Some years ago ‘The Conversation’ website came into existence. It was to assemble the writing of academics in their areas of interest, conveying them to the broader public. It seemed a good idea for a while, but before long it became clear to me that only some academics were to be favoured, while the editorial tendency was very much to the current Left-leaning orthodoxy. Nowhere was this tendency more obvious that in the area of ‘global warming’, or as it later became, ‘climate change’. I thought some of the stuff that was being published was so biased that I wrote my own temperate essay, pointing out the uncertainties in the whole climate change scenario. It was rejected, on the ground that I was not an expert in this field. I responded that no single person could be an expert in the field, which was a vast one, that many of the essays that had been published had little scientific background, and that I had published in the field myself.
I received a dismissive reply, and gave up, finally ceasing to read anything in the website unless it was directly of interest to me. I avoided all essays on climate change until a few days ago, when the opening lines were so striking that they had to be nonsense. Here they are (the bolding is mine):
On a sunny day in Sydney last Sunday Tim Flannery, former Australian of the Year, appeared on a panel of international journalists convened to discuss the reporting of climate science. Kerry O’Brien kicked things off by asking about the prognosis. Flannery said he wouldn’t answer until the young people at the Sydney Opera House had been given a chance to leave. Things were so dire he feared for their mental health.
The editor went on: My first reaction was that Flannery had developed a taste for the theatrical. No. In the conversation that ensued it became clear that the world cannot avoid 1.5 degrees of warming and the devastating damage that entails, and many far worse scenarios were in play. Flannery’s deep anger and distress was palpable. He said that once he’d viewed climate sceptics with the same indulgence you might afford an eccentric uncle, but now the gloves were off. Deniers were destroying the lives of our children.
Really? How are they doing that? The editor again:So how do responsible journalists sound the alarm without sounding alarmist? At The Conversation we are committed to bringing you the voices of scientists and researchers who understand the evidence. We think the proper role for journalism is to provide the clean information that is the lifeblood of democracy. But we also understand it’s vital that these messages gain traction beyond the academic communities from which they emanate.
And she finishes: We see this as the beginning of a new phase in our climate coverage, a vital conversation between scientists and politicians. We don’t want to be alarmist, but if Flannery and the scores of scientists who share his view are right, we are sleepwalking toward disaster. We cannot rest until the scientists are being heard, and solutions are in place that can provide a secure future for all our children.
Dear Editor, This is not a conversation but a rant. I don’t think I have read worse rubbish in The Conversation. Tim Flannery is no expert on global warming, though he does know about tree kangaroos. He is well known for failed predictions (‘Perth will be the 21stcentury’s first ghost metropolis’; ‘ …even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and river systems’; ‘Brisbane and Adelaide … could run out of water by year’s end’). There are many others. He fears for the mental health of young people. I fear for his own state of mind. To suggest that what he is going to say about climate change could affect the mental health of a young audience is an extraordinary example of hubris. Imagine saying something like that in a different environment. ‘I warn all those over 60 that I am going to talk about death. Please leave now if you feel threatened.’ I can imagine at least some of the responses.
The Editor tells us that the proper job of journalists is ‘to provide the clean information that is the lifeblood of democracy’. I’m happy with that, but what does she mean by ‘clean information’? What I’ve read in The Conversation is one-sided climate activism: ‘we cannot rest until the scientists are being heard, and solutions are in place that can provide a secure future for all our children’. Which scientists are not being heard? By and large the media publish a great deal of scientific stuff on climate, and little of it is opposed to the current orthodoxy. With nine children and step-children of my own plus fourteen grandchildren and two great grandchildren, I am unimpressed with appeals to think of my children. They are more than capable of thinking for themselves, and they do not all follow the orthodox line, by any means.
What has irritated me for the past decade is the assumption that the CAGW orthodoxy (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming) hypothesis— which is all that it is, a hypothesis — is beyond discussion or analysis. It is presented as the Truth, and anyone who objects to it is labelled a ‘denier’. This is further rubbish. No one has been able to show that increases in carbon dioxide actually cause increases in global temperature. No one has been able to fix an accurate figure for ‘climate sensitivity’, and a low figure means that carbon dioxide may have little or no effect on the atmosphere. The models that are supposed to show the awful future awaiting us have not been validated, and their results are most unimpressive. Altogether we should be having a serious and informed discussion about global warming, not going into hysterics about the children and their fate, let alone encouraging them to demonstrate in the streets. How much do their teachers know about global warming anyway?
CAGW may not be a scam, but it is beyond doubt a quasi-religious social movement that has attracted people who seem to need a cause. This isn’t and shouldn’t be it. It is simply a most expensive way of wasting money, both public and private. If The Conversation wants to provide ‘clean information’ on climate change it could start by organising a series of public discussions where nothing is taken for granted, and no one is excluded because they are thought to be ‘deniers’. It will be hard work, but it is certainly worth doing.
Sceptics should boycott such publications.
Jo Nova takes “The Conversation” to bits.
http://joannenova.com.au/2019/09/the-conversation-gives-up-conversing-admits-defeat-on-climate-bans-all-skeptical-scientists-from-commenting/
As does Jennifer Marohasy
https://mailchi.mp/cd1bc6a6b047/evidence-matters-so-lets-consider-it
I see the ABC’s “Media Watch” has grudgingly admitted in the interests of free speech that “The Conversation” shouldn’t have banned comments from climate sceptics. Basically If school kids have the right to march to air their views, so should commenters be able to express themselves at “The Conversation”.
Of coursed “Media Watch” made sure that viewers knew that climate sceptics were ill informed.
Thanks Don for bringing this up. It’s good that everyone is highlighting it.
I used to submit comments to The Con mainly on their wildlife and environmental articles but even in that field they were away with the fairies.
When I moved to commenting on their climate articles in those earlier days they allowed [and had] numerous sceptical commenters but then they began shutting them down more and more.
They eventually locked my account and refused to discuss it.
They are now a hopelessly biased lot and in complete denial of the past 80 centuries of warm periods greater than today.
There’s a commenter over at The Con, flying under the radar parodying climate alarmists and SJWs. So far the mods and other commenters are oblivious 🙂
Long may he / she take the p— (mickey) out of these self-righteous w—— (twits) in that echo chamber.
Have a look at these two articles on the Conversation
1. ‘Climate change is real: an open letter from the scientific community’. This is the first of 12 chapters. At the end it lists about 80 signatories, mostly high ranking Australian academics. https://theconversation.com/climate-change-is-real-an-open-letter-from-the-scientific-community-1808
2. ‘The false, the confused and the mendacious: how the media gets it wrong on climate change’. This lists the 12 chapters of extreme alarmist nonsense written by Australian academics on various aspects of climate change. The whole thing was organised by that wondefully honest professor, Stephan Lewandowsky
Chair of Cognitive Psychology, University of Bristol (previously of Curtin Uni; a collaborator of that other honest person, John Cook, owner of that wonderfully objective web site (un)Skeptical Science), and the lead author of the 97% Consensus nonsense analysis. https://theconversation.com/the-false-the-confused-and-the-mendacious-how-the-media-gets-it-wrong-on-climate-change-1558
“CAGW may not be a scam, but it is beyond doubt a quasi-religious social movement that has attracted people who seem to need a cause.”
It is MUCH more sinister than that, Don.
As you say, it is nothing more or less than an hypothesis, and a flawed one at that. In fact it is fiction from beginning to end. There is NOTHING about it that stands up to scrutiny. There is no evidence that the “planet is warming”. In fact ALL of the evidence points to a continuation of the cooling that has taken place ever so gradually (and intermittently) over the past 9,000 years. The idiotic notion of a “greenhouse effect” is so ludicrous it does not even count as conjecture. The “greenhouse gas global warming potential” is nonsense. ON what basis is this idiocy proposed? The term “climate change” is meaningless drivel to anyone that understands what “climate” actually is. Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng. explains the sinister aspect of this hoax in the following essay.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09/20/the-radical-green-road-to-venezuela-poverty-misery-and-dictatorship/
I distinctly remember Tim F saying on ABC TV in early -mid September 2006 with then opposition leading Kevin Rudd that sea level may rise up to 4 metres in 10 to 15 years.
At a public meeting in Canberra in 2013 ( or thereabouts) I met up with him and mentioned that prediction, and sea levels have hardly moved. At first he said he never said that. Then aftet I kept pressing him, he said he may have said that but it in reference to the Earth coming out of an ice age. I expressed that proviso was never made at the time and expressed my doubt. He moved very quickly to another group.
The man is an absolute fake on climate change and I cannot understand why John Howard made him 2007 Australian of the Year.
Here we are in 2019, 13 years after that doomster prediction and sea levels have hardly risen.
Chris – i love to read your comment on all this.
Flannery is in a dark and desperate place, as are the other folk keen to imitate eco-socialist/anarchist group, Extinction Rebellion.
It was R U OK Day last week. Is he OK? (Religious belief and mental illness have been locked in trench warfare for centuries and are still at it.)
Hardly surprising given he wants to “increase Nature’s influence” by “re-wilding” the Earth, beginning ironically with the mammoth, despite his belief a Hothouse Earth is just around the corner.
For “there is something magnificent about the idea of a wild and free planet, one whose function is maintained by that commonwealth of virtue formed from all biodiversity”. A “commonwealth of virtue” arising from biodiversity?
Since his infatuation with Lovelock’s Gaia years ago, Flannery has been keen to deify Nature, especially in his book, Here on Earth: An Argument for Hope, Text, 2010)
See: https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2011/04/mammoth-fantasies/
Arthur Schopenhauer defined hope as “the confusion of desire for a thing with its probability”. Flannery’s latest nasty attack on so-called “climate deniers” perhaps illustrates another insight of the late German philosopher, one worth remembering: “It is natural to believe true what we desire to be true, and to believe it because we desire it.”
Even Lovelock has had second thoughts about their CAGW fantasy and I’m sure he wouldn’t endorse Flannery’s latest nonsense at the CONversation.
If you use the “Our World in Data” site as a reference you soon find out just how wonderful and easy life is today compared to 1990, 1950, 1900, 1800 and beyond.
Just check out health, wealth, life expectancy and then check out deaths from extreme weather events and anything else you care to find.
And the UN etc expect the countries of the world to be much richer as we move forward to 2100, yet this is at odds with their CAGW theory.
I suggest this could be their greatest fear and they’ve become so unhinged because so many lay people won’t accept their extremist nonsense.
But Flannery has been wrong on so many of his forecasts that he now knows that debate has to be restricted even further and of course most of the MSM will fall into line. Of course the taxpayer funded ABC is a disgrace and embarrassment.
At least we have Fox News in the US and Murdoch newspapers +SKY News in OZ to slightly balance their extremism.
TC hit the road with a bunch of dedicated camp-followers, who made it their business to harass and drive off anybody whose opinions did not adhere to the default.
I committed the offence of posting an article by the distinguished astrophysicist, Dr. Duncan Steel, who suggested that some (not all) of the warming might be natural. See:
http://www.duncansteel.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/EOaCCC.pdf
I came under immediate attack. ‘I’ did not know what I was talking about (btw, it was not my paper); Steel was not a ‘climate scientist’; and a whole lot of other rubbish. I became mildly incensed, and told them they could shove their opinions where the sun didn’t shine, for which misbehaviour I was permanently banned from the site.
Most of the original acolytes seem to have disappeared, but the standard of journalism (if it can be dignified by the term) is still abysmal, and most ‘articles ‘could readily be replaced by left wing talking points. Even the standard of English is terrible. I think Misha has really mished the boat on this one.
I think even the Left might find better ways to spend their money.
Here’s Andrew Bolt’s editorial on the Flannery CRANK and the death of reason.
He lists a number of dud predictions and stupidity from this strange bloke.
https://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/tim-flannery-calls-me-a-predator-of-children-so-who-is-this-nasty-crank/news-story/23789a24152571e00aac0b8af8cb501f
I understand people’s irritation when a submission to a refereed journal is rejected with weak comments from anonymous referees although I recognise “The Conversation” has a slightly different model than blind referees.
However the situation is more comples. There are underlying standards for public discourse. For example, today’s reputable publications would reject articles playing at being skeptical about equal rights for women, articles promoting honour killings, or for the reintroduction of African slavery etc etc. When society was fighting the Second World War,would Australian publications accept articles arguing for skepticism on behalf of Nazi theory. Surely you could mount an argument that the equality of homosexuals was just a hypothesis or that there was no evidence that all races were equal. Should “The Conversation” publish articles supposedly skeptical of allowing married women tenure in Universities? Such articles would probably fail to get published. Our society has made judgements about all these and they go a long way to defining our overall social form.
So it is with climate change.
Just as society has judged that there is no room for skepticism over voting rights for women, equal rights for races, or over standards such as Australia’s quarantine system, then, given all the science, there is now no room for claims that:
1) the CAGW orthodoxy (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming) is just an hypothesis
2) No one has been able to show that increases in carbon dioxide actually cause increases in global temperature.
3) carbon dioxide may have little or no effect on the atmosphere.
There is overwhelming science ruling each of these out of any sort of reasonable skepticism or scientific contention.
Also
4) CAGW is beyond doubt a quasi-religious social movement that has attracted people who seem to need a cause.
5) Carbon policy is simply a most expensive way of wasting money, both public and private.
These are political statements that have no basis after considering the evidence of likely catastrophic future global warming.
Chris
“There are underlying standards for public discourse.”
Which you observe only when it suits you.
“given all the science”
“All” actually includes data and analysis with which you might disagree, hurtful as this might be to your self image.
“There is overwhelming science ruling each of these out of any sort of reasonable skepticism or scientific contention.”
Again you show your total and absolute ignorance of science and the scientific method.
“These are political statements that have no basis after considering the evidence of likely catastrophic future global warming.”
ROFLMAO. This from an avid purveyor of political statements phrased as pseudo-science!! Read your supposed “science” statement again, and for a change, try to understand the plain meaning of the words.
The man-made global warming (carbon dioxide) hypothesis is dependant upon the validity of radiative greenhouse effect. The following remark is a quotation from the Pennsylvania State University module for students studying The Greenhouse Effect and the Global Energy Budget :
“The remarkable thing to observe here is that the surface receives almost twice as much energy from the greenhouse effect than it does directly from the Sun! But, if you look at the diagram a bit, you can see that the energy sent to the surface from the atmosphere is essentially recycled energy, whose origin is the Sun.”
The diagram referred to in this quotation shows the cooler atmosphere radiating heat to the warmer surface!
So, it appears the greenhouse gases absorb the energy from the surface and magically double it in the atmosphere.
Chris, do you really believe this is realistic?
Chris Warren said, in part “Just as society has judged that there is no room for skepticism over …, equal rights for races,…”
I agree with this. Let’s hear no more about the disgustingly racist proposition that Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders should have an additional voice, a greater say in government decisions, than people of different races.
Colin
Chris made a political statement, asserting that certain political issues may no longer be discussed (as you quoted, plus more). Leaving aside the arrogance of asserting that discussion of certain political issues is now verboten (and I choose the German word deliberately), he then shifts smoothly to an assertion that, therefore, certain scientific subjects may not be discussed.
Chris has put himself into the position of a Renaissance church leader determining on religious grounds what is acceptable scientific discourse.
The arrogance, combined with the ignorance of history, are astounding.
Chris Warren, you make the mistake of confusing an empirical proposition (what Ayer called ‘synthetic propositions’) with ethical propositions. The CAGW hypothesis stands and falls on the falsifiability of its predictions. (Those generated by the models are all running hot compared with the observational evidence). Questions about equality for women or LGBTIQ members of society are normative propositions that cannot be answered by reference to empirical evidence.
Your whole argument is therefore invalid.
Excellent Post Don.
Those pushing the CAGW orthodoxy had better be very careful what they wish for.
Last week I saw thousands of children being abused. I also saw many hundreds of children dressed in their school sports apparel (aged about 7 to 12) having great fun on a nearby sports field at the same time these climate warriors were marching on our streets.
Perhaps there is hope?
“there is now no room”
…but there is room for incorrect claims that ‘climate change’ causes fires, floods, cyclones, droughts, etc, all of which have been repeatedly debunked. Not exactly a model of probity, is it?
Bryan it’s no good wasting time on these silly people because they’re not interested in REAL world data and evidence.
Extreme weather deaths have fallen by 98% over the last century, although the world’s population has increased by 4.28 times since 1920.
Today people have a much higher life expectancy than 100 years ago and even 30 years ago.
They are much healthier and wealthier and that includes Africa as well.
Today the 1300 mil people in Africa are better fed , live longer and are better educated and this includes young girls.
Africa is the poorest continent but countries like China, India and the developing world are also reaping the rewards, due to much higher levels of base-load energy, better education and much better/adequate nutrition.
The recent Lancet study shows us that colder temps are the biggest killer and much higher rates than warmer weather or heatwaves.
Winter time shows higher death rates compared to summer in all countries across the world.
Even moderate cold weather deaths are highlighted in the recent studies.
I don’t know what motivates these fools, but their silly cult should be ignored and kept away from kids at every opportunity.
Chris Warren claims that there is no room for scientific debate on Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, often shorthanded to “Climate Change”. I suppose that The Conversation editors also subscribe to that warped view, a totally unenlightened position.
The Academy has failed society in the last 30 years, the editor’s decision to proscribe dissent being another symptom of that failure. The other symptoms are:
a. The failure of the teaching profession to maintain, let alone improve, education standards, despite being massively overfunded and underworked.
b. The utter failure of the Academy to address the crisis in science, where over half (and in one study, nearly 90%) of published peer-reviewed scientific papers are useful only as low quality toilet paper.
c. The failure of the Academy to promote and defend freedom of speech, and the active suppression of dissent by university authorities. A current example is the case of Professor Peter Ridd. The universities have become champions of The Un-enlightenment, a new dark age of conformity to authority.
But back to Chris’s claims. He probably is not scientifically trained, otherwise he could not support the editor’s decision.
Within the last couple of years there have been two papers by climate scientists, one claiming 4.5DegC, the other 1.5DegC temperature rise due to a doubling of CO2. At least one of these is wrong. If it is the former, then there is zero concern over temperature rise – we will only get another 0.5DegC or so this century.
I have calculated (that’s right – not guessed but number crunched, using physics. Physics, by the way, is the relevant discipline) that the temperature rise by 2100 will be:
a. Using Stephan-Boltzmann over the whole planet, 0.7DegC
b. Using Surface energy balance, 0DegC
c. Using temperature rise so far, 0.6 DegC
d. Using the difference between Canberra Summer and Winter temperatures, 0DegC
e. Using the current rate of sea level rise, 0.7DegC
I’d be happy to share these calculations with Chris, should he wish to criticise them in a scientific way. If not then maybe he should have a Conversation.
Colin Davidson
Due to the complexity of the atmosphere and the fact that warming is not all due to CO2 but includes different feedbacks, I think the only valid methodology is your (c. and e.).
Except for a few (Milankovitch, Ruddiman) I have little interest in models or theory if they are not corroborated with the actual measurements we have for the last 40 years or so.
So please provide your calculations and sources for “c” and “e”.
Chris
You wrote ” I have little interest in models or theory if they are not corroborated with the actual measurements we have for the last 40 years or so.”
That pretty much excludes all of the GCMs used by the IPCC.
Essentially, you are saying that the entire basis of the projections put forward by the IPCC is worthless.
Doesn’t say much for the “established climate science” does it???!!
Chris, Thanks for your interest.
c. Calculation of additional temperature rise based on temperature rise so far:
i. The concentration of CO has risen from 280 to 415ppm
ii. The temperature has risen by 0.8DegC. Assume all of the increase is due to CO2.
iii. The average rate of increase will be 2.5ppm/year until 2100. So
iv. The effect of CO2 is logarithmic.
Hence increase in temperature from now to 2100=log(585/280)/log(415/280)*0.8-0.8 = 0.7DegC
e. Calculation of additional temperature rise based on rate of sea level increase.
i. The rate of sea level rise is constant and is 17cm per century.
ii. All the rise is due to the thermal expansion of sea water.
iii. Only the top 700m of sea is involved in this expansion – the rest of the sea is still remembering the ice age.
iv. Coefficient of expansion of sea water is 250×10-6/DegK. For a depth of 700m this gives an increase of 0.175m/DegK
Hence the rate of increase in temperature of sea water = 17/17.5 DegC per century = about 1 DegC/century or 0.1DegC per decade. There are 7 decades until 2100, so expected temperature rise will be 0.7DegC.
Colin, oh yes please, share your calculations with us so we can be enlightened. Maybe even a picture of the beer coaster would be helpful.
Stu
Good to see you back. When might I expect to see your reasoned response to my points about the Clintons on the Nations Fail thread?
I think your Clinton points are more than offset by the Trump
Stu
So no response to my specific questions on Hillary’s performance as Secretary of State? Nothing about the mishandling of highly classified intelligence or the other points?
Just a vague reference to them being offset by “the Trump”? But no specific allegations that Trump mishandled highly classified intelligence?
Then I assume, in the absence of a specific response that you accept my points.
She was actually very effective as SoS. The claims of mishandling of sensitive have been proven to be overblown and superseded by Ivanka and Jarred doing exactly the same thing (using a private server). Do you understand web servers etc? It was against the rules but there is no proof of leaks of the information to wrong hands.
Regarding Trump it will be interesting if we get more info about the whistle blower claims. Wait and see.
Meeting with Kim has only increased Kims status and has produced no benefits for the US.
He has no aptitude for diplomacy. I could go on and on but it would be a waste of time.
Stu
She was certainly very effective as SoS. She succeeded in having an ambassador murdered under her supervision, then lied about the causes of the incident. She was also very successful in getting “donations” to the Clinton Foundation while SoS.
Keep living in your dream world, you must find it very annoying that Trump is still president and Hillary is desperately trying to pull the strings behind the scenes, but apparently not with much success.
Stu
I know you like references, so here is one for you:
“The IPCC in its third report (2001) stated,
In climate research and modelling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. (Chapter 14, Section 14.2.2.2. )]”
The whole set of projections for the future is built on the foundation of these models. The NASA statement that the inability to model clouds makes the models only one hundredth as powerful as necessary to make projections confirms the IPCC statement.
Absent usable projections, is there any substantive basis for massive expenditure on mitigation, even if it is “for the children”?
Or might they insted prefer clean water for the Third World and affordable, reliable, continuous power for the whole world?
So a report is written in 2001. You don’t think the science and the knowledge might have improved since then making that reference obsolete?
Stu
The NASA report was much more recent. Do try to keep up!!!
It is time you stopped misquoting that singular NASA report.
So you claim that the NASA report was a ringing endorsement of the models? If so, then any actual criticism of them would be absolutely scarifying!
That isn’t misquoting, stu.
That NASA statement is based on these facts:
“We know from Lauer and Hamilton, 2013 that the annual average ±12.1% error in CMIP5 simulated cloud fraction (CF) produces an annual average ±4 W/m^2 error in long wave cloud forcing (LWCF).
“We also know that the annual average increase in CO?forcing is about 0.035 W/m^2.
“The cloud feedback to a 0.035 W/m^2 annual CO2 forcing needs to be known, and needs to be able to be simulated to a resolution of 0.11% in CF in order to know how clouds respond to annual CO2 forcing.”
4 W/m^2 divided by 0.035 W/m^2 = 114 times.
CMIP5 models need to be over 100 times more accurate to predict the effect of clouds.
And this is widely understood by all rational climate scientists.
Even NASA.
You and Greta both, need to get this.
BTW, stu, you seem to be ducking your bet offer.
Gone a bit pale around the gills, hey?
There are many who fully agree with you, Colin.
Here are 90 papers that similarly show a very low sensitivity to a doubling of CO2:
https://notrickszone.com/50-papers-low-sensitivity/
And another 368 papers sceptical of the bleatings of bed-wetters like blith’n’stu:
https://notrickszone.com/2018/10/15/missed-a-few-ipcc-368-new-2018-papers-support-a-skeptical-position-on-climate-alarmism/
And if those same bed-wetters would like some papers that show cold-related deaths more common than heat related, they have only to ask.
As with the wonderfully scientific “Conversation”, we are still waiting for them to tell us what is happening today with CO2 levels at 410 ppm that did not happen for the last 80 centuries with CO2 levels below 300 ppm.
But they don’t have the courage to answer.
Poor Greta Thunberg made the silliest of mistakes, when she addressed Congress a few days ago.
So why didn’t anyone among the extremist media pick up the mistake and correct her?
I referred to this above and many times on this blog and here Dr Lomborg graphs the data for deaths from extreme weather events over the last hundred years.
Why don’t these fools understand this data and evidence? Or is it because they don’t want to understand? This should be easy but apparently we have a severe comprehension problem among the lefty extremists.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09/21/the-best-pushback-to-the-misinformation-of-gretathunberg-youll-find/
Sorry Neville, that is a silly argument. There are two aspects to deaths from extreme weather events. First is the number of events, their duration, severity and location. The other one is the forewarning enabling action to avoid death and injury. The reduction in deaths is due to the ongoing improvement in forecasting. If they can find a way to predict earthquakes the numbers will go down further.
Straw men eating red herrings. How on earth are earthquakes caused by, or related to, climate change?
Obviously the earthquakes relate to the non-climate events. I included them as a hoped for reduction in human misery. Both types of event are shown on the graph quoted.
A ‘hoped for’ reduction in human misery could also readily be achieved by supplying cheap electricity to the world’s poorest people, rather than by lowering the living standards of the first world. But that would be not nearly as virtuous.
Surprisingly the big killer is moderate cold. See this in which they analysed 74 million deaths:
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(14)62114-0/abstract
From the abstract
“We analysed 74?225?200 deaths in various periods between 1985 and 2012. In total, 7·71% (95% empirical CI 7·43–7·91) of mortality was attributable to non-optimum temperature in the selected countries within the study period, with substantial differences between countries, ranging from 3·37% (3·06 to 3·63) in Thailand to 11·00% (9·29 to 12·47) in China. The temperature percentile of minimum mortality varied from roughly the 60th percentile in tropical areas to about the 80–90th percentile in temperate regions.
More temperature-attributable deaths were caused by cold (7·29%, 7·02–7·49) than by heat (0·42%, 0·39–0·44). Extreme cold and hot temperatures were responsible for 0·86% (0·84–0·87) of total mortality.
Most of the temperature-related mortality burden was attributable to the contribution of cold. The effect of days of extreme temperature was substantially less than that attributable to milder but non-optimum weather. “
More stuff for denialists to complain about …
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2019/09/19/the-climate-issue
We’re still waiting for the fools to inform us how to mitigate their so called CAGW, by 2040 or 2100 or 2300 or …..?
The father of their CAGW Dr Hansen tells us that Paris COP 21 is just BS and fra-d, so we know that wasting trillions $ on this nonsense will not achieve anything. So what’s next?
Well given that direct air capture costs are falling so that non-fossil petrol and jet-fuel can be produced for around US$1, why does this not go some way to mitigating CAGW particularly if we stabilise the population?
Why not direct a billion dollars into this?
Probably more useful than unreliable and intermittent renewables.
But then, most things would be. Transfer the money immediately.
Don, all this has gone on for so long, with no end in sight, and is costing sooo much money, with more money queueing up to be wasted, that I wonder why the Australian Parliament doesn’t set up a bipartisan Parliamentary Committee to tackle this problem and start again. The Chief Scientist should be present for advice, and the Committee should include science-educated Parliamentarians if there are any. My suggested format and agenda would be as follows:
1. Witnesses for each and every aspect of the arguments (oceans, atmosphere, etc) to appear before the Committee in pairs (Warmists v Sceptics) so the Committee has a better chance of gauging credibility of arguments in real-time debate.
2. Objective one is to decide mutually-agreed terminology and methods of data recording, whether land-based weather stations, satellite data, whatever else, and then to commence data recording.
3. Then to agree on a temperature time series, however far back in human history, based on analogue information from agricultural practices and other climate-related endeavours; this could also include SL changes.
4. Then to agree on analogue temperatures over geological time
5. Then to decide thresholds for concern for current temperature recordings.
I emphasise that every argument in this process should be settled or arbitrated before the Committee before proceeding to the next topic. I consider such an approach to be in the National Interest. Naïve?
Perhaps Chris Warren might subscribe to the position of my colleagues, philosophers David Coady and Richard Corry, who admit that climate models have been ‘practically falsified’, but rather strangely assert that, rather than this being evidence that ‘climate science is bunk’, we should accept that the criterion of falsifiability is bunk, because ‘Falsifiability is too much to require of a complex scientific theory since no theory that is part of an interconnected set of theories will be falsifiable’. How we are to assess the veracity of scientific propositions, goodness knows! Rather than the US Supreme Court standards in the Daubert decision, we should follow Dennis Denuto and go by ‘the vibe’?
Colin Davidson
Unfortunately your calculation is not correct. I note you did not provide any source for your figures.
However if you go to http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html and use Berkeley Global data starting from 30 years ago (ie 1989.5) you will see that the current trend is 0.2C per decade. So in 8 more decades, the temperature increase could be 1.6C. This is more than double your figure.
You cannot look at CO2 by itself as this is not the cause of all of the warming. If you use actual data the the logarithmic effect is already represented in the observations. If you apply it again you are duplicating the effect.
Using Berkeley Global Data, the temperature increased by 0.8C from 1976 to 2018 [42 years]
Over the same period CO2 went from 332 ppm [1976] to 408 [2018]
The source of this data is: ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_annmean_mlo.txt
The argument that the effect of CO2 is logarithmic only applies if the layer of CO2 gets thicker. It does not apply either when the layer also gets denser or when the temperature rise is increased by water vapour and methane.
If you disagree with any of this please cite you sources and exact time frames.
Chris, Thank you for your reply. You have made number of errors:
1. ” If you use actual data the logarithmic effect is already represented in the observations. If you apply it again you are duplicating the effect.” That is incorrect.
You appear to misunderstand the method, which is quite straightforward.
a. From pre-industrial times to the present there has been an increase in the density of CO2 from 280 to 415 ppm. This has resulted in an increase in temperature of 0.8DegC.
b. The effect of increasing CO2 is to further impede the passage of radiation from the Earth’s surface to space. The amount of obstruction is illustrated by the following numbers sent to me by a climate scientist using the MODTRAN 3 tool. The numbers are the predicted amount of radiation reaching Space from the Earth’s surface at 299.7DegK, no clouds, tropical atmosphere, standard ozone and water vapour.
CO2 0ppm 296.1 W/m^2
10ppm 284.3 W/m^2
30ppm 280.1 W/m^2
60ppm 277 W/m^2
120ppm 274 W/m^2
380ppm 269.4W/m^2
760ppm 266.7W/m^2
If you plot these numbers you will see the logarithmic effect. Note that none of this is in dispute. This logarithmic relationship is absolutely settled science, and the model spectra conform very accurately to those measured from Space.
c. In 2100 the concentration will be about 585ppm. The predicted additional increase in temperature is therefore:
log(final concentration/initial concentration)/log(present concentration/initial concentration)*increase in temperature to date – increase in temperature to date or,
log(575/280)/log(415/280)*0.8-0.8 which I make to be 0.7DegC
2. Your statement “The argument that the effect of CO2 is logarithmic only applies if the layer of CO2 gets thicker. It does not apply either when the layer also gets denser ” is in error. If CO gets denser in the atmosphere, there are more molecules the earth’s radiation has to pass through -the “layer” is “thicker”. That’s what causes the increased obstruction identified above.
3. You state that someone somewhere reckons the current rate of change is 0.2DegC per decade. That’s all very well, but you will note that I don’t use a rate in my calculation. You should also note that climate scientists analysing weather balloon and satellite data report an increase in global bulk atmospheric temperature of 0.3DegC from 1975 to 2016. The generally accepted figure for temperature increase since pre-industrial times is 0.8DegC.
Colin Davidson
Thank you for your comments.
It is not possible to follow your line of thought as there are no references and everyone is free to have their own opinion.
White flag run up to the masthead???!!!
Chris Warren has kindly responded to my comments. I think his response is unenlightened.
Reviewing the exchange to date:
1. I stated that I had calculated temperature increase to 2100 five different ways, getting results between 0 and 0.8DegC. Chris asked for details of two of these calculations, which I provided.
2. Chris made some (very strange) objections to the calculation based on temperature rise to date. His objections were mostly on the logarithmic nature of the effect of increasing CO2, and were fully laid to rest by my subsequent response, in which I cited results from the standard radiative model, MODTRAN. Unsurprisingly, this logarithmic relationship is totally settled science. I know of no credible objection to it anywhere.
3. Chris has now responded by saying that I haven’t provided references, and implying that therefore my calculation is worthless. I consider that to be an unenlightened position.
Chris has not refuted the calculation. He obviously doesn’t like the answer, but is unable to identify a flaw. So he has resorted to saying that it is only my “opinion”. In other words his process is totally unenlightened, a Dark Ages methodology where opinion beats prediction and measurement, where pronouncements from the high priests of academia are inviolate, where dissenters have their ears chopped off.
The rest of us have moved on into the modern age, where belief and superstition are separated by prediction and measurement. And if the two conflict, one goes back to the drawing board and tries to understand the physics rather than making unscientific comments such as:
“The argument that the effect of CO2 is logarithmic only applies if the layer of CO2 gets thicker. It does not apply either when the layer also gets denser or when the temperature rise is increased by water vapour and methane.”
“If you use actual data the the logarithmic effect is already represented in the observations. If you apply it again you are duplicating the effect”
and, the real doozy:
“everyone is free to have their own opinion.”
Colin Davidson is pursuing his own unenlightened and unscientific campaign.
The temperature rise to date determines whether theories are correct or not.
Consequently Colin Davidson’s theory is demonstrated to be incorrect.
There is no point saying (very strange) as this indicates you have not followed the evidence.
We have to move on from dogmatic assertions that have no underlying science and are refuted by direct scientific data.
In short:
You cannot look at CO2 by itself as this is not the cause of all of the warming. If you use actual data the the logarithmic effect is already represented in the observations. If you apply it again you are duplicating the effect.
Using Berkeley Global Data, the temperature increased by 0.8C from 1976 to 2018 [42 years]
Over the same period CO2 went from 332 ppm [1976] to 408 [2018]
The source of this data is: ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_annmean_mlo.txt
The argument that the effect of CO2 is logarithmic only applies if the layer of CO2 gets thicker. It does not apply either when the layer also gets denser or when the temperature rise is increased by water vapour and methane.
Colin Davidson gives no explanation of the logarithmic behaviour so is just pushing it as an ill-digested dogma. He seems to have no knowledge of the Beer -Lambert law which states that absorbance is determined by both path length and concentration. There are therefore two effects when CO2 accumulation increases.
Maybe we need better denialists?
Colin
My reference to the “white flag” was a comment on that unenlightened response.
CAGW has nothing to do with science. It is an extremely sinister political movement that reeks of totalitarianism. It is about power and control. It has the most pervasive propaganda machine that the world has ever seen. To understand it, study Lenin, Stalin, H***ler and Mao.
Surely that post is a tongue in cheek one from a troll. If not please explain how the power and control is exhibited. Also, how do you think it is that the earth is not freezing? Could it be that the atmosphere includes a greenhouse component that enables the earth to achieve an overall habitable temperature. And if so what is the chance that tinkering with components of that greenhouse effect might cause instability and runaway heating? Do you accept that it is only because of the earths natural greenhouse attributes that we are able to exist. Also how does the system keep so many scientists actively employed (and publishing peer reviewed papers)? Pretty amazing given your hypothesis. You are actually on very thin ice, pun intended.
Stu,
Please explain your reasons for denying that during the last 80 centuries of the Holocene, the world experienced several warm periods proven [and observed] to be considerably warmer that the present.
That being the case [and you have never supplied the evidence to deny it] how can you then deny that your claims that the small warming the world is now experiencing is extreme, is anything more than political hysteria?
Never mind the ancient history or even the science. This little segment started as a comment on this outrageous post — “CAGW has nothing to do with science. It is an extremely sinister political movement that reeks of totalitarianism. It is about power and control. It has the most pervasive propaganda machine that the world has ever seen. To understand it, study Lenin, Stalin, H***ler and Mao.”
So give me your thoughts on those claims. Or do agree it looks like classic trolling?
When you [and all promoters of CAGW] endlessly refuse to supply any scientific measureable evidence to support your claims, plus what I have just stated above, and then simply brainwash school children into panic, how can your claims ever be taken seriously.
Apart from promoters then having the hubris to refuse to debate your “science”.
You are a shockingly expensive joke, stu.
Stu
Guterres, Secretary General of the UN seems to see it as a political issue, with his call to remodel the world economy a couple of days ago.
Bit like the other UN person, Figueres, and various EU, IMF and World Bank luminaries who take the same line???
Again you display your absolute ignorance of bureaucratic dynamics.
PS, you previously assured me not to worry, that Figueres had left the UN, suggesting that she was just an outlier. Perhaps not??
Denialism has nothing to do with science. It is an extremely sinister political movement that reeks of totalitarianism. It is about power and control. It has the most pervasive propaganda machine that the world has ever seen. To understand it, study Caligula, Hobbes, Machiavelli, Rand, Lenin, Stalin, Franco, Botha, H***ler and Mao.
Chris
Thanks to a definition of denialism kindly supplied by Stu on an earlier thread, I have been assured that denialists are equivalent to “true believers”.
I can now, with the complete support of Stu, call you a denialist, and note that you agree that “true believers”, such as yourself, have nothing to do with science.
Dry your tears crybaby, you have exposed yourself!!!
As I’ve stated before this so called mitigation of so called CAGW is indeed a very easily understood con and fraud.
Dr Hansen agrees but the maths proves my case since 1990. Then co2 levels were 350 ppm and today are about 410 ppm and nearly all of the increase of 60 ppm has been emitted by developing countries and the developed world has effectively flat-lined.
And if you look at the co2 levels since 1970 there isn’t a great deal of OECD difference to the present day.
The big increase since about 2007 has come from the non OECD and the OECD countries have only increased marginally higher over the last 50 years.
Certainly the EU 28 countries still show a lower trend since 1970 and the USA has increased since 1970 but the trend is not that great.
So mitigation is definitely impossible without China, India and the developing world.
Obviously everything the MSM are promoting about mitigation is indeed a con and fra-d.
More on the latest use of coal from China, India and SE Asia. Their Co2 emissions are soaring while the OECD countries are flat-lining, just a pity poor Greta has been shielded from the truth for so long.
If this isn’t the abuse of a vulnerable child, I don’t know what is? These vile left wing exploiters should be held to account by the MSM, but we all know that won’t happen.
Too much to gain and too many pollies are too gutless to face up to these crazy fools.
https://www.power-eng.com/2019/09/18/coal-fired-powering-up-in-china-south-asia/#gref
Yes Neville, and when one of the IPCC lead authors is honest enough to admit:
“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth.”
You would think that our socialist green elite along with our climate scientist true believers would be also honest enough to admit what is really going on with the fraud of climate “science”.
And not hide under the skirts of mentally retarded little girls.
And now the Con confirms what a contemptible, dishonest lot they really are.
“Vile” Neville is the “crazy fool” – again and again and again…
From TC: “in light of its current and projected global impacts – including drought, catastrophic bushfires, increasing coastal inundation and erosion, flooding, melting ice caps, the demise of shallow tropical coral reefs, food and water shortages and massive relocation of populations – the emergency is both unprecedented and extraordinary”
Just days after Ketchell’s rant, the hypocrisy is both unprecedented and extraordinary.
Chris Warren in his latest post makes number of strange claims.
1. “You cannot look at CO2 by itself as this is not the cause of all of the warming.”
The point is to discover what the future temperature would be if all of the warming since pre-industrial times (no, not since 1976, that would be cherry picking the start date – we have to take the whole of the period into account, not start it at some arbitrarily cold year.) was due to CO2 concentration increase only.
Now I agree that that proposition is unlikely – in particular the effect of the sun is not taken into account, if it was we would have to discount CO2’s effect by 50%.
2. “If you use actual data the the logarithmic effect is already represented in the observations. If you apply it again you are duplicating the effect.”
This shows some bizarre reasoning.
We know that the effect is logarithmic. Therefore the temperature rise to date is based on the log of the concentration increase, ie
Temperature-Rise-To-Date is proportional to Log (415/280)
We know that Temperature-Rise-by-2100 is proportional to log of the concentration increase, ie Log(575/280).
The constant of proportionality is given by Temperature-Rise-To-Date/Log(415/80)
The Temperature-Rise-by-2100 is the constant of proportionality times Log(575/80), or,
Log(575/80)/Log(415/80)*0.8
The Temperature Rise From Now To 2100 is Temperature-Rise-by-2100 less Temperature-Rise-To-Date, or,
Log(575/80)/Log(415/80)*0.8 – 0.8
I hope ll that is very clear. If not, then show it to some physicists, engineers or mathematicians.
3. “The argument that the effect of CO2 is logarithmic only applies if the layer of CO2 gets thicker. It does not apply either when the layer also gets denser or when the temperature rise is increased by water vapour and methane.”
I don’t understand this statement and regard it as nonsense.
a. The PROPORTION of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing. This means there are more CO2 molecules intercepted by any photon emitted by the surface as it proceeds on its journey to Space.
b. I presume “denser” in the above statement means that the proportion is increasing. I have no idea what Chris means by ” the layer of CO gets thicker”. Does he mean that the atmosphere increases in depth?
4. “Colin Davidson gives no explanation of the logarithmic behaviour so is just pushing it as an ill-digested dogma. He seems to have no knowledge of the Beer -Lambert law which states that absorbance is determined by both path length and concentration. There are therefore two effects when CO2 accumulation increases.”
a. I took great pains to give Chris the chapter and verse on this effect. The modelling by Climate Scientists using the MODTRAN 3 program to calculate the effects of increasing CO2 concentration on outgoing radiation from the Surface clearly shows the logarithmic effect, as the numbers I supplied from this modelling also do. I might add that the model also takes into account:
i. The decreasing concentration of CO2 with altitude
ii. The changing temperature with altitude. This has no effect on absorption but has significant effects on radiation to Space from all the greenhouse gases. Most noticeably in the final two spectra, there is in increase in radiation to space in the most active CO2 band (wavenumbers 630 through 710) because all the photons from the planet are completely absorbed in this band, and the concentration is so high that the positive temperature gradient in the stratosphere increases the radiation in this band, REDUCING the total energy absorbed in the band. In effect, we are in a situation where increasing CO2 increases absorption at the edges of its absorption band, but this is partly outweighed by the increased radiation from the active centre of the absorption band. That the models have this aspect correct can also be seen in comparisons of spectra from different latitudes.
b. Note well that the path length for a photon on its journey to Space does not change – the atmosphere is still the same depth. The number of molecules it encounters on its journey is what increases. The Beer-Lambert Law strictly applies to homogenous media, and needs considerable modification to model the atmosphere, where the concentration of gas is decreasing non-linearly with altitude. I guess this is probably what the designers of the MODTRAN programs have done.
c. The MODTRAN 3 results show that the effect of increasing CO2 on outgoing radiation from the planet is logarithmic. This is well known and as far as I can tell, only Chris Warren does not agree. See http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/page28.htm –
“This is a plot of some MODTRAN results for the temperature of the atmosphere in which the CO2 concentration varies from zero to 1000 ppmv. The intention is to show the logarithmic nature of the relationship between CO2 and surface temperature, i.e., the temperature rises non-linearly with every successive addition of CO2 causing smaller effects. ”
I particularly like this bit: “The widely prophesied doubling in CO2 concentration from the pre-industrial value of 285 ppmv to 570 ppmv would be associated with an increase of just 1·5°C.
“
“warming since pre-industrial times (no, not since 1976, that would be cherry picking the start date – we have to take the whole of the period into account, not start it at some arbitrarily cold year.)”
Shocked I am, shocked I say!!!
Chris has engaged in the appalling practice of cherry picking, something that he regularly condemns others for allegedly doing.
Shocked!
Colin Davidson
I think you have lost track of your own argument.
You firstly stated:
I have calculated (that’s right – not guessed but number crunched, using physics. Physics, by the way, is the relevant discipline) that the temperature rise by 2100 will be:
a. Using Stephan-Boltzmann over the whole planet, 0.7DegC
b. Using Surface energy balance, 0DegC
c. Using temperature rise so far, 0.6 DegC
d. Using the difference between Canberra Summer and Winter temperatures, 0DegC
e. Using the current rate of sea level rise, 0.7DegC
Your later statement was:
“Hence increase in temperature from now to 2100=log(585/280)/log(415/280)*0.8-0.8 = 0.7DegC”
I showed you that it would be more than double this amount – the difference being the impact of feedbacks such as water vapour.
Do you agree that the increase in temperature from now to 2100 will be around 1.6C if present trends continue?
The irrelevance of the logarithmic effect is based on using observational data. You can simply extrapolate it without further logarithmic adjustment.
Are you aware of Beer’s Law and Lambert’s Law which both in combination show that absorbance is proportional to path length (ie thickness) and concentration (ie density). There are therefore two effects that need to be understood.
You will probably agree with me if you include real observational data (I provided the link) or included feedback effects – principally water vapour.
“I showed you that it would be more than double this amount – the difference being the impact of feedbacks such as water vapour.”
Assumed feedbacks?? Reference (not to a GCM)?
This is in response to Chris Warren
1. Beer Lambert
a. This is only strictly applicable to homogenous media. The atmosphere is not a homogenous medium (see below)
b. The path length we are dealing with is a constant, as the depth o0f the atmosphere is not being changed. It does however vary with Latitude.
c. The density is not a constant. It varies non-linearly with altitude.
d.These are not the only variables. Pressure broadens the emission/absorption lines. At the bottom of the atmosphere the lines are smoothed almost flat, so that the emission/sbsorption in between the lines is nearly the same as at the line centres. But high in ythe atmosphere the lines are sharp, with very little activity in the line wings.
e. Temperature also varies with altitude, and the profile varies depending on latitude compared to the solar declination: within 30 degrees, the profile is tropical, otherwise it is “standard”, and also different over the poles. This has importance when calculating the emissions from CO2 at the top of the atmosphere, ie the amount of cooling of the stratosphere resulting from increased concentration of CO2.
f. It is not possible to accurately estimate the effect of increased CO2 on outgoing radiation by using an unmodified Beer Lambert equation. The only realistic approach is to use a simulation tool which calculates the outgoing spectrum frequency by frequency and metre by metre. Such a tool is MODTRAN which gives results which closely model the measured spectra, I have previously posted the results for various CO2 concentrations for a tropical atmosphere. The results unequivocally show that increasing CO2 concentration has a logarithmic effect on outgoing radiation from the planet. That is settled science.
2. “The irrelevance of the logarithmic effect is based on using observational data. You can simply extrapolate it without further logarithmic adjustment.”
I repeat: increasing CO2 concentration has a logarithmic effect on outgoing radiation from the planet. That is settled science. What that means is that the rise in temperature from pre-industrial times to today is the result of a process which was logarithmic, not linear. And future temperature rise will also be the result of a process which is logarithmic not linear. That is settled science.
One cannot “simply extrapolate it without further logarithmic adjustment.” One MUST use the CORRECT relationship between CO2 and outgoing radiation, not a linear extrapolation based on something or other. If one did that then every mathematician, physicist and engineer would tell you one’s method was bollocks.
3. Water Vapour
The effects of water vapour are (obviously!) included in the temperature rise to date. They are therefore also included in the calculated increase of 0.7DegC to 2100.
Global Climate Models consistently over predict temperature rise by a factor between 2 and 3. They use positive water vapour feedback, and this area is the likely source of the crud predictions made by the models. I also note that humidity has not increased and that the tropical tropospheric hotspot is not in evidence, suggesting that water vapour feedback is a scientific nonsense.
4. Rate of temperature rise
The Global Bulk Atmospheric Temperature has risen by 0.3DegC since 1975, a rate of 0.07 DegC per decade. (1975 is the start date for satellite observations, the other data source being weather balloons).
Estimates based on land-based temperature series are fraught with difficulty. They are subject to unknown Urban Heat Island effects (as much as 50% of temperature rise observed in the series has been claimed as UHI) and also charges of data fraud in these data sets seem to have merit.
5. In conclusion
I have calculated estimated temperature rise from now to 2100 to be in the range 0 to 0.7 DeGC. Chris Warren objected to only one of these calculations, but his objections were based on his disbelief in the settled science that CO2’s effect on outgoimg radiation is logarithmic. He also made mathematical errors in claiming that you should not use that effect to calculate future temperature change.
The calculated temperature rise between now and 2100 is 0.7DegC or less, and this is consistent with the observed rate of change of 0.07DegC per decade.
Colin Davidson
There is no point saying “The calculated temperature rise between now and 2100 is 0.7DegC or less, and this is consistent with the observed rate of change of 0.07DegC per decade.”
When the evidence, the data, the measurements all show a temperature rise of 0.2C per decade.
You should have said:
“The calculated temperature rise between now and 2100 is 1.7DegC or less, and this is consistent with the observed rate of change of 0.20DegC per decade.”
The facts of 0.2C per decade is available here: http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html
but you need to show you know how to use the tool by selecting the current 30 years trend – which is 0.2C per decade.
Chris
Some light reading for you.
Earth System Dynamics
An interactive open-access journal of the European Geosciences Union
Earth Syst. Dynam., 3, 173–188, 2012
https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-3-173-2012
© Author(s) 2012. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
Volume 3, issue 2
Article
Peer review
Metrics
Related articles
Research article
21 Nov 2012
Polynomial cointegration tests of anthropogenic impact on global warming
M. Beenstock1, Y. Reingewertz2, and N. Paldor3
1Department of Economics, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Mount Scopus Campus, Jerusalem, Israel
2Department of Economics, the George Washington University, 2115 G St, Washington DC, USA
3Fredy and Nadine Herrmann Institute of Earth Sciences, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Edmond J. Safra Campus, Givat Ram, Jerusalem, Israel
Received: 06 May 2012 – Discussion started: 16 Jul 2012 – Revised: 24 Oct 2012 – Accepted: 30 Oct 2012 – Published: 21 Nov 2012
Abstract. We use statistical methods for nonstationary time series to test the anthropogenic interpretation of global warming (AGW), according to which an increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations raised global temperature in the 20th century. Specifically, the methodology of polynomial cointegration is used to test AGW since during the observation period (1880–2007) global temperature and solar irradiance are stationary in 1st differences, whereas greenhouse gas and aerosol forcings are stationary in 2nd differences. We show that although these anthropogenic forcings share a common stochastic trend, this trend is empirically independent of the stochastic trend in temperature and solar irradiance. Therefore, greenhouse gas forcing, aerosols, solar irradiance and global temperature are not polynomially cointegrated, and the perceived relationship between these variables is a spurious regression phenomenon. On the other hand, we find that greenhouse gas forcings might have had a temporary effect on global temperature.
Your likely reactions:
Well known denialists,
Not referreed,
Pal reviewed,
Not a reputable journal (ie, not alarmist enough).
Happy reading!
Try a little science, blith:
Two University of Turku (Finland) physicists have determined a) the climate’s sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is 0.24°C, b) the human contribution to the warming of the past century is only about 0.01°C, c) the IPCC and climate modeling dramatically overestimate CO2’s climate impact, and d) variations in low cloud cover control the climate.
https://notrickszone.com/2019/07/11/physicists-clouds-practically-control-climate-whereas-human-warming-amounts-to-0-01c-per-100-years/
Well let us see how things go in the next 5 to 10 years. So far the projection does not look good. I will see you back here then and discuss the outcome. Do you want to place a bet?
Stu
“So far the projection does not look good.”
Heve you not caught up with the NASA assessment, mentioned here and on a couple of previous threads, that the models cannot simulate clouds and therefore have only one hundredth of the power necessary to make useful projections?
Given that clear statement from an authorative source, exactly which projections do “not look good”?
You are living in a fantasy world of GIGO models.
I don’t place bets with deluded fools.
PS, caught up with the Guterres statement yet?
How much?
Here is the Bolt editorial from last night’s Bolt report. I don’t know how we have become so delusional when so much of the data/evidence is so positive for our future?
Certainly poor Greta has suffered terrible abuse from the world’s dopey elites, just watch the nonsense from the Sec Gen of the UN on Bolt’s video.
Will these EXTREMISTS ever wake up and stop this ongoing child abuse?
https://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/child-abuse-shame-on-the-fearmongers-who-made-greta-thunberg-cry/news-story/194471d03b32b9c99cfedd40c173c666
Due to the confusion inserted earlier, I thought it would be useful if those interested double checked the current warming trend of 0.2C /decade.
You can do this, by choosing the latest 30 year period, using the Cowtan’s York tool at:
http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html
Now if this continues, as I expect, in 8 decades time the extra temperature rise should be around 1.6C.
Honest confusion may arise from misapplying the concept of “logarithmic”. While in a medium, the intensity of light varies “logarithmically” it does so based on a function where absorbance is in the exponent.
Or if you take the logs of both sides the relationship is:
. log [(Intensity-in)/(intensity-out)] = Constant X path-length X concentration
Absorbance is determined by two factors: path-length and concentration. You can google “Beer Lambert Law” for more detail.
Who today is able to spare a thought for their future grandchildren who will have to cope with a world 2C warmer than when we were born?
“…. the current warming trend of 0.2C /decade.”
But check the last 3 years, blith.
It has gone into a COOLING trend of 5 times that rate.
We better get that coal stoked up:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2016/trend/plot/uah6/from:2016
Chris
“Honest confusion may arise from misapplying the concept of “logarithmic”. While in a medium, the intensity of light varies “logarithmically” it does so based on a function where absorbance is in the exponent.”
We forgive you. Anyone can be honestly confused. Admitting it is the first step to understanding.
Chris Warren is incorrect. Absorbance is affected by the following:
1. Frequency- different frequencies behave differently.
a. due to pressure broadening
which is a non-linear function of atmospheric altitude and affects both absorption and emission
b. due to temperature, which affects how much energy is radiated by the gas, which reduces the net absorption.
2. Temperature itself is a complex variable in the atmosphere. The absorption therefore is latitude dependant.
2. Number Density, which varies non-linearly with altitude.
If you do the sums properly, you end up with the Settled Science, that for our planet’s atmosphere (rather than the homogenous atmosphere Chris is modelling) the effect of increased CO2 on outgoing radiation is LOGARITHMIC.
Colin Davidson
Why say “the effect of increased CO2 on outgoing radiation is LOGARITHMIC.” when the effect of increased CO2 on temperature is amplified by feedbacks?
Your original statement was about “temperature” @ 2100.
You say “0.7C” – science says “double” this.
“amplified by feedbacks?”
Or assumed feedbacks?
Chris Warren may be correct that “the effect of increased CO2 on temperature is amplified by feedbacks”
But that is an unproven assumption.
What is true is that the change in temperature to date already contains the amplification by feedbacks due to warming by CO2 rising from 280 to 415ppm. And because the change in temperature so far has been small it implies that the feedbacks, if positive (which is unlikely) are very weak.
The relationship between CO2 and outgoing planetary radiation is logarithmic. That’s indisputable.
So the change in forcing that will happen up to 2100 is LESS than that which has already happened, the ratio being 17:14. (using the previously undisputed numbers of 280ppm for pre-industrial, 415ppm for present and 575ppm for 2100 levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.)
Since all other aspects of the system should be assumed to stay the same, we can expect less warming from now to 2100 than has already occurred. Forcing less = feedbacks less. (Another way of putting this is that the additional CO2 to 2100 causes a smaller energy imbalance than the one we have already experienced, which is corrected by the surface and atmosphere heating up a little less, and that lesser additional temperature means other things change so you get a little bit more temperature increase, but less of this additional stuff than we have already had. The additional stuff is the unphysical bit, but is what the modellers and other failed predictors of temperature believe happens. )
Sorry to break the hearts of the True Believers and others, but that’s what logarithms do for you.
And also sorry to break your hearts, but that’s “Settled Science” and “Settled Mathematics”.
“But that is an unproven assumption.” FALSE
” the change in temperature so far has been small” FALSE.
“the change in forcing that will happen up to 2100 is LESS than that which has already happened” WHAT SPECIFIC FORCING.
“all other aspects of the system should be assumed to stay the same” FALSE
“we can expect less warming from now to 2100 than has already occurred” FALSE
“The additional stuff is the unphysical bit, ” JIBBERISH
Look at the actual data and start to make sense.
Delusional fools keep telling us WE SHOULD DO SOMETHING about their so called CAGW, but then run away and hide when we ask them how ?
I’ve provided the world co2 data/levels since 1990 and they just ignore it.
Killing off billions of people seems very extreme to reasoning, rational people, but not it seems to religious fanatics.
The world has improved a lot since 1990 and according to most projections this improvement will continue for the rest of the century.
Neville
Then, let’s do “something”.
Pick some low hanging fruit. Ban all tourism involving air travel. Attenborough and others have produced some great videos. Let the tourists view them at home. That should provide some significant CO2 savings.
Same for political, bureaucratic and academic conferences. Live stream, presentations and questions via Skype or similar.
I realise that this could impact on climate change academics, but think of the extra “research” time they would gain by not spending so much time on air travel.
Same for parliament. Members could attend in their electoral office. “Divisions” by electronic voting.
Big CO2 emissions savings possible here with the appropriate use of technology.
And if the electricity goes out, because it is evening and the wind isn’t blowing and the renewables were not able to charge the battery, well, welcome to the world these characters want to impose on the rest of us.
Using York tool – HADCRUT4
Decade trends are:
last;
10yr – 0.362
20yr – 0.234
30yr – 0.210
40yr – 0.185
50yr – 0.186
60yr – 0.169
As there are 8 decades to go to 2100, anyone can pick what timeframe they likeand multiply it by 8.
You will always get double the figure of Colin Davidson.
Enjoy…
The above data is GISTEMPv4. [not HADCRUT4]
All this thrashing around about a wholly artificial figure, Global Average Temperature, and the even more artificial variations from it, calculated, not measured.
Or is that shaken, not stirred?
BJ, expect ever more away-with-the-fairies blither from our blith:
“The nation’s capital made history on Wednesday, becoming the first Australian jurisdiction to legalise cannabis for recreational use.
The bill, bought by Labor backbencher Michael Pettersson, was passed in the ACT Legislative Assembly with the backing of the Greens.”
Colin Davidson and Chris Warren
The Global Average Temperature is calculated in some manner which is mysterious to me and probably to others.
How is it calculated, and what are the error bands for that calculation?
How are the variations from the base figure calculated, and what are the error bands for that calculation?
Most do not calculate Global Average Temperature,
They generally calculate anomalies from an average of the data.
Thank yiu
And what are the error bands on that average?
Is it the average of the daiky maxima, the daily minima, or the average daily temperature? Error bands?
For those who deny feedbacks…
https://youtu.be/jdhnhknaJOg?t=88
Nobody denies feedbacks, blith
Particularly cloud feedbacks, which are net negative.
But when the models you use to measure them claim they are positive and are out by a factor in excess of 100, you are just whistling in the dark.
Chris Warren and I have been discussing forecasting of future temperature rise to 2100.
His latest piece is above at 6:17 PM.
I used the term “forcing”, and he wants to know what specific sort. The definition of “forcing” in this context is the imbalance in energy at the top of the atmosphere brought about by the action of increased atmospheric CO2. It’s a fancy name for decrease in outgoing radiation from the planet.
As has been most clearly and securely demonstrated in the preceding posts, increasing CO2 has a logarithmic effect on “forcing”. That fact is not denied by anyone except Chris.
I also stated that temperature increase to date has been small. Around 0.8DegC. I got that number from a World Bank Report – an alarmist publication. Chris says “FALSE” , but has not offered any number of his own.
I then said that all other aspects of the system should stay the same – by that I meant that the system response to forcing should be the same. Chris disagreed with that, but has not explained why the system should be different, and in what regard.
He considers that my conclusion that we can expect less warming from now to 2100 than has already occurred, is false. But again he just denies it, does not explain his reasoning.
My reasoning is that the forcing to come is less than the forcing we have already had, in the ratio 14:17. That part is agreed by everyone except Chris, and has been explicitly proven by the modelling results cited in my posts in this thread.
If the system response to forcing remains the same (whether or not there are positive feedbacks, the evidence for which is problematic, is immaterial) and the forcing is less, then logically and in reality the increase in temperature will be less.
So what I want from Chris is:
1. What are the changes in system response to forcing that he believes will occur in the next 80 years, and why does he believe that?
2. Is the World Bank Report wrong in its assertion that there has been 0.8DegC of warming since pre industrial times?
I am sorry that Colin Davidson is now resorting to lies. His interest is more in disruption than clarification.
Several times he has been shown that current temperature trend is 0.2 decade and that if this continues for another 8 decades the temperature rise will be around 1.6C which is double Colin Davidson’s claim.
He has been pointed to precise evidence of this.
He now says: “But again he just denies it, does not explain his reasoning.”
This is a lie – 0.2C per decade over 8 decades is the reason.
So what do you do when denialists lie like this. This is not the first time this has happened. It is a tactic of last resort.
He has now changed his FALSE statement from the original which was:
“I also stated that temperature increase to date has been small. ” to now be:
“temperature increase to date has been small. Around 0.8DegC. I got that number from a World Bank Report ”
This is fraudulent behaviour. Adding in convenient material to hide behind.
So far this individiual has shown no respect for scientific data or the required level of honesty. Too many statements are FALSE, and emanate from denialist religion as demonstrated by his worshiping of a single number for temperature increase that bears no relationship to reality. His is the Hitchhikers Guide to the Planet’s Future.
Anyone can look at the data for temperature increase over past 30 years – and see very clearly, that the rate of temperature rise is 0.2C per decade so that if present trends continue for another 8 decades, the increase in global temperature will be double Colin Davidson’ denialist dogma.
Of course other aspects of our climate system do not stay the same in response to any increment in CO2 – this is another aspect of Colin Davidson’s denialist religion.
If in doubt – check the data which is now easily accessible.
Temperature increase 2100 -> around 1.6C
Chris
You seem incapable of understanding the difference between differences of opinion and lies.
When you are having difficulty in an argument, you always resort to accusations of lying. This reflects badly on you.
BTW, have you worked out the error bands for temperature averages and variations yet, or would the results be inconvenient to your argument?
Denialists must lie. I always give the evidence of the lie.
There are no unwarranted “accusations”.
If you try to imply this – you will be manufacturing another lie.
“Denialists always lie”.
I guess it gives you psychological comfort to believe this. Then you do not have to, in Cromwell’s words, “Consider the possibility that you may be wrong”.
Those with arguments built on dubious assumptions and inadequate models need some kind of a crutch to support them.
Dry your tears , crybaby, go read some “research” by Mann, and have a good lie down. Then you will feel much better.
Chris
And still no error bands???!!!
“I always give the evidence of the lie.”
The biggest lie of all!!!!
Chris Warren has accused me of lying.
I guess that provably false accusation means that he knows he has a weak case.
I can’t help it if Chris is denying the settled science. To date he has not disproven the accepted fact that increasing CO2 has a logarithmic, not linear, effect on forcing, and that therefore its effect on temperature to 2100 will be less that it has already been.
He claims otherwise but is unable to state a scientific case, instead resorting to vile smear and cherrypicking.
Wading through his sometimes mathematically challenged commentary has been tedious. And not worth the effort.
Chris is denying the radiative science of CO2. Funny that. I thought that’s what the Oh-My-God-Everything-is-really-urgently-bad crowd say that their predictions are based on.
Turns out that’s not so.
Colin Davidson
I did not so much accuse you of lies, instead I demonstrated your lies.
Here is another Colin Davidson lie – quote – ” is unable to state a scientific case”.&npsp;!
Here is the truth – The scientific case that has been stated is the data from the York tool.
You have made other claims without evidence. What ” mathematically challenged commentary” are you talking about? Is this another lie?
In 8 decades the temperature rise will be double your figure.
Denialists, Bad – Data, Good.
If you feel smeared – then you deserve to be.
We need to put a check on Colin Davidson’s fabulistic 0.7C over next 8 decades.
Here is the temperature decadal trend data by period, from the York/Cowtan tool.
10yr – 0.362C
20yr – 0.234C
30yr – 0.210C
40yr – 0.185C
50yr – 0.186C
60yr – 0.169C
Maybe we need better denialists in the future???
The Bolter has listed the actual data and evidence that disputes what the loonies and kiddies have been telling us years.
I think I’ll have to invest in the HS online, but for now I’ll quote from the hard copy newspaper.
Here’s his points.
1. Cyclones are not increasing but decreasing. See BOM for OZ region and Ryan Maue for US and global data.
2. Your chances of dying from extreme weather events have fallen by 99% since 1920. Well known for a very long time.
3. Grain crops are not decreasing but setting new records. Just simple data and evidence again.
4. Low lying Pacific Islands are not drowning but most are stable and nearly half are growing. See Kench and Duvat studies.
5.Cold is the biggest killer, see big Lancet study linked to this blog many times.
6. Overall OZ rainfall is much higher since early 1970s, but recently the Mill drought etc was caused in part by positive IODs.
Paradox is that Indian ocean water over NW OZ has been cooler for longer in recent times. We currently have another positive IOD.
7. Andy Pitman quotes that the scientists don’t think that global warming causes droughts. I’ve linked to this quote recently.
8. Polar bear numbers are increasing as I’ve shown many times.
9.NASA and CSIRO have shown that the world is greening over the last 30 to 40 years.
Bolt could have added that Dr Christy has shown that there is no hot spot above the equator, the PR BAS study has shown cooling at the Antarctic peninsula for about 20 years , OZ east coast SLs were at least 1.5 metres higher just 4,000 years ago during the warmer Holocene climate optimum, the last super cyclone struck NE Qld coast in 1820 or about 200 years ago, see Dr Nott’s PR studies.
There’s more about our real world I could quote, but we are very fortunate to be living at this time, because everything is much easier for us today. Check every continent for the latest data.
Neville
So what did Bolt say about global temperatures over the last 60 to 30 years?
What does Bolt think will happen in the future?
Chris
Sensible people avoid long range predictions, particularly if they have to rely on models that NASA considers have only one hundredth of the power necessary to make useful projections.
But enough of that, what are your projected temperature changes between now and 2025, 2030, 2035, 2040, 2045 and 2050.
To two decimal places of a degree please.
If there is no change in present trends you can multiply the current trend provided it is calculated over at least 30yrs. You multiply it by the number of decades you wish.
It is unwise to quote figures to 2 decimal figures.
Chris
“If there is no change in present trends”
That’s a mighty big “if”. In essence you are admitting the impossibility of making useful forecasts.
“It is unwise to quote figures to 2 decimal figures.”
A faint glimmer of rationality.
Now, if you were to provide those error bands, we could get a feel for what might count as significant figures in this whole debate.
Over to you!
BJ,
They’d be YUGE error bands!!!
Poor ol’ deluded blith is so in love with the CO2 control knob that I hate to break this to him.
So I might get you to repeat this link to show him just how deluded he really is:
https://notrickszone.com/2019/09/23/co2-control-knob-a-15-22c-warmer-arctic-with-sea-levels-25-m-higher-when-co2-ranged-from-300-400-ppm/
Chris
I know you love references.
https://notrickszone.com/2019/09/23/co2-control-knob-a-15-22c-warmer-arctic-with-sea-levels-25-m-higher-when-co2-ranged-from-300-400-ppm/
Don,
Thanks for Interesting commentary. It is a pity the thread has been hijacked as a platform to conduct a quite unrelated debate.
I registered with “The Conversation” when it was first published. In those days readers could effectively tick or cross any comments according to their own views on the material in the comment.
There was one particularly prolific commentator, whom I won’t name, whose comments were always receiving lots of ticks. There was another who constantly received lots of crosses. This intrigued me.
You couldn’t tick or cross a comment more than once. But the mechanism used to control this was deplorably simple. “The Conversation” used cookies. If you cleared your cookies you could “vote” again and again.
I developed some code to automatically clear my cookies continually. After that I had a great deal of fun “voting” again and again changing strings of ticks into crosses and strings of crosses into ticks, and then reading the perplexed comments of the readers.
The commentator who first raised my interested quite clearly had discovered the same flaw and was using it to tick his own comments and cross others. I know this for certain because at one stage I was removing his ticks faster than he could place them, much to his chagrin. My system was much faster than his.
When I tired of the game I wrote to the editors of “The Conversation” pointing out the flaw and suggested they should address this flaw or remove the tick and cross system. They replied it was being used by their software to prioritise the most favoured comments in a thread. I told them what I thought about that too.
Not long afterwards the ticks and crosses system was removed, along with the multiple branching of the thread when comments were made on comments. I take personal credit for this change although that was never revealed by the editors.
However, like you I no longer waste my time on “The Conversation”. The bias of the published articles and of the moderators was patently clear. The Conversation is now just a leftwing rag, masquerading as academic rigour. If you dare to challenge then you either get deleted or you get pounced on by the commentariat. There are better things to do with ones timr.
Peter
Actually, this thread is a microcosm of the so-called Conversation.
One participant in the discussion, once it becomes obvious that he is not winning completely and absolutely, has recourse to attempting to silence all who disagree, in this case by accusations of lying.
The accusations should more properly be called differences of opinion in a subject where much of the evidence is wide open to dispute.
Nic Lewis’s hard work has at last paid off. Nature has now forced the retraction of Resplandy et al after the diligent work of Maths Guru Nic Lewis.
https://judithcurry.com/2019/09/25/resplandy-et-al-part-5-final-outcome/
Neville
“Settled science” not quite so settled?
I wonder how many other papers need to be retracted?
Chris Warren – See my peer-reviewed paper:
Reid, J. (2017) “There is no significant trend in global average temperature”. Energy & Environment, 28, 3, pp 302-317 doi: 10.1177/0958305X16686447
which can be downloaded from
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0958305X16686447
John, that paper is hidden behind a paywall. Also can you describe your quals other than publishing this pay per view thing. I looked for you on Google Scholar to no avail. Perhaps you can give us more to search with.
Stu
Come on, it’s for the children!
Pay up!
John, when it’s the wrong message, the messenger is more important to our stu than the message.
SD
Has Stu made you an offer on that bet yet?
BJ,
No answer, was the stern reply.
Stu can’t handle those pointed questions.
Like; how much?
or; what evidence?
or; what’s different?
SD
OR how much?
SD, all I can say is JFC, what is offensive or difficult in asking those questions of John? There was no contradiction or attack just a simple request for more information. Your total bias is showing again, time for a reappraisal. Meantime I note there has been no response from John. He is the one that claimed his paper was peer reviewed presumably to impress or appear to validate his claims. Let him do so.
John Reid
The paper is interesting and I too have found a difficulty in that ice core data values were sampled at unequal intervals of time.
Are you able to make your dataset available (after dividing into 50-year intervals)?
The issues are a bit too complex to consider on this blog.
I would expect there to be no significant “drift” from a well fitted curve.
I expect there to be autocorrelation in any sine wave? So I am not sure what can be gleaned from this.
Certainly temperature data can be subject to statistical tests so your project is interesting. However I do not have the statistical software necessary to replicate your work.
Are you able to redo your analysis using the statistical package in Excel.
Anyway I have your email from your paper.
BJ,
You may have seen this.
Dr Mototaka Nakamura elaborates on what we advised blith up thread:
The temperature forecasting models trying to deal with the intractable complexities of the climate are no better than “toys” or “Mickey Mouse mockeries” of the real world, he says. This is not actually a radical idea. The IPCC in its third report (2001) conceded (emphasis added),
In climate research and modelling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. (Chapter 14, Section 14.2.2.2. )]
https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2019/09/a-climate-modeller-spills-the-beans/
SD
Yes, saw it a couple of days ago.
It won’t convince the true believrrs, whose entire existence is bound up in alarmism. Like the fanatics of the Conversation (or should that be the Monologue) no dissenting voices will be heard.
Go back and read it all again. What they meant was that while they cant accurately predict the future temperatures they know the direction and it is bad. Meantime I am surprised you have been so slow to pick up the latest IPCC output regarding oceans and cryosphere. Still digesting it or you don’t know where to start?
Even NASA disagrees with you, stu.
Read my details upthread.
You are now being brainwashed by little Greta.
You have the same sort of childish rationality:
“Greta Thunberg lives in Sweden. According to peer-reviewed science, Sweden was at least 3°C warmer than it is today about 6000 to 9000 years ago, when CO2 concentrations lingered around 265 ppm. At 410 ppm CO2, 21st century Sweden is colder now than almost any time in the last 9000 years.”
How much, stu?
Cat got your tongue?
Stu
You mean the one where sea level rise is expected to double at some time in the future? From around 1.5 mm pa to a truly terrifying 3 mm pa? That one?
As for predictions about the cryosphere, how many predicted dates for an ice free Arctic have been and gone?
As I have pointed out before, and you have ignored, the record of IPCC predictions, and those of other alarmists, is extremely poor. Perhaps there really is something in that NASA report?
Really, cannot you grasp that the predictions are based on models, and around 97% of the models “predict” temperatures that far exceed even the homogenised records.
Even NASA disagrees with you, stu.
Read my details upthread.
You are now being brainwashed by little Greta.
You have the same sort of childish rationality:
“Greta Thunberg lives in Sweden. According to peer-reviewed science, Sweden was at least 3°C warmer than it is today about 6000 to 9000 years ago, when CO2 concentrations lingered around 265 ppm. At 410 ppm CO2, 21st century Sweden is colder now than almost any time in the last 9000 years.”
How much, stu?
Cat got your tongue?
The short answer is “so what”.
A longer one comes from Richard Alley
“”Whether temperatures have been warmer or colder in the past is largely irrelevant to the impacts of the ongoing warming. If you don’t care about humans and the other species here, global warming may not be all that important; nature has caused warmer and colder times in the past, and life survived. But, those warmer and colder times did not come when there were almost seven billion people living as we do. The best science says that if our warming becomes large, its influences on us will be primarily negative, and the temperature of the Holocene or the Cretaceous has no bearing on that. Furthermore, the existence of warmer and colder times in the past does not remove our fingerprints from the current warming, any more than the existence of natural fires would remove an arsonist’s fingerprints from a can of flammable liquid. If anything, nature has been pushing to cool the climate over the last few decades, but warming has occurred.”
Stu
“But, those warmer and colder times did not come when there were almost seven billion people living as we do.”
Alley expresses concern about the impact of warming with current population levels. What does he say about cooling at those levels?
PS, is he the American geologist? Just like Bob Carter here? Don’t recall our local alarmists giving much credence to Carter, because ” Not climate scientist!”
This is another example of the alarmists and their “Conversation” syndrome. Anyone who says the “correct” things about climate change is respected, others equally qualified are ignored and silenced.
“What does he say about cooling at those levels”.
I was not aware there was any evidence of cooling now or in the foreseeable future, so what are you on about?
Stu
So, despite being an enthusiast (to put it mildly) about climate change, you deny that there is any possibility of future cooling? Based on models known to be incapable of reliable projections, presumably? Climate change can go in only one direction?
Surely the Precautionary Principle demands that the possibility be considered, considering the potentially disastrous implications of global cooling?
If it saves just one child from being ground under a glacier, surely it must be considered?
PS, you forgot to clarify the Alley/Carter issue.
Stu sez;
And Richard Alley sez; “The best science says that IF our warming becomes large…”
And silly stu doesn’t get that that IF is totally based on those less-than-1%-accurate models that we are discussing which even NASA agrees are useless.
You can’t use those worthless objects to prove their usefulness, stu.
It can’t be “the best science”, hey?
It can only be blither.
Using arguments like that you’re in terrible danger of disappearing up your fundament in a puff of blue smoke.
SD and BJ I admire your tenacity, but alas our resident jokers are a lost cause.
And if you look at the data for co2 emissions OECD versus non OECD since 1970 and 1990 you soon understand the BS and fra-d we’ve been fed by our MSM.
BTW silly Greta is now taking out lawsuits against Germany,France and others. What a comic opera these silly donkeys have started when a vulnerable kid can blather nonsense to world leaders and they now reap the whirlwind they’ve started decades earlier.
Everything Greta yapped about is loony nonsense and now a few so called leaders are starting to understand where their stupidity may lead them.
https://www.thegwpf.com/political-leaders-turn-on-greta-thunberg-as-she-sues-france-germany/
Neville
I agree that Chris and Stu (and Jimbo when he appears occasionally) are all lost causes, but I will not allow them to “do a Conversation” here. Both sides of the argument will be presented, and stupidity and hypocrisy will be challenged.
BJ like I said I admire your tenacity and on reflection of course I have to agree with you. But Geeezzzz they are bloody tedious.
Thanks Stu. Here is a revised reference.
Reid, J. (2017) “There is no significant trend in global average temperature”. Energy & Environment, 28, 3, pp 302-317 doi: 10.1177/0958305X16686447
which can now be downloaded from
http://fluidcatastrophe.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/0958305×16686447.pdf
A short CV appears at the end of the paper.
John, thanks for doing that, appreciated.
John Reid thanks for the link to your 2016 (?) study. Have you ever asked whether WUWT would be interested enough to include it as one of their daily posts?
It could be an interesting exercise to test your conclusions.
I’m sure Willis Eschenbach, Nick Stokes, etc would give it a good test run if you are interested.
BTW what has been the response so far? It’s a pity Nic Lewis or Steve McIntyre etc haven’t had a chance to check it out as well.
The global warming hypothesis is that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere causes the planet’s temperature to rise.
The postulated mechanism is that added CO2 makes the atmosphere more opaque. This means not as much energy can be radiated, that energy is instead retained and the planet’s temperature thus increases to the point where increased surface and atmospheric radiation causes energy balance to be restored.
In calculating the amount of imbalance (called “forcing” by climate scientists) one cannot use the Beer Lambert formula. However, one could use that for calculations in a horizontal direction – say from one hilltop to another. That’s because the atmosphere’s characteristics (CO2 number density, pressure, temperature) in that direction are the same for every metre of the path length – the medium is “homogenous “. As Chris Warren correctly points out, the absorption along that path is dependant on number density and path length.
But for the case for radiation travelling out from the planet, the atmosphere is not the same for each metre of the path. Number density decreases non-uniformly with altitude; pressure decreases non-uniformly with altitude; temperature decreases uniformly with altitude until the tropopause is reached, and then behaves differently – in the tropics temperature then increases with altitude, in temperate regions temperature stays constant with altitude; and the thickness of the atmosphere also is latitude dependant. All these variables mean the atmosphere is wildly inhomogenous and Beer Lambert cannot be used.
In practice a tool, MODTRAN, originally developed by the USAF, has been used for many years. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MODTRAN and http://modtran.spectral.com/
That tool calculates emission spectra for every frequency, metre by metre upwards. Its spectral results compare very closely with spectra obtained by satellites looking back towards Earth, and other features, including variation at the very centre of the CO2 absorption band for different latitudes, provide great confidence that MODTRAN is a very accurate simulator. When one uses the tool with different concentrations of CO2 one finds that the outgoing planetary radiation does indeed fall with increasing CO2 concentration, but that fall is logarithmic, not linear. In a previous post I cited some results. Here they are again so that interested parties can plot them out and confirm the logarithmic relationship. The numbers are the predicted amount of radiation reaching Space from the Earth’s surface at 299.7DegK, no clouds, tropical atmosphere, standard ozone and water vapour. CO2 0ppm 296.1 W/m^2; 10ppm 284.3 W/m^2; 30ppm 280.1 W/m^2; 60ppm 277 W/m^2; 120ppm 274 W/m^2; 380ppm 269.4W/m^2; 760ppm 266.7W/m^2.
All of the above is “settled science”, a term used by warmistas which I take to mean that all parties, including skeptics such as myself. agree.
All parties pretty much agree on the amount of “forcing” generated by a doubling of CO2. There is a little bit of quibbling around the margins, but no-one disagrees with the logarithmic relationship.
What is not settled at all is the relationship between “forcing” and temperature increase, with estimates varying between -0.5 to +6DegC. And there is still no agreement on that – last year two peer-reviewed papers by competent climate scientists were published, one claiming 1.5DegC, the other 4.5DegC. The IPCC takes the average and comes up with +3DegC, but the majority of papers in the last 5 years have predicted less than that, the consensus these days is 2DegC or less.
In this thread I gave the results of 5 different calculations (Stu is correct, I used beer mats or depleted envelopes) in which I concluded that the likely temperature rise to 2100 would be in the range 0 to 0.7DegC.
Chris Warren asked for details of two of these calculations, one based on temperature rise to date, and the other on sea level rate of rise. I think the former is much more defensible than the latter, but Chris attacked the logarithmic basis of that first estimate. We too-ed and fro-ed on that over many posts, the “conversation” ending when Chris accused me of lying, which is an entirely baseless and undeserved charge..
I considered responding in kind. But I resisted that temptation – I won’t say what I think of him, except to say that I think much less of him after his unwarranted and disgusting slur on my character.
Instead, let me say that Chris has also made an estimate. He uses the unphysical assumptions that what has happened in the past to temperature will happen in the future, that it is all due to mankind’s activities, and that the rate of change will remain constant. And he gets a different answer to me – somewhere in the region of an additional 1.6DegC by 2100.
I understand his reasoning, but think the physical basis is wrong, that CO2 driven temperature increase must willy-nilly be logarithmic with relation to CO2 concentration increase (see the preceding page), a position most climate scientists would agree.
However, we now have 6 estimates, each differently based. One is 1.6DegC (Chris), three are 0.7DegC (Colin) and two are 0DegC (Colin). The consensus is therefore 0.7DegC.
Few here accept the current science represented by the consensus view of the IPCC etc. So to try a different tack. How do you guys explain the current period of accelerating warming? And please don’t just come back with the natural variation argument, it does not hold much water (pun intended).
Stu, what precisely do you mean by “Few here accept the current science represented by the consensus view of the IPCC etc.” ?
Stu,
Why can’t you understand that the IPCC is a UN body to politicise AGW. When they periodically get scientists to do a genuine science report on the state of the climate they then do a political summary of that report that commonly not just ignores some of the science but actually contradicts it for political purposes.
As John has just beautifully explained in a very good peer reviewed paper above, you can take many, many 166 year periods throughout the Holocene with similar amounts and rates of warming that occurred when CO2 was at very low levels and concludes:
“The small increase in global average temperature observed over the last 166 years is the
random variation of a centrally biased random walk. It is a red noise fluctuation. It is not
significant, it is not a trend and it is not likely to continue.”
I have been telling you this for yonks but you are in denial.
Study John’s paper and get yourself educated, stu.
Stu
Did you even look at the John Reid paper in the almost 2 hour period between him posting a revised link and you posting this question?
If you did, perhaps you could post the scientific evidence you offer refuting his position.
If you did not, why did you ask this question?
Boambee John
So do you expect autocorrelation to occur naturally within any sinusoidal function?
Chris
Given your view that “The issues are a bit too complex to consider on this blog”, I will respect your position. I will leave you and John Reid to discuss the matter (and the rest of John’s paper) and report back here.
Where did I refute his paper? Try again maestro. I don’t know enough physics to criticize his paper, but I do have friends that do so will get back to you on that one.
Stu
I didn’t say you refuted the paper. I simply noted that you asked a question suggesting that you had taken absolutely no notice of a paper that you badgered the author to get out from behind a paywall.
Colin wrote “Stu, what precisely do you mean by “Few here accept the current science represented by the consensus view of the IPCC etc.” ?”
I mean just that. This is a space where the 97% to 3% figure for climate science is reversed and folk here refer to people who go along with accepted science conclusions as deniers, which is a classic reversal. And that is typical of the climate denying clique. All of the arguments and approaches are well documented in the literature and have their genesis in the multiple (but usually linked by common funding) denialist web sites such as Heartland Institute, the IPA etc .
But never mind, Chris and I like playing here because it sharpens our arguments having to refute the clap trap that pops up. Also there just may be some people out there, following, who might be influenced by the science.
The field of climate science is so broad and multi faceted that few people can grasp it wholly. That is why the IPCC is so relevant. Contrary to alarmist conspiracy theories propounded here by some, it is not a communist plot.
The fact that every national weather service and all major science academies etc endorse the findings is very significant.
Posting the occasional right of centre paper that offers a different scenario for some narrow point in the science, does not of itself alter the consensus view of the whole.
And then you guys, following the lead of the entire right wing media machine, get fixated on poor Gretel. Have you noticed all the main media attackers of her are the same organizations and “journalists” who are so enamored of Trump.
Lastly you all seem to be overlooking the IPCC report last Thursday. What is your view on that, apart from rubbishing the combined efforts of a huge number of dedicated scientists?
Stu,
That IPCC report was certainly not based on any new scientific report showing any evidence of anything new happening.
Just lots of the usual alarming GIGO projections.
The IPCC report states: “Extreme sea level events that occurred once per century in the recent past are projected to occur at least once per year at many locations by 2050 in all scenarios.”
When sea levels aren’t rising [in Sweden where they’re screaming the loudest, they are falling] and storm surges aren’t increasing, how can that report be anything other than blither?
But maybe you have found that elusive evidence somewhere, hey, stu?
Your commitment and knowledge of climate science is so striking I cannot believe one of the major denialist blog sites has not yet offered you a job. Or perhaps when SCOMO revamps the continually shrinking CSIRO he will put you in charge to counteract all this climate change nonsense. Single handedly you have demolished the entire work of the IPCC and the work of all the scientists who contribute to it. Bloody amazing. (Just kidding of course)
When are you ever going to offer an argument with some specific facts and evidence instead of your usual hand wave, stu?
But then that just perfectly explains why you alarmists have to use brainwashed, emotional kiddies to make your points.
Kiddies, especially over-emotional ones, can never be expected to provide evidence or logic but at least they can be excused, hey?
You desperately need something to hide behind, after all.
You can’t even put your money where your mouth is.
When are you ever going to offer an argument with some specific facts and evidence instead of your usual hand wave, stu?
But then that just perfectly explains why you alarmists have to use brainwashed, emotional kiddies to make your points.
Kiddies, especially over-emotional ones, can never be expected to provide evidence or logic but at least they can be excused, hey?
You desperately need something to hide behind, after all.
Because you can’t even put your money where your mouth is.
SD, you don’t get it. Greta is not your problem. Your problem is that there is a growing groundswell of concern about the paltry action being taken to address a problem that you and as the young see it “a bunch of old white men” refuse to acknowledge. And while you still carry on in denial you are not actually allowed your own set of facts.
As stated repeatedly your view point is shared by few except in this illustrious space. So continue to rant but the argument is leaving you behind. Stick with the Australian and Jones/Bolt etc and you will be ok. But remember they J and B act as hack entertainers not scientists or journalists.
You mean we are refusing to address a “problem” the existence of which you can’t supply any evidence for?
Yes, the electorate recently voted on that same “problem” and guess who won?
You really do specialise in self delusion, hey stu?
Stu
Some points.
First, calm down, you are getting hysterical. Given your absolute confidence in the “science”, you should be totally relaxed.
Second, indeed, you should be so relaxed that you should be rushing to organise that bet that SD has agreed to take on with you. Given your confidence in the 97%, this should be money for old rope to you.
Yet, finally, you have not yet been able to convince Don, who is certainly smarter than both of us. That might explain the increasing desperation of your proselytising and your reluctance to place the bet that you actually offered.
Stu sez;
“Posting the occasional right of centre paper that offers a different scenario for some narrow point in the science, does not of itself alter the consensus view of the whole.”
I can’t believe stu is so dense that he doesn’t get that John’s paper showing;
“The small increase in global average temperature observed over the last 166 years is the random variation of a centrally biased random walk. It is a red noise fluctuation. It is not significant, it is not a trend and it is not likely to continue.”
is NOT some “narrow point” in science.
It totally destroys the whole theory of CAGW that all his alarmist “consensus view” is based on.
I often wonder if our stu has any idea what he is on about.
Regarding Greta, this is some of the company you are in when you rubbish her.
Sam Newman, Alan Jones, Andrew Bolt, Chris Kenny, Mark Latham, Lyle Shelton, Karl Stefanovic, George Christensen, Graham Lloyd and others.
A fine bunch to be linked with. All of you, go pick on someone your own size. If she frightens you it indicates a serious problem on your part. There are bigger fish in the climate debate you should be engaging.
Nobody rubbishes her, stu.
They just rubbish you alarmists for brainwashing schools of these kiddies with unscientific propaganda because you are unable to produce any measureable, quantifiable science yourselves.
And using them to tell lies on your behalf.
You should be thoroughly ashamed of yourselves.
They are too young and innocent to realise what you are doing to them.
But you don’t care about that at all as long as your evidence-free, GIGO “science” can be promoted.
SD
The last refuge of the failed propagandist, pedophrasty.
Find a cute kid to mouth your platitudes, than attack anyone who questions the platitudes for attacking the kid.
Yes, BJ,
It’s the stuff of desperation and cowardice.
Not to mention child abuse.
Throwing emotional little girls into the roman circus to feed the lions.
SD, I am not getting anyone to tell lies on my behalf. My only preaching is in this space. My point, which you still fail to grasp, is that a whole generation out there think there is a problem. You need to go and convince them that there is none and good luck with that. You can cling to your Morrison one seat majority as proof of non acceptance of climate change science. But you are wrong, there was much more going on that that, but no point going back over all that.
Your problem is that each year, all around the world, more young people get the vote, and as evidenced by the marches last week they think quite differently to you. To match them joining, old buggers fall off the perch, the balance is changing.
If you want your point of view to be accepted you need to do more than sprout denialist points here. The problem is out there. Greta is only a symptom and sure the problem is not immediate, as she fears, but the need to start taking action is.
And what if the climate side is wrong. Oh bugger we end up with a cleaner, healthier world with cheaper power. Oh well.
“SD, I am not getting anyone to tell lies on my behalf.”
No?
Just clapping and cheering from the sidelines?
And totally supporting the in-school brainwashing that is behind it all?
I’m happy to take my chances on kids getting enough sense by voting age to understand the science and politics involved if they are taught HOW to think and not WHAT to think as is happening in spades at present.
You think that sending ourselves bankrupt by failing to “solve” a likely non-problem while the totalitarian Chinas of this world take control is the solution but you’ll find that the kiddies will love you even less for that.
But it’s what you are going to get and it’s what you thoroughly deserve.
Stu
“a whole generation out there think there is a problem.”
Take a few easy measures to reduce carbon emissions.
Ban the use of air travel other than for essential services. No trips to Bali for Schoolies week.
Ban private use of personal computers, tablets and mobile phones. Things like the Cloud use quite significant amounts of power. Reserve these devices for essential purposes.
Ban private motor vehicles. Push bikes, buses and shanks’ pony for local travel, train for the rest.
Then watch that generation reassess their position. I have watched them leaving university examination rooms. They cannot even wait one minute to get outside before they have the phones screwed into their ears.
They have been deluded by the promise that they can both have their cake and eat it.
Guys,
This is what was written about Trump today. “The coming weeks will test whether Trump’s familiar blame-the-accuser-and-counterattack playbook — while floating dark conspiracies to divert attention — will be successful in the face of mounting evidence”. Sound familiar? It should, it is straight out of the denialist playbook you keep reciting. Just look above at what you have written. You are losing your minds.
Stu
Bit like the “dark conspiracies” floated by alarmists? Koch brothers!!! Denialists conspiring together!!! Big oil!!! Questioning the (bogus) 97%!!! Et al???
You are showing signs of desperation.
Not even worthy of thoughtful comment. Sleep well old man
Stu
It wasn’t meant to be a “thoughtful comment”. It was an appropriate response to the drivel you had posted at 2134.
Hope you slept well old man!
Here is the help some of you need. https://youtu.be/gl99R6FM5s8
Chapter XVII in the gospel according to St Stu?
Once again you prove you don’t look. It is satirical comedy dick.
Much like what you usually post?
Richard Cranium.
I am in the demographic being parodied, but I’ll pay that. Though I probably already have, being a tax payer.
In the interests of equality the ABC should also feature hotlines for those in the throes of Trump, Boris and Pauline Dearangement Syndrome. Though I can’t see it happening.
Commonsense is spreading ….
https://www.businessinsider.com/banks-worth-47-trillion-adopt-new-un-backed-climate-principles-2019-9
Every little bit helps.
Poor ol’ blith gets “common sense” confused with virtue signalling.
Here is a fact filled talk by Prof Ross McKitrick detailing the history of upside down Mann’s fra-dulent HS study.
See from about 20 mins where both Anthony and Ross call fra-d on U.S.Down Mann’s study.
He then talks about the problems of GIGO models and the actual data that shows no hot spot over the tropical troposphere.
I’ve linked to recent data from Dr John Christy that also shows no hot spot over the tropical troposphere.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09/27/podcast-dr-ross-mckittrick-on-climate-hockey-sticks-and-mann/
Here again is the recent talk for the GWPF where Dr John Christy puts their so called CAGW claims to the test.
https://www.thegwpf.com/putting-climate-change-claims-to-the-test/
The joke that is the new IPCC climate report:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09/27/new-ipcc-report-on-ocean-warming-cites-a-flawed-and-retracted-paper/
No wonder they needed the “expertise” of little Greta to get peoples’ minds of their stupidity.
Here Jo Nova looks at their so called climate crisis or emergency claims and the way they’ve pulled stunts to receive a slap on the wrist decision from some recent court cases.
http://joannenova.com.au/2019/09/the-unseen-danger-of-declaring-fake-climate-emergencies/
I recalled reading a paper which explained the genesis of the average climate contrarian. I found it again. In part it says
“One salient human factor that contributes to the public’s susceptibility to information manipulation is cognitive bias. A particularly relevant example is motivated reasoning—the tendency for individuals to bias their judgements according to personal- and group-level values, even when faced with documented facts. Another class of factors are prominent external influences, owing to elite political cues, ideological biases, cultural world views, and even personal weather experiences. Not least among these external factors is the news media, which has a longstanding and dominant role empowering cultural politics. A third decisive technological factor is the paradigm of new media and the nearly boundless scalability of content distribution across the internet. Even in the case where individuals have complete control in choosing their sources of information, they are nevertheless susceptible to significant disparities in content production in addition to being susceptible to media coverage that is disproportionate to the authority and number of scientists holding the consensus viewpoint. ”
All of which explains the position of the right leaning, and presumably media viewing, pundits here.
You can find the article here. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-09959-4
I thought you were mature enough and had been around long enough to have noticed what happened last century when Marxism prevailed in many developing countries and caused the deaths of many millions.
But it seems you and those of the groupthink persuasion are still too dense to see what is happening around with your Marxist science denial:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09/26/understanding-the-climate-movement-the-impotence-of-science/
Buy the book and read it carefully, stu:
https://www.amazon.com/Madness-Crowds-Gender-Race-Identity/dp/1635579988
“Reds under the beds”. Oh dear your age and biases are showing again. Get to the 21st century. This space is descending into looney tunes.
Denialist!!!
Stu
This might come as a surprise to you, but the release of many Soviet records demonstrated that there actually were “Reds under the beds”.
Tear yourself away from your climate change obsession, and broaden your reading.
Those who will not learn from history … etc!
Stu
You do realise, do you, that exactly the same descriptors could be applied to alarmists/true believers?
Or did your cognitive bias blind you to that possibility?
Read the full report and you will see how ridiculous that statement is.
Reading the extract was enough to show the applicability to both sides.
That you chose that segment to attempt your rather pathetic “gotcha” shows the shallowness of your thought processes.
Climate scientist Judith Curry is unhappy with that paper.
She says:
“This ranks as the worst paper I have ever seen published in a reputable journal. The major methodological problems and dubious assumptions:
?Category error to sort into contrarians and climate scientists, with contrarians including scientists, journalists and politicians.
?Apart from the category error, the two groups are incorrectly specified, with some climate scientists incorrectly designated as contrarians.
?Cherry picking the citation data of top 386 cited scientists to delete Curry, Pielke Jr, Tol, among others (p 12 of Supplemental Information)
?Acceptance of the partisan, activist, non-scientist group DeSmog as a legitimate basis for categorizing scientists as ‘contrarian’
?Assumption that scientific expertise on the causes of climate change relates directly to the number of scientific citations.
?Assumption that it would be beneficial for the public debate on climate change for the ‘unheard’ but highly cited climate scientists to enter into the media fray.
?Assumption that scientists have special authority in policy debates on climate change”
Are fascists disguising themselves here?
Poor ol’ blith’n’stu either have no idea of history or choose to deny it.
The reds that killed millions weren’t under the bed and the fascists were those socialists who pioneered the brainwashing of little kiddies.
They and the rest of the post modern Marxists are busting to try the same recipe again but they are also in denial of the definition of insanity.
Chris
All communist and fascists have their youth “wings”.
Nazis had the Hitler Jugend.
Soviets had the Komsomol, the Young Communist league.
Mao had the Red Guards.
Pol Pot had the teens who slaughtered millions.
Alarmists had the daughter of David Suzuki, then KRudd’s “Little Gracie” at Copenhagen, another one whose name escapes me about five years ago, now they have Greta and the school strikers. They also seem keen on population reduction, with some fantasising (we hope) about releasing viruses and similar nonsense.
But you keep pushing your “fascist” line, it saves you having to think.
Boambee John
Why did you not mention the genocide against Semites that was based on denial of the science that proved they had no right to die?
Fascism is based on denial.
Or are you skeptical about the rights of semites to exist on Earth?
Chris
Could you translate that into something approaching coherent English please?
I assume that you are talking about the Holocaust, but it is unclear. If you are, however, you might recall that I have taken strong exception to your persistent linking of Holocaust denial and climate change scepticism.
If you are suggesting in any way that I do not condemn the Holocaust absolutely and unequivocally, than you are making a grossly slanderous allegation.
Think carefully before you post any more such rubbish.
Boambee John
You cited the reds under the bed trope.
You are the problem.
Fascists denied the science that proved semites had the right to life.
Corporate fascists denied the effects of nicotine.
Religous fascists deny the rights of women.
You may think it is rubbish – but you are standing in it.
Chris
I cited the “reds under the bed”trope?
Reading comprehension fail.
“Stu
September 28, 2019 at 11:12 am
“Reds under the beds”. Oh dear your age and biases are showing again. Get to the 21st century. This space is descending into looney tunes.”
Environmental fascists seem to have slipped off your list. Bit of a blind spot there?.?,!,
Chris Warren is unable to translate this into comprehensible English:
“Why did you not mention the genocide against Semites that was based on denial of the science that proved they had no right to die?”
Semites had no right to die??? What is this babble intended to mean??? Semites have science that makes them immortal???
Chris Warren is off the planet.
Chris Warren said “Religous fascists deny the rights of women.”
Is Chris Warren an Islamophobe?
The conversation has descended to a silly level. So farewell. I suggest Chris follow my example as there is nothing to be achieved here.
Cheerio, it has been interesting, at times.
Stu Nellie Melba Farnham makes yet another farewell appearance, until the next time.
“Silly level” stu?
Let me count the ways:
Stu backs out on answering simple questions.
Stu backs out on evidence.
Stu backs out on a bet.
“Silly level” sounds like another silly stu cop-out.
“Fascism is based on denial.”
Just like climate crisis religion truthers.
You deny that you have never had life so good but you refuse to set an example of abstention:
http://joannenova.com.au/2019/09/the-unseen-danger-of-declaring-fake-climate-emergencies/
The opposite of Communist/Marxist/Trot/Stalinist/Maoist is not Fascist but conservative.
The Nazis were a left wing party – socialists who were originally anti business until business found it more profitable to snuggle up, rather as business is doing today with the Watermelons.
Every Communist/Marxist/Trot/Stalinist/Maoist state has been a murderous dictatorship, and many Socialist/Fascist states also. Venezuela, Zimbabwe show how socialism – government theft of personal wealth to redistribute it to undeserving elites – works to eliminate the middle class, ending with a few high living PIGS supported by the downtrodden oppressed mass of animals.
Proponents of Communist/Marxist/Trot/Stalinist/Maoist/Socialist/Fascist/Melon philosophies share major traits:
1. They believe in LARGE Government
2. They believe that people who don’t agree with them are evil – this leads to persecution of religions (as is happening now to Christians)
3. They are ignorant of history
4. They believe that the end justifies the means – that breaking the law is OK. So you get the ANTIFA crowd beating people up, just as the brownshirts did in the ’30s. And the head of the ACTU saying that it’s OK if union officials break the law in the course of their activities, and the watermelons putting spikes in trees to injure loggers, and the animal libbers invading farms and damaging property and assaulting farmers.
5. They don’t believe in the ballot box. They don’t like democracy. When a vote goes against them they try to overturn it or have a re-run. (Keating did this twice to Canberrans, the EU has done this on many occasions, the remainers are doing it in the UK and the Democrats are trying to do it in the US. These attempts to circumvent the will of the people are the first steps in getting a one party state.)
6. They love telling the bad people how moral they are.
Conservatives believe in:
1. Freedom of Speech
2. Equality under the Law, and obeying the law.
3. Small government – they are very aware of the perils of Large Government.
4. Democracy – the power of the people to choose the government, and the subservience of those chosen to govern to the people and the law.
Colin
“rather as business is doing today with the Watermelons.”
Indeed, see Chris’ comment earlier about banks. Big business has little concern for humanity, and will snuggle up to the envirofascists or virtue signal as much as is necessary, and maybe a bit more, in order to stay in business.
Well said, Colin.
Our bed-wetters here are a little factually challenged in many aspects of history.
They don’t realise that the democratic/free market world, while it will always have problems, is as good as it gets.
And our blith now claims sympathy with Semites after his D word spree for years.
Chris Warren exemplifies the “Conversation” problem.
The Conversation is able to ban dissent, because it is their site.
Chris Warren wishes to, is unable to, ban dissent here, because it is Don’s site. Chris Warren then takes the other available course. Any who do not fully accept the agreed “wisdom” of Chris Warren and the climate alarmists is subjected to personal abuse. Allegations of lies, slander, “denialism” are the weapons Chris Warren uses because he lacks the ability to conduct a reasoned debate.
Chris Warren has much in common with the petty dictators of the Conversation, or is that the Diatribe???
Chris Warren whines about fascists. Pot, meet kettle.
BJ,
And blith banned my criticism of his stupidity by [he claims] removing my comments from his computer. Look out! He might do likewise to you and you’ll never receive another reply from him.
SD
Nirvana, then i could say whatever I wanted to about him, and he could not respond without admitting to a lie about blocking me!
Cabal of fascists.
Great contribution to the debate! What other intellectual gems do you have to offer?
Nope. Conservatives are not fascists. But people who are Marxists, Trotskyites, Communists, Stalinists, Leninists, Maoists (my goodness, there are a lot of brands, aren’t there?),Anarchists or Socialists share many of the characteristics of Fascists. And for the people ensnared by any regime run by such extremists, the prospects for wealth and health are very, very, very poor.
So best to avoid the characteristics of these don’t you think?
ie, don’t:
1. Demonise your opponents by calling them names.
2. Espouse BIG GOVERNMENT solutions to problems
3. Justify the means by citing the ends
4. Carry out progroms against religions you think are bad
and do:
1. Respect the Ballot Box
2. Encourage free speech
3. Follow the principles of the enlightenment – take no scientist’s word for granted.
particularly work on point 1 in the first list, and point 3 in the second list.
Here’s one for Chris.
https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/how-green-were-the-nazis-mark-cioc/1129999823?ean=9780821416464
I will leave you to your Nazi stuff.
More lies and slander, but what else could be expected from someone who denies the clear connections between fascism and socialism. And doesn’t want to read about the Nazi origins of modern environmentalism.
When you have that “adult conversation between adults” about stabilising, then reducing world population, should you and your fellow “adults” convene at Wannsee?
When is Chris Warren going to apologise for his disgraceful, slanderous, lies about the Holocaust?
No lies – this is all in your head.
And in the slanders you post.
Prof Ross McKitrick answers 5 questions from high school students and boy are they fortunate to receive such a sane reply.
Imagine the idiocy if they were stupid enough to ask Mann or Flannery or Gore etc?
https://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/5questions.pdf
Blimey – fancy sending that back to students. What a bad example – not a single reference or citation of evidence in the entire document.
This is the tactic of denial – when a scientists makes a statement with data, references and corroborated authorative evidence, denialists just emit deliberately contrary opinions with no data, references, evidence, or sensible analysis.
Chris Warren has previously said that he doesn’t agree that the effect of increasing CO2 on climate forcing is logarithmic, without saying why, except that it contradicts what he thinks should be happening with temperature in the future. I provided the data, but he still is in denial..
Right back at you, Chris:
“This is the tactic of denial – when a scientists makes a statement with data, references and corroborated authorative evidence, denialists just emit deliberately contrary opinions with no data, references, evidence, or sensible analysis.”
Colin Davidson
Please produce evidence for your statement about agreement with “the effect of increasing CO2 on climate forcing is logarithmic,”.
Chris
Reading comprehension fail, yet again.
Colin actually said that you (that is, Chris for the slow readers) “doesn’t agree that the effect of increasing CO2 on climate forcing is logarithmic, without saying why, except that it contradicts what he thinks should be happening with temperature in the future.”
Where are your references for this disagreement???
Using York tool –GISTEMP
Decade trends are:
last;
10yr – 0.362
20yr – 0.234
30yr – 0.210
40yr – 0.185
50yr – 0.186
60yr – 0.169
As there are 8 decades to go to 2100, anyone can pick what timeframe they like and multiply it by 8.
You will always get double the figure of Colin Davidson.
“The argument that the effect of CO2 is logarithmic only applies if the layer of CO2 gets thicker. It does not apply either when the layer also gets denser or when the temperature rise is increased by water vapour and methane.”
The above is completely and utterly wrong – it would be right if Beer-Lambert applied, but it does not. The final phrase however is completely wrong – it never applies, even if beer lambert was the correct model to use. The forcing is logarithmically related. So the initial temperature rise is logarithmically related and so is the resultant feedback – feedback is proportional to the temperature rise, not independent of it.
Colin Davidson
As you know your estimate of 0.7 was for TEMPERATURE rise.
My statement was 100% correct because it applies to TEMPERATURE.
To even try to suggest that I was talking about forcing is just a dirty trick by a denialist.
It is indisputable that the temperature rise is more than twice what you estimated so if you were honest you would go back and explain why you said the temperature rise was only 0.7C.
I know you do not understand these things because when I made the statement concerning “temperature” you said:
“I don’t understand this statement and regard it as nonsense.” This was another mistake by you.
So you have to explain your error in coming up with the false figure of 0.7C lest you lose all credibility.
How do you reconcile 0.7C unproven theory with the GISTEMP proven data I have cited several times now.
Why do you ignore reality?
Chris provides another tightly organised, fully referenced, response.
Or perhaps he just repeats the same things he has been saying for yonks, because he will not, cannot, admit that he could be wrong.
He needs the advice of Cromwell.
“not a single reference or citation of evidence in the entire document.”
So, much like your semi coherent claim that “genocide against Semites that was based on denial of the science that proved they had no right to die?”
Still waiting for your citations of this amazing science.
Lomborg replies to poor Greta’s ignorant tirade at the UN and elsewhere.
Without the sanity from these enlightened people we would be as stupid and dangerous as Gore, Flannery and Mann etc.
After all fossil fuels have lifted an extra 1 billion people out of poverty in the last 30 years. Just check the data I’ve linked to recently and 100s of new coal stns to be built in the developing world.
Even China has seen a huge increase in life expectancy over the last 40 years and they now generate 66.7% of their total energy from coal alone. Think it through.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-on-climate-change-humanity-is-not-evil/
Our blitherers here believe in the socialist solution but deny what has happened as a result:
“What Feshbach and Alfred point out is the fact that communism, not capitalism, was proved to be massively damaging to the environment and people. “No other great industrial civilization so systematically and so long poisoned its land, air, water, and people” as the Soviet Union. Not coincidentally, the world is now seeing a similar disregard for the environment from the central planners in communist China.”
“In other words, capitalism and free enterprise will enrich more people and provide more solutions for our planet’s issues than any socialist pipe dream, all the promises of the “Green New Deal” notwithstanding.”
https://patriotpost.us/articles/65736-capitalism-against-climate-change-2019-09-27
Here is a 2019 study of the SE of OZ cities rainfall from about 1840 to 2017. There is a lot of variability over that long period of time and very extreme rainfall events in parts of the early record.
The cities studied are Melb, Syd and Adel and here is the link. Note author Karoly and Gergis used as part of the research.
https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S221209471930009X?token=9B20E169C33874B43FD7BCFE07C40DB72FFA349278ECDD053111DB130EFFAE4D5CBD2F74A9F92FB128BD243FEAD72722
,
A good comment on the-conversation-that isn’t-one from Australian Climate Madness;
“The Conversation becomes a lecture;
“The Catholic Church had the same idea when they sentenced Galileo to house arrest for “falsely” claiming the Earth orbited the Sun. Look how that worked out…
“We really haven’t come that far since the 1600s.”
Here is the new McKitrick, Christy study on US historical rainfall in the Journal of Hydrology.
It looks like natural variability is the prime driver over this long period of time and their so called CAGW effect is tiny.
Geeeezzzz what a surprise, just like the Melb, Syd and Adel study above.
https://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/us_precip_jhydrol2019_preprint.pdf
Dr Spencer and Dr Christy are preparing a new study and here are some of the new data on low tropical warming compared to MODELS/computer games that are used/abused today.
Of course so much of so called tropical warming is exported much further north and south and if that initial tropical warming is lower then this will impact on global temps as well.
And one of the GISS models is completely off the charts. Big surprise, NOT.
So why haven’t the tropics warmed much? I can’t wait to see their new study.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/09/why-havent-the-tropics-warmed-much-a-tantalizing-piece-of-evidence/
Have Dr Spencer and Dr Christy studied the fact that models underestimate temperature in Northern Hemisphere?
https://www.google.com/search?q=models+underestimate+northern+hemisphere&oq=models+underestimate+northern+hemisphere
Those would be the models that NASA says have but one hundredth of the power needed to make useful projections, would they?
Chris and Stu deny that there is anything involved in the climate change agenda other than controlling the climate. Stu is particularly adamant that the UN, EU, IMF and World Bank might have a wider agenda. The UN doesn’t seem to agree.
“The UN has called for a global “green new deal” and overhaul of the world’s financial order to tackle climate change and deliver on its Agenda 2030 sustainable development goals.
New measures are needed to raise and distribute $US2.5 trillion ($3.7 trillion) a year to developing countries, says a UN report, released alongside this week’s climate meeting in New York. The measures include new controls on the movement of money, demanding more from developed nations, targeting sovereign wealth funds and setting a global minimum tax rate for multinationals.
Meeting the demands of the UN’s sustainable development agenda for 2030 would require rebuilding multilateralism and “pursuing a financial future very different from the recent past”, UN trade and development secretary-general Mukhisa Kituyi said.”
Denialists, both of them.
the UN, EU, IMF and World Bank don’t have a wider agenda
Wonderful to have a climate modeler who spills the beans on their CAGW fra-d.
Dr Nakamura worked for years in the world of models and atmospheric physics, cloud dynamics, ocean and atmosphere flows etc.
His new book clearly states that their CAGW is a fra-d and models are about as useful as Mickey mouse toys when the con merchants use them to predict future climate change.
Of course NASA has already covered their backsides about the competency of models and so has the IPCC in the third report.
So why are we wasting 1 to 2 trillion $ a year ( globally) on this fra-d and con trick and buggering up our electricity grids across the OECD world?
https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2019/09/a-climate-modeller-spills-the-beans/
Just for interest I’ll ask AGAIN, how do “we control the climate” by 2040 or 2100 or …..?
Since their CAGW fra-d started co2 levels have increased by 60 ppm and over 95% of that increase from developing countries.
But I’ve also shown that since 1970 the increase from the OECD is minimal, because again most of the increase is from China, India etc.
But the RS & NAS report also tells us that “we can’t reduce co2 levels for a thousand years even if we stop all co2 emissions today”.
But let’s have real world data as part of your answer. Don’t forget that 100s of new coal power stns are yet to be built by the developing world.
This should be interesting?
In China EVs lose heaps in resale after a few years and yet we have fools here who think they are a great idea.
Perhaps a great idea for other fools would be more accurate. And never forget that big hit when you have to replace the battery.
What a joke, what a fraud.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09/29/some-chinese-electric-cars-are-simply-worthless-industry-body/
No, the whole “climate change” business is absolutely nothing to do with a New World Order!!!
“OTTMAR EDENHOFER, UN IPCC OFFICIAL: “But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole”.
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/noel-sheppard/2010/11/18/un-ipcc-official-admits-we-redistribute-worlds-wealth-climate
Edenhofer was co-chair of the IPCC’s Working Group III, and was a lead author of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report released in 2007″
Here is the latest 2019 report from the EIA and all the resident donkeys should read it carefully.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09/29/eia-2019-report-shows-developing-nations-co2-emissions-increasing-8-4-billion-metric-tons-by-2050/#comment-2809730
Effectively this means that nearly all the co2 emissions from 1970 to 2050 or 80 years will have come from the developing nations.
And at the cost of untold trillions of $ for a rolled gold ZERO return on the so called investment and ZERO change to temp or the climate.
This has to be the greatest con trick and fraud in human history. Just thank the loonies who kept voting for green left parties, whether they called themselves conservatives or progressives.
Chief UN Climate Scientist Calls the Climate Crisis Narrative “Religious Extremism”.
“IPCC reports are read like the Holy Book, where certain sentences are sought to justify their own extreme position. It has the features of religious extremism ….This world will not end…. We are at the best of mankind’s time in many ways.”
“We are at the best of mankind’s time in many ways.”
From the Chief Climate Scientist of the UNIPCC, Dr Petteri Taalas.
But the IPCC still try to walk both sides of the street at the same time.
Montana just declared a snow emergency one week into autumn.
“You have to go back to the 1930s before you find another storm like this, this early in the season,” said Josh Weiss, a meteorologist with the National Weather Service’s (NWS) Weather Prediction Center.
This, of course, is merely weather.
However, had a heat emergency been declared one week into spring, that would be climate!
There is a greater percentage of climate deniers in USA, Australia and Saudi Arabia than in most other states.
Looks like fossil fuel interests are deliberately spreading anti-science.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/09/places-with-most-climate-change-deniers/
Chris
We all realise that you are a bit of a monomaniac on this subject, but I am not aware of anyone who “denies” that there is a climate.
Perhaps the pollsters might have asked a more clearly defined question? Or perhaos they made the whole thing up??!
Still, they could do a poll of climate alarmists who deny engineering. The answer would be close to 100%!!!
Did anyone read the other side of this story?
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/science/false-alarm-the-great-rainforest-fire-that-wasnt/news-story/1c24f7245f6ff74385be112567c79198
False alarm: the great Australian rainforest fire that wasn’t
The easiest way to solve global warming is to get rid of the BoM and the ABC.
There sure needs to be a “conversation” about this:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/jo.nova/guest/aust/bom-audit/gillham-chris/2019/australian-summer-maxs-1910-2019.gif
So the BoM “adjusts” data to match the “narrative”.
All well known already. The intriguing things are that they are now adjusting data collscted by their new all singing, all dancing electronic thermometers, and that they feel the need to do so. The temperature seems not to be doing its share.
And even with all the adjusting, the modified record still can’t keep up with projections made by the modellers years ago!