Peter Dunne’s assurance that the ETS Review process won’t turn into a re-examination of climate science is set to run into a few problems. Looking through the full list of submitters who will make oral presentations to the committee (below the fold), I count no fewer than eleven (plus one “possible”) who will or have already argued the crank position — and remarkably, that includes two Hungarian scientists (Miklos Zagoni and Ferenc Miskolczi) who assert that the greenhouse effect doesn’t work the way we think it does, and that global warming is therefore not a problem — even though their views, and “calculations” have been extensively debunked. M&Z are effectively on the furthest reaches of the climate crank fringe, and yet they’ve been invited to give “evidence” to the ETS Review. I wonder who wangled that little feat, and if the chairman realises what he’s got in store?
You can watch Miskolczi and Zagoni in action in Heartland’s 2008 crankfest “proceedings“. Rabett Run and others comprehensively rebutted the Miskolczi paper last year, and even the ever-welcoming Heartland didn’t ask M&Z for a repeat performance this year. So why are they turning up in New Zealand? It appears that Zagoni is in Australia visiting relatives, so perhaps he’s just arranged a holiday for himself and his friend Ferenc to coincide with his submission date (set for May 4th). What a lucky coincidence! I wonder if they have had any help with their airfares? That would seem like a fair question for someone on the committee to ask, if they want to get to the Heart of why their valuable time is being so egregiously wasted.
The ETS Review crank list in full:
Bryan Leyland, Carbon Sense Coalition (Australia), Centre for Resource Management Studies (aka Owen McShane), Dr Ferenc Miskolczi, Dr Kesten Green, McCabe Environmental Consultants(*), Miklos Zagoni, NZ Centre for Political Research, NZ Climate Science Coalition, Dr R M Carter, Vincent Gray.
NZ attendees at Heartland conferences (2008 and/or 2009) underlined. Muriel Newman’s NZ CPR was one of this year’s “sponsors”, but she didn’t have to fork out any money for that privilege, just proselytize. (*) Not known. To see full list of submitters making oral presentations click on “now read on…”.
Blue colour indicates cranks/sceptics:
· Air New Zealand
· Atihau-Whanganui Inc
· Aviation Industry Association
· Balance Agri-Nutrients
· Bill Sayer
· Bioenergy Association
· Blakely Associations
· Bryan Leyland
· Business New Zealand
· Carbon Market Solutions
· Carbon Sense Coalition [Australia]
· Centre for Resource Management Studies aka Owen McShane
· Climate Change Iwi Leadership Group & Maori Reference Group
· Community Energy Action
· Contact Energy
· Dairy New Zealand
· Domestic Energy Users’ Network
· Ecologic Foundation
· Enviro Waste Services
· Environment and Conservation Organisations of New Zealand
· Environmental Defence Society Inc
· Federated Farmers of New Zealand
· Federation of Maori Authorities
· Dr Ference M Miskolczi
· Fletcher Building
· Fonterra
· Gareth Renowden
· Genesis Energy
· GNS Science
· Greenhouse Policy Coalition
· Gull New Zealand
· Holcim (New Zealand)
· Horticulture New Zealand
· International Emissions Trading Association
· J Ben Liley
· Jim Cotman
· Dr John Maunder (possible)
· John McK. Blundell
· Kapiti Coast District Council
· Dr Kesten Green
· Kyoto Forestry Association
· Landcare Research
· Local Government New Zealand
· Major Electricity Users’ Group
· Mangatu Blocks Incorporation
· Massey University Centre for Energy Research
· McCabe Environmental Consultants
· Meat & Wool New Zealand and Meat Industry Association of New Zealand
· Meridian Energy
· Methanex New Zealand
· Miklos Zagoni
· Mobil Oil New Zealand
· Morikaunui Incorporation
· New Zealand Business Council for Sustainable Development
· New Zealand Business Roundtable
· New Zealand Centre for Political Research
· New Zealand Climate Change Centre
· New Zealand Climate Change Research Institute
· New Zealand Climate Science Coalition
· New Zealand Council of Trade Unions
· New Zealand Farm Forestry Association
· New Zealand Fertiliser Manufacturers’ Research Association
· New Zealand Fish and Game Council
· New Zealand Forest Owners’ Association Inc.
· New Zealand Institute of Forestry
· New Zealand National Committee of IUCN
· New Zealand Parliamentarians’ Group on Population and Development
· New Zealand Refining Company
· New Zealand Steel
· Ngati Porou Forests
· Norske Skog Tasman
· O-I New Zealand
· Oxfam New Zealand
· Pacific Institute of Resource Management
· Pan Pac Forest Products
· Pastoral Greenhouse Gas Research Consortium
· Queen Charlotte Wilderness Park
· Dr R M Carter
· Rank Group / Carter Holt Harvey
· Rayonier New Zealand
· Richard Hayes
· Rio Tinto Alcan New Zealand
· Scion (New Zealand Forest Research Institute)
· Seafood Industry Council
· Shell New Zealand
· Solid Energy New Zealand
· Standards New Zealand
· Sustainability Council of New Zealand
· Taharoa C Block
· Talley’s Group
· Te Arai Coastal Lands
· Te Ohu Kaimoana Trustee; Aotearoa Fisheries; Sealord Group; and Endurance Fishing
· Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu
· Temperzone
· Todd Energy
· Tourism Industry Association
· Transwaste Canterbury
· Vector
· Vincent Gray
· Waihi College Farm Unit
· Waikato-Tainui
· Wairakei Pastoral
· Waste Disposal Services
· Waste Management
· Westland Milk Products
· Westpac New Zealand
· Windflow Technology
· Wood Processors Association
ya missed fed farmers 😉
Perhaps you might also like to feature a list of AGW sceptics who have crossed the floor and become AGW believers… mmm, maybe too hard…?
Then how about listing AGW believers who have become sceptics ?
“…What I am about to write questions much of what I have written in this space, in numerous columns, over the past five years. Perhaps what I have written can withstand this questioning. Perhaps not. The greater question is, am I – and you – capable of questioning our own orthodoxies and intellectual habits? Let’s see…”
The above from columnist Paul Sheehan of The Sydney Morning Herald reviewing Prof. Ian Plimer’s “Heaven and Earth”. An obvious must read for you and your readers who would like to know more about climate change/global warming…
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/beware-the-climate-of-conformity-20090412-a3ya.html?page=-1
AGW sceptics who have become AGW believers? You’re right, Ayrdale, that’s a hard ask, because the ranks of the cranks are not blessed with surfeits of rationality. For the sceptic, knowledge is in service of his belief, so there can be no rational assessment of the facts, only blind faith. And of course, the sceptic shamans, like Carter and Singer, who serve up flimsy arguments with which to dress up the altar of their political certainties.
I’ll leave Plimer to the Aussies. We have our own deniers to deal with…
Well no Gareth. Plimer won’t of course be “left to the Aussies”.
From what Paul Sheehan writes, I gather Plimer is a scientist of mana, and dismissing him as a “denier” with your pet cliches just won’t do. His book is of course likely to be widely read internationally, and may even challenge and change the minds of many more open minded AGW believers.
I look forward to reading the book with great interest, and promise to keep you informed…
Well done Ayrdale, you’ve found yourself another skeptic, and a book review in the pipeline as well, that will no doubt be the highlight of our year.
Paul Sheehan doesn’t actually make the transition from warmist to denier. He writes of the possibility but makes no conclusion..perhaps out of respect for the great scientist.
I see a bunch of straw men in his highly compressed summary.
I look forward to the critical review of Plimers opus.
And on topic…thanks for keeping us posted on the ETS stuff Gareth. It’s nice to think that our Select Committee can find the time (in their two hours a week) to listen to some holidaying hungarians. Perhaps that fact can be used to deflect any criticisms of not listening to all sides.
“For the sceptic, knowledge is in service of his belief, so there can be no rational assessment of the facts, only blind faith” – this is very contradictory. Sceptic Believer
You are accusing the sceptics of being believers?
Thanks for putting me onto this Plimer guy, what he says about environmentalism being the new religion is very true,
“If we don’t change our ways the world will end and our children will be born into a world of suffering”
.. Searching for the lost garden of eden, striking down non believers as “cranks”
Religion gives your life meaning, something to sacrifice for, as does environmentalism
“Now is the most important time in history, and people are told that humanity is facing the greatest tradgety of all time, we must make sacrifices now” – love it, so true
Yup, the term “sceptic” is inappropriate, I’ll grant you – but whether you call them cranks, sceptics, deniers, whatever, their insistence that there is no problem, or that the facts are not facts, is based purely on belief. They have a predetermined view of the world, based in politics and that strand of right wing thought that vilifies environmentalism, and it conditions their take on the science.
These are beliefs held despite the overwhelming balance of evidence. The parallels with religion are all too obvious.
Arydale, please, go plug ‘climate AND solar ‘ into Google Scholar.
Those who consider the impact of the sun are not “dismissed as dinosaurs” but are an active and respected part of climate science.
Plimer is a respected geologist but the moment he steps outside of his immediate field he makes a complete fool of himself. Barry Brook dismantles him thoroughly.
For a good sense of what solar scientists are saying among themselves, see this report of a recent conference. There would seem to be a trend toward less and less hope for the solar crazies.
FYI, Gareth, Nude Scientist has an article on ANDRILL that includes this passage:
‘[DeConto and Pollard will] soon run their model into the future and they expect it to predict more rapid ice loss than previous models have. “I think that the numbers over the next 100 years or so are going to raise a few eyebrows,” DeConto warns.’
This is interesting to hear, as the press release on the Nature paper seemed to imply that they were considering their past results to be a constraint on the near future. In addition, recall that there were some remarks from Naish and a couple of others to the effect that the model results may not preclude sharper past collapse rates, which would imply that the eyebrow-raising results for the near future may still be too conservative.
Gareth, your point re AGW scepticism and religion is beyond tedious, it’s also boring and wrong.
Your point will force you to label everyone who questions your particular vision of apocalypse as a religious crank.
Is Prof. Plimer really a crank ? or his is fundamental criticism too difficult for you to confront ?
Some respect and a little humility, (as displayed above by Paul Sheehan of the SMH) may be warranted.
Ayrdale: You are nothing but a weasel-mouthed hypocrite. On the front page of your blog, you quote this:
Don’t like it when your own trite nonsense is turned back on you, eh?
Gareth, your ritual abuse is not rebuttal of any argument.
Please explain too, how you come to the conclusion above.
Paul Sheehan’s challenge is worth repeating to you…
“The greater question is, am I – and you – capable of questioning our own orthodoxies and intellectual habits? Let’s see…â€
The problem for you, Ayrdale, is that my approach to the problem is to look at all the evidence and form a view based on the totality. What you and the rest of the cranks do is start from your preconceptions and grab whatever scraps of evidence you can twist to your purpose. Plimer’s book appears to be a good example of that.
Why not go and read the Barry Brook link Steve Bloom provided above? I’ve got NZ-based fish to fry…
Hey, I tried Steve’s link and it just got me back here?
And who is Barry Brook to take on the great Ian Plimer…..oh that’s right…he’s a climate scientist (looks a bit young though…must be part of some communist conspiracy).
and @ Ayredale…the parallels between AGW denial and creationism are all too obvious. Except perhaps to creationists and denialists.
Fixed. Click on “dismantles”.
There are dozens alternate theories to anthropogenic global warming, proving them wrong does not make AGW right.
Global warming is only a theory, and can not yet be proven.
Regardless of the magnitude, the climate has always experienced natural variation. It must be experiencing some level of natural variation today.
The aim is to prove anthropogenic global warming, the hypothesis is this is significant and positive, and the null hypothesis is that this warming is zero.
The first task is then to remove natural warming from the warming observed over the last centaury, and then to place a confidence interval on the remaining anthropogenic warming in order to reject the null at a significant level.
We therefore need to understand natural climate change before we can prove the existence of anthropogenic global warming, until then it is only a theory.
So all these alternate skeptic theories are important to the AGW shouters, they need to be fully investigated.
Until we can understand the natural causes for climate variation it is impossible to understand the anthropogenic causes.
(and there for immoral to have ETS based on an unproven theory.)
What a long list of sceptic tropes — almost a catechism, you might say…
You really need to look up what scientists mean by a theory. In the case of global warming, this begins with quantum theory, which provides us with our explanation of the radiative behaviour of greenhouse gases. For some of your “alternate theories” to be of any interest, you first have to demonstrate why the current theory doesn’t work. The fact is that our current understanding of the way climate works has tremendous explanatory power, both in our current position and in paleoclimate — as well as in the understanding of atmospheres on other planets.
Given this power, and the deep roots in well-established physics, sceptics will have to come up with a really powerful reason why we should discard what we currently understand. No sign of that yet.
The real immorality here is in arguing for inaction in the face of a huge stack of evidence that climate change will be hugely damaging to humanity. Arguing delay and denial increases the damage that will be done. Ready to pay that bill?
I thought not.
R2D2 you are on thin ice at this blog.
You are saying that the science isn’t settled, and that natural variation of our climate may account for climatic changes.
You are beginning to sound like a denier and a sceptic.
Gareth, gonno, lawrence and others may be upset…watch it…
Not me Ayrdale, I only get upset when some pillock can’t be bothered getting my name right. And if it’s thick ice you want, you could always stay over at your own blog.
Gareth:
But my main premise is that anthropogenic global warming is an unproven, and unquantified theory, and nothing you have said changes my opinion on that.
We can’t prove and measure the affect of CO2 on Earth, don’t argue we can on Mars and Venus! The % of the atmosphere is very much higher on Venus, and the atmospheric pressure is 92 times higher! How can you argue that is an equivalent proof of AGW on Earth?
And you know the ice core records do not prove CO2 as a main factor in warming so don’t spin crap, as bad as Al Gore.
So not only is AGW unproven and unquantified, its based on loose science. Thanks for the reminder.
As for arguing delay and denial, what would you argue if i said, i have a theory that if we allow, lets say, sex before marriage, god will punish us with war and plague, and you can’t prove me wrong, so we better employ the precautionary principle and not allow pre-marital relationships just in case?
but I would call it skepticism, and not wanting to act on theories until they were proven.
Looking forward to your reply 🙂
“We can’t prove and measure the affect of CO2 on Earth, don’t argue we can on Mars and Venus!… And you know the ice core records do not prove CO2 as a main factor in warming”
That you drew these conclusions and now defend them without having looked at the science (readily available on the internet) is why it’s denial rather than skepticism.
I would agree with Steve and call it Denialism as well, because it seems to me that you are denying that A) there is a problem and B) we know anything about it. You have taken a stand based on what exactly. While it can’t proved beyond a shadow of doubt that the present climate change has a fair bit of man made component to it, you sure as hell can’t prove it hasn’t. If you where indeed a skeptic you would have taken no stand either way and be testing both sides of the argument, not just the side that competes with your pre-held ideas on how it all works.
Laurence:
“If you where indeed a skeptic you would have taken no stand either way and be testing both sides of the argument, not just the side that competes with your pre-held ideas on how it all works.”
But thats exactly what I do think. I have seen plenty of alternate theories, everything from solar variation to pacific decadal oscillation, to changes in energy received from the galaxy, and I don’t claim that these are anymore proven than AGW. Its hypocritical to say AGW isn’t proven and then say it must there for be solar variation.
“While it can’t proved beyond a shadow of doubt that the present climate change has a fair bit of man made component to it, you sure as hell can’t prove it hasn’t” – I know. So what? The burden of proof is not on the skeptic but the theorist. The null has to be accepted until the alternate is proven.
I do deny A) there is a problem yet. There is a predicted, theoretical problem, but no problem with todays temperatures.
B) We know anything about it (your words not mine, we of course know limited information). We certainly can’t quantify the ‘temperature anomaly’ with any certainty
Steve Bloom: I give reason for not relying on Venus for climate evidence, its atmosphere has 92 times the pressure of Earth’s.
I have read plenty of “the science” as you call it. Mudelsee (2001) found that;
“Vostok’s CO2 record lag behind those of its air-temperature record (dD) by 1.3 +/-1.0 ka”
This shows that CO2 is a function of temperature and not the other way around. It shows that my statement “the ice core records do not prove CO2 as a main factor in warming” probably holds.
I also find it interesting that, not only do ice core records show a strong correlation between temperature and CO2, but they also show a strong correlation with nitrous oxide and methane (IPCC AR4 WG1 figure 6.3). What does this show? My thoughts would be that the biogenic sources of CO2 and methane should be inversely related, ie periods of high plant growth would deplete carbon stocks but increase methane levels.
To me, a correlation between CO2,CH4 and N2O would suggest they are being driven by the same thing. And temperature seems to be a candidate as they are also correlated with this. It seems crazy to say they all drive temperature, but all have separate drivers when they are so correlated.
We can, do, and have. We have a very precise understanding of the radiative behaviour of CO2, other GHGs and the atmosphere in general. Ever wonder why NASA & the ESA go to great lengths to send infra-red telescopes into orbit? It’s because the night sky shines at those wavelengths as the GHGs radiate heat towards the ground.
The ice core data doesn’t “prove” anything of the sort. It indicates that the warming is triggered by something else (Milankovitch cycles changing insolation at northern high latitudes), but the CO2 released as the oceans warm is necessary to complete the thaw. CO2 behaves the same way in both circumstances – that’s physics for you – but the triggers are different.
This time it’s us.
“We can’t prove and measure the affect of CO2 on Earth”
Can you please explain why the earth’s average temp is around 15°C, when in theory it should be -33°C?
Are you trying to deny the natural greenhouse effect?
Stupid old troll.. same old lies.
Jonno, IIRC the difference is 33C, with a lower temperature of -18C.
Sorry, you are correct. Without GHG, the Earth’s temp would be -18°C in theory.
If GHG don’t affect the Earth’s temp, then can R2D2 please explain?
Thanks for calling me stupid, now I realise my problem. Here I was thinking I was the smart one.
Can you please provide me with a link to the research. Quick Google scholar search did not find anything.
But, I’ll take your word for it and presume the article is genuine. Someone did research and estimate the Earth would be 33C cooler without greenhouse gasses.
I will also presume that tropospheric water vapour is included in that number? And since H2O is 95% of the greenhouse affect then the rest are responsible for about 1.65C of warming. Maybe. So if we change CO2 from 350ppm to 550ppm what will happen? Is the affect linear or logarithmic?
But lets forget that, there is a greenhouse affect, and increasing those gasses will increase the temperature of the Earth.
But again, “But my main premise is that anthropogenic global warming is an unproven, and unquantified theory”
– I am referring to the warming of the late 21st century of 0.7C that was presumably caused by people and the projected IPCC warming.
We do not understand the natural variations on climate so we can not fully attribute this rise to anthropogenic GHG’s. How mush of an affect on climate is the pacific decadal oscillation going to have? How much of an affect is the current solar minimum going to have? Are the current temperature readings right? Or do satellites disagree with them?
Do IPCC reports represent all the science on the historical levels of CO2 and CH4? Are anthropogenic sources the only reason for the recent increase?
Why do methane observations not reflect methane emissions? Where does the imbalance come from? What affect do warming oceans have on atmospheric CO2 levels?
All these question still cast doubt on AGW, even if the natural GH effect is presumed to contribute 33C.
Check out figure 6.3 of the IPCC AR4 WG1, link here: http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/graphics/ar4-wg1/jpg/fig-6-3.jpg
Why do methane and Co2 move so closely? Is it possible that they are being driven by climate rather than climate driving them? Saying they are feed backs accepts that climate is driving them, but presumes they are also driving climate. Why do we not get an exponential climate curve if that is the case? How did nature ever stop warming once it started? If the feedbacks are like people say, then should we not see a snowball affect where once warming starts it just keeps going?
The alternate theory is that the natural carbon and methane cycles far out shadow anthropogenic cycle. Proving the greenhouse affect does not disprove this theory.
It does also not prove that the greenhouse affect is the only thing to affect the climate. And also does not prove that through the greenhouse affect increased emissions are going to cause up to 6C of warming.
[R2 – Just found the comments of yours that hit the spam filter, and passed this one through. The others all said much the same thing so I deleted them. Not sure why the spam filter was getting in the way… GR]
Wrong. Water vapour is about 50%, clouds another 25%, and all greenhouse gases working together the rest. For a more nuanced discussion, try here.
As for the warming we’ve seen: CO2 has increased by nearly 40% over the last 150 years, and we notice the planet’s warming. It’s what we would expect. So what happens if we add more CO2? I’s have thought that was obvious. How much warmer? Depends on a lot of things — like the amount of CO2 we emit, the forests we chop down, and the way the climate system reacts. Lots of unknowns there, but nothing that says the warming will suddenly stop because a few people think it will be too expensive to reduce emissions.
*wanders into blog, yawning*
gosh we seem to have gotten right back to the basics here.
My question is who does McCabe Environmental Services work for? Or is it just Bruce McCabe’s one-man-and-his-wife band?
I don’t know, cindy. Nothing much shows up in the famous search engine. But I have finished my comments on their evidence and shipped it off to the committee. When they make it public, I’ll link to it here.
R2, you found the AR4, so read it. The questions you ask are largely answered in it. Debating with people who are much more interested in argument than in learning is boring.
To keep it reasonable time-wise, maybe just read the WG1 technical summary and refer to the full report for anything you’re still unclear on. Then read Hansen et al’s “Target CO2” paper for a policy-relevant update, plus recent RealClimate posts on topics that are interesting to you. Actually I’d suggest starting with the American Institute of Physics’ “Discovery of Global Warming” (book-length but an easy read) for the historical context (then the WG1 report, then the Hansen paper, then RC).
If you’re willing to do that, I’m happy to answer remaining questions.
Good advice, SB. If time’s tight, I’d suggest that The Discovery Of Global Warming covers all the bases: it’s only 250,000 words… 😉
Just to add that if you want to see the real nitty-gritty you need a textbook that gets into the physics. Here’s a good one that will remain permanently accessible. It’s a beginning graduate text book, which is a bit of tough row to hoe for self-study purposes even if one has a recent hard science BS (which I sure don’t), but skimming it provides a good sense of what the basics of the science really look like.
“Here I was thinking I was the smart one”
FAIL
“Quick Google scholar search did not find anything.â€
A high school science class may help you.
” Someone did research and estimate the Earth would be 33C cooler without greenhouse gasses.”
Just a few climate scientists… are going back nearly 200 years.
‘The alternate theory is that the natural carbon and methane cycles far out shadow anthropogenic cycle. Proving the greenhouse affect does not disprove this theory.’
Puff… carbon (ppm) has remained constant in the atmosphere for a while, till we started to pump extra GHG in the atmosphere. Your theory has been proven wrong.
“But again, “But my main premise is that anthropogenic global warming is an unproven, and unquantified theory†”
Can you please provide me with a link to the research?
Can some please explain to me why these stupid trolls keep repeating the same old crap? Next it will be that ‘gases’ is a unproven theory.. Can anyone see carbon dioxide with their eyes?
Jonno’s abuse; “stupid trolls” is standard, and his patronising arrogance, is ensuring that HotTopic is not a pleasant place to hang out. That’s good because uncommitted, interested people who wander in are likely to be put off by oafish comments like Jonno’s and go elsewhere. Sceptical “trolls” like myself see the desperation in abusive language that only fear and uncertainty can produce. Fear of being proved wrong.
It is a fact that more and more people are of the opinion that climate change is largely a natural variability phenomenon, and it is my opinion that the fear of catastrophic climate change is just a tool used by left leaning political activists.
Hot Topic is as I say not a pleasant place to hang out, but is an important site for sceptics like myself to indicate dissention. Keep blogging !
And of course, under this government, ideologically opposed to left wing political activism, we sceptics have time on our side, and with arch sceptic Rodney Hide on board a big foot in the door. The trump card of time on our side will continue to see all the climate models so beloved by the IPCC proved lacking, and with that a persistent steady evaporation of community support for radical climate change measures.
Hey, all hail the blogosphere !
“Jonno’s abuse; “stupid trolls†is standard, and his patronising arrogance, is ensuring that HotTopic is not a pleasant place to hang out. That’s good because uncommitted, interested people who wander in are likely to be put off by oafish comments like Jonno’s and go elsewhere. Sceptical “trolls†like myself see the desperation in abusive language that only fear and uncertainty can produce. Fear of being proved wrong.”
So your not a “Troll” then?
Over on your “Blog” I found this:
“Blogger MK said…
And every totalitarian regime requires that opposition be silenced. Hence all those communist shitholes offer utopia but you’re not allowed to question them.
It’s a similar theme with the leftists and their global warming BS. To be fair, they don’t have their secret police, but a number of them have made their feelings on skeptics well known, from jail to censorship, they too get very upset when anyone dares to question their shit.
17 April 2009 10:35
Blogger Ayrdale said…
That’s why I enjoy commenting to the hot and bothered people at Hot-Topic.co.nz.”
Enough said!
Well there is a difference between’ questioning’ and ‘trolling’, but when you start using terms like leftists/communists/control freaks and ‘secret lefty conspiracies to tax more’ when questioning the ‘theory’ of AGW, then your motives obviously diverge from scientific inquiry a little, which certainly brings one closer to trolling. Just generally.
Professor Barry Brook of the University of Adelaide delivers a detailed review of Ian Plimer’s book (lauded by Ayrdale above). He describes it thus:
Are you feeling patronised Ayrdale? You can’t keep up? Do you want me to talk a bit slower?
“It is a fact that more and more people are of the opinionâ€
You see here, there is a big difference between ‘opinion’ and scientific evidence. A difference you clearly don’t understand.
You, like many sceptics, are a sad old man. I get pleasure from upsetting you. I love to lick the tears from your cheek, every time you cry.
jesus
No tongues, please, jonno.
This is no surprise, unfortunately.
Jonno, I am a very happy chap, even more so when your responses provide such entertainment.
Upsetting me ? no way. Your comments if left on site, are a wonderful advertisement for your arrogant dogmatism. Hence of course Gareth’s caution.
Did you see the latest Rasmussen Reports by the way ?
Worth a look…http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/environment/energy_update
Yet again you have proven that you cannot tell the difference between opinion and scientific evidence.
It is your comments that show your your arrogant dogmatism, hence of course why I make fun of you, sad old man.
Did you see the latest peer reviewed climate science article by the way?
What, you can understand it? Explains a lot.
I think Ayrdale has finally crossed the line into censorship territory, Gareth.
Surely not, Steve?
Impotus is more like it!
You don’t find the racist slur implied by Ayrdale’s selected photo and his use of “POTUS” to be offensive beyond acceptability, Gareth? That by itself would be enough to get him banned from most non-wingnut blogs in the U.S.
I must admit I hadn’t connected the two, Steve, but if it could be considered offensive, I’ll edit.
Ayrdale: please change your gravatar/name. Until you do, I’ll be removing your posts.
Hey thanks guys for all the literature, I have read the AR4 report, is the idea of that not to summarise all the pro AGW literature? Now I need to read a whole lot more to fully understand global warming? Starting to sound like Kings Pajama’s kinda stuff guys?
Well before I read all your books on global warming maybe you answer me one question so I have faith its worth my while.
I will address Jono as he directed the bluntest insults my way,
First of all I did not see a link to research showing the greenhouse effect contributes 33C to climate.
But also;
“Puff… carbon (ppm) has remained constant in the atmosphere for a while”
… a while eh? how long is that? First of all it fluctuates seasonally.
2nd, only according to the IPCC.
http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/co2scandal.pdf
This article claims CO2 was 440ppm in 1940. It is very convenient to have a strait line then a sharp curve, ie hockey stick graph but after the Mann et el fraud one must be sceptical.
I am not sure what the correct of CO2 is over the last century, who to believe, but over the geological time frame? it has varied tremendously, I even included a link in my last post to an IPCC graph that shows this.
175 million years ago CO2 was ten times what it was today.
Warming oceans emit about 12 times as much CO2 as people today.
So the one question I want answered is (because when I posed about 12 none got answered), if CO2 drives climate, and ocean temperatures drive CO2, once warming starts, like at the start of the current interglacial, how can it ever stop? Is this not a circular equation?!!
x = y +1
y = x +1
y = oo ??
(x = x + 2, x/x = 2, 1 = 2)
Also
As a point of interest for a few people on this site all the ETS submissions that are not going to be presented orally are now available on the web:
http://www.parliament.nz/CmsSystem/Templates/Documents/DetailedListing.aspx?NRNODEGUID={E02C3893-7BD9-416F-908C-34613A785EF7}&search=166165211
I think the corporate submissions will mainly support AGW theory as they have to toe the popular line, same as politicians, but interesting that what seems like a majority of the private citizen submissions argue the science is bogus.
Are these people all cranks? I guess so.
Gareth and others, there was no racial slur intended.
It didn’t occur to me at all; in fact it was because of a difficulty logging on I decided to re-register with a new user name, potus came to mind, and of course I pointed that out in one of my comments.
However, I’ll put my thinking cap on Gareth.
Perhaps Troll2 ?
In the absence of the greenhouse effect and an atmosphere, the Earth’s average surface temperature of 14 °C (57 °F) could be as low as −18 °C (−0.4 °F)
Try doing a search for the black body temperature of the Earth.
Well, you’re certainly not Troll1… 😉
R2: If you really have read AR4 — all of it — how come you still need to ask basic questions? The reference on CO2 that you cite is rubbish. Try this for why.
R2D2, look up “convergent infinite series”. What we’re talking about is a feedback loop, in which an initial push has an effect that increases the magnitude of that push. As long as the increase is smaller than the initial push, you don’t get a runaway to infinity. As an example, consider a feedback loop in which the feedback adds half of any push, and start with with a shove of 1 unit. That will generate an extra push of 1/2, and then that half can be considered another push, generating a further half of that value, i.e. 1/4 and so on. You get:
1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + …
Mathematically this evaluates as equal to 2.
Basically this kind of system acts as an amplifier. In this example if you have some initial driving force that varies with time, the feedback acts to multiply the effect of that driver by 2.
“there was no racial slur intended”
Not too credible, IMO. In general, your rhetoric smells a bit too strongly of U.S. wingnuttery for you not to have known. More likely you hoped that other NZer’s wouldn’t know.
Thanks Fragment,
You make a good point.
Climate can drive CO2 and CO2 can drive climate, if one of the drives the other at a diminishing rate. So for every degree of climate we go up, the CO2 levels go up less, or for every 10ppm of CO2 that is added the climate goes up less. Or both.
I’m not sure the ice core records show this diminishing relationship tho, i dont think.
http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/graphics/ar4-wg1/jpg/fig-6-3.jpg
Obviously can not tell from just looking at a graph. Does anyone know any research done on this?
R2, I don’t think the feedback relationship is directly apparent just from the ice core records, although it is somewhat implied by the initial lag. On the flip side, the ice core records can’t be explained without the feedback. This article describing what happens at the end of glaciations may be helpful.
As I understand it, the ice core record shows a fairly clear relationship between glaciations and the Milankovitch cycles in orbital parameters. The trouble is, Milankovitch cycles change the total amount of solar radiation the planet receives in a year by very little. If this small amount could directly trigger glaciations, climate sensitivity would have to be really high – thankfully there’s evidence that it isn’t. What Milankovitch cycles do change is the distribution of sunlight in space and time (through the year).
So, presumably the orbital changes affect global temperatures through some intermediate process. Last I read (and I’m not widely read here, so usual caveats apply to this whole post), there were several hypothetical processes that have been suggested, but no clear evidence for a particular process. Nonetheless CO2 and methane are good candidates for playing a role in all this because: 1) physics says they should have an effect on climate, 2) they vary with the same periodicity and in the direction predicted by the physics, and 3) changes in distribution of sunlight (spatially and through the year) should be able to have an effect on the carbon cycle due to changes in the distribution and abundance of vegetation and algae (and hence photosynthesis rates).
The basic process is clear enough (initial warming from Milankovitch cycles leads to release of Southern Ocean CO2, etc.), but there’s continuing argument about the exact non-Milankovitch factors involved at the start of the process.
Just read Gareth’s response to the Mc Cabe’s submission.
Weak.
I count 1 actual source, 4 wikipedia references, a bunch of blogs and newspapers and 2 references to IPCC FAQ.
The first part simply attacks the credibility of the source. Linking Singer to pro tobacco – via an unreferenced wikipedia article (that also says he received the U.S. Department of Commerce Gold Medal Award for Distinguished Federal Service for the development and management of the U.S. weather satellite program, after being the first Director of the National Weather Bureau’s Satellite Service Center (1962-64), and that Singer is Professor Emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia, specializing in planetary science, global warming, ozone depletion, and other global environmental issues. Clearly he has more experience than most in the climate space, aged 84 with a lifetime in the area)
The rebuttal then foes not address the comments made by the McCabe’s.
Only the arguments are fairly week, and generally unreferenced.
For example Gareth starts one paragraph “It seems likely”
And others with comments like “This is nonsense”, but does not follow the comment with any referenced statements. Only statements that PLANE can not be true, ie “All climate scientists”, well clearly the McCabes are climate scientists (Gareth however is not).
In possibly the most telling part of the rebuttal Gareth states “The hockey stick graph has never been discredited”
Was McIntyre and McKitrick 2005 not the reason the IPCC has dropped the hockey stick graph from its AR4 report? They put red noise through the process used by Mann et el and got the same hockey stick shape. Is that not discrediting? I think if this was done by a sceptic Gareth would rightfully jump on them, but a double standard is given here, showing Gareth’s true colour – politics not science. The Mann hockey graph went against what the IPCC had previously published, it needs to stand up to scrutiny before it can rewrite history, literally as the case may be.
Although it appeared in the TAR report it has disappeared from the AR4 (well i can’t find it). Why is that do you think is?
Seems like it does.
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/NRCreport.pdf
Hardly, the 1999 graph shows a more or less strait line, and then a sharp increase during the 20th century. This was not obtained by data, but a statistical method that was shown always produce this shape.
IF the last ten years were the warmest in the last 1000, that still leaves 990 years in question.
The original has been consigned to the memory hole because of the blatantly overly flat temperatures during the middle ages.
Check out the differences
1st 1999 graph http://therealrevo.com/blog/?p=4120
2nd later graph http://img363.imageshack.us/img363/2787/4arhockeystickga4.gif
The more recent Mann et el graphs shows a series of different temperature reconstructions. However these are done in a misleading way (the first is a fraud, the 2nd a deception).
The black line is modern temperature readings, the gray a trend line. Imagine the graph with out these two lines and how similar is it (ie the first 900 years) to the original?
You may notice that none of the proxies show an increased level of variation in the last 100 years, hence the problem with the statistical method used.
Sorry but I will listen to pro AGW arguments for a time, but once they start claiming the hockey stick graph ‘has stood up to scrutiny’ they lose all creditability. Again, if this science was done by septics(fraud then deception), you would rightfully be very critical. Don’t employ a double standard.
I’m away from my desk at the moment so can’t check the page number, but the hockey stick is most certainly in AR4.
Asserting that it has been discredited is one of the cranks “big lies” – something they hope that by repetition will become accepted as true.
I’ll post on my comment on the McCabe evidence later, but I think it only fair to point out that he substantially misrepresents what I say. Why am I not surprised?
It’s funny how R2D2 claims the hockey stick was dropped in the AR4 and in the next post links to an AR4 graph with it right there. The only reconstruction criticised by McIntyre & McKittrick 2005 is MBH98, which was the basis for MBH99, which is the graph that was in the TAR, and it’s right there in the spaghetti graph, the first listed in the legend.
I don’t know what you’ve read on hockey stick, R2D2, but it seems to have been pretty one-sided. IIRC the red noise thing has been shown to produce nowhere near as dramatic a stick as MBH98 found, and there’s no evidence for “fraud then deception”. But this has been discussed ad nauseum elsewhere.
hockey stick vanished in the AR4?
erm – no.
fig 6.10 on page 467 of IPCC AR4 WG1 CH6 [7.7MB PDF]
One could almost ask ‘which’ hockey stick? There are a few on display there, albeit with some crossover, so there are not as many as it looks like at first.
R2, once again you’ve shown that from your point of view having an argument based on incomplete information is preferable to doing your homework. How many chances do you think should you get before you’re just ignored?
Gareth, the log-in here doesn’t work very well. I just lost a comment as a result.
Cindy, Fragment & others, if you read my post you would see I said I could not find the ORIGINAL (1999) Mann graph in IPCC AR4 (after featuring prominently in TAR). The reason for this could be that it has been superseded or could be that it has been discredited, or both.
The graph that superseded it, my ‘graph 2’ from my post, and has been referred to as the spaghetti graph by ‘fragment’, does include what is called MBH1999 – but this line is missing the famous hockey stick end! It ends just above or just below the (modern) average line.
So why has the hockey stick graph been superseded? Does it show the same thing as the AR4 graphs? Was it misleading?
If you look closely at the 3 graphs of Figure 6.10 (provided by Cindy), the 1st shows we have defiantly had a temperature rise since 1700, a time known as the little ice age. The 2nd shows that all proxy records show northern hemisphere temperatures are about the same as they were in 2000, while instrumental records show we are much higher. The 3rd reiterates this, that the distribution of proxies 1000AD is similar to 2000. Box 6.4 shows that the medieval warm period was regional, it also shows that modern warming was regional (what new?).
I would conclude that the IPCC AR4 even discredits the Mann Hockey stick graph (the 1999 one!), by showing an alternative history in figure 6.10 (before you comment take another look at the original graph please).
The main difference is the way the instrumental record is spliced on top of the proxy data – and the contaminated urban data is presented as having the same weight as uncontaminated proxy data.
Would be interesting to see southern hemisphere temperature records – any links anyone?
Anyway – stand by my comments on Gareth’s submission, a lot of hype on this website for something that wouldn’t pass a 200 level university essay. Full of unreferenced opinion (and before you say I am doing that – I am not submitting to select committee, this is a blog).
“The 2nd shows that all proxy records show northern hemisphere temperatures are about the same as they were in 2000” – Meant to be 1000AD, not 2000, sorry.
nice quote from ME Mann;
“No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, “grafted the thermometer record onto” any reconstruction. It is somewhat disappointing to find this specious claim (which we usually find originating from industry-funded climate disinformation websites) appearing in this forum.”
Not sure if this was the left hand side of a Tui billboard or a real quote! lol
Read… the… AR4 WG1… full report… text. Only an idiot troll would try to interpret graphs without looking at the text.
Dude, no need to insult me.
And this is a bait and switch, we could talk about the hockey stick for ever but I was interested in some critical opinion on the rest of Gareth’s rebuttal to the McCabe’s submission – we are caught up on one point.
but anyway here goes:
I have read it. I read parts of it again. I agree with what is says, for the most part, but not all the conclusions it draws. And the conclusions the IPCC report finds are predetermined anyway, it is always going to find in favour of AGW.
I still can’t find the’ hockey stick’ reconstruction of Mann et al. (1999)’ any where in there report, so I presume they do not endorse it over the reconstructions they have used. (the original hockey stick with the MBH1999 proxy data grafted onto the instrumental record)
They do say “The ‘hockey stick’ reconstruction of Mann et al. (1999) has
been the subject of several critical studies”. But they also present examples of articles opposing M&M (which is of course fair enough)
But I presume that in the end they felt the graphs the presented were stronger than Mann 1999, or other wise they would have used Mann, as it presents the clearest picture in favour of AGW.
see the original here http://www.ltrr.arizona.edu/webhome/aprilc/data/my%20stuff/MBH1999.pdf
But any, call me a Troll if you want (i dont really get the analogy – fill me in), but I don’t think i have ever stated AGW as wrong on this blog? I am here searching for solid evidence, but so far coming up short. Insulting me is not a very good way of proving your argument. It is usually the last resort of someone who is in the wrong.
I’ve given you a post on the subject of my comments on McCabe’s evidence, so you can take your thoughts there.
But to address your hockey stick comments above: the point you miss is that the early MBH papers provided a foundation on which others have built. AR4 reflects the current state of play – that’s why it has the “spaghetti” graph with lots of curves from lots of studies. And that’s the primary evidence for the MBH papers not being “discredited”. Nobody thinks they’re “right” or “wrong”, but they are and have been useful.
You might want to read the Wikipedia reference I provide in the evidence. It provides a very balanced overview of the whole topic.
R2
You don’t have to……
This (and comments like it) give away your prejudices.
And why do you think that McCabe is a climate scientist? Paleolimnologist doesn’t fit the bill for me.
Andrew
From the AR4:
“The ‘hockey stick’ reconstruction of Mann et al. (1999) has been the subject of several critical studies. Soon and Baliunas (2003) challenged the conclusion that the 20th century was the warmest at a hemispheric average scale. They surveyed regionally diverse proxy climate data, noting evidence for relatively warm (or cold), or alternatively dry (or wet) conditions occurring at any time within pre-defined periods assumed to bracket the so-called ‘Medieval Warm Period’ (and ‘Little Ice Age’). Their qualitative approach precluded any quantitative summary of the evidence at precise times, limiting the value of their review as a basis for comparison of the relative magnitude of mean hemispheric 20th-century warmth (Mann and Jones, 2003; Osborn and Briffa, 2006). Box 6.4 provides more information on the ‘Medieval Warm Period’.
“McIntyre and McKitrick (2003) reported that they were unable to replicate the results of Mann et al. (1998). Wahl and Ammann (2007) showed that this was a consequence of differences in the way McIntyre and McKitrick (2003) had implemented the method of Mann et al. (1998) and that the original reconstruction could be closely duplicated using the original proxy data. McIntyre and McKitrick (2005a,b) raised further concerns about the details of the Mann et al. (1998) method, principally relating to the independent verification of the reconstruction against 19th-century instrumental temperature data and to the extraction of the dominant modes of variability present in a network of western North American tree ring chronologies, using Principal Components Analysis. The latter may have some theoretical foundation, but Wahl and Amman (2006) also show that the impact on the amplitude of the final reconstruction is very small (~0.05°C; for further discussion of these issues see also Huybers, 2005; McIntyre and McKitrick, 2005c,d; von Storch and Zorita, 2005).”
Is there something that’s not clear about this? Just in case: MBH good, M&M (and S+B for that matter) bad. Re the graphics, had you read MBH 99 carefully you would have seen the graphic caption saying that the recon ends in 1980. The instrumental record was overlaid (not spliced), just as in the AR4 spaghetti graph.
“I am here searching for solid evidence, but so far coming up short.” So you still didn’t do that reading. “And the conclusions the IPCC report finds are predetermined anyway, it is always going to find in favour of AGW.” Well, that sure makes it easy to reject any evidence you don’t like.
“I agree with what [the AR4] says, for the most part, but not all the conclusions it draws.” On what body of knowledge do you base your disagreement? How can a person who’s made no systematic study of this material draw any conclusions about it, lack of suitable expertise aside?
“…[MBH 99] presents the clearest picture in favour of AGW.” Wrong. You didn’t read the hockey stick material I linked. Forget the MWP, though, the Earth has been much warmer than present for most of the Phanerozoic. That says what exactly about the present warming?
In a prior comment you asserted “the contaminated urban data is presented as having the same weight as uncontaminated proxy data.” What contaminated urban data? The instrumental record? Please.
“The 2nd shows that all proxy records show northern hemisphere temperatures are about the same as they were in 2000.” Nope. Look again. After you’re done with that, try to see if you can find the discussion of the southern hemisphere proxy data.
“It is usually the last resort of someone who is in the wrong.” Or just exasperation regarding someone who repeatedly acts like an idiot.
“had you read MBH 99 carefully you would have seen the graphic caption saying that the recon ends in 1980”
IF the hockey stick graph is MBH1999 , and MBH1999 ends in 1980, the instrumental record is a separate data set, then MBH1999 isn’t much of a hockey stick?
“How can a person who’s made no systematic study of this material draw any conclusions about it, lack of suitable expertise aside?” – Well the EU, US, Aussie, and NZ governments are introducing legislation to ‘fight climate change’, in a democracy every citizen needs to draw the best opinion they can on the subject. Is global warming such a complex issue that we need a scientific dictatorship to legislate the nessecary measures? If I can’t draw conclusions who can? Only the IPCC?? Is it better to just ‘believe’ everything people tell us without critical discussion? Should our government be acting on the will of the IPCC or the will of its people?
“Well the EU, US, Aussie, and NZ governments are introducing legislation to ‘fight climate change’, in a democracy every citizen needs to draw the best opinion they can on the subject.”
Along with climate science, you obviously don’t understand democracy.
Do you use this argument for every bit of legislation that government passes?
No? Why not?
The government is voted in every 3 years, and is mandated to make the best decisions for it people. It bases its decisions on the ‘best’ advice possible. When it come to climate policy, I would rather it basis policy on advice from climate science, as opposed to idiots’ opinions who don’t understand science.
“Should our government be acting on the will of the IPCC or the will of its people?”
It should bases it on the best advice, not from muppets like you. Grrr.. these stupid people just grate me at times. I don’t care about being nice to these ****.
Note “hockey stick,” not “hockey stick with huge extended blade.” If we take your advice and continue with business as usual, by 2100 we’ll be able to convert the former handle into a blade and have a normally-proportioned HS once again. All it’ll take is another 5C or so.
Did you notice, BTW, how much time and effort you put into elaborating and engaging in flights of fancy about your misunderstanding, when a minute or so of careful perusal of the source graphic would have resolved the issue? You’re welcome.
Re listening to the climate scientists about climate change, should we stop listening to economists about the economy now that monetarism and the efficient markets hypothesis have been so spectacularly disproved?
Wonder how this is going to affect things… Australians delay by 2 years effectively, one year being a low fixed price. More generous free allocation also.
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/global-warming/rudd-delays-emissions-trading-scheme-20090504-aryi.html
Morning report today contained a short interview with Nick Smith on his reaction to the Australian announcements, including why he hasn’t announced a similar 2020 target for NZ.
http://www.radionz.co.nz/__data/assets/audio_item/0012/1936659/mnr-20090505-0640-Australia_to_delay_carbon_emissions_scheme-m048.asx
actually the NZ reaction on RNZ is a different link .
Nick Smith admits NZ hasn’t got a 2020 target. “NZ is unusual. Large proportions of emissions from Ag and forestry….NZ will not finalise our 2020 target… until we get the key satellite data around deforestation in July.”
NZ and Australian economies and policies should be harmonised… we have a tougher job here because of ag. emissions. Australians have an easier job because of its coal-fired power stations.
Thanks Cindy. You might be interested in the Liberal’s reaction to the announced changes:
http://www.liberal.org.au/news.php?Id=3059
Free allocation for coal exporters??