Michael Kile falls into the same trap is the climate change believers; he is much too certain. The whole problem is one of uncertainty. Can we be sure enough of AGW to take the actions needed to reduce emissions? That’s the real question. And uncertainty has to be the focus.

Yes, the state of climate modelling science is uncertain. Even the IPCC itself can only project broad ranges (with best estimates too) for temperature rises by 2100, from 0.3 to 6.4 degrees C, depending on the emissions scenario being modelled. Who knows, the actual temperature might just come in at the lower end, with nothing to worry about.

Weather is not climate and real climate scientists caution us not to cite weather events as evidence of anything (though the politics must make it a hard temptation to resist).

Surely the temperature record since 1998 must inject some doubts in the minds of the believers. Dismissing concerns, as the CSIRO-BOM report does, with statements like “the world’s 13 warmest years on record have all occurred in the past 15 years”, is just spin. If global warming had completely stopped for the last 12 years or so, then the last decade would still be the warmest in that record.

And what is the point of a biennial 'state of the climate' report when we all know that almost nothing about climate statistics can have changed since the previous report?

OK, let’s accept the uncertain state of climate science. Here’s the real problem. Action to reduce emissions is claimed to be a kind of ‘no regrets’ strategy, something any sensible person would wish to do anyway. But it isn’t, or at least it may not be. Despite incessant claims to the contrary from green lobbies we don’t really know whether the technology mooted to reduce emissions enough can do the job. And we don’t really know whether the costs to living standards will be acceptable, especially for the poorest economies.

These are all legitimate matters for debate. Caution is the watchword, certainty is a trap.

So true Michale.

I have noticed that all these "climate scientists" are very good at explaining why their last prediction proved wrong.

Now if I do that I'm accused of rationalising, & told I'm a fool.

Rest my case.

Sorry Michael. Fingers must be becoming dyslexic.

The author Ignores the"precautionary principle" which recognized that uncertainty as the key factor .Tombee is right. These are all legitimate matters for debate

I am sure that the forum's in previous discussions of climate change, the ratpack of anti science deniers will deny the factor of uncertainty. Just like like the clowns in Japan who built nuclear power stations within the tsunami floodplain and on of the most dangerous earthquake Zones on this planet.

PEST

the ratpack will also point out, with some truth, that the precautionary principle was exploded long ago as a reason for action. By their nature precautions are usually small things one can do to reduce or cover known risks, such as not going into certain areas of suburbia at night, or taking out death or permanent dsablement insurance.

The problem with taking precautions with climate change is that the risks were never really known and the more extreme scenarios - the major risks - can now be ruled out. But also all but a handful of economists found that economically the cost of reducing emissions now, was not going to add up to the cost of damage avoided in the future. The only two exceptions were major government reports (in UK and Aus) saying what the government paymasters wanted to hear..

As far as human-induced climate change is concerned, the precautionary principle has been dead some time..

I would not get to excited with a non event.
The oceans are warming.
The polar ice melt is accelerating.
With the warmer oceans it's stores of co2 are being given up.
Weather patterns are being compromised.
No one knows enough for any sort of modeling.
NASA is studying, with several satellites.
The difference between incoming solar, and ambient temp; is found to be stored in the oceans.

Any of you noticed the BOM have been rewriting history again. New "corrections" show a fabricated greater increase in temperature over the century.

Pity for them that there are so many copies of the real data. Will be good evidence when they are charged with conspiracy to defraud.

We know as fact that the oceans are warming, by as much as 2C in places! We know as fact that our oceans are becoming more acidic; and that alone is enough to threaten the food chain; and indeed, our supply of breathable oxygen; two thirds of which comes from the ocean; sometimes described as the lungs of the planet!
Warmer oceans equate to increased rainfall. More atmospheric moisture equates to more trapped radiant heat, even warmer oceans, even more atmospheric moisture, more trapped radiant heat; and well you get the picture?
We know as literal fact that the earth warmed by around 2C around 90 million years ago. The palaeontologic record is like an open book; for those able to accurately interpret it.
When the earth's temperatures rose by just 2C; that was sufficient to allow the methane trapped in the frozen tundras etc; to also begin to melt; adding to the combined greenhouse effect and a total increase in ambient temps by 5C!
5C was enough to almost destroy all life on planet earth and turn places like the united Kingdom; into a wind swept barren salt laden desert, repeatedly swept by winds often in excess of 300klms per!
5C will be enough to threaten all life on the planet once again ;if we don't act to prevent this increasingly real possibility and by as soon as 2070!
Everything including us relies on plant life for food or the very oxygen we breathe! Create conditions that make it almost impossible for that same plant life to grow and prosper; and, we all of us are also threatened with a planet wide extinction event! Rhrosty.

Hasbeen,

You claim to be a scientist and an engineer ... yet, you seem incapable of understanding why some instruments need calibrating with secondary (if not primary) standards ... for example.

If a satellite loses altitude and the altitude is incorporated in the algorithm to calculate a measurement - then obviously, an adjustment has to be made.

The same can be said for the Argo floats (or measurements by BOM) - you so called sceptics scoffed at the re-calibration (holding Willis up as a messiah for the sceptics 'cause' then denigrating him as a Judas for clarifying the discrepancy). Yep, you so called 'sceptics' did it as well with the BEST study (see WUWT). There are many, many, many more examples of your "denial", Hasbeen.

The way you continually rant on, you have absolutely no understanding of the scientific process of observation, measurement, repeatability, quality assurance/control, etc, etc, etc. In fact, your claim to be a scientist and engineer, I would say is a delusion of your hasbeen TAFE days. Either that or you have lost it completely, Hasbeen.

Raw data is one thing, but the hasbeen's of this world are just that - hasbeen. They have no undewrstanding of what the science or engineering is of today.

ps, please feel free to contact BOM directly - and post the response.

Bonmot, the issue as I understand it is that these are not just adjustments to recent temperature figures, but changes to temperature figures that were recorded decades ago. If you would like to explain the rationale by which 'scientists' in 2012 can determine that a temperature that was recorded in, say, 1950 was too high, when the operator is long dead and the weather station no longer there, I would be interested to hear it.

Here's just one example:

http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/01/25/how-giss-has-totally-corrupted-reykjaviks-temperatures/

Talking about the the poor art of modelling climate change, there are seemingly no end of data being thrown around these days that raise more questions than provide answers, let alone a sound basis for extrapolation modelling. All data requires careful scrutiny.

Take this statement from Rhrosty above for example - "We know as literal fact that the earth warmed by around 2C around 90 million years ago."

Simple enough, ok, I'll believe it, but upon scrutiny, it raises these questions -

1. What warmed? The earth, the ocean or the air?

And then the next statement - "When the earth's temperatures rose by just 2C; that was sufficient to allow the methane trapped in the frozen tundras etc; to also begin to melt; adding to the combined greenhouse effect and a total increase in ambient temps by 5C!"

Let's look at that.

2. "The earth's temperatures rose by just 2C" - What increased in temperature here? The earth (the actual surface rock/soil of the Earth?), the ocean, or mean surface air temperature? What exactly increased by 2C?

It needs definition because it precedes the next bit - "...adding to the combined greenhouse effect and a total increase in ambient temps by 5C!"

3. What is this "ambient" temperature here?

I assume this refers to the mean surface air temperature, which is usually used to indicate the Earth surface temperature. The two are usually taken as being the same. So how can we have two different figures?

4. What should the actual "literal fact" be then? 2C or 5C increase?

The data are ill-defined.

And one more question just for the heck of it -

5. What was the likely cause of the temperature increase around 90 million years ago, whatever it was, 2C or 5C, without human intervention?

It is also noteworthy that around 90 million years ago there was a great deal of tectonic plate and volcanic activity going on and there's quite a bit going on right now in our times too. Significant earthquake reports are occurring almost daily.

Now there's a coincidence.

Jon J, “adjustments” are made to preserve the sometimes innocuous underlying trends in raw data. Changes in; instruments, methods, siting, spatial and temporal discontinuities, etc. arise that have to be 'homogenised'. For example, it would be wrong to assume the way we measure a metric now is the same as it was 100 years ago, or a 1000 years ago, or as voxUnius alludes to - millions of years ago. Indeed, “adjustments” are necessary to cater for longer term time-series trend analysis e.g. how to compare satellite ‘temperature’ analysis to ice-core ‘temperature’ analysis, or how to account for missing or erroneous raw data.

.

voxUnius, if you are really interested in finding out the why's and the wherefore's - I strongly recommend 'Principles of Planetary Climate'.

So modelling a massive chaotic system produces probabilistic forecasts, not absolute ones...and this is surprising?
Just like daily, 5 daily and weekly forecasts there are chaotic variations, but it is far better than nothing. Do you turn your headlights off just because they don't illuminate the path all the way home?
The main GW predictions have been for increased extremes and the potential of tipping points for *really* big changes....which are playing out slightly faster then expected.
Those folks crowing about our cool summer should look at the northern hemisphere. Temperature records are tumbling at an ever-increasing rate.

For those that want some real background on climate record:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/
Here you can get the data and an explanation of the homogenisation process: why and what is done. BTW. homogenisation does not change the trend...only the details of the variations which allows analysis of dynamics and major climate drivers.

As for response: We need to adapt to a chaotic world anyway, so we may as well take the best predictions on climate as input. The *real* issue is one of cheap energy from CO2 emitters...but it's easier to attack the complex science than it is to discuss complex socio-economic trade-offs.

Ambient temperature usually refers to the recordable air temperature. The cause 90 million years ago, well before the rise of humanity or any of our ancestors, was worldwide volcanic activity; possibly caused by periodic magnetic pole shifts?
[Currently, the Magnetic north pole is racing toward Siberia; at around 50 klms per annum, almost equivalent to light speed; in comparison, given the incredible viscosity of the liquid magma!]
The Co2 induced rise was around 2C? This was enough to melt the then frozen methane trapped in the tundras or under continental shelves?
This additional greenhouse effect added around another 3C to the ambient temperatures, making a total increase of 5C.
This was enough to induce a worldwide catastrophic event; that all but destroyed all life.
We know this because of the Mother Hubbard Palaeontologic record for around 90 million years ago or virtually empty cupboard, [rock strata,] bare of any bones or fossil record.
There are some exceptions, namely fish fossils, which given their location; and very stable geology, indicated ocean rises of around 70 metres during or just after; this particular extinction event.
If we don't act to keep ambient temperatures from rising by 2C, we can expect the frozen methane currently trapped beneath the tundras and elsewhere, to again melt adding at least a further 3C to ambient temps.
Creating a total rise of at least 5C by as soon as 2070; and a repeat of the climate conditions; that all but eliminated all life 90 million years ago; and indeed, an ice melt capable of causing ocean rises of or up to 70 metres.
A rise of this magnitude, would wipe out every Australian state capital city and at least 70% of our economy! I hope that addresses all of the questions or objections? Rhrosty.

Rhrosty, would you mind providing a link or two?

Rather than question the veracity of your alarming claims, particularly on an 'opinion site', I prefer to go to the primary sources. Thanks.

Links? Try the technical library of any good university! We had history/geology etc/etc books, well before we had computers; but, anyone who is able to Google is free to do their own research; rather than simply scoff or try to impune.
When I had two good eyes I could read two such books any day of the week; and indeed, retain much of the information.
That is a gift, which doesn't make me any better than any other poster; but, likely better informed?
Perhaps those who want to cast doubt; you know; those that are still stupid enough to buy coastal land or shares in coal companies, who have a clear and present interest in denying any and all evidence; that conflicts with their personal investment strategies, will use any chance to confuse or obfuscate?
I routinely insure my house and contents against fire, flood and earthquakes etc. not because they are ever present dangers or particularly likely, but because of the precautionary principle!
There have been a number of near complete extinction events in our planet's history.
A very wise person would study them in order to stop history repeating.
We humans also have a history of simply shooting the messenger; but particularly, when the message conflicts with our wishes or belief system; or indeed, our potential prosperity.
We need to be able to look our children and their children in the eye and confirm; that in truth, we did everything possible and within our power; to secure a safe and prosperous future for them; and indeed, follow the example of our own parents and their parents; and leave behind a better, brighter and more prosperous future for them and their kids; than that which they/we in their/our turn inherited!
I'm all right Jack greed/extreme conservative politics, [Tea party advocates,] unregulated free markets etc/etc; and or, manifest abysmal ignorance; or a dehumanizing lack of sensitivity or empathy, won't cut or create it!
Parenthetically, very low water use algae farming, could well save our coal industry and perhaps the planet! Rhrosty.

You know Rhrosty, I believe you are very passionate about what you say, and how you say it. However, it does not help your cause by being overly ‘alarmist’ in what you say, and how you say it.

There are extremists on both sides of the ‘climate divide'; the so called ‘sceptics’ (not in the scientific sense) and the so called ‘alarmists’. Without doubt, their passion is mostly driven by political ideology, religious doctrine, or socio-cultural belief – not science.

Indeed, it is very disheartening to have every Tom, Dick and Harry tell the real experts they don’t know what they are talking about, because … wait for it … they googled something or read it in the library. Don't get me wrong, the internet is great for gaining knowledge and the university libraries are the bastion of published research - but working at the coal-face (pun intended) does have its advantages, not least working from first principles.

This morning I had the chance to go over some of my previous comments on OLO (thanks to some spinner that's been apparently watching and counting my comments). While I won't reveal my real identity here (for what would be obvious reasons if it did become known), I am a practicing 'climate scientist', with some 30+ years’ experience in a very specialised field. I also understand that because I comment here under a pseudonym, my comments here have less credential, and less impact - so be it.

Nevertheless, I strongly support the contention that human activity is having a significant impact on the planet's climate and we (humanity) must not only adapt to the changing climate, but also take steps to move towards an alternative (to fossil fuels) energy future. It will take time and perseverance.

Rhrosty, it is very disturbing that reasoned and rational debate about global warming is being torpedoed by fake sceptics on the one hand and alarmists on the other. I humbly suggest you temper your passion.

A PRECAUTIONARY TALE

"Proponents of the precautionary principle are trying to smuggle in a default position: the environment trumps all other values. The key element of the principle is that it requires the taking of anticipatory action in the absence of scientific certainty. Note that, in the case of climate change, the trigger is not scientific certainty that CO2 emissions will have any impact on Earth's climate, or whether that impact will affect the environment in any measurable way. It is only the possibility that something bad might happen."

http://thegwpf.org/the-climate-record/2735-precautionary-principle-power-grab.html

Scientific knowledge does not advance by appealing (like Rhorsty) to the (pseudoscientific) Precautionary Principle in its many guises (bogus analogies, red herrings, risk "insurance", subjective "probabilities", personal fears, etc)

It does not advance AT ALL if statements and hypotheses claimed to be scientific are, in a fundamental sense, unfalsifiable and untestable; where what are often merely descriptions of changing natural phenomena ("climate change") masquerade as causal explanations and are promoted ($$$) as such by too many folk who should know better.

Beware of tricks that deliberately mingle (some) scientific knowledge with (a lot of) speculation. Just as religion should not pass itself off as a science, so too science should resist the temptation to morph into a religion, promoting apocalyptic warnings, tipping points, etc, especially when its arguments, hypotheses, "proofs", etc, are muddled, confused,inadequate, "complex", ad hoc, etc.

Alice

The biggest lie about the whole sorry saga is that the planet will be destroyed by global warming. No it won't. The planet will survive. Of course, worst case scenario is that humans may not. That is the cycle of things though. Species come, species go. Humans are merely just another species that will eventually disappear from planet Earth. Personally I couldn't care less as I won't be around when humans finally become extinct. When are humans going to realise our species will not be around forever and we have no right to be.

Yes minotaur, alarmism about global warming is a scourge ... so too is nonchalance.

Of course, species do come and go – typically over millions of years. How many years do you think the dinosaurs inhabited the Earth? How many years do you think our species have inhabited the Earth? The K-T event was not caused by the dinosaurs, minotaur.

No other species has been so destructive of the planet’s environment that so many other species depend on, in so little time.

In the space of a mere 200 years, humanity has significantly changed what was naturally stable for 1,000's of years. Minotaur, the rate of change is important – notwithstanding neither you nor I will be around to see the result. Our grand-children’s children probably will.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1920168,00.html

Ok, we won’t reach a tipping point anytime soon, but the planet is squealing. People with their head in the sand are not very constructive, whatever the problem.

Hey Mino

Cheer up, old Taur.

Sing-a-long with Ogden Nash:

"The human race I do not care for;
I often wonder what's it there for.
The only answer I can find
Is reproduction of its kind."

"The carbon tax I do not care for;
I often wonder what's it there for.
The only answer I can find
Is trickery of a government kind."

Alice

When talking about humans bonmot do you mean modern humans or any of the homonid ancestors who came before?

I do agree that in the past 200 years (or you can narrow that down that down to the last 80) humans have caused great environmental change and damage to the planet. All in the name of progress of course. Western society will crumble before global warming culls humans though. History proves that civilisations/societies fall much faster than any major species extinction.

And global over-population is the biggest curse on the planet.

A quick response minotaur, obviously not long enough for you to digest the article linked to. Would appreciate your comment after reading it though.

btw, our species (homo-sapien)

I think there is merit in minotaur's stance. However the arrogance and hubris of humanity in thinking that it can both cause and rectify environmental global scale catastrophes is astounding to me. The Earth will have its own way with us in its own good time no matter how much carbon tax we pay and no matter how much mouth-noise we make about it.

I also agree that social collapse is a much more likely threat to humanity. Western civilisation appears to be coming apart at the seams at this very moment.

So, will we all be going back to the Dark Ages? I doubt it. But there is the possibility of us shooting ourselves in the foot at the very least, leading to hardships and regression of civilisation. This could be brought about by plagues - pandemics of viral infection created in our own laboratories and spread by overpopulation, squaller and/or terrorists, either by accident or mal-intent.

Now that's a far more realistic possibility than humans controlling the temperature of the Earth by way of paying tax, but who concerns themselves about that one? Or maybe that's going to be the next doomsday gravytrain.



And to bonmot - thanks for your reading suggestion. I downloaded some of it, Volume 1, in pdf. At a glance it seems to be in agreement with most of my understandings of the first principles of climate science - no surprises there. It's just a lot deeper and more mathematical, but the principles all look the same. I enjoy the science relating to the climate debate. I just wish people could have more genuine scientific discussion without the hysterics and political grandstanding. And that's another reason I remain unconvinced about AGW.

voxUnius

@ >> However the arrogance and hubris of humanity in thinking that it can both cause and rectify environmental global scale catastrophes is astounding to me <<

This is a comment typically of the ‘religious right’ and/or the ‘ideological right’ – not one of science. What is astounding is that people don’t think humanity can cause such environmental disasters. The world’s population is heading for 10 billion by 2050. Did you read the link to a “squealing” planet?

@ >> The Earth will have its own way with us in its own good time no matter how much carbon tax we pay and no matter how much mouth-noise we make about it <<

voxUnius, this statement displays a fundamental disconnect between the premise and the conclusion - that renders the argument invalid. This type of fallacy is called a ‘red-herring’.

Australia’s “carbon tax” has got nothing at all to do with changing global temperatures (natural or human induced).

The Australian government’s “carbon tax” is meant to transition our economy to an alternative (to fossil fuel) energy future – that is what the policy says. It can’t be done over-night (it will take decades) but a start must be made – regardless of AGW and regardless of who is in government.

@ >> social collapse is a much more likely threat to humanity. Western civilisation appears to be coming apart at the seams at this very moment. <<

I agree. Perhaps more thought should be given to WHY?

@ >> So, will we all be going back to the Dark Ages? <<

Of course not (glad you doubt it too Vox) but that argument for doing nothing is another ‘red herring’ often put forward by the so called ‘deny and delay brigade’. We humans are a very creative lot, particularly in time of adversity.

@ >> humans controlling the temperature of the Earth by way of paying tax, but who concerns themselves about that one? <<

See above red herrings.

cont'd

cont'd @ voxUnius

I’m glad you downloaded the PDF – the book has 200+ more pages and costs more : (

Persevere, the enhanced greenhouse effect is real and humanity is a significant component - check-out radiative transfer and energy balance (assuming they're in the PDF).

@ >>> I just wish people could have more genuine scientific discussion without the hysterics and political grandstanding <<

Me too, that is why you will find more scientists and more scientific institutions having their say ... that's the reason I am convinced of AGW.

Bonmot; I also believe in evidence based science; and the evidence says to me that the Co2 already in the atmosphere is enough to lift temps above 2C, and irreversible climate change, by as soon as 2070?
Co2 is a very poor insulator and by itself traps very little radiant heat; however, atmospheric moisture does! Repeatable scientific tests, demonstrates this fact. Take a cubic metre of air and extract all the Co2; and the drop in temperature, is just 0.03C; and, exactly the same for as many times as the test is repeated! The very bedrock of good science.
Conversely, when all the moisture is evacuated from the sample(s); the temperature drops by around 30C; thereby identifying atmospheric moisture as the real agent/culprit of global warming?
How is Co2 implicated?
Co2 acts as a super fertilizer and promotes verdant plant growth, which in turn extrude vastly increased moisture.
This is natures way of trying to adjust?
But there are finite limits to its ability to do so! i.e. As the ice melts less and less of the radiant heat is reflected, but instead, absorbed by the oceans.
Mount Kilimanjaro now spends the summers completed free of its former snow cap; ditto for many other mountains.
Climate change is very real and occurring/advancing at a pace; no so-called climate scientist ever predicted. Sorry mate.
We have a very small and diminishing window of opportunity to reverse current trends; many of which have decades to run; even were we to turn to carbon free energy tomorrow.
I'd much rather been seen as a so-called alarmist and shake our so-called leaders out of their lethargy; or laissez faire approach, given there are things we can and ought to be doing, with long overdue bipartisan cooperation; that can begin to reverse current trends, without also cruelling the economy.
Vastly up-scaled algae farming, would be a very good place to start; given the inherent water savings and the increased economic growth/activity/complete self sufficiency in endlessly sustainable fuel supplies; and the Co2 reductions; this one single, Murray/Darling saving/rescue measure would provide! Cheers, Rhrosty.

bonmot writes -

@>>This is a comment typically of the ‘religious right’ and/or the ‘ideological right’ - not one of science.<<
Ah, this comment isn't very scientific either bonny - your political slip is showing.

@>> Did you read the link to a "squealing" planet?<<
Yes I did. Not much science in there either - more hysteria and political spin.

@>>Australia’s "carbon tax" has got nothing at all to do with changing global temperatures (natural or human induced).<<
Really!!? So all that political hysteria about "big polluters", the (climate) science is settled, greatest moral challenge of our time, limit temp increase to 2 deg C, we must act now to save the planet, - that's all been a big con all along then? So AGW is all about hysteria and political grandstanding. Well I knew that. Good of you to admit it.

@>>The Australian government’s "carbon tax" is meant to transition our economy to an alternative (to fossil fuel) energy future<<
Yeah, I knew that too. But if that's what they wanted, why didn't they just come out and say so? Why did they have to drag false science into it? Again hysteria and political grandstanding.

bonmot, you do see there's not much science in what you've been presenting here to encourage me to become an ideological convert to AGW. I just want the real science. I'm passionate about it. I want to find out the facts. I don't want altruistic causes, I don't want guilt trips about my grandchildren and I seriously don't want any more hysteria or political spin.

I truly don't give a hoot about the "sustainable" future of civilisation, the environment or any political/economic/social ideology. I couldn't care less about any of these things. They can all go rot. The Earth will do what it wants, when it wants and it won't give a damn about any of us. It might even have a few tempeature variations and climate changes from time to time - like it always has.

@voxUnius

1. Fact is, it’s true

2. Here’s the actual paper:

http://deepeco.ucsd.edu/~george/publications/09_critical_transitions.pdf

Care to comment?

3. You are conflating various issues.

We should find better and more efficient ways of producing energy, or do you not agree. Science is never settled (but fake sceptics and alarmists keep bringing that up in their arsenal). You can’t turn on nuclear, or solar thermal, or whatever alternative overnight. Yes, politics (from both sides by the way) get in the way of science – dilemma is, politicians and economists make the rules.

4. “The Australian government’s "carbon tax" is meant to transition our economy to an alternative (to fossil fuel) energy future”.

>> Yeah, I knew that too. But if that's what they wanted, why didn't they just come out and say so? <<

They did say that – most people haven’t read the policy document – you obviously haven’t.

5. >> Why did they have to drag false science into it? Again hysteria and political grandstanding. <<

What false science Vox? Do you get your science from Alan Jones?

6. You seem to confuse ideology with science.

7. You say you want real science? It’s there if you were really interested … remember this?

@ voxUnius, Tuesday, 5 July 2011 5:29:53 p.m.

>> With all due respect vox, it is more complicated than that.

There are many good studies on the subject, this one is particularly good and is recent (check-out the references):

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/pub/seager/Seager_Naik_Vecchi_2010.pdf

Of particular interest is part 8, consideration of the Clausius–Clapeyron relation. <<

Cognitive dissonance was stronger than passion, then and now.

8. You ...

“don't give a hoot about the "sustainable" future of civilisation, the environment or any political/economic/social ideology. I couldn't care less about any of these things. They can all go rot. The Earth will do what it wants, when it wants and it won't give a damn about any of us. It might even have a few tempeature variations and climate changes from time to time - like it always has.” (sic)

Says it all really – why all the bullsh!t about your passion for science?

The silence is very telling.

Of course climate changes naturally. The trick is to distinguish natural variability (noise) from anthropogenic causes (signal) - we can. Whether you believe that or not is irrelevant and inconsequential.

Bye

1. Call a spade a spade. Humans cause human-caused climate change & the source of all humans is DNGW or dirty Nappies Global Warming.
To call it AGW and identify CO2 as the only culprit is pandering to women.

That's not surprising as most scientists are NERDS whose only hope of getting laid is to get FAMOUS by coming up with new ways to deceive the public with distorted statistical lies. The chief lie revolves around the concept of global uniform CO2 concentrations and thus a uniform greenhouse heating of the Earth. NONSENSE. The SThn Hemisphere is demonstrably patchy when it comes to CO2 concentrations. This is why the Antarctic is slower than the Arctic to melt. It is also why many IPCC predictions are false - because they are based on untrue assumptions.

The reality is if the IPCC called for women globally to have only one child per lifetime then they would solve climate . But they would have to cut their wrists because then they would NEVER get laid.

That friends is WHY we have Bullsh$t global warming theories coming out our ears.

That is why human contributions to climate changes are not called DNGW as should rightfully be the case.

That is why women keep crowing that it takes two to make a baby so two must be responsible. They don't want the world to know that it takes two to make a baby but only ONE person to have it. Because when the one child axe comes down as it inevitably will, women want a barbed weapon of words to still have more children. The fact that WOMEN bugger the climate, environment and biodiversity of the planet is not a THEIR concern because in their opinion THAT is something men must traditionally go to war and get killed over.

Misogyny? If I were responsible for an entire planetary-train-wreck and someone couteously pointed that out and explained how I could reverse my erroneous ways I would thank them and regard the as my friends. NOT someone I thought hated me. But then I'm not a woman...

Bonny,

You continue to post me this link which you call "particularly good".

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/pub/seager/Seager_Naik_Vecchi_2010.pdf

Yes, it's a very nice little piece of imaginative speculation in 2 dimensions. Until the 3rd dimension is input, the tropopause, convective currents and adiabatic cooling, it remains just that. Agreed that the paper does acknowledge this omission.

"Much work remains to be done to unravel the relative importance of these, and probably other, processes in determining the causes of the changes in circulation in response to global warming", Seager et al write.

Massive understatement!

And no arguments here with the Clausius-Clapeyron equation. That's real science. And that's exactly why the tropopause is such a significant factor in the thermodynamic and dynamic mechanisms in the hydrological cycle. Such an omission is alarming.

This Seager et al paper is an extrapolation not even based on sound scientific credentials, but on make believe - "the 2046-65 simulations used the 'middle of the road' emissions scenario - Special Report on Emission Scenarios A1B(SRESA1B)," it states.

Speculation based on speculation. Come on bonmot, that's not true science and you must know that.

But I do like this bit - "Acknowledgments. This work was supported by NOAA Grants NA03OAR4320179 and NA08OAR4320912, and NSF Grant ATM-08-04107.(sic)"

I hope NOAA was pleased with their investment.

And BTW, I don't frequent online forums 24/7. I do have a life which does involve many other activities.

As for a passion for science? I think you've got to have it to understand it and why. I certainly don't like seeing it degraded by profiteers, high priests and lying politicians, who seem to make up much of the AGW brigade.

Re "Bonny"

Well voxy, you are beginning to sound like the rest of the 'rat-pack' - expected so no surprises there.

@ >> You continue to post me this link which you call "particularly good" <<

Actually voxy, I posted it only once before:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12268#212165

you completely ignored it and went MIA - I expected so much so no surprises there.

Voxy, please feel free to submit a refutation to the paper - you can start here:

http://www.ametsoc.org/pubs/journals/submitmanuscript.html

Not on OLO voxy, for obvious reasons.

Voxy, just because you have a "passion for science" doesn't make you understand it, particularly the nuances in a field outside your area of expertise. Ergo, a tiny bit of knowledge can be dangerous.

Comment there and we can have some meaningful dialogue. My guess? You can't and you won't.

Adieu