PDA

View Full Version : Man-Made Climate Change: Issues and debates



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Kevin Bonham
07-02-2011, 10:40 PM
Spiny's skeptic graph:

* doesn't have the resolution to clearly account for the current warming at the end (though perhaps the promulgators would attempt to deny it exists).

* is specifically referring to the northern hemisphere.

* is "after Dansgaard et al. (1969) & Schönwiese (1995)" and therefore is likely to not include the last 15 years. Many of these long-term graphs have trouble showing the present position because the rate of apparent increase right at the end is too fine-scale and too steep.

Even then the best you could get out of that graph would be to say the current position was less than one degree below the peak of the last 20,000 years. And even then my statement that significant warming will put existing species into new territory while significant cooling would not remains intact.

Spiny Norman
09-02-2011, 04:48 PM
After listening to various and sundry media tarts claiming that Cyclone Yasi was an example of the increasing frequency of cyclones/hurricanes, due to global warming, I looked up the actual statistics on frequency of these storms:

http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/graphics/global_running_freq_12.jpg

ref: http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/graphics/global_running_freq_12.jpg

Kevin Bonham
09-02-2011, 07:21 PM
After listening to various and sundry media tarts claiming that Cyclone Yasi was an example of the increasing frequency of cyclones/hurricanes, due to global warming, I looked up the actual statistics on frequency of these storms:

Yes. The claim that global warming increases the frequency of tropical storms is bunkum. A more concerning issue is the question of whether it can increase their intensity - which is the real argument re Yasi.

Igor_Goldenberg
10-02-2011, 02:29 PM
Yes. The claim that global warming increases the frequency of tropical storms is bunkum. A more concerning issue is the question of whether it can increase their intensity - which is the real argument re Yasi.
It can, as warmer oceans might leads to stronger cyclone. But did it actually?

Spiny Norman
10-02-2011, 03:57 PM
Yes. The claim that global warming increases the frequency of tropical storms is bunkum. A more concerning issue is the question of whether it can increase their intensity - which is the real argument re Yasi.
... and the answer is ...

It should show up in the following graph, which is of Accumulated Cyclone Energy:

http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/global_running_ace.jpg

Doesn't look like an increasing trend there either.

(ref: http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/global_running_ace.jpg)

Kevin Bonham
10-02-2011, 08:50 PM
That is not the most appropriate test because it is contaminated by the number of cyclones. It would be more interesting to see mean cyclone intensity and especially data on the number and proportion of cyclones that are above a given strength.

Spiny Norman
11-02-2011, 06:31 PM
I'm going to email the author of the graphs and see whether he can point me in the direction of some raw data which would enable that question to be answered.

Kevin Bonham
11-02-2011, 06:44 PM
It's interesting to note how dissimilar those two graphs are. Seems that around 2009 there were almost as many cyclones as a few years earlier, but that they were not as significant.

Spiny Norman
12-02-2011, 06:21 AM
Dr Maue has responded via email. He has (among other things) referred me to the following resource for raw data on cyclones/hurricanes:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ibtracs/

Is there a mathematical genius amongst us able to extract and report on the data in order to answer KB's question above?

He also referred me to a paper: "Tropical Cyclones and Climate Change" from the journal Nature GeoScience which summarised as follows:


Whether the characteristics of tropical cyclones have changed or will change in a warming climate — and if so, how — has been the subject of considerable investigation, often with conflicting results. Large amplitude fluctuations in the frequency and intensity of tropical cyclones greatly complicate both the detection of long-term trends and their attribution to rising levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases. Trend detection is further impeded by substantial limitations in the availability and quality of global historical records of tropical cyclones. Therefore, it remains uncertain whether past changes in tropical cyclone activity have exceeded the variability expected from natural causes. However, future projections based on theory and high-resolution dynamical models consistently indicate that greenhouse warming will cause the globally averaged intensity of tropical cyclones to shift towards stronger storms, with intensity increases of 2–11% by 2100. Existing modelling studies also consistently project decreases in the globally averaged frequency of tropical cyclones, by 6–34%. Balanced against this, higher resolution modelling studies typically project substantial increases in the frequency of the most intense cyclones, and increases of the order of 20% in the precipitation rate within 100 km of the storm centre. For all cyclone parameters, projected changes for individual basins show large variations between different modelling studies.


. . . a detectable change in tropical-cyclone-related rainfall has not been established by existing studies.


There is no conclusive evidence that any observed changes in tropical cyclone genesis, tracks, duration and surge flooding exceed the variability expected from natural causes.


. . . we cannot at this time conclusively identify anthropogenic signals in past tropical cyclone data.

In other words:
-- we can't be sure there are any anthopogenic signals in cyclone activity
-- our projections say we should see changes in both frequency and strength

Seems the climate isn't playing ball with the models.

If anyone can extract the stats that KB wants, that would be of interest to me too.

Desmond
12-02-2011, 07:07 AM
In other words:
-- we can't be sure there are any anthopogenic signals in cyclone activity
-- our projections say we should see changes in both frequency and strength

Seems the climate isn't playing ball with the models.:lol: I think I'll ignore your "paraphrasing" on this topic, thanks very much.

Spiny Norman
12-02-2011, 08:59 AM
:lol: I think I'll ignore your "paraphrasing" on this topic, thanks very much.
You could have done that without having to say so. Got a bee in your bonnet? Either (a) you think I've misprepresented what the paper is saying; or (b) I've correctly represented it, but you don't agree with its conclusions; or maybe (c) you are just sick and tired of my comments full stop. Spit it out man ...

Incidentally, I have a copy (PDF) of the paper in question if you want to read the original in its entirety.

Desmond
12-02-2011, 11:15 AM
You could have done that without having to say so. Got a bee in your bonnet? Either (a) you think I've misprepresented what the paper is saying; or (b) I've correctly represented it, but you don't agree with its conclusions; or maybe (c) you are just sick and tired of my comments full stop. Spit it out man ...

Incidentally, I have a copy (PDF) of the paper in question if you want to read the original in its entirety.
I think that when it comes to these topics what you translate a paper as saying is not necessarily what is there.

Kevin Bonham
12-02-2011, 03:08 PM
In other words:
-- we can't be sure there are any anthopogenic signals in cyclone activity
-- our projections say we should see changes in both frequency and strength

Seems the climate isn't playing ball with the models.

Not necessarily. Forecasting a change and forecasting that the change will be confirmable within the limitations of data analysis are not the same thing. Slight changes are often drowned out in volatile data until the number of sampling events is large. You can say the data haven't confirmed the projection yet but that's not necessarily the same as saying they've rejected it.

Ian CCC
12-02-2011, 07:44 PM
Seems the climate isn't playing ball with the models.

Perhaps it is a little less cute, but more accurate to say-

According to this paper, the historical data on cyclone activity is currently not sufficient to determine whether the climate is playing ball with this particular aspect of the climate change models.:D

Igor_Goldenberg
12-02-2011, 07:56 PM
Slight changes are often drowned out in volatile data until the number of sampling events is large.
Which means that the trend change is not significant.

You can say the data haven't confirmed the projection yet but that's not necessarily the same as saying they've rejected it.
Which means you don't have enough evidences to accept the hypothesis.

Rincewind
12-02-2011, 08:00 PM
This is funny

http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2011/02/10/3135743.htm

Apologies if it has been posted before.

Kevin Bonham
12-02-2011, 08:02 PM
Which means you don't have enough evidences to accept the hypothesis.

Indeed, but it would be surprising to have it at this stage even assuming the hypotheses are true. The models predict relatively modest changes by 2100. If you had statistically significant change already that would suggest that the models were underestimating the effect.

Patrick Byrom
12-02-2011, 10:55 PM
Dr Maue has responded via email. He has (among other things) referred me to the following resource for raw data on cyclones/hurricanes:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ibtracs/

Is there a mathematical genius amongst us able to extract and report on the data in order to answer KB's question above?

If anyone can extract the stats that KB wants, that would be of interest to me too.

Using the data on lifetime minimum pressure from this page:
http://storm5.atms.unca.edu/browse-ibtracs/browseIbtracs.php?name=browse-pressure
I was able to plot the no of storms with pressures below 910mb for each decade. The lower the pressure, the stronger the storm, and anything below 900mb is very strong.

Something unusual definitely seems to have happened in the last decade, although the overall relationship is only weakly positive. So the data agrees with AGW (warming -> a greater no of intense storms), but is certainly not conclusive. As Kevin said, there are a lot of other factors.

The pdf of the results is at the bottom of this page:
http://www.southsidejuniorchessclub.org/Downloads.htm

Plotting wind speed would be interesting.

Spiny Norman
13-02-2011, 10:17 AM
I think I agree that graphing by wind force would be a better approach. The stats here:

http://storm5.atms.unca.edu/browse-ibtracs/browseIbtracs.php?name=browse-wind

are referred to as "Storms by Lifetime Maximum Intensity". After all, I assume its the winds that cause most of the damage, though I suppose one could mount an argument about low pressure and its effect on storm surge intensity.

Ian Murray
13-02-2011, 01:23 PM
NASA observations at http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Hurricanes/hurricanes_3.php

Spiny Norman
13-02-2011, 04:35 PM
The 2nd-last paragraph is interesting:


Before the 1940s, intensity estimates were made based on surviving ship’s records. It is likely that any ship at the center of a Category 4 or 5 storm didn’t survive, so the record probably contains fewer big storms than actually occurred. From changes in the methods used to estimate hurricane intensity to spotty ship records, the historical record may well be skewed towards weaker storms, argue many scientists. If all these factors were accounted for, the trend toward greater hurricane frequency and intensity could disappear.

Kevin Bonham
13-02-2011, 09:00 PM
The impression I get is that answering the question generally from summary data just isn't going to be happening any time soon because of the limitations of the data and the volatile nature of some of the statistics being measured. So we're left with the plausible enough claim that GW contributed to the size and/or intensity of this particular recent cyclone because of the sea temperature issue - but it's not a claim that can be proven.

Patrick Byrom
13-02-2011, 11:10 PM
The impression I get is that answering the question generally from summary data just isn't going to be happening any time soon because of the limitations of the data and the volatile nature of some of the statistics being measured. So we're left with the plausible enough claim that GW contributed to the size and/or intensity of this particular recent cyclone because of the sea temperature issue - but it's not a claim that can be proven.

I agree, although the wind speed data shows that the last two decades were unusual.

http://www.southsidejuniorchessclub.org/Wind_Speed.JPG

The storms with maximum wind speeds above 140 knots don't show a pattern, but plotting the storms with speeds above 125 knots (Yasi was between 110 and 150) shows a definite trend.

Data and plots for pressure and wind speed: http://www.southsidejuniorchessclub.org/Downloads.htm

Igor_Goldenberg
14-02-2011, 08:59 AM
Indeed, but it would be surprising to have it at this stage even assuming the hypotheses are true. The models predict relatively modest changes by 2100. If you had statistically significant change already that would suggest that the models were underestimating the effect.
Not necessarily. Even modest change can be statistically significant if we have enough evidences to accept that it's not just a normal data variation.

Kevin Bonham
14-02-2011, 12:59 PM
Not necessarily. Even modest change can be statistically significant if we have enough evidences to accept that it's not just a normal data variation.

In a relatively small data set where the effect is real but small and being swamped by natural variation, you won't see enough evidence. For projections of increases of a fraction of a percent a year in data that naturally bounce around all over the place, you'd need hundreds of data points to get even a weakly statistically significant correlation. Each year being one data point, we don't have hundreds of data points.

That makes me suspect that if there is an increase in cyclone intensity going on now, it is something other than what the models are predicting - simply because it's not supposed to happen so dramatically and so fast.

Rincewind
14-02-2011, 02:46 PM
That makes me suspect that if there is an increase in cyclone intensity going on now, it is something other than what the models are predicting - simply because it's not supposed to happen so dramatically and so fast.

It may be other than what the models are predicting but that is not the same as saying not caused by AGW. It seems to me that the effects of temperature alone on weather systems are far more complex than the current models are able to capture (not to mention many other factors).

I agree with you about the noise and the difficulty of getting a high confidence of significance from a dataset of a necessarily limited size.

Kevin Bonham
14-02-2011, 03:26 PM
It may be other than what the models are predicting but that is not the same as saying not caused by AGW.

Agreed.

Igor_Goldenberg
15-02-2011, 03:11 PM
Indeed, but it would be surprising to have it at this stage even assuming the hypotheses are true. The models predict relatively modest changes by 2100. If you had statistically significant change already that would suggest that the models were underestimating the effect.

Then why do I have to accept the claim that the trend is changing and it´s not a usual variation?

Kevin Bonham
15-02-2011, 10:14 PM
Then why do I have to accept the claim that the trend is changing and it´s not a usual variation?

You don't have to, as far as I'm concerned. Seems too soon to rule out either.

Capablanca-Fan
16-02-2011, 02:30 AM
You don't have to, as far as I'm concerned. Seems too soon to rule out either.
So why should we meekly accept a carbon tax or ETS?

Ian Murray
16-02-2011, 08:15 AM
So why should we meekly accept a carbon tax or ETS?
KB is referring to predicting the intensity of cyclones, not AGW

Capablanca-Fan
16-02-2011, 08:50 AM
Climate cash goes up in smoke (http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-cash-goes-up-in-smoke-20110214-1atnh.html)
Mark Davis and Lenore Taylor
The Age, Tuesday, 15 February 2011

MORE than $5.5 billion has been spent by federal governments during the past decade on climate change programs that are delivering only small reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

An analysis of government schemes designed to cut emissions by direct spending or regulatory intervention reveals they have cost an average $168 for each tonne of carbon dioxide abated.

While some have reduced emissions cost-effectively, many of the more expensive schemes are exorbitant ways of tackling climate change, costing far more for each tonne of carbon avoided than any mooted emissions trading scheme or carbon tax.

The worst offenders have included the Labor government's rebates for rooftop solar panels, which cost $300 or more for every tonne of carbon abated, and the Howard government's remote renewable power generation scheme, which paid up to $340 for each tonne of carbon.

By contrast, the proposed emissions trading scheme blocked by the Coalition and the Greens in the previous Parliament was expected to put a price on carbon of $20 to $25 a tonne in its early years. …

Igor_Goldenberg
16-02-2011, 09:46 AM
KB is referring to predicting the intensity of cyclones, not AGW
The intensity of cyclones is cited as an evidence for AGW.

Ian Murray
16-02-2011, 10:11 AM
The intensity of cyclones is cited as an evidence for AGW.
Inter alia - there is a great deal more evidence

Capablanca-Fan
16-02-2011, 11:39 AM
Inter alia - there is a great deal more evidence
Global warm-mongers claim this, but it's a case of 0+0+0+0=100 = "Government must grab more of our money and regulate us more"

Ian Murray
16-02-2011, 12:02 PM
Global warm-mongers claim this, but it's a case of 0+0+0+0=100 = "Government must grab more of our money and regulate us more"
So you claim. There is a host of climate scientists who know differently

Capablanca-Fan
16-02-2011, 12:58 PM
So you claim. There is a host of climate scientists who know differently
There is a host of climate scientists not depending on grants from leftist government bureaucracies who disagree.

Desmond
16-02-2011, 01:28 PM
11. Climate Change -- Hurricanes, atolls and coral


Three more myths, misunderstood by both proponents and critics of climate science: Global Warming means more hurricanes, drowned islands and dead coral reefs. It's not that simple.


Examines many of the issues being discussed. Spiny might want to watch out for the wattsupwidat reference.

8pa8duiMiS0

Ian Murray
16-02-2011, 01:53 PM
There is a host of climate scientists not depending on grants from leftist government bureaucracies who disagree.
CSIRO, world-renowned and certainly not beholden to leftist government bureaucracies, is unequivocal:


Our climate is changing
Observed CO2 emissions, temperature and sea levels are rising faster than expected.

Human activities are changing the climate
Greenhouse gas emissions from human activities are 90% likely to have caused most of the global warming since the mid-20th century.

Climate change will continue worldwide
Some climate change and sea level rise is now unavoidable under all emissions scenarios.

http://www.csiro.au/science/Changing-Climate.html

Rincewind
16-02-2011, 02:07 PM
CSIRO, world-renowned and certainly not beholden to leftist government bureaucracies, is unequivocal

Jono's beliefs are immune to science.

Spiny Norman
16-02-2011, 04:11 PM
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_Jan_2011.gif

Spiny Norman
16-02-2011, 04:14 PM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0f/Recent_Sea_Level_Rise.png

Spiny Norman
16-02-2011, 04:18 PM
Climate change will continue worldwide
Some climate change and sea level rise is now unavoidable under all emissions scenarios.
These are the only statements that you quoted from the CSIRO that I find believable.

Yes, the climate will continue to change (as it has since the beginning); and

Yes, sea levels will likely continue to rise at a fairly steady rate, just as they have for more than 100 years (n.b. it started well before a human-induced CO2 rise could possibly have had any causal effect on sea level).

Capablanca-Fan
17-02-2011, 06:20 AM
CSIRO, world-renowned and certainly not beholden to leftist government bureaucracies, is unequivocal:
It is now itself a leftist government bureaucracy, and it has departed from science to political advocacy (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/the-real-hot-topic-is-csiros-prediction-on-global-warming/story-e6frfhqf-1225842538869), resorts to absurd "proofs" including alGore's agitprop (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_csiro_calls_this_proof/), and has made embarrassing false predictions like a continued drought (http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2010/10/new-csiro-climate-forecast-for-se-australia-unbelievable/). Its boss is a self-confessed “scientific numbskull” (http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2011/01/csiro-boss-self-confessed-scientific-numbskull/) who thinks carbon dioxide caused wind to evaporate (http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2011/01/2011-australian-of-the-year-simon-mckeon/).

Similarly with the politicised rubbish by Ross Garnaut (http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2011/02/more-politics-from-ross-garnaut/):


Nor is there any reference to the public acknowledgement by the leader of the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia and a lead author of the IPCC’s 2007 report, Philip Jones, that from 1995 to 2009 there was no statistically significant global warming; or of last year’s Royal Society report (in response to internal complaints of one-sidedness amongst scientist members) which acknowledged that “it is not possible to determine exactly how much the Earth will warm or exactly how the climate will change” and that climate change “continues to be the subject of intensive scientific research and public debate”. By contrast Garnaut falsely claims that that Royal Society report means “the informed non-scientist can be left in little doubt about the way the scientific community sees certainty in climate change”!

Spiny Norman
17-02-2011, 07:30 AM
For those interested in the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect, here's a graph comparing Urban vs Rural temperatures from the USA:

Capablanca-Fan
18-02-2011, 01:36 AM
Jo Nova, Senator Cory Bernardi and others send the Auditor General a formal request. Nova explains (http://joannenova.com.au/2011/02/announcing-a-formal-request-for-the-auditor-general-to-audit-the-australian-bom/):


A team of skeptical scientists, citizens, and an Australian Senator have lodged a formal request with the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) to have the BOM and CSIRO audited.

The BOM claim their adjustments are “neutral” yet Ken Stewart showed that the trend in the raw figures for our whole continent has been adjusted up by 40%. The stakes are high. Australians could have to pay something in the order of $870 million dollars thanks to the Kyoto protocol, and the first four years of the Emissions Trading Scheme was expected to cost Australian industry (and hence Australian shareholders and consumers) nearly $50 billion dollars.

Given the stakes, the Australian people deserve to know they are getting transparent, high quality data from the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM). The small cost of the audit is nothing in comparison with the money at stake for all Australians. We need the full explanations of why individual stations have been adjusted repeatedly and non-randomly, and why adjustments were made decades after the measurements were taken. We need an audit of surface stations. (Are Australian stations as badly manipulated and poorly sited as the US stations? Who knows?)

Capablanca-Fan
20-02-2011, 11:29 AM
Great news from Andrew Bolt (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/us_lawmakers_vote_to_strip_ipcc_of_13_million/):

The leading warmist lobby group may have its money tap turned off:


The U.S. House of Representatives today voted by a wide margin — 244-179 (http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/02/19/lawrence-solomon-us-house-votes-to-defund-ipcc-in-climategate-fallout/) — to defund the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The $13-million cut, which garnered support from some Democrats, is part of the House’s budget for 2011. It now goes to the U.S. Senate.

Kevin Bonham
20-02-2011, 12:09 PM
With current numbers in the House at 241-193 it doesn't look like the number of Democrats supporting the bill or even abstaining on it was large; it seems to have been a largely party-lines vote with a few of the few remaining Blue Dogs crossing the floor. The odds would have to be against the Republicans peeling off the four Democratic Senate votes they would need to get it through the Senate.

Capablanca-Fan
21-02-2011, 05:30 PM
Senator Jim Inhofe slaps down globull warm-mongering ambusher with his stunt bratty teen:
1vmoErFbHao&feature=player_embedded

Igor_Goldenberg
22-02-2011, 08:41 AM
Spiny,

You seem to be the only on the board to understand science concerning global warming. Can you comment on the claim that the temperature trend was flat over the last decade (http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/hadcrut-january-anomaly-0-194c/)?

Rincewind
22-02-2011, 11:47 AM
You seem to be the only on the board to understand science concerning global warming.

You are definitely only speaking for yourself there. :lol:

Igor_Goldenberg
22-02-2011, 03:56 PM
You are definitely only speaking for yourself there. :lol:
I haven't seen any post from you that shows your understanding of science concerning global warming. As a matter of fact, "concerning global warming" could have been omitted from the last sentence.

Spiny Norman
22-02-2011, 04:39 PM
You seem to be the only on the board to understand science concerning global warming.
I'm not sure I understand much of it at all, as I have had little formal training in the relevant subjects ... the best I can muster is high school Chemistry, Physics and Maths ... but I have tried (and am still trying) to inform myself of the facts and read as much layman-level material as I can get my hands on. Have just finished reading Prof. Plimer's book. There is so much pro-AGW media material out there (most of it uninformed bluster) that I tend to focus on the critiques made on blogs like Watts Up With That and Bishop Hill ... and I read as much of the critical to-ing and fro-ing made in the comments on those sites as I can bear.


Can you comment on the claim that the temperature trend was flat over the last decade (http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/hadcrut-january-anomaly-0-194c/)?
HADCRUT is one of the major compilation datasets of global temperature. Wikipaedia says it is a compilation of data from the Met Office and University of East Anglia. Both of those organisations have been subject to recent criticism about their handling of the data.

Not withstanding that criticism (some suggest that 'mistreatment' of the raw data, for example cherry-picking, is what is really causing conclusions of a significant warming trend), HADCRUT is showing a slight decline in global temps since the super El Nino of 1998. Perhaps to be expected. See also my graph posted above (satellite measurements) which shows that the current La Nina has dropped global temps quite savagely in the past year.

Temps go up and down in various locations. There is not really any such thing as "global temperature" ... its a calculation, not a measurement ... and what you choose to measure and then feed into the calculation, combined with your method of calculating, will lead you to a result which we conveniently call "global temperature".

Plimer has some very strong things to say about current hysteria over AGW. He notes the following major climate shifts which had nothing whatsoever to do with humans burning fossil fuels:

Pliestocene ice age (110,000-14,700bp)
Bolling (14,700-13,900bp)
Older Dryas (13,900-13,600bp)
Allerod (13,600-12,900bp)
Younger Dryas (12,900-11,600bp)
Holocene Warming A (11,600-8,500bp)
Egyptian Cooling (8,500-8,000bp)
Holocene Warming B (8,000-5,600bp)
Akkadian Cooling (5,600-3,500bp)
Minoan Warming (3,500bp-3,200bp)
Bronze Age Cooling (3,200-2,500bp)
Roman Warming (500BC-535AD)
Dark Ages Cooling (535AD-900AD)
Medieval Warming (900AD-1300AD)
Little Ice Age (1300AD-1850AD)
Modern Warming (1850AD-present)

He also asks:
"If CO2 derived from modern industrialisation is the culprit for [modern] global warming, then why did the global temperature increase from 1918-1940, decrease from 1940-1976, increase from 1976-1998, and decrease from 1998-present?"

CO2 is still historically low, compared to periods such as the Cambrian, when it is estimated to be as much as 20x current levels (380-400ppmv) ... there wasn't a runaway greenhouse catastrophe then, so why expect one now?

Irving Langmuir once proposed the following tests to see whether something ought to be categorised as "pathological science":
1. the maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causitive agent of barely detectable intensity;
2. all observations are near the threshold of optical visibility;
3. there are claims of great accuracy;
4. fantastic theories contrary of experience are created;
5. criticisms are met with ad hoc excuses thought up on the spur of the moment and there is always an instantaneous answer to criticism;
6. the ratio of supporters to critics rises to near 50% and then decreases gradually to oblivion ... during this process, only supporters can reproduce the effects and critics cannot

Plimer ticks of 3 of those against AGW. He then goes on to note Babbage's observations on scientific dishonesty:

1. trimming ... smoothing irregularities to make the data look extremely accurate;
2. bias ... retention of data that fits the theory, discarding data that does not fit;
3. forging ... inventing some or all of the data

Plimer finds AGW (e.g. Mann's discredited Hockey Stick) guilty of at least 2 of those.

My view: if AGW is real, then nothing the sceptics do will stop the temperatures gradually increasing; if AGW is not real, or its effect is minimal, then nothing the warmists can do will stop the temperatures going up and down from time to time just like they've done for 1000's of years of recorded history ... and history tells us that even if AGW is real, it probably will help (not harm) ... while economics tells us that even if AGW is real, the costs of fighting it are way in excess of the costs of adapting to it.-

Rincewind
22-02-2011, 04:59 PM
Does anyone else find Spiny's quoting Plimer more than a little surreal? :lol:

Ian Murray
22-02-2011, 05:26 PM
Does anyone else find Spiny's quoting Plimer more than a little surreal? :lol:
Surreal and a half! Plimer has no climate science expertise, having a background as a mining geologist, but does have a vested interest in protecting the mining industry. His shareholdings and directorships in mining companies make him a wealthy man

Rincewind
22-02-2011, 05:34 PM
Surreal and a half! Plimer has no climate science expertise, having a background as a mining geologist, but does have a vested interest in protecting the mining industry. His shareholdings and directorships in mining companies make him a wealthy man

Not as wealthy as he would be had he not (effectively) lost the court case against the YEC (and Arkeologist) Allen Roberts. :doh:

Spiny Norman
22-02-2011, 06:29 PM
Yeah, its a bit funny ... he's not much of a theologian (as evidenced by some rather odd comments in this book that he makes about flood myths), but Plimer is an excellent geologist and conducts a very comprehensive study of the history of the earth from a climate perspective.

Tell me Ian ... from your perspective ... exactly what qualification is required to be a climate scientist?

I don't know of any 'real' qualifications which call one a 'climatologist', so I would suggest that one might need a mix of skills in areas such as: geology, chemistry, physics, meteorology, hydrology, mathematics, statistics, history, computer programming/modelling, biology, genetics, economics, just to name a few.

Is Ross Garnaut (an economist) qualified in climate science?

Is Tim Flannery (described by Wikipaedia as "an Australian mammalogist, palaeontologist, environmentalist and global warming activist) qualified in climate science?

If so, how specifically are they superior to Plimer in terms of their ability to understand the science behind AGW?

If not, why then did our government appoint them to head up the global warming 'push' in Australia?

Spiny Norman
22-02-2011, 06:32 PM
Not as wealthy as he would be had he not (effectively) lost the court case against the YEC (and Arkeologist) Allen Roberts. :doh:
Big mistake trying to take stuff like that to court. Roberts was a 'bit player' who might have fooled some of the people some of the time, but that's about it. If he (Plimer) thought he was going to win some kind of massive triumph through the court system, he was sadly mistaken and must have been given some very bad legal advice I think.

Spiny Norman
22-02-2011, 06:39 PM
Plimer ... a vested interest in protecting the mining industry. His shareholdings and directorships in mining companies make him a wealthy man ...
Are you also suspicious of Flannery (on the government payroll)? Are you also suspicious of Garnaut (on the government payroll)? Are you also suspicious of the CSIRO (on the government payroll)?

Come on, stop playing the man; play the ball. Have you read his book? Are you even interested to learn what objections a Professor of Geology might raise?

I don't run around discounting arguments put forward by pro-AGW people just because of who pays them or what groups they like to support (e.g. Greenpeace, etc) ... I'm only interested in whether the science stacks up ... I wish everyone was, instead of copping out with arguments like "He's an extreme right-winger" or "He's in the mining industry's pocket" or other crap arguments like that.

Tell me ... are any pro-AGW people here truly interested to engage with the very best arguments that the skeptical-AGW camp are able to put up? ... or are you only listening to one side of the debate?

Desmond
22-02-2011, 08:43 PM
^ funny stuff.

Patrick Byrom
22-02-2011, 10:11 PM
Speaking of Plimer and climate scientists, this is from today's SMH:


The head of the Bureau of Meteorology has rebuked Cardinal George Pell for his scepticism about climate change, insisting the man has been misled.
Sydney's Catholic Archbishop is an outspoken disbeliever in man-made global warming, arguing that it was hotter during the Middle Ages and carbon dioxide levels are not historically high.
Bureau chief Greg Ayers used an appearance at a Senate estimates hearing yesterday to rip into the cardinal's personal views.
He said the core of his arguments were based on a book by Australian scientist Ian Plimer called Heaven and Earth: Global Warming the Missing Science.
But Cardinal Pell's convictions were misplaced, Dr Ayers said.
"The contents of the book are simply not scientific," he told the committee.
"The cardinal has been misled."
The book has been routinely dismissed by fellow scientists, who criticised it as a "polemic from one individual", including phrases not at all based in science.
It contained gratuitous attacks on climate change campaigners in government, such as German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Australia's former climate change minister Penny Wong.
Over 10 minutes, Dr Ayers outlined a litany of errors repeated by Cardinal Pell, rubbishing one particular reference to greenhouse gases and nitrogen.
"It's not a greenhouse gas; it's 78 per cent of the atmosphere," Dr Ayers said.

Spiny Norman
23-02-2011, 05:58 AM
Perhaps someone should ask the BoM to provide a scientific explanation for the systematic revisions of pre-1940 temps in Australia some 60 years after they were recorded ... oh, wait, they have been asked, they just haven't responded (yet).

Ian Murray
23-02-2011, 08:05 AM
Are you also suspicious of Flannery (on the government payroll)? Are you also suspicious of Garnaut (on the government payroll)? Are you also suspicious of the CSIRO (on the government payroll)?

Come on, stop playing the man; play the ball. Have you read his book? Are you even interested to learn what objections a Professor of Geology might raise?

I don't run around discounting arguments put forward by pro-AGW people just because of who pays them or what groups they like to support (e.g. Greenpeace, etc) ... I'm only interested in whether the science stacks up ... I wish everyone was, instead of copping out with arguments like "He's an extreme right-winger" or "He's in the mining industry's pocket" or other crap arguments like that.
In Plimer's case the science does not 'stack up' - peer review has debunked Heaven and Earth, his sole published contribution in the field:

Debunking Ian Plimer’s “Heaven and Earth” (http://tbp.mattandrews.id.au/2009/06/06/debunking-plimer-heaven-and-earth/)
No science in Plimer's primer (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth/story-e6frg8no-1225710387147)
Ian Plimer – Heaven and Earth (http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/23/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth/)
The science is missing from Ian Plimer's "Heaven and Earth" (http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/04/the_science_is_missing_from_ia.php)

Igor_Goldenberg
23-02-2011, 08:13 AM
Are you also suspicious of Flannery (on the government payroll)?
His vested interests go far beyond the government payroll.
For example: (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_would_you_buy_another_scare_from_this_wet_b loke/)

Flannery repeatedly promoted this “straightforward” technology, and in 2009, the Rudd government awarded $90 million to Geodynamics to build a geothermal power plant in the Cooper Basin, the very area Flannery recommended. Coincidentally, Flannery has for years been a Geodynamics shareholder, a vested interest he sometimes declares.
And he has the audacity of accusing his opponents of "vested interests".

Ian CCC
23-02-2011, 08:32 AM
My view: if AGW is real, then nothing the sceptics do will stop the temperatures gradually increasing; if AGW is not real, or its effect is minimal, then nothing the warmists can do will stop the temperatures going up and down from time to time just like they've done for 1000's of years of recorded history ... and history tells us that even if AGW is real, it probably will help (not harm) ... while economics tells us that even if AGW is real, the costs of fighting it are way in excess of the costs of adapting to it.-



Tell me ... are any pro-AGW people here truly interested to engage with the very best arguments that the skeptical-AGW camp are able to put up? ... or are you only listening to one side of the debate?-


I don't pretend to understand the intricacies of climate science, but like everyone, I have concerns for the future. I find that this site (http://www.skepticalscience.com) run by Australian John Cook, a pro-AGW activist (here (http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2010/12/skeptical-science-founder-john-cook/)is a background piece on him and his site), is useful, as it tries to provide direct scientific evidence to counteract the skeptical-AGW arguments.

Capablanca-Fan
23-02-2011, 03:40 PM
I don't pretend to understand the intricacies of climate science, but like everyone, I have concerns for the future. I find that this site (http://www.skepticalscience.com) run by Australian John Cook, a pro-AGW activist (here (http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2010/12/skeptical-science-founder-john-cook/)is a background piece on him and his site), is useful, as it tries to provide direct scientific evidence to counteract the skeptical-AGW arguments.
In the first place, the science is highly disputed. Second, as Spiny pointed out, it would be much cheaper to cope with it than to screw our economies trying to fight it.

Capablanca-Fan
23-02-2011, 03:45 PM
Surreal and a half! Plimer has no climate science expertise, having a background as a mining geologist, but does have a vested interest in protecting the mining industry. His shareholdings and directorships in mining companies make him a wealthy man
Oh, but the warm-mongers like alGore and Tim Flummery are the epitome of objectivity despite making huge amounts of money preaching doom and gloom. And these guys also lack climate science expertise. It's typical of leftards to regard private money as tainted, but government money as pure as the driven snow.

Edit: I see Spiny and Igor beat me to it.

Spiny Norman
23-02-2011, 04:00 PM
One of the most amusing observations: some people condemn Plimer's book because it is polemical and a science-free zone (words to that effect) ... whilst others condemn the science presented in the book.

(echoes of those who criticise Intelligent Design or Creationism as being unfalsifiable, then go on to claim that it has been falsified so we shouldn't believe it).

My take-away from the book was three-fold: "the science is settled" is a false claim; there are huge numbers of variables that go towards making up a climate model; existing climate models fail to predict observations made in the real world, therefore the models cannot legitimately be used to reliably predict the future.

I'm happy for someone to dispute any of those conclusions; just point me to the evidence...

Spiny Norman
23-02-2011, 05:48 PM
Tell you what, I'd like to make a public bet ... the princely sum of $1 ... I will let any pro-AGW person here put forward their preferred predictions for climate change (to keep it simple, I think it would be best to take the most recent IPCC predictions) in either/both of the following areas:

1. global average temperature rise in the lower atmosphere; and/or
2. average sea level rise (currently proceding at about 3mm/year)

So tell us what you think, based on the models, either of those should show over the course of the next decade.

I predict:

1. very little rise in temps (unless we get hit by a massive El Nino in 2019/2020 which might temporarily skew the graph upwards) ... I think there's a better than 50% chance of cooling over the decade due to the current extremely low solar cycle; and

2. no significant change to sea level rise of about 3mm/year ... so sea levels should be around 3cm higher in 2020 compared to now (again, unless we get hit by a massive El Nino in 2019/2020 which can skew sea level rises upwards temporarily by up to 20mm in some locations)

To be agreed: what is a valid measure of #1 and/or #2

I propose the following for measuring global temp: http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

(happy to use NASA's raw satellite data rather than Spencer's extracted/published graphs if someone can point to a more neutral source)

I propose the following for measuring global sea level rise:
http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/index.cfm#seaLevel (i.e. the satellite graph on the right)

Perhaps it would be most fun it someone independant of the contest with some graphing skills in Excel would keep tabs on the results and publish then periodically. I propose either Rincewind or Kevin Bonham as potential candidates.

So who wants to make a buck?

Desmond
23-02-2011, 09:25 PM
There is so much pro-AGW media material out there (most of it uninformed bluster) that I tend to focus on the critiques made on blogs like Watts Up With That and Bishop Hill ... Translation: there's so much rubbish favour x, I'm going to ignore that and read some rubbish favouring y.


and I read as much of the critical to-ing and fro-ing made in the comments on those sites as I can bear.Which is most likely mostly more rubbish.

I like this next bit:

Not withstanding that criticism (some suggest that 'mistreatment' of the raw data, for example cherry-picking, is what is really causing conclusions of a significant warming trend), HADCRUT is showing a slight decline in global temps since the super El Nino of 1998. Yeah hard to believe aint it. In the very same breath of accusing of cherry-picking, Spiny himself cherry-picks. 1998 was not a typical year, it was an exceptional year. And indeed climate scientists do not just take one year, take a year a decade later, draw a line between the two and call it a trend. No, they look at rolling averages. Usually over an 11-year period or so to smooth out temperature changes resulting from the 11-year solar cycle.


Perhaps to be expected. See also my graph posted above (satellite measurements) which shows that the current La Nina has dropped global temps quite savagely in the past year.Amazingly, you seem to think that either 1) climate scientists do not know about this trend, or 2) they seem to forget to allow for it. Again, look at the rolling averages.


Temps go up and down in various locations. There is not really any such thing as "global temperature" ... its a calculation, not a measurement ... and what you choose to measure and then feed into the calculation, combined with your method of calculating, will lead you to a result which we conveniently call "global temperature".Actually usually it is the global average. Nothing sinister or impossible to calculate; an average.


Plimer has some very strong things to say about current hysteria over AGW. He notes the following major climate shifts which had nothing whatsoever to do with humans burning fossil fuels:

Pliestocene ice age (110,000-14,700bp)
Bolling (14,700-13,900bp)
Older Dryas (13,900-13,600bp)
Allerod (13,600-12,900bp)
Younger Dryas (12,900-11,600bp)
Holocene Warming A (11,600-8,500bp)
Egyptian Cooling (8,500-8,000bp)
Holocene Warming B (8,000-5,600bp)
Akkadian Cooling (5,600-3,500bp)
Minoan Warming (3,500bp-3,200bp)
Bronze Age Cooling (3,200-2,500bp)
Roman Warming (500BC-535AD)
Dark Ages Cooling (535AD-900AD)
Medieval Warming (900AD-1300AD)
Little Ice Age (1300AD-1850AD)
Modern Warming (1850AD-present)I'm always fascinated when you depart from your YEC world view. Anyway, what is it with you YECs and your problem with global warming? At first I thought perhaps you thought that God would not create a world and allow it to be ruined in such a way. But no, you could always just invoke the catch-all, blame it on Teh Fall. Perhaps it's just a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific process.


CO2 is still historically low, compared to periods such as the Cambrian, when it is estimated to be as much as 20x current levels (380-400ppmv) ... there wasn't a runaway greenhouse catastrophe then, so why expect one now? It is important to note that the mechanism whereby increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere influences warming is well-understood and is not disputed. I suspect the answer to your question is to do with different climate sensitivities.


My view: if AGW is real, then nothing the sceptics do will stop the temperatures gradually increasing;But this is a strawman, "gradual increasing". As you kind of hinted at understanding above, the worry is a runaway event.
if AGW is not real, or its effect is minimal, then nothing the warmists can do will stop the temperatures going up and down from time to time just like they've done for 1000's of years of recorded history ... Ah yes, as mentioned in the Good Book.



Tell you what, I'd like to make a public bet ... the princely sum of $1 ... I will let any pro-AGW person here put forward their preferred predictions for climate change (to keep it simple, I think it would be best to take the most recent IPCC predictions) in either/both of the following areas:

1. global average temperature rise in the lower atmosphere; Spiny, I should point out, and not for the first time, that you seem to have a fixation with lower atmoshpere readings. Are you aware of this paper:

The Effect of Diurnal Correction on Satellite-Derived Lower Tropospheric Temperature (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/309/5740/1548.abstract)

Satellite-based measurements of decadal-scale temperature change in the lower troposphere have indicated cooling relative to Earth's surface in the tropics. Such measurements need a diurnal correction to prevent drifts in the satellites' measurement time from causing spurious trends. We have derived a diurnal correction that, in the tropics, is of the opposite sign from that previously applied. When we use this correction in the calculation of lower tropospheric temperature from satellite microwave measurements, we find tropical warming consistent with that found at the surface and in our satellite-derived version of middle/upper tropospheric temperature.

Also I'm just curious ... you throw this bet open to AGW people, but in the past you openly admit you think that the earth is warming; you dispute why, but you concede it is. So say I take your bet and in a decade I'm a dollar richer - what did it do to prove it was to do with the A?

Desmond
23-02-2011, 09:28 PM
In the first place, the science is highly disputed. Second, as Spiny pointed out, it would be much cheaper to cope with it than to screw our economies trying to fight it.
Are you just going to acquiesce to your crony implying that you don't understand climate science?

Kevin Bonham
23-02-2011, 09:46 PM
Boris's post 1820 nails one of the biggest problems I have with many of the so-called "sceptical" arguments - the clearly incorrect focus on patterns within too short a timeframe when we know that the data display short-term cycling that could obscure such patterns on that scale, and that you need to look at a longer term trend. Most likely if an overall warming trend stops at some point, it will be more like 2-3 decades before we can be confident that has happened.

Rincewind
23-02-2011, 10:04 PM
Are you just going to acquiesce to your crony implying that you don't understand climate science?

You can't blame Jono for that but the self-referential implication tickled my funny bone.

Spiny Norman
24-02-2011, 05:54 AM
I just wrote a long-ish reply but clicked on the wrong thing and lost it. Here's a shorter version.


In the very same breath of accusing of cherry-picking, Spiny himself cherry-picks. 1998 was not a typical year, it was an exceptional year. And indeed climate scientists do not just take one year, take a year a decade later, draw a line between the two and call it a trend. No, they look at rolling averages. Usually over an 11-year period or so to smooth out temperature changes resulting from the 11-year solar cycle.
I wasn't cherry-picking data ... I simply drew attention to the Super El Nino of 1998, which you admit was an exceptional event (as does NASA according to their website).

Where did you get this "11-year period or so" bit from? NASA uses a 5-year average in presenting its data on its website. ex-NASA scientist Roy Spencer uses a 13-month rolling average.

Amazingly, you seem to think that either 1) climate scientists do not know about this trend, or 2) they seem to forget to allow for it. Again, look at the rolling averages.


I'm always fascinated when you depart from your YEC world view.
Not sure what makes you think I've departed from it; I'm just quoting someone who doesn't share it; if I quoted a YEC geologist, you would just dismiss that out of hand simply because he's a YEC, so why would I bother doing that?


Anyway, what is it with you YECs and your problem with global warming? At first I thought perhaps you thought that God would not create a world and allow it to be ruined in such a way. But no, you could always just invoke the catch-all, blame it on Teh Fall. Perhaps it's just a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific process.
I know some YECs who believe in AGW; so there goes that theory.


Spiny, I should point out, and not for the first time, that you seem to have a fixation with lower atmoshpere readings.
Here's why:
http://www.webcommentary.com/images/fingerprints.jpg
The IPCC itself says that there should be a hotspot (a temperature anomaly) in the lower atmosphere (around 8-12kms up).

Either this is true or it isn't. So I'm looking to see whether such a hotspot shows up over time.


Also I'm just curious ... you throw this bet open to AGW people, but in the past you openly admit you think that the earth is warming; you dispute why, but you concede it is. So say I take your bet and in a decade I'm a dollar richer - what did it do to prove it was to do with the A?
I think that if there is warming, it will be markedly less than the AGW crowd have predicted with their computer models and their silly apocalyptic predictions. I think there's a greater than 50% chance that we're going to get cooling, because humans can keep on pumping more and more CO2 into the atmosphere without causing a huge effect (since the effect of CO2 on temps is logarithmic).

If temps rise in line with their models, I will admit the 'A' was a major factor.

Desmond
24-02-2011, 10:53 AM
II wasn't cherry-picking data ... I simply drew attention to the Super El Nino of 1998, which you admit was an exceptional event (as does NASA according to their website).Yeah admitted. :lol: It was a real big scret that that was a hot year. I guess now the cover is blown.


Where did you get this "11-year period or so" bit from? NASA uses a 5-year average in presenting its data on its website. ex-NASA scientist Roy Spencer uses a 13-month rolling average.I said "or so", obviously not every graph is exactly the same. The point is that they look at rolling averages and not just compare two convenient points a decade apart and draw a trend conclusion from it.


Not sure what makes you think I've departed from it; I'm just quoting someone who doesn't share it; if I quoted a YEC geologist, you would just dismiss that out of hand simply because he's a YEC, so why would I bother doing that?Well you could offer both the real time estimates and the ones you believe in side by side. Using the timelines you don't believe in just smacks of being disingenuinous to me. It is just an aside, but I wish you would post such an alternate timeline in black and white.


I know some YECs who believe in AGW; so there goes that theory.Yes yes and no doubt there are non-YECs who don't. But on this board I reckon you'd find a correlation and I wouldn't be surprised if you found one in broader circles too.


Here's why:

Either this is true or it isn't. So I'm looking to see whether such a hotspot shows up over time.You didn't answer my question; are you aware of the paper detailing the temperatures in the lower atmoshpere being recorded lower than what they should have been? I don't know whether or not the graphs you pasted have taken that into account.


I think that if there is warming, it will be markedly less than the AGW crowd have predicted with their computer models and their silly apocalyptic predictions. I think there's a greater than 50% chance that we're going to get cooling, because humans can keep on pumping more and more CO2 into the atmosphere without causing a huge effect (since the effect of CO2 on temps is logarithmic).

If temps rise in line with their models, I will admit the 'A' was a major factor.OK but in line with what? Before you said "very little" but I find that term pretty vague. Less than 0.2c per decade presumably but how much less.

Spiny Norman
24-02-2011, 03:54 PM
You didn't answer my question; are you aware of the paper detailing the temperatures in the lower atmoshpere being recorded lower than what they should have been?
I am now. I assume that these temps have been lower all along and therefore all of them have to be corrected up? ... I'm guessing this doesn't impact the trend much, just the baseline.

Data corrections are completely fine provided they are done transparently (i.e. the original data is kept for comparison and the rationale and algorithms used to correct the data are publicly available). The ridiculous situation in the UK and elsewhere cannot be permitted to continue, where raw data was destroyed and only modified data made available.

Desmond
24-02-2011, 04:03 PM
I am now. I assume that these temps have been lower all along and therefore all of them have to be corrected up? My understanding is that that is not the case. The satellites originally were on the right course but over time degraded. This seems consistent with the part I emboldened - that once this degradation is corrected for, a warming trend is to be found.

Spiny Norman
24-02-2011, 04:49 PM
OK, I will watch for that ... hopefully others will confirm it and both the raw data, the correction algorithms (or realignment processes?) or whatever will be published.

Spiny Norman
25-02-2011, 05:57 PM
Are you aware of this paper:

The Effect of Diurnal Correction on Satellite-Derived Lower Tropospheric Temperature (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/309/5740/1548.abstract)

Satellite-based measurements of decadal-scale temperature change in the lower troposphere have indicated cooling relative to Earth's surface in the tropics. Such measurements need a diurnal correction to prevent drifts in the satellites' measurement time from causing spurious trends. We have derived a diurnal correction that, in the tropics, is of the opposite sign from that previously applied. When we use this correction in the calculation of lower tropospheric temperature from satellite microwave measurements, we find tropical warming consistent with that found at the surface and in our satellite-derived version of middle/upper tropospheric temperature.

I've had a few minutes spare tonight to research this topic a little. Most of the info I've posted to date about lower-atmosphere temps from satellite sensing have used the data from D.Roy Spencer's website. Spencer is ex-NASA and knows his topic (satellite sensing) well. I searched on his website for "Diurnal" and turned up the following page:

How the UAH Global Temperatures Are Produced (http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/01/how-the-uah-global-temperatures-are-produced/)


(2) Diurnal Drift Effect
The second problem caused by orbit decay is that the nominal local observation time begins to drift. As a result, the measurements can increasingly be from a warmer or cooler time of day after a few years on-orbit. Luckily, this almost always happened when another satellite operating at the same time had a relatively stable observation time, allowing us to quantify the effect. Nevertheless, the correction isn’t perfect, and so leads to some uncertainty. [Instead of this empirical correction we make to the UAH products, RSS uses the day-night cycle of temperatures created by a climate model to do the adjustment for time-of-day.] This adjustment is not necessary for the Aqua AMSU.

Emphasis mine. The reason that diurnal drift adjustments are not necessary for the Aqua AMSU measurements is found in the immediately preceding paragraph:


(1) Orbit Altitude Effect on LT
The first is a spurious cooling signal in our lower tropospheric (LT) temperature product, which depends upon differencing measurements at different view angles. As the satellite falls, the angle at which the instrument views the surface changes slightly. The correction for this is fairly straightforward, and is applied to both our dataset and to the similar datasets produced by Frank Wentz and Carl Mears at Remote Sensing Systems (RSS). This adjustment is not needed for the Aqua satellite since it carries extra fuel which is used to maintain the orbit.

So it would seem on the face of it that the research paper you quoted is relevant for un-powered satellites which cannot articifically maintain their orbit but not relevant for powered satellites.

I would need to read the detailed content of your quoted paper though to be certain of that conclusion. But in the meantime I have no reason to distrust temperature measurements coming from the Aqua AMSU satellite.

Desmond
25-02-2011, 06:54 PM
So it would seem on the face of it that the research paper you quoted is relevant for un-powered satellites which cannot articifically maintain their orbit but not relevant for powered satellites.

I would need to read the detailed content of your quoted paper though to be certain of that conclusion. But in the meantime I have no reason to distrust temperature measurements coming from the Aqua AMSU satellite.
OK that seems reasonable. But. According to your webpage the Aqua was launched only in 2002. The 2005 paper I quoted dealt with readings from 1979-2003. It concludes warming in line with surface and middle/upper tropospheric temperatures. So the question is, is there cooling shown from 2002/3 to now, and if so is that a long enough sample to mean much?

Spiny Norman
25-02-2011, 08:45 PM
OK that seems reasonable. But. According to your webpage the Aqua was launched only in 2002. The 2005 paper I quoted dealt with readings from 1979-2003. It concludes warming in line with surface and middle/upper tropospheric temperatures. So the question is, is there cooling shown from 2002/3 to now, and if so is that a long enough sample to mean much?
I would think 30+ years is a decent sample; less than a decade isn't enough for a trend ... so then you have to form a view as to whether the earlier data (which has been adjusted to account for diurnal drift) has been correctly or incorrectly corrected.

If you think the paper holds true, then you might think the 1979-2003 figures might be hiding real warming; if you think that the adjustments made are adequate, then you might think the 1979-2003 figures are accurate enough as is and there is no hidden warming.

Spencer has something on the website which might allude to this issue (already quoted in issue #2 I mentioned above):


[Instead of this empirical correction we make to the UAH products, RSS uses the day-night cycle of temperatures created by a climate model to do the adjustment for time-of-day.]

Reading that in its context, I understand Spencer to be taking a bit of a swipe at the "RSS" approach (Remote Sensing Systems, whatever that means) ... he is claiming to use an empirical correction, that being something which is confirmed by another measurement made from a separate device which isn't subject to diurnal drift ... whereas "RSS" is adjusting based on a climate model (which is obviously not an empirical approach).

Wikipaedia has a write up which covers some of the technology and results:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements

Desmond
25-02-2011, 09:59 PM
I would think 30+ years is a decent sample; less than a decade isn't enough for a trend ... so then you have to form a view as to whether the earlier data (which has been adjusted to account for diurnal drift) has been correctly or incorrectly corrected.No, I don't. I'm happy to defer to the experts. If you've got a peer-reviewed paper with an opposing view, let's see it.

Capablanca-Fan
26-02-2011, 03:05 AM
No, I don't. I'm happy to defer to the experts. If you've got a peer-reviewed paper with an opposing view, let's see it.
Yet the annoyingly named Climategate scandal showed that the warm-mongers were manipulating the peer review process to keep out dissenters.

Desmond
26-02-2011, 06:11 AM
Yet the annoyingly named Climategate scandal showed that the warm-mongers were manipulating the peer review process to keep out dissenters.
Rubbish. And even if true, doesn't mean you just throw away every peer-reviewed paper and believe blogs.

Spiny Norman
26-02-2011, 07:30 AM
If you've got a peer-reviewed paper with an opposing view, let's see it.

The following seems to be Christy and Spencer's response to the paper you cited:

Tropospheric temperature change since 1979 from tropical radiosonde and satellite measurements – Christy et al. (2007) (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2005JD006881.shtml)


“Temperature change of the lower troposphere (LT) in the tropics (20°S–20°N) during the period 1979–2004 is examined using 58 radiosonde (sonde) stations and the microwave-based satellite data sets of the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH v5.2) and Remote Sensing Systems (RSS v2.1). … When the largest discontinuities in the sondes are detected and removed through comparison with UAH data, the trend of day and night releases combined becomes +0.09, and using RSS data, +0.12. Relative to several data sets, the RSS data show a warming shift, broadly occurring in 1992, of between +0.07 K and +0.13 K. Because the shift occurs at the time NOAA-12 readings began to be merged into the satellite data stream and large NOAA-11 adjustments were applied, the discrepancy appears to be due to bias adjustment procedures. Several comparisons are consistent with a 26-year trend and error estimate for the UAH LT product for the full tropics of +0.05 ± 0.07, which is very likely less than the tropical surface trend of +0.13 K decade−1.”

Spiny Norman
26-02-2011, 08:44 AM
This is what the 'trick' produced:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/hide-the-decline-before.jpg

This is the actual data with the Hide The Decline trick removed:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/hide-the-decline-tree-ring-data1.jpg

Note that the temperature proxy data (black line) actually heads in the wrong direction in the last years of the 20th century compared to the other temperature data it is being graphed against ... both cannot be correct ... one (or both?) data sources must therefore be unreliable.

This is an example of why "the science is settled" is untrue.

Igor_Goldenberg
26-02-2011, 09:33 AM
No, I don't. I'm happy to defer to the experts. If you've got a peer-reviewed paper with an opposing view, let's see it.
A pathetic excuse for running out of arguments.

Desmond
26-02-2011, 09:43 AM
The following seems to be Christy and Spencer's response to the paper you cited:

Tropospheric temperature change since 1979 from tropical radiosonde and satellite measurements – Christy et al. (2007) (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2005JD006881.shtml)
As far as I can tell, this does not comprise an opposing view, in that it agrees that there is a warming trend. So I am not sure what you're trying to argue, or what arguments you are trying to use this paper to support. What I was pointing out was that the previously held cooling trend in the lower atmosphere has been debunked, it is actually a warming trend, and that is borne out by both papers.

Spiny Norman
26-02-2011, 08:02 PM
I'll try to spell it out:

Your quote said:

... we find tropical warming consistent with that found at the surface and in our satellite-derived version of middle/upper tropospheric temperature

Spencer/Christy reply:

Several comparisons are consistent with a 26-year trend and error estimate for the UAH LT product for the full tropics of +0.05 ± 0.07, which is very likely less than the tropical surface trend of +0.13 K decade−1

I know how much you love my summaries:

1. 2005 paper said "satellite measurements of lower atmosphere got it wrong because of diurnal drift, so instead of cooling we find warming consistent with that found at the surface and consistent with AGW modelling"

2. Spencer/Christy reply is "after allowing for diurnal drift and cross-referencing with sources known to be unaffected by diurnal drift, we find slight warming that is less than that found at the surface, whereas AGW models predict greater warming"

Interesting that these two 'groups' have been to-ing and fro-ing about this stuff for a number of years (i.e. replying to each other's papers).

Carl A. Mears is a Senior Scientist at Remote Sensing Systems, a privately held research company. Frank J. Wentz is the Director of Remote Sensing Systems (RSS).

Roy W. Spencer is a climatologist and a Principal Research Scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville, as well as the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He has served as senior scientist for climate studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama.

John Christy is distinguished professor of atmospheric science, and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. He was appointed Alabama's state climatologist in 2000. For his development of a global temperature data set from satellites he was awarded NASA's Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement.

Both 'teams' have a lot of skin in the game. :lol:

Did anyone dare to mention that the science is settled? :doh:

Desmond
27-02-2011, 06:21 AM
I'll try to spell it out:

Your quote said:


Spencer/Christy reply:


I know how much you love my summaries:

1. 2005 paper said "satellite measurements of lower atmosphere got it wrong because of diurnal drift, so instead of cooling we find warming consistent with that found at the surface and consistent with AGW modelling"

2. Spencer/Christy reply is "after allowing for diurnal drift and cross-referencing with sources known to be unaffected by diurnal drift, we find slight warming that is less than that found at the surface, whereas AGW models predict greater warming"

Interesting that these two 'groups' have been to-ing and fro-ing about this stuff for a number of years (i.e. replying to each other's papers).

Carl A. Mears is a Senior Scientist at Remote Sensing Systems, a privately held research company. Frank J. Wentz is the Director of Remote Sensing Systems (RSS).

Roy W. Spencer is a climatologist and a Principal Research Scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville, as well as the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He has served as senior scientist for climate studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama.

John Christy is distinguished professor of atmospheric science, and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. He was appointed Alabama's state climatologist in 2000. For his development of a global temperature data set from satellites he was awarded NASA's Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement.

Both 'teams' have a lot of skin in the game. :lol:

Did anyone dare to mention that the science is settled? :doh:
OK. You agree that the troposphere is warming.

You keep throwing this quote "the science is settled". I don't know who you are quoting. I don't think I said it. Anyway yes scientists keep doing research and keep publishing it. They have disagreements and refinements. Does this mean that were not in a warming trend? No. These guys are looking at 'by how much'. One of the papers is primarily looking at comparing the differences between warming at day v night. Does a difference between the two mean we're no in a warming trend? No. If the next paper shows a slightly different figure when asking a slightly different question, how about then? No.

Spiny Norman
27-02-2011, 08:41 AM
OK. You agree that the troposphere is warming.
You keep throwing this quote "the science is settled". I don't know who you are quoting.
I'm quoting our stupid politicians, particularly the Green and Labor varieties. Some of the soft-in-the-head Libs also do it from time to time. Its a political mantra, which they chant whenever their poll figures are bad and they feel the need to be seen to be doing something. ;)

As for troposphere warming ... I'm not sure I said the troposphere is warming, though Spencer/Christy said there was slight warming evident in 2008 when you used microwave-sensing and radiosonde balloon tools to do the measuring ... but if you look today using the most accurate form of measurement that we have (the AQUA satellite) you might get a slightly different picture.

I've attached the latest 27/2/2011 image of the lower troposphere temps.

Spiny Norman
27-02-2011, 08:48 AM
From that image:
-- quite a few of the highest temp records were set in 2010 during the El Nino event
-- currently the lower troposphere is quite cool (lower than average) due to the El Nino being reversed about 1/2 way through 2010 and we are now in a La Nina period

I don't doubt that there is some warming going on through the 20th century. What I do doubt is this mantra that humans are (solely) to blame and that we "ought to do something" about it. We don't understand climate nearly well enough to know what all the inputs are and how large they are, so the climate models are necessarily working with inadequate data. The might be right, but if they are, its accidental, not because they have a comprehensive model that works.

You only have to look at what I posted above about Mann, Briffa, et al and the failure of their proxies to follow actual measured temps of the last 40-50 years to know that the models are missing the mark, and sometimes by a pretty wide margin.

I think some warming would be good for us. You'll get increased food production. More people die each year from cold than from heat. Most biodiversity is in the tropics where it is hottest. Much of earth's recent history has involved being covered in ice sheets ... lets hope we never head in that direction, because you can't feed 7B people in a world covered in ice.

Desmond
27-02-2011, 10:17 AM
As for troposphere warming ... I'm not sure I said the troposphere is warming, Right. So in spite of both the papers we are discussing indicating warming, Spiny Norman diagrees.


I've attached the latest 27/2/2011 image of the lower troposphere temps.As previously discussed, looking at a single year is pretty meaningless. And given that this is a La Nina year, it is a case in point. No climate scientist predicts that every year will be hotter than the previous one. Why you keep bringing up these non-contextualised data points is beyond me.

Spiny Norman
27-02-2011, 05:20 PM
Right. So in spite of both the papers we are discussing indicating warming, Spiny Norman diagrees.
No, I'm not disagreeing ... I'm not commenting at all ... I'm relaying other people's comments (peer-reviewed no less) and am trying to put those comments of theirs from 2008 in their proper context.

If you are asking me that direct question "Is the lower troposphere warming?" my response is to ask you to be more specific with your question:

-- over what timeframe?
-- compared to what exactly?
-- measured with what exactly?

If you want a straight answer from me, you'd better ask me a very specific question that doesn't require copious quantities of caveats to be deployed in response.

Desmond
27-02-2011, 06:02 PM
No, I'm not disagreeing ... I'm not commenting at all ...OK fine, sorry for mis-representing your view (even though you're willing to bet on it).

Out of curiosity: the graph above, is the average just the average since AQUA launched towards the end of 2002? If it is and if there is a long-term warming trend as the experts say, then we'd expect the true average over a longer sample to be lower than shown.

Also the screenies you posted re: hide the decline trick, where are they from? They looked like youtubes to me, so I searched "hide the decline trick" string into youtube. About half the first page were offerings by Axiom's fellow nutjob Alex Jones. Hardly good company for your views to keep. ;)

Spiny Norman
28-02-2011, 06:23 AM
Out of curiosity: the graph above, is the average just the average since AQUA launched towards the end of 2002? If it is and if there is a long-term warming trend as the experts say, then we'd expect the true average over a longer sample to be lower than shown.
Short answer: I do not know.

Given that the highs and lows don't seem to be very smooth lines, I would guess that they are only values from AQUA which are over the very short timeframe. You would have to ask Spencer about that one. It would be helpful if the graph made that info explicit somehow.


Also the screenies you posted re: hide the decline trick, where are they from? They looked like youtubes to me, so I searched "hide the decline trick" string into youtube. About half the first page were offerings by Axiom's fellow nutjob Alex Jones. Hardly good company for your views to keep. ;)
I think they were in an article at Watts Up With That ... not sure where they got them from.

The only time I've ever heard of Alex Jones is in the context of this board. I agree: conspiracist nut job.

Igor_Goldenberg
02-03-2011, 09:57 AM
What impact Gillards carbon tax will have on climate?

Spiny Norman
02-03-2011, 04:31 PM
3/5 of 1/2 of 2% of nothing ... ;)

Capablanca-Fan
07-03-2011, 11:50 AM
The Age and Herald confess - we’re hyping global warming (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_age_and_herald_confess_were_hyping_global_warm ing/)
Andrew Bolt
Monday, March 07, 2011

In a statement of protest last week (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/jaspans_cultural_legacy/), 235 Age journalists confirmed that their coverage of last month’s Earth Hour had been, in effect, propaganda.

”Reporters were pressured not to write ‘negative’ stories and story topics followed a schedule drafted by Earth Hour organisers,” they said.

That confession came after the ABC’s Media Watch released an embarrassing email sent by the green group WWF to Age editor-in-chief Andrew Jaspan under the creepy header Re: Any last requests?

Rincewind
07-03-2011, 11:58 AM
The Age and Herald confess - we’re hyping global warming (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_age_and_herald_confess_were_hyping_global_warm ing/)
Andrew Bolt
Monday, March 07, 2011

In a statement of protest last week (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/jaspans_cultural_legacy/), 235 Age journalists confirmed that their coverage of last month’s Earth Hour had been, in effect, propaganda.

”Reporters were pressured not to write ‘negative’ stories and story topics followed a schedule drafted by Earth Hour organisers,” they said.

That confession came after the ABC’s Media Watch released an embarrassing email sent by the green group WWF to Age editor-in-chief Andrew Jaspan under the creepy header Re: Any last requests?

This was in Andrew's article dated as per Jono's post. However Bolt was referring to a protest, email and episode of the Media Watch program that all date from 2008.

Spiny Norman
07-03-2011, 04:06 PM
Out of curiosity: the graph above, is the average just the average since AQUA launched towards the end of 2002? If it is and if there is a long-term warming trend as the experts say, then we'd expect the true average over a longer sample to be lower than shown.
I have seen elsewhere the claim (or 'observation') that the page which produces the graphs I've used utilises a last-10-years figure for highs, lows and averages for the AQUA satellite graphs ... but I didn't get this direct from the horse's mouth.

Desmond
07-03-2011, 04:46 PM
I have seen elsewhere the claim (or 'observation') that the page which produces the graphs I've used utilises a last-10-years figure for highs, lows and averages for the AQUA satellite graphs ... but I didn't get this direct from the horse's mouth.
This was the conclusion I came to as well. As you mentioned if it does draw on other data to make its average, it really should be explicitly stated, so I'm assuming that it does not. So as far as I'm concerned that leaves us with
1. the experts agreeing on a 25-year warming trend from 1979-2004
2. insufficient information to comment since then
3. and no reason to think that the troposhere is bucking the trend that is evident elsewhere.

Spiny Norman
07-03-2011, 05:06 PM
1. the experts agreeing on a 25-year warming trend from 1979-2004
2. insufficient information to comment since then
3. and no reason to think that the troposhere is bucking the trend that is evident elsewhere.

From my p.o.v. I would restate that as:

1. some of the experts agreeing on a 25-year warming trend from 1979-2004
2. some reason to think that the lower troposhere might be bucking the trend that is evident elsewhere (but too early to be certain even though its not looking particularly good for climate models published to date)

Desmond
07-03-2011, 06:48 PM
From my p.o.v. I would restate that as:

1. some of the experts agreeing on a 25-year warming trend from 1979-2004Well let's see it then. I asked you before to provide a peer-reviewed paper with an opposing view, and the paper you gave confirmed warming.


2. some reason to think that the lower troposhere might be bucking the trend that is evident elsewhere (but too early to be certain even though its not looking particularly good for climate models published to date)Ditto for this. Show me the money.

Capablanca-Fan
08-03-2011, 03:42 AM
Well let's see it then. I asked you before to provide a peer-reviewed paper with an opposing view, and the paper you gave confirmed warming.
Your faith in peer review is so touching, especially after the ClimateGate emails revealed how the globull warm-mongers were using this process to censor critics.

Spiny Norman
08-03-2011, 06:16 AM
Lets wait and see what the new Berkeley team come up with ... they are promising a comprehensive, transparent, accessible (in data terms) reassessment of global temperatures ... and they include both pro-warmist and pro-skeptic members in the team, so there will be plenty of internal debate about the right methodologies to use. Some in the skeptic camp have been privately shown some of the methodologies that will be used to compile the data and are mostly impressed with the approach. Lets hope that optimism bears fruit with a new, widely accepted temperature record that most can accept.

Desmond
08-03-2011, 06:39 AM
Your faith in peer review is so touching, especially after the ClimateGate emails revealed how the globull warm-mongers were using this process to censor critics.Ipse dixit.

Desmond
08-03-2011, 06:47 AM
Lets wait and see what the new Berkeley team come up with ... they are promising a comprehensive, transparent, accessible (in data terms) reassessment of global temperatures ... and they include both pro-warmist and pro-skeptic members in the team, so there will be plenty of internal debate about the right methodologies to use. Some in the skeptic camp have been privately shown some of the methodologies that will be used to compile the data and are mostly impressed with the approach. Lets hope that optimism bears fruit with a new, widely accepted temperature record that most can accept.
Sure wait to see what happens later. But my point 2 already addressed that, and you have shown nothing to demonstrate that 1 is not correct.

Also I was curious about your distinction of lower troposphere, are you claiming trends in the lower troposhpere that differ from the troposphere as a whole? Or was it just a mis-statement around troposphere being lower atmosphere.

Spiny Norman
08-03-2011, 04:13 PM
Also I was curious about your distinction of lower troposphere, are you claiming trends in the lower troposhpere that differ from the troposphere as a whole? Or was it just a mis-statement around troposphere being lower atmosphere.
It was a mis-reading on my part ... I was in a hurry and must have read your "troposphere" as "atmosphere".

Capablanca-Fan
10-03-2011, 02:53 AM
Obama's Green-Jobs Fantasies (http://patriotpost.us/opinion/john-stossel/2011/03/09/obamas-green-jobs-fantasies/)
By John Stosse, 9 March 2011

Anyone who understands basic economics already knows that President Obama's $2.3 billion green-jobs initiative was snake oil. Now, thanks to Kenneth P. Green, we have statistics as well as theory to prove it.

In a new article, "The Myth of Green Energy Jobs: The European Experience," the environmental scientist and a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute writes, "Green programs in Spain destroyed 2.2 jobs for every green job created, while the capital needed for one green job in Italy could create almost five jobs in the general economy."

Ironically, Obama boasts his initiative "will help close the clean-energy gap between America and other nations." But Green says, "(C)ountries are cutting these programs because they realize they aren't sustainable and they are obscenely expensive."

Obama claims that if we "invest" more, "the transition to clean energy has the potential to grow our economy and create millions of jobs -- but only if we accelerate that transition." …

Ian Murray
10-03-2011, 09:44 AM
The problem in Europe is that the take-up of solar power, with resulting economies of scale, has grown much more quickly than forecast so that the cost of solar power vis-a-vis fossil-fuel power is approaching parity. Governments are now concerned with the cost of their long-term feed-in tariff subsidies, which are no longer required to kick-start the industry and are now being scaled back. The different methods of this wind-back are causing uncertainty in the short tern, but financial analysts still predict a sunny future for solar.

Sun setting on European solar subsidies (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/sun-setting-on-european-solar-subsidies/story-e6frg6so-1226016112557)
# Peter Wilson, Europe correspondent
# The Australian
# March 05, 2011

Igor_Goldenberg
10-03-2011, 04:29 PM
The problem in Europe is that the take-up of solar power, with resulting economies of scale, has grown much more quickly than forecast so that the cost of solar power vis-a-vis fossil-fuel power is approaching parity.
Only if you don't take into account government subsidies.

Ian Murray
10-03-2011, 06:53 PM
Only if you don't take into account government subsidies.
Wrong - the subsidies are becoming unnecessary and are being wound back. From the quoted article:
"...the fact that retail electricity prices are much higher than commercial prices means it will be household solar power units that first reach price parity as module prices keep coming down "to the point where solar power simply won't need subsidies"

Igor_Goldenberg
10-03-2011, 09:08 PM
Wrong - the subsidies are becoming unnecessary and are being wound back. From the quoted article:
"...the fact that retail electricity prices are much higher than commercial prices means it will be household solar power units that first reach price parity as module prices keep coming down "to the point where solar power simply won't need subsidies"
I didn't read the whole article, but isn't it concerned with feed in tariff?

Ian Murray
10-03-2011, 10:49 PM
I didn't read the whole article, but isn't it concerned with feed in tariff?
Perhaps you should read it first. It concerns the reductions in FIT subsidies as solar pricing approaches grid parity (the doomsayers were wrong - solar power is economically viable).

Spiny Norman
12-03-2011, 07:42 AM
The only concern I have with solar as base-load power is this: you would presumably have to build more stations and spread them over a wide area to mitigate the risk of an extended bad weather event (being overcast for several days). So even though you might be able to build 1 solar plant for the same cost as 1 coal-fired plant, I think from a service-delivery p.o.v. risk management might dictate that you need more than 1 solar plant to deliver the same service as 1 coal-fired plant.

Now if you build a lot of solar plants and spread them widely, the "over-build" ratio would presumably reduce and maybe you could get that to an acceptable figure that makes solar worthwhile. I don't know enough about this area to know what the solution might look like, but only what the problem roughly looks like.

In VIC, where we are sitting on top of some of the world's largest brown coal reserves, if (!) we find out in a few years time (say, 10-20) that AGW was a complete crock of s**t and we were all conned, then we're going to look pretty damn stupid building a completely new solar-powered infrastructure when we could have just added a couple of coal-fired plants right next to the coal quarries.

Spiny Norman
12-03-2011, 07:45 AM
Here's an obvious question ... if large scale solar is so good now ... why aren't the Australian/state governments building solar plants?

Igor_Goldenberg
12-03-2011, 09:48 AM
Perhaps you should read it first. It concerns the reductions in FIT subsidies as solar pricing approaches grid parity (the doomsayers were wrong - solar power is economically viable).
What about subsidies for the cost of solar panel itself?

Ian Murray
12-03-2011, 11:33 AM
Here's an obvious question ... if large scale solar is so good now ... why aren't the Australian/state governments building solar plants?
Our governments don't build any sort of power stations anymore. The governments certainly offer incentives to industry to develop solar, but venture capitalists are slow here to take up. Not so in Europe.

Ian Murray
12-03-2011, 11:41 AM
What about subsidies for the cost of solar panel itself?
Being progressively scaled back as solar panels become cheaper (prices have more than halved over the last couple of years, with China the major supplier).

As a matter of interest, I have solar on my roof, and am getting a 20% ROI just with the FIT, plus the free power I'm using in the home. I got the original $8000 installation subsidy, which was slashed and is to be further reduced in July.

Igor_Goldenberg
12-03-2011, 11:50 AM
Being progressively scaled back as solar panels become cheaper (prices have more than halved over the last couple of years, with China the major supplier).
It's quite ironic that China builds coal stations to supply energy for the production of solar panels and ship them to us.


As a matter of interest, I have solar on my roof, and am getting a 20% ROI just with the FIT, plus the free power I'm using in the home. I got the original $8000 installation subsidy, which was slashed and is to be further reduced in July.
What would be the real ROI (without the installation subsidy).
Is you FIT higher then standard electricity rate? If yes, how would your ROI be affected by FIT being equal to standard rate?

Ian Murray
12-03-2011, 12:27 PM
What would be the real ROI (without the installation subsidy).
Some lesser figure. I don't know what current installation costs and subsidies are, except both are less than I paid/received

Is you FIT higher then standard electricity rate? If yes, how would your ROI be affected by FIT being equal to standard rate?
FITs are higher for 20 years. The system will have paid for itself beforehand and continue supplying free power indefinitely.

The subsidies are intended as booster incentives, of course. Eventually the industry will be self-sustaining, as is happening in Europe.

Spiny Norman
12-03-2011, 02:10 PM
Our governments don't build any sort of power stations anymore.
There's nothing to stop them from doing so though ... not as far as I know ... why aren't they getting involved? (after all, the government seems to be at pains to get involved in all sorts of other areas, such as desalination plants, broadband networks, and so on).

Ian Murray
12-03-2011, 08:52 PM
There's nothing to stop them from doing so though ... not as far as I know ... why aren't they getting involved?
Privatisation of the power industry was adopted a couple of decades ago, to open the industry to competition and "limit price increases". They could go back to government ownership, I suppose, but it seems unlikely.

antichrist
12-03-2011, 09:39 PM
Yesterday the Opposition stated it does not disagree with climate change nor with the human involvement, only that they are against the taxes that the govts want to impose. That was in response to prof Garnaut report that everything is a lot worse by the day.

Capablanca-Fan
14-03-2011, 01:11 PM
Ban this dangerous power source now (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/ban_this_dangerous_power_source_now/)
Andrew Bolt – Monday, March 14, 11 (01:28 pm)

James Delingpole (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100079664/did-climate-change-cause-the-japanese-earthquake/):

Nuclear fatalities in the last ten years: 7

Wind farm fatalities in the last ten years: 44.

In those ten years nuclear provided thirty times the energy of wind. This means in the last decade, nuclear has been around 200 times safer than wind on an energy produced/accidents basis.

Desmond
14-03-2011, 01:59 PM
Ban this dangerous power source now (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/ban_this_dangerous_power_source_now/)
Andrew Bolt – Monday, March 14, 11 (01:28 pm)

James Delingpole (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100079664/did-climate-change-cause-the-japanese-earthquake/):

Nuclear fatalities in the last ten years: 7

Wind farm fatalities in the last ten years: 44.

In those ten years nuclear provided thirty times the energy of wind. This means in the last decade, nuclear has been around 200 times safer than wind on an energy produced/accidents basis.
Actually this came from “David” – a reader at Watts Up With That, quoted by Delingpole and in turn quoted by Bolt. "David" apparently taking his information from here: source for nuclear (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents) and source for wind (http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/accidents.pdf).

Due to the different caveats it may not be an apples for apples comparison.

For instance, the Nuclear source only counts an accident where

"The damage must be related directly to radioactive material, not merely (for example) at a nuclear power plant."
whereas
the wind source contains

"178 miscellaneous accidents are also present in the data. Component failure has been reported here
if there has been no consequential structural damage. Also included are lack of maintenance,
electrical failure (not led to fire or electrocution) and planning “accidents” where towers have been
installed closer than permitted to housing, etc. Construction and construction support accidents are
also included, also lightning strikes when a strike has not resulted in blade damage or fire.".
I could not find either source claim how much energy has been generated in the last 10 years, and I'm unsure if that is "David"'s assertion or Delingpole's.

Ian Murray
14-03-2011, 03:44 PM
Due to the different caveats it may not be an apples for apples comparison.
Right. If someone falls off a ladder at a nuclear plant or a wind farm, it's an industrial accident. If only the wind farm incident counts as an accident then the comparisons are meaningless. But don't expect Andrew Bolt or his admirers to be deterred by such inconvenient details.

Spiny Norman
14-03-2011, 04:40 PM
Lets wait and see what the new Berkeley team come up with ... they are promising a comprehensive, transparent, accessible (in data terms) reassessment of global temperatures ... and they include both pro-warmist and pro-skeptic members in the team, so there will be plenty of internal debate about the right methodologies to use. Some in the skeptic camp have been privately shown some of the methodologies that will be used to compile the data and are mostly impressed with the approach. Lets hope that optimism bears fruit with a new, widely accepted temperature record that most can accept.
Watch and listen here to Berkeley professor Richard Muller tip buckets on Hansen, Mann, et al, for their dishonesty in manipulating data to achieve a desired outcome ... and it explains why the team at Berkeley are motivated to produce an honest temperature record that is transparent in terms of source data and calculation methodology:

8BQpciw8suk

Desmond
14-03-2011, 06:21 PM
Watch and listen here to Berkeley professor Richard Muller tip buckets on Hansen, Mann, et al, for their dishonesty in manipulating data to achieve a desired outcome ... and it explains why the team at Berkeley are motivated to produce an honest temperature record that is transparent in terms of source data and calculation methodology:It is a good example of how the science process works. Muller won't listen to what these guys say anymore. The crap is weeded out, our knowledge grows and continues to.

But to junk the whole process? Nup.

Spiny Norman
15-03-2011, 05:56 AM
Oh, so I have your approval to "weed out the junk" of Mann, Hansen, et al now that I have a well-known Professor publicly deriding them?

I was being criticised by you for rejecting their work not so long ago ... let me refresh your memory:

http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?p=299210

Keep in mind that their work was peer-reviewed ... :wall: ... the "gold standard" for 'proving' that their work was good quality.

Skeptics have been on to this for years ... but only now is the mainstream even starting to realise that something has gone very wrong with the climate science 'industry' ... the work of Mann, Hansen, Briffa, et al, have been used as the basis for the IPCC process ...

So NOW do you have cause to pause and reconsider whether the evidence is enough to spend billions and billions to achieve one-poofteenth of nothing in temperature reduction?

Capablanca-Fan
15-03-2011, 05:57 AM
Global warming: 10 little facts (http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2011/03/bob-carter)
by Dr Bob Carter
14 March 2011

Control the language, and you control the outcome of any debate

Ten dishonest slogans about global warming, and ten little facts.

Each of the following ten numbered statements reproduces verbatim, or almost verbatim, statements made recently by Australian government leaders, and repeated by their media and other supporters. The persons making these arguments might be termed (kindly) climate-concerned citizens or (less kindly, but accurately) as global warming alarmists.

...


3. Putting a price on carbon (sic) will punish the big polluters (sic).


A price on carbon dioxide will impose a deliberate financial penalty on all energy users, but especially energy-intensive industries. These imaginary “big polluters” are part of the bedrock of the Australian economy. Any cost impost on them will be passed straight down to consumers.

It is consumers of all products who will ultimately pay, not the industrialists or their shareholders.

4. Putting a price on carbon (sic) is the right thing to do; it’s in our nation’s interest.


The greatest competitive advantage of the Australian economy is cheap energy generated by coal-fired power stations.

To levy an unnecessary tax on this energy source is economic vandalism that will destroy jobs and reduce living standards for all Australians.

...


7. Australia should show leadership, by setting an example that other countries will follow.


Self-delusion doesn’t come any stronger than this.

For Australia to introduce a carbon dioxide tax ahead of the large emitting nations is to render our whole economy to competitive and economic disadvantage for no gain whatsoever.

...

9. The cost of action on carbon (sic) pollution (sic) is less than the cost of inaction.


This statement is fraudulent. Implementing a carbon dioxide tax will carry large costs for workers and consumers, but bring no measurable cooling (or other change) for future climate.

For Australia, the total cost for a family of four of implanting a carbon dioxide tax will exceed $2,500/yr* – whereas even eliminating all of Australia’s emissions might prevent planetary warming of 0.01 deg. C by 2100

...

antichrist
15-03-2011, 07:34 AM
so frankly speaking what is the basis of those opposing the tax. They want to exploit and get wealth from the environment but they dont want to repay in any means. In other words bludgers, no different from the colonists from centuries gone by.

They make up any excuses to get out of paying and from conceding that 6 billions humans are stuffing the place up. Of course about a billion cars with all that pollution is stuffing the place up - it is impossible to be otherwise over time.

Desmond
15-03-2011, 09:33 AM
Oh, so I have your approval to "weed out the junk" of Mann, Hansen, et al now that I have a well-known Professor publicly deriding them?

I was being criticised by you for rejecting their work not so long ago ... let me refresh your memory:

http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?p=299210

Keep in mind that their work was peer-reviewed ... :wall: ... the "gold standard" for 'proving' that their work was good quality.That graph was peer reviewed was it? Funny because Muller said the graph would not have survived the peer review process in any journal he was willing to publish in. So perhaps the process does work after all? What I asked you to do (on a different subject) was to find a peer reviewed paper written after the paper you disagreed with that critisiced it and showed why it was wrong. What you gave me was blog entries and a paper that concurred with mine. Muller is proposing to actually do what I asked for - publish in a reputable journal. Once he has done it, and once we see what he finds and whether it stands up to peer scrutiny, we'll know more won't we.

He also pointed out that the graph is not of temperatures but of tree rings data, which can be a proxy for temperatures.

Muller says "I'm not worried about the word 'trick', I'm worried about the word 'decline'." So what decline does the email refer to? Is it a decline in global temperatures since the 60s? No. It is a decline in the tree rings. So really what's at stake here is how accurate using tree rings to re-construct temperature data from the past is. Not what the measured temperatures that we know show warming are.


Skeptics have been on to this for years ... Yeah right, Alex Jones was right all along. :rolleyes: :lol:

Whereas the real skeptics who are scientists accept warming and look for non-anthropogenic causes. Their work has not had broad acceptance in the scientific community because it is not the best explanation for the data.


So NOW do you have cause to pause and reconsider whether the evidence is enough to spend billions and billions to achieve one-poofteenth of nothing in temperature reduction?It is funny because I was wondering whether what I showed you on tropospheric temperature might have given you pause to reconsider your position. I mean it did seem fairly central to your position that the troposphere was bucking the warming trend.

Anyway to answer your question; you seem to be attributing a position to me that is not mine.

Spiny Norman
15-03-2011, 04:36 PM
That graph was peer reviewed was it? Funny because Muller said the graph would not have survived the peer review process in any journal he was willing to publish in.
Indeed. It didn't seem to bother the IPCC though. That ought to make you think ...


So perhaps the process does work after all?
Self-evidently not.

The “hockey stick” was first published in 1999 in the journal Geophysical Research Letters. It was a follow-up to 1998 paper by the same authors in the journal Nature which detailed the methodology for creating a proxy temperature reconstruction.

GRL's list of editors (who do the reviewing) here:
http://www.agu.org/journals/gl/editors.shtml

Nature is supposedly one of the premier science journals.


He also pointed out that the graph is not of temperatures but of tree rings data, which can be a proxy for temperatures.
That's correct. They (Briffa, Mann, Hansen, et al) used the parts of the data when it suited them (up to 1960) and threw it out post-1960 when it became clear that the proxy didn't match real temperature measurements.

Anyone remotely honest would have either:
(a) said so when publishing; or
(b) realised that their proxy wasn't an effective temperature proxy and then ditched the whole concept


So really what's at stake here is how accurate using tree rings to re-construct temperature data from the past is.
Correct ... except that this is the information which has been used to justify the IPCC reports which governments are in turn using to justify AGW policies.

Patrick Byrom
15-03-2011, 08:08 PM
There have been many temperature reconstructions since Mann's paper (now over 10 years old!) which supported the 'hockey stick'.

You can read about some of them here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm

There is also a link to a report by the National Research Council (if you want even more details).

Desmond
16-03-2011, 01:02 PM
There have been many temperature reconstructions since Mann's paper (now over 10 years old!) which supported the 'hockey stick'.

You can read about some of them here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm

There is also a link to a report by the National Research Council (if you want even more details).
Thanks Patrick. That site also has an interesting take on 'ClimateGate'
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm

Spiny Norman
31-03-2011, 06:14 PM
Interesting analysis of the impact of the nuclear industry on USA CO2 emissions:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/30/anti-nuclear-power-hysteria-and-it%e2%80%99s-significant-contribution-to-global-warming

I would think, given that the USA and Australia are both heavily coal-driven for power generation, that nuclear would have a similarly massive impact here on our CO2 emissions if we adopted it instead of coal-fired power.

** of course, the problem with that conclusion is this: if we don't simultaneously limit the export of coal overseas, we'll make no global impact at all in terms of CO2 because the emissions will just be exported off shore ... the only way to truly limit emissions is to leave the coal in the ground and stop anyone else from coming to take it from us.

antichrist
31-03-2011, 07:35 PM
We need leadership to change the people's mentality. For example, some "friends" of mine drove in a big 4 WD about 60kms extra just to buy cheap vitamin pills at another city. But no KB earlier somewhere claimed that we can't limit people's non-essential travel by car.

well what hope is there if we can't curtain such irresponsible, selfish and stupid behaviour.

Desmond
31-03-2011, 07:52 PM
Interesting analysis of the impact of the nuclear industry on USA CO2 emissions:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/30/anti-nuclear-power-hysteria-and-it%e2%80%99s-significant-contribution-to-global-warming

I would think, given that the USA and Australia are both heavily coal-driven for power generation, that nuclear would have a similarly massive impact here on our CO2 emissions if we adopted it instead of coal-fired power.

** of course, the problem with that conclusion is this: if we don't simultaneously limit the export of coal overseas, we'll make no global impact at all in terms of CO2 because the emissions will just be exported off shore ... the only way to truly limit emissions is to leave the coal in the ground and stop anyone else from coming to take it from us.Who is this guy (http://matus1976.com/aboutme/aboutme_index_1.htm)and why should I care what he thinks?


My name is Michael, I was born in 1976 in CT, I lived in Washington state for a few years and then back in CT for the rest. I went to R.E. Fitch Senior High school in Groton and was not significantly important there. Since then my interests have developed widely and I have been on an intellectual and spiritual persuit to better myself as a person. I actively study philosophy, philosophy of science, ethics, science, physics, politics, history, and pretty much anything that is intellectually stimulating. I am also currently building a custom motorcycle, I also do free lance 3D artwork and rendering on the side and am an avid writer / reader.

I read almost exclsively non fiction works, and some of my favorite authors and intellectual inspirations are, in no particular order; Carl Sagan, Matt Ridley, Richard Dawkins, Michael Shermer, James Randi, Eric Drexler, Freeman Dyson, Richard Feynman, Isaac Asimov, Ayn Rand, Aristotle, Paul Davies, etc...I consider myself a skeptic (not to be confused with a cynic) and do not believe in God, paranormal phenomena, pyschic powers, astrology, witchcraft, demons, dragons, or the tooth fairy. I do, however, believe that humans are wonderfull and beautifully amazing creatures, that our lives, our cultures, our art and music, are some of the most fascinating and wonderfull things out there. I am a humanist above all, I have faith in people and thier drive to overcome challenges.

I do not drink or smoke although I have no fundamental problems with people who do either, I just choose not to. In fact, I align myself closely to the libertarian party, which is founded on a principle of individual freedom, I definately support the right to choose to smoke or do drugs, but I choose not to take part in it, because, to paraphrase Richard Feynman, I do not want to mess with the physiological mechamisms that make me me. Seperating an individual choice from one that is enforced on other seems to be something too many people have difficulty with.

I am Interested in philosophy, science, physics, politics, ethics, inventing, motorcycles, aircraft... 3D Animation, Movies and music, nearly any genre, art, poetry, living life to its fullest.

Kevin Bonham
31-03-2011, 08:54 PM
For example, some "friends" of mine drove in a big 4 WD about 60kms extra just to buy cheap vitamin pills at another city.

Odd behaviour. Did they save enough to justify the petrol cost?

Hobbes
31-03-2011, 09:12 PM
For example, some "friends" of mine drove in a big 4 WD about 60kms extra just to buy cheap vitamin pills at another city

More likely that AC's "friends" were stopping off at every chemist on the way to to buy their pseudoephedrine cheap vitamin pills

antichrist
01-04-2011, 03:42 PM
Odd behaviour. Did they save enough to justify the petrol cost?

They reakon they could justify it in spite of high petrol cost. I knows they are going past again next week so it could have waited. So it is the environmental conscious and leadership that is needed. But as this area is old Country Party area that is the mentality of most of them. But many of the up and coming generation are no better, there is less excuses for them, but is it my arrogance expecting them to adopt my stance of preventing pollution and possible (for their thinking) climate change?

Spiny Norman
01-04-2011, 05:24 PM
Oh dear ... just when there was some hope of an open/transparent review and re-publishing of temperature data, the BEST team lead by Prof. Muller have gone down the political road. Without having published even a single piece of peer-reviewed research, they have appeared before the US Congress and made some extraordinary claims about global temps. You can read an analysis of Mullers's testimony here:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/31/expect-the-best-plan-for-the-worst

Why can't scientists just do the science, openly, transparently, publish their results ... and let the politicians play politics.

Rincewind
01-04-2011, 08:28 PM
Oh dear ... just when there was some hope of an open/transparent review and re-publishing of temperature data, the BEST team lead by Prof. Muller have gone down the political road. Without having published even a single piece of peer-reviewed research, they have appeared before the US Congress and made some extraordinary claims about global temps. You can read an analysis of Mullers's testimony here:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/31/expect-the-best-plan-for-the-worst

Why can't scientists just do the science, openly, transparently, publish their results ... and let the politicians play politics.

I'll think you will find that scientists generally don't play politics and I would be surprised if that is what Dr Muller has done here. He was invited to address the politicians and decided to give them the best answers he had to that date. Putting something on congressional record is not worth one iota to a scientists and the results of the BEST group will still need to be published in peer-reviewed journals before it is taken seriously. However it is interesting to see the preliminary results include concordance to within margins of error of the climate scientists warming record of the 20th century and discredits Anthony Watts's (the blogger of the link above) pet theory of climate station bias.

For those interested in Muller's testimony without the layer of Watts hyperbole see...

http://berkeleyearth.org/Resources/Muller_Testimony_31_March_2011

Spiny Norman
02-04-2011, 09:20 AM
However it is interesting to see the preliminary results include concordance to within margins of error of the climate scientists warming record of the 20th century.
Giving testimony on the basis of:
(1) data and results which have not been reviewed yet;
(2) data and results which have not been quality screened for issues which are already acknowledged to be a problem;
(3) results which are based on just 2% of the available input data taken from a highly-urbanised location (Japan) and not "randomly-selected" as has been claimed by some; without
(4) providing strong warnings that the conclusions may prove to be completely unreliable once these factors are taken into account

is just foolish ... and it shows that its a political action, not a scientific one ... he would have been better to say "Its too early to tell anything for sure; call me back in 6-12 months".

Spiny Norman
02-04-2011, 09:41 AM
Judith Curry (a balanced voice) has a different view here:

http://judithcurry.com/2011/03/31/congressional-hearing-on-climate-change-part-ii/

She's saying that its a judgement call and is giving Muller the benefit of the doubt for now.

Spiny Norman
02-04-2011, 09:47 AM
... but Pielke Snr. weighs in with a detailed criticism of Muller here:

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/04/01/comments-on-the-testimony-of-richard-muller-at-the-united-states-house-of-representatives-committee-on-energy-and-the-environment/


the issues include:
■ a systematic bias in the use of multi-decadal trends in minimum air temperatures
■ the use of surface observing sites that are not spatially representative of the region
■ the failure to consider the variation of surface air temperature trends with height above the surface
■ the lack of incorporation of the effect of concurrent multi-decadal trends in the surface air absolute humidity
■ the absence of the statistical documentation of the uncertainty of each step in the adjustment of raw data to a “homogenized data set” (e.g. time of observation bias; equipment changes; station moves)
■ the need to assess the absolute temperatures at which a temperature trend occurs, since a temperature anomaly at a cold temperature has less of an effect on outgoing long wave radiation than the same temperature anomaly at a warmer temperature.

We have explored most of these issues in peer-reviewed papers and found them to be important remaining uncertainties and biases. Richard Muller and his colleagues have not yet examined these concerns ...

Rincewind
02-04-2011, 10:05 AM
Giving testimony on the basis of:
(1) data and results which have not been reviewed yet;

The fact that the results have not been published in peer-review journals was dealt with in my first email. Reporting to a congressional committee is not the same as publishing scientific work and the results were clearly labelled as preliminary.


(2) data and results which have not been quality screened for issues which are already acknowledged to be a problem;

Yes and again that has been clearly identified in the data presented. In fact the claim is specifically concerning the claim of selection bias in previous data and the methodology of random selection of the data seems to address this issue qualitatively, if not quantitatively. Control for other systematic sources of bias and repeating the result with a different random sample will in time address the quantitative and improve confidence in the absence of selection bias.


(3) results which are based on just 2% of the available input data taken from a highly-urbanised location (Japan) and not "randomly-selected" as has been claimed by some; without

Since when is Japan highly urbanised? It is 73 percent mountainous and land area and only 66% of the population live in urban areas. Making it the 72nd most urbanised country in the world. (Australia is 17th and New Zealand is 20th). (See: Urbanization by country (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization_by_country))

In any regard, according to Muller's testimony, "Berkeley Earth chose stations randomly from the complete set of 39,028 stations." Are there 39,028 stations in Japan?


(4) providing strong warnings that the conclusions may prove to be completely unreliable once these factors are taken into account

He did this including marking his black line as preliminary he also said

"Based on the preliminary work we have done, I believe that the systematic biases that are the cause for most concern can be adequately handled by data analysis techniques."

"In our preliminary analysis of these stations, we found a warming trend that is shown in the figure."

"The Berkeley Earth agreement with the prior analysis surprised us, since our preliminary results don’t yet address many of the known biases. When they do, it is possible that the corrections could bring our current agreement into disagreement."

"Did such poor station quality exaggerate the estimates of global warming? We’ve studied this issue, and our preliminary answer is no."

I'm not sure how often you want him to mention the word preliminary but he certainly wasn't trying to pass of his testimony as peer-reviewed science or consensus or anything else. He was just saying, we've been looking at the problem for a little while, we haven't got any results to publish just yet but so far our findings are this...


is just foolish ... and it shows that its a political action, not a scientific one ... he would have been better to say "Its too early to tell anything for sure; call me back in 6-12 months".

I'm not sure what you are basing this on Spiny, an intimate knowledge of how science works or an intimate knowledge in climate science from which you know his preliminary assessment will prove to be mistaken. Either way, he was asked by the congressional committee to present his preliminary findings and that is what he did and there was no misrepresentation. The fact that the selection bias looks very much to be a red herring that Watts will soon no longer be able to fall back on is just bad luck for Watts. Although Muller's results are preliminary one should remember that the selection bias claim is pure conjecture. People in favour of that conjecture don't have to give it up just yet, but the balanced assessment is that it very much appears to be a mistaken conjecture and if and when Muller's results are verified the selection bias claim will be solely the domain of the lunatic fringe.

Rincewind
02-04-2011, 11:15 AM
... but Pielke Snr. weighs in with a detailed criticism of Muller here:

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/04/01/comments-on-the-testimony-of-richard-muller-at-the-united-states-house-of-representatives-committee-on-energy-and-the-environment/

Most of the issues raised in that list by Pielke Snr are on the list for future research fro the BEST group. However, in my view, the selective quoting of Muller's testimony by Piekle borders on misrepresentation.

For example...


“The world temperature data has sufficient integrity to be used to determine global temperature trends”


Based on the preliminary work we have done, I believe that the systematic biases that are the cause for most concern can be adequately handled by data analysis techniques. The world temperature data has sufficient integrity to be used to determine global temperature trends.

Note the statement was flagged as being no more than a personal belief based on preliminary investigations.



“…. we find that the warming seen in the “poor” stations is virtually indistinguishable from that seen in the “good” stations.”

We have also studied station quality. Many US stations have low quality rankings according to a study led by Anthony Watts. However, we find that the warming seen in the “poor” stations is virtually indistinguishable from that seen in the “good” stations.

Not including the definition of poor versus good in this context is misleading as the initial finding is that those definitions are mistaken as the choice of poor versus good makes little or no difference to the warming trend.


“The Berkeley Earth agreement with the prior analysis surprised us, since our preliminary results don’t yet address many of the known biases”?

The Berkeley Earth agreement with the prior analysis surprised us, since our preliminary results don’t yet address many of the known biases. When they do, it is possible that the corrections could bring our current agreement into disagreement.

Muller follow up sentence is relevant as he testified to the committee directly that his findings (once all important biases are accounted for) may not agree with the prior results.

Pielke Snr goes on to claim the last quote contradicts the first two, which is just silly since it is clear that if you read the last statement in context that all Muller is expressing is surprise as to the level of agreement of his preliminary work to previous findings of other groups. He leaves the door wide open that the agreement may be illusionary.

Most of the rests of Pielke Snr's blog post is regarding issues not yet addressed by the Berkeley group and thus you can hardly take Muller to task on something he has not yet investigated nor claims to have investigated.

Rincewind
02-04-2011, 11:27 AM
Amusing is to go to The Pielke Research Group page (http://cires.colorado.edu/science/groups/pielke/)

This is a link on the bottom of the middle column titled

Roger A. Pielke Sr.’s Perspective On The Role Of Humans In Climate Change (http://climatesci.org/2008/03/31/roger-a-pielke-srs-perspective-on-the-role-of-humans-in-climate-change/) which is hosted on climatesci.org. However it looks like the domain has been lost to a spam squatter. The links are somewhat random but links to student loans, dating sites, Hong Kong hotels and various other climate science based links. :lol:

Spiny Norman
03-04-2011, 07:45 AM
I reckon you're being unusually forgiving ... if, say, a creationist scientist made statements like Muller made, based on preliminary work which was not peer-reviewed, you'd be all over that like a rash ... I think you're being rather hypocritical.

Rincewind
03-04-2011, 10:44 AM
I reckon you're being unusually forgiving ... if, say, a creationist scientist made statements like Muller made, based on preliminary work which was not peer-reviewed, you'd be all over that like a rash ... I think you're being rather hypocritical.

What rubbish. I just think you don't much about the working of science and how science and government interact. It seems you have read some blogs of AGW sceptics who have got their nose out of joint by the preliminary results of Muller and are throwing hissing fits and you went along for the ride.

If things were as bad as you think they are then Pielke Snr should not have needed to quote mine Muller's testimony to make it appear as if Muller was overstating his level of certainty. Watts is also obviously biased as he was hoping Muller would be able to confirm his selection bias conjecture and it turns out that it doesn't look like that is correct.

I suggest reading a little more widely and not believing without scrutiny everything that confirms your sceptical position.

antichrist
03-04-2011, 05:04 PM
what swindke, there are about a billion cars for years, there have been forest lopping for years, there have been oil refineries, factories, coal burning for years. We have very finite atomosphere as well carbon dioxide converting to oxygen capacity. So of course we will have climate change.

The sceptics are waste of time to solving the problem, just take away their pollution-causing capacity and let them suck eggs

Spiny Norman
04-04-2011, 06:52 PM
Anthony Watts detailed submission:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/31/clarification-on-best-submitted-to-the-house/

Spiny Norman
05-04-2011, 06:11 AM
I'm not sure what you are basing this on Spiny, an intimate knowledge of how science works or an intimate knowledge in climate science from which you know his preliminary assessment will prove to be mistaken.
Can't be the latter, because even "warmists" have weighed in to call Muller's testimony a poor judgement call.


Thorne said scientists who contributed to the three main studies — by NOAA, NASA and Britain’s Met Office — welcome new peer-reviewed research. But he said the Berkeley team had been “seriously compromised” by publicizing its work before publishing any vetted papers.

- Peter Thorne, National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C.

The NCDC surely can't be accused of being skeptics, so if your dichotomy above applies to them as well as to me, the conclusion you should draw is (correctly) that its based on an understanding of how science ought to be done ... and that's to publish your work, subject to peer review, prior to making claims that you might find you can't back up once the review/publication process is completed.

Muller knew full well that there were errors in his preliminary data (well publicised issues subject to massive debate over the course of the past decade) and knew full well that the sample was just 2% of available data from a highly-urbanised country (Japan).

Very unwise. Not least because the BEST project was being held out as being 'above' all the warmist-vs-skeptics politics and now he's given the skeptic side plenty of reason to question him as an individual. He was always known to be favorable to the warmist p.o.v. but not a good idea giving his testimony in the way he did if you're trying to be seen as independent of all that.

Capablanca-Fan
05-04-2011, 09:42 AM
Lighten Up for Earth Hour (http://michellemalkin.com/2011/03/26/lighten-up-for-earth-hour/)
By Doug Powers
26 March 2011

Tonight at 8:30 p.m. local time all around the globe, private homes and major landmarks will turn off their lights for one hour. Fortunately this means there should be more than enough available electricity for me to turn on everything I own and light up my house brighter than Perth when John Glenn spotted it from orbit. And I’m talking hot, bright, old school incandescent light and not CFLs (a bulb that is sold with its own HazMat suit for clean-up purposes can’t possibly be environmentally friendly).

Why so grumpy about Earth Hour again this year? Because I don’t like being preached to about what I should be doing, especially when I already do it. …

As such, I tend to get a little put off when being preached to by hypocrites who swim in their own heated pools, travel in private jets, play sports under bright lights at night, heat cavernous homes they’re not even living in for months at a time, trash national monuments when celebrating politicians who are going to save the environment, and ride in limo caravans to speeches where they tell the rest of us how our pickup trucks, lawn mowers, hamburgers and 75-watt light bulbs are killing the planet. …

The harnessing and generation of electricity is among the greatest discoveries ever. It’s helped make the world safer and more sanitary. Electricity runs the equipment that is used to make the medicine that saves lives. It runs the cameras, televisions and computers that allow us to see evils that are being perpetuated around the world that we might not have otherwise known about — except in North Korea, where you can’t see crimes at night because Earth Hour is mandatory 365 days a year. …

Desmond
05-04-2011, 12:47 PM
Can't be the latter, because even "warmists" have weighed in to call Muller's testimony a poor judgement call.


Thorne said scientists who contributed to the three main studies — by NOAA, NASA and Britain’s Met Office — welcome new peer-reviewed research. But he said the Berkeley team had been “seriously compromised” by publicizing its work before publishing any vetted papers.
- Peter Thorne, National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C.Yawn ... what's up with that quote mining, more like it.

See the article here (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-climate-berkeley-20110404,0,772697.story).

Thorne also said,

"Even if the thermometer had never been invented, the evidence is there from deep ocean changes, from receding glaciers, from rising sea levels and receding sea ice and spring snow cover,"

"All the physical indicators are consistent with a warming world. There is no doubt the trend of temperature is upwards since the early 20th century. And that trend is accelerating."

and the article also says

The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project was launched by physics professor Richard Muller, a longtime critic of government-led climate studies, to address what he called "the legitimate concerns" of skeptics who believe that global warming is exaggerated.

But Muller unexpectedly told a congressional hearing last week that the work of the three principal groups that have analyzed the temperature trends underlying climate science is "excellent.... We see a global warming trend that is very similar to that previously reported by the other groups."

...
Muller said his group was surprised by its findings, but he cautioned that the initial assessment is based on only 2% of the 1.6 billion measurements that will eventually be examined.
...
Over the last two decades, three independent groups have used different combinations of stations and varying statistical methods and yet arrived at nearly identical conclusions: The planet's surface, on average, has warmed about 0.75 degrees centigrade (1.4 degrees Fahrenheit) since the beginning of the 20th century.So I guess you'll just have to lump all those dudes into your conspiracy theory too, eh?

2% doesn't sound like much does it. Does 32,000,000 data points sound like much?

Rincewind
05-04-2011, 01:07 PM
Can't be the latter, because even "warmists" have weighed in to call Muller's testimony a poor judgement call.

Thorne is entitled to his opinion and I'm sure he has intimate knowledge of climate science. However he does have his own biases and prejudices. Two reasons that Thorne has to be anti-Muller is that Muller is not a climate scientist so there is a turf-war issue from the climate scientists which will tend to make them more critical of Muller than perhaps a mainstream climate scientists. Thorne also has methodological issues with Muller's statistical approach and so this is likely to again tend to give a jaundice view of Muller findings (even if they had appeared in peer-reviewed journals) let alone any preliminary results.

It is amusing to see Watt's spin, which basically cherry picks the comments where Thorne is critical of Muller but then denigates the rest of what Thorne says which disagrees with Watts' own conjecture. Either Thorne's opinion is worth something or it isn't. By denigrating Thorne's latter statements he (I assume unintentionally) undermines the credibility of Thorne's criticisms of Muller. :)


The NCDC surely can't be accused of being skeptics, so if your dichotomy above applies to them as well as to me, the conclusion you should draw is (correctly) that its based on an understanding of how science ought to be done ... and that's to publish your work, subject to peer review, prior to making claims that you might find you can't back up once the review/publication process is completed.

As previously noted, Muller sufficiently flagged the results as preliminary and the highlighted the possibility that the findings may be completely overturned by further analysis. Muller didn't do anything deceptive or misleading, nor what he trying to short-circuit peer-reviewed science. He was asked to make a statement to a government committee and he did so with all necessary caveats.


Muller knew full well that there were errors in his preliminary data (well publicised issues subject to massive debate over the course of the past decade) and knew full well that the sample was just 2% of available data from a highly-urbanised country (Japan).

He certainly stated in his submission that his results don't address all known biases in the data. However I'm still confused by your final two claims.

I don't see that Muller's results were just based on data from Japan. Where is that coming from?

Also you again claim that Japan is a highly urbanised country. I questioned the validity of that statement previously (see #1899) which you seem to have not responded to but you are still repeating the claim.

Now if the first claim regarding the source of the data is incorrect then this point is moot. However I would appreciate it you could at least provide your sources for both of these claims since neither appear obvious to me.


Very unwise. Not least because the BEST project was being held out as being 'above' all the warmist-vs-skeptics politics and now he's given the skeptic side plenty of reason to question him as an individual. He was always known to be favorable to the warmist p.o.v. but not a good idea giving his testimony in the way he did if you're trying to be seen as independent of all that.

I fail to see your point here. It seems the skeptics are trying to paint him as another warmist, simply because his is uncovering a warming trend. He certainly has no form as a warmist and his group is partially funded by some very skeptical money. However whether warmist of skeptic or somewhere in between makes no difference on how he might respond to a request to make a submission to a government committee. The committee has an important job in the setting of policy and he obviously though his groups work thus fair although not yet published were worth providing accompanied by copious caveats.

Spiny Norman
05-04-2011, 05:59 PM
Muller could have said more than "he cautioned that the initial assessment is based on only 2% of the 1.6 billion measurements that will eventually be examined" and added "the data we've used is unrepresentative of the total data set, plus the data is known to be flawed and we are uncertain what impact that flawed data will have on our preliminary results".

Boris, flawed data is flawed data ... until it is cleansed it doesn't matter whether you have 100 data points of 100 billion data points ... the results won't be correct.

Rincewind
05-04-2011, 06:18 PM
Muller could have said more than "he cautioned that the initial assessment is based on only 2% of the 1.6 billion measurements that will eventually be examined" and added "the data we've used is unrepresentative of the total data set, plus the data is known to be flawed and we are uncertain what impact that flawed data will have on our preliminary results".

Yes but did he say it was based no Japan? In fact what he said was...

"We have done an initial study of the station selection issue. Rather than pick stations with long records (as done by the prior groups) we picked stations randomly from the complete set."

Now the problem I have is reconciling that with the view that he focussed on Japan. But if by complete set he meant the complete set of data from Japan, then I still have a problem with the assertion that Japan is a "highly urbanised country".

Rincewind
05-04-2011, 06:47 PM
Ahhh, mystery solved.

The whole Japan thing was a complete fabrication of Anthony Watts. Read the whole sorry and sordid tale here...

http://climateprogress.org/2011/03/29/wattsupwiththat-attack-fabrication/

Muller's results were (as they seemed to be from the testimony) derived from 2% of the total data available globally and not just Japan (as was falsely claimed by Watts).

Of course the question as to whether Japan is highly-urbanised or not is moot but on the face of it Japan does not rate highly on the list of urbanised countries and much of the land in Japan is too mountainous to be suitable for urbanisation so I suspect that is an indefensible claim anyway.

I think the advice of a few posts back is even more relevant now: Or if you are not going to do that at least keep up with the sites that are confirming your a priori position when they have issued a correction about the Japan faux pax days later you are still parroting it as if it was an undeniable fact.

Reading a little more widely and don't believe without scrutiny everything that confirms your sceptical position.

Rincewind
05-04-2011, 06:59 PM
I note that Watts was admitting the Japan thing was a mistake on March 29 but Frosty was still repeating it on April 5. I hope (probably in vain) that this warns you against trusting sites like the Watts blog without checking the fact with the primary source (like Muller's actual testimony).

Desmond
05-04-2011, 07:18 PM
I note that Watts was admitting the Japan thing was a mistake on March 29 but Frosty was still repeating it on April 5. I hope (probably in vain) that this warns you against trusting sites like the Watts blog without checking the fact with the primary source (like Muller's actual testimony).I'll see your probably and raise you a definitely.

antichrist
05-04-2011, 07:21 PM
it is only the nut behind the wheel who cant see the pollution and damage a billion cars are doing to the planet

Spiny Norman
06-04-2011, 07:04 AM
I note that Watts was admitting the Japan thing was a mistake on March 29 but Frosty was still repeating it on April 5. I hope (probably in vain) that this warns you against trusting sites like the Watts blog without checking the fact with the primary source (like Muller's actual testimony).
All it means is that I haven't been reading Watts blog much lately, so have obviously missed any retraction. Unlike you (apparently), I don't have a lot of free time to fact check every claim I read on every web page I visit.

I'm pleased that this bit of the story turns out not to be correct. It removes part of my concern over how Muller behaved ... though not all of my concern.

Rincewind
06-04-2011, 09:54 AM
All it means is that I haven't been reading Watts blog much lately, so have obviously missed any retraction. Unlike you (apparently), I don't have a lot of free time to fact check every claim I read on every web page I visit.

You're welcome.

antichrist
06-04-2011, 11:42 AM
I'll see your probably and raise you a definitely.


are you two playing poker?

Spiny Norman
06-04-2011, 05:09 PM
Ahhh, mystery solved.

The whole Japan thing was a complete fabrication of Anthony Watts. Read the whole sorry and sordid tale here...

http://climateprogress.org/2011/03/29/wattsupwiththat-attack-fabrication/

<snip>

Reading a little more widely and don't believe without scrutiny everything that confirms your sceptical position.
I've had a few minutes tonight to try to look this info up. Anthony Watts has written on the subject here:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/22/the-not-evil-just-romm-2-solution/


I made a mistake regarding the 2% figure, I misheard what was being presented during my visit with the BEST team at Berkeley. As many of you may know I’m about 80% hearing impaired and the presentation made to me was entirely verbal with some printed graphs. Based on the confidentiality I agreed to, I did not get to come back with any of those graphs, notes, or data so I had to rely on what I heard. I simply misheard and thought the 2% were the Japan station analysis graphs that they showed me.

I was in touch with Dr. Richard Muller on 3/28/2011 who graciously pointed out my misinterpretation. I regret the error, and thus issue this correction about the 2% figure being truly a random sample, and not just stations in the Japan test presentation shown to me.

Speaking of fact-checking, I'm wondering if you checked fact-checked the claims made on the page you quoted as your rebuttal evidence?

e.g. did you go to Watts Up With That and check on what Anthony Watts had said as his explanation? Do you have any evidence that his explanation is false? If not, by what reasoning do you get to make the claim:

"The whole Japan thing was a complete fabrication of Anthony Watts"

The word fabrication implies that Watts knew it was false when he made the statement ... I'm open to seeing any evidence (from outsiders) or admissions by Watts that this was the case ... otherwise aren't you just as guilty of not fact checking your information?

Rincewind
06-04-2011, 06:22 PM
I've had a few minutes tonight to try to look this info up. Anthony Watts has written on the subject here:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/22/the-not-evil-just-romm-2-solution/



Speaking of fact-checking, I'm wondering if you checked fact-checked the claims made on the page you quoted as your rebuttal evidence?

e.g. did you go to Watts Up With That and check on what Anthony Watts had said as his explanation? Do you have any evidence that his explanation is false? If not, by what reasoning do you get to make the claim:

"The whole Japan thing was a complete fabrication of Anthony Watts"

The word fabrication implies that Watts knew it was false when he made the statement ... I'm open to seeing any evidence (from outsiders) or admissions by Watts that this was the case ... otherwise aren't you just as guilty of not fact checking your information?

I was aware of Watts claim that he is hard of hearing and that his hearing impairment was the reason for the false claim on his behalf. Most people have excuses for misconduct sometimes (less often) they are true. I note to however that the Japan claim is not the only incorrect claim made by Watts in that article. He also claimed that "They chose Japan because it made for a compact insular test case for the code, combining rural, urban, and airport stations under one organization’s output to keep it simple." I guess he also misheard that and he also didn't read Muller's testimony to see if what he was sprouting made the least bit of sense. Or when he read it his hearing impaired his ability to read.

Desmond
06-04-2011, 08:42 PM
are you two playing poker?
Something like that, but I think if Spiny wants to continue he might have to hock his watch.

Hobbes
21-04-2011, 11:56 AM
Article by our own Spiny Norman?

http://csr-asia.com/weekly_detail.php?id=12327

antichrist
21-04-2011, 12:01 PM
Article by our own Spiny Norman?

http://csr-asia.com/weekly_detail.php?id=12327

Frosty could have more easily and accurately picked on Nescles for sacking their workers in the Philippines in Laguna, refusing them proper superannuation and then somehow the union leaders started getting knocked off by goons.

Capablanca-Fan
26-04-2011, 03:23 PM
Top 10 Environmental Scams (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=43111)
by Human Events
23 April 2011

[Read article to see explanation of each]

1. Global warming alarmism:
2. Earth Day:
3. Cap and trade:
4. Green jobs:
5. Environment activism:
6. Hollywood hypocrisy:
7. Wind power hypocrisy:
8. Carbon trading:
9. Greenwashing:
10. Al Gore:

Capablanca-Fan
04-06-2011, 02:20 AM
“We sputter against The Polluted Environment—as if it was invented in the age of the automobile. We compare our smoggy air not with the odor of horsedung and the plague of flies and the smells of garbage and human excrement which filled cities in the past, but with the honey-suckle perfumes of some nonexistent City Beautiful. We forget that even if the water in many cities today is not as spring-pure nor as palatable as we would like, for most of history the water of the cities (and of the countryside) was undrinkable. We reproach ourselves for the ills of disease and malnourishment, and forget that until recently enteritis and measles and whooping cough, diphtheria and typhoid, were killing diseases of childhood, puerperal fever plagued mothers in childbirth, polio was a summer monster.”—Daniel Boorstin, A case of hypochondria, Newsweek, 6 July 1970, p. 28.

antichrist
04-06-2011, 10:35 AM
Jono, what are you on about, even a high school student could see the fallacies of that statement and it's wrong conclusions. The new religion is environmentalism and even the theist religious leaders in Australia are jumping on the bandwagon. Recently in Sydeney all the leaders had a big meeting
requesting action on climate change.

So the times are a changing and you are the Luddite and mentality stuck in the sands of time but don't mean personally

Capablanca-Fan
04-06-2011, 11:29 AM
Jono, what are you on about, even a high school student could see the fallacies of that statement and it's wrong conclusions.
What do you mean, AC?


The new religion is environmentalism
I agree, actually.


and even the theist religious leaders in Australia are jumping on the bandwagon. Recently in Sydeney all the leaders had a big meeting requesting action on climate change.
Ridiculous.


So the times are a changing and you are the Luddite and mentality stuck in the sands of time but don't mean personally
Many in the environmental movement are Luddites in the sense of wanting to reduce our technology.

Kevin Bonham
04-06-2011, 02:35 PM
Jono, what are you on about, even a high school student could see the fallacies of that statement and it's wrong conclusions.

Gee, I have postgrad quals in environmental studies and I can't see anything wrong with it at all. I think it's a great quote and I thank Jono for posting it. :lol:

antichrist
04-06-2011, 04:13 PM
KB, and in spite of yours and Jono's qualifications you both can't see anything. And just to prove how consistent you are check out here"

http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=5098&page=12

The 3 of you cant see woods for the tree-huggers

Kevin Bonham
04-06-2011, 04:44 PM
KB, and in spite of yours and Jono's qualifications you both can't see anything.

My qualifications are a little more relevant here than Jono's. Looks like your "even a high school student" line was just a variant of the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Oh and I smacked down your off-topic triumphalism below the link you gave to it, though the link above deserves to be modded for threadjacking anyway.

Ian Murray
05-06-2011, 12:36 PM
“We sputter against The Polluted Environment—as if it was invented in the age of the automobile. We compare our smoggy air not with the odor of horsedung and the plague of flies and the smells of garbage and human excrement which filled cities in the past, but with the honey-suckle perfumes of some nonexistent City Beautiful. We forget that even if the water in many cities today is not as spring-pure nor as palatable as we would like, for most of history the water of the cities (and of the countryside) was undrinkable.
Such pollution was miniscule by today's standards. In 1800 only 3% of the world's population lived in cities. In 1910 it was 12% of the total population of 1.75 billion, with 12 cities of over one million. By 1950 it was 30%, with 83 million-plus cities. In 2008 it was 50-50 of the total of 6.5 billion, with over 400 million-plus and 19 ten-million-plus cities. By 2050 it will be a 70% urban population.

We reproach ourselves for the ills of disease and malnourishment, and forget that until recently enteritis and measles and whooping cough, diphtheria and typhoid, were killing diseases of childhood, puerperal fever plagued mothers in childbirth, polio was a summer monster.”
Despite the advances in public health, 40% of our people lack adequate sanitation and pure drinking water. Some 4000 children die every day from water-borne diseases. A great deal remains to be done before we can rest on our laurels.

Capablanca-Fan
05-06-2011, 12:46 PM
Such pollution was miniscule by today's standards. In 1800 only 3% of the world's population lived in cities. In 1910 it was 12% of the total population of 1.75 billion, with 12 cities of over one million.
Where—an when—would you rather live? Those times were far less healthy than ours.


By 1950 it was 30%, with 83 million-plus cities. In 2008 it was 50-50 of the total of 6.5 billion, with over 400 million-plus and 19 ten-million-plus cities. By 2050 it will be a 70% urban population.
Why do you think urban population is increasing? Clue: it's actually healthier than real-world rural living, as opposed to the idyllic countryside that was largely non-existent.


Despite the advances in public health, 40% of our people lack adequate sanitation and pure drinking water. Some 4000 children die every day from water-borne diseases.
Not people in places where free market capitalism has had some sway. Poverty is largely still in places run by leftard policies, like much of Africa.


A great deal remains to be done before we can rest on our laurels.
True. That's a major part of Bjørn Lomborg's Cool It: far more good can be done for the world's poor with a given amount of money that's being wasted on global warm-mongering, such as sanitary water.

Kevin Bonham
05-06-2011, 01:43 PM
Not people in places where free market capitalism has had some sway. Poverty is largely still in places run by leftard policies, like much of Africa.

Wars and corruption are probably bigger parts of the poverty problem there than left-vs-right economics.

antichrist
05-06-2011, 03:00 PM
Originally Posted by Ian Murray
Despite the advances in public health, 40% of our people lack adequate sanitation and pure drinking water. Some 4000 children die every day from water-borne diseases.

Jono
Not people in places where free market capitalism has had some sway. Poverty is largely still in places run by leftard policies, like much of Africa.


Quote:

The Phlippines is all capitalist right wing policies and a very large portion live in abject poverty in spite of having millions of overseas contract workers getting in foreign currency.

Many still have to pump water from deeper and deeper sources, thereby more difficult, and they have depleted so much that sea water is starting to seep in and replace the fresh water. And you would not guess it but the popoulation is increasing by millions more every year as most people still young.

And no Jono would be against birth control as well?

Actually the portion slipping into poverty is increasing over the past few years for many reasons. Some being price of fuel and price of food especially rice and meats.

They have gone from about 5 mill people a hundred years ago to 86 or 96 million presently. So you work it out, and they have always had right wing capitalist governments.

What a lot of bulldust are capitalist right wing policies.

And we all know that capitalism can only tread water during expansion, and if it was not for socialistic type policies by western capitalist countries they would have suffered a lot more.

So you cán't con the people all the time.

Jay
05-06-2011, 06:25 PM
Well,

I'm with KB on this one and like Jono's quote. To me, it highlights the conflict of quality of our life versus that of our impact on the environment.

For the record I do think we (the human race) are having an impact on the environment. What will the impact be?? - I've studied enough science at a very high level to be very skeptical about the "predicted outcomes" (small changes in variables and assumptions can have dramatic impacts on predicted outcomes).

The great challenge we face is how to sensibly allow all citizens of planet earth the same or improved levels in their quality of life that the currently 'first world' nations now enjoy without destroying the environment.

The Answer - I don't know. But I'm reminded of a quote from Ziggy Switkowski on this issue - " We need to throw everything including the kitchen sink at it"

- J

antichrist
05-06-2011, 06:39 PM
My qualifications are a little more relevant here than Jono's. Looks like your "even a high school student" line was just a variant of the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Oh and I smacked down your off-topic triumphalism below the link you gave to it, though the link above deserves to be modded for threadjacking anyway.


As I was saying Jono's quote would not fool HS students and accordingly Ian M. was able to poke holes in it at will.

You opposed only for the sake of having a go at me after my glorified win in that other thread

Kevin Bonham
05-06-2011, 07:48 PM
As I was saying Jono's quote would not fool HS students and accordingly Ian M. was able to poke holes in it at will.

He was able to state some facts that could be argued to present another side of the coin. But if you think based on one example of someone doing so that this means that there are objective errors in the quote that even HS students would typically see then you are wrong. Ian seems far more aware of a range of issues than the typical HS student.


You opposed only for the sake of having a go at me after my glorified win in that other thread

More rubbish. I have a long proud history of this sort of eco-contrarianism.

Anyway you are hereby directed to desist from off-topic triumphalism of this sort. Further instances of same will result in exclusion from the section where the triumphalism occurred. If you want to discuss this directive please do so in the Help and Feedback section (you should be able to get back in there by now.)

antichrist
05-06-2011, 08:19 PM
Well,

I'm with KB on this one and like Jono's quote. To me, it highlights the conflict of quality of our life versus that of our impact on the environment.

For the record I do think we (the human race) are having an impact on the environment. What will the impact be?? - I've studied enough science at a very high level to be very skeptical about the "predicted outcomes" (small changes in variables and assumptions can have dramatic impacts on predicted outcomes).

The great challenge we face is how to sensibly allow all citizens of planet earth the same or improved levels in their quality of life that the currently 'first world' nations now enjoy without destroying the environment.

The Answer - I don't know. But I'm reminded of a quote from Ziggy Switkowski on this issue - " We need to throw everything including the kitchen sink at it"- J

Re bolded section the quality of life that the first world enjoys is not even sustainable for developed nations so they must adjust first of all, but this is what they are refusing to do at climate control conferences.

It has been estimated that if the whole world population had our standard of living we would running out of resources very quickly of some elements - not considering the atmosphere etc.

So the population has to be drastically shrunk and resources drastically redistributed to give all the planet's inhabitants a fair chance, and as you said without wrecking the environment - forget it

antichrist
21-06-2011, 01:17 PM
If a plebersite was carried on about the 500 taxes we have I doubt a fifth of them would get up. But the Opposition would still inflict them and oppose any plebersite on them. Because of all their years in government they never repelled them.

Ian Murray
28-06-2011, 09:44 PM
Half the truth on emissions (http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/half-the-truth-on-emissions-20110627-1gne1.html)
John Cook
Sydney Morning Herald
June 28, 2011


...[T]his technique of cherry-picking half-truths is on full display, with frequent examples of statements that distort climate science.

The partial truths are further bolstered by scientific statements that have almost no basis in fact. It is not surprising that people present such fallacies, since the blogosphere is full of climate pseudo-science, but it is surprising that newspapers are still reporting such statements. Opinion is one thing, but scientific fact is another. Every major science body in the world has effectively refuted the assertions made by Carter.

So what is the full picture? To understand what's happening to the global climate, we need to look at temperature change over the entire planet....

Ian Murray
28-06-2011, 09:51 PM
Tax on carbon won't break us (http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/tax-on-carbon-wont-break-us-20110627-1gne3.html)
Sydney Morning Herald
June 28, 2011


Promising to scrap a carbon tax may help win an election but it won't cut emissions.

In South Korea, government and opposition have reached agreement on the design of an emissions trading scheme, to start from 2015. It shows us that others are acting to stop climate change, and that political rivals can work together to create big reforms....

antichrist
28-06-2011, 09:57 PM
Ian, the deniers here are only being dumb on purpose, it suits their political purposes. They went along with it when Howard was planning the same or Howard did not dispute climate change.

the public are half going along with them, due to lack of proper political leadership - which is what we expect when someone appeals to their back pocket. And we could remember what someone said famously about that about 60 years ago - that you will never go wrong appealing to people's selfishness - or something like that.

Overall the people are selfish just wanting to drive their monster 4x4 wheel drives around like big kids, transporting their arses around with about 1.5 tonnes of metal at about 20 litres of fuel per 100 litres - that is their mentality

antichrist
21-07-2011, 05:56 PM
But Mr Windsor said he was sticking by the government until the election. He said as he travelled abroad, he was struck by how people in Australia were still arguing the science of climate change while abroad the focus was on how to solve the problem.

This only confirmed in his mind that he made the right decision to back Labor and negotiate a climate change policy, even if it meant Labor had put its political future at risk.

"I'd rather be supporting someone who's trying to do something rather than Tony Abbott, who's trying to wreck everything," he said.

"Regardless of what happens (at the election), I have no self-doubt about the choices I made."

http://qcl.farmonline.com.au/news/nationalrural/agribusiness-and-general/political/windsor-loyal-to-doomed-gillard/2232234.aspx?src=rss

Capablanca-Fan
23-07-2011, 03:32 AM
Overall the people are selfish just wanting to drive their monster 4x4 wheel drives around like big kids, transporting their arses around with about 1.5 tonnes of metal at about 20 litres of fuel per 100 litres - that is their mentality
More likely, we want to keep more of the money we earn, rather than having it confiscated by an increasingly greedy government, yet producing not the slightest detectable reduction in global temperature.

Capablanca-Fan
23-07-2011, 11:46 AM
Population Boon (http://patriotpost.us/opinion/jeff-jacoby/2011/07/22/population-boon/)
by Jeff Jacoby
July 22, 2011


For more than 200 years the population alarmists have been predicting the worst, and for more than 200 years their predictions have failed to come true. As the number of men, women, and children in the world has skyrocketed -- from fewer than 1 billion when Malthus lived to nearly 7 billion today -- so has the average standard of living. Poverty, disease, and hunger have not been eradicated, of course, and there are many people in dire need of help. But on the whole human beings are living longer, healthier, cleaner, richer, better-educated, more productive, and more comfortable lives than ever before.

When human beings proliferate, the result isn't less of everything to go around. The planet doesn't run out of food and fuel, minerals, and metals. On the contrary, most resources have grown cheaper and more abundant over the past couple centuries -- in tandem with rising population.

The explanation is no mystery. Yes, more babies mean more mouths and therefore more consumption. But more babies also mean more minds and arms and spines -- and therefore more new ideas, more effort, more creativity, more initiative, more enterprise. "Human beings do not just consume, they also produce," writes George Mason University economist Bryan Caplan. "The world economy is not like a party where everyone splits a birthday cake; it is more like a potluck where everyone brings a dish."

antichrist
23-07-2011, 11:54 AM
More likely, we want to keep more of the money we earn, rather than having it confiscated by an increasingly greedy government, yet producing not the slightest detectable reduction in global temperature.

what world do you live in, records have been kept since maybe beginning if industrial revolution that show the earth's temperature rising - money has nothing to do with it really, cutting out pollution is what is about. IF no money penalty how will you do it then? appeal to people's good will when there are spoilsports around like yourself and Abbott and coal industry?

it is going to take generations for temp to beginning going down.

Rincewind
24-07-2011, 10:38 AM
Here is an amusing piece...

Freed from facts, Abbott goes ballooning (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-07-22/crabb-freed-from-facts-abbott-goes-ballooning/2806640)
by Annabel Crabb

...
Once you've severed the guy ropes of obeisance to empirical evidence, many happy hours of ballooning lie ahead. Mr Abbott's liberation from such constraints allows him to lead a free-market party while advocating a carbon reduction scheme that is interventionist to its core. Or to deplore, for instance, a goal of reducing Australian emissions by 5 per cent over the next nine years as "crazy", while simultaneously holding that goal as sworn Coalition policy. Last week, when the Leader of the Opposition assured a group of Victorian voters that carbon dioxide was a tricky gas on account of being "weightless", it seemed for a glorious moment as if he was hedging his bets even on the work of Newton.
...

Capablanca-Fan
27-07-2011, 04:40 AM
Czech leader Vaclav Klaus rails against carbon tax (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/czech-leader-vaclav-klaus-rails-against-carbon-tax/story-fn59niix-1226102111423)
Joe Kelly
The Australian July 26, 2011

THE President of the Czech Republic has likened climate change to a totalitarian philosophy similar to Communism which will inhibit democratic freedoms.

President Vaclav Klaus used an address at the National Press Club in Canberra today to attack the "arrogance" of global warming advocates and warned of the futility of trying to fight the climate.

Mr Klaus said supporters of climate change action sought to suppress the free market, dictate prices and exert greater control over society. He said those who had not experienced life under a centrally planned communist regime did not place the same premium on freedom. …

Capablanca-Fan
28-07-2011, 02:29 AM
Former prime minister John Howard warns of lonely emissions trading path for Australia (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/prime-minister-julia-gillard-defends-carbon-tax-ad-spend/story-fn7x8me2-1226096117237)
AAP From: AAP July 17, 2011 9:49AM

Mr Howard said despite going to the 2007 election supporting a trading scheme he now believed there had been a global shift away from that type of action.

"In 2007 people were almost dancing in the streets in favour of these measures," he told ABC TV today.

Mr Howard said the global financial crisis and the collapse of the Copenhagen climate change talks meant the debate had altered.

"Some of the views have shifted on the science, people aren't as certain anymore as they were four years ago," he said.

"There's no chance in the world of the Americans embracing an emissions trading system."

He said the Chinese, Indians and Canadians also were not keen on the idea.



Mr Howard predicted the next election would have a decisive result and predicted the Greens had reached their peak.

"They are starting to alarm people ... they are increasingly seen as real extremists," he said.

"Australians don't like extremists."


Kevin Bonham
28-07-2011, 03:45 AM
I think global financial uncertainties are the main reason why people are getting cold feet about action on climate change. It's a more immediate and also a more concrete danger. Would be interesting to look at corellations between views on the economy and views on the science of climate change to see if people's views on the latter change in step with their views on the former - haven't seen any polling that's tried to measure this.

antichrist
28-07-2011, 07:49 AM
all that Howard stated in Jono's message bit back can easily be refuted except the public change of mind. But this can be attributed to bad negative politics by abbott who is only copying Howard on repubican issue and boat people issue. If climate control would get Abbott over the electoral line he would grab at it.

why didnt god give us two planets - one for polluters and another one for carer and responsible types

ER
28-07-2011, 06:49 PM
[B]…

Mr Howard predicted the next election would have a decisive result and predicted the Greens had reached their peak.

"They are starting to alarm people ... they are increasingly seen as real extremists," he said.

"Australians don't like extremists."



Apart from improving my financial assets to the maximum (also credit to Mr Costello for that) Mr Howard will be proven correct in many other fields incl. his exposure of the dangerously silly Green policies!

Indicative is the following HeraldSun article!


http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/green-agenda-has-parallels-with-excesses-of-communism/story-e6frfhqf-1226103023674

Capablanca-Fan
05-08-2011, 02:06 PM
Taxpayer dollars wanted.

antichrist
05-08-2011, 02:23 PM
Originally Posted by Jono

[b]…

Mr Howard predicted the next election would have a decisive result and predicted the Greens had reached their peak.

"They are starting to alarm people ... they are increasingly seen as real extremists," he said.

"Australians don't like extremists."

AC
No, Australians like to transport their big arses around with 4W drives of about 5 litre engine capacity stuffing up the whole world

Capablanca-Fan
27-08-2011, 01:12 AM
Originally Posted by John Howard via Jono

"Australians don't like extremists."

AC
No, Australians like to transport their big arses around with 4W drives of about 5 litre engine capacity stuffing up the whole world
In fact, they don't even make a detectable difference.

Capablanca-Fan
27-08-2011, 01:13 AM
Staggering cost of CO2 permits revealed (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/staggering-cost-of-co2-permits-revealed/story-fn7j19iv-1226122430767)
Terry McCrann From: Herald Sun August 26, 2011

AUSTRALIAN businesses and households will have to send about $650 billion overseas between 2020 and 2050 to buy permission to keep some of our coal-fired power stations and other industries operating.

This staggering cost is indicated in the fine print of the Treasury modelling of the Government's carbon dioxide tax and subsequent emissions trading scheme.

The $650 billion will be to buy "permits" to emit CO2. …

Even without any rorting, the impact on the economy of this part of the scheme will be exactly like taking $650 billion and shredding it.

That will be throwing away nearly $30,000 for every Australian, about $120,000 for a family of four.

These wasted funds could build 15 National Broadband Networks. They could build a fast train network linking every capital city five or six times over. Every hospital we need. Every road. Every port, every dam, indeed every power station.

The expected outlay is the equivalent of closing down the entire economy for a full six-month period. True, as it's spread over 30 years, that allows Treasury to claim we'll hardly notice the loss. …

But by 2050 we'll be buying permits from foreigners covering 434 million tonnes, according to Treasury. And they will cost $131 a tonne then, Treasury says.

So by 2050 we'll be sending $57 billion every year to foreigners. Just for the right to keep our lights on. That's to say we will be throwing away an NBN every year. …

Igor_Goldenberg
27-08-2011, 02:40 PM
Do you know that according to Greg Combet (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-08-23/combet-accuses-abbott-of-carbon-racism/2852070) it's an economical xenophobia not to want to buy permits from Nigeria?

I won't be surprised if some (including certain poster on this site) will call it an outright racism.

Ian Murray
28-08-2011, 08:33 AM
Do you know that according to Greg Combet (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-08-23/combet-accuses-abbott-of-carbon-racism/2852070) it's an economical xenophobia not to want to buy permits from Nigeria?
Actually he says it is xenophobic to launch a scare campaign against foreigners with no basis in fact

Igor_Goldenberg
28-08-2011, 09:48 AM
Actually he says it is xenophobic to launch a scare campaign against foreigners with no basis in fact
To start with, his accusation of a "scare campaign against foreigners" has no basis in fact.

Rincewind
28-08-2011, 10:41 AM
To start with, his accusation of a "scare campaign against foreigners" has no basis in fact.

Some excepts from the story by Terry McCrann from the Herald Sun (just a few posts above) which was a laughable scaremongering exercise.


It will just buy "permission" to emit CO2 with every prospect it will be rorted Nigerian-style.

So we'll buy "permits" from foreigners that will cover the other 94 million tonnes. Theoretically somebody else - Nigerians? - will do the actual cutting; and we'll pay them to allow us to keep emitting.

So by 2050 we'll be sending $57 billion every year to foreigners.

Looks like there is a xenophobic scare campaign in operation. However, it was hardly surprising you weren't aware.

Igor_Goldenberg
28-08-2011, 11:46 AM
Are you saying sending $57 billions overseas without getting anything tangible in return makes good economical sense?
Do you argue that concern over wasting $57 billions a year is not legitimate?
Do you argue that concern over trading scheme being rorted ( as it already was in Europe)?
Did you also realise that Greg Combett was referring to Tony Abbott, not Terry McCrann?
If the answer to the previous question is yes, what was the point in quoting Terry McCrann trying to defend Greg Combett remark?
If the answer is no, did you notice that I actually linked to your ABC, not Terry McCrann article? Did you also notice the title of that ABC article?

Thanks for the answers in advance.

Rincewind
28-08-2011, 02:02 PM
Thanks for the answers in advance.

:lol: You are a silly little troll. :lol:

Now you claimed there was no scare campaign based on xenophobia. When the evidence of a flagrant scare campaign is wafted in front of your nostrils you turn tail and try to obfuscate.

So before we chance topic, do you agree that McCrann's piece (quoted by Jono above) is part of a xenophobic scare campaign. Or do you think the repetitive naming of foreigners and Nigerians as well as the hyperbole on the number of NBNs that would be pissed up against the wall, just sensible reporting of the facts?

Igor_Goldenberg
28-08-2011, 06:14 PM
If your position is so strong, why don't you answer the questions (that follow from your claims) before accusing others of trolling? Should you perhaps buy a mirror first?

Kevin Bonham
28-08-2011, 06:38 PM
So can anyone post a link to the full original verbatim comments of either Abbott or Combet? Bit pointless having arguments about the meaning of statements by politicians if all we have is a summary of one and brief excerpts of the other.

McCrann's comments are not just xenophobic but are so in a way that generically slurs an entire nationality.

Rincewind
28-08-2011, 06:53 PM
So can anyone post a link to the full original verbatim comments of either Abbott or Combet? Bit pointless having arguments about the meaning of statements by politicians if all we have is a summary of one and brief excerpts of the other.

McCrann's comments are not just xenophobic but are so in a way that generically slurs an entire nationality.

Mccrann slurs all Australians by association.

But seriously, if you look at Abbotts website there is the press release regarding the fight against this "toxic tax" which is certainly scare campaign material. However the xenophobic element is largely downplayed. I'm more thnn happy to argue that the substance of this press release is certainly scaremongering over substance.

http://www.tonyabbott.com.au/LatestNews/PressReleases/tabid/86/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/8182/Julia-Gillards-unnecessary-and-costly-9-billion-tax-will-hit-families.aspx

Igor_Goldenberg
28-08-2011, 10:13 PM
So can anyone post a link to the full original verbatim comments of either Abbott or Combet? Bit pointless having arguments about the meaning of statements by politicians if all we have is a summary of one and brief excerpts of the other.

Post 1957 links to ABC report of Combett.

Personally I don't view McCrann's article as xenophobic (even though xenophobic interpretation would be xenophobic :D).
But it's beside the point as Combett was trying to slur Abbott. No wonder my questions made Rincewind choke on the answer.

Kevin Bonham
28-08-2011, 10:19 PM
Post 1957 links to ABC report of Combett.

Yes but it only quotes him briefly (second-hand paraphrasing by journos is not to be trusted) and without knowing exactly what Abbott said the whole debate just seems futile.

Capablanca-Fan
29-08-2011, 02:55 AM
Are you saying sending $57 billions overseas without getting anything tangible in return makes good economical sense?
Do you argue that concern over wasting $57 billions a year is not legitimate?
Do you argue that concern over trading scheme being rorted ( as it already was in Europe)?
Did you also realise that Greg Combett was referring to Tony Abbott, not Terry McCrann?
If the answer to the previous question is yes, what was the point in quoting Terry McCrann trying to defend Greg Combett remark?
If the answer is no, did you notice that I actually linked to your ABC, not Terry McCrann article? Did you also notice the title of that ABC article?

Thanks for the answers in advance.
Typical of leftards like RW to play the race-card. Of course, Nigerian scams have become a by word for overseas swindles; nothing racist about it.

Playing the race card enables demagogues to avoid the actual issues. We see it with attacks on Obamov's economic incompetence and bullying; leftards dismiss any criticism as "racism".

Kevin Bonham
29-08-2011, 03:51 AM
Of course, Nigerian scams have become a by word for overseas swindles; nothing racist about it.

I think the way McCrann has used the term "Nigerians" without direct reference to "Nigerian scam" is a little different. If he said "Nigerian-scam-style" I would not have a problem with it. As it is written it can be read as implying that corruption is an innate attribute of Nigerians generally, rather than simply something with a noteworthy presence in that area.

I have avoided using the term "racism" as I am not convinced it is racist and I see racism and xenophobia as often overlapping but distinct. It should also be noted that Combet was not quoted as using terms implying racism, but he referred to alleged xenophobia. To this stage the claim that he accused Abbott of racism is an unsupported extrapolation by a journo.

Capablanca-Fan
08-09-2011, 04:59 AM
Peer review and scepticism (http://us2.campaign-archive1.com/?u=f1e3eeb023e7d88eff0dda8a2&id=330f5b0c7c&e=3725e3ced7)
Scientific Alliance
5th August 2011

Climate change is another topic where it seems that all news is bad news. Starting from the premise that climate change is man-made and bad, researchers naturally do studies to define just how bad. And, because the only thing you can do objectively in climate science is to record temperatures, rainfall and so on, experiments are replaced by computer modelling, the results of which have become accepted as a true picture of what will happen over the next century. Papers written on the basis of these studies are peer-reviewed, and the vast majority add further bricks to the edifice of dangerous climate change.

All scientific papers deserve to be looked at critically, or even sceptically. Human intelligence remains the best defence against bad science as well as the means to advance knowledge. Science progresses via (usually constructive) criticism and no researcher should object to that. Peer review, by tending to reinforce particular points of view, increases the need for open-minded reading; it doesn’t mean we can accept published papers as the unquestionable truth.

Rincewind
08-09-2011, 09:05 AM
Please note that the scientific alliance is not a scientific organisation and actually a right-wing lobby group. You can read more here...

http://www.lobbywatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=136

Igor_Goldenberg
08-09-2011, 01:57 PM
Please note that the scientific alliance is not a scientific organisation and actually a right-wing lobby group. You can read more here...

http://www.lobbywatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=136
It is labelled as a right-wing lobby group by left-wing lobby group for daring to question the "scientific consensus".
Carry on, you are doing a great job!

Rincewind
08-09-2011, 03:10 PM
It is labelled as a right-wing lobby group by left-wing lobby group for daring to question the "scientific consensus".
Carry on, you are doing a great job!

What left the left-wing lobby-group are you talking about?

Rincewind
08-09-2011, 04:25 PM
It is labelled as a right-wing lobby group by left-wing lobby group for daring to question the "scientific consensus".
Carry on, you are doing a great job!

They were established by the guy who at the time was a head of a major British minerals association and they have worked with the George C Marchall Institute, which are underwritten to a significant extent by Exxon.

I would attach a throw away condescending line but at the moment I don't think you could possibly look any more foolish.

Igor_Goldenberg
08-09-2011, 06:00 PM
They were established by the guy who at the time was a head of a major British minerals association and they have worked with the George C Marchall Institute, which are underwritten to a significant extent by Exxon.

I would attach a throw away condescending line but at the moment I don't think you could possibly look any more foolish.
How does it matter who they were established by? Next time try to read at least the first paragraph of the link you post. It says, among other things:
"It is also perfectly prepared to attack the scientific consensus on issues that do not fit with that agenda - for example, climate change. "

Rincewind
08-09-2011, 06:49 PM
How does it matter who they were established by?

Re-read that sentence and get back to me. The guys who established it also established a right-wing political party in the same year and one of them was (at the time) a minerals industry leader.

If you can't see the vested interest perhaps try opening your other eye.

Capablanca-Fan
09-09-2011, 12:26 AM
They were established by the guy who at the time was a head of a major British minerals association and they have worked with the George C Marchall Institute, which are underwritten to a significant extent by Exxon.
Not that tired old genetic fallacy again? And it's a furphy, since the funds from Exxon and such private companies pale against the huge amount of funding from governments for global warm-mongering propaganda.

Capablanca-Fan
09-09-2011, 12:27 AM
Mitchell flood mocks litany of global warming excuses (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/mitchell-flood-mocks-litany-of-global-warming-excuses/story-e6frfhqf-1226114000468)
Andrew Bolt
Herald Sun August 13, 2011

GOSH, is that really water, knee-deep over the Wy Yung Football Clubs oval in Bairnsdale?

Excuse me for doubting my eyes, but Victoria's former Labor government did tell us such floods would rarely happen again, thanks to global warming.

That's why we couldn't have a dam on the Mitchell River that's now flooding Bairnsdale, you see.

That's why Labor had to build a desalination plant instead, for $5.7 billion.

What an utter farce. And if your water bills hadn't gone through the roof to pay for it, you'd laugh.

But let's rewind. Melbourne has a million more people since it built its last dam, and we needed a new one to tide us over the dry spells in this land of droughts and flooding rains. …

Rincewind
09-09-2011, 12:58 AM
Not that tired old genetic fallacy again?

The funding of a an organisation is not a fallacy when we are discussing whether it is a scientifically credible source of information or if it is an organ for the oil companies.


And it's a furphy, since the funds from Exxon and such private companies pale against the huge amount of funding from governments for global warm-mongering propaganda.

What crap. If you mean science funding then you are drawing a very long bow.

Capablanca-Fan
09-09-2011, 05:19 AM
The funding of a an organisation is not a fallacy when we are discussing whether it is a scientifically credible source of information or if it is an organ for the oil companies.
What matters is whether they are right or wrong.


What crap. If you mean science funding then you are drawing a very long bow.
No, I mean specific funding for pro-warm-mongering views. All the money poured into projects if they have a "climate change" implication, the international conferences (to which participants travel in CO2-spewing jets and are driven in gas-guzzling limousines, "green energy" scams, Tim Flummery with a $3000pw part-time job pushing the Labor/Watermelon/Green line (http://www.menzieshouse.com.au/2011/08/tim-flannery-climate-prophet-.html) … From the WJS article Climategate: Follow the Money: Climate change researchers must believe in the reality of global warming just as a priest must believe in the existence of God (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574566124250205490.html):


Last year, ExxonMobil donated $7 million to a grab-bag of public policy institutes, including the Aspen Institute, the Asia Society and Transparency International. It also gave a combined $125,000 to the Heritage Institute and the National Center for Policy Analysis, two conservative think tanks that have offered dissenting views on what until recently was called—without irony—the climate change "consensus." …

Thus, the European Commission's most recent appropriation for climate research comes to nearly $3 billion, and that's not counting funds from the EU's member governments. In the U.S., the House intends to spend $1.3 billion on NASA's climate efforts, $400 million on NOAA's, and another $300 million for the National Science Foundation. The states also have a piece of the action, with California—apparently not feeling bankrupt enough—devoting $600 million to their own climate initiative. In Australia, alarmists have their own Department of Climate Change at their funding disposal.

And all this is only a fraction of the $94 billion that HSBC Bank estimates has been spent globally this year on what it calls "green stimulus"—largely ethanol and other alternative energy schemes—of the kind from which Al Gore and his partners at Kleiner Perkins hope to profit handsomely.

Rincewind
09-09-2011, 09:27 AM
What matters is whether they are right or wrong.

Yes your right motivation has nothing to do with that. I'm sure they have a "What We Believe" page which states something along the line that science is important but secondary in importance to the profits of funding organisations.


And all this is only a fraction of the $94 billion that HSBC Bank estimates has been spent globally this year on what it calls "green stimulus"—largely ethanol and other alternative energy schemes—of the kind from which Al Gore and his partners at Kleiner Perkins hope to profit handsomely.

So they are not comparing apples with apples. They pick up on one companies donations in one year and compare it with the global investment into climate research, funding of conferences, initiatives looking to move to green alternatives. All things which are either actually advancing science or making changes to the emissions - compared to paying for partisan think-tanks to produce propaganda to try and protect their $45 billion dollar a year profits.

Relying no this sort of argument is uber hypocritical, even by your standard Jono. Well done. :clap:

Igor_Goldenberg
09-09-2011, 09:51 AM
The billions spent on warmmongering is apparently spent on "scientific research"
The minuscule proportion of that spent on exposing often fraudulent claims is apparently spent to "paying for partisan think-tanks to produce propaganda".

The most funny thing is that Rincewind doesn't even realise how laughable his reasoning is. He accused others of hypocrisy in spite of scandalous hypocrisy of his post.
Keep up good work, with defenders like that Commies/Greenies do not even need critics.

Rincewind
09-09-2011, 10:15 AM
The billions spent on warmmongering is apparently spent on "scientific research"
The minuscule proportion of that spent on exposing often fraudulent claims is apparently spent to "paying for partisan think-tanks to produce propaganda".

Another post from the one-eyed right-wing bozo denialist who position is now so flimsy the only thing left is to posit a world-wide conspiracy of scientists. The scary thing is not that people believe this sort of crap but that it is not that different from Tony Abbott's rhetoric at time.

Capablanca-Fan
09-09-2011, 10:30 AM
Typical leftard rhetoric: their own view is objective, while the opposing view is "partisan". Private funding bad, much bigger government funding good. Companies and individuals wanting to keep more of the money they earned is "greed", but politicians and bureaucrats wanting to confiscate more of it is "compassion" and "saving the planet".

Rincewind
09-09-2011, 11:16 AM
Typical leftard rhetoric: their own view is objective, while the opposing view is "partisan". Private funding bad, much bigger government funding good. Companies and individuals wanting to keep more of the money they earned is "greed", but politicians and bureaucrats wanting to confiscate more of it is "compassion" and "saving the planet".

It isn't rhetoric at all. The outcome of scientific funding is objective peer-reviewed research. The output of a partisan think-tank is a reported which, surprise, surprise, says it is OK for Exxon to keep making $45 billion per year. It's chalk and cheese.

Capablanca-Fan
10-09-2011, 09:54 AM
It isn't rhetoric at all. The outcome of scientific funding is objective peer-reviewed research. The output of a partisan think-tank is a reported which, surprise, surprise, says it is OK for Exxon to keep making $45 billion per year. It's chalk and cheese.
Are you really that naive in thinking the government bureaucrats don't have their own partisan position? After all, the ample proof that warm-mongering is a scam would end their gravy train. And scientists know which side to take if the want the bureaucrats to continue their funding.

Rincewind
10-09-2011, 11:00 AM
Are you really that naive in thinking the government bureaucrats don't have their own partisan position?

Which government bureaucrats and which position?

Exxon has a clear reason to continue making $45 billion dollars a year. And anything threatening that (especially if it is true) needs to be suppressed. What sort of motivation do you imagine a government bureaucrat has to support your supposed world-conspiracy of scientists and left-wing governments?


After all, the ample proof that warm-mongering is a scam would end their gravy train.

Ample proof? You haven't provided a scrap of evidence.


And scientists know which side to take if the want the bureaucrats to continue their funding.

Actually scientists try to find the truth. You make it sound like there is a world wide conspiracy of climate sciences which is cooking the books. However the review and publication process makes that practically impossible. If there was a minor conspiracy, then it would be busted. Guys like Richard Muller would have exposed the conspiracy. Recall that Muller initially had concerns about systematic biases but after looking at the issue in much more depth (and I think he is continuing to do so) that the effects of these biases as smaller than he thought and largely he agrees with the temp data from the other leading climate groups.

See: Muller's Statement to the Congressional Committee (http://www.berkeleyearth.org/Resources/Muller_Testimony_31_March_2011)

Capablanca-Fan
17-09-2011, 12:15 AM
Solyndra: yet another green energy scam fails (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/63393.html)

As President Barack Obama takes to the road to sell his Stimulus II, troubling news about the last stimulus continues to break.The House Energy and Commerce oversight subcommittee Wednesday begins its investigation of Solyndra, the stimulus-funded solar energy company that recently declared bankruptcy. The company, which laid off 1,100 workers after its sudden demise, once looked like the poster-child of stimulus success.

“The true engine of economic growth,” the president said in May 2010 while at the company’s California headquarters, “will always be companies like Solyndra.” It’s no wonder the economy is stalled.

Digging beneath the surface, the situation gets more troubling. The White House’s relationship with Solyndra, it turns out, was a mix of corporate favoritism, big-money politics, liberal ideology and Chicago-style deal making. As the Obama administration dealt favors, the American taxpayers got stuck with the $535 million bill. …

Capablanca-Fan
17-09-2011, 12:18 AM
SOLYNDRA among 5 stimulus firms to go under (http://patriotupdate.com/12206/solyndra-among-5-stimulus-firms-to-go-under)

Solyndra, the solar panel company whose highly publicized failure and consequent investigation by federal authorities has flashed across headlines recently, isn’t the only business to go belly up after benefiting from a piece of the $800 billion economic stimulus package passed in 2009.

At least four other companies have received stimulus funding only to later file for bankruptcy, and two of those were working on alternative energy.

Evergreen Solar Inc., indirectly received $5.3 million through a state grant to open a $450 million facility in 2007 that employed roughly 800 people. SpectraWatt, based in Hopewell Junction, N.Y., is also a solar cell company that was spun out of Intel in 2008. In June 2009, SpectraWatt received a $500,000 grant from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory as part of the stimulus package. Mountain Plaza and Olsen’s Crop Service/Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Co. have also failed despite 2 million and 10 million respectively to increase employment and add equipment and machinery.

“Solar panels have been subsidized by the federal government. States’ governments are also subsidizing or giving taxpayers write-off on their tax return. And yet, these solar panels cannot make it in the competitive world without all these subsidies. And even with them, China is flooding the market with this cheap labor and the solar panels just don’t make sense,” House Energy and Commerce Oversight and Investigations Subommittee Chairman Cliff Stearns R-Fla., told Fox News.

Ian Murray
17-09-2011, 12:00 PM
More green energy scams that fail even with millions of taxpayer $$$
That's quite a jump - failed businesses = scams. The economic reality is that the surge in new manufacturing capacity has led to supply currently exceeding demand and a consequent fall in prices (from $3.50/W a couple of years ago to maybe $1.10 this year).
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-16/solar-panel-makers-face-supply-glut-armageddon-chart-of-day.html

Capablanca-Fan
18-09-2011, 01:03 AM
That's quite a jump - failed businesses = scams. The economic reality is that the surge in new manufacturing capacity has led to supply currently exceeding demand and a consequent fall in prices (from $3.50/W a couple of years ago to maybe $1.10 this year).
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-16/solar-panel-makers-face-supply-glut-armageddon-chart-of-day.html
It should have been obvious from Spain's green jobs disaster (http://www.qando.net/?p=8481):


The internal report of the Spanish administration admits that the price of electricity has gone up, as well as the debt, due to the extra costs of solar and wind energy. Even the government numbers indicate that each green job created costs more than 2.2 traditional jobs, as was shown in the report of the Juan de Mariana Institute. Besides that, the official document is almost a copy point by point of the one that led to Calzada being denounced [lit. "vetoed"] by the Spanish Embassy in an act in the U.S. Congress.

The presentation recognizes explicitly that “the increase of the electric bill is principally due to the cost of renewable energies.” In fact, the increase in the extra costs of this industry explains more than 120% of the variation in the bill and has prevented the reduction in the costs of conventional electricity production to be reflected on the bills of the citizens.

It should be obvious to all but leftards, blinded by their faith that big government can spend money better than those who earned it, that anything needing massive subsidies confiscated from taxpayers will be a scam.

Ian Murray
18-09-2011, 02:18 PM
It should be obvious to all but leftards, blinded by their faith that big government can spend money better than those who earned it, that anything needing massive subsidies confiscated from taxpayers will be a scam.
So ExxonMobil and their ilk are scamming the US government to receive their $20-40 billion in annual subsidies?
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=44074

Igor_Goldenberg
19-09-2011, 09:17 AM
So ExxonMobil and their ilk are scamming the US government to receive their $20-40 billion in annual subsidies?
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=44074

While the methodology used in the article is quite dubious (for example, not hiking taxes is, in their view, a subsidy) and they overestimate the dollar amount, I don't support those subsidies.
And it does not justify subsidies to solar and wind power.

Igor_Goldenberg
19-09-2011, 09:20 AM
The greening of China a mirage (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/the-greening-of-china-a-mirage/story-e6frgd0x-1226140342005)


You really should check your facts Igor, before making such inane statements. The energy industry is pumping huge investments into cleaning up its act with coal, with China a world leader in the field.

China has emerged in the past two years as the world’s leading builder of more efficient, less polluting coal power plants, mastering the technology and driving down the cost.

While the United States is still debating whether to build a more efficient kind of coal-fired power plant that uses extremely hot steam, China has begun building such plants at a rate of one a month.

Western countries continue to rely heavily on coal-fired power plants built decades ago with outdated, inefficient technology that burn a lot of coal and emit considerable amounts of carbon dioxide. China has begun requiring power companies to retire an older, more polluting power plant for each new one they build.

With greater efficiency, a power plant burns less coal and emits less carbon dioxide for each unit of electricity it generates. Experts say the least efficient plants in China today convert 27 to 36 percent of the energy in coal into electricity. The most efficient plants achieve an efficiency as high as 44 percent, meaning they can cut global warming emissions by more than a third compared with the weakest plants.

After relying until recently on older technology, “China has since become the major world market for advanced coal-fired power plants with high-specification emission control systems,” the International Energy Agency said in a report on April 20.

China’s improvements are starting to have an effect on climate models. In its latest annual report last November, the I.E.A. cut its forecast of the annual increase in Chinese emissions of global warming gases, to 3 percent from 3.2 percent, in response to technological gains, particularly in the coal sector
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/11/world/asia/11coal.html

Still a long, long way to go, but China is working at it. USA has relinquished its role as world leader.

Again you're out of touch with reality.

Over the past few years, China has been testing various solar tariffs on a regional or on a strictly targeted basis – offering incentives for a series of utility-scale solar projects that have started at modest size and have gradually been scaled up – 1MW, 5MW, 10MW and then 20MW – before now being rolled out on a national scale.

According to one report, LDK Solar, China’s most integrated solar energy company, expects the levelised cost of energy of its solar modules to fall below average grid levels in China to around $US0.07/kwh in 2012. It’s a massive irony, and an amazing opportunity for the solar industry that the (coal-fired) electricity used by companies such as LDK and Jinko Solar to make their modules is already more expensive than the energy produced from those modules.

This is expected to translate into a dramatic lift in production that will rival that of wind – where China went from a standing start in 2005 to the number one installer in 2010, with 17.5GW. In 2008, only 40MW of solar was installed in China. In 2011 that is expected to reach 1GW, double in 2012, and by 2015 the installation rate is expected to ramp up to 10GW a year. Given its competitiveness with wind, some analysts expect it to match and overtake the annual wind installation rate of 15GW, which is by far the largest in the world.

Having started small, the scale of some of the projects being contemplated in China is enormous. The US firm First Solar, which makes thin-film solar panels rather than silicon-based panels, is planning one project of 2GW in inner Mongolia. It will likely be the size of Manhattan.

Still, even at a rate of 15GW a year, solar would remain a fraction of the 100GW that China plans to add each year to its national grid to meet soaring demand. But, if solar’s costs continue to fall, energy efficiency measures take hold, and economic growth slows, then solar – along with hydro, offshore wind and onshore wind – could be accounting for nearly all of the new-build energy plants by the end of the decade. The most obvious victim is coal. That, in turn, could have significant implications for major coal exporters such as Australia.
http://www.climatespectator.com.au/commentary/chinas-great-big-solar-boost

Ian Murray
19-09-2011, 10:58 AM
While the methodology used in the article is quite dubious (for example, not hiking taxes is, in their view, a subsidy) and they overestimate the dollar amount, I don't support those subsidies.
And it does not justify subsidies to solar and wind power.
Jono claims anything needing massive subsidies will be a scam. Do you think Big Oil is scamming? Similarly farm subsidies, Boeing etc

Rincewind
19-09-2011, 12:45 PM
Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1549444)

Dan M. Kahan, Hank Jenkins-Smith, Donald Braman

Abstract
Why do members of the public disagree - sharply and persistently - about facts on which expert scientists largely agree? We designed a study to test a distinctive explanation: the cultural cognition of scientific consensus. The "cultural cognition of risk" refers to the tendency of individuals to form risk perceptions that are congenial to their values. The study presents both correlational and experimental evidence confirming that cultural cognition shapes individuals' beliefs about the existence of scientific consensus, and the process by which they form such beliefs, relating to climate change, the disposal of nuclear wastes, and the effect of permitting concealed possession of handguns. The implications of this dynamic for science communication and public policy-making are discussed.

Igor_Goldenberg
19-09-2011, 04:09 PM
Jono claims anything needing massive subsidies will be a scam. Do you think Big Oil is scamming? Similarly farm subsidies, Boeing etc
Should those companies be getting any subsidies? No.
Do I support removal subsidies to them? Yes.

However, we need to ask two different questions:

Do they (oil. farms, Boeing, etc.) need subsidies to survive? No.
Do green schemes need subsidies to survive? Yes.

Which means the former aren't scam, but green schemes are.

Ian Murray
19-09-2011, 08:54 PM
The greening of China a mirage (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/the-greening-of-china-a-mirage/story-e6frgd0x-1226140342005)
Nothing new there, but the picture is incomplete. China is not the world leader in alternative energy because of climate change. That's incidental. China is facing a stark reality - she has to meet the energy needs of 20% of the world's people and will run out of coal in a couple of decades. To maintain her 8% growth rate, she will then need to buy 100% of the world's export coal, which of course can't happen. The outcome would be intense competition for supplies and skyrocketing prices.

The Chinese can do the sums as well as anyone else. The bubble must burst (http://www.energybulletin.net/node/52684). China's economy must slow, braking the world economy as a result. In the meantime she is doing everything possible to delay the inevitable by reducing coal consumption with more efficient coal-fired power stations (which also emit fewer pollutants) and ramping up wind, solar, hydro and nuclear generation.

That also explains why China is anxious to lock in long-term coal supplies from Australia and elsewhere


China to buy $A70b of Australian coal (http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-business/china-to-buy-a70b-of-australian-coal-20100206-njko.html)

Mining magnate Clive Palmer says his company has secured Australia's biggest export deal with a $US60 billion ($A69.39 billion) agreement to sell coal to China.

The Resourcehouse chairman on Saturday said the company's proposed China First coal mine and infrastructure project in central Queensland had reached a 20-year agreement with one of China's largest power companies, China Power International Development, the flagship company of China Power Investment Corporation (CPI).

"This deal with CPI is Australia's biggest ever export contract," Mr Palmer said in a statement.
Advertisement: Story continues below

Mr Palmer also said he had awarded Queensland's largest engineering, procurement and construction management contract (EPCM) for $US8.013 billion ($A9.27 billion) to Metallurgical Corporation of China Ltd (MCC).

"MCC will manage a syndicated group consisting of Sino Coal International Engineering Group, China Communications Construction Company (First Harbour) and China Railway Group Limited (CREC) to build Australia's largest coal mine along with the required export infrastructure," he said.

The contract with CPI was to supply 30 million tonnes per annum (MTPA) for approximately $US3 billion ($A3.47 billion) per annum over 20 years


Chinese land grab tests farming dynasties (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/chinese-land-grab-tests-farming-dynasties/story-fn59niix-1226083089449)

MICHAEL Clift is a sixth-generation Liverpool Plains farmer, his family having worked the rich black soil of the NSW region for 175 years.

But the likelihood of the 41-year-old father of three passing the property into the hands of a seventh generation is rapidly diminishing as Chinese-controlled mining giant Shenhua Watermark Coal continues its sweeping purchase of the coal-laden farms that make up the area, 500km northwest of Sydney.

Beijing seeks foreign coal (http://www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=10940&size=A)
Even if it has the world’s third largest coal reserve, China fears that it is not enough. Experts: coal will be the principal source of energy in the country through to 2020. increasing numbers of companies try to buy into Indonesian and Australian markets.

Beijing has set an official industry policy for the first time on supporting coal companies investing in overseas resources, as part of efforts to enhance the nation's long-term energy security, the National Development and Reform Commission said yesterday.

Ian Murray
19-09-2011, 09:42 PM
..However, we need to ask two different questions:

Do they (oil. farms, Boeing, etc.) need subsidies to survive? No.
Do green schemes need subsidies to survive? Yes.

Which means the former aren't scam, but green schemes are.
Non sequitur. One question overlooked - did they need subsidies at start-up? Presumably they did (e.g. extracting and transporting oil from the first oilfields in Pennsylvania was difficult due to terrain and reliance on horse-drawn wagons and wooden barrels).

So should governments, in principle, help new companies with potential get established? Most do, with notable successes and failures. Why Solyndra received loan guarantees with its business plan is highly dubious in hindsight. But that's not the fault of green energy. First Solar, the leading US solar business, received close to $4b in guarantees, and is going strong (manufacturing costs down to $0.82/W and $328m in the bank) and should be able to ride out the current downturn and outlive many competitors in the process.

Igor_Goldenberg
20-09-2011, 09:37 AM
Nothing new there, but the picture is incomplete. China is not the world leader in alternative energy because of climate change. That's incidental.

Exactly. So it nulls the attempt to justify CO2 tax by referring to China.


China is facing a stark reality - she has to meet the energy needs of 20% of the world's people and will run out of coal in a couple of decades. To maintain her 8% growth rate, she will then need to buy 100% of the world's export coal, which of course can't happen. The outcome would be intense competition for supplies and skyrocketing prices.

That's also correct. It shows that market is capable to overcome shortage of coal (if it ever happens) by using other source of energy.
Once again, this was an arguments against either CO2 or mining tax.

Exactly. If demand outstrips the supply, the supply tries to catch up through other means