Categories
Sceptics

Ian Plimer – Heaven and Earth

Update: Prof Ian Enting from University of Melbourne has provided a detailed, point-by-point critique of Heaven and Earth. You can download the 46-page PDF here (version 2.0).

Edit: The Australian newspaper has published an article on Brook vs Plimer (see here).

Today I attended the formal launch of Professor Ian Plimer’s new book “Heaven and Earth” (held in the historic balcony room of South Australia’s Parliament House). Ian had kindly sent me an invitation and I thought it a good opportunity to get a summary of his recent opinion, straight from the horse’s mouth. The book went on sale a few days before, and having been lent a copy, I’d read through it on-and-off over the last few days. Here is what the blurb suggests the book achieves:

The Earth is an evolving dynamic system. Current changes in climate, sea level and ice are within variability. Atmospheric CO2 is the lowest for 500 million years. Climate has always been driven by the Sun, the Earth’s orbit and plate tectonics and the oceans, atmosphere and life respond. Humans have made their mark on the planet, thrived in warm times and struggled in cool times. The hypothesis tha humans can actually change climate is unsupported by evidence from geology, archaeology, history and astronomy. The hypothesis is rejected. A new ignorance fills the yawning spiritual gap in Western society. Climate change politics is religious fundamentalism masquerading as science. Its triumph is computer models unrelated to observations in nature. There has been no critical due diligence of the science of climate change, dogma dominates, sceptics are pilloried and 17th Century thinking promotes prophets of doom, guilt and penance. When plate tectonics ceases and the world runs out of new rocks, there will be a tipping point and irreversible climate change. Don’t wait up.

I’ve been critical of Ian’s views before (see here and here). In short, my view was that Ian’s assertions about man’s role in climate change were naive, reflected a poor understanding of climate science, and relied on recycled and distorted arguments that had been repeatedly refuted. Ian and I have regularly ‘debated‘ on this issue, so I’m probably more familiar than most with his lines of argument. (I actually think it’s rather silly to debate the science, because this the role of the scientific community as a whole, and in doing so they’ve reached a view that this is a serious problem — but one-on-one debate is what the media demands.) Anyway, after reading the 500+ page tome that is H+E, I find that nothing has fundamentally changed.

Plimer tackles literally hundreds of lines of argument in his book. He claims that mainstream science – including the ‘experts’ in each area (those that focus on particular focused questions within narrow discipline areas) are ALL wrong – every argument, every one of those scientists. I quote (from a recent Adelaide Advertiser article on the book): Professor Plimer said his book would “knock out every single argument we hear about climate change”, to prove that global warming is a cycle of the Earth. “It’s got nothing to do with the atmosphere, it’s about what happens in the galaxy. You’ve got to look at the whole solar system and, most importantly, we look back in time.”

There are a lot of uncertainties in science, and it is indeed likely that the current consensus on some points of climate science is wrong, or at least sufficiently uncertain that we don’t know anything much useful about processes or drivers. But EVERYTHING? Or even most things? Take 100 lines of evidence, discard 5 of them, and you’re still left with 95 and large risk management problem. It’s an unscientific and disingenuous claim. As is his oft repeated assertion that a single apparently contradictory piece of information axiomatically overturns all other lines of evidence. Plimer apparently thinks Popperian falsification is the dominant deductive modus operandi in the natural sciences. I’ve got other news for him (I’m happy to email people my full article from BioScience if they email me a request).

Ian Plimer’s book is a case study in how not to be objective. Decide on your position from the outset, and then seek out all the facts that apparently support your case, and discard or ignore all of those that contravene it. He quotes a couple of thousand peer-reviewed scientific papers when mounting specific arguments. What Ian doesn’t say is that the vast majority of these authors have considered the totality of evidence on the topic of human-induced global warming and conclude that it is real and a problem. Some researchers have show that the Earth has been hotter before, and that more CO2 has been present in the atmosphere in past ages. Yes, quite — this is an entirely uncontroversial viewpoint. What is relevant now is the rate of climate change, the specific causes, and its impact on modern civilisation that is dependent, for agricultural and societal security, on a relatively stable climate. Ian pushes mainstream science far out of context, again and again.

Ian also claims that a huge body of scientific evidence — indeed, whole disciplines such as geology and astronomy — have been ignored. This is an extraordinary proposition and quite at odds with the published literature, as reviewed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I wonder if Ian has ever read their reports to find out what they actually do say. Terms like ‘solar’ and ‘volcano’ get frequent mentions, and there is a whole chapter on ‘paleoclimate’. Ian’s stated view of climate science is that a vast number of extremely well respected scientists and a whole range of specialist disciplines have fallen prey to delusional self interest and become nothing more than unthinking ideologues. Plausible to conspiracy theorists, perhaps, but hardly a sane world view — and insulting to all those genuinely committed to real science.

There is another important general point about the book. In the final chapter (pg 473), Ian quotes Charles Babbage; this quote is relevant to the thrust of his book, and underscores to me why it is so distorted. Babbage outlined three criteria for detecting non-science: trimming, cooking and forgery. Here is a useful description of what Babbage said:

“Trimming “consists of clipping off little bits here and there from those observations which differ most in excess from the mean, and in sticking them on to those which are too small.” Babbage believed trimming was not a serious threat to the search for truth because it merely reinforced the average results and eliminated some odd outlying data. In contemporary clinical research, however, rare adverse effects can be literally a matter of life and death. Thus, clinical investigators today are not so complacent on this point.

Cooking is the selective reporting of a group of results, picking out the data from among several measurements that most supports the desired conclusion. Babbage had in mind the actions of a single investigator, but selective reporting might also draw concern as a cause of publication bias. Is an investigator who does not report the results of a study with a negative finding committing fraud? This is a question that has not yet been answered by the research community.

Blatant forgery, as in reporting measurements on imaginary patients, was for Babbage the most nefarious type of fraud. Yet as medical research and its relationship to the pharmaceutical industry and to consumers has grown more complex, it has become more difficult to clearly define investigator fraud. Medical professor and ethicist Robert Levine defines “fraud” as “the deliberate reporting in the scientific literature or at scientific meetings of ‘facts’ that the reporter knows are unsubstantiated.” But the scientific community, Levine says, has not yet agreed on how to distinguish between “felonies and misdemeanors” in the context of research misconduct.”

Trimming might include surreptitiously deleting outliers that do not fit with models or theory. Cooking is good old cherry-picking, a la the “1998 was the hottest year on record and so the Earth has cooled since” meme. Forgery is typified by Fig 3 in the Introduction of Plimer’s book. Guess where that came from?

Here (first edition of the Great Global Warming Swindle). This is the original version of his Fig 3:

The above figure contains fabricated data, as can be seen in this comparison (Ian used the purple version):

I wonder what happened to the last 20-odd years of warming in Ian’s plot, and where did all that smoothing and flattening come from? There are numerous other examples of Babbage’s misdemeanours in the book. (A bunch more are listed below).

Ian says that creationists use all three tricks — I’d agree. But he then says that the IPCC uses at least two of them, and rants on for a few pages as to why. But of course herein is the great irony of Plimer’s position: a rogue accuses others of what he is most guilty. The pseudo-sceptics of climate science, like the tobacco lobby, liberally undertake all three malpractices to convince their audience of their position. Their twisted logic goes something like this: We know we do it, so surely the ‘other side’ (climate scientists, IPCC etc.) must do it too! Of course, the other side deny that they do it, so we must deny as well. And so it goes on.

The irony of the distortion of Babbage seems to be lost on Ian. Or perhaps it’s all part of the illusionist’s box of magic.

Ian’s book contains over 2,000 references to the scientific literature, although the most cited journal by far is Energy and Environment. What the unsuspecting reader might not realise, however, is that a large number of the scientists he cites in footnotes would agree with the mainstream consensus — just a casual look turns up names like Broeker, Alley, Barnosky, Rampino, Lambeck, Royer, Berner, etc. (even Brook, heh, heh). It’s all about the context, and Ian is not averse to implicit extrapolation…

Here are some notes on the numerous figures contained in the book (see comments above on Fig 3):

Fig 1 — Contrasts actual yearly temperatures to mean model projections (not individual, variable, simulation runs) — and doesn’t include the data beyond the low point in January 2008. This is comparing apples and orange (illustrating a complete lack of understanding of stochastic modelling) and it’s trimming to boot (elsewhere in the book, data up to early 2009 is included, so why not here?). Edit: Apparently this figure, originally created by John Christy, is scooting around the net.

Fig 8 — No citation, I have no idea where this weird temperature reconstruction of the last few thousand years comes from (it puports to show a systematic decline in temperature), but it isn’t from the science literature.

Fig 11 — The lower figure is not Europe, as claimed, it is central England (see section “Central England is not the world!” in link).

Fig 15 — Sunspots and temp correlation — this is the UNCORRECTED version of the Friis-Christensen and Lassen study with mathematical errors retained (for that link, see section entitled “Temperature matches solar activity exactly!”). See also this BoM rebuttal. Was the corrected version rather too inconvenient?

He makes an argument at one point that volcanoes could be the cause of rising CO2 (rather strangely, after trying to convince the audience that CO2 doesn’t change climate — one wonders why he then bothers about volcanoes, since this trace gas is apparently unimportant anyway). He’s claimed this before, but doesn’t seem to want to listen to the facts.

Fig 23 — A cartoon diagram of glacial-interglacial temperatures with no citation — why not use the real data, and why hide the fact that these are polar, not global, temperatures?

Fig 24 — That notorious cartoon plot of CO2 vs temperature throughout the Phanerozoic, purporting to show no relationship. Hmmm — that’s a rather strange source for a geological reference…

Fig 40 — A sea surface temperature plot with no citation, so I have no idea where this data come from. Yet it is flat and the one from Fig 38 is rising. Why the difference? Never explained.

Fig 42 and 49 — UAH satellite temperature PRIOR to the bias adjustment for satellite drift that caused it to erroneously show no trend! Was this incorrect series more convenient to his argument that there as been almost no warming over the past 25 years?

Fig 44 — Says 98% of greenhouse effect comes from water vapour — errr, no.

Fig 52 — Plots chemical measures of CO2, fluctuating between 300 to 450 ppm over two centuries and as much as 120 ppm over 10 years — did he bother to work out implications of this? (literally hundreds of billions of tonnes of carbon released and sequestered again, within a few years, without anyone ever noticing where it came from or where it went)

Fig 54 — This seems to be the original Mann et al. 1999 hockey stick (not updated 2008 version or 2007 IPCC mutli-proxy version) — but with the uncertainty bounds deleted. Plimer then (and throughout the book, in fact), claims that climate scientists ignore uncertainty. Yes, well…

Pg 491 he says: “Even if the IPCC’s high “climate sensitivity” to CO2 were correct, disaster would not be likely to follow. The peer-reviewed literature is near-unanimous in not predicting climate catastrophe. 2304” Ref 2304 is Schulte, K.-M. 2008: Scientific consensus on climate change? E&E 19:281-286. Ahh, you’ve got to chuckle.

Pg 492, says DDT ban killed 40 million children before the UN ended it. Is that really the best he can do to discredit environmentalism?

—————————————
Update: Tim Lambert continues the page-by-page debunking here: The science is missing from Ian Plimer’s “Heaven and Earth”
—————————————

The launch ended with a statement of conviction from the master of ceremonies that this book will become a classic, alongside the other great works of modern science. Well, it may well be held up as an example for the future. An example of just how deluded and misrepresentative the psuedo-sceptical war against science really was in the first decade of the 21st century.

Add to FacebookAdd to NewsvineAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to Ma.gnoliaAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Furl

By Barry Brook

Barry Brook is an ARC Laureate Fellow and Chair of Environmental Sustainability at the University of Tasmania. He researches global change, ecology and energy.

1,053 replies on “Ian Plimer – Heaven and Earth”

Sorry Geoff (and others).
this is a problem at our end. I do not have the permissions that are required
to fix it. I have spent the last 2 hours (since the problem arose about 16:30)
sending increasingly unhappy phone messages and emails.
A possible temporary fix is that the URL ends in fileID=91,
replacing the 91 by 94 may work (but hopefully not in the long-term).
One problem is that, having been off for a total of 35 days sick leave
earlier this year, a combination of computer upgrades, and somewhat arbitrary
password migrations mean that I cannot even update my own home page.

Like

G’day all,

For light relief:

http://www.pool.org.au/text/peter_ravenscroft/climate_change_for_preschool_kids

The point for here is really the map.

Phillip,

You are quite right and I can’t replicate it either. Being a bad lad, I got it from Google Images, and assumed it was the annual trend for 2005. Slack work. I had played with them before, many times. But as you found, it isn’t that one. I had got that far, yesterday, and my only weak excuse is, I was out farming and had not got to it, apologies all.

The other GISS plots give a far more subdued 2005 Angola-Congo-Zambia anomaly trend, maybe NASA changed the inputs, they have in the past. I will do all the months and so on and see if I can reproduce that image. It does look a bit odd though, I must admit. My bullshit detector has flat batteries.

But the Helmholtz data remains and its coincidence with the AntPen warming and the Van Allen belt touchdown or auroral thickening just there, still needs an explanation. I think. The mag anomaly drifts west and then goes awol, comes back decades later, at the eastern end again. The hole in the GISS temp data west of the AntPen is a curse. If we could see the temperature also drifting west, we would be far better off.

My guess is that, if it is patly deep heat surfacing, we get long mag build-ups and very short heat bursts, soon over. The reruns do not hppn at the samplces exatly, as though maybe a mantle plum had run dead an the next lot comes up to the side. Wild guessing, this. But the big ones, at the AntPen and the Lena River, keep recurring. The former was there in the 1930’s, went awol, then came back. I do not understand this lot at all. Maybe surface heating does screw the magnetometers, it used to drive us nuts when using them in the field, interference peaks just before midday, telluric currents then run all over the place, and a base station to check on the moving instrument is almost useless. But how would that have affected sixteenth century ships’ magnetic compasses?

I simply suspect that this lot is linked to the solar flares and the magnetosphere – I do not have the resources to prove it. The map with the spoof article, at the url above, shows something is seriously wrong with AGW, though.

I will now check that map out as best I can. In case it was fabricated for ome odd reason.

Peter.

Like

The funniest movie of the year; An Inconvenient Truth. Comedy? Drama? Thriller?. Why I’m not here to insult you’re views and research. You’re a Hybrid (Pardon the Pun) of Sound Intelligence and Academics. My question is why isn’t there allowed to be a Rebuttal against you’re arguments, Human-Induced Anthropogenic Warming?

Yours Faithfully

Josh

Like

I am not a scientist but having sent a sheet of statistics to several scientists including, Barry Brook, and interested non scientists. And so far these figures have not been challenged. They have been confirmed by Professor Bob Carter JCU.

If maximum annual anthropogenic emissions of CO2 total 7 gigatonnes (gt) per year as Ross Garnaut agrees and the natural emissions of CO2 are about 210gt, plus or minus 50 to 80 gt in any given year. Precisely what difference will it make whether anthropogenic CO2 is reduced to zero or doubles in the near or distant future.

Like

About 95% of peer-reviewed science is shown to be false within five years of publication. Within 50 years of publication the figure approaches almost 100% falsification. Simply looking at any scientific journal from 50 years ago shows that the vast majority of published science is nothing more than semi-informed conjecture with no strong supporting evidence. History will almost certainly show AGW to be nothing more than another worthless hypothesis.

Like

You can be partly right, and that’s enough to build on. “All models are wrong, some are useful”. A scientific hypothesis is a model. All are wrong, some are useful. It’s about bounding uncertainty and narrowing those bounds over time. If the scientific process didn’t work, you’d not be typing your complaint on a digital computer. You’d be sitting in a cold hut.

Like

Barry’s contextualisation of this is about the most succimct I’ve seen.

I’m not sure this is the orginal source but this paper makes similar arguemnts http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050201

I not that while the article in not yet 5 years old, it cites many references that are far older.

Publicaion happen on intertesting topics, interesting topics get investigated, investigation increases undertanding, hence previus work gets contextualised or part is disproved.

In otherwords, we don’t tend to nail the full depth and breadth of an issue in one publication.

Like

And could you cite a source for these claims? I’m just interested in seeing the date of publication.

Like

I’m with John.

If the reference is more than 5 years old, it has more than a 95% chance of being wrong.

Apparently.

Like

Being from the old school (and what is wrong with that?) I was taught that an hypothesis was an untested theory. I am prepared to accept that an hypothesis is a model but in either case an hypothesis does not become a fact until it has met with with all conceivable tests. The most tragic example of an incompletely tested hypothesis is the thalidmide disaster were the drug was tested on patients and other normally healthy women and men but not on pregnant women. The fact fails if and/or when it fails a previously unidentified test. Back to the case in point, Dr David Evans worked for the Australian Greenhouse Office for six years and, during that time the scientists were unable to find a causal link between any CO2 emissions and global warming (as it was then) let alone man-made emissions. As Lord Acton was reported to have said: “When the facts change I change my mind. What do you do sir?”

Like

Hey John, I’ve filled in the mmissing bits in CAPS:

“Back to the case in point, Dr David Evans worked for the Australian Greenhouse Office for six years AS A COMPUTER PROGRAMMER, NOT A CLIMATE SCIENTIST and, during that time the scientists were unable to find a causal link between any CO2 emissions and global warming (as it was then) let alone man-made emissions, NOT SURPRISINGLY BECAUSE NEITHER DAVID EVANS NOR THE SCIENTISTS AT THE AUSTRALIAN GREENHOUSE OFFICE CONDUCTED RESEARCH INTO THE LINK BETWEEN CO2 EMMISSION AND CLOBAL WARMING – THEIR JOB WAS JUST TO QUANTIFY THE EMISSIONS.”

Like

The line: “When the facts change I change my mind. What do you do sir?” is from John Maynard Keynes, since in economics, the relevant facts (about the situation) do change and basing
economic decisions on a fixed ideology from either the left or right will sooner or later get you into trouble.
For global warming, the central fact is the one identified in 1896 by Arrhenius, based on
real measurements of the real atmosphere by Langley. CO2 absorbs infra-red with
a roughly logarithmic dependence on the amount of CO2 (determined by looking at the moon
at different angles of elevation). This leads to a vertical temperature gradient in the
atmosphere — i.e. stratospheric cooling means less energy lost to space.
When the observed fact of stratospheric cooling goes away is when I’ll change my mind.

Like

To paraphrase Kipling: ‘left is left and right is right and never the twain shall meet’. While the right provide the truth and facts the left indulge in denigration and character assassination and continue to shift the goalposts. I am wasting my time

Like

“While the right provide the truth and facts….”
Showing up your bias there John G. How many times do we have to say this problem IS NOT A POLITICAL ARGUMENT! Earth’s systems don’t give a hoot about our petty political affiliations. We will all be adversely affected by the dire consequences of unstoppable climate change.
Oh, and just exactly when did the “right” have the monopoly on truth and facts? There are good and bad, genuine and disingenuous people on both sides of the political divide.
If you are going to paraphrase Kipling at least get the context right:

“Oh East is East and West is West and never the twain shall meet
Till Earth and Sky stand presently at God’s great Judgement Seat
But there is neither East nor West, Border nor Breed, nor Birth
When two strong men stand face to face though they come from the ends of the Earth”

THE BALLAD OF EAST AND WEST
A pertinent quote, now that all people on Earth need to join together to prevent this environmental disaster which will an enormous loss of human life and biological diversity.

Like

There are two rates of cooling relating to this planet (1)The dry adiabatic lapse rate of one degree per thousand feet and (2) the saturated adiabatic lapse rate of two degrees per thousand feet. There are only two ways to restrict that cooling (1) water vapour in the form of clouds and (2) a temperature inversion, the stratoshpere does not cool in isolation your 19th century scientist has been overtaken by new facts. Which is colder? a clear cloudess night or an overcast sky at night? Perhaps you should change your mind.

Like

Thanks Barry and Ian for your steadfastness.

would all readers of this go to

http://home.btconnect.com/tipiglen/landethic.html

and read Aldo Leopold’s ‘Land Ethic’.

What does this have to do with the CO2 debate?? – lots – as the atmosphere is an extension of the land. We have totally lost (it appears) the awareness that if we destroy the land, we destroy ourselves (to say nothing .

So far – this whole discussion seems to have the air of whether there are 10 or 11 angels dancing on a pin-head.

Basic physics – Arrhenius determined that increasing the concentration of a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere (doesn’t have to be CO2) – will result in a net gain in global atmospheric temperature …

so, we are increasing the greenhouse gas concentrations – CO2. Methane, HFC’s. HCFC’s, SF6, CCL4 etc etc…

the temperature is rising

QED

Like

So the temperature is rising eh! 2008 has so far been the coldest year for two decades. 2009 is promising to be colder.
Average global temperature (AGT) was 15 degrees C in 1850 and was 16 degrees in 2007. If the rise in temp is linear with the rise in CO2 the AGT would be 21 degrees C by now. Global warming? I don’t think so.

Like

2008 was coldest since 2001, not for two decades. 2009 is the 6th hottest on record through to April. Go spin your lies elsewhere. You’re not fooling anyone with your idiotic nonsense here.

Like

Why didn’t you answer the important point Barry. Why has the AGT not risen to 21 degrees C. None of the criticisms of my posts have added anything to your basic argument that man-made emissions of CO2 influence climate change. Since annual anthropogenic emissions of CO2 represent only 0.0000327% of the total mass of the planet’s atmosphere it is a ridiculous argument. And you talk about spinning lies. The dishonesty of the alarmists in showing images of power station cooling towers and smoke pouring from chimneys and misrepresenting it as CO2 ‘pollution’ is greater nonsense.

There is such a shortage of atmospheric CO2 currently that agriculturists are having to supplement it with additional CO2 in hot houses to get adequate growth. There are also reports from farmers that lack of CO2 is limiting growth in crops and that more CO2 will be needed to meet the food needs of a future increasing population.

As to the temperature for 2009 only time will tell. Certainly the Northern hemisphere has reported the coldest winter for thirty years. More fact and less obfuscation is what is required.

Like

“Why didn’t you answer the important point Barry. Why has the AGT not risen to 21 degrees C”

Because the world doesn’t exist in the fantasy land that you do. No one predicts more than 1C warming for the 1850 to 2010 period due to anthropogenic forcing, i.e. 14 to 15C global average. If you believe otherwise, you’re delusional. Oh, and re: your CO2 %, go back to remedial maths.

Like

Now you are losing it Barry. It is your mob that has said that CO2 has risen by 38% since 1850 (280 to 380 PPM is actually 40%) and that the rise in temp is linear with the rise in CO2. 40% of 15 degrees is 6 degrees which equals 21 degrees C. If this is not true as you seem to think then there is no correlation between the increase in atmospheric CO2 and temperature. Likewise it follows that, if that is the case, reducing anthropogenic emissions of CO2 will have NO effect on climate change. I did not say that the AGT should be 21 degrees C, I said that it was 16 degrees. Who needs remedial maths? The global warmers have no case to support anthropogenic CO2 as the cause of climate change. I would like to know who is really in fantasy land. I do not appreciate personal attack in lieu of logical argument. The more your alarmists try to manipulate the facts the further you put yourselve in the mire. Just admit that you are wrong!

Like

+15C is 288K. So simply changing the scale of temperature to an absolute one changes your ‘calculation’ as follows:

40% of 288K = 115K.

So do you imagine temperature should have risen to 403K, i.e. +130C? What are you saying? Further, why do you imagine that there is a linear, rather than logarithmic, relationship between CO2 and temperature? Who says this?

Like

By Post Author

I have been following this dialogue for some time. I admire the patience and application of people like Barry Brook and Ian Enting in responding to the assaults by deniers. I’m now quite convinced that Plimer either doesn’t know enough or is being disingenuous, to say the least.

I think it‘s worth noting that there is a vast difference between deniers and sceptics. In any realm of science (or life) scepticism is a rational attitude. But denial, when you are actually incapable (through insufficient scientific expertise or whatever) of understanding the science, is irrational and/or perverse.

It’s a mistake to assume (as no doubt some would) that somebody like Plimer who is entitled to call himself a scientist actually knows enough about another area of science to have an informed viewpoint.

Deniers need to take a dose of humility. I can’t begin to understand the science;Plimer could have fooled me and I suspect, the majority of non-scientists.

Unfortunately, of course there are other forces driving denial. Apart from vested interests, there is the natural tendency to which we are all prone, to deny unpleasant facts (or if you like, unpleasant possibilities).

Like

Is it my imagination or are deniers more
likely to use pseudonyms than those who
believe in AGW? If I had my ‘drathers,
I’d rather not have any anonymous
bloggers.

Like

I must admit I got flamed heavily the other day over a Jo Novas site for being an anonymous blogger by the non anonymous Brian G Valentine. Ok I was being a stirrer but when a blog entry on a site that claims to be rational and science based claims that “Undoubtedly the best summary of the current state of affairs is the SPPI monthly CO2 report.” (with this being Monckton’s monthly) I can’t help myself.

I think you will find that A LOT of people use a lot of blogs on all sorts of topics, and use a common name. For example I use BigFooty for my sins… now I’m not going to use my real name there just as I don’t give my business card to every bloke I chat to in the queue for a beer at the footy.

So I’m MattB where I use blogs… and it is only when I discovered the climate type blogs that I ever saw anyone use their own name… it has just never occured to me to do so. But this discussion on that site has made me reconsider… but I have to admit the thought makes me a tad nervous:)

But to answer your question… no, if anything I think the division is that people with a genuine background in a field use their real names, and others do not… I’m a total nothing in the field so it is not like I’d be outing myself with some great fanfare “Holy Moly Matt B is Ian Pilmer” or anything;)

Like

Well I’ve outed myself! quite liberating;) I’m not sure it will cause any major increase in my influence in the world of global climate change science and policy. lol.

Like

It can be different however I have just used the name Ender since I started writing on the internet more years ago now than I care to remember.

I always use my name in my email and my blog, when it was active, used my real name.

Like

i don’t belong to this blog, i am a machinist no collage education, skeptical of government because when they are in charge of something it usually goes to hell, example the bailouts for all the banks. i don’t get help when i need bailing out, i am told work more hours. the AGM agenda will stress my already short cash flow that is why i want this agenda to move slowly, but i do want to see this planet protected and it can be done, but on a longer time table. radical change will harm your plans to clean up the planet.

voters will vote in new leaders that may not care about what you say the planet needs. that’s why change if it comes at all must go slow, while educating the public on why these small changes are needed. you will be surprised that even your naysayers will agree then, just on the biases on cleaning up our world.

Like

It is possible to inform yourself about multiple areas of science, at least well enough to write about it. And doing so is an important task. But it takes a lot of work, and an vital part is getting other competent people to read it.
As I said, om some thread in the distant past, for my book on Inverse Problems, the scientific vetting didn’t come from Cambridge university Press, it came from colleagues, gratefully acknowledged in the preface. People who have made the effort to get across a broad field are really valuable to work with. My friend Barrie Pittock does it well. (His book, Climate Change from CSIRO publishing is just out in second edition). I get the broad coverage well enough to be able to identify lots of suspect bits in Plimer’s book. The public version of my document lists the half of these that I have had time to check.

Like

Geoff,
Clive Hamilton wrote of a similar impression to yours about pseudonyms and poor behaviour on blogs. But John Quiggin commented in reply that on his block some of the worst claims and anti-rational, comments come from people who he knows to be or believes to be giving their real names.

Plimer for example, and his figure 3 is a clear example of unbelievable practice, that he is happy to put his name to.

Like

If I had time on my hands and thought it was
important, I’d collect some data, but pending
that, all I have is an impression… anybody know a psychology major looking for a little
project? “An investigation into the correlation between blog anonymity and idiocy”.

Like

Further to my other response… yes I’m sure that one of my concerns was if someone ever went back and wrote to my mum with a collection of everything MattB has ever typed in a blog anywhere:)

The flipside is that a real or non real name does not change your opinion on whether a contribution is valid. anonymous bloggers could be like the wise of man who emerges form the mist to pass on his wisdom then vanishes:)

Like

“There is such a shortage of atmospheric CO2 currently that agriculturists are having to supplement it with additional CO2 in hot houses to get adequate growth”

I’ve also heard that geese have such deficient digestive systems that french farmers are forced to force feed them through pipes down their throats to get adequate livers!

Like

Not quite true MattB. The reason french farmers do this is because
some in France have inadequate cholesterol levels and need those
livers to achieve adequate levels prior to bypass surgery.

Like

Do get your facts and your math right if you are going to contribute to the blog – otherwise you just make a fool of yourself!

Like

The usual rationale for 1998 being the warmest year (on the instrumental record) is El Nino. This just shows that some atmospheric warming emerged from the Pacific Ocean. What if the 1976/1977 Pacific Climate Shift was a natural cycle and we have since moved into a cool phase simlar to the mid 1940’s to 1970’s? Please, don’t even think sulphur dioxide.

Click to access An%20Alternative%20Physical%20Mechanism%20for%20Global%20Warming.pdf

There is only one reality – the global temperature. Oceanographic considerations suggest cooling over 20 to 30 years from 1998 – and there is a wealth of neglected (by very nearly everyone)science here. There is already a decade of cooling and this year will make it a decade +1. How long beofre reality bites?

Like

Checked your CV – your pseudo-scepticism wouldn’t be related to some of your jobs would it?
Project Manager on
Abel Point Marina
Whitsunday Shores Estate
to name just two (there are more!)
You must be aware that the trend in warming continues and that the past decade has included most of the hottest years on record.

Like

“Please, don’t even think sulphur dioxide.”

While would you ignore SO2 when such aerosols are currently masking approx 40% of warming?

Like

Some minor housekeeping suggestions.

It is a pity this blog does not take graphs or maps. Many do, and that would, I think, raise the standard of this debate considerably, as it is clear few follow the links, and some, like me, fail to even master getting them to work. Barry, can that be fixed?

Another suggestion: How about asking Ian Plimer if we can put the whole of his book up here? His publisher should be rapt, as it will greatly enhance its sales. Then we will all know what we are talking about, at least in part. The resulting hoo-ha could, as a fair swap, go into an appendix to the next edition, edited as Ian chooses.

Next. When you post up bits of someone else’s cv, as relevant in a public scientific debate, unless you are being complimentary it is usually to imply that person is biased, i.e. is lying for concealed reasons. That is not the tradition in science, please note, all you new men. We have no new women here so far, I think? It smacks of unveiling the lone Catholic or Protestant or Jew in the room. Verbal insult has ever been covert threat. In a free society, folk have a right to feel secure, and given the level of insult in debates such as this, folk clearly do not and hence use aliases. That is of course their right, but it is another new thing and not a good one. People did not, back before the virtual world suddenly expanded, get up to speak in the meetings of learned societies and refuse to say who they were. If we hope for a free and frank exchange of views, this should be addressed. The start point is better manners,which is simply consideration for the next person. I am a guilty as any of sarcasm, same thing, so the pot here is merely explaining we are almost all a bit smudged, to our cost as a group.

Like

You are wrong about no new women so far! There are several that I know of who have posted once or more. How you came to that conclusion I don’t know but it seems you have your own biases.
As to revealing the background of some of the posters – that is far from unusual and totally justifiable, if it demonstrates an obvious conflict of interest. It is “de rigeur” at all the pseudo sceptic sites I have visited. How often do we hear “they are only in it for the grant money” etc – so “Tit for Tat” as far as I can see. If you think the bloggers on this site are excessively given to insulting others you obviously haven’t visited Bolt’s, Graeme Bird’s or Mahorasy’s where the level of insulting retorts and personal attacks are abominable. This is mild by comparison although not perfect I agree.
Incidentally, I hardly think Plimer’s publisher would be “rapt” to see the book posted here in full as you suggest. Why would the visiting pseudo sceptics then need to buy it? Rather than enhancing sales it surely would have the opposite effect.

Like

Perps you can’t really include Bird’s blog. It is fundamentally based around abuse and aggression, it is not like you could possibly go there expecting anything else. I sometimes smack myself around the head a few times just to prepare myself before having a look there.

Like

I agree Matt – I dipped the toe in the Bird blog once and that was enough for me – just thought I would mention it to get Peter Ravenscroft to realise how mild this blog is. Actually, Marohasy and Bolt are almost as bad in the abuse stakes. I don’t go to either anymore after having been subjected to vitriol and venom just for having an opinion contrary to the deniers who, in the main, populate those blogs.

Like

Who is the Pope and whos is Galileo Galilei in this debate? Who is going to be forced to recant?

Like

What a waste of time! Forget about the biggest con regarding the cooling or warming of the earth.
It’s just another way for the Wall Street boys to make a fast buck and you got sucked in.

CO2 should have been classified as a pollutant in the Clean Air Act. The simple fact is that you clean up your mess (pollutant). That means that you remove CO2 from your stacks just like you are now required to remove particulates, Nitro Oxides, SO2 etc. All this WITHOUT any TRADING scheme!!!

By the way we reduced Pb pollution by 98% without any trading. We got rid of CFC without any trading.

And don’t be childish arguing who should clean up first. Just do it.
Do the right thing! Remember?

Like

You are a bunch of left wing nuts. You would not know the truth if it hit you fair on the head. Plimer has the answer but you can’t handle it. How many of you have actually read the book?

As I said once before: I am wasting my time.

PLease take me off the blog.

Like

Yes I have read the book. cover to cover, including Nigel Lawson’s blurb on the back cover describing it is a “scrupulous and scholarly analysis”. Heaven + Earth is full of fabrications. Each time I talk to someone else who has read it, I learn of a whole new lot of things that I missed. Apart from typos that I found myself, the nearest thing that I have had sent to me as a correction is from a school friend telling me that one item that I got from Steven Sherwood used the US spelling of metres.

Like

I’ve read it – and I have also read the rebuttals by Barry here and by Ian Enting on his blog, plus the critique in “The Australian” by Mike Ashley and those on several other blogs. I think you are the one who needs to expand their reading! As to “left wing nuts” even if everyone on this blog was left-wing – and I doubt it- what has AGW and CC got to do with politics? You are gravely mistaken if you think is a political debate that can be won or lost with rhetoric (and yours is sadly lacking anyway). Tell that to the Earth’s systems. I suggest you won’t get a response!GOODBYE!

Like

As well as reading Plimer’s book, I have read a lot of Plimer’s references (or in some cases re-read them). This is the good bit of this exercise — I get to read a lot of good science —
it’s just that Plimer misrepresents (or in some cases totally fabricates) what is actually said in the papers that he cites.

Like

However it may only take one skeptic to matter:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/06/04/2589123.htm?section=justin

“A spokesman for Steve Fielding says the Family First senator is still making his mind up whether climate change is caused by human activity.

The Government is relying on support from Senator Fielding, the Greens, and Independent Senator Nick Xenophon to get its carbon trading laws through the Senate before the end of June.”

Which is of course the object of skeptics. Play wedge science to convince people with the balance of power and they win – simple. Mind you the entire earth loses however what do they care.

Like

Ohh Ender.
If Fielding opposes, with the Liberals, the Govt will go to a double dissolution election. The whole senate will be dissolved and everyone re-elected. Fielding will lose his seat (it was a quirk of democracy he was ever elected), and the Liberals will lose big time. Australia will be left with a large Labor majority and at the least with the Greens as the balance of power in the Senate. Australia will have an emissions trading scheme.

Like

I am making my way through Plimer’s book and am indeed clear on one thing. That is that humans and all other life fare better in warm times than in cold. If CO2 is a cause in global warming we should welcome it.

However, we should not be jumping for joy too quickly with respect to its warming effects at all. Because we all know it isn’t true and the warming effect of CO2 is logarithmic. When will the AGW crusaders acknowledge that other than for an initial warming effect, subsequent CO2 hardly contributes at all.

When will they also acknowledge that the world has been warmer than now during recent human history (Roman times and medieval warming)and the world flourished? And not an aluminium smelter in site?

When will they acknowledge that the world has just emerged from a little ice age, and that since emerging from it in 1850 one would expect, and hope, that the world would warm? Please don’t respond with Mann and other’s fraudulent hockey stick!

When will they acknowledge that they really don’t know exactly how the climate system operates or at least not with any confidence of predicting next week’s weather let alone next century’s climate?

Why don’t they accord the sun, the centre of our solar system something other than a peripheral role in determining climate?

Why don’t they acknowledge that they do not understand clouds, and the effect that they have in both warming and cooling the world, sufficiently to reflect their effect in their models?

When will they acknowledge that their true goal is political and not environmental?

Like

When will so called skeptics educate themselves about what the scientist are actually saying rather than taking Plimer’s implicit assertions at face value?

When will H read the rest of the posts on this blog to learn if these points have been addressed ad-nauseum?

Like

Perhaps you should read Leigh Sales new book on doubt and consider that the questions I have put have not been addressed at all.

The AGW bandwagon is looking a little rattled.

Like

Perhaps, as Mark suggests, you should read the posts on this blog (and other opinions on Barry’s “Blogroll” on the left side of the page) and listen to the series of lectures by Barry, thus educating yourself before asking questions that have been answered time and time again, and proving yourself to be a fool.How do I know that you are a fool? For starters
WEATHER is not CLIMATE! and planetary systems do not recognise political affiliations!

Like

Perps

Perhaps you just saw RED. I suggest you calm down and re-read what I said before calling me a fool.

I have noticed that the moderators of this blog don’t enforce any level of decorum or is name calling simply part of the ‘science’ behind this blog?

Like

I say again – read the posts in full before making comments that have been thoroughly debunked. I notice in your post at 125 in answer to Mark Byrne, that you cannot have read any of the articles about IFR nuclear technology or you would not have written such rubbish which seems to indicate that you think this blog and Prof Brook are advocating a return to the Dark Ages. The solution to the problem of climate change is given here as well as the convincing science of AGW.If you think my language immoderate you should try the major pseudo-sceptic sites like Andrew Bolt’s and Jennifer Marohasy’s – not that I believe you haven’t already visited them. I repeat WEATHER is not CLIMATE and the ENVIRONMENT is not POLITICAL.

Like

H,

You don’t seem to be practicing much doubt, nor skepticism in regards to testing if Plimer has faithfully represented the science that he says hes in debunking.

Perhaps you should do a risk assessment then talk to us about your doubts.

Like

John G, don’t give up. That’s what the environmentalists hope will happen. I won’t give up until I am convinced that the hypothesis that humans cause significant global climate change is proven to my satisfaction. This will only be achieved when the believers in this hypothesis such as Professor Barry Brook, Professor Andy Pitman, Professor Michael Ashley, Professor Keith Shine, etc. have provided detailed scientific anaylises directly and clearly identifying the flaws in the papers of Dr. John Nicol, Dr. Roy Spencer and Dr. Anastasios Tsonis that I summarise in my paper “Politicization of Climate Change & CO2” (on the Climate Science Coalition Web-site at:- http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=374&Itemid=1).

Since October 2008 I have repeatedly challenged staunch environmentalists to do this, with no response. Dr. Nicol tried unsuccessfully to get responses from Professors Pitman and Ashley and I have recently repeated my challenge to Professor Brook (see https://bravenewclimate.com/2009/06/03/sa-sets-a-33-renewables-by-2020-target/) and to Professor Keith Shine. I doubt if I’ll get a response, which means that I’ll have to assume that Dr. Nicol’s analysis is without flaw and his conclusion correct, i.e. that greenhouse gas concentrations are well over the level at which further increases cause significant increases in global temperatures. In other words, our use of fossil fuels cannot cause any significant increase in global temperatures, hence cannot have significant impact upon global climates.

So come on you professors, prove with detailed and direct counter analysis that Dr. Nicol’s paper is flawed.

Regards, Pete Ridley, Hman-made Global Climate Change Agnostic.

Like

Pete,

Does CO2 concentrations have an altitude profile? That is,
are concentrations differnet at sealevel as apposed to 10 thousdand metere? Or 20 thousdand meteres?

Like

Pete Ridley – “I doubt if I’ll get a response, which means that I’ll have to assume that Dr. Nicol’s analysis is without flaw and his conclusion correct, i.e. that greenhouse gas concentrations are well over the level at which further increases cause significant increases in global temperatures.”

So if Barry Brook et all are so sick to death of responding to the same debunked claims from people such as yourself you will consider the paper to be without flaw!

Now that’s good logic and really sums up the denier case very neatly. Wear some scientist down to the point they cannot bear to reply to the same recycled garbage and then claim victory.

To understand why Barry and the others may not respond is there is a very good summary of how CO2 works in the atmosphere written by an physicist Spencer Weart.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/

As sick as you must be of being redirected to this link everytime you repeat the claim that CO2 is saturated you really should take on board what Spencer says as it clearly lays out the currently understood science of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. It also references peer reviewed science.

If the paper that you claim disproves this then the normal process of science will bring it to the fore through peer review and scientific discussion.

Like

Thanks Ender for the excellent reference. Got that PR? Pass it on to Dr Nicol!
(Anyone wondering where the original polite perps has gone? I’m sick to the back teeth with pseudo-sceptics and their deliberate obfuscation and delaying tactics.) I WANT SOME ACTION ON AGW BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE TO SAVE THE PLANET FOR MY KIDS AND GRANDKIDS AND YES EVEN FOR OLDIES LIKE ME)

Like

Please give full references to Dr Nicol’s paper. Title, date of publication, source e.g which scientific journal, so we can properly study it.

Like

Just found the source of Nicol’s essay “Climate Change (A fundamental analysis of the Greenhouse Effect)
“Feedlot” Jondas Rural Investments Pty (well they would love CO2 and methane wouldn’t they!)
http://www.ruralsoft.com.au//Ltd
Not quite “Nature” or “Science” not even a scientific journal, not even a journal!!!!!
You say he tried to get it peer reviewed. Where and who did he try?

Like

“Physics for Future Presidents” by Richard Muller is a much more balanced book than Plimer’s. He admits maybe CO2 is not changing climate, but advocates we should act as if it is. (This is the IPCC position, actually.) He looks at it as a study of risks, not a question where we pretend we know the answers. The approach, widely expressed above, that ideas must be proven or disproven before action occurs, is a poor one in this circumstance, and Muller avoids it. My 2c – neither side of this argument know how climate works, but they agree that CO2 has some effect. As an engineer, I know you don’t stuff with complex things you don’t understand, especially when something as important as the ecosystem of the planet may be affected. To blithely let CO2 double, triple whatever, without knowing the effect would be very foolish.

Like

Peter

The so called precautionary principle, based on des Cartes suggestion that it is better to believe in God than not becasue at least belief will get you into heaven, is a deeply flawed proposition. What if God is not the beneficient god of the new testament but rather an evil being? Similarly, what if the response to the perceived problem actually makes things worse for humankind?

The suggestd approach of the ETS is to penalise users of carbon based fuels but not make the so-called renewables cheaper. In this sense it rewards inefficiency and does not encourage renewable use. It doesn’t even discourage use of carbon based fuels!

Additionally, the burden on the economy will drive unemployment sky high, deplete our wealth and ultimately make us less able to deal with the problems at hand.

The AGW crusaders may be well intentioned, but that doesn’t mean that heartfelt emotional responses are necessarily the best.

It is about time that rationality was allowed to come through and time to completely and utterly avoid the emotive response. If we are in a crisis (and I don’t think we are) then a coldly rational plan for dealing with the matter is the only way forward.

Like

H,

The potential for some really disastrous consequences from coninuing with business as usual is exactly why the precautionary principle should be applied and large scale reductions in emissions made, leaving the overwhelming scientific work indicating AGW is real, and that it would be much cheaper to reduce emissions than not to, aside!!

D

Like

H writes:

the burden on the economy will drive unemployment sky high, deplete our wealth and ultimately make us less able to deal with the problems at hand.

Except that the most competent and comprehensive analysis to date shows that addressing global warming in a meaningful way will cost a fraction of the damage it will cause.
http://www.occ.gov.uk/activities/stern.htm
http://www.garnautreview.org.au/domino/Web_Notes/Garnaut/garnautweb.nsf

And that there is massive employment opportunities in low carbon technologies, we can be addressing the business as usual financial collapse at the same time as limiting business as usual climate crisis.

Click to access cleanenergyjobs.pdf

But if H prefers hyperbole and assertions without evidence than that is fine, quite typical even.

Like

DISEMVOWELLED
Ths wh d nt ndrstnd hstr r cndmnd t rpt t. Yr prblm s y hv cmpltl gnrd th rl th crbn bsd fls hv plyd n hmnt’s prgrss. Th hv bn bsltl fndmntl nd rmn ntgrl t r w f lf. Th r chp nd plntfl. T trn thm ff wll thrw s bck t th th cntr whn lf xpctnc ws hlf wht t s nw. Yr flr t drstnd tht mns tht y wld rthr thrw th bb t wth th bth wtr thn tr nd wrk t rtnl sltn t prblm. n d rnwbls wll b bl t cmpt wth crbn bsd fls, bt tht d s nt nw nr wll t b fr th frsbl (- yrs) ftr. Gvrnmnts shld ncrg rsrch, dvlpmnt nd cmmrclstn f rnwbl pwr srcs, nt hndcp th nl src w hv nw! Nthr Strn nr Grnt ctll blv tht n rdctn n s f crbn bsd fls wll hv nythng thr thn nmnl ffct n clmt b th nd f ths cntr bt th d cknwldg thr wll b hg cst. t’s jst tht th msr th cst f dng smthng nw gnst th cst f dng mr xtrm vrsn f th sm thng ltr nd cncld t s bttr t d t nw. D y s th prblm wth th rgmnt? Th fllc f thr pstns s tht w rll dn’t hv t d wht th sggst. s Lmbrg shws, th cst f dptng t clmt chng wll b hgl lss xpnsv thn wht Strn dn Grnt sggst nd lv s wth th rsrcs t dl wth thr mr prssng prblms, lk cln wtr n th dvlpng wrld, s wll s dptng t “glbl wrmng” … nd tht’s bsd n ccptng th ctstrph y “blv” s cmng vntts. Th GW crsdrs r jst lk th pddlrs f rlgn tht nn s n wknds. t s bst nt t rg wth thm. Rtnlt plys n prt nd b rgng th drw dwn dpr n thr blfs fr sstnnc.

Like

You haven’t read this blog properly have you H? If you had you would know that the solution to continuing to advance our civilisation as normal and allowing the Third World to enjoy the benefits of a comfortable life, while still halting climate change and preventing the dreadful catastrophy we are facing, lies in new nuclear technology – IFR. Read the posts about this and then go out and promote the technology to all. Scientists like Barry are not the deep green fundamentalists you portray – they are pragmatically trying to provide solutions to AGW.

Like

Perps,

You make a sensible point here about growing support for nuclear component of the solution. But there will need to also be significant geo-economic and geo-political changes to address the structural pressures that force such deep inequality and exploitation.

The weakness of the Lomborg styled argument that we should spend money on things other than carbon mitigation is used by many who are arguing for more of the business-as-usual geo-economics that have so disadvantaged the most vulnerable.

Like

Agreed Mark – I would hope to see great changes to inequality and exploitation (as a woman born in the 1940’s I know all about that :) albeit in a much milder form than the vast majority of the World’s people suffer). However, unless we solve the energy problem , I don’t think there is any hope of convincing those in the First World, to change their ways. Indeed, unless AGW is addressed we will all end up being disadvantaged – and how!

Like

DISEMVOWELLED
ndr (whvr y r) hv rd wht Spncr Wrt sys nd wll b skng Dr. Ncl fr hs rctn. Prfssr Brk hs sd n rspns t m chllng tht “Mr Ncl nl nd sbmt hs ppr t scntfc jrnl nd hll gt hs pr rvw. wndr wh h hsnt dn s, f h blvs hs md srs cntrbtn t th scnc. r prhps ( m nl spcltng hr), h hs, nd hs hd th ppr rjctd n whch cs h wld hv th rvws. thr w, th vn fr prpr vltn f Mr Ncls wrk s qt clr” s jst nt gd ngh. Fr ppl lk Prfssr Brk t rfs t pr rvw Dr. Ncl’s ppr, whch s rdl vlbl n th ntrnt fr sch rvw, s sn b l gnstcs lk myslf s bng mrl cp t bcs th cn’t dntf n flws n wht Dr. Ncl sys. Whthr th rsn s s w s t r s y s t mks n dffrnc nd ds nthng t prsd scptc t chng thr vw. Whn sss vr Dr. Ncl’s ppr hv bn rslvd, thn w cn tk lk t th wrk f tht thr Spncr (R). S cm n y prfssrs, mk th tm t prv wth dtld nd drct cntr nlyss tht Dr. Ncl’s ppr s flwd. Rgrds, Pt Rdl, Hmn-md Glbl Clmt Chng gnstc.

Like

Pete Ridley – “Professor Brook has said in response to my challenge that “Mr Nicol only need submit his paper to a scientific journal and he’ll get his peer review.”

Because this is exactly what he should for his paper to to be considered amongst what he is hoping are his peers. His peers with approx equal qualifications will evaluate the work and decide if it is worthy of publication.

It is not a perfect system however all the scientific advances of the past 200 years or so have used it. All the huge scientific revolutions of the past years have managed to get published and accepted.

If Dr Nichols work is kosher then it will be accepted in the same way if it has scientific merit.

Like

DISEMVOWELLED
Dr Rdrs, ‘ll sk Dr. Ncl t cnsdr gttng nvlvd n th dbt hr. Mnwhl, h sd cpl f dys g QT: Th str b Jhn Clmn, wh strtd th Wthr Chnnl n th ntd Stts, shws hw th whl thng dvlpd n n ssmptn nd, mr t th pnt, mthd f ttrctng rsrch fndng fr vrs prjcts rltd t rgnll “crst” drvn msrmnts f tmsphrc crbn dxd. Nt n rfrnc ws md, n dvlpng ths mdnss, t n nlyss f th bsc nd ncssr mlclr scnc. Plnt f mr rcnt rfrncs t Hnsn’s ppr, whch gn strts wth n ssmptn f snglr htng b crbn dxd, n mntn f th % f ht pt nt th tmsphr b vprtv prcsss vr th cn nd frthr % b cntct wth th grnd s th wnd blws vr t , lk n r cld ngn. % s rsnbl wll stblshd s bng bsrbd nd rdstrbtd s ht b crbn dxd, lthgh dd nt llw fr tht n m ppr, smpl ssmng s vryn ls dd, tht C bsrbd t ll – bt stll n dmnstrbl ffct f glbl wrmng frm ll f t. NQT Mrk, dn’t wrr, ‘ll b rdng bth prts f “strtd gss .. ” gn t tr t fnd th flws n t. Jnthn Prrtt, wll knwn nthsstc spprtr f nythng rltng t nvrnmntl prsrvtn, sstnblt nd ppltn cntrl, rfrrd (n hs scr-mngrng prpgnd bklt “Plyng Sf: Scnc nd th nvrnmnt”) t scntsts s bng rrgnt. rftd ths n th bss f m xprnc wrkng lngsd nmrs scntsts frm mn cntrs. Myb ws mstkn, tkng nt cnsdrtn rfrncs n http://brvnwclmt.cm////s-sts—rnwbls-b–trgt/ t Dr. Ncl s Mr. Ncl. Hpfll ths ws jst n vrsght n Prfssr Brk’s prt. n tht sm blg (‘v skd ths wh wnt t cntn wth ths dbt t jn n hr) Mrk Byrn sd td QT: Pt, y r syng tht ddrssng clmt chng s, gmblng wth th cnmc wll-bng f dprvd ppl rnd th glb. Frstl, nt ddrssng clmt chng s rskr gmbl (n bth fctrs f prpblt nd mpct). Scndl, wht fctrs hv lft vlnrbl ppl dprvd? Hw r y prpsng ncrsng th wll bng f th vlnrbl. v sm d f wht s rqrd, d y? NQT. Mrk, n yr Pnt , pls wld y pnt m t th sttstcs spprtng wht y s. n yr scnd, tryng t dscrg thr cnms frm sng fssl fls, whch r mch chpr thn thr nrg srcs, wll crtl th grwth f thr cnms, hnc rstrct thr pprtnts fr cnmc dvlpmnt. ‘d lv t knw mr bt yr d bt wht s rqrd. pls lcdt. Rgrds, Pt Rdl, Hmn-md Glbl Wrmng gnstc. PS: r y bl t ndrtk pr rvw f Dr. Ncl’s ppr?

Like

Pete,

The references you requested are >90% probability in AR4 Wg1
And the projections of AR4 wg2. You can lay this out in a risk matrix of your choice.

On your response to increasing the wellbeing of the most vulnerable your solution is to use fossil fuels and grow economies. Firstly, the price of coal represent market failure due to massive externalised/uncounted costs. Secondly, why have these strategies been insufficient upto now for the bottom billion?

Like

Why don’t you show some heart and debate Plimer on radio, instead of throwing rocks – put your money where your mouth is and debate him

Like

Oh dear…

*I stick my nose in this discussion occasionally – and am flabbergasted by the lack of basic understanding of biological dynamics – especially those of population, by the responders to this discussion.

The degree of general obfuscation and special pleading by respondents to this group, is very distressing to read.

1) humans are part of the natural environment – and have evolutionary histories that pre-dispose them to a variety of behavioural patterns – that made lots of sense when we were a small population dependent on unreliable resources – but that’s changed – and we (mostly) are in a position of relative plenty.

2) Like any organism – if resources are available, then population growth happens – until the resources run out – and then there is a crash – the so called “population J-curve” – the human population is showing all the classic characteristics of such a trajectory, with a 10-fold (roughly) increase in population over the last 100 or so years.

3) As our population rise has been fuelled by the discovery of fossil fuels (that made the Inductrial revolution, the burgeoning of science and medicine, and a (somewhat) socialist state possible) – the inevitable impact of this fossil fuel useage – has been increased greenhouse gasses emitted into an atmospheric system which turns out to be far smaller than we fondly suspected.

4) All else (noise, perturbations and uncertainties), not-withstanding, the effect of the totally demonstrable rise in CO2 (and synthetic greenhouse gas) concentrations in the atmosphere, will result in shifts in atmospheric weather patterns – and a net increase in average temperatures. To suggest that such rises are ‘natural’ beggars belief.

5) Further rise in population – will drive the emission of green house gasses even higher – despite limitations of peak oil. So we are in a positive feedback system – until the fossil fuels run out. By which time the global atmospheric system is pushed so far into warming – that we really don’t know what the end situation will be.

6) So what, exactly, is wrong with embracing the principle of the precautionary principle?? (tho it is hardly precautionary now – just a definite ‘will happen’). I suspect that those who feel that it is inappropriate to act, until ALL the hard data is in, are urban types who are now totally disconnected from the realities of a living (and sadly non-voting) world that provides us with our (invisible to most) “ecosystem services”.

Hugh Spencer

I very strongly suggest folks shoud read

“The tragedy of the Commons” (by Garret Harding)

and

Aldo Leopold’s “A Land Ethic”

Like

Dear Readers, My last post on 6th was for some reason “DISEMVOWELLED” although Mark Byrne seems to have been able to read at least that part which I addressed to him. I’ll repeat my post now and see what happens to it.

START OF REPOST: [Ed:No, you don’t seem to get it].

Like

Pete, As a white man in Australia I’m doing quite well, as you’d expect. However, unlike you I’m am not as willing to conflate correlation with causation on the issue of economic growth and wellbeing.
Economic growth is measured in GDP which is quite a problematic indicator. It is possible to have a large GDP (for a defined period) by liquidating natural and social capital. This is possible because GDP has no negative side ledger. All activity is measured as positive.

It is not a simple matter to approximate population “welbeing”. We have some firm measures such as infant mortality, life expectancy, and various indicators of disease burden. The biggest leaps in these firm measure of wellbeing have been gained with preventative public health and sanitation measures.
There is little doubt that humans (in many firm and subjective measures of wellbeing) have made significant gains, and gains upon gains. Due to the combination of the scientific method, resource abundance, socio-political-economic freedom, social cohesion-solidarity and public health infrastructure and similar common good infrastructure.

However, as women, or colonized indigenous peoples, or those born into low income households could tell us, access to the opportunities (and power) than enable wellbeing have not been uniform.
There is no certainty that promoting business-as-usual economic growth will deliver to the oppressed, the opportunities we (rich) have taken. In fact business-as-usual economic-power relations is oppressing the most vulnerable.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47378&catid=220&Itemid=1057
http://www1.american.edu/TED/oauwaste.htm

The above provides examples of cross-border exploitation and oppression. The trend towards growing inequality, would suggest that some of the gains of the few have been achieved by taking advantage of the vulnerable and exploitable. A few visible examples in the rich nations are pokies, predatory lending, and junk-food advertising to children.

You make a valid point about greed; however you seem to locate the driver for this greed back to the politicians. I would suggest there is a feedback in play where those in power are the product of greater system of forces towards short term profit.

Consolidated media ownership, increasing concentration of wealth, increasing expenditure on lobbying decision makers, increasing expenditure on political campaigns, increasing expenditure on political donations, and sophisticated strategic targeting (attack or support) of political candidates, is affecting the balance of power between democracy and plutocracy.

For example, insiders to the machinations of the ALP’s development of the CPRS are aware of a pressure that is not discussed in public sound-bites. One of the forces driving the ALP’s position on the CPRS is the pressure from a group with particularly concentrated power. Large investors in coal interest (power generation and mining), threaten to take their grievances to the BIS and attack Australia’s credit rating. If successful, this would increase the cost off investment/capital in Australia. Hence , similar to the TARP and TARP2 bailouts, the greed (and power) of the small but most powerful minority dominates over the interest of the whole.

(The other Mark Byrne is involved in a similar field, but I am not he).

Like

About


Check out the opening page and you will discover that TROLLS are warned that they will be DISEMVOWELLED! Don’t worry – you make more sense that way!

Like

Dear Ed, I appologise for not reading Professor Brook’s “Comments Policy” before submitting comments. I’m new to this site so please excuse my ignorance of your blog protocol. The sites that I have been subscribing to elsewhere around the globe have never seen reason to reject any of my submissions, no matter how critical of the hypothesis about human-made global climate change. The worst that has happened to me was to have two of my posts removed from the UK’s Forum for thr Future because they didn’t like open debate. Jonathan Porritt and Mark Lynas, both staunch environmentalists (but not scientists) encourage it. I’ve reviewed my original post of 6th in the hope that you find it satisfactory. I do not recognise any personal attack, insults, vulgarity or repetitious/false tirades, but if you think there are any then please be selective in your disemvowelling, rather than taking a blanket approach so that I (and others?) can be absolutely clear about what you are intollerant of. We wouldn’t want anyone to get the mistaken impresion that you were trying to disembowell the sceptics’ side of the argument just because you don’t agree with it.

START OF RE-RE-POST: [Ed: {Deleted re-post — again}
Most sites make no attempt at reasonable moderation. This is not one of those.

In my judgement, you are trolling, and you continue to do so. For instance, you asked for a ‘review’ of Dr Nicol’s internet-only non-published piece, you got your answer about what he should so (submit to a peer reviewed journal), and so you ignored this and simply repeated that demand, at least twice more. Moreover, you laced these demands with a number of illogical implications, such as thatif you don’t make the effort to review it then you must accept it.

Overall, your posts are exactly what I would classify as a repetitious tirade — and your thrice posting of the disemvowelled comment simply reinforces this view.

If you try to repost the disemvowelled piece one more time, you’ll be banned from posting henceforth. You are already on moderation. However, it is already patently clear that this is not the forum for you, and I strongly suggest you look elsewhere for whatever you are seeking.]

Like

Pete Ridley – “We wouldn’t want anyone to get the mistaken impresion that you were trying to disembowell the sceptics’ side of the argument just because you don’t agree with it.”

The point I think Barry is trying to make is that this is not the forum for this sort of argument. What you and other skeptics don’t seem to get is that this a BLOG. Its sole purpose is an education outreach from scientists to the general public like myself. Other sites like Real Climate are an attempt by scientists to communicate to science of climate change as best they can.

Now if Barry was to provide a detailed critique of Dr Nichol’s paper would you understand it? Also assuming that he did who would read it? The point is that the people that would read it are the general public who also would not understand the mathematics and physics involved either.

For a working scientist, again I am assuming here and would be open to correction, to read the paper it would have to be published in a peer reviewed journal. They receive regular updates of abstracts published in their field so they can stay abreast of current research. Most scientists don’t read blogs – and why would they? Again most scientist have never heard of McIntyre. They would know Christie as they have both published.

If Dr Nichols wants the paper read it needs to be published. Posting it on a blog will do nothing as the people that read blogs usually do not understand the science. Spencer Weart’s work is a dumbed down version for the general public to read as his excellent series on the discovery of the greenhouse effect that you can find here.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

Basically no-one is trying to stifle anything just attempting to put in the proper forum.

Like

In the spirit of the “outreach” role of this blog let me give my view — working scientists read all sorts of stuff. Different scientists do things differently, which is why it is really good to have a wide network of colleagues who scan different classes of stuff. For example Mike Ashley’s review of Heaven and Earth noted that he recognised some of the stuff about the sun as from a crank paper that was doing the rounds (while all I could do was flag it in my working notes as highly suspect).

However, for actually getting a paper taken seriously, publication in a peer reviewed journal is important, but even that isn’t sufficient. Maureen Christie did a PhD at Melbourne, published by CUP as The Ozone layer: A philosophy of science perspective that tracked through the history of the real scientific debates,
especially over the ozone hole: solar or dynamics or chemistry. And then how, after the science was settled (i.e. the main proponents of other ideas accepted the evidence of chemistry) a political debate was continued using old discredited arguments. One thing she pointed out was that poor stuff that got through the peer review process often just got ignored, rather than anyone taking the time to refute it. Putting this another way, the most important form of peer review is not the bit that is done at the time of publication, but the ongoing review by the scientific community.

Like

I notice that Heaven and Earth has been released in the US in hardcover. The Amazon page (for the hardcover edition) has a few reviews, mostly of the “fearless defier of the scientific conspiracy” variety. I’ve submitted a review including some links to assorted scientific commentaries (including this).

Also, I’ve put together a collection of links to scientific responses to Heaven and Earth here: Debunking Ian Plimer’s “Heaven and Earth”.

Like

Ender, thanks for the clarification on the purpose of Professor Brook’s blogs. I came across them while trying to find a posted critism of Dr. Nicol’s paper. I find the Internet to be the simplest way for a layman like myself to get the information that I need to help me form a reasoned opinion about the human-made global climate change hypothesis. I obviously had the wrong impression about what these blogs are all about and will pursue elsewhere my search on that matter.

Meanwhile, this is still a useful source of climate change advice from an expert, so I hope that Ed. will permitted me to continue trying to learn more on the subject by posting questions and relevant comments on the blogs.
H, I too have been impressed by the points that Bjorn Lomborg makes in his booklet “Cool It” so go along with much of what you said on 6th. I disagree with Perps’s response and presently cannot see how she believes that humans have any control over global climates, so how can we hope to stop climate change.
Professor Brook says above, ” .. the Earth has been hotter before, and .. more CO2 has been present in the atmosphere in past ages. .. this is an entirely uncontroversial viewpoint. What is relevant now is the rate of climate change, the specific causes, and its impact on modern civilisation that is dependent, for agricultural and societal security, on a relatively stable climate”. I’ve been around for 72 years and don’t recognise any significant change in climate, only the usual unpredictable weather.
In the seminar presentation referenced by Professor Brook in his 29th April response to “salvarsan” Professor Bob Hill explains how climates have changed drastically in the past without the help of humans and he ends in the Q&A session talking of concerns about the rapidity of change, but it’s not clear to me whether he is talking about change of climate, change of CO2 or change of temperature. (Are there full transcripts of the questions missing from the audio? The seminar itself is very interesting but the full questions would also be useful). Is it the rate of change of mean global temperature (which appears not to be following the rate of change of atmospheric CO2 concentration) that is being used as an indicator of global climate change. If so, simply “eyeballing” the graphs of global temperature change presented by the Hadley Centre (http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/) and NOAA (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/images/last2000-large.jpg), over a reasonable period (lets say over the last 50 years) suggests a rate of change of less that 1 degree C. This is nothing like the 8 degree C rise at the end of the Younger Dryas in a period of decades which climate researcher Carrie Morrill of NOAA Paleoclimatology Program is reported to have found. Is it because the AOGCM’s are projecting high rates of temperature change on the basis of high rates of CO2 change? If so I can’t understand why such projections could be causing concern for any of us who accept Professor Brook’s opinion that “we don’t know anything much useful about processes or drivers”. Surely without knowing anything much useful about those it is impossible to know how to exert any control over climate change or to model climates reliably on any GCM. The IPCC’s AR4 WG1 admits that climate models “.. continue to have significant limitations” and “The possibility of developing model capability measures … has yet to be established.. ” yet the supporters of the significant human-made global climate hypothesis persist in claiming that the models are sound.
Perhaps someone can enlighten me.

Regards, Pete Ridley

Like

“Perhaps someone can enlighten me”

I doubt it.

“There are none so blind as those who WILL NOT (often misquoted as CANNOT) see”
PROVERBS (1546)
John Heywood records this rhyme which expresses the age-old frustration felt towards someone who refuses to face facts.
Originally, in Olde English:
“Who is so deafe or so blinde as hee, that wilfully will nother hear nor see”

Like

Perps, quotes like that do nothing to help me develop a better understanding of the significance of our use of fossil fuels on changes in global climates. A reasoned response to the questions I ask in my second paragraph should enlighten me one way or the other. I am not prepared to accept very much on faith alone.

Please would someone make an attempt to respond constructively to the points that I raise in my post.

Regards, Pete R

Like

I just listened to your interview Barry. Very well done!

And then Steve Fielding goes and pops his head up. Will it never end?

Will you be starting a new thread so we can go over it all again?

Like

Would anyone care to explain this map, by using the AGW model?

Google “A bridge too far for thought”

Or the ones showing the huge magnetic z trend shifts, at the same place, shown on the maps on my website?

Are maps illegal in this debate? Or immoral, or what?

Like

Hi Peter,
maps not illegal in debate. No doubt hard to accommodate on a blog, but there should
be nothing to stop you posting a link to your own site.
But one obvious question: are your ideas tied to stuff in Plimer’s book, (which is where this thread started) or is this just the closest blog you can find? (if it is in Plimer’s book, could you say where — I have read it, but certainly not memorised it.)

Like

Ian Plimer seems to be putting forward a lot of contradictory suggestions and the issue of solar vs geological forcing of climate change (given that he denies AGW) is one of them. Given that Plimer is so self-contradictory, you haven’t clarified what if anything of his you are picking up on. More specifically, i have emailed you my view that the time series relations in your online document look unconvincing. I think that without more detail, i would say the same about the spatial pattern in “bridge too far for thought”.
The Wegman committee that investigated the hockey stick recommended that people involved in this sort of study should involve a statistician. That is a “big ask”, but at least reading a book on the relevant statistics would be a good start.

Like

Use new, cheaper, Anhropogenic Groundwater Depletion in the fliptop box, instead of Anthropogenic Greenhouse Warming, if you have seas to raise. 50 million centrifugal pumps cannot be idle!

Hi Ian Enting et all,

If this forum is a debate in science, rather than lit. crit, then I think anything that supports Ian Plimer’s case is relevant. If this is merely lit crit, and things not on the pages of “Heaven and Earth” are invalid here, will those who mentioned anything in science that Ian did not expressly describe, please withdraw their comments now?

If this is lit crit for some, you can have salagubrious as a freebie to play with, while the rest of us do the boring stuff.
I will be delighted if competent people would read this. Any incompetents out there, it’s OK, I am one of you, so you can read it also. Right, lads and lassies, lets get to it.

Those pumps are estimated to be shifting somewhere between 600 and 1,000 cubic kilometres of groundwater a year and an unknown but large proportion of that is not going back. A whole lot gets to the sea. Do the sums, a guess at the proportion, surface area of the oceans, etc. Publish a peer-reviewed paper and get famous. Public domain, I will cheer and not complain. Compaction makes a lot of groundwater extraction a one-way street. The water tables are dropping below most major irrigated croplands. Go do your own homework on Google, that way I am not steering you towards pet papers and reports.

Add the water lost from soils, courtesy of more millions of tractors, dozers and chainsaws, exposing the soil to the sun annually, where before there were standing plants year round. Carbon is also lost from the soil and that used to trap moisture. The soil carbon incidentally oxidises and then goes where? You get fifteen guesses.

Then take the uncomfortable fact, for AGW that overall, the ice caps are growing, not shrinking. West Antarctica and Greenland and low latitude snow losses nowhere near compensate for East Antarctic increases, as some 1.3 million satellite observations have shown. Go talk to ESA, not NASA, the latter screwed up their alogorithms and have now tardily admitted it.

The sea level increase is partly isostatic rebound, about 1 mm per year. The rest is most likely groundwater. If the oceans are warming overall, likely but uncertain, suits me, that will raise sea levels also. If the atmosphere is warming, that will take up a lot of water, ditto for Ian and me et al.

Would someone like to explain, with as little invective as possible, why I am drivelling? I have this fragile sense of self, see, and I do so tend to sulk, if people are unkind.

Keep it sensitive, sweethearts?

Love you all dearly,

Peter

P.S: Science is scepticism. Certainty is the campsite of the other mob.

Like

Hi Peter,

Sea level rise measurements from around Australia and the south Pacific as seen in these reports below show consistent rise. If it was a little bit of rise here and there the pumping argument may be valid but such consistent rise across large areas cannot be explained away but this type of argument.

http://www.bom.gov.au/oceanography/projects/abslmp/abslmp.shtml

http://www.bom.gov.au/oceanography/projects/spslcmp/spslcmp.shtml

http://www.ga.gov.au/geodesy/slm/spslcmp/timeseries.jsp

Ian Plimer cites Tuvalu and other Pacific sites in his book. The GPS measurements from the stations in those locations do not bear out his or your argument that the substantial measured sea level rise is due to land subsidence.

Sorry that the scientific data flies in this face of the time you spent on this line of argument, and that Ian spent writing and publishing his book!!

DR

Like

I’d like to hear what reaction you all have to the following?

Emeritus Professor Nils-Axel Mörner Head of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden President, (1999-2003) of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, Leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project claims to know more than most when it comes to sea level changes. He is reported as saying “I am a sea-level specialist. There are many good sea-level people in the world, but let’s put it this way: There’s no one who’s beaten me. I took my thesis in 1969, devoted to a large extent to the sea-level problem. From then on I have launched most of the new theories, in the ‘70s, ‘80s, and ‘90s. I was the one who understood the problem of the gravitational potential surface, the theory that it changes with time. I’m the one who studied the rotation of the Earth, how it affected the redistribution of the oceans’ masses. And so on”.

In 2005 he submitted a memorandum to the UK’s Select Committee on Economic Affairs which is well worth a read. It includes the following statements:

QUOTE It is true that sea level rose in the order of 10-11 cm from 1850 to 1940 as a function of Solar variability and related changes in global temperature and glacial volume. From 1940 to 1970, it stopped rising, maybe even fell a little. In the last 10-15 years, we see no true signs of any rise or, especially, accelerating rise (as claimed by IPCC), only a variability around zero. .. From 2000 to the present, we have run a special international sea level project in the Maldives including six field sessions and numerous radiocarbon dates. Our record for the last 1,200 years is given in Fig 6. There are no signs of any on-going sea level rise. It seems all to be a myth. .. Tuvalu in the Pacific is often said already to be in the flooding mode. The tide-gauge record (Fig 7) for the last 25 years does not show any rise, however. The truth seems to be that a Japanese pineapple industry had subtracted too much freshwater by that forcing saltwater to invade the subsurface. Most remarkable in the record of climatic changes during the last 600 years are the cold periods around 1450, 1690 and 1815 and their correlation with periods of Solar Minima (the Spörer, Maunder and Dalton Solar Minima). The driving cyclic solar forces can easily be extrapolated into the future. This would call for a new cold period or “Little Ice Age” to occur at around 2040-50. Still, we hear nothing about this. It is as if IPCC and the Kyoto Protocol enthusiasts want to “switch off the Sun itself”. UNQUOTE

Regards, Pete Ridley

Like

Mainstream view is that movement of watermasses (mainly El Nino, I think), changes the earth’s rotation, not the other way around. The reason that this is a “mainstream” view is that it is consistent with conservation of angular momentum. This issue is on my things to write about in my analysis of Plimer when I track down more detail.

Like

The Bureau of Meteorology do analysis of australian and south pacific sea level rise measurements and the reports are available here:

http://www.bom.gov.au/oceanography/projects/abslmp/abslmp.shtml

http://www.bom.gov.au/oceanography/projects/spslcmp/spslcmp.shtml

and here:
http://www.ga.gov.au/geodesy/slm/spslcmp/timeseries.jsp

http://www.ga.gov.au/geodesy/slm/

showing the continuous gps measurements taken in places like Tuvalu. As an example Tuvalu is measured at sinking at 0.2mm per year with measures sea level rise of ~5mm per year inline with measurements around the region.

As Mark has stated… look at the data.

they show se4a level rise adjusted for the effects of natural variability like mean sea level pressure and El Nino events, and show consistent rises around australia and the south pacific.

Like

Peter R,
I am doing lit crit right now, but nothing says that you have to. (as I said in email, it’s Barry’s blog not mine). I’ve given you little bits of feedback, but mainly advised you to contact someone who knows more about magnetism than me (my last involvement was writing fortran for auroral calculations for the antarctic division as a vac job at the end of 1969). My suggestion that you look for another blog was as an addition, not a suggestion to leave here ( it’s Barry’s blog not mine).

where I really disagree with your post, is that I think the lit crit stuff is the boring part, compared to looking at the real world.

Like

Peter Ravenscroft.

If you are going to do some hydrological accounting in the context of sea level rise, you might usefully investigate how much water is impounded annually by dams around the world.

The figure is quite amazing, really, but I’ll leave it for you to find, and to dwell upon in the context of your current point…

Like

Hi Ian Enting,

Sincere congrats on your 31-page criticism of “Heaven and Earth”

No ifs or buts, that is a solid piece of work and a much-needed contribution. I have not yet read “the book,” just numerous reviews, bad boy me, as said before. Will buy one shortly, none available in library here, much in demand. Which is why I have tackled this forum as a debate in its own right, so far. Like you, I think there seem to be many real errors in the book. No doubt the second edition will benefit hugely.

I am not even remotely convinced that AGW now makes sense, however, as my own criticism of it, also based on geology, comes not from the case IP is reported to be making and does on the radio, but mainly from the maps, see those on my website, just for starters. They make absolutely no sense, under AGW.

And then there are the technical problems with the ice drilling and sampling, only having half a dozen holes where we would be a bit better off with ten thousand, and those 50 million centrifugal pumps, etc.

When floundering about lost in darkest Africa (been there, done a touch of that), it is a good idea to first consider the maps. The speeches and blame can usually wait. We are all a bit lost in a data jungle here, and the first exit strategy dreamt up may just lead to the Mountains of the Moon, and not to the pub.

I will spend delighted ages working through your list of Ian Plimer’s errors to see if I am on his side or yours, in each case. Soon as I have the book. Tomorrow, with luck.

You do have the odd typo yourself, happens to most of us and, a trivial point, ice is technically a rock for geos, when lying down and staying sort-of-still, in bulk. A sediment, actually. By long usage.

Hooroo,

Peter.

Like

“I will spend delighted ages working through your list of Ian Plimer’s errors to see if I am on his side or yours, in each case. Soon as I have the book. Tomorrow, with luck.”

Great — one often gets a more useful level of analysis from people who start off from a position of disagreement.

Like

“No doubt the second edition will benefit hugely.”

If you stip off all the errors in Heaven+ Earth, I think it would end up looking a lot like A short history of planet earth.

Like

Dear all,

I was (we were) graciously favoured with this English summary of his and Professor Ralf Tscheuschner’s views on AGW and the laws of thermodynamics, by return email from Professor Gerhard Gerlich. There was more in Germn, on other documents, which someone may care to translate. My email address is p.s.ravenscroft@gmail.com.

I think that if these men are correct, it is all over for AGW, never mind the rest of the science debate. So, their views need some close attention, these are not the words and opinions of politicians. As this lecture, given in Prague, may not be easy to find in English, and as I said I would, I am posting it here for the consideration of one and all. Regrettably, the paragraphs in Czech were beyond my keyboard, but they merely repeated those in English. My apologies to Czech readers. The original was of 18 pages Here it is in full – PSR.

“Prof. Dr. Gerhard Gerlich
Institut für Mathematische Physik der Technischen Universität Carolo-Wilhelmina zu Braunschweig
Mendelssohnstr. 3
38106 Braunschweig
g.gerlich@tu-bs.de

The fraud with the global climate:
Disproof of the atmospheric carbon dioxide greenhouse effects of the earth

Prague conference 15. 11. 2007, lecture of 15 (20) minutes.
The contents of four transparencies were omitted in the 15 minutes lecture. Printed: 28.11.2007 23:15 Uhr

1) Introduction 2
2) Climates and global climate 5
3) Greenhouse effects 7
4) Explanations of the atmospheric carbon dioxide greenhouse effects 9
5) The experimental disproof of the carbon dioxide greenhouse effects 12
6) The nonsense of the mean radiation budget 17
7) The politicised and socially relevant sciences 18

Disproof of the atmospheric carbon dioxide greenhouse effects of the earth 2
1) Introduction
My co-author of the below cited English preprint, Dr. Ralf D. Tscheuschner, and I set up a high value on the fact that we are not climatologists, but completely independent theoretical or mathematical physicists, who did not and do not get additional public or private financial support. In any case we know more about the physical foundations of the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects than all global climatologists together. This cannot be very difficult, because they are no physicists.
G. Gerlich:
“Die physikalischen Grundlagen des Treibhauseffekts und fiktiver Treibhauseffekte”, in: “Treibhaus-Kontroverse und Ozon-Problem”, Europäische Akademie für Umweltfragen (1996), S. 115-147.
G. Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner:
“Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics”, submitted for publication, July 2007, 113 pages, 32 figures, 13 tables,
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/0707.1161.
(The preprints could be ordered by email as PDF-files. Email address g.gerlich@tu-bs.de)

My main fields of scientific interests are the statistical and stochastic description of nature and the statistical and mathematical foundations of quantum theory. To illustrate this, I’ll give some dates and a part of my publications, which have some connections to the here required fields of physics and mathematics.

Disproof of the atmospheric carbon dioxide greenhouse effects of the earth 3

geb. 6. 4. 1942 in Prag (Böhmen), 14. 2. 1962: Abitur in Neumünster, 24. 7. 1967: Diplom Physik (Kiel, sehr gut), 19. 2. 1970: Promotion Dr. rer. nat. (Physik, mit Auszeichnung, Braunschweig),12. 5. 1975: venia legendi für “Theoretische Physik”, TU Braunschweig, seit 14. 12. 1978 Universitätsprofessor im Fach “Theoretische Physik” an der TU Braunschweig.
G. Gerlich: Vektor- und Tensorrechnung für die Physik, Vieweg-Verlag, Braunschweig, 1977.
G. Gerlich: Eine neue Einführung in die statistischen und mathematischen Grundlagen der Quantentheorie, Vieweg-Verlag, Braunschweig, 1977.
G. Gerlich: Axioms for Quantum Theory, International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 31, No. 7, 1992, 1103-1129.
G. Gerlich, L. Weiss: Concrete Hilbert spaces for Quantum Systems with Infinitely Many Degrees of Freedom, International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 35, No. 7, 1996, 1341-1351.
G. Gerlich: Eine Verallgemeinerung des Stratonovich-Verfahrens für Anwendungen in der statistischen Mechanik, Physica 82A, 1976, 477-499.
G. Gerlich, H. Kagermann: Herleitung kinetischer Gleichungen mit dem verallgemeinerten Stratonovich-Verfahren, Physica 88A, 1977, 283-304.
G. Gerlich, W. Wulbrand: Kinetische Gleichungen für Systeme mit unendlich vielen Freiheitsgraden, Abhandlungen der Braunschweigischen Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft, XXIX, 1978, 97-105

Disproof of the atmospheric carbon dioxide greenhouse effects of the earth 4
A. Emmerich, G. Gerlich, H. Kagermann: Particle motion in stochastic force fields, Physica 92A, 1978, 262-378.
G. Gerlich, H. Kagermann, E. W. Richter: Anomalous plasma diffusion across a strong magnetic field, Physica 96C, 1979, 347-366.
The Stratonovich method, which was generalized by me, gives approximated kinetic equations and time evolution equations for the moments of stochastic processes with starting points and differential paths. These approximations are good for short time intervals and asymptotically long time intervals in the transition functions of the stochastic processes. With this method we could give an explanation of the anomalous plasma diffusion (Bohm diffusion) without turbulence. Then one could not remove the anomalous diffusion in the experiments for nuclear fusion, if one only suppresses turbulence. Therefore we had problems with the publication of this paper. If the names Kagermann and Emmerich produce associations as SAP or VW this is not an accident.

Disproof of the atmospheric carbon dioxide greenhouse effects of the earth 5
2) Climates and global climate
Neigung, Himmelsgegend, Gegend, Landstrich, climate
The science of the climates formerly was a part of geography and was called “Klimakunde” or climatology.
Die Klimazonen (Seydlitz, 1958)
A Tropische Klimate
B Warme und gemäßigte Trockenklimate
C Warmgemäßigte Regenklimate
D Kalte Waldklimate
E Schneeklimate
Jahresklimate der Erde (C. Troll, K. H. Paffen, 1969)
I1-I4 Polare und subpolare Zonen
II1-II3 Kaltgemäßigte Zone
III Kühlgemäßigte Zone
III1-III8 Waldklimate
III9-III12 Steppen- und Wüstenklimate
IV1-IV7 Warmgemäßigte Subtropenzonen
V1-V6 Tropenzone
The climate zones (Seydlitz): (A) tropical climates, (B) warm and temperate dry climates, (C) warm temperate rain climates, (D) cold forest climates, (E) snow climates.
The year climates of the earth: Polar and sub-polar zones, cold temperate climate zones, forest climates, steppe and desert climates, warm temperate subtropical zones, tropical zones.
I learned the climate zones in grammar school. My wife learned the year climates of the earth when she studied geography.

Disproof of the atmospheric carbon dioxide greenhouse effects of the earth 6

Climate is the dependence of local weather parameters with respect to the position of the sun or the latitude of the region. There are a lot of climates, which describe the local means of parameters of the weather. For the whole earth there does not exist a climate in the singular, especially, there does not exist a global climate for the earth. Global climatology is a contradiction within itself, thus the void or empty set, a nothing. Therefore there are no global climate changes, only possible temporal changes of calculated global numbers, for which a science does not exist. In no case it can be climatology. Perhaps it is a branch of astrology, in which more physical laws are used than in the global computer climatology.
In the times of the migration of the peoples, there was a clear trend to the regions of the earth, where the average temperatures of the year were higher than in the countries of their origin. One could not frighten these folks with higher mean temperatures, it was exactly the opposite: the peoples set out to live in a more pleasant climate. Higher local mean temperatures are not a catastrophe, but the opposite: a more pleasant climate where for instance you have less costs for heating and together with water and carbon dioxide a better growing of the plants. Without complicated calculations, everybody can try it out, if he moves his home in the direction of the equator.

Disproof of the atmospheric carbon dioxide greenhouse effects of the earth 7
3) Greenhouse effects
(I) The ordinary greenhouse or glasshouse effect. Inside a car, which stands in the sun for some hours, it is warmer than outside the car, though much
more radiation intensity of the sun hits the ground outside. It is generally accepted that this is not the atmospheric greenhouse effect. The closed windows of the car trap the hot air, not the thermal radiation (suppressed air cooling or convection).
(II) Arrhenius
If one removes the carbon dioxide from the atmosphere of the earth, the mean temperature of the ground of the earth would be 0.5 °C.
Line of arguments: He estimates that the carbon dioxide absorbs 18.7 percent of the radiation from the ground and he applies the Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law in an inadmissible way for gases.
(III) The computer greenhouse effect
If one raises or doubles the concentration of carbon dioxide in the model atmosphere, with computer simulations one gets an increase of the mean temperatures near the ground of 0,7°C – 9,6 °C or 2°C – 12 °C.

Disproof of the atmospheric carbon dioxide greenhouse effects of the earth 8
(IV) Modern primitively calculated global greenhouse effects

If one imagines:
that there is no carbon dioxide in the atmosphere,
that there are no carbon dioxide and no water vapour in the atmosphere,
that there are no trace gases in the atmosphere,
that there is no atmosphere on the earth,
that there is no water on the earth,
that there are no atmosphere and no water on the earth,
then the mean air temperature near the ground or the mean temperature of the ground would be -18 °C.

One uses the radiation intensity of the sun at the orbit of the earth and that the mean incoming radiation equals the mean outgoing radiation and that the Albedo of the earth (for the visible light) is 0.3 and that the mean temperature equals the fourth square root of the average of the forth power of the temperature. It is clear that all these statements together are a complete physical nonsense.

Disproof of the atmospheric carbon dioxide greenhouse effects of the earth 9
4) Explanations of the atmospheric carbon dioxide greenhouse effects
Variante I: Prof. Dr. Hartmut Graßl, Hamburg, damals Leiter des Weltklima-Forschungsprogramms, Genf (Handelsblatt, 3. 1. 1996):
“Sofern die Gashülle das Vordringen von Sonnenenergie zur Planetenoberfläche weniger behindert als die direkte Abstrahlung der Wärme von der Oberfläche in den Weltraum, müssen die Oberfläche und die untere Atmosphäre, um wieder im Mittel genau so viel Energie abzustrahlen wie von der Sonne aufgenommen wurde, wärmer werden als ohne diese Atmosphäre.”

Variant I: Prof. Dr. Hartmut Graßl, Hamburg, the former director of the climate research program of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO): In so far as the gaseous hull [of the earth] obstructs the propagation of the solar energy down to the planet’s surface less than the direct radiation of heat from the surface into space, the ground and the lower atmosphere must become warmer than without this atmosphere, in order to radiate as much energy as received from the sun.

There is no total radiation budget, since there are no individual conservation laws for the different forms of energy, especially for the radiation intensities.

Disproof of the atmospheric carbon dioxide greenhouse effects of the earth 10
Variante II: Prof. Dr. Peter C. Stichel, damaliger stellv. Vorsitzender des Arbeitskreises Energie der Deutschen Physikalischen Gesellschaft (1995), Theoretische Physik, Universität Bielefeld :
“Es ist inzwischen anerkanntes Lehrbuchwissen, daß langwellige Infrarotstrahlung, emittiert von der erwärmten Erdoberfläche, teilweise von CO2 und anderen Spurengasen in der Atmosphäre absorbiert und reemittiert wird. Dieser Effekt führt zu einer Erwärmung der unteren Atmosphäre und aus Gründen des Gesamtstrahlungshaushaltes gleichzeitig zu einer Abkühlung der Stratosphäre.”

Variant II: Prof. Dr. Peter C. Stichel, former deputy president of the working group “energy” of the German physical society (1995), theoretical physics, university of Bielefeld:
Now it is generally accepted textbook knowledge that the long-wave infrared radiation, emitted by the warmed up surface of the earth, is partially absorbed and re-emitted by CO2 and other trace gases in the atmosphere. This effect leads to a warming of the lower atmosphere and, for reasons of the total radiation budget, to a cooling of the stratosphere at the same time.

Prof. Stichel describes a perpetuum mobile of the second kind, which cannot exist.

Disproof of the atmospheric carbon dioxide greenhouse effects of the earth 11
Variant III:
The carbon dioxide in the atmosphere lets the radiation of the sun, whose maximum lies in the visible light, go through completely, while on the other hand it absorbs a part of the heat radiation emitted by the earth into space because of its larger wavelength. This leads to higher near-surface air temperatures.

Variant IV:
If one raises the concentration of carbon dioxide, which absorbs the infrared light and lets visible light go through, in the earth’s atmosphere, the ground heated by the solar radiation and the near-surface air will become warmer, because the cooling of the ground is slowed down.

Variant V:
If one adds to the earth’s atmosphere a gas, which absorbs parts of the radiation of the ground into the atmosphere, the surface temperatures and near surface air temperatures will become larger.

In our preprint we discuss 14 fictitious greenhouse effects of the atmosphere of the earth. If one ignores all apparently wrong statements, one gets the following statement of a general physical law:
If one increases the absorption of the infrared radiation in the layer above the warmed ground, which is practically transparent to the visible light, the ground will be less cooled, thus will be warmer.

Disproof of the atmospheric carbon dioxide greenhouse effects of the earth 12
5) The experimental disproof of the carbon dioxide greenhouse effects

Counterexample 1 (housewife experiment):
A pot with and without water on a hot plate. Without water, the bottom of the pot will be red-hot; with water it will not be red-hot. Water absorbs infrared radiation excellently and much better than the air, which was displaced by the water. And water is nearly transparent for the visible light. With water the ground of the pot will not be red-hot, thus with water and with the same heating power, the bottom will be much colder.

Compare this with the “general law”:
If one increases the absorption of the infrared radiation in the layer above the warmed ground, which
is practically transparent to the visible light, the ground will be less cooled, thus will be warmer.

Disproof of the atmospheric carbon dioxide greenhouse effects of the earth 14
A physical effect is a course of events, which is difficult to understand and which can be explained with generally accepted physical laws. If one has not such an explanation then this is not a physical effect.
The heat transition from a wall to the air (gas) or water (fluid) cannot be explained with the radiation excess of the participating different materials, because changes of the relative velocities change the heat transition in orders of magnitude. If one tries to guess the water or air-cooling, the radiation properties on the bottom (of the pot or ground) can be neglected.

Disproof of the atmospheric carbon dioxide greenhouse effects of the earth 15
Therefore the explanations of the atmospheric carbon dioxide greenhouse effects are wrong. Thus we have proved that the carbon dioxide greenhouse effects of the atmosphere of the earth do not exist. In addition one cannot find explanations of this “effect” in textbooks of theoretical physics.

Disproof of the atmospheric carbon dioxide greenhouse effects of the earth 16
I can only sum up:
The physical foundations of the computer simulations should be a system of partial differential equations, which cannot be solved for the situation of the whole earth. The boundary conditions determine the solutions more than the differential equations themselves. There are radiation, heat, momentum, mass, energy transitions through moving and not moving boundary surfaces between different solid materials, fluids, gases, plasmas. Especially for moving boundary surfaces there do not exist theoretical concepts. For the earth it is impossible to write them down. In the global models the grids are too huge to allow the calculations of second order derivatives. Therefore, in the numerical models, you cannot take into account the dissipation through friction and heat conduction, because these terms need second order derivatives. Of course everybody, who makes computer simulations, knows this. Nevertheless, the simulators lead the politicians to believe that they could model the influence of the concentration of carbon dioxide on the weather of the earth, though they could solve nothing.
Only in the entropy production equation (generalized heat conduction equation) you can add artificial heat production densities, which you can artificially connect with the carbon dioxide concentration.
If you have nonlinear evolution equations, you do not get simple differential equations for the averaged values, where the time derivatives of the averages of the important parameters are determined by the averaged values of these parameters.

Disproof of the atmospheric carbon dioxide greenhouse effects of the earth 17
6) The nonsense of the mean radiation budget
The fundamental mistake calculating temperatures with postulated radiation intensities lies in the fact that the cause and the effect are interchanged. The momentary local temperatures determine the radiated heat currents and not the heat currents the temperature. If the radiation of the sun warms the ground, the ground and the near ground air become warmer and the heat is transmitted by convection and radiation, corresponding to the local movement of the air, rain, evaporation, ground haze, temperature and the local ground conditions, as are water, ice, stones, sand, forests, meadows.
A global radiation balance cannot dictate the ground temperature and the loss of the heat. A certain square meter of a meadow “does not know” something from the rest of the earth’s surface, which determines the mean values. This mathematical nonsense is produced in each text, in which the atmospheric greenhouse effect is treated and the Arrhenius nonsense is repeated, especially in the IPCC papers.
In my opinion, the changes of the mean temperatures near the ground are essentially determined by the changes of the cloud cover. For this, I let other persons find a cause. I am sure that the 0.05 weight percent of carbon dioxide are not the cause for the variations.

Disproof of the atmospheric carbon dioxide greenhouse effects of the earth 18
7) The politicised and socially relevant sciences
It is unquestionable that the modern global “climate scientists” know all difficulties with the relevance of the global climate models. When they accepted the job from the politicians to calculate with models the climate changes, which were produced by the change of the concentration of carbon dioxide, these persons have consciously told lies to the public, because they knew very well that they never could make numerical calculations, which have something to do with reality. Therefore their results were proclaimed like the Delphic Oracle. It is difficult to distinguish between modern global “climate scientists” and astrologers. The foundations of expensive political actions should be real measured numbers but should not be guessed numbers or with bad models calculated numbers (scenarios).
Then there is the practice with the modern commission politics of experts, which undermine the democratic decisions, because laymen or voters cannot criticize experts. Such commissions (Hartz, PISA, IPCC) only produce expenses and they always proof at the end of a period that they were important and necessary. Nobody is personally responsible for the nonsense they are producing. They always find causes for their eternal existence and the commissions of the United Nations and European Union produce the necessity of a totalitarian dictatorship over the whole world.

Like

Wonderful news! When does he get his Nobel Prize? I am sure “Nature” and “Science” are falling over themselves to publish his work and his peers are lauding him for alleviating all their worries about CC/AGW!

Like

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Gerhard_Gerlich Check him out folks!

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=European_Academy_for_Environmental_Affairs All the usual pseudo-sceptics are here

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Science_and_Environmental_Policy_Project Headed by Singer and receiving funding from Exxon and Mobil!
Note the categories that these fall in to (at the bottom of the page)
Global warming sceptics/Junk science/ Co-sponser of the Heartland Institute’s International Conference on Climate Change 2009 – you know the one Steve Fielding just got back from!

Really PR you will have to do better than this.

Like

Notice at the top of the page “Keep SourceWatch alive. User contributions make this website possible. Donate now!”

Hmmm!

Like

I.e. source watch does not rely on government funding nor funding from commercial advertising.

Like

mechanical engineers rule! heat transfer and the laws of physics must be understood completely. i bet if you contracted mechanical engineers to study thermodynamic, fluid dynamics of this planet they would even be able to tell you when its going to rain a year from now and at what time the first bolt of lighting hits the ground.

Like

I have not yet had a worthwhile response to my comment of 8th June. I refer you again to it and repeat:

– I can’t understand why such projections could be causing concern for any of us who accept Professor Brook’s opinion that “we don’t know anything much useful about processes or drivers”. Surely without knowing anything much useful about those it is impossible to know how to exert any control over climate change or to model climates reliably on any GCM.

Anyone able to clarify?

Like

For light relief:

“Valiant warmists, don’t be nervous

Valiant warmists, north and south
often froffin’ at the mouth
at sceptics who’ll not peer review,
we promise not to peer at you.

Gentle creatures, be not alarmed
we’ve come to visit, quite unarmed
we only wear white overalls
because we paint the whiter walls.”

See, I cherish you all,

Peter.

Like

This is the kind of thing that’s turned me from being something of a fence-sitter on AGW to someone who takes it much more seriously. The extremely poor quality of scientific argument from the denialist side of the debate is telling. There is a cadre of people who obviously want to do in AGW in the public mind, and this is the best they can come up with. Their case is obviously highly dubious.

Like

Indeed.

Our friend Peter here, posing as a seeker after truth while grasping at the silliest of straws to get the “truth” he wants, is a fine example.

Like

Ian’s got one thing right, man-made climate change supporters attack with the gusto of religeous fanatics.
I find fanatacisim in all it’s forms both offensive and dangerous. (Sceptical AND supporters of this theory)

Just wondering, IF:
PV=nRT,(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_gas_law)

then surely an increasing oceanic temperature would result in less Co2 being disolved in the ocean
and therefore higher concenrations in the atmosphere….

Why are people so sure that the effect isn’t being confused with the cause?

Ian is far from alone when it comes to being a Geologist who doubts the theory of man-made global warming…Oh and most of us aren’t involved in the Oil industry either.

Like

Pete: “then surely an increasing oceanic temperature would result in less Co2 being disolved in the ocean and therefore higher concenrations in the atmosphere….
Why are people so sure that the effect isn’t being confused with the cause?”

Pete, why do you think the temperature of the ocean is increasing? Any ideas? Maybe a transdimensional heat pump funnelling excess energy through a wormhole from the planet Zningorg X? The urban heat island effect from the Lost City of Atlantis? Massive, albeit invisible, undersea mega-volcanoes?

Or maybe… perhaps ..perhaps you might have accidentally stumbled onto the concept of positive feedbacks?

Like

no mate, I’ll leave the fanciful theorys to the AGW supporters, I try and stick to observable facts.
Temps have been going up and down since before our distant ancestors hit one rock against another one
and quite possibly, Co2 has been following this trend. Have a good look at the ocean temp data and the atmospheric Co2 data. Why does the Co2 lag behind the temp climb?
The future cannot cause the past.

I look forward to your next exceedingly witty and insightful response.(see, I can make jokes too)

Like

Thanks Matt, Mea Culpa, I appreciate your resopnse and I’ll read through it, (I’ve had too much beer tonight to make any sense of it…lol)

Barry,
All I can say is, pity you didn’t heed your own advice…lol

Like

OK,
Read it and the comments posted below, It seems there is quite some doubt over the validitiy of the ice cores for estimating atmopheric C0.

Every time the data does not fit with AGW, “factors” and “adjustments” are made to get back to the “right” answer. In my opinion, AGW appears to be a theory looking for the evidence.

I think Occam’s razor is of use here, Temperatures have fluctuated in the past, temperatures will continue to fluctuate into the future…and when they do, C02 will exsolve from the ocean.

Like

“then surely an increasing oceanic temperature would result in less Co2 being disolved in the ocean and therefore higher concenrations in the atmosphere….”

yep, you can work how much effect from lab measurements of solubility and chemical equilibria.

We had the effect in the CSIRO model around 1983, it was used in some of the models in the 1994 IPCC CO2 calculations, and it’s in some modelling reporting in the IPCC 2001 report.

Also investigated as possible cause for CO2 singnal in Vostok. In all these cases, the effect turns out to be too small to make much difference.

Like

People using fake names a worry? Hmm, in todays environment with identity fraud and kooks who hunt you down on any and every webpage you post, it’s probably good thinking.

Did a unit at Uni called “communications in science” hated it at the time, but it was quite probably one of the best units I did.

In it they taught, “attack the argument, not the person presenting it.”

Like

Hi all,
I see I’ve joined this discussion fairly late, but I’m hoping the combined wisdom of the readers of this blog might be able to steer me in the right direction.

I’ve just struggled through reading Heaven and Earth, and once you look past the rambling and horribly unstructured writing, it’s fair to say Ian Plimer raises some interesting points, and builds a picture that makes me sceptical of a lot of aspects of the AGW debate.

But as I am a scientist, I feel I have to get both sides of the story. When I was in the bookshop buying H+E I asked the guy in the store what might be a good book to counter H+E. He looked at me strangely (what sort of idiot would want to read both sides of such a supposedly clear cut debate?!), and eventually I walked out with The Vanishing Face of Gaia by James Lovelock which I’m going to start reading tonight. I’ve also downloaded Ian Enting’s rebuttal to Heaven and Earth.

So my question to the readers of this blog is – what should I read next?
And call me fussy, but I don’t want denier bashing, or nicely packaged summaries for politicians. I want science. I want to read about how someone has taken knowledge from the same breadth of scientific disciplines that Ian Plimer has, and built that into a convincing argument for AGW.

Thank you in advance for your help. I hope this isn’t too much to ask.

Regards,
Joel Newman

Like

Joel, agnostics like myself who are sceptical of the “significant human-made global climate change” hypothesis feel very frustrated about the gullibility of those who accept without question the climate forecasts from computer models that have never been subjected to proper and independent professional Verification, Validation & Test. Procedures. These models from all around the world (including those used by the Met. Office/Hadley Centre to generate their latest forecasts) produce such incredible forecasts because they are based upon “guesstimated” climate processes and drivers. That is why they have to be “tweeked” with prompts in order to arrive at results matching experience of past climates. The Met. Office’s forecasters can’t even get next week’s forecast right, never mind for decades ahead.
As I keep stating on Internet blogs, it has just recently been acknowledged by Professor Barry Brook, a leading Australian climate scientist supporting the hypothesis, that scientists “know nothing much useful about” climate processes and drivers. Useful computerised climate models cannot be designed without knowing much useful about those climate processes and drivers. The DEFRA/ Met. Office/Hadley Centre forecasts that you report on as “gospel” have no more validity than a fortune-teller’s report of what is seen in a crystal ball.

Professor Brook is only one (albeit leading) climate scientist. What about others?
The aqua-sphere (water in all of its forms – solid, liquid, gas) has by far the most significant impact on climate processes and drivers. Professor Keith Shine, Director of Research in the Department of Meteorology at the University of Reading and Fellow of the Royal Society said only this month that the paper “The role of ocean-atmospheric interactions in the CO2 climate problem is still key in this debate over CO2. So what does author Professor V Ramathan, Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric and Climate Sciences, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego, CA. have to say about “the processes which contribute to the surface warming”?
“the analysis also reveals the deficiencies of current schemes of coupling ocean and atmosphere in complex climate models”! “A global increase of CO2 may not necessarily lead to significant warming of the continents first .. their equilibrium response will depend on the ocean thermal inertia which is still poorly understood”!

The important points made by Prof. Ramanathan are that: 1) CO2 is not a significant climate driver, 2) the aqua-sphere is far more significant, 3) the response of the continents to global temperature changes depends significantly upon ocean thermal inertia, 4) climate scientists have a poor understanding of ocean thermal inertia.

So why all this concern about our use of fossil fuels and atmospheric CO2 concentrations suggesting that these are the most significant factors affecting climate processes and drivers? It is summed up perfectly by another staunch supporter of the “significant human-made global climate change” hypothesis, astrophysicist Dr. Michael Ashley, Professor in the School of Physics at the University of New South Wales. In response to a challenge to his criticism of the excellent book “Heaven and Earth. Global Warming: the missing science” by Professor Ian Plimer, Professor Ashley said “To put it simply, the reason that climate scientists are focusing on CO2 as the climate driver with most influence over the next 100 years, is that CO2 is the one variable that is changing rapidly.” As Dr. John Nicol (sceptic) commented a few days ago about this “profound explanation for blaming carbon dioxide .. Another pearl of wisdom .. from Michael Ashley .. ”.

Fair comment, I would say! Let’s stop this hysteria over Carbon Dioxide and climate change (I’ve seen none of significance during the 70+ years I’ve been on earth). Humans cope with climate change, over which we have no control whatsoever, having done so since stepping on to this wonderful globe. Climate change is not human-mde, is not new and we’re not going to change stop it. We just have to live with it and get on with life as normal.

Regards, Pete Ridley

Like

Pete Ridley,

You quote Ramathan: “the analysis also reveals the deficiencies of current schemes of coupling ocean and atmosphere in complex climate models” but a google search reveals no such quote, at least not in those exact words.

Can you provide a source please? I tihnk you mean Prof. V. Ramanathan, but that exact quote does not appear to exist anywhere on the internet.

By the way, you descirbe Plimer’s book as “excellent”. I’ve read it and found it to be deeply flawed. I find it hard to believe anyone could have been impressed with it, frankly, but what was it that so impressed you? What argument was most influential for you, may I ask?

Like

Gaz, If you look at the final sentence of the paper’s abstract you’ll see something very similar to my quotation. This abstract is readily available on the Internet, but not the full paper, for which a charge is usually imposed. I wasn’t even able to get a copy from the local library without coughing up. I quote direct from Professor Ramanathan’s paper as indicated in my comment. See the Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, Vol 38, Page 930. I try very hard not to misquote people, or to misrepresent what they say, merely omitting those items that I consider irrelevant to the point I’m making.
I usually make reference to the source of my quotation, just as I did in this instance, so that others can check up on the context for themselves. In fact I recommend that they do so (see “Politicization of Climate Change and CO2” at http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=374&Itemid=1

I know that Perps will find this hard to accept (see her comment today at http://www.jonathonporritt.com/pages/2009/06/ashden_awards_1.html) regarding my accurate quoting of Professor Brook’s statement in his starting post to this blog. I’m still waiting patiently for his clarification of this statement and continue using it in my comments on numerous blogs. After all, it does appear to totally undermine the reliance that is placed upon the forecasts from climate models.

If you look hard enough you’ll find that a free copy of Professor Ramanathan’s paper is available on the Internet, unfortunately it is a scanned copy so cannot be searched in the normal way. You’ll have heard the saying “Seek and ye shall find”. I expect that Perps can provide the scripture reference that one also – see her comment above on 8th June @ 15.29. If you are unable to locate it yourself just ask and I’ll provide a link for you.

Regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made Global Climate Change Agnostic.

Like

Pete Ridley: Here is the quote, in full, in context:

“There are a lot of uncertainties in science, and it is indeed likely that the current consensus on some points of climate science is wrong, or at least sufficiently uncertain that we don’t know anything much useful about processes or drivers. But EVERYTHING? Or even most things? Take 100 lines of evidence, discard 5 of them, and you’re still left with 95 and large risk management problem. It’s an unscientific and disingenuous claim. As is his oft repeated assertion that a single apparently contradictory piece of information axiomatically overturns all other lines of evidence. Plimer apparently thinks Popperian falsification is the dominant deductive modus operandi in the natural sciences. I’ve got other news for him (I’m happy to email people my full article from BioScience if they email me a request).”

Your deliberate use of highly selective, out of context quotations of me, is underhand, deceptive and illegal. I’ll ask you nicely to cease and desist at once, or action will be taken.

Like

By Post Author

Barry, i would like a copy of your full article from BioScience, please. I don’t know your email address.

I think you’ve done a great service with this blogsite, but I’m not used to blogs and find it very hard to locate items.

Having read the dialogue on this site I have no time for Plimer’s stuff or other so-called “skeptics” (really deniers – true sceptics/sceptics would have an open mind, these people don’t, they have an agenda and/or conspiracy theiries).

Like

Thanks Barry for clearing that up for PR.I posted your blog on the Jonathon Porrit site so anyone wanting to check your position would be able to follow it up.
Peter Ridley I suggest you apologise to me and to Barry for your deception – you should be ashamed but of course you are not. Anyone with scruples would not be deliberately spreading mis-information – says much about the veracity of your posts.Please go elsewhere – you don’t belong on an honest blog.

Like

Oh, yes, Pete Ridley, thanks for that refernce to Prof. Ramanathan’s paper.

I’m sure readers of that paper working in the field of climate science will have taken the professor’s comments into consideration over the ensuing 28 years after it was published.

Prof. Ramanathan – still at the University of San Diego – wrote this 25 years later, in 2006:

Click to access 12globalwarming.pdf

In it, he says:

“My work with climatologist Roland Madden some twenty-½ve
years ago revealed that the impact of global warming would become discernible by the year 2000. Meeting in 2001, the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change, consisting
of a group of over a thousand scientists, con½rmed our prediction.”

..and..

“The extent of global warming is not fully reflected in the Earth’s surface temperatures. The additional heat trapped
by the increase in greenhouse gases from the late nineteenth century to the present time has committed the planet to a global warming in the range of 1°C to 3°C. We have realized only a fraction (25–50 percent) of this warming.”

Sure, Ramanathan is interested in the uncertainty surrounding the thermal inertia of the oceans. But he’s not talking about the oceans as an independent source of heat energy. He’s talking about how long it takes the heat absorbed by the ocean due to the greenhouse effect to become evident in the ocean surface layer and the lower atmosphere:

“Whether this stored heat will warm the atmosphere in a few decades
or a few centuries is unknown. The delay of the warming by decades to centuries by the flywheel effect of ocean mixing, when combined
with the century or more lifetime of co2 (and molecules of other greenhouse gases) in the atmosphere, presents policymakers
with the central moral dilemma of the global-warming problem. Every decade we delay in taking action, we are committing the planet to additional warming that future generations have to deal with.”

Pete, when he says “every decade we delay”, he’s talking about the delay caused by people like you.

My suggestion to those incorrigibly in denial: if you can’t face reality, get an Xbox and let the rest of us get on with it.

Like

Gz, rfrncd Prfssr Rmnthns ppr f yrs g bcs hd bn drctd t t nl ths mnth b wll rspctd scntst whm ndrstnd t b nvlvd n mprtnt crrnt rsrch nt spcts f th mpct f th q-sphr n glbl clmts. Tht Prfssr dvsd m tht Prfssr Rmnthns ppr ws stll k n ths dbt vr C. Snc m nt scntst nvlvd n clmt rsrch dpnd pn xprt pnn, frm bth sds f th dbt, t hlp m frm m wn cnsdrd (nd hpfll rsnbl nfrmd) pnn. Thnks fr th ddtnl nfrmtn tht y hv prvdd, bt t nl cvrs prt f th ss. Yr qts frm mr rcnt sttmnts b Prfssr Rmnthn rlt ntrl t glbl wrmng frcsts bsd pn wht ndrstnd t b nsnd scnc. Th brdr nd mr mprtnt bt vn lss ndrstd ss s whthr r nt r s f fssl fls hs sgnfcnt mpct pn glbl clmts. Prfssr Brk, fllwng yr pnng ntr t ths blg thr s n nvttn fr ppl t rspnd nd thr hv bn vr s fr. n yr pnng ntr nd drctl hd f th sgnfcnt xtrct tht hv qtd svrl tms y yrslf qt n xtrct frm wht Prfssr Plmr sd bt hs bk Hvn nd rth. bvsl y cnsdrs t prfctl ccptbl t qt xtrcts frm wht thrs wrt, jst s hv dn whn qtng y. pnt t tht qtd tht xtrct frm yr pnng ntr rght hr n ths vr blg n th Jn @ . (Nt tht tms gvn r strln, nt K) whn cncldd Prhps smbd cld nlghtn m! Thr ws nl n rctn t tht, srcstc n frm dr ld Prps. rptd m rqst fr clrfctn f tht sm xtrct n th Jn @ . ndng wth nyn bl t clrf?. nc gn n wrthwhl ttmpt t clrf fr m. n st Jn @ . rptd nc gn prt f tht rgnl xtrct. gn thr ws n wrthwhl clrfctn. Fnll, n rd Jn @ ., fllwng m clrfctn f hw s qttns frm n src, y rspndd n m s f tht qttn. t s ntd y nd wth thrt f ctn f sm srt. t s sttd n yr bt th thr blg:- Cmmnts Plc wlcm cmmnts, psts, sggstns nd nfrmd dbt, frm wd rng f prspctvs. ws cnsqntl mst srprsd t th rctn t svrl f m sbmttd cmmnts. M psts n th Jn @ . nd th Jn @ . wr dsmvwlld. f th mn blgs t whch sbmt cmmnts hv ncntrd dsmvwlmnt nl n ths n. M rsbmttd cmmnt n th Jn @ . nd gn @ . ws rfsd pblctn bt n th lst ccsn, ftr mplyng tht ths st ttmpts rsnbl mdrtn, th thrts strtd. Frst th thrt f bng bnnd, thn th mst rcnt n f rd Jn @ .. S mch fr wlcmng cmmnts nd nfrmd dbt frm wd rng f prspctvs. n th svrl ccsns whn hv cnsdrd tht smthng tht hv sd n blg wrrntd n plg hv md n. f hv md sm mstk b qtng N xtrcts frm wht NYN sys r wrts bt smthng m dbtng thn plgs sncrl t th njrd prt, bt d rsrv th rght tht w nj n ths cntr (nd blv ls n strl) t frdm f spch nd xprssn f r pnns. Ths shld b pssbl wtht bng sbjctd t thrts r nslts. Prps, v jst sn yr cmmnt f st Jn @ .. sggst tht y w Rss Strchn n plg. Childish submissions like that should be disemvowelled. ls, rflct pn whthr r nt y w m n fr yr cmmnt n th Jn @ .. Bst rgrds, Pt Rdl, Hmn-md Glbl Clmt Chng gnstc.

[Ed: Well, since I agree with just one sentence in the above rant, I’ve decided to take a leaf out of your book and selectively misquote you. It makes a final point well enough. And now I say, goodbye and go elsewhere. You have nothing to add here, and, like a select few before you, are not longer welcome. Banned for trolling.]

Like

Pete: Back before the atmosphere had any appreciable
oxygen, the planet was a very different place. If a bunch of tiny
organisms (cyanobacteria) could manage to change the climate dramatically, what makes you think we can’t?

Like

Joel,
A good place to start with the “other side” to Plimer is the technical summaries of the IPCC reports. These have the advantage
of being free and represent the combined efforts of a bunch of leading scientists who have put their names of it (unlike the policymakers summaries, where the named scientists are listed as “drafting” a document that gets made more bland through line by line approval). In essence, the IPCC accounts are what Plimer is arguing against.

If you want a book that is less technical, then there a lots around, eg. Climate Change: The Science, Impacts and Solutions (CSIRO Publishing, 2nd edn 2009) [disclaimer: The author, A. Barrie Pittock is a friend of mine].
Lovelock is not really mainstream climate science, but I think he is one of those authors who is interesting to read even if you don’t agree with him. I found Vanishing Face of Gaia
easier to follow than Revenge of Gaia, but in either case, I think Lovelock shifts around a bit and so it is hard to tie down what he is really saying.
I gave a public lecture on Lovelock
that is at http://www.themonthly.com.au/tm/node/1594
http://www.themonthly.com.au/tm/node/1593

Like

i.e. IPCC summaries (and chapters) are a free download from IPCC website. (for bot the 2001 and 2007 assessments).

Like

Well – As a sceptic/fence sitter I have waited for about 10 years for the arguement to become clear to the average person like me and it still isnt so.

I have read about a 1/3rd of the way through the replies and read the original and there have been many emotional arguements on both sides and both accuse the other of emotional arguement. The bit that really pissed me off is arrogant drop kicks picking sp mistakes and making a fire with them. How pathetic.

Nowhere in the 100 or so replies I read was there one statement about how to reduce the worlds population as a means to control anything. Maybe this is too hard.

Having worked in the computer industry for 25 years and spent 4 years working with super computers I am naturally sceptical about the output and also about the quality and relevance of the inputs.

This debate has all the hallmarks of religious zeal on both sides. Humans have a tendency to follow a herd instinct which I think is on the side of the ‘warmers’ right now and the majority dont always have it right. Unfortunately once we start on this path, the western worlds financial situation changes forever and in unknown ways and this doesn’t seem to be discussed too much.

My view is there is too little money being spent on the opponents of global warming and too much being spent on researching what should be axiomatic.

Maybe there are just too many of us and we need to lose at least 30% of the worlds population.

Like

Probably the most concerning thing about Pilmer is his influence over up and coming geologists at the University of Adelaide. If you talk to any one of his students about climate change, they will invariably reproduce the whole gamete of Pilmer’s arguments. Disturbingly they often disregard any kind criticism without providing answers to the criticisms (it’s like they’re in a cult). I put it down to Pilmer’s aggressive style of lecturing, it seems like a bit of a misuse of power really.

Like

Are people that are afraid of AGW against Nuclear Power?
If so, that would seem unscientific.
Knowing the smallest amount of Human Nature you have to realise that we will want power, and wind and solar power are not productive. Can any Scientist worth his salt claim wind and solar will work in the real world. If this is more than a Scientific hissy fit how do you produce power without nukes.

Like

Poor old Ian. What he needs to learn is that you cannot credibly break down the whole of the great global warming edifice at once. You have to chip away at it for a long time beforw the penny will drop.

Look at the way Anthony Watts on “Watts up with That” has progressively demolished the credibility of NASA’s ground station data or how Climate Audit has destoyed any shred of professional respect one can have for Mann, Steig or even Gavin.

Like

G’day all,

There is some debate above regarding ocean temperatures and CO2. You may care to go to ABC Pool Climate Change Debating Group (of me and a friend, but all comers welcome) for some relevant maps and a few more sarcastic words about AGW. See the website given above.

I contend that NASA’s AIRS instrument on the Aqua satellite has given us a actually now a grand total of three) map(s) that is/are difficult to explain away with tailpipes. Please do have a go, though.

Virtually all the high-CO2 regions at 8 km altitude, at least in July 2003, correlated closely with oceanic regions where the annual surface seawater temperature range is 5 degrees C or more, or are downwind of those regions.

Checkmate?

Course not. Jesus is still walking on water.

Some time after some bears thought about it, saw it could not be done, got serious about learning to operate at sea and turned into seals. I don’t think, as a species, we are very bright. Starting with me of course, not you, no need to mention it.

And, of course, real-world-data maps are not fashionable with the stats and computer-gaming crowd. The maths to properly correlate two contour maps gets a bit tricky.

Just read Ian Plimer’s book right through, slowly. I have had bad up-bringing, been covertly reading the geological literature for 40 years, looks like pretty good geology to me. Such major reviews are always riddled with minor errors, see that chap Darwin’s howlers. And Mantell’s. And Lyle’s. “Heaven and Earth” is bound to become a geological classic, but then, geos are all as thick as two short drill cores, as everyone knows.

I do think though, that everyone debating here should actually read it. I read the reviews here first and then the book, and had trouble remembering I was on the same planet. It, the book, was a very pleasant surprise and, in my obviously worthless professional opinion (ee Wiki), is a work of considerable scholarship. As is the work of the the several hundred folk whose 2,311 references are quoted. To be able to fairly rubbish the book, you would have to read the references also. Anyone done that? Of course not, can’t be done, Plimer must have set up some AI program to do it for him.

I am not uncritical, as I have a very different pet main driver, geomag, and no faith at all in sky fairies. But I think I can recognise fine scholarship in my own field when I run into it. I suspect some of the critics here were brought up on proper superman comics, and were not allowed to read such intellectual rubbish as complex geological monographs written for non-geologists.

Best regards,

Peter.

PS. I have been cheating slightly. Just been looking at Fredrik Ljungqvist’s 71 temperature-proxy data sets and their graphs, for the last 2,000 years, for Fenno-Scandinavia and the rest of the world, that he graciously sent along. Michael Mann is not going to like those, and nor is the IPCC. Or Kevin, or Penny. Or his book, due soon.

Here comes the MWP again, in spades, at least for camp sites close to the Baltic Sea. But, big surprise for me, not everywhere. We do not have global climate change. It varies all over the place and all over time. We did see that from ice cores, but that is just geology, which naturally cannot be trusted. Fredrik is an historian, so this is serious. Which is a bit of a problem when you are proposing that a trace gas or two can change the whole planetary climate, in one direction, at one time. Only in the real world, of course. Not in superman comics.

Like

Plimer’s 2311 references. I thought I heard Plimer on 2GB (as parting shot to Matt England) saying 2311 peer-reviewed papers. This is not so. Some of the 2311 footnotes are just definitions, a few are newspapers, some are denialist websites, a few are books, where peer review is less certain. Among the genuine peer-reviewed papers a lot are repeats. This still leaves a lot, but one doesn’t have to read them all, just the ones that are cited in support of contraversial claims. In my document, commenting on how Plimer misrepresents cited papers usually means that I have read the entire paper (or re-read it — the Bischof papers I first read in 1980 or 81, other stuff I read as it came out, one or two I may have helped write). (This is why most of my examples are from short papers in Nature or Science, and biased towards stuff that I though might be interesting to read. It is also why 38 pages covers only about half the notes that I made while reading H+E). For books, I mainly relied on the index, but Grove and Lamb seem to have indexed thoroughly and index things of even minor relevance to MWP and Roman warming.

There is a lot of good and interesting stuff in H+E, but is any of it stuff that isn’t done better in Plimer’s Short History of Planet Earth? So if Peter thinks, that H+E is on a different planet from the reviews, does he have any examples of substantive errors in my document? Quite a few typos (so does Plimer, but I haven’t bothered listing them, editorial quality is not the point).
I’m probably at least a week away from putting out version 2.0, so this is the chance for Peter, or anyone else, to note errors and I will fix them.

Like

G’day again,Ian E, et al

Ian, I am not having a go at your scholarship – you do a fine job of findng the minute errors and Ian P should be grateful and use your work to clean up the second edition. Saves hiring an editor.

In the crit above I had in mind whoever it was that said that H&E was not science, just the personal view of a scientist. Barry I think somewhere said he felt sorry for his friend. Yup, all the way to fame and the bank.

Fine, but opinion is what all science regarding the past actually is – you cannot go recreate or even visit the Permian,for instance, nor the invasion of Australia by either kangaroos or Poms. You have to interpret the past or leave it alone. Lab experiments are fairly meaningless in geology, so the dictum of “it has to be falsifiable to be science” as per Popper, says geology is not science. I don’t particularly care, we use it to find the stuff to build your car and keep it going, seems to work, sort of. And the IPCC tries to use it also, with their curious interpretation of what the Vostok core was trying to say.

But when you get deeply into the shaman-and-crystal-ball-prediction business, as the IPCC has done, you best learn how to look back over your shoulder a bit more carefully. Because the geological “data,” as Ian points out, says CO2 is utterly irrelevant to temperature changes and follows those after a hefty time lag. And then oceanography explains that right now, the maps show the CO2 in the air, or at least the real stuff that we can detect from satellites, is not of our making. And is of the making of warming seawater. (Not Plimer’s observation, that last bit of trivia, mine, I admit. And fully un-peer-reviewed, how dare one think independently in this day and age and without a safety certificate}

In Plimer has supported the hypothesis that geothermal heat from the crustal boundaries, specifically the East Pacific Rise, is driving El Nino, or rather La Nina, which is a respectable alternative model to the wind-shift one. I am in favour of that also, would just add more warm seabed area. But we cannot yet know if that is the case, as the data is not in. And it will never be in if the conceptual kite is not test-flown first. As with the notion of the deep geomagnetic driver being coupled to the solar magnetic field, we do not have the data. And again, no-one will collect the relevant data without someone asking the speculative questions first. First someone contends the moon is of green cheese. Eventually someone goes to look. Green cheese is an advance on a thought in the mind of a sky fairy. You can land on it, sort of. No idea who said it may just be made of basalt, maybe it was a cheese-maker. Anthropogenic CO2 is the green cheese, here. We hope to shortly think of the basalt. Just stop rushing us. We are not very bright and we think slowly. All of us. Except carbonists, of course.

So, we run on opinions.

Hugh,

If you read Ian Plimer’s (or my) stuff, you will see that “denialist” is a rather inaccurate term. We are both, as are most of those who oppose the carbonist viewpoint in this old debate, huge enthusiasts for the idea that climates change all the time, and never more so than at the peak of an interglacial. What we are in denial about, ids that there is much common sense, given the vast amount of geological data to the contrary, in saying that humans are causing the perfectly natural changes we are now seeing and have seen many times in the past, and operating at far faster rates then also. When there were either no or precious few humans to cause them. So, who turned off all the natural engines of change? What caused the Medieval Warm Period? The Viking’s outboard motors? Fredik Ljundquist (2009) has documented 71 sets of temperature proxy records covering the last 2,000 years, and most of them show the MWP and the Little Ice Age very clearly. He did not cherry pick data sets to fit a model, just for compatible data, and he aimed to get everything suitable in the sacred literature, I mean, that was peer-reviewed.

At least, those in the north show the MWP. It seems we may have climate change going in different directions at the same time, in different regions. If so, what price AGW stocks and carbon caps made of donkey fur?

I had no idea Plimer had written a better book on this issue, and I am not overly amused that he is being asked to leave stuff unsaid because he said it better elsewhere. I and 30,000 others want our money’s worth in this one.

Plimer’s work basically shows that we are well within the limits of natural variability with the temperature changes we are all so fussed about, in the past century or so. It also shows that there is only temporary correlation between temperature and the steady (though somewhat suspect) rise in CO2 record as per the Hawaii record. It discuses the politics involved, and the man has a perfect right to have a view. it 300,00 others have bought this one and we want our money’s worth. I think we got it. seems to make a plug for some ort of a god, to me just some tribal hangover about a homicidal sky fairy, but he may have been taking the mickey, he has a fine sense of humour, and that again is his right. I do not think it is a valid rgument to cherry pick only the papers tat support arguments you find comtentious, because you do not know what else is in the papers you skip. They will be quoted in support of some point, but you have the problem that they may have said much else and if we are lucky, your opponent has read them through. And you have not, as you say. It is more your game than mine, so perhaps you would like to count how many peer reviewed, i.e. sacred literature papers he actually quotes. When you have subtracted all the https and the definitions and so on. I would like to quote the correct number, but am far too idle to bother and anyway, my count would be deeply suspect and would doubtless spark a debate with statisticians that will rage till Doomsday. .

Hugh, what we deny is the possibility that “all is already known, and now we must act.” New men are screaming at us for answers, but we have been at this ice age debate as said since 1840 in the sacred literature, and this is not some trivial problem, like how to build an atomic bomb or go to the moon. We are trying to get the science right here, in a very complex field. That is the motive.

The hysterical classes can go play with themselves.

If the world public wants to let some folk trash their power supply system and replace it with another that extracts the power from rustling leaves, that’s fine by us. Just stop trying to censor and stifle our very long-running debate. Arrhenius proposed this CO2 driver in 1896 and it was generally rejected then. Sure, we are having another look at it, see for a trivial instance my posts on ABC Pool. But it looks no better than last time.

Like

The science of AGW has been accepted by the vast majority of thinking people worldwide. I suggest you turn your considerable effort and scholarship to joing the rest of us on this blog in trying to further debate on a sustainable, carbon-free economy for the future. Most of the commentators here seem to agree that, although the idea of renewable energy, like wind and solar, is appealing, new nuclear power is the future for the First World and for the expanding economies who also want a comfortable lifestyle for their citizens.
Coal, oil and gas will run out but using IFR technology, nuclear power would probabaly outlast humanity.Win win situation really.

Like

What a load of bollocks Peter…a bunch of fatuous halfbaked theories in fanciful language!!
The crustal warming idea driving El Nino events is such a load of bollocks it is beyond belief that you could even consider this as a vald idea let alone Ian Plimer. How much water with its high heat capacity sits over the top of the crustal margins?? It would take an enormous amount of energy transfer into the bottom of the ocean to do what you are suggesting, ansd this would clearly show in observations in the ocean. But the TAO array for instance http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/sub_surf_tao.gif

shows wamer water at the surface and water cooling with depth, as you might expect from the surface being warmed by the sun.

Your fanciful pontificating is all very amusing… but meanwhile CO2 goes up and we get closer to, or likely further past setting off possibly disastrous consequences for our society!!! Wake up and do something useful.

DR

And yes I forgot to take my anti-grumpy pills this morning!!!!!!

Like

“In the crit above I had in mind whoever it was that said that H&E was not science, just the personal view of a scientist. ”

The “whoever” was Kurt Lambeck, president of the Australian Academy of Science. This doesn’t mean that he is more likely to be right than any other equally eminent scientist. However it probably means that he chose his words more carefully than someone not in his position.

Anyway, I am part of the “H+E is not science” view. Making up numbers is not science, Claiming support from references that say the opposite is not science. These things are not minor errors — not when there are so many of them. Plimer’s minimal response seems to indicate that he has not used my analysis (e.g my original 55 in version 1) to correct the later (US and UK) editions of H+E and has no plans to take it on board for any other editions.

Like

“Virtually all the high-CO2 regions at 8 km altitude, at least in July 2003, correlated closely with oceanic regions where the annual surface seawater temperature range is 5 degrees C or more, or are downwind of those regions.

Checkmate?”

Peter, this pattern is what is expected from the natural cycling of CO2 from tropical oceans to tropical atmosphere, to high latitude atmosphere via Hadley circulation, into cold oceans and back to tropical oceans via deep oceans.

This has been part of the “mainstream” intepretation of the carbon cycle, at least since the 1963 paper by Bolin and Keeling (J. Geophys Res, 68, 3899-3920 (and dozens, maybe hundreds, of papers since). This natural cycling makes it hard (but not impossible) to extract the signal of human input from CO2 observations (which is why I wrote my book Inverse Problems in Atmospheric Constituent Transport). I think that you should apply the same approach that you recommend with regard to Plimer — don’t criticise what you haven’t read. A good place to start on carbon cycle stuff is The global carbon cycle edited by Field and Raupach and distributed locally by CSIRO Publishing at a reasonable price — I think I paid $35, but that may have included a “conference discount”.

Like

my real name, by the way….

As ever – I am baffled by the denialists persistance and intent. With a human population that has grown from about 1 billion in 1900 to virtually 7 billion today (with half that growth since 1970) – with the well documented impacts on the biosphere – logging, burning, deforestation for settlement, massive soil loss, urbanisation etc… how the hell can we,with a straight face, claim that humanity has had NO effect on the atmosphere?? I seem to remember HCFC’s and ozone holes, massive air pollution, acid rain etc etc – but of course there is NO WAY that this could in any way impact on the earth’s thermal balance – oh yeah??

Surely the simple physics of mass action should be adequate..

“Mankind cannot stand very much reality” TS Eliot, The Wasteland.

Like

“Ian Plimer’s book is a case study in how not to be objective.”

Actually the whole AGW movement is. You are so quick to dismiss any theory or opinion other than your own. I will believe, when you explain to me what caused the warming trend since the last ice age and more specifically the one from 1880 to 1940. What you call “fabricated Data” still trends just like the “real stuff”. How about the myth that CO2 levels lead temperature rises? You tout that knowing it is false.

I also find it interesting that you fail to list your Educational background on your Bio, and that you claim to be unbiased when your job depends on perpetrating the Myth.

Like

Re the warming since the last ice age: initial orbital variation triggering positive feedbacks (including increases in CO2 and other greenhouse gases).

Re the warming 1880-1940: a combination of an increase in solar output, increasing greenhouse gases, and other factors.

Re “fabricated data”: Huh? Who, exactly, is claiming that what data, exactly, is fabricated?

Re CO2 levels leading temperature rises: contrary to what you’ll hear in the denialosphere, CO2 is both a cause and an effect of warming. For instance, in post-ice-age events in the past, initial warming due to orbital variation caused CO2 release, which caused further warming, which released more CO2, which caused more warming, etc. What we’re seeing now is CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) as the main cause of warming since around 1970.

You really will need to learn more about climate science to enter into the debate in any credible way. Ignorance is one thing; arrogant denunciation based on ignorance is another. Fare ye well.

Like

where dose Ian have it right and have it wrong? what percent of his book is correct? if some or all his data is false then how do we know that you the AWG crowed aren’t doing the same bs that you accuse him of?

here is the point, its really getting confusing what data we the voters of America can trust. one scientist data is another scientist bird cage liner.

all i am saying if you want change for the good of mankind then work slowly and be exact in your findings. forcing change too fast is a sure way to lose your political power you now have. the world is listing, you have there ear. your job now is to keep their attention and consider a time table that we can all agree with.

Look at the book called “48 laws of power” by Robert Green in it he enplanes the political fate of all those who force change without regard to the people. so preach change, but go slow. that’s the best advice i can give you. i want clean energy and i want it cheap all the people who work for a living cant afford the radical changes, but we can afford these changes if you go slow with the AGW agenda.

Like

A good starting point, when evaluating the scientific credibility of “Heaven and Earth”, is Ian Enting’s detailed coverage of the issues with the book. There are plenty of other places to find assessments by climate scientists and others with a knowledge of the science: try my list or the list at RealClimate.

As for what percentage is correct: in terms of actual word volume in the book, I doubt anyone’s done an actual calculation of the proportion that’s sound vs the proportion that’s misleading or downright false. This isn’t a good measure of soundness, though; the main problem is that Plimer has failed to understand (or has very poorly represented) current climate science, and yet from this position of apparent ignorance, he presents a string of empty arguments against it.

The bottom line is that, as far as I’ve seen, every argument he makes in the book is either:
* already well understood, uncontroversial and incorporated into climate science; or
* misleading and/or just flat wrong.

Nothing in this book represents a credible scientific argument against AGW (or, to be more precise, that human activities are responsible for the recent/current climate change, including significant warming).

Changing slowly is good – if you have time. But there are many indications that this is getting urgent. It appears that major action is needed within years, not decades. Would we wait for years debating, if an asteroid was going to hit the Earth in a decade?

Despite what you’ll read in Plimer’s book and in what can broadly be called the “denialosphere”, there is genuine consensus among climate scientists. There are a handful of deniers around; but they haven’t presented any scientifically credible argument against AGW.

Like

“Changing slowly is good – if you have time. But there are many indications that this is getting urgent. It appears that major action is needed within years, not decades. Would we wait for years debating, if an asteroid was going to hit the Earth in a decade?”

what do you mean we don’t have time? i haven’t seen anything that says we have a limit and once we go past that point there is no return. what you said was interesting, but i am still not convinced that speed is an correct option. can you give any details on why you think otherwise?

something to think about: those who can upgrade and adapt to new environmental technology the fastest are the ones who want the new environmental laws now. the poor and the lower middle class wont be able to adapt as well as the more wealthy. without a way to circumvent their voting power i cant see the USA staying committed to the AGW agenda. so at least in the USA you may see total dedication at first, but when the poor and middle class feel the pain, that’s it, game over.

thanks for taking the time to comment, i do think you are concerned about our home, earth.

Like

I completely agree that it would be much better all round, and a much easier economic and political transition, if could delay for some decades before needing to take action. That would be great. The difficulty we face – and the reason that climate scientists are speaking out in such an unusually direct and forceful way – is that we simply don’t have decades to waste.

My comment about an asteroid hitting the earth is obviously an exaggeration, but the point is that the speed of action has to be commensurate with the urgency of the threat; sometimes we just don’t have as much time as we’d like.

The overall picture with CO2 and other long lived greenhouse gases (like methane) is that, once emitted into the atmosphere, they are very hard to remove in a short timeframe. Given that climate science predicts that several major “tipping points” (albedo reduction, permafrost melting, clathrates) may become active within the timeframe of the coming decades, and that such changes will lag behind actual emissions considerably, there’s a broad consensus that the smart strategy, the precautionary approach, is to minimise emissions ASAP. There’s increasing evidence now (though by no means a consensus yet) that we might need to be under 350 parts per million of CO2 to avoid dangerous climate disruption; since we’re already at around 390ppm, if we’re to target 350 we’d need to cut emissions beyond 100% to move to an economy which produces a net reduction in CO2 levels. At present without strong and rapid action we’re unlikely to stay under 450ppm. There are several disturbing signs, evident since the last IPCC report, that things are tracking at the top end of projections or beyond.

You’re quite right that currently weathier individuals (and countries) are more able to make technological changes like switching to green electricity. However, it’s not a black-and-white picture; many new technologies may well soon be rivalling fossil fuels in price, and there are major financial benefits over the medium term with things like building insulation, recycling, and maximising energy efficiency.

Politically, it might be worth noting that the US appears to be the one major economy where support for climate action is lowest; see this recent survey for an overview of how levels of support are much higher in most other countries. And even in the US, a majority said that the US government should place a higher priority on addressing climate change than it currently does.

Like

Three comments:

1. What percentage of Heaven – Earth is any good? My view is, very roughly, the OK stuff
is what is in Plimer’s earlier book A Short History of Planet Earth, the new stuff is mostly dodgy.

2. How do you know which side is telling the truth? — what I have started doing
from version 1.9 onwards, is adding a guide to help people who are not working scientists check out my claims about Plimer for themselves.

3. If John is from America, maybe he should check out what the US dept of Energy “State of the Art” reports on climate change said in the mid 1980s. A delay in action for more than 20 years is not “forcing change too fast”. Back then there was sufficient uncertainty to justify delay. Now there isn’t.

Like


Climate Denial Crock of the Week. Who is behind the climate change deniers – the video that they wanted banned.

Like

Too many respondents don’t seem to wear a parachute, let alone have it out. Plimer is very interesting about the possible uniqueness of Planet Earth and the creation of the Black Sea. I wonder how many of these guys have a decent degree in the sciences anyway. Even a Cantab science graduate needs to read this book twice.

Good for Plimer; he has at last raised some issues to an international audience; and who says he is unqualified to do this?

Like

Hello everyone at bravenewclimate!

would it be wrong to consider CO2 from natural sources like animals and bacteria as helpful for plants and CO2 from coal and oil as being harmful to the planet? with that said then CO2 from anamals is safe to the planet would be my next thought.

Also i was looking at the many opinions as to why Venus is hot, one scientist says that CO2 has a low effect on greenhouse effect and states in his opinion that other contributing factors account for the excessive temperature of Venus. There is a whole science on terrafarming this planet so they have come up with many theory and after reading some of these theorys i come away with that CO2 isn’t that much of a big deal. however there are other scientist that say its a very dig deal. even in this (pseudo-)field we cant get a consensus. what is the opinion of anyone here who’s ever looked into these two questions.

I bring Venus into this because it’s a greenhouse planet.

thanks in advanced to anyone who has an opinion they would like to share.

Like

will earth become like Venus if CO2 isn’t stopped? here is a site that explores that thought:

i also copied and pasted a sample for your review:

titled: Why Earth Can Never Get As Hot As Venus.

The key to terraforming Venus would be to find a way to get rid of its banks of atmospheric clouds so as to let a lot of the heat out. This is the opposite of what you would have been lead to believe elsewhere.

Clearly we would have to design a fast replicating species of critter who could use the suns energy, to be able to eat sulfuric acid and crap useful compounds that would then fall to the surface in heat-resistant poo-packets.

Now this sounds overly optimistic even for the most Utopian of genetic engineering and nano-technology boosters.

The key thing to understand, is that to cool down Venus some we need to have clear skys. Exactly the opposite of what we have been taught.

Like

John

I can only assume you don’t know of Graeme Bird (a not so infrequent poster at Jenifer Marohasy’s ‘denialist’ blog site) and therefore are somewhat naive.

If you do know of him from that ‘denialist’ blog site, you are playing games.

Either way, welcome here … you might learn something, we don’t play games.

Like

i just Googled Venus and was looking for theories as to why and how it can be done (cooling Venus down), i am no scientist, and such have no idea if Graeme Bird has any real science behind him. so i assume he is wrong and Earth could end up like Venus due to mans inability to clean his act up. sorry i had to read between the lines and assume this is the case.

Graeme theory must be incorrect. Finrod simple, but to the point.

how do laymen understand Co2 and other gases mechanical properties that allow I.F. radiation to work its magic?

thanks for your input

Like

“I can only assume you don’t know of Graeme Bird (a not so infrequent poster at Jenifer Marohasy’s ‘denialist’ blog site) and therefore are somewhat naive.”

I’ve just visited Graeme’s site, where he has posted a comment on one of his own threads identical to the one he left anonymously on a thread on my blog. He also left a couple of more foul-mouthed comments on my blog which I’ve deleted.

“how do laymen understand Co2 and other gases mechanical properties that allow I.F. radiation to work its magic?”

In the case of CO2, it’s a linear molecule a carbon with two oxygens, one on either side. Certain frequencies of IR are able to set the oxygens oscillating back and forth, and this mechanical energy can be transferred to other molecules by impact. This, at least, is my modest understanding of the matter. For greater detail, consult a real scientist.

Like

The clouds have a cooling effect on Venus’ surface temperature. If Venus did not have its massive CO2 atmosphere, but still had its current cloud cover, the surface temperature would not be much higher than that of Mars.

Like

The climate has been changing since the earth was born and has gone from ice age to warm and back again. I don’t recall humans being around for the extinction of the dinosaurs, the climate is changing and you had better get used to it, Man contributes way less than 10% of the harmful pollutants and for instance an average Volcanic eruption generates more harmful pollutants than mans combined efforts can do in ten years. Now all of you pro climate change fools listen to Al Gore, one of the biggest miss-handlers of the truth on this planet. He would have you and I driving a match box on wheels or preferably a push bike while he flies around the world in a private Jet. Too lowly for the BIG MAN to take a commercial flight, and just ONE of his MANSIONS uses 30 times the national average in Electricity. The Nobel people have fallen right off of their pedestal since giving that lier the prize. If you A H think that you can control the weather by TAXING the hell out of everyone you are certifiable. Yes big Al made millions out of his lies, and you poor fools believe it. Hey there is a new Island out in the Pacific this year, and the son of Krackatower is growing by 5 meters a day at the moment, but hell that doesn’t pollute EH.

Like

You recent commenters on this thread really do underscore the loopy fringe of the denialist brigade. Thanks for the effort at illustrating the extreme extent of this conspiracy-laden position.

Like

“Man contributes way less than 10% of the harmful pollutants and for instance an average Volcanic eruption generates more harmful pollutants than mans combined efforts can do in ten years.”

That’s just another lie… where do all these untruths come from? It’s so infuriating when rubbish like this is taken up as gospel.

Like

It’s a disturbing story – would be interesting to hear more about the record of water temperatures and other changes in the region.

Re what Plimer would make of it: who cares? This is a man who claims the sun is similar in composition to a meteorite; who ducks and weaves when asked some simple questions about the sources for claims made in his book; who repeatedly makes blatantly false statements about a crucially important issue. How he continues to be employed as a “scientist” after this exhibition of incredibly anti-scientific behaviour is beyond me.

Like

Amazing. Look at all the words typed on this blog. Can’t you good people work out that humanity is a good thing? Must there always be a lunatic fringe wanting to control every aspect of our business? Why can’t you put some of your zeal into real problems like Malaria, Cancer, Dengue Fever, or better stopping socialist nutcases from killing more people. Wait, I know, those are problems real people face right now. Let us dwell in the ethereal and make up problems: like CO2 emissions by humans. Some of you people espouse to be Engineers! Obviously the desk jockey type. Remember that engineers apply science practically and economically, that is not this mindless drivel I’m reading.

Like

Truly, Amazed
Ever wonder why governments (and oppositions) all over the world are having a bun fight about climate change? They’re not arguing about the science; they are arguing about how and when to deal with this global problem (including how to curtail or limit the impacts of increased vector borne diseases as a consequence of a warmer and wetter world). You are implying they (and all the collective brains of their advisers) have got it wrong, I beg to differ. Humanity can be a good thing, we just have to find a better way of doing things. In this respect, we all should be working together and while this may seem strange to you, real engineers and scientists are, regardless of their political, economic or socio-cultural differences.

Like

No sir, the way I see it you are working together to plunder my wallet. Well – Hands off mate. Of course sir they are arguing about the science, it is a LONG way from being a sure anything. As soon as I read about the hockey stick fabrication it was over. What is being put in front of us here is nonsense, absolute nonsense. You should know better.

Like

Can’t you good people work out that humanity is a good thing?

Yes, and humanity has found a deep problem that is an existential threat to many. Hence humanity is striving to do something about it. And humanity is striving to maintain itself; and sustain the envirionment; and shift our dependence from the deminisiong resources that sustain us.

Like

Turn it up a little louder mate I can’t hear you. The only limit to resources is the human imagination and the application of our ingenuity. Carbon dioxide gas is a clear, odourless non-pollutant that is necesary to life on earth. FIND A REAL PROBLEM. LIKE I’LL BET YOUR BED IS NOT MADE.

Like

Thanks for demonstrating your insincerity clearly for all.

Sometimes it hard recognised time wasting trolling at first blush.

Like

Don’t lose your sense of humour Mark, it is unbecoming. My sincerity is clear. The time wasting you refer to is indeed coming from the global warming alarmists who are intent upon plundering us all with their misguided thoughts and actions.

Like

A new dimensional comparison of what they are talking about.

Here’s a way to understand Mr. Rudd’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.

Imagine 1 km of atmosphere that we want to rid of human carbon pollution.

We’ll have a walk along it.

The first 770 meters are Nitrogen.

The next 210 meters are Oxygen.

That’s 980 meters of the 1 kilometer. 20 meters to go.

The next 10 meters are water vapour. 10 meters left.

9 meters are argon. Just 1 more meter.

A few gases make up the first bit of that last meter.

The last 38 centimeters of the kilometer – that’s carbon dioxide.

A bit over one foot.

97% of that is produced by Mother Nature. It’s natural.

Out of our journey of one kilometer, there are just 12 millimeters left. About half an inch. Just over a centimeter.

That’s the amount of carbon dioxide that global human activity puts into the atmosphere.

And of those 12 millimeters Australia puts in .18 of a millimeter.

Less than the thickness of a hair. Out of a kilometer.

As a hair is to a kilometer – so is Australia’s contribution to what Mr. Rudd calls Carbon Pollution.

Imagine Brisbane’s new Gateway Bridge, ready to be officially opened by Mr. Rudd. It’s been polished, painted and scrubbed by an army of wor kers till its 1 kilometer length is surgically clean. Except that Mr. Rudd says we have a huge problem, the bridge is polluted – there’s a human hair on the roadway. We’d laugh ourselves silly.

There are plenty of real pollution problems to worry about. It’s hard to imagine that Australia’s contribution to carbon dioxide in the world’s atmosphere is one of the more pressing ones. And I can’t believe that a new tax on everything is the only way to blow that pesky hair away.

Perhaps we all need to just take a few deep breaths.

Like

What a relief – Thankyou “amazed” for clearing that up. Perhaps you could put all those scientists, worldwide scientific institutions, universities, research institutions etc at ease by letting them know you have the answer. PLease direct me to your peer-reviewed paper on the matter.

Like

Baz are you suggesting that a nerve toxin like Sarin is an acceptable gas to have in our atmosphere? Your comment sir, is odd and rather disturbing. I strongly suggest you go to sleep with a mirror and wake up to yourself.

Like

Mate, I think even the UN can get the average composition of the earth’s atmosphere right, but I don’t know if their reports are peer reviewed. However you can review http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_atmosphere and do the sums yourself to check. Most arm chair scientists don’t trust any individuals words unless it is open source so the wikipedia ought to get you started. Hopefully you’ll be comfortable with that.

Like

what I continue to be “amazed” about is the way that the greenhouse deniers can’t resist sexing up their irrelevant comparisons with fabricated numbers. The whole post is irrelevant, because, as Barry is pointing out, it is the behaviour of the gases that matters. The O2 N2 and Ar don’t affect the infra-red — infra-red absorption is from bending angles between bonds — can’t happen unless there is more than one bond, i.e. more than 2 atoms.

The fabrication comes from starting talking about amounts in atmosphere, where the natural
contribution is less than 75% not 97%. The scam is the switch to talking about rates,
and then comparing the human emissions to natural emissions (97% is still a bit
of an exageration), and totally neglecting the natural CO2 uptake.

Like

Ian, it is obvious this Amazed character would not have graduated high school chemistry or physics – it is pointless trying to teach him the basics (law of diminishing returns).

By lifting stuff off wiki and pretending to know what he’s talking about just shows how delusional he is.

What I do find amazing is that there are some genuine ‘sceptics’ (in non-scientific parlance) that see this type of twaddle and don’t say anything about it. Surely they must realise that if they don’t challenge this nonsense then they themselves lose any credibility they may have had, real or imagined.

Like

Sir, I was not lifting anything off of wiki. All I was doing was demonstrating to ‘Perps’ where he could do some of his own calculations in order to confirm my results. I figured that he would be comfortable with this source as a starting point as he was demanding peer review and such.
Ad hominem attacks do nothing to further your argument or this discussion.

Like

I think from the post that any practical person could work out that taxing a clear odourless carbon dioxide gas emission in these TINY concentrations is absolute nonsense. Further, taking the actual scale into account and it becomes truly a right laughing gas. What is not laughable is the terminology “denier”. This relates one to a holocaust denier. This is a very serious accusation and not one any person will take lightly. You denigrate yourself by trying to compare this light hearted discussion with the murder of millions. Sir, or madam a caring person would retract that comment.

Like

Sir, it seems you would like to discuss the greenhouse effect or more aptly termed affect. The alleged greenhouse effect is a non-existent effect. No greenhouse, whether made from glass, plastic, cardboard or steel will reach a higher inside temperature due to the ‘magic’ of re-radiated energy. If it did, engineers would have been able to design power stations made from air, mirrors and glass, extracting more energy out of it than was put into it.
If you truly believe in this concept you should go into construction now and you’ll have a perpetual motion machine, an infinite source of energy. Of coursse there is the 2nd law of thermodynamics to contend with. That sir is a law. You may need some help with that one and duct tape will not do it.

Like

i was just thinking after reading you post how small Co2 is compared to our atmospheric composition and how you relate Australia contribution to the overall accounting, very good description, as a laymen, not a scientist, you make it simple for the none scientist.

now the question from a laymen would be just how much Co2 will raise energy levels per unit volume of air, sense i have had a decent education in mathematics (machinist study advanced math for 4 years) this type of stuff i do understand, so if there are any scientist here pro or con please post this info and if you can in unit that will tell the laymen this: energy absorption per unit volume of Co2 in cubic meters of air. if not then i will figure it out.

for example from a heating lamp as an energy source in IR, 1 BTU of energy will raise 1 pound of water 1 degree Fahrenheit add say black die to this water, say 1 percent, now how fast will the water adsorb, add 2 percent and now what will the time be and so on. then using algebra a linear equation can be developed to model the properties of this situation. units in this case are unit time per percent of black dye, i think.

this is the way scientist should present this information to the public so they can get a grasp of how important and serious this issue is. of course we know not all of the suns energy is adsorbed some is turned into mechanical energy and some is reflected back in to space.

maybe someone has already conducted an experiment and has this up on the internet for public viewing?

thank you gentlemen, i look forward to real discussions about this instead of harsh criticism. this is an important subject that deserve all of our best effort to understand and prove or disprove.

PS: please disregard my grammar or spelling its never been my strong point.

Like

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant. CO2 is a clear, odourless gas that is
necessary to life. The essential fact to remember is that carbon dioxide is at the
most 385 parts per 1,000,000 of the atmosphere, which is 0.0385 percent. Small
quantity though it is, no life could exist on earth without it. All life on earth is built
from Hydrogen, Carbon, Oxygen and Nitrogen. CO2 provides two of these
fundamental building blocks.
The vast oceans which cover 71% of the planet, plus plants, absorb 98.5% of the
CO2 that is emitted by nature and man. As CO2 increases in the atmosphere,
nature’s controlling mechanism causes plant growth to increase via
photosynthesis; CO2 is absorbed, and oxygen is freed. Photosynthesis is an
endothermic, (cooling), reaction.
Ask your primary school aged children about the carbon cycle.
The alleged greenhouse effect is a non-existent effect. No greenhouse, whether
made from glass, plastic, cardboard or steel will reach a higher inside
temperature due to the ‘magic’ of re-radiated energy. If it did, engineers would
have been able to design power stations made from air, mirrors and glass,
extracting more energy out of it than was put into it.
The taxation of carbon emissions is another socialist control on the private
sector. That is all it is.
Restricting the production of CO2, this essential non pollutant is absolute
nonsense.

Like

i don’t like the carbon tax because it will not solve the issue. instead if we must regulate Co2 emissions force the company to use this money to improve their operation to produce less instead of giving the cash to some government that will mismanage this money. we KNOW government will mismanage money from a carbon tax, they have a proven track record of this and yes, past performance is indicative to future results when we talk about government spending.

Like

Sir, no corporation or company will accept a tax without passing it on to the consumer. So you tax the consumer. You increase the burden on us all with any form of taxation on the private sector. The best thing you can do is read a good book and forget all about this hysteria. Remember CO2 is essential to life on earth. In fact one could call it an oxygen tax. If you look at CO2 there are more O’s then C’s. The perfect tax, a tax on life. Taxing every breath I take. A quote for you sir:

“Any honest examination of the national life proves how far we are from the standard of human freedom with which we began. The recovery of this standard demands of everyone who loves this country a hard look at himself, for the greatest achievments must begin somewhere, and they always begin with the person. If we are not capable of this examination, we may yet become one of the most distinguished and monumental failures in the history of nations.”

James Baldwin (1924–87), U.S. author. “Nobody Knows My Name,” in Partisan Review (New Brunswick, N.J., Winter 1959; repr. in Nobody Knows My Name, 1961).

Like

indeed…but, you do know the carbon tax is going to happen we cant stop them (government) they seem to get what they want, regardless to what “we the people want” i used to laugh at the demonstrators who would protest the Tri-lateralist, but now i am not so sure. it seems something powerful is always moving against us, a power that we cant stop, our politicians we elect seem to always vote in things that work against us and they keep getting reelected. i would like to see the democratic and the republican party removed from public service and see a grass roots party replace them.

but, the system in place will not tolerate a grass roots movement and grass roots party will forever be sabotaged.

sorry guys from Australia, i don’t know mush about your system of government to comment and besides, its not for me to judge your system. i only speak for the American system.

Like

i think if governments would scrap the carbon tax and help companies be more efficient with the energy they do use their might be less opposition to the AGW movement. the carbon tax is just plain robbery.

but i do think burning coal and oil fuels introduce a small amount of radiation into our environment, never mind the Co2, radioactive particles i assume are bad for our health. so maybe a 75 year time table should be used to find alternatives reduce this type of pollution. if those in power would just be reasonable we could get a better world without the pain of sudden change.

Like

Sir you are perceptive. Not many know of the Uranium and Thorium generated by burning coal. You are right, burning coal generates radioactive airborne radioactive elements. It also generates much more SO2 than should be warranted. These can be controlled with simple limestone or lime type scrubbing. So there is a known simple and arguably economic solution.

Like

Further Mark, be very sure there are elements of this discussion who seek via this discussion to establish a foundation and framework that will control humanities actions over the coming century(s). If you cannot handle a good Aussie spray over our desire to not have our actions controlled by this worthless prattle then by all means have a good dummy spit and pack up you bat and ball and go home. What is at stake here is not for the idle pleasure of yourself.

Like

Amazed – I am a she not a he (your blinkered biases showing again?) and my point was exactly that made by others – reading a simplistic article from Wiki does not make you an expert on the causes (or not) of climate change. Incidentally, what qualifications do you have to back up your (non) scientific analyses? A doctorate in climatology, physics, chemistry? Only if you have any of these and have done rigourous research, which is then peer-reviewed and published in a major scientific journal, would you be worth listening to. Otherwise, your arrogance in believing that you have the answer, which others, working for years in science, have obviously missed, is – to put it mildly – breathtaking!

Like

Perps, I don’t think that someone who denies that any such thing as the greenhouse effect can possibly exist is worth responding to. Apparently he doesn’t even think that greenhouses produce a greenhouse effect.

Like

You’re right Finrod – why do I bite every time? My head is already black and blue from banging against the denialist brick wall of my local newspaper’s “Letters Page”! However, I must keep trying to persuade them for the sake of my grandchildren -so thanks to you all on this blog for giving a non-scientist the information she needs.

Like

That’s OK Perps… he’s presenting the topic in an extremely strange way. he seems to think that the greenhouse effect violates the second law of thermodynamics, and just can’t get his head around the idea that greenhouses don’t produce higher internal temperatures magically from nothing, but actually tap part of the enegy flow of sunlight shining in and reflecting out to raise their internal temperature. There’s no violation of thermodynamics going on at all.

He is also presumably not aware that greenhouses existed, constructed on the basis of emperical observation, before the laws of thermodynamics were formulated.

Like

You highly educated people need to read not skim read. I said re-radiated energy. Do your homework before posting.

“Sir, it seems you would like to discuss the greenhouse effect or more aptly termed affect. The alleged greenhouse effect is a non-existent effect. No greenhouse, whether made from glass, plastic, cardboard or steel will reach a higher inside temperature due to the ‘magic’ of re-radiated energy. If it did, engineers would have been able to design power stations made from air, mirrors and glass, extracting more energy out of it than was put into it.
If you truly believe in this concept you should go into construction now and you’ll have a perpetual motion machine, an infinite source of energy. Of course there is the 2nd law of thermodynamics to contend with. That sir is a law. You may need some help with that one and duct tape will not do it.”

Like

My apologies ‘Perps’ I am not good at typing (Sir and madam gets me every time) and reading what has been posted makes my lips hurt.

Like

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant. CO2 is a clear, odourless gas that is necessary to life. The essential fact to remember is that carbon dioxide is at the most 0.0385 percent of the atmosphere.

Ask your primary school aged children about the carbon cycle.

The Turnbull plan aims to reduce 2020 CO2 emissions to 90% of the 2000 level.

Going back to 90% of 2000 would require approx. 20% cut on today’s activities. Further, the population by 2020 will be at least 30% above that in 2000. So the Turnbull carbon cuts will need to be more than 33% per person.

There is zero chance within a decade that wind, solar, geothermal or carbon burial will overcome their technical, engineering, infrastructure, environmental, transmission, economic and stability problems quickly enough to generate significant quantities of emissions-free base load electricity.

That leaves Australia just three options;
1. The beloved ‘good old days’ GREEN option where we use sailing vessels, horses, camels, candles etc.
2. The DETERMINED option of simply reducing the Australian population by whatever means necessary and
3. The FINAL option of building the shortfall in electricity via nuclear power stations across Australia.

The Rudd and Turnbull plans for controlling CO2 emissions, this essential non pollutant are both absolute nonsense.

Like

Gidday John Berns and others,

Per your post of August 20:
“indeed…but, you do know the carbon tax is going to happen we cant stop them (government) they seem to get what they want, regardless to what “we the people want” i used to laugh at the demonstrators who would protest the Tri-lateralist, but now i am not so sure. it seems something powerful is always moving against us, a power that we cant stop, our politicians we elect seem to always vote in things that work against us and they keep getting reelected. i would like to see the democratic and the republican party removed from public service and see a grass roots party replace them.”

Sir I disagree, and herer is why:
As you well know the USA is built upon the actions of the individual.

Please understand that the CO2 alarmists have worked so hard in the theoretical side of things to make this a political issue they amaze themselves. It seems they still want to argue the science partly as perhaps they feel guilty about the validity of the arguments. The fact is the scientific support is not there, however, this is relatively immaterial now as this problem has moved into the realm of politics. The master science. Please understand that now we are in this realm the stakes are much higher and the truth will eventually win, though it may be longer and be more challenging than you or others can anticipate.

This is now about your freedom and the legalised plunder of your wealth.

Work hard. Voice your concerns openly. You will make and lose friendships with this approach.

Remember:

“History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.”

Dwight D. Eisenhower (1890–1969), U.S. general, Republican politician, president. Inaugural address, 20 Jan. 1953.

Like

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant. CO2 is a clear, odourless gas that is necessary to life.

As that slinky French woman in that famous ad once secil;y intoned …

Ah sink zis gors az borrss

CO2 is indeed a clear, odourless, colourless gas that is necessary to life and which in certain concentrations, is a pollutant.

Your mistake, oft repeated in the denialosphere, was in implying that the two claims were mutually exclusive.

In fact this is true of oxygen as well as any number of other elements that are beneficial in one quantity, of no marginal value in another quantity, and toxic in still others.

Like

0.0385% is actually near the point where we begin to lose life due to the concentration being too low.

Define “near” in this context. For most of the last 2 million years or so hominids, CO2 was in a range from about 180-220ppmv … Silly …

In any event, nobody has the capacity to drive down concentrations of CO2 anytime soon and even by 2150 it’s unlikely to have returned to the 280ppmv it was in 1880 or so.

Accordingly your point is moot.

Like

Ok you silly sausages with your phony science. Amazed has got you right in her sights like a deer in the headlights.

Admit surrender before it’s too late. All these years you’ve been wrestling with your equations and models and she cuts the Gordian Knot with a bit of good ol’ fashioned common sense and brilliant non-sequiturs.

Like

Gidday Fran,

Seems to me we are talking about life and the concentration of CO2 required to support it. Most life on earth is plant life so we’ll work with that, eh?

Organic chemistry and elements of basic chemistry and certainly geochemistry will explain that the concentration of products and requirements in a given simple chemical reaction when plotted against time are rarely linear. This is the case for photosynthesis. It is a relatively simple reaction but it should be stated that the precise details of it encompass variables from fields of thought including physics, chemistry, biology, quantum physics, and fluid mechanics.

Here is what you can get from theoretical models: <200 ppm plants die, less than 340 ppm ineffecient reaction, 600 ppm – pretty good, 1000 ppm and above close to saturation and 1400ppm or so saturation is achieved.

This is theoretical. I figured that the best person to query on this was a peer observed gardener as they do this for a living, not a hobby as some of us do who pontificate on such matters.

So get on a phone and call your florist. find out their supplier details. Call him/her. Ask how much CO2 they pump into their plant house (I'm allergic to the term greenhouse, makes my eyes water terribly). You'll find they like to keep it around 700 ppm and they are not economic if they drop below 340 or so ppm, any more than 7 or 800 ppm and it costs too much. You'll also find their source of CO2 is a propane, natural gas or liquid hydrocarbon burner. Actually if you live near the equator where it is lush, warm and green, well, surprise! they still use a plant house. The reason being so they can increase the CO2 concentration.

Cost of research – 60 cents or so.

It is ironic to note that plant houses will boom if ETS, CPRS or other cap n tax schemes come in. They'll get their CO2 for free or perhaps even paid to take it!!

So in answer to your valid query 'near' would be about 40 ppm or therabouts. 385 ppm (0.0385%) is a bit low.

Moot is an expressive word, did you know that in the USA in 1788, the Bill of Rights was mooted during the period of ratification? Sounds painful.

Like

“In any event, nobody has the capacity to drive down concentrations of CO2 anytime soon and even by 2150 it’s unlikely to have returned to the 280ppmv it was in 1880 or so.”

This is not exactly true. And its not relevant. Since we would want CO2 to be higher than lower in any realistic range that we could possibly reach. We cannot hope to get to 1500ppm. But thats what we’d want.

But its also not true since the CO2 record shows that CO2 can surge and then drop. Whereas its been going up about 0.4% per year for a while now, we would soon expect it to surge and then drop through the floor. So CO2 levels falling to the low 300’s and lower ought to be a very serious concern. And in fact we want CO2 levels just as high as we can possibly get them.

Like

And in fact we want CO2 levels just as high as we can possibly get them.

We want no such thing … You Mr Peabody, can speak for yourself …

Like

No you are wrong Fran. We do in fact want CO2 levels as high as we can get them. Unless you have some sort of personal interest in people starving, species going extinct, food prices being higher than otherwise, and nature being less robust than it otherwise would be. I say “we” advisedly. I’m don’t just mean self-important rich white people who have no interest in science or human well-being.

Like

Alfred, you obviously don’t know about (or don’t believe in) the enhanced greenhouse effect.

If you do understand radiative properties, then you would also know that CO2 concentrations of 1500 ppm is cook’n.

Put it this way: Any short-term benefits you imagine pale into insignificance when stretched out over decades as the full impact of global warming (even to 700 ppm CO2) kicks in – adversely effecting food, water and energy supply; disrupting biodiversity/ecosystems; destabilizing national/international security and threatening world peace.

Ergo: You have it round the wrong way.

Like

No we wouldn’t cook. There is no way that the extra CO2 would over-ride our natural tendency towards glacial conditions.

Like

Alfred, the alarm bell for the next glacial on the geologic time clock will go off in about 40,000 years (+/- a bit).

In the space of a mere 200 years, humanity has had a severe impact on the Earth-system.

It would be prudent for humanity (if it desires) to smooth out the bumps and wiggles along the way to the next glacial.

Like

David K

Alfred Nock is plainly no more than another ignorant troll, or possibly Amazed under a new nym.

He/she advances no expreess claim that CO2 is the limiting factor in the growth of all plants of value to humans because then he/she would have to model it.

He/she simply wants to extrapolate in a purely linear fashion from one simple idea (CO2 is part of the metabolic processes leading to the production of sugars) to a more general one without any modelling.

If this nonsense were not part of a witting but deluded attempt to deal with their own cultural angst while using a scientistic figleaf as cover, one might laugh.

My response is one of sadness at the pathetic condition into which those doing no more than special pleading in the hope of protecting the value of their fossil assets for a little while longer have driven whole swathes of the semi-educated public.

These people have much to answer for, and personally I hope to live long enough for the key architects of this agnotology to be the subject of official pillory for their malfeasance.

Like

Gidday Fran,

If you read my post I’m saying it is non linear.

I’m saying it is modellable. Model away. No worries there.

In fact what are you trying to say?? Spit it out dear lady.

Like

Gidday DavidK,

I think you are saying that humanity is a bad thing. Something to be despised. Of course this is everyone but yoursef right? We are not gods yet I assure you and we are not aliens. All of our science to date indicates that we evolved here. Ergo we are natural, we are part of the Earth system.

Perhaps some Sartre will spur you a wee tad:

I am responsible for everything … except for my very responsibility, for I am not the foundation of my being. Therefore everything takes place as if I were compelled to be responsible. I am abandoned in the world … in the sense that I find myself suddenly alone and without help, engaged in a world for which I bear the whole responsibility without being able, whatever I do, to tear myself away from this responsibility for an instant.

Jean-Paul Sartre (1905–80), French philosopher, author. Being and Nothingness,“Being and Doing: Freedom,” sct. 3 (1943; tr. 1965).

Like

DavidK. I’m afraid that none of what you say is true. The idea of a 54000+ year interglacial is a fantasy and not borne out by the science or the paleo record.

Like

Modelling Fran? Why one earth would you want to plug something we already know into a computer model? We already know that CO2 increases net primary production. We don’t need people mucking about with computer models to show this.

Like

Alfred @ 515
You have just exposed your own ignorance. Even the author of Heaven & Earth (Plimer) can get this right – you are calling him a liar.

Like

Leave a reply to Finrod Cancel reply