Scepticism Of Man Made Climate Change

[Methuselah]

Time will tell Sparkicle , but the odds do not favour a rosy outlook for climate models in their current guise. Much more work is needed in understanding the bits we don't really understand as of yet. Not having a go at you by the way and thanks for the excellent replies by your good self.

I doubt that the 'odds' really favour anyone, SI?

[pottyprof]

From now on if anyone posts to disrupt any threads they will earn a week suspension automatically.

 

There will be no further warnings.

[keithlucky]

A good common sense read http://t.co/idf7HSwjF7

 

[VillagePlank]

Time will tell Sparkicle , but the odds do not favour a rosy outlook for climate models in their current guise. Much more work is needed in understanding the bits we don't really understand as of yet. Not having a go at you by the way and thanks for the excellent replies by your good self.

 

Well, that's kind of what I was saying.

 

Effectively, it is *Incredibly* difficult to do this. Not least because, unlike our little logistics map computer model above, the Navier Stokes equations (actually approximations therein) that make up most dynamical cores are known to be non-linear, very sensitive to initial conditions, and exceptionally difficult to solve anyway. On top of the notion that our models are approximations, so, indeed, are our measurements; we can see that our logistic map exhibits chaos (I don't like the term, but it suffices, here) when we alter our initial conditions by as little 1 in 10,000,000,000. What are the sensitivities inside the models? Are they published? Can we measure sufficient points around the globe at sufficient accuracy?

 

So, in that respect, whilst you may have seen my posts as arguing *for* the models, I am suggesting somewhat the opposite: they are known to have exceptional difficulties. Whether the climate scientists have solved them sufficiently for them to have skill is something that is, in my view, a basis for scepticism of claims made *because* of model output. We must remember that they are tested by simulation (does the model replicate past atmospheric states?) which is not the same as forecasting (does the model predict the future state of the atmosphere?) We are at the stage where we might be able to say "we can simulate past climate using the following attribution of climate variables" I certainly don't think extrapolation such attributions into the future is sufficient, suffice to say that there are at least problems with degrees of freedom (most climate variables are known not to be independent (ice cover for instance depends somewhat on how much sun there is)) and there is also, perhaps, a case of incorrect attribution, which can be an artefact of principal component analysis (ie you use PCA to figure out what does what for a small part of past climate, use that to simulate all of past climate, and if the skill is sufficient extrapolate forward - given only about a third of the past instrumentally recorded climate actually has a measurable CO₂ signal, it raises warnings about whether this attribution is sound, or a (in)convenient coincidence)

 

They're all very difficult questions, and I am certain that I don't have the answers although I am looking ...

Edited July 7, 2013 by Sparkicle

[4wd]

http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2013/07/08/anthony-watts-dishonest-misrepresentation-of-sea-ice-graphs-no-surprise-there/

Rabid comes to mind, what a laugh.

I never do quite get why Watts is so despised, as several comments point there are a lot of useful links on the site and it's good to see some alternative views which are mostly suppressed/deleted/banned on other sites.

The main problem they have is the huge readership I think, he is very influential more so in the US than here.
It's often obvious that Delingpole and Booker take delight in poking the hornets nest  with information from there.

The problem is when the irrational desire to ridicule backfires with nonsense like the above.

[Methuselah]

It's gone now, 4...

[john pike]

http://carbon-budget.geologist-1011.net/

Worth a read

[keithlucky]

Unprecedented no melting half way though melt season north of 80n ,ice free Arctic summers not happening. http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

 

Edited July 8, 2013 by jethro
It didn't add anything positive, did it?

[UV-RAY]

Unprecedented no melting half way though melt season north of 80n ,ice free Arctic summers not happening. http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

 

Its certainly very interesting , I do wonder whether the first signs of a recovery start at 80N, food for thought.

[keithlucky]

Here is something from the past.

The main problem with all GW thinking is that they totally ignore history.

Abstract
The Early Twentieth-Century Warming in the Arctic—A Possible Mechanism

The huge warming of the Arctic that started in the early 1920s and lasted for almost two decades is one of the most spectacular climate events of the twentieth century. During the peak period 1930–40, the annually averaged temperature anomaly for the area 60°–90°N amounted to some 1.7°C……
http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(2004)017%3C4045:TETWIT%3E2.0.CO;2

[VillagePlank]

Here is something from the past.

The main problem with all GW thinking is that they totally ignore history.

Abstract

The Early Twentieth-Century Warming in the Arctic—A Possible Mechanism

The huge warming of the Arctic that started in the early 1920s and lasted for almost two decades is one of the most spectacular climate events of the twentieth century. During the peak period 1930–40, the annually averaged temperature anomaly for the area 60°–90°N amounted to some 1.7°C……

http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(2004)017%3C4045:TETWIT%3E2.0.CO;2

 

PDF: http://www.mpimet.mpg.de/fileadmin/publikationen/Reports/max_scirep_345.pdf

[john pike]

http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0217979213500732

 

http://phys.org/news/2013-05-global-chlorofluorocarbons-carbon-dioxide.html

 

 

the science is settled

 

also please read the link i posted before it has a lot of information

Edited July 9, 2013 by john pike

[knocker]

I posted this in the New Research thread on the 30th. May. There have  since been some major criticisms of it.

 

https://uwaterloo.ca/news/news/global-warming-caused-cfcs-not-carbon-dioxide-study-says

Edited July 9, 2013 by knocker

[john pike]

hi knocker

 

maybe criticism

 

but was peer reviewed

[john pike]

Response to knocker

There's the problem

Unless it agrees with the scientist it would not have been peer reviewed. So their right and that's end of subject.

Would that not put thee peer review under question.

[UV-RAY]

Response to knockerThere's the problemUnless it agrees with the scientist it would not have been peer reviewed. So their right and that's end of subject. Would that not put thee peer review under question.

The whole peer review process IMO needs reviewing as it appears that those doing the reviewing do so from a blinkered position to start with.

[crikey]

RE: Peer review

I regret to inform you that In some Australian universitys. AGW skeptic scientists are being dismissed for their stance as AGW skeptics

 

Poor Bob carter was removed from James cook University

http://joannenova.com.au/2013/06/jcu-caves-in-to-badgering-and-groupthink-blackballs-politically-incorrect-bob-carter/

 

So what did Bob do to deserve this dismissal

-

 because he speaks outside the permitted doctrine. His views on climate science do not fit with the dominant meme (or the grant applications). And then there were pesky complaints and emails from disgruntled fans of the prophets-of-doom. (Quite a drain on the office.)

 

 Bob Carter has been working there for 31 years

 

- The only reasons given were that the staff of the School of Earth and Environmental Studies had discussed the issue (without any consultation with Carter) and decided that his views on climate change did not fit well within the School’s own teaching and research activities.

---------------------

aaaahhh

Now l see why

 

James cook has 2 strong AGW 'experts onm board and there reputations would be in tatters

 

Senior Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Professor Chris Cocklin (Lead Author for the IPCC’s 2007 Report!!

 

and doesn't john Cok the author of 97% consensus teach there as well.

 

Por Bob carter didn't have a chance

I think he has retired and writes AGWkeptic boks like “Taxing Airâ€,

--------------------

 

There has been another scandalous dismissal at another of our universities MACQUARIEUNIVERSITY

This time its is imminent professor Murray Salby

 

He has been dismissed for 'misconduct'

He does not support AGW..

 

A copy of Murrays Salbys biography of his experience at this horribleAGW university 

 

It would seem you would not hold a job down in a govt department in Australia if you are an AGWdenier

 

So much for peer review and integrity of the scientific method

 

Fools. They will come undone!!

 

Tim Flannery associated with the climate commission also lecturing at the Macquarie uni' would of been involved in his dismissal l would think?

 

Murray had the power to make Flannery and his colleague's look like shams.. 

 

Peer review my friends in climate science is corrupt

 

Take no notice

 

Alternative viewpoints are 'rolled' . You would have your research rejected based on the powerful AGW big wigs

 

-----------

 

 

 

 

Report this post

Reply with quote

Did Macquarie University sabotage, exile, blackban, strand and abandon Murry Salby?


Short of sending Murry Salby to Siberia, Macquarie University have seemingly done everything they could to sabotage and silence him and his PhD student. Is his research is so dangerous to the cash cow that is “global warming†that it had to be stopped at any cost? The truth will out in the end, and how will Macquarie’s reputation stand up then? Is is difficult to imagine any response they can give which would justify the behaviour described below. I have confirmed with Macquarie’s switchboard that Professor Murry Salby is no longer working there.

I have written to the University seeking their response.

– Jo

———————————————————————————————————



Thanks for your interest in the research presented during my recent lecture tour in Europe. http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2 ... coffin.php

Remarks from several make it clear that Macquarie University is comfortable with openly disclosing the state of affairs, if not distorting them to its convenience. So be it.Macquarie’s liberal disclosure makes continued reticence unfeasible.
In response to queries is the following, a matter of record:
1.In 2008, I was recruited from the US by “Macquarie Universityâ€, with appointment as Professor, under a national employment contract with regulatory oversight, and with written agreement that Macquarie would provide specified resources to enable me to rebuild my research program in Australia. Included was technical support to convert several hundred thousand lines of computer code, comprising numerical models and analyses (the tools of my research), to enable those computer programs to operate in Australia.
2.With those contractual arrangements, I relocated to Australia. Upon attempting to rebuild my research program, Macquarie advised that the resources it had agreed to provide were unavailable. I was given an excuse for why. Half a year later, I was given another excuse. Then another. Requests to release the committed resources were ignored.
3.Three years passed before Macquarie produced even the first major component of the resources it had agreed to provide. After five years of cat-and-mouse, Macquarie has continued to withhold the resources that it had committed. As a result, my computer models and analyses remain inoperative.
4.A bright student from Russia came to Macquarie to work with me. Macquarie required her to abandon her PhD scholarship in Russia. Her PhD research, approved by Macquarie, relied upon the same computer models and analyses, which Macquarie agreed to have converted but did not.
5.To remedy the situation, I petitioned Macquarie through several avenues provided in my contract. Like other contractual provisions, those requests were ignored. The provisions then required the discrepancy to be forwarded to the Australian employment tribunal, the government body with regulatory oversight. The tribunal then informed me that Macquarie had not even registered my contract. Regulatory oversight, a statutory protection that Macquarie advised would govern my appointment, was thereby circumvented. Macquarie’s failure to register rendered my contract under the national employment system null and void.
6.During the protracted delay of resources, I eventually undertook the production of a new book – all I could do without the committed resources to rebuild my research program. The endeavor compelled me to gain a better understanding of greenhouse gases and how they evolve. Preliminary findings from this study are familiar to many. http://www.thesydneyinstitute.com.au/sp ... rry-salby/Refer to the vodcast of July 24, 2012. Insight from this research contradicts many of the reckless claims surrounding greenhouse gases. More than a few originate from staff at Macquarie, who benefits from such claims.
7.The preliminary findings seeded a comprehensive study of greenhouse gases. Despite adverse circumstances, the wider study was recently completed. It indicates: â—¦(i) Modern changes of atmospheric CO2 and methane are (contrary to popular belief) not unprecedented.
â—¦(ii) The same physical law that governs ancient changes of atmospheric CO2 and methane also governs modern changes.

8.These new findings are entirely consistent with the preliminary findings, which evaluated the increase of 20th century CO2 from changes in native emission.
9.http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/07/02/ ... te-change/
10.8. Under the resources Macquarie had agreed to provide, arrangements were made to present this new research at a scientific conference and in a lecture series at research centers in Europe.
11.9. Forms for research travel that were lodged with Macquarie included a description of the findings. Presentation of our research was then blocked by Macquarie. The obstruction was imposed after arrangements had been made at several venues (arranged then to conform to other restrictions imposed by Macquarie). Macquarie’s intervention would have silenced the release of our research.
12.10. Following the obstruction of research communication, as well as my earlier efforts to obtain compliance with my contract, Macquarie modified my professional duties. My role was then reduced to that of a student teaching assistant: Marking student papers for other staff – junior staff. I objected, pursuant to my appointment and provisions of my contract.
13.11. In February 2013, Macquarie then accused me of “misconductâ€, cancelling my salary. It blocked access to my office, computer resources, even to personal equipment I had transferred from the US.
14.My Russian student was prohibited from speaking with me. She was isolated – left without competent supervision and the resources necessary to complete her PhD investigation, research that Macquarie approved when it lured her from Russia.
15.12. Obligations to present our new research on greenhouse gases (previously arranged), had to be fulfilled at personal expense.
16.13. In April, The Australian (the national newspaper), published an article which grounded reckless claims by the so-called Australian Climate Commission:
17.http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nationa ... 6611988057(Open access via Google News)
18.To promote the Climate Commission’s newest report is the latest sobering claim:
19.“one in two chance that by 2100 there’ll be no human beings left on this planetâ€
20.http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinio ... 6666505528
21.Two of the six-member Australian Climate Commission are Macquarie staff. Included is its Chief Commissioner.
22.14. While I was in Europe presenting our new research on greenhouse gases, Macquarie undertook its misconduct proceedings – with me in absentia. Macquarie was well informed of the circumstances. It was more than informed.
23.15. Upon arriving at Paris airport for my return to Australia, I was advised that my return ticket (among the resources Macquarie agreed to provide) had been cancelled. The latest chapter in a pattern, this action left me stranded in Europe, with no arrangements for lodging or return travel. The ticket that had been cancelled was non-refundable.
24.16. The action ensured my absence during Macquarie’s misconduct proceedings.
25.17. When I eventually returned to Australia, I lodged a complaint with the Australian employment tribunal, under statutes that prohibit retaliatory conduct.
26.18. In May 2013, while the matter was pending before the employment tribunal, Macquarie terminated my appointment.
27.19. Like the Australian Climate Commission, Macquarie is a publically-funded enterprise. It holds a responsibility to act in the interests of the public.
28.20. The recent events come with curious timing, disrupting publication of our research on greenhouse gases. With correspondence, files, and computer equipment confiscated, that research will now have to be pursued by Macquarie University’s “Climate Expertsâ€.

http://www.science.mq.edu.au/news_and_e ... _commision

Murry Salby

 

 

obtained from Australian AGW skeptic weather forum

http://www.therealworldweatherforum.com/the-ceebee-hotwhopper-john-cockhead-thread-t94-20.html

 

 

 

Edited July 10, 2013 by crikey

[crikey]

Some more links emerging from this gross misconduct in our Australian universities

Wonder who else gets the 'big left foot' in the CSIRO, BOM, schools, govt dept etc if they dare promote AGW scepticism


Unlawful dismissals and discrimination based on AGW beliefs . Outrageous!!

"Between John Cook, Stephan Lewandowsky, Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, plus Mike Marriot and his idiotic ideas, I’m beginning to think Australia is ground zero for AGW crackpottery.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/08/professor-critical-of-agw-theory-being-disenfranchised-exiled-from-academia-in-australia/

University dumps out-of-step climate change sceptic

ONE of Australia's most prominent climate change sceptics believes he has been dumped by James Cook University because of his outspoken views.

Professor Bob Carter, who argues global warming stopped 17 years ago, has been given his marching orders after 32 years at the university.


http://joannenova.com.au/2013/07/macquarie-university-sabotages-exiles-blackbans-strands-and-abandons-murry-salby/

“This case is outrageous. I shall be finding out further details from Professor Salby and shall then arrange for powerful backers to assist him in fighting the university, which – if his side of the story is in all material respects true – has committed multiple criminal offenses. This needs to be a high-profile case.†Christopher Monckton


and
http://www.townsvillebulletin.com.au/article/2013/06/28/384514_news.html

 

Comedy and truth

 

 

 

[4wd]

Some more links emerging from this gross misconduct in our Australian universities

http://joannenova.com.au/2013/07/macquarie-university-sabotages-exiles-blackbans-strands-and-abandons-murry-salby/

 

Essential reading, far too much of this going on.

[UV-RAY]

Christopher Booker misquotes a scientist. Then Andrew Neil does the same. Despite the abundantly clear response of the scientist concerned neither of them withdraw the misquotes. It's not unexpected to see this from Mr Booker, it's sad to see it from Mr Neil. I'll not trust either of them from now on.

Will you show the same contempt for the journalists in the guardian I wonder, or are double standards now the norm?

[4wd]

It was very good of the climate scientists to warn of a decade of dismal summers.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/uk-weather-experts-warn-dismal-1962717

 

[keithlucky]

OUTSTANDING http://t.co/zudSrspdNN

 

[4wd]

The part towards the end about UHI is revealing.

[john pike]

In addition to increasing atmospheric CO2, volcanism also increases
atmospheric aerosol loading and thereby cools the climate (e.g.
Rampino et al., 1988). Mount Pinatubo injected about 17Mt of SO2
into the atmosphere in 1991 and had a peak radiative cooling effect of
4W/m2 at the surface, causing surface temperatures to cool by about
0.5 °C (Hansen et al., 1992), which diminished with an e-folding time
scale of approximately one year. By way of comparison, we estimate
volcanism contributes ~40 ppm to the deglacial rise in atmospheric
CO2, leading to a ~1 W/m2 increase in radiative forcing. In this rough
view, volcanic CO2 forcing would offset a Pinatubo-like eruption every
four years. Large eruptions such as Pinatubo occur about once a century
during the late Holocene, so that even if global volcanism increased by
a factor of five during the deglaciation, we still only expect a Pinatubo
size eruption every twenty years, suggesting that the aerosol cooling
is smaller than the CO2 warming. Furthermore, Pinatubo caused a
strong cooling, in part, because it injected aerosols into the stratosphere
near the equator—which then reflect more sunlight and remain
aloft longer—whereas deglaciation is expected to drive primarily high
latitude volcanism.
The short-term cooling associated with volcanism may, however,
also be important. In particular, it is tempting to speculate that the
spike in volcanism near 12 ka may have contributed to the resumption
of glacial-like conditions in and around the North Atlantic during the
Younger Dryas. The competing influences of volcanic CO2 and aerosol
emissions may be likened to the case of the tortoise and the hare, with
CO2 steadily warming the climate and aerosols driving relatively brief
intervals of cool conditions.

 

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~phuybers/Doc/volcano_epsl2009.pdf

 

not recommended for phones

 

also

 

In point of fact, magmatic carbon is, for the most part, ¹³C depleted. This is solidly confirmed by numerous studies of deep mantle rocks (Deines et al., 1987; Pineau & Mathez, 1990; Cartigny et al., 1997; Zheng et al., 1998; Puustinen & Karhu, 1999; Ishikawa & Marayuma, 2001; Schultz et al., 2004; Cartigny et al., 2009; Statchel & Harris, 2009) as well as mid-oceanic ridge outgassing (De Marais & Moore, 1984). Moreover, ¹³C depletion of volcanic emissions is so well known that Korte and Kozur (2010) explore volcanism, amongst other possible causes, in search of an explanation for atmospheric depletion of ¹³C across the Permian-Triassic boundary. Although many significant carbonates are not ¹³C depleted, they are eventually subducted along with organic carbon sources depleted in ¹³C. Nevertheless, the emissions of continental margin and back arc volcanoes that source a significant proportion of their carbon from subducted volatiles, remain ¹³C depleted (eg. Giggenbach et al., 1991; Sano et al., 1995; Hernández et al., 2001). Thus, as plants continue to enrich the atmosphere in ¹³C while supplying the ¹³C depleted kerogen that is subducted into the mantle, volatiles failing to return to the surface may cause the mantle to become increasingly ¹³C depleted over time. Moreover, the significant proportion of volcanic carbon dioxide that diffuses through the soil (Gerlach, 1991) has its carbon isotope chemistry further contaminated by ¹³ depleted biogenic soil carbon (Hernández et al., 2001).

Both tectonic and volcanic CO2 are magmatic and depleted in both ¹³C & ¹⁴C. In the absence of statistically significant isotope determinations for each volcanic province contributing to the atmosphere, this makes CO2 contributions of volcanic origin isotopically indistinguishable from those of fossil fuel consumption. It is therefore unsurprising to find that Segalstad (1998) points out that 96% of atmospheric CO2 is isotopically indistinguishable from volcanic degassing. So much for the Royal Society's unexplained "chemical analysis". If you believe that we know enough about volcanic gas compositions to distinguish them chemically from fossil fuel combustion, you have indeed been mislead. As we shall see, the number of active volcanoes is unknown, never mind a tally of gas signatures belonging to every active volcano. We have barely scratched the surface and as such, there is no magic fingerprint that can distinguish between anthropogenic and volcanogenic sources of CO2.

 

http://carbon-budget.geologist-1011.net/

 

also

 

 

2011

 

 

 

 

now look at this

 

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/news/2013/132_0301.html

 

last year volcanic activity was high and this year it is too 

 

http://www.volcanodiscovery.com/erupting_volcanoes.html

 

maybe have something to do with with the c02 rising????

 

read the first link

 

it would explain why c02 has risen and why temps went up but are now slowing down

 

please do not say this should be a nature post

 

if c02 is such a big climate issue then nature should be shown as well

[keithlucky]

 A very strong link link John between colder global temperatures and increased volcanic activity,another example the year without summer 1817 http://search.mywebsearch.com/mywebsearch/redirect.jhtml?searchfor=no+summer+of+1816&cb=Y6&qid=957f1ac754174de2bac45d0366b1e2d0&n=77fcde6f&ptb=undefined&id=Y6xpi000YY&pg=GGmain&action=pick&ptnrS=Y6xpi000YY&pn=1&ss=sub&st=kwd&qs=&pr=GG&tpr=sc&redirect=mPWsrdz9heamc8iHEhldEaIWePl6Q6qXH8tBsHgX2ukZfGqpBU3oZSdaxWAwPi0WXsBttzlxvySXmZHTvbGdl4p1F5BT7jm%2B24THttALfVvGa7oBHLLHMXHCyMwnr3h7&ord=2&ct=AR&

Edited July 13, 2013 by keithlucky