that is wrong.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/05/sales_of_heaven_and_earth.php

31 John Mashey,

I remember a documentary on UK TV (BBC2 or C4) explaining how crop circles were made and how easy it was to hoax people, even (and possibly especially) some scientists.

A circle was duly faked and a well-known "expert" on the subject, one who had devised a convoluted "plasma vortex" theory to explain it all, was invited to examine it. After looking at it in some detail and pronouncing what a superb example it was and how it could only have been produced by a "plasma vortex" and could not *possibly* have been faked, he was told the truth of its origin.

Did he look embarrassed? Did he say, "I feel such an idiot, fancy being taken in so easily"? No, he angrily accused the programme makers and circle fakers of wasting his valuable time, time he could have spent looking at "real" circles and developing his theory! I wish I could remember his name. I think his theory was published in 'New Scientist'.

Tim @ 24, although the range of cracked pots is impressive, I was more pointing the finger at Marohasy herself as a qualified biologist presuming to lecture the astrophysicists about the sun's structure. Perhaps she also believes plants feed off magnetic energy.

re: #35 TrueSkeptic

From your description, possibly George Meaden, although I have no reference to a TV show.

Iâve not read Ian Plimerâs book on Climate Change, the subject of Michael Ashleyâs diatribe (Weekend Australian, 09May09). Nor do I know Plimer or Ashley.

Itâs a bit rich Ashley attacking Plimer for being a mining geologist and that he hasnât had many published refereed articles. Firstly, âmining geologyâ. Isnât that a branch of Earth Science. Itâs a bit more on topic than Astrophysics. Secondly, apparently Plimer gets a lot of his funding from advising mining companies, ie heâs too busy on contracts to publish. Where does Ashley get his funds? Has anyone contracted him for any commercial projects?

The widely accepted populist position, ie climate change Me-to-ers is that there is
(a) Global warming.
(b) Increasing levels of CO2.
(c) CO2 absorbs heat reflected from the Earth â and
(d) therefore human activity is responsible for significant amounts of that CO2 increase and
(e) this increased CO2 level increases atmospheric temperatures significantly.

I agree with a to c but there are a few disconnects in the above, in (d) and (e). There is no scientific evidence for either, only guesswork - otherwise known as models. If these models cannot even explain past events, eg Medieval warming and Little Ice Age â or even anomalies in graphs of âaverage global temperatureâ (such as that, charting from 1850 to the present, published in Mike Steketeeâs Weekend Australian article 03Jan09 - how likely is it they can predict future events accurately?

A much more probable cause of the patchy rather than uniform global warming is changes to the uneven undersea geological warming caused by seismic, principally volcanic, activity. (Seismic activity has increased over the past decades. Itâs also not uniformly spread; it follows the mostly undersea tectonic plate boundaries â and that matches observation. Elevated CO2, being fairly uniformly spread, does not match. ) Itâs funny, isnât it, that the sea covers such a big proportion of the planet - and this is where 85% of the Earthâs volcanic activity occurs, heating the ocean and liberating CO2, both of which match observation â yet itâs not included in any of these models. Talk about ignoring the elephant in the room!

I am not an economist (eg Garnaut, Stern), IT worker (Gore), lawyer (Wong), rock star (Garrett), nor even an astrophysicist, just a Ph.D in physical chemistry â so I donât know if Iâm considered qualified to speak about such matters by the climate change Me-to-errs!

Shorter Cweed:

1. I'm ignoring Ashley's actual argument so that I can claim he's just doing ad hominem!
2. Climate models predict monotonic global warming, and there is no monotonic global warming, therefore the models are obviously wrong.
3. This also proves that humans don't cause CO2 increases in the atmosphere, and the CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels actually goes somewhere else, but I won't tell you where that is.

re: #38 cweed

The elephant in the room is at most a fly. Climate scientists know about volcanoes. Really big ones actually cool the climate temporarily via aerosols. They don't generate enough heat to be noticeable, except locally, and even there, undersea vents are hard to find, as oceans are *big*. Humans generate 100X more CO2.

See SkepticalScience, especially volcanoes, or

'Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humansââNot even close, or

see IPCC AR4 WG I, which has many references to volcanoes.

Just out of curiosity, what was your source for this?
It seems unlike that you invented this meme.

Re: #60 Sure, climate scientists know about terrestrial volcanoes. However,most volcanic activity is undersea; 85% of the Earthâs vocanic eruptions occur undersea. They donât include them. Not much at the vents, as you say, but rather along the constructive plate boundaries which form the undersea Mid-ocean Ridges (56,000km) that encircle Earth. Continually. Some fly!

Unlike terrestrial volcanoes which emit aerosols to cancel out their heat effect, they donât emit aerosols. Therefore all their heat is absorbed by the ocean and thence to the atmosphere, etc,. The heated ocean ejects most of the CO2, and the volcanoes themselves emit futher CO2. By themselves, it seems, a lot more than humans emit.
âLess than 5% of the Earthâs CO2 emissions stem from manâs activities.â [Wikipedia: Carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere]

They were not been recognised until the last few decades, and eruptions have never been witnessed. (Until as recently as I know!) Eruptions can be detected by seismometer, but they register them weakly; better by sonar. Such sonar data have only been (partially) released since about 1990, because of security reasons. (Hint: SUBMARINE!)

Itâs ironic, isnât it, that a meteorologist, Alfred Wegener, championed the cause of Continental Drift, a geological subject â and rejected almost universally. (He couldnât know about tectonic plates, discovered in the 1960s, I believe, years after he perished on the Greenland ice. Now, weâre having scientists proposing geological concepts to correct meteorology/climatology!

Iâve been researching a related area for some years (OK, Iâm slow), and the above is but a tiny encapsulisation. I wasnât paying attention much to this human-caused Climate Change, expecting it to go away like other fads. However, when governments, including ours, started taking it seriously and comitting billions, I thought Iâd better say something.

Notice how the exchange rate took a rapid dive when PM Rudd first announced announced his measures. Itâs been rising again, cautiously, since he announced a delay. It gives an idea what others actually think.

Cweed:

Global warming science is determined by the exchange rate of the Australian dollar.

Sorry, my previous reply was to #38 (not #60 which was an internal reference). It obviously wasnât to bi -- IJI |; he/she COULD be compared to a fly rather than an elephant â even talks in Latin rather than English.

Cweed: what's the isotopic signature of the carbon in submarine volcanic CO2? Is it the same as for CO2 obtained from burning fossil fuels?

Cweed writes:

The widely accepted populist position, ie climate change Me-to-ers is that there is (a) Global warming. (b) Increasing levels of CO2. (c) CO2 absorbs heat reflected from the Earth â

Emitted from the Earth.

and (d) therefore human activity is responsible for significant amounts of that CO2 increase

The "therefore" is a non sequitur. We know the new CO2 is coming primarily from fossil-fuel burning by its radioisotope signature.

and (e) this increased CO2 level increases atmospheric temperatures significantly.

All the evidence is that it does, yes.

I agree with a to c but there are a few disconnects in the above, in (d) and (e). There is no scientific evidence for either, only guesswork - otherwise known as models.

Bzzzt! Wrong! AGW theory dates from a paper published in 1896 by Svante Arrhenius, who did not use computer models. It is based on radiation theory.

If these models cannot even explain past events, eg Medieval warming and Little Ice Age â or even anomalies in graphs of âaverage global temperatureâ (such as that, charting from 1850 to the present, published in Mike Steketeeâs Weekend Australian article 03Jan09 - how likely is it they can predict future events accurately?

They have predicted that the world would warm, and roughly by how much; that the stratosphere would cool as the troposphere warmed; that more warming would take place at night than during the day; that more warming would take place at the poles than at the equator; that droughts would increase in continental interiors and more violent weather along coastlines; and they predicted the magnitude and duration of the cooling after the eruption of Mount Pinatubo.

What more do you want?

A much more probable cause of the patchy rather than uniform global warming is changes to the uneven undersea geological warming caused by seismic, principally volcanic, activity.

The average flux absorbed by the Earth's surface due to atmospheric back-radiation is 333 watts per square meter. The average geothermal flux at Earth's surface is 0.087 watts per square meter. Divide A by B. Discuss.

(Seismic activity has increased over the past decades.

Can you cite a source for that?

Itâs also not uniformly spread; it follows the mostly undersea tectonic plate boundaries â and that matches observation.

Yes, the "Ring of Fire" has most of the volcanoes. I think that's been known at least since the 1950s, if not since the 19th century.

re: #41 cweed

1) I think you have the Wegener story wrong. See for example in this discussion, here.

2) Any PhD I've ever known can cite sources behind statements mad e strongly. But please, are you unable to tell us where you got the various ideas you have put forth? I really am interested in where and how people get their ideas in this turf, and how they assess credibility of sources.

3) Can you explain the relevance of exchange rates to actual science? Would different exchange rates change the rate of chemical reactions for example?

It's fitting cweed has managed to disregard the possibility that the global financial crisis had anything to do with the violent movements in the Aussie (and Rouble, and Kiwi, and Lira, and Yen, and Real, and Sterling...), in the process of attributing the blame for atmospheric carbon on underwater volcanoes. I'd say the latter is the more egregious form of delusion but in any case being that finance is no hard science, but the former is better comic relief from where I sit. In particular, next to some Bloomberg terminals where I can create some pretty choice charts. 'See, here Rudd claimed global warming must be dealt with and over the next week 30 year dollar swaps came in 50 basis points. Get me the CIO... Now!'

Thanks for the comic relief pal.

My! Quite a few Me-to-errs! Some of them barking!

re: #42Read what I wrote, not what you think I wrote.

re: #44Donât know. But most of the CO2 from submarine volcanic activty is liberated dissolved CO2 from the covering seawater, so thatâs not a help.

re: #45
a. You might note that I was writing this from the Me-to-errs perspective. Itâs a little pedantic in the light of the current forum, but Yes it is emitted - at a lower frequency.

b. The non sequitur.(In English, a step in the argument does not follow from the previous parts of the argument.) Yes, that was the POINT - I wrote that from the Me-to-errs perspective. Somewhere in the populist argument there will be such a step, and it says something like, âbut we must err on the cautious side and reduce the amount of emitted CO2â. In other words, they know their argument is deficient.

If anyone knows a definitive argument that shows that man-made CO2 is causing significant global warming, please step forward. Iâm simply presenting a theory which ticks more of the boxes.

c. Bzzt.Iâm aware that conjecture about global warming has been about for a long time. But Arrhenius wasnât in a position to make it quantitative, which is the point, because of the various sinks and sources which he couldnât possibly manage. It hasnât taken hold until maybe the past decade or so, when such computer models are everywhere. Just choose which one for the result you want.

d. The models predicted how much Pinatubo would cool the Earth. WOW! Didnât St Helens give them a comparison just 11 years before? (VEI 5 gives warming B, therefore VEI 6 gives A, but note non-linearity); Divide A by B. Discuss.
Did they predict the huge floods throughout QLD. (You did say droughts in continental interiors). [BTW: Check where did the weather come from that caused those floods].
e. re: Yes, the "Ring of Fire" has most of the volcanoes. I think that's been known at least since the 1950s, if not since the 19th century.
Iâm not talking about volcanoes such that you can point at a cone. Its volcanic activity is all along the 56,000km of Ridges â not just the âRing of Fireâ. Thatâs only been known the last few decades (mid 70s, I think).
f: re source.Sorry! I âcut n pastedâ from the Net when I was writing something for myself a few months ago. Itâs not important to the argument and can be disregarded.
g: re av flux. The geothermal heat flux from the ocean ainât average, steady nor constant.
re: #461) I have read a fair bit about Wegener. Iâm not sure about the point youâre trying to make.
2) As I said previously, itâs original. I had been looking at El Nino for some years. Have you noticed in all âGlobal average temperature graphsâ (eg that mentioned above in my #38), that thereâs a spike whenever an EN hits. The Me-too-errs say âThere! EN is to blame for that spikeâ â as if thatâs an explanation. They donât really know what causes EN.
The currently accepted explanation is that thereâs a buildup of heated water in the western south Pacific caused by (Trade) winds: after a few years, the winds fail (NO explanation) and the heated sea water flows back eastwards (but such a current is too slow to explain the speed of heat flow). Anyway, IF that is the case, there should be no change in global average temperature. Therefore problems with TWO theories - EN & Global Warming. (You can guess my EN theory.) The current EN theory also does not explain why there are EN-type events elsewhere around the globe.
3) Exchange ratesThe Me-too-errs like to point out how many scientists, etc â and thereâre a lot of etcs â support AGW (ie man-made global warming). Nature is not determined by voting. I was simply pointing out that the people who count â their money, that is â are not enamoured enough by the AGW theory to put their money there.

re: #47 Ah! That brings us to the happy majorajam.
PM Rudd first announced his proposed ETS via Minister Wong late Jun08. The Australian exchange rate peaked against the US dollar (and most other major currencies) around 03Jul08 at ca 0.96. It descended rapidly after that. These actions predated the stock market crash of Sep08. (No Me-to-errs noticed this).

Now, whereâs that nice wrap-around jacket for you, marjorajam. Keep laughing!

re: GreenlandItâs probably one of the last places one would look for evidence of extra heat absorbed by atmospheric CO2, mostly because of iceâs temperature buffering effect.

There is a bit of confusion between temperature and heat. The receding ice shows there is a lot of heat being absorbed there, much more than would show up in a local temperature graph due to the ice-> water phase transition. If such heating continues apace, mankind wonât just be worrying about CO2 levels!

â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦.
For the sake of discussion
Assuming a greenhouse gas cause, extra heat arrives via the atmosphere, ie the heat
arrives from above â courtesy of the atmosphereâs heated CO2. However, news footage
(is there an alternative name?) on TV of these regions show evidence of the heat coming from below, ie a geological origin. Melt water is shown as â and commented on as such â flowing as rivers under the ice-sheets.

These rivers are flowing in a space generated between the rocks and the ice; heat must be coming from below to create this space as it has no air contact. Air melted water, however, would be flowing over the top and edges of the glacier. (Such water would penetrate cracks, freezing and sealing them in the colder depths). This is not happening.

If heated air was affecting the on-land Greenland glaciers, it would show as increased
melting, as is happening, but because of their lesser weight, also slower glacier flow rate.
But what is happening is increased glacier flow-rate; the glaciers are slipping faster
because of water lubrication - consistent with heating from below, ie geological heating.
â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦.
Heating via the tectonic boundaries is a likely vent for this geological heat as they are pre-existing faults; their relative movement simply needs to be greater than previously. The plates are probably just re-adjusting themselves; there also needs to be a new heat (energy) source below to drive this. Itâs been done frequently in the past, with extreme examples being Pangea, Gondwanaland, etc, - and less major changes could explain past mini Ice Ages and warming periods, or even just the apparent aimless meandering of âglobal average temperatureâ graphs.

So. Greenland ice sheet recession is an example of Greenland warming rather than Global Warming.

Shorter Cweed:

I'm saying this again! Climate science is best determined by the fluctuations of the Australian dollar! Note that, unlike the so-called 'consensus' of climate scientists which is artificially determined by liberals, the fluctuations of the Australian dollar are determined by Mother Nature.

This, my friends, is the definitive Nail In The Coffin Of Global Warmism™, unlike all the arguments supporting the global warming theory, which are tainted with liberal bias.

Time for a rewrite:

THE SUN IS A MASS
OF WROUGHT IRON AND BRASS
A GIGANTIC PLASMA SORTER
EACH ATOM TO ITS CLASS
ON SUNDAY AFTER MASS
AND IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE THIS
YOU OUGHTER!

John Mashey all your questions are childishly simple.

Use the well-known result that the market transactions of a village of 100 people can calculate anything whatsoever much faster than a building full of supercomputers.

Unlike the AGW alarmists, we're always willing to help newbies get up to speed, you'll find.

That's a peach cweed. And here I was skeptical that Rudd's comment could account for the divergence in the Euro/ Yen/ Sterling/ Kiwi/ Loonie/... USD trend. I mean, why couldn't the policy musing of one small country's PM cause the multi-trillion dollar fx market to seize up? It only seems manifestly obvious to anyone who knows anything about anything that margin calls on US based leveraged speculators/carry traders and a flight to quality in the midst of a financial crisis that had already claimed massive intermediaries and was eating away the equity of many more could have played a role. But the climate scientist prop desk also known as cweed has the advantage of not having any experience to speak of in these matters, and hence knows better. He can construct a 'timeline', and that innovation has made all the difference.

Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out of here Sagan.

re: #51 marion [assuming this was actually addressed to me, as I wasn't sure]

Oh, I wish I'd known that when I was helping design supercomputers, it would have been much easier jsutr to hire the villages.

Cweed writes:

If anyone knows a definitive argument that shows that man-made CO2 is causing significant global warming, please step forward. Iâm simply presenting a theory which ticks more of the boxes.

1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas (Tyndall 1859).
2. CO2 is rising (Keeling et al. 1958).
3. The new CO2 is mainly from burning fossil fuels (Suess 1955, Suess and Revelle 1957).
4. Temperature is rising (NASA GISS, Hadley Centre CRU, UAH, RSS, etc., etc.).
5. The changes in temperature correlate highly with the changes in CO2 (r = 0.86 for 1880-2008).

Which of the above do you dispute?

Continuing Frank's 'shorter' series, cweed at #48:

I'd like to buy some carriage returns, some coherent statements, and a whole lot of evidence-supported fact.

37 John,

No bells ringing here but it was a long time ago. This is bugging me now and I have to find out who the arrogant f***wit was. ;-)

(It's one thing to be fooled by hoaxers; it's another to get angry with those explaining the hoax. It's a shame that what Houdini, Randi, and others have been doing is not sufficiently appreciated by those who would most benefit.)

38, 41, 48 cweed,

This is remarkable. You have a PhD in Chemistry (I think we can all call this a proper, "hard" science), and yet you appear to be not only astonishingly ignorant of information easily available to the layman but also unable to make even the slightest effort to correct your ignorance.

Do you imagine that your posts contain any new insights, or anything not debunked so many times already that it's just *boring* to see them yet again?

37 John,

Just to (almost!) tie up this loose end, the plasma vortex enthusiast was Levengood, but I'm not sure if he was the expert in the programme.
http://www.xs4all.nl/~icircle/dcircles/Levengood_Physiologia.htm

What a fine bunch of politicians you would all make (except you Tim Lambert, who feels it necessary to resort to Monty Python to rebut a point), taking points in isolation and making a broad conclusion based on it. Furthermore, you all (there are some exceptions) seem hell bent on playing the man and not the science.

The human made climate change believers miss the point of Plimer's book entirely. He is not disupting that CO2 levels may indeed rise and fall, nor that the earth may be warming, nor that sea levels can rise when ice caps melt. Plimer is pointing out the flaws in the previously unchallenged IPCC hypothesis. Given that it is their hypothesis, they should indeed be challenged to proof on points they have made and on points they have ignored.

The thrust of the argument is this, before a global tax is introduced, workers are forced out of jobs and billions spent on subsidies, let's have a debate rather than the sensationalist, one sided presentation of argument, led admirably by Tony Jones, that we currently have to endure.

As to Barton Paul Levenson, that is indeed specious reasoning. To anwer your question, it's not a matter of disputing the facts you present, it's the causation and conclusion you make based on those facts, with which I have a problem.

By a similar process of reasoning, I can make the following conclusion:
1) Muslims are humans;
2) Muslim populations are increasing;
3) Most of the Muslim population are oppressed by the West
4) The number of terrorist attacks has increased in the last 10 years;
5) The number of terrorist attacks correlate highly with the increase in muslim population.

Therefore, the West is to blame for Fundamentalist Islamic acts of terrorism.

The point of causation in this argument, as indeed in your argument, is point 3). Point 3 may be valid to an extent in either case, but to what extent and to the exclusion of what other causes?

The new CO2 is mainly from burning fossil fuels. Is this point entirely true? And even if it is, what other factors are being ignored?

What about cloud levels? What about changes in the sun's rays? What about volcanic emissions? What about carbon trapped in ice melts? What about methane?

Even if it is true that CO2 increases are mainly from fossil fuels, how sure can we be that this one factor explains the heating of a whole planet? Just like, how sure can we be that oppression by the West causes acts of terrorism? The causes of terrorism are too complex to explained by one factor. Just as I imagine, the causes of global warming are too complex to be explained by one factor.

Eleven days after the last intelligent post we get seemingly twin comments from twin delusionals in the space of 26 minutes: remarkable timing! Evidence that we've just heard from two different people though is slim, with Ian's blistering salvo beginning "As to ..." as though it were indeed no more than a second serving from "Hugh". OK I'm out of interested things to say boys .... go read Ashley's review, get back to us with any complaints will you?

Hugh Denton: re: "the sensationalist, one sided presentation of argument, led admirably by Tony Jones".

What do you mean one sided?

Do you think he should have focused on aspects of Plimer's book other than the bits that were wrong?

Like, maybe, the bits that were only misleading, or the bits that were correct, but irrelevant?

As anyone who's read Plimer's book can tell you, that's the only choice you get.

And I can't let this one go by.

Ian Dunross: "Just as I imagine, the causes of global warming are too complex to be explained by one factor."

Ian, Ian, Ian. Consider this:

"Climate change may be due to internal processes and/or external forcings. Some external influences, such as changes in solar radiation and volcanism, occur naturally and contribute to the total natural variability of the climate system. Other external changes, such as the change in composition of the atmosphere that began with the industrial revolution, are the result of human activity."

That's from the latest IPCC report.

Now, why do you believe that anyone thinks climate can be explained "by one factor"? Did you get this impression from professor Plimer? I think maybe you did.

Here is what Plimer said in the Sydney Morning Herald:

"To reduce modern climate change to one variable, CO2, or a small proportion of one variable - human-induced CO2 - is not science. To try to predict the future based on just one variable (CO2) in extraordinarily complex natural systems is folly. Yet when astronomers have the temerity to show that climate is driven by solar activities rather than CO2 emissions, they are dismissed as dinosaurs undertaking the methods of old-fashioned science."

Do you think Plimer is accurately representing the IPCC position?

"Hugh" and "Ian" do indeed share the same IP address.

Gaz, Gaz, Gaz, have a look at post 54 and you will see that I am rebutting a theory put forward by one your own. The theory of anthropological climate change is indeed reduced to one factor - that humans are producing too much greenhouse gas and that we should cut it back lest the Earth overheat. Please show me where this theory takes into account other factors.

If, as you suggest, you and most others believe that climate change is a result of many factors, how can it be conclusively shown, 1) that greenhouse gases are the primary cause; and 2) that their causation is of such an extent, that by reducing our emissions, we can stop/slow down/reverse climate change?

Re the one sided presentation of argument from Tony Jones inter alia, an objective reporter would pose some critique of Sir Nicholas Stern and of the IPCC. Alas, no such critique occurs.

Which points of Plimer's did Jones reveal to be wrong, Gaz? Feel free to watch the interview and tell me on which points it is that Plimer was proved to be wrong.

If Jones showed a modicum of objectivity, he might consider the aspects of Plimer's book which recount how previous ice ages have coincided with higher than present CO2 levels.

Anon, Plimer is not the one putting forward a singular hypothesis. He is posing questions for the IPCC hypothesisors. When Ashley and others address the crux of Plimer contention, that is, please show conclusively that man made CO2 emissions are causing a significant warming, I would be happy to read his evidence. Until then, as long as Ashley and others fail to address that central question with references and evidence, his criticisms are wide of the mark.

See below for a critique of Ashley.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comme…

Ian, you say: "The theory of anthropological climate change is indeed reduced to one factor - that humans are producing too much greenhouse gas and that we should cut it back lest the Earth overheat. Please show me where this theory takes into account other factors."

Didn't you read the quote I provided you from the IPCC report? Why don't you read some of the report itself, like the chapter on climate models and their evaluation? Or the one on attribution of the causes of climate change? The theory includes many factors, including many anthropological factors, eg changing land use, particulate pollution. Please educate yourself.

"If, as you suggest, you and most others believe that climate change is a result of many factors, how can it be conclusively shown, 1) that greenhouse gases are the primary cause; and 2) that their causation is of such an extent, that by reducing our emissions, we can stop/slow down/reverse climate change?"

This is actually the main subject of the IPCC report. Again, read it, otherwise you'll continue to come across as kid who thinks he disappears when he puts his hands over his eyes.

Why don't you read it and stop pretending that because *you* don't know something to be true then it can't be?

As for Plimer, in a relatively short interview, Jones was able to demonstrate that Plimer has incorrectly claimed that 1934 was hotter than any more recent year.

Does it not concern you that someone purporting to have demolished a scientific orthoxy spanning many disciplines was so unfamiliar with one of its most basic facts?

Does it not concern you that the first thing Plimer said in the interview was this wildly incorrect claim?

"They're (the IPCC) not looking at the total system of the planet, which includes the influence of space, the influence of sun, the influence of the oceans, ice and the earth."

Ian Dunross,
>have a look at post 54 and you will see that I am rebutting a theory put forward by one your own. The theory of anthropological climate change is indeed reduced to one factor

Wrong on at least two counts.
1. BPL answered to the specific question by cweed about CO2 and CO2 only
2. It is not BPL's theory, he is just rephrasing best current understanding, the foundations of which you will in Arrhenius writings already and which is summarized e.g. in the IPCC reports.

>He is posing questions for the IPCC hypothesisors.

Plimer is posing questions, only after misrepresenting state of the art understanding of climate and the contents of the IPCC reports. That's called knocking down straw men.

Regarding the ["critique"](http://australianclimatemadness.blogspot.com/2009/05/australian-michael…) Bolt links to:
>Actually, what Plimer says (if the reviewer had bothered to read it) is that measurement of CO2 is notoriously difficult. It was originally carried out by a careful chemical test (the Pettenkofer method) which accurately revealed the atmospheric concentration of CO2. This was abandoned in 1959 for a quick and dirty infra-red spectroscopy test, which has never been validated against the Pettenkofer method

Calling infrared spectroscopy "quick-and-dirty", when it comes to concentration measurement of trace gases such as CO2, just illustrates the incompetence of the writer. No, this is not an ad-hom, this is an observation.

Shorter Ian Dunross:

If Muslims are being oppressed in the Western world means, then it means we should reduce the number of Muslims. Therefore, the onus isn't on me to present any actual evidence to dispute global warming; I just need to brainlessly throw out climate inactivist talking points without examining them critically.

My logic is perfect, and any attempt to 'debunk' it is merely evidence of your bias.

I said it [before](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/04/ian_plimer_and_the_health_effe…), and I'll say it again...

"Oh look!"

On the [Ian Plimer and the health effects of mercury poisoning from land mines](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/04/ian_plimer_and_the_health_effe…) we see trollshit:

[Posted by: Hugh Denton May 29, 2009 4:16AM](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/04/ian_plimer_and_the_health_effe…)

followed by:

[Posted by: Ian Dunross May 29, 2009 4:24AM](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/04/ian_plimer_and_the_health_effe…),

and on the [An astronomer reviews Ian Plimer's book](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/05/an_astronomer_reviews_ian_plim…) thread we have:

[Posted by: Hugh Denton May 29, 2009 1:19AM](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/05/an_astronomer_reviews_ian_plim…)

followed by:

[Posted by: Ian Dunross May 29, 2009 1:45AM](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/05/an_astronomer_reviews_ian_plim…)

Great strategic thinking. As [Tim pointed out](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/05/an_astronomer_reviews_ian_plim…), they share the same IP address.

Some trolls just aren't very smart, are they? It must be embarrassing to have them on one's 'side'...

IPCC scientists seem not so happy with the IPCC reports...

The IPCC report: what the lead authors really think - Prof Ann Henderson-Sellers

http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/opinion/35820

Oliver Manuel was my freshman chemistry professor in 1964.
He had Asimov's gift for straight thinking and explaining things. He was mentored by of the Japanese Manhattan Project physicists (yes they had one too) who like Von Braun was brought here as a war prize.

IF: Dr Manuel tells me the sun is iron, and that explains the neutrino shortfall, and the Hubble is finding way too much iron is similar stars when they collide;
THEN:
i see a strong parallel to the earth vs sun centric universe conundrum. Somebody oughta look harder.

"If you want to assure something will be found true, just stand up and publicly declare it impossible." Edsel Murphy, reinforced by my own life experience.

jim hardy

>Somebody oughta look harder.

Yes, [you should look harder](http://pseudoastro.wordpress.com/2008/10/19/the-solar-neutrino-problem-…).

"If you want to assure something will be found true, just stand up and publicly declare it impossible." Edsel Murphy, reinforced by my own life experience.

It is impossible for you to fly unaided if you jump off the top of this here very high cliff.

Lotharsson - Gravity is just a theory.