'even after the fact we may not know whether we've made the right call'

Preparing for the climb-down, are we? Good idea to get your excuses in order well ahead.

As far as I can make out this is a good summary of the situation.

Meanwhile why not check out The Merchants of Doubt by Naomi Oreskes?
A book which describes the people and outfits that specialize in telling deliberately constructed lies.

Clownfish, I applaud skepticsm in all its forms but I think your throwaway comment is quite insulting. Steven's exposition is factual and temperate (no pun intended), not emotional and clouded (NPI) by silly idealogical prejudice. As a non-scientist I found it about the best stab at explaining the science I have read to date. Now all we need is some global political will to make the policy changes to do our bit to reduce CO2 emissions......God help us. Anyway, the cockroaches will surely have their day if we get this wrong.

It is a good summary, but it doesn't say enough about the uncertainties involved. It is, for example, not at all clear that clouds and water vapour provide a positive feedback. If they do, there ought to have been some kind of catastrophe in the past, and there is no sign of one. In any case it is the models that do the assuming of positive feedback, not the data. It is not at all clear that an increase in temperature is in general a harmful thing for humanity (it is the models that project dangerous scenarios). And so on. Given that Australia can do nothing of any consequence (and anyway we are now moving down the 'energy efficiency' path, not 'combatting climate change'), and that the world isn't doing anything either, what is proposed?

Those who would like more information could go to the 'uncertainty' threads on Judith Curry's blog 'Climate etc.'. It is argued out there (from both side) in a generally courteous way, which is a relief from the ad hominem attacks that all too frequently accompany discussions of AGW.

Thanks Steven for this very clear, concise and accurate article.

Now, watch the jackals try and rip it to pieces - metaphorically of course.

but the disastrous effects of anthropogenetic global warming (AGW)
have not been proven 'beyond reasonable doubt', nor even merely on
the balance of probabilities, so if this is so serious, why isn't there more of a sense of urgency from folks like the U.N. and World Bank?

and every time these concerned folks get together, as in Kyoto and lately in Copenhagen, it's only wishful thinking and no binding consensus.

Hi Ho Hum, out with the conspiracy theories and conspiracy sites so soon.

Do you really believe all people are not really skeptical, unless paid to be so?

How do you explain all the Australians who were so not worried by AGW, they didn't all vote Greens?

If they were "really" worried, surely they would have, oh, I forgot, they are being paid to be skeptical.

No, I think a lot of folks who can't deal with people having a differing opinion can only assume there are nefarious forces at work.

Reducing CO2 in Australia, by taxing the blazes out of us, is irrelevant in the world. China and India will not be going there, so it's a folly.

Good article, but leaves a lot out too, Don is right, you need to see both sides of this, not just the continual blinkered view.

If our governments are serious about global warming - aren't all our government's problems all "global", especially those they cause themselves - Our governments continue to let "developers" destroy much of our forests, the one thing existing that rejuvenates the atmosphere, They export our coal to other countries some of which are very unconcerned about polution and the warming from that. Unfortunately I don't think that our politicans have the right perspective about doing anything right, the economy, the wellfare of the workers or the wellfare of our land, I haven't seen any example of such action, and I am very concerned.

Like Steven Meyer I had my schooling in S Africa - hoe gaan dit? But you seem a bit confused to me!

1. You say: "Well-established laws of basic physics suggest a significant impact on climate if we continue pumping CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere". Well, how significant? Have you done statistical analysis of the observed impact? It is actually statistically insignificant? The physics may well be sound, but the quantitative significance has never been demonstrated AND verified from observation, so you are wrong when you say "the evidence tends to support the physics". It does NOT. At the most obvious level the increases in [CO2] since 1900 is 40%, and the global mean temperature (GMT) rise has been just 0.7oC since then, within known error bands and natural variation. Ever taken your own temperature? Would a rise of 0.7oC kill you?

2. You are simply wrong when you say "The average lifetime of a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere is 60 - 100 years". The fact is that the stock of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 820 GtC at the moment and growing at just 0.4% p.a. on average since 1958. However about 15% comes down to earth and seas mainly by photosynthesis and/or dissolving in the oceans before being returned to the atmosphere by respiration and/or exhalation, which means the time for complete turnover of the stock is just 7 years. You as a physicist by training should know that CO2 is a well mixed gas in constant circulation, and manifestly the average life of any given molecule "up there" is just 7 years; the C molecules in our own bodies' bones have an average total life therein of say 80 years before "dust to dust" etc! Ja, get your facts straight, man!
[to be continued in next post]

Tom Tiddler's response to Steven Meyer (cont.)

3. Next, you say "the difficult to quantify risks coupled with the difficulty of reversing the effects of extra CO2 in the short term suggests that the only prudent response is to begin to take steps to reduce CO2 emissions". What about the risks of reducing world food production when CO2 emissions are cut? About 56% of annual emissions are taken up by increased photosynthesis (in addition to the annual cycle) (only 44% of emissions remain airborne, see Knorr GRL 2009). When [CO2] was only 280 ppm in 1750-1800, world population was only one billion and eating less pro rata than today's 7 billion. On average 40% of all cereal consumption comprises carbon. You did not know that did you? When James Hansen gets us back to 280 ppm from today's 390, what will the 9 billion around in 2050? If you are like most of the climate scientists and economists I know, eg Ross Garnaut, you could not care less. But I hope you are more compassionate.

4. You add "We may not know everything but we know enough to say that the risks of continuing with business as usual are high". Not true, they are not, Cape Town would do just fine even if temperatures did rise by 3oC as claimed by IPCC, you must remember as I do its very cold winters with snow not far inland. Glasgow (ave T <10oC) would do much better. Ever been to Dubai? there the ave T is about 30 oC p.a., 20oC higher than in Glasgow - more people have migrated there since 1970, many from Glasgow, than to Glasgow! Get rreal man!
As for your physics, that is a good exposition, but fatally, lacking any statistical proof. Have you ever regressed dT against d[CO2](i.e. annual atmospheric CO2) and d[H2O](i.e. annual change in atmospheric water vapour)? I have.
[to be continued]

[Tom Tiddler, cont.]

[Regressing changes in temperature against changes in [CO2] and H2O]...The d[CO2] has close to zero effect, the d[H2O] is preponderant, it is not a feedback as you claim but the prime mover, and d[CO2] has no impact on d[H2O] (which is mostly determined by dT and solar surface radiation, and d[CO2] has no discernible impact on dT anywhere on earth, least of all on dT at Mauna Loa, Pt Barrow, and Cape Grim where it is measured).

In short, good physics requires empirical/statistical confirmation. Of that there is none to show [CO2] plays any significant role in climate (which is no doubt why the 3,000 pages of IPCC AR4 display not a single regression result).

Tom Tiddler's alter ego is Tim Curtin. Email me (tcurtin <at> bigblue.net.au) for a copy of my regression results.

Steven, one of the key difficulties I have with your article is the volume of scientific evidence you have available yet still fall back on the precautionary principle.

The analogies you use with defense systems, interest rates and medical conditions are invalid. They are different because, unlike climate change, none of your analogies are the subject of a single entity (IPCC), selectively drawing on contaminated, singular perspective science. By your own acknowledgement, “Certain scientists have behaved badly. Some have fudged their data. The shocking behavior of some scientists does not alter the laws of physics.”

What you fail to recognize is that these are the very scientists that were the main contributors to the IPCC assements and upon which political decisions have been founded. They still refuse to release the data upon which they drew their conclusions, that they made every effort to exclude contrary scientific views and, with the support of those still proselytizing AGW, are still preventing any open debate on AGW.

This is a recent example for you to explain. Our PM has announced that the Productivity Commission will “examine climate change” Really? Does this mean that we will finally have an open and balance debate on the basis for AGW claims? No of course not.

What we will get is an inquiry to “calculate effective carbon prices” in other countries to make sure we will “not disadvantage Australia in relation to its trading partners”. It will draw heavily upon the “eight climate change papers by economist Ross Garnaut”. Well Steven, I guess that fixes the open and balanced debate.

There is no debate that will examine the basis for AGW, just an assumption close that AGW “is” so we will do something about it, your position exactly.

Why, if you accept “scientists behaving badly”, would you not support a full examination of the basis for their contaminated conclusions?

As an attempt to be logical and rational about an emotional subject for many people I thought this was a useful article.
I think the following sentence though is contrary to being rational: "However this has to be a global effort. Australia on its own can do nothing. We should follow, not attempt to lead." This is not a rational statement on a number of different levels:
Firstly if every country followed this approach then the problem would simply not be solved. It also ignores the difficulty in a country imploring others to take actions that it refuses to undertake itself.
Secondly in the business world if there is a new development or an emerging trend it is generally better to be part of it rather than waiting in the wings to play catch up later.
Thirdly in some contexts where this argument is used there is an implication that no other country is doing anything - this I believe to be far from the truth.
Finally in the age of spin I am amazed so few politicans are prepared to speak for all the advantages in moving to renewable energy - after all burning fossil fuels creates significant pollution and creates warring tensions as countries without oil seek to protect supplies.

Tom Tiddler/Tim Curtin ... ringing a bell:

http://tinyurl.com/Tom-Tiddler-and-Tim-Curtin

Did you have any luck getting 'that paper' published in a credible science journal (not Quadrant or Lavoisier)?

I don't normally "play the man", but Tim Curtin's brand of science has been addressed, rebuked and shown to be twaddle time and time again, yet he still keeps sprouting the same old same old.

Most people with any shred of reason would learn, grow and develop from their perseverance in trying to poke holes into AGW - Tim doesn't and as a consequence, is not held in any regard by real scientists in the subject fields.

Bonmot,

I hope other readers follow the link you posted. It shows the blogsite proprietor offering Tim Curtin a thread where he can defend his paper against criticism, and says, grandly, 'Tim, this is the only thread you are allowed to post on.' What condescension!

I will support anyone who takes the trouble to ask questions of the AGW orthodoxy, and battles with what is one of the most difficult, many-sided and messy domains in science, if only because the stakes have been said to be so high ('the future of humanity/the planet/etc'). Tim may be wrong, and since I know him slightly, I can say that he is looking for people to criticise his work rather than, as so many of the AGW persuasion seem to do, suggesting that it is the last word on the subject and that the rest of us should all just shut up.

I can't say that I have read every page of AR4, though I have read WG1 several times, but I did not see one regression analysis in its pages. And the funny thing is that over the past century the straightforward relationship of increasing CO2 to increasing temperature is at best moderate, as Tim says. Yes, reply the AGW crowd, and we have explanations for that. But none of the explanations is soundly based in data, and most depend hugely on climate models.

That is where people like Tim, and me, and many others, begin to get edgy, given that the future of humanity os said to be at stake...

Don Aitkin says: "But none of the explanations is soundly based in data, and most depend hugely on climate models."

This is wrong. Whether Don Aitkin (in making such misconstrued or distorted statements) does this intentionally or not doesn't really matter, he does so from "authority". As such he does real science (not political science) a disservice.

See and listen to a debate between Professors Andrew Dessler and Richard Lindzen here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9Sh1B-rV60

Andrew Dessler shows that the science IS soundly based on data, and is NOT dependent hugely on climate models.

Shrode, you write like a new feller, what I mean is a feller who has never really studied history.

Must say I've had to study history mostly in my later life, having had to leave school at 13 early in the Great Depression to drive a wagon team carting bagged wheat to the nearest railway siding.

However, the older I get, it seems the more philosophical I get, remembering my days of clearing after WW2 with a crawler tractor, telling my young wife how it was so wonderful to now be able to view the railway siding over 12 miles away.

But her answer was that if I destroyed any more of the young salmon gums which she liked to view from the kitchen window, she was catching the next train back to her family in Perth.

Looking back from my ninetieth year, present fears of Gobal
Warming remind me of learning about the Industrial Revolution when fortunate man was able to chuck aside the axe and spade to let motorisation make for a much easier earthly life.

But after a further 200 years since the entry of motorisation, any farmer who has cleared land knows philosophically that man is now caught in the Thrill of the Earthly Chase, similar to a young feller telling a copper that making a vehicle roar like a wounded animal made one feel like on top of the world.

As I now have 15 great grandkids and no doubt more to come after I've gone, one trembles a bit worrying about their future, and of course this world's future?

bonmot, sheltering behind anonymity while indulging in personal abuse, as usual! And so useless you cannot even set up an anonymous email address so that you can ask for my regressions and address them rather than offer only ad homs.

Be that as it may, Dessler & Wong 2009 and the rest of his work consists 99% of models devoid of any data analysis at all, let alone regressions. They compare their models with other models. That is NOT statistical validation. But you would't know what that is would you?

I have a problem with this.

As I tend to do, whenever the content of the message depends entirely on the messenger.

With all the hot air being vented, the only surprise is that our climate does not yet resemble that of our near neighbour, Venus.

http://www.universetoday.com/36296/climate-of-venus/

"Venus used to have an atmosphere similar to our own. But at some point in Venus’ past, its global magnetosphere shut down. Without this global force field, the Sun‘s solar wind was able to reach the planet and tear away at its atmosphere, stripping away the lighter atoms. The lightest atom is hydrogen, of course, one of the constituents of water. Recent observations by ESA’s Venus Express showed that this process is still going on today. 2 x 1024 atoms of hydrogen are being blasted off Venus into space every second."

So I guess the next question must be, how good are we at protecting our magnetosphere?

Any thoughts?

Stephen, you stopped your physics a bit too soon mate. Yes before you got to the bit that says a cooler body can not transfer heat to a warmer body. That kind of stops heat coming back from the atmosphere.

Then we had those leading climate scientists , who were a "bit naughty", telling lies fudging, [that means falsifying in fact] data & such like. Then you say something about that not effecting the science. Sorry mate, that doesn't hold water.

What you have to ask is, why those naughty blokes fudged their data, & that answer gives you set & match conclusion on the topic.

They did not falsify dater because it supported their hypothesis, for that's all it is. They cheated because the data was disproving it. Hide the decline is far from hard to understand, I would have thought.

So mate, nicely put, but all wrong, because you didn't go far enough.

Go a bit further with your explanation, & if you can get it to hold water, try again. I for one am easily convinced, if you have convincing evidence.

Bonmot:

You say that I am wrong to argue that outcomes are largely based on models, and go on:

'Whether Don Aitkin (in making such misconstrued or distorted statements) does this intentionally or not doesn't really matter, he does so from "authority". As such he does real science (not political science) a disservice.'

But, bonmot, how am I arguing from 'authority'? I have seen the debate you refer to, and the participants disagree about this very matter. If you prefer one to the other that is your choice, and you are entitled to make it. But your choice does not show that the other was wrong!

It is because of the way in which quite reasonable scientists argue to different conclusions from the same set of data, and have nothing but recourse to the use of models, in some cases, that in my view the science is not settled at all.

Over the last few decades living standards in Asia have risen considerably. To deny many more millions this right on the premise that we 'might' be warming the planet is ridiculous and immoral. The likes of Flannery, Gore and Dick Smith want to preach to others while consuming more carbon credits in a week than most could in a life time. Added to this the lame duck US President has shown that he has no intention of doing anything about the US consumption except talk rhetoric (like Mr Rudd who would not even risk an election on the issue). Many of the 'science is settled brigade' continue on with the hide of rhinos refusing to be embarassed by false claims and ridiculous predictions. Politicians claim the bushfires in Victoria were a result of gw knowing full well that their failed Green policies (refusal to burn off) were far more responsible than some myth. Australians are being shown to be gullible fools in racing ahead so as to pay even more for electricity and gas.

Steven Meyer is a qualified physist, Banker, Insurance person and Water?Energy?communications? person without any qualifications to lecture us all on Climate Science.

I suspect Steven's major in Physics isn't related to the topic he lectures us on. I might be wrong but I suspect if he was a climate scientist he'd have highlighted it in his resume.

Oh dear oh dear is the well shrinking?

Ho hum bitey, bon mot and others

Thank you for your kind words.

A few comments:

GREENHOUSE EFFECT

The fact of the greenhouse effect is not disputed by any serious scientist who has studied the atmosphere. It’s been understood for decades. The study of the atmospheric greenhouse effect long predates the current controversy about AGW.

While I have simplified – perhaps oversimplified - the mechanism it is as I’ve described. This too is not doubted by any physicists who have studied the atmosphere. It really is very basic physics. Most of the effects I’ve described can be reproduced in the lab and are as a matter of routine.

Below is a link to the Britannica article on the atmospheric greenhouse effect for those who are interested.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/245233/greenhouse-effect

I learned long ago that people will believe what they want to believe. So if you choose to disbelieve well-established basic science so be it. There’s nothing I can do about it.

But if you sincerely want to understand the physics underpinning the greenhouse effect here is my challenge to you. Many universities – eg Melbourne - have an “ask the expert” section on their website. Phone and ask someone to explain the atmospheric greenhouse effect.

And if you are not prepared to do the “hard yards” of trying to understand the science that what weight should I place on your “contribution” to the AGW debate?

DON AITKIN

It works like this. The moisture carrying capacity of the atmosphere depends on temperature. In simple terms, add some CO2 and average temperature rises. This tends to increase the level of atmospheric water vapour. Water vapour, being a greenhouse gas, induces a further temperature rise. And so on.

However every “iteration” adds less water vapour so the result is not a runaway chain reaction but a magnification of the effect. Hence no “catastrophe” but more warming.

On the whole I agree that I have not said enough about the uncertainties involved. My original piece was 4,000 words. Graham cut it to 1,600.
In my defence my first section was called “Decision making under uncertainty”.

IPCC

I have little confidence in the IPCC process. and have not quoted it. Rajendra Pachauri, the current president of the IPCC, should be sacked for allowing in the claim that the Himalayan glaciers would be gone by 2035. Use little more than high school physics I was able to demonstrate that this was a wildly improbable claim.

I have not quoted the IPCC in this piece.

CLIMATE MODELS

I have even less confidence in climate models than in the IPCC process. I have made no use of the results of climate models in my piece either.

TOM TIDDLER

Dit gaan goed, dankie.

I said basic physics suggests a significant impact as a result of adding CO2. The planet is a complicated place. It may not conform to theory in the sense that that there may be negative feedbacks that limit the effects of the added CO2.

You have put your finger on what ought to be the crux of the debate.

Given that there is a greenhouse effect what will be the impact of adding to one of the greenhouse gases, CO2?

In trying to answer this question we face the following difficulties:

--The effects could appear over a period of decades. The Earth is a big place and responds slowly.

--There is some natural variability in climate anyway. We are trying to detect an additional effect over and above natural variability.

You can think of it as trying to detect a weak signal against a noisy background. We want to detect the weak signal before it becomes strong.

EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF THE SIGNAL
To me the most convincing evidence of the existence of the “signal” is events around the Northern polar regions. This is the region that is most likely to be affected by global warming. What we see is a diminishing polar icecap and the spread of vegetation northwards.

NB This is not the only evidence

In fact, if the Earth does heat up there will be winners and losers. The big winners will be Russia, Canada and the countries of Northern Europe. The northern states of the US – especially Alaska – will benefit but the more southerly states may become unliveable.

My feeling is that Australia will be a net loser simply because of the latitudes we occupy.

I have not mentioned rising sea levels. The usual estimate is about 20 cm for this century. However glaciers in Greenland and other far Northern regions do seem to be moving faster than expected. Perhaps we should prepare for rises of around a metre.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

I have focused on the science, not on the policy implications. Australia should not attempt to make a show of combating climate change on its own merely so that Rudd / Gillard / Brown can strut the world stage wrapped in their own self-righteousness. In this matter we need to be a follower, not a leader.

Most of the policy responses so far such as putting photo-voltaics on rooftops have been looney tunes stuff. They will cost a lot of money and have limited if any impact on emissions.

THE GREENS

The Greens and their self-righteousness are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

What I find interesting is that the most fervent Greenies are the most ignorant of basic physics. It is something they share with many posters here. About one on five can give a coherent explanation of the greenhouse effect they purport to believe in so fervently.

And now to work

Again, clear and succinct - thanks Steven.

To Don Aitkin: the Youtube link also showed a presentation by a lawyer and an economist. In fact, the whole presentation was premised on "uncertainty and risk" (aversion). My point (to counter your assertion) was that much of the work done by 'climate' scientists is in fact based on observation, data collection and its analysis - not just models. It would also be wrong to suggest models can't or shouldn't be used to "explain" things, they obviously are.

Moreover, there are far too many people Don, that take "the science is settled" meme out of the context in which it applies. Science is NEVER settled (if it was many of us would be out of a job) and those that regurgitate the meme are either distorting the meaning in which it is said, or are extremely disingenuous in their criticism of it.

Steven - generally a good and sensible summary article , and response to the discussion here, thanks. However there are a couple of places where I think the case is stronger than you make.

First, the allegations that scientists fudged data that (otherwise) disproved their hypothesis have been examined by three committees, including one of distinguished independent scientists, and found wanting. The scientists' remarks were made in a context in which denialists were (and are) trying by any nefarious means to discredit them. The "remove the decline" remark referred to a minor part of the data that were covered by other observations, not to overall global warming/cooling. No published work was affected by the alleged misbehaviour. See my summary at http://betternature.wordpress.com/2010/04/19/climate-science-exonerated/, with other links .

The hysterical disinformation campaign about "climategate" has had its intended effect - to distract the world from the real science, which continues to be very concerning. Those who disbelieve the committees' conclusions are merely indulging in a grand conspiracy theory - that no scientist can be trusted.

Second, there are very sensible arguments that Australia can cut its greenhouse emissions for little cost to the economy, by eliminating highly wasteful practices that actually waste money as well as energy. See http://betternature.wordpress.com/2009/11/02/cut-emissions-and-boost-economy/ .

Unfortunately the Government is giving such efforts a bad name by picking some of the worst possibilities for window dressing. It doesn't want to actually reduce emissions because that would upset its coal industry sponsors. Regarding the Greens, Christine Milne has some very sensible proposals.

Re SM: “ … It really is very basic physics. Most of the effects I’ve described can be reproduced in the lab and are as a matter of routine.”
When? Where? Arrhenius never could or did. It is a theory that has yet to be verified and my own regressions fail to confirm the theory, as there is zilch statistically significant evidence of a correlation between changes in atmospheric co2 and changes in temperature at Mauna Loa, Pt Barrow, and Cape Grim, all pristine locations far from towns and airports, which is why they were selected for measuring CO2. If the theory is valid, it should be confirmed at these locations but it is not, far from it.
Then you said: “We are trying to detect an additional effect over and above natural variability.

You can think of it as trying to detect a weak signal against a noisy background. We want to detect the weak signal before it becomes strong”.

My regressions find a huge signal from changes in [H2O] that largely arise from in situ (not TOA) daytime solar radiation that cannot be attributed to human influence – as Piet Tans (MLSO) puts it: ““global annual evaporation equals ~500,000 billion metric tons. Compare that to fossil CO2 emissions of ~8.5 billion ton C/year”. Evaporation and precipitation (i.e. [H2O]) are not feedbacks but prime movers.
SM added: “the most convincing evidence of the existence of the “signal” is events around the Northern polar regions. This is the region that is most likely to be affected by global warming. What we see is a diminishing polar icecap and the spread of vegetation northwards”.
There is no Arctic warming in the Arctic in terms of rising land temperatures. What we did see (until recently) is warmer incoming ocean currents depending on the phases of the NOA PDO and ENSO cycles, none of which can be plausibly attributed to the global monotonic (i.e. non-cyclical) increases in [CO2].

Bonmot: “My point (to counter [Don Aitkin’s] assertion) was that much of the work done by 'climate' scientists is in fact based on observation, data collection and its analysis…” There is an amazing absence of actual data in AR4, and no sign of regression results. Hegerl, Allen, Karoly, Tett, Stott et al. (all involved in WG1 Chap 9) show no sign they are aware of spurious correlations and multi-collinearity and of tests thereof, they never report R2 or t-stats. They ignore almost all natural sources of climate change other than TOA solar irradiance and volcanic eruptions, and their “data” on sulphate aerosols appear to be fictitious, as they cite no sources other than their models, where SO2 is at whatever level is needed to validate their CO2 effects on temperature. Thus if dT is less than they expect from d[CO2], then that is the measure of d[SO2]. If that is not circular what would be?

Not only that, very successful efforts almost everywhere except China (emissions up by 27% from 2000 to 2006) and India have greatly reduced emissions of SO2, eg. by 60% from the 1980 level in UK, (33% in USA 1983-2002), where the legal clean air limit is 100 ppb (cf CO2 actual 390 ppm). The result is a reduction in the cooling effect of [SO2], which raises the apparent warming from [CO2], but that will taper off as [SO2] is further reduced and [CO2] increases at only 0.41% p.a. My regressions take [SO2] into effect, but I see you are not interested.

Thank you Steven, you have clarified the issues very well, at least for me.
What is fascinating is not the scientific debate but the non-scientific and barely rational reactions on both sides. Both are well represented in the comments.
I very much like the way you have stuck to the science and avoided the politics. Quite a few scientists have damaged their reputations by failing to do that.
Politicians make bad scientists and scientists make bad politicians.

Tim/Tom: On the contrary, I am very interested in the statistical analysis of our climate data, and how it is applied. However, it is deceiving to the readers here to assert “there is an amazing absence of actual data in AR4, and no sign of regression results”. You would (or should) be aware that much of the data (and analysis) is contained in the very many papers that the IPCC references.

I would agree that the “statistics” needs to be explained more fully in AR5, and I am of the understanding it will. However, to carry on as though you have ‘discovered’ something that the experts in their respective fields are unaware of is simply the arrogant hubris of ‘look at me, look at me’.

But, I may be wrong – so prove it. Write that paper and submit it to the appropriate journal. It is not enough, really, to jump on the internet and spout your opinions and expect the world’s experts to stop, look and listen (I doubt very much they are watching anyway) particularly on ‘opinion sites’ like this. They have more important things to do with their lives.

I have read enough of your ‘comments’ (here and elsewhere) to come to my own opinion, Tim. I suggest you examine the work of people like Ammann, Wahl, Ruppert, Carroll, Akritas, Cubasch, and others. You may discover you have not re-invented the wheel. I encourage you to keep trying though, that is what the scientific method and the peer review process is all about. Best wishes.

Bonmot: thanks, I have submitted my paper, and await its rejection! You know how to ask for a copy, and it shall be sent to you. BTW, at Bart Verheggen's Blog <My View on Climate Change> there are several very perceptive comments yesterday by a Steve Fitzpatrick all of which are confirmed by my ongoing regressions in my next paper.

Likewise at WUWT yesterday/today you can find Richard Lindzen's testimony at Congress on Wednesday, and I could almost sue for plagiarism! - in fact of course all my paper does is provide extensive empirical support.

Geoff, you're being more than a little disingenuous, here.

Firstly, you might acknowledge that Lord Oxburgh has a massive vested interest in exonerating (more on that later) Phil Jones and his cronies, including paid directorships of two renewable energy companies, a paid advisorships to Climate Change Capital, the Low Carbon Initiative, Evo-Electric, Fujitsu, and is an environmental advisor to Deutsche Bank.

Also, the actual scientists on Oxburgh's panel, such as Michael Kelly and Graeme Stringer, both dissented quite strongly with the majority findings.

Finally there is the slightly eyebrow-raising admission by an investigating panel - whose examination amounted to little more than asking those accused if they had done anything wrong, then giving them a pat on the head when they replied, 'no, sir! Honest, sir!') that the panel's remit didn't extend to examining the actual science!

Then there is your use of the word 'exonerated': the investigation into Jones' treatment of FOI requests concluded that he had broken the law, but that the statute of limitations meant that he could no longer be charged. Also, the investigation criticized the scientists involved in 'climategate' for 'a reprehensible culture of withholding information', and also noted that in an area of research that relied heavily on difficult statistical methods, they had failed to collaborate with professional statisticians.

Seems even the most heavily stacked whitewashing crew had to admit that something was rotten in Denmark.

Regarding your second claim that 'Australia can cut its greenhouse emissions for little cost to the economy', reports that make such claims, such as Zero Carbon Australia's, or the Stern report, have been heavily criticized by economists for their fanciful assumptions and dubious conclusions.

Ken Nielsen

Thank you for your kind words

Geoff Davies:

Excerpt of email from Phil Jones, 16 Nov 1999.

Start

Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,

Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow. I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd (sic) from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

End:

Good scientists do not usually use tricks to hide data in scientific papers. Phil Jones ought to be sacked. Any inquiry which “clears” him is itself discredited. The recipients of this email – which includes Michael Mann of “hockey stick” fame – likewise cannot be trusted. They should have blown the whistle on Jones.

Climate scientists need to clean house in order to regain their credibility.

Geoff

Fossil fuel companies are behaving like cigarette companies before them – they are spreading “FUD” (fear, uncertainty and doubt). Like big tobacco they have their useful idiots who repeat their disinformation parrot fashion. All this is to be expected. After all if we are attacking their livelihoods.

Think about this Geoff. How would you react if your livelihood was threatened?

However we need to be certain that the good guys, the scientists, really are the good guys. At the moment some of them are proving to be as shonky as the “merchants of doubt” employed by the fossil fuel companies. There is enough genuine uncertainty in any case. We should not have to worry about whether climate scientists are fudging their data.

Keeping Phil Jones as head of the Climate Research Unit is like keeping a player against whom there is credible evidence of match fixing on your cricket team.

Tom Tiddler

Bonmot has said what I intended to say. Submit your research to a reputable peer reviewed journal. I look forward to reading it.

Here’s the thing, Tom, I am not a climate change ideologue. I would prefer if there was no such thing. If you can demonstrate that my fears are groundless I would be delighted.

But, with respect to the various posters who have impugned my understanding of the physics, I do understand the physics of the greenhouse effect. It is as I have described it. Therefore, even if there were no evidence of AGW I would be concerned about the effects of adding ever more CO2 to the atmosphere.

However if there were no evidence of global warming I would be less concerned. I would figure there are probably negative feedback mechanisms of which we are unaware that mitigate the effects of added CO2 and suggest we try and find them.

But, despite your comments, and despite the HUGE inherent uncertainties, there IS evidence – especially in the north polar regions that the planet is warming up and the most liely cause is AGW.

One of the most dramatic examples concerns vegetation in Alaska. Starting in in 1944 the US Navy undertook a detailed aerial survey of parts of Alaska. The survey was repeated in recently and showed clearly that vegetation has responded to warming over a period of decades. (See for example Arctic Plants, Scientific American, May 2010).

Tom, any individual example from glaciers moving faster to changes in polar ice cover can be dismissed. The totality of the evidence is harder to dismiss. Thus I stick to my thesis.

--The claims of climate scientists notwithstanding, AGW has not been proved beyond all reasonable doubt.

--The underlying physics of the greenhouse effect makes it reasonable to suppose that adding CO2 to the atmosphere would have a significant effect on climate.

--The claims of the many sceptics notwithstanding, if we look at the available evidence as a whole (no cherry picking) it tends to support the underlying physics.

But I look forward to reading you paper.

Bonmot

I do think Tom Tiddler has a point. We should be gathering data more intensively. Climate modeling is not a substitute for hard data.

For instance, I would dearly like to know more about trends in subsurface marine temperatures at the poles. That would provide a better indication of what is happening than the rather shonky global average temperatures we generally use.

The trouble is that data gathering is expensive and budgets constrained.

As it happens I came across this interesting piece in the NY Times. It illustrates how our ability to gather data is degrading.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/science/earth/14ice.html

Tom Tiddler (again)

Re replicating greenhouse effect in the lab.

Professor David Archer at U Chicago has his physics students doing lab experiments to illustrate the greenhouse effect. That's how routine this has become. We've moved on since Arrhenius.

Just to be clear, the experiments are NOT intended to "prove" AGW but to demonstrate the physical principle underlying the global greenhouse effect.

To all:

Once you accept that the greenhouse effect is real - and there's no doubt about that - then you have to ask yourself what happens when you increase the atmospheric concentration of the second most important of the greenhouse gases.

So what do you guys think happens?

Stephen - a belated comment.. a better article than most as you actually show some understanding of how the climate models work. Congratulations. However, you say that the physics says that there is a feeback effect from water vapour.
Sorry, but that's an assumption. It was an assumption built into the first model which has been repeated in all the others. Whether it is happening or not is strongly debated. The degree of feedback has been subject to claim and counterclaim, but I'm not aware of any argument that directly supports it and there is some evidnece that water vapour in the upper reaches of the atmosphere is just not foillowing script.

Steve, thanks - but does Professor David Archer at U Chicago do his lab experiments to illustrate the greenhouse effect with just 390 ppm?

You added: "Once you accept that the greenhouse effect is real - and there's no doubt about that..."

Really? the issue is by how much the effect is real, for it can be very true but of trivial quantitative significance. That is what my regressions paper shows. Email me and I send it to you.

You went on "then you have to ask yourself what happens when you increase the atmospheric concentration of the second most important of the greenhouse gases". My regression paper answers: nothing much, and certainly NOTHING of statistical significance. Water vapour totally overwhelms [CO2].

You end "So what do you guys think happens?"

Business as usual, and no climate change, of which there has been none that is measurable since 1900 over 110 years, but lots of decadal variability up and down. There is NO evidence GMT has been higher 2000-2010 than it was in 1900-1910 as the instrumental record for the latter covered less than 20% of the globe and excluded virtually the whole of Africa (except Cairo and your Cape Town), most of Central America, and nearly all of SE Asia. All those regions are hot, so the recorded GMT for 1900-1910 is grossly understated. Bring them in and the Gistemp rise in GMT of 0.7 oC for 1900 to 2000 disappears.

Email me (tcurtin at bigblue.net.au) and I will send you NOAA/NCDC maps of the coverage.

Steven-
If you read the report of the scientific enquiry you could confirm that "trick" was used in the sense of "ingenious procedure", not in the sense of "deceitful massaging". It was a private conversation between familiars, the context of which was entirely ignored by those who promoted the story of misbehaviour. I'm surprised you're not willing to look further and reconsider. The conclusion remains that no published work was affected by *alleged* misbehaviour.

I'm also surprised you make excuses for fossil fuel companies. Of course I *understand* why they behave the way they do. That doesn't change the gross irresponsibility of their behaviour.

Clownfish-
As I noted, the fall back here is the grand conspiracy. Do you also worry about ExxonMobil's very much greater vested interest and their deliberate and well-documented disinformation campaign?

You didn't make clear which of the three investigating panels you were referring to in your various comments. It's true not all of them looked at the science.

There were two questions addressed - (1) was the science fudged and (2) was information withheld? These are distinct questions. There was some question raised about the legality of withholding information, but that doesn't at all imply the science was fudged. There has not been a tradition among scientists of automatically making public every last detail of their work at the scale demanded by some, and 20 years ago these scientists had no idea there would be an issue. Now they know better. FOI laws were made to cover political decision processes, and applying them to science is something new for which they are not necessarily appropriate. You can rage in indignation, but even if you had a reasonable case, which I don't think is the case, it still doesn't invalidate the published science.

Just because they might have been in breach of some rules made for politicians and bureaucrats does not make them evil, and automatically wrong in everything they have ever done. Except to diehards who are only interested in discrediting them by any means.

A statistician pointed out to the scientists that there were some better statistical tools available than the ones they had used. The scientists have acknowledged that and are using them. That is the normal process of science - people find better ways to do things.

If you want to quote "economists" you need to specify which ones. Mainstream free market economics is the most amazing collection of pseudo-science I've even come across - you can read my analysis at length in my book Economia http://betternature.wordpress.com/booksanddownloads/economia/ . The simple fact is that many dramatic energy efficiencies have been demonstrated in the real world. We just need to spread them around, we don't need fancy theory.

Geoff Davies: You are being seriously disingenuous when you say 'If you read the report of the scientific enquiry you could confirm that "trick" was used in the sense of "ingenious procedure", not in the sense of "deceitful massaging"'.

Mann, Bradley (well known plagiarist) and Hughes (1998) had claimed that their tree rings had disposed of the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age, so we had a hockey stick long handle until 1900, when suddenly a hockey stick short blade arose.

Problem arose when from 1960 the tree rings disclosed no blade. The trick was to replace the continuing tree ring handle with an instrumental (thermometer) blade.

If this was not intellectual dishonesty, what would be?

You cannot honestly use tree rings to dispose of the well-attested MWP 1000-1300 and then drop those tree rings when they fail to show warming after 1960.

Tom, you're wasting your time trying to use reason with these people.

As the old one goes, there is none so stupid as those who refuse to hear. They are quite pitiful really.

They may be plain stupid, fellow traveling rip of merchants, or people who's careers are now dependant on the con, but whatever it is, reason has no place in their thinking today.

Geoff

Your defence of Phil Jones is taurine fertilizer. I’ve heard it ad nauseam and I find it quite insulting that anyone would think I am that stupid.

It is one thing to be insulted by the “know nothing, don’t want to know anything, made up my mind, never mind the evidence, I’m an expert on physics, it’s all a conspiracy” mob. I take that from whence it comes.

But to be fed this pap by people who really ought to know better is beyond the pale.

The word “trick” has a legitimate usage in scientific discourse as in “a clever trick to solve a mathematical problem”. The proof of Pythagoras’ theorem involves a clever trick. I do not object to the use of the word “trick”. I object to the use of the word trick juxtaposed with the word hide in connection with the display of data in a scientific paper.

Here is what Jones wrote:

“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd (sic) from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

The only reasonable construction I can place on this is as follows:

Jones was aware of some data that contradicted the thesis of some paper he planned to publish. He employed a “trick” – one used by Michael Mann of hockey stick fame – to hid a decline in temperature.

In other words, in plain English, he set out to fudge his results.

This one email absolutely discredits both Jones and Mann. They are now damaged goods. Every day they remain at their posts damages the reputation of the entire discipline. That is a fact. It may not be a fact that you like; but it is nonetheless a fact. Call it an “INCONVENIENT TRUTH” if you like.

Do me one favour. Refrain from trying to defend those two shyster scientists to me. The mere mention of their names makes my blood boil. I’d like to kick them both in the you-know-whats

Geoff, let's examine two quotes first:

'If you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid - not only what you think is right about it' - Richard Feynman.

'Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?' - Phil Jones.

Whom do you think is the more honest scientist?

Anyways, you want names, huh? (I'm sure it would be purely pedantic of me to ask for the names of the 'vast majority' of scientists you lot keep banging on about ... but I digress).

Richard Tol, who supports emission reduction, accused Stern of systematic selection bias, and called his report 'alarmist and incompetent'. William Nordhaus called it 'absurd'. Nigel Lawson said that, 'if I had to sum up the Stern report in a single word, I would say it is fraudulent,' and compared it to Tony Blair's infamous Iraq dossier.

As for the Zero Carbon Australia report, that was roundly criticized right here on OLO. But, of course, you'll say, there's those wicked skeptics again.

Now let us examine the three inquiries into 'climategate' (ghastly word, but sadly it stuck): the first, the Science and Technology Committee, was a government committee set up to report on government policy, on the eve of an election - surely only a die-hard cynic would question its rigour! Nonetheless, committee member Graham Stringer - the only scientist on the Science and Technology Committee - made some strongly dissenting opinions, and called its result 'an inadequate report that doesn’t do the job'.

The laughably named 'Science Assessment Panel' who chaired by the hopelessly compromised Lord Oxburgh, who later admitted that 'the science was not the subject of our study.' However, the dissenting notes from Michael Kelly make interesting reading: 'I think it is easy to see how peer review within tight networks can allow new orthodoxies to appear and get established.' And this: 'I take real exception to having simulation runs described as experiments ... It does a disservice to centuries of real experimentation and allows simulations output to be considered as real data. This last is a very serious matter, as it can lead to the idea that real "real data" might be wrong simply because it disagrees with the models!'

The final report, chaired by Muir Russell, and featuring such 'independent' members as vocal climate alarmist Richard Horton and climate change advisor and UEA Old Boy Geoffrey Boulton, essentially relied solely on the evidence of the accused. No dissenting voices were heard.

The Muir Russell report has been criticised by Graham Stringer as inadequate and a failure. Even Phil Willis, former chair of the Science and Technology Committee, was dismayed, and called it 'sleight of hand'.

Finally, you can bleat all you like about FOI, but the fact remains that Phil Jones broke the law. Are you really fine with that?

Steven: your comment http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11244#189789

Sorry Steven, this is where you are going off the rails. Yes, Phil Jones was working on a paper, with Keith Briffa no less. You do however conflate the "trick" and unfortunately (like so many others) misinterpret "hide the decline" (btw, the ‘decline’ hasn’t been ‘hidden’, there is much literature on it).

"Hide the decline" is all to do with the significance of the "divergence problem”. The reliability (of the method) is tested by omitting some of the instrumental data and seeing how a reconstruction matches the known climate at some past time (comparing with studies from volcanic residue, micro-flora, isotopes, etc).

Reconstructions can be tested against historical sources of climate information that go back centuries, and overall reliability is tested with different methodologies, and with different proxy choices (tree rings, corals, ice cores, ocean sediments, stalagmites, etc). If they vary widely, then proxy reconstructions wouldn’t be very reliable. However, if they are consistent then we can have confidence they’re robust. That’s why Michael Mann's "hockey stick” wasn't so important in AR4 – there’s dozens of hockey sticks, from many different proxies and from many different sources, that all show the same thing – the warming trend is up. Sure, the methodology of any proxy reconstruction is complicated (I’m no expert) – but, the principles are not - you should understand this.

Obviously, uncertainties do increase the further you go back in time - and the ‘divergence problem’ for trees less than 50 yrs old is problematic and further research is required to explain the ‘divergence’ – but you don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. Much of the misinformation (intentional or otherwise) that surrounds this issue is because people mistake a reconstruction of the past with a present ‘attribution’ – and of course, that’s impossible.

You have run a great thread so far Steven, it would be a shame to see you fall down because off preferential bias or inadvertent misinterpretation of a few hacked emails.

Steven-
Well if that's your position there's not much more to be said. You're emotionally attached to your position. However if you're not totally closed, you might look at the account at http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/09/climategate-bogus-sceptics-lies.

The "decline" was in temperatures inferred from a small group of tree-ring data from a particular area that, unlike most tree-ring data, did not correlate with actual temperature measurements in the same area. The real data were used in global syntheses, so the treatment of that small group of tree-ring data had no effect at all on global syntheses. And this was all in 1999, before the more recent alleged "decline" in global temperature had become apparent, so the remark could not have referred to that.

As to the "hockey stick", those analyses have been reworked with more sophisticated methods and the broad conclusion has survived that the medieval warm period was not as warm as the present.

I think there is little basis for your colourful language, however cleverly disguised. Certainly you need to look at more than one sentence out of any context before you condemn so totally.

Steven, this may help put Geoff's last post in perspective.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009/

Clownfish -
Nordhaus, for one, has been on record for a long time claiming that reducing emissions would be hideously expensive, even though people have been demonstrating he's wrong for a long time. "Never mind the facts, what does the theory say?"

My view greatly precedes the Zero Carbon Australia report, and there are many other and better accounts, which you could see at the links I provided if you cared.

For the rest, I don't propose to rake over all the same things that have been well raked over. You have your view of the people involved - the great conspiracy. Scientists are imperfect and your kind take any imperfection as reason to dismiss all of their, and everyone's, work. You didn't respond to my query about the imperfections of ExxonMobil.

Steven, Geoff and others

'Climategate' a year on:

http://climatesight.org/2010/11/17/the-real-story-of-climategate/

Quite a good precis'

Geoff: The issue is whether any set of tree rings replicates the instrumental GMT since 1960. If not, then a set for 1000-1300 cannot be used to eliminate the MWP.

Congrats Steven on your first article on OLO. I note that you’ve been a poster for a long time, since May 07.

You wrote:

<< Yes there are many uncertainties and anomalies but, taken as a whole, the evidence tends to support the physics. The case for anthropogenic global warms (AGW) has not been made beyond all reasonable doubt; but the preponderance of evidence points in the direction of human induced global warming. That is the best we can ever hope to do. To expect more is unrealistic. >>

Agreed. That is about the best we can hope for.

<< The definite albeit difficult to quantify risks coupled with the difficulty of reversing the effects of extra CO2 in the short term suggests that the only prudent response is to begin to take steps to reduce CO2 emissions. We may not know everything but we know enough to say that the risks of continuing with business as usual are high. >>

I find it absolutely crazy that anyone can suggest that AGW is not real or if it is that it is not significant and we don’t need to act on it. The physics and the simple fact that we humans are releasing carbon that has been locked up for millions of years at the most massive rate has got to point in one direction – probable significant climate change, and an urgent need for us to change our ways.

Of COURSE we should be erring on the side of caution when dealing with things that we don’t fully understand or can’t fully quantify but which have huge potential negative consequences.

I see the whole denialist camp and the skeptic's-let’s-do-nothing-until-the evidence-is-totally-convincing camp as being off their rockers.

Of COURSE we should act on this issue.

continued

I’m a skeptic, but I think that we should be acting to reduce GHG emissions just as strongly as the most ardent climate change fearer….and that is with a totally full-on effort.

Do we really need to go into a critical examination of the data and how it might be interpreted? I don’t think so. We should move fully into sustainability mode. As it concerns climate change, this means the obvious - reducing our use of fossil fuels, implementing alternatives and reducing pre-capita consumption. Oh, and striving to stabilise the number of ‘capitas’.

Addressing climate change is intimately linked to addressing the even bigger issue of continuous human expansion and sustainability. We’ve got to address population growth and per-capita consumption rates. This sits at the most fundamental level of governance and the protection of a healthy future. Addressing climate change is just one part of this.

<< However this has to be a global effort. Australia on its own can do nothing. We should follow, not attempt to lead. >>

Don’t want to end on a negative note, but I think that we should be leading as best we can by way of developing and demonstrating technological and sociological advances, which we CAN do without putting ourselves at an economic disadvantage. We should definitely not just sit back and follow.

PS Geoff Davies, are you the author of Economia (ABC Publishing 2004)?

Ludwig-
Yes, that's me of Economia. See more stuff at http://betternature.wordpress.com/ .

bonmot -
Yes, thanks for the link to the summary of 'climategate', which has further links. I think this deserves to be known as the greatest beat-up of modern times, the Big Lie of the 21st century, the greatest and most consequential fuss over the least significant words.

Tom Tiddler -
Yes, do you think you're the only one to think of that question? Most of the modern tree-ring data do correlate with instrumental records. One small group did not, so the scientists set about figuring out why.

Geoff, don't be so coy. Please name the tree rings (with their locations)that correlate with instrumental temperatures at those locations since 1960. If there were any I am sure we would have heard about them. As there were and are none, end of story.

There seems to be some well informed folk here maybe someone can answer a question for me?

Something that puzzles me and I have not been able to find anyone who seems able/willing to answer is;

For many millions (maybe billions?) of years plants have been dying and laying down deposits of coal, oil, peat etc.
Humans come along and dig all this stored energy up and “use” it in various forms.
Much of this produces “waste” heat (ie IR radiation) that is released close to the surface of the earth.

If the warming that has occurred in the last 100 years is about 0.7 degrees C per century (I seem to recall this is the current estimate) – how much of that can be attributed to the energy that has been stored for a long time in the earth and released in the last 100 years or so?

Is anyone aware of how (if at all) the climate science orthodoxy take this into account in their theory/models?

I can see implications for both sides of the debate - I look forward to informed explanation.

James

I'm afraid that my day job is interfering with my online pontificating.

Ludwig,

Thank you for your kind words.

I'll respond to the rest as soon as possible

JacobusZeno, interesting point about the constant production of heat due to the burning of fossil fuels.

I don't think I've ever seen this mentioned before. The whole kaboodle has been about the greenhouse radiation-trapping effect of CO2, and CH4, H2O, etc.

I've got no idea of whether the direct release of heat energy could be significant. But I can't imagine how the release of all this stored up carbon, over such a tiny timeframe geological speaking could possibly not be having a very significant greenhouse effect on temperature and climate.

I'd be interested to hear more about 'waste' heat. But not overly so. Even if some expert asserts that it is or isn't significant, we can't be sure, and someone else will probably produce a conflicting opinion and data set.

As I've said, we should just be well and truly erring on the side of caution regardless, unless we absolutely know that AGW is not significant, which of course we don't and won't be able to.

This is a toned down alarmist support article, and pretends to be even handed.

Let us look for the weasel words which are inevitable in this type of article.

Here we are; “The case for anthropogenic global warming (AGW) has not been made beyond all reasonable doubt; but the preponderance of evidence points in the direction of human induced global warming”

What is wrong with this statement?

We are talking about science, here, not evidence in a court case. No one asks for proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and these words infer that it has been so asked.

Science works by putting forward a proposition, in this case AGW is the proposition, then looking for ways to prove, or disprove it. There is no “preponderance of evidence”. There is either evidence for the proposition or there is not.

While our hero implies from his words that there is such evidence, there is in fact no such evidence.

When the IPCC put forward its guess (not science) that AGW was “very likely”, it announced that the data from the satellite instruments would enable proof. The data would show a “hotspot” in the troposphere, which would be the “signature” for AGW.

Their estimates, upon which they based their guess assumed that there was a measurable effect from human emissions. They were wrong, so there is no hotspot, no signature, and not a skerrick of proof for AGW.

He is reminiscent of the opponents of Gallileo who thought that a heavier weight had to fall faster than a lighter weight. All that CO2 from human emissions, they thought, must have an effect.

Well, no, not according to actual measurements. All the smooth flowing “explanation” Steven gives, does not make any difference to reality. There is no evidence, preponderant or otherwise, for AGW.

The IPCC said, in effect,that, if AGW existed, it would be proved by the satellite data. Why does the reverse not apply, so that the instruments are proving that there is no AGW? The IPCC, when asked, thought there might be some problem with the instruments.

Leo Lane: you are spot on. Contact me (tcurtin at bigblue.net.au) for my submitted paper that confirms your assessment in spades - but pleass, no attribution or circulation until I say so!

So Leo, you can prove that AGW is not real or not significant? Or very strongly indicate this?

Can you assert that we should be doing nothing about AGW and just continuing with business as usual?

These are supposed to be neutral questions. I’m not trying to be smart or get offside with you. I’m just trying to clarify your position, starting at the most basic level.

I could go back and read some of your older posts, but I thought it would be easier just to ask you up front.

Tom Tiddler

I look forward to reading your paper

Tim/Tom: "Leo Lane: you are spot on. Contact me (tcurtin at bigblue.net.au) for my submitted paper that confirms your assessment in spades - but pleass, no attribution or circulation until I say so!"

Tim Curtin, have you no professional or scientific integrity at all? The peer review process does not work like. Really, you and Leo are starting to sound like two pre-pubescent little boys with ADHD.

A pity, in my opinion you have just killed Steven's thread, one that started off so well and had so much potential to enlighten, particularly the onlookers. Bye.

I think what has startled me most about this thread is the flat rejection by so many posters of established scientific fact. By that I don’t mean AGW but the existence of a greenhouse effect at all. For anyone not blinded by ideology this is actually beyond doubt. I’ve given a link to the Britannica article explaining the mechanism which is as I stated.

In summary here are the facts.

--There is a natural greenhouse effect that keeps the Earth warmer than it would otherwise be. This has been known for decades – long before the controversy about AGW. No reputable physicist who has studied the atmosphere doubts this. You can detect it yourself by purchasing an inexpensive IR detector and pointing it at the night sky. If you deny the existence of a natural greenhouse effect you’re in looney tunes land.

--The main greenhouse gases are water vapour and CO2.

--The only question worth asking is this: What, if anything, is likely to be the effect of increasing the concentration of one of the greenhouse gases, CO2? Physics theory says it will most likely have a significant effect but the Earth is a complicated place and, for reasons I’ve explained, may not conform to theory.

--Much as I would like to be more definitive all I can say is that the available evidence broadly supports the physics. Adding CO2 to the atmosphere does appear to be warming the planet. If you consider these “weasel words” so be it. I am not prepared to ignore the evidence but neither am I prepared to go beyond it.

And that really is that. I hope people who are not blinded by ideology found my piece and subsequent additions useful and informative. For the rest, there is nothing more I can say.

bonmot

In the end people will believe what they want to believe. I'm afraid a measured assessment of scientific evidence will not sway people blinded by ideology.

Thanks for your kind words.

Leo Lane -

This from the Australian Academy of Science, http://www.science.org.au/publications/research-projects-and-policy.html :

"Is there a disagreement between satellite and surface temperature records?
Not any more. While a disagreement did exist in the 1990s, it has largely been resolved by correction of biases in the satellite data, for example to account for drift in satellite orbits over time 48, 49. Given the remaining uncertainties in satellite-derived trends, there is
now acceptable agreement between satellite and ground-based measurements of surface temperature."

So you need to update your evidence.

Also, you have no idea how science works. It is not about proof, that only applies to logic and mathematics. Science is about consistency with observations, and in the natural sciences the picture is rarely clear-cut. In climate science, we know we have to act before the evidence becomes conclusive, because of delays in the climate system. So the pertinent question IS about preponderance of evidence. See http://betternature.wordpress.com/2009/10/31/for-global-warming-sceptics/

OK, Geoff, it is about observation, and there are no observations which confirm AGW. Your continual efforts to conflate global warming, which everyone acknowledges exists with AGW, for which there is no evidence, are pathetic.

That could be your only purpose in referring us to that unscientific propaganda link.

Scientific observations are required to be objective, and that is one thing you are not, Geoff. Your support for the disgraceful conduct of the Climategate miscreants is astounding, in one who claims to be a scientist.

Any way, Geoff, it is clear that you still have no scientific observations or evidence which support the AGW assertion. No one does, but we have plenty of dishonest misinformation and misdirection.. There is no scientific evidence of AGW.

Ludwig, I have been as clear as I can. Despite all the words from the alarmists, there is no scientific evidence that human emissions have any measurable effect on global warming. The onus is on them to back their assertion with science, which they cannot.

Global warming is an established fact, any effect by human emissions on global warming, other than a negligible effect which cannot be measured, has not been shown to exist.

A petition containing the following “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gas is causing or will in the foreseeable future cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate” has been signed by over 31,000 scientists, with more signing continually.

Put this against the five independent scientists who endorse the IPCC’s “very likely” assertion (originally seven, but two withdrew their support). Another 55 conflicted scientists ( the equivalent of the Climategate miscreants) backed it.

Hope this assists

“The Science of Climate Change questions and answers” by The Australian Academy of Science has been on its website since August.

It would appear that many of those posting comments, and the author as well, have not bothered to read it. That is unfortunate for any of these who wish to retain an open mind on the issue

Thanks Leo

That answers my first question.

But the second one remains unaddressed:

Can you assert that we should be doing nothing about AGW, or the anthropogenic release of carbon from fossil fuels and forest clearing, and just continue with business as usual?

Can I take issue with your statement:

<< Despite all the words from the alarmists, there is no scientific evidence that human emissions have any measurable effect on global warming. The onus is on them to back their assertion with science, which they cannot. >>

Why is the onus on them? Isn't the onus on us all to be careful and if we are to err, to err on the side of caution?

In the absence of proof or of a very high level of consensus among the experts that AGW is not real or not significant, shouldn't we be just doing what we can to reduce our emissions and change our energy regime, just as fully as we would be if AGW had been confirmed to be very ominous?

Leo -
Ah, the grand conspiracy - no scientist can be believed, therefore there is no evidence. And a string of offensive characterisations for colour. If you mean there is no *proof*, I already addressed that furphy. If you really mean there's no *evidence*, then nothing I could say would usefully advance debate with such a closed mind, not that that was my expectation.

For those interested, NOAA has put up some recent (August) evidence that gets more directly than ever at demonstrating that heat is being trapped in the atmosphere in the manner, and at the wavelengths, expected from the CO2 mechanism:
http://climateprogress.org/2010/08/10/10-indicators-of-a-human-fingerprint-on-climate-change/
Quote, point 6
"A closer look at the downward radiation finds more heat returning at CO2 wavelengths, leading to the conclusion that “this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.”"
References are provided.

Geoff: I have your book, but it shows you have no knowledge of regression analysis. If you would like to see my results using that, do email me at tcurtin at bigblue.net.au.

Until you can refute my results, I advise you keep quiet, as you could find yourself in class actions from Slater and Gordon, led by la Julia!

Tom-

Get your work published if it's any good, and stop trying to impede open debate with your pathetic threats and flimsy slurs.

Geoff, you are so kind. But as it happens I have just (24th) been invited to submit a chapter (subject to peer review) to a new book on Climate Change (due out in both hard cover and e-book formats in July next year). I was told the invitation arose from my peer-reviewed papers in E&E last year, in particular my short piece "Nature's New Theory of Climate Change", available at my website:

www.timcurtin.com

How are you getting on with your own papers as submitted to the EJ and AER in which you revolutionise economics, and also subject climate change theory to rigorous statistical analysis?

colinsett, Wednesday, 24 November 2010 11:07:03 AM
You said: “The Science of Climate Change questions and answers” by The Australian Academy of Science has been on its website since August.It would appear that many of those posting comments, and the author as well, have not bothered to read it. That is unfortunate for any of these who wish to retain an open mind on the issue."

You are wrong, in my case at least, as I have read it. It is a travesty and shows how low Australian "science" can sink. Not a single one of the authors has shown any capacity for multi-variate regression analysis, and one of the lead authors has even admitted to me he cannot do or read regression results.

This is most notably evident in its Response to the Question, are human activities causing climate change? For there it mixes truth with fiction: 1. "human activities are increasing greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere", true for CO2, not for CH4 or N2O (both these are stable, AR4, WG1, Table 2.1, with rates of increase since 1998 of either nil for CH4 or less than 1% p.a for N2O)

2. "it is very likely that most (sic) of the recent observed (sic) global warming is cause by this increase in greenhouse gases".

If you have the energy to ask for a copy of my submitted paper (tcurtin at bigblue.net.au), it shows there is no statistically significant evidence that the trivial average annual increase in [CO2] (only 0.4% pa)has had any impact whatsoever on temperature changes.

The AAS provides no statistically valid evidence at all for its wild claims.

JacobusZeno-
If you're still there? Here are some figures: human "waste" heat (i.e. from human activities, largely fossil-fuel driven) 0.028 W/m2. Greenhouse heat trapping 2.9 W/m2.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/waste-heat-global-warming.htm

So much the biggest effect is from CO2 trapping a little more of the sun's heat. The heat from things we burn is 100 times smaller.

@Geoff Davies

"JacobusZeno-
If you're still there? Here are some figures: human "waste" heat (i.e. from human activities, largely fossil-fuel driven) 0.028 W/m2. Greenhouse heat trapping 2.9 W/m2.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/waste-heat-global-warming.htm"

Yes I'm still here (I think :-)...

Thanks very much for this I have started reading this paper and others related to it. Most interesting.

James

Leo

You were quick to respond to my first question, which I appreciate. But it seems that the second one is very much harder to deal with.

In the absence of compelling evidence that AGW is not real or significant, we should err on the side of caution and behave as though it is very significant.

I’ve made this simple but all-important point many times on this forum and elsewhere. It seems that the denialists just can address it.

Ludwig: You are mistaken on 2 counts when you said "In the absence of compelling evidence that AGW is not real or significant, we should err on the side of caution and behave as though it is very significant".

I can show you real evidence that there is NO Warming, whether anthropogenic or not, let me send you my paper showing that(email me tcurtin at bigblue.net.au). Only today A.J. Strata has shown (at WUWT) how CRU and Gistemp fiddle their time series to generate trends that do not exist in the raw data, just like Australia's BoM, as documented by Ken Stewart at Ken's Kingdom. GISS has even taken 0.7 oC off its anomaly for 1998 so that later years like 2005 and 2008 become the hottest ever.

And even if the IPCC were right that atmospheric CO2 at 560 ppm would imply an increase in GMT of 3oC (+/- 1.5), an increase in the UK's mean temperature of 10 oC would be a blessing, and likewise for Canada, much of northern USA, and most of Europe, Russia and northern China, while an extra 3 oC would not be noticeable at any of Khartoum, Dubai, and Darwin, especially when most of the increase is projected to be at night and in higher than lower latitudes, so Darwin would probably only get 2 oC at most. So what's the problem? And remember that Singapore's botanical gardens display far more biodiversity than Melbourne's or Canberra's.