Climate science and predictions about future changes in climate, regionally or totally, are fraught with difficulties.

Assessing the relative roles of the sun (and other extra-terrestrial factors), greenhouse gases, oceans, and vegetation (especially de-vegetation) are difficult, especially with the relatively preliminary data that has been available.

Pascal's Wager, or similar, anyone?

And still our government is going ahead with the carbon tax.

The whole global warming thing reminds me of Paul Erlichs predictions of population doom in the 1960s

This is a vile article - an example of baseless, opinionated cr_p, in this case "supported" only by the incorrect assertion that the past 14 years of climate measurements indicate that no climate change is occurring.

When I read articles such as this one I am reminded of the boiled frog story.

This author, like the frog, does not agree that his environment is heating up and that it may become unbearable, despite knowing of abundant reports of objective measurements of its temperature and of the nature of the fire beneath the frog's pot. Like the frog, the author argues that he is correct and that the thermometer and the body of knowledge about the effects of a fire beneath a pot full of water are wrong.

The effect of this short-termism on the frog is well known.

Hansen and others are entitled to draw attention to the facts and the science, without snide abuse such as presented in this article, especially the unsubstantiated attempted character assassination which is stated as "option c.. Hansen is misrepresenting..."

Shame, OLO, shame.

In a recent article, Andy Lacis, a career long colleague and co-author with James Hansen, has written a critique of a Garth Paltridge’s recent article.
http://judithcurry.com/2012/07/02/garth-paltridge-held-hostage-by-the-uncertainty-monster/

“Garth Paltridge held hostage (?) by the uncertainty monster”

In this critique Lacis's says:

“6) The Climate Stuff that is NOT at all that Uncertain
...
With the atmospheric CO2 concentration increasing to about 4% (40,000 ppmv), the global annual-mean surface temperature will rise to about 60 °C, a temperature extreme that will very likely kill off most everything that is alive. (This has not happened in the geological past. But it could happen in the future if all the CO2 that is locked up in the carbon reservoirs was released into the atmosphere).”

This is an example of the level of alarmism propagated by the leading climate scientists. James Hansen, the so-called father of climate change - predicted the oceans would evaporate altogether if we don’t take urgent action to stop our evil ways.

Hansen’s and Lacis’ alarmism and scaremongering is worse than even Al Gore claimed. It’s worse than even SkepticalScience or RealClimate would advocate (I think!)

This is the height of scaremongering. This is what the activists climate scientists truly believe.

I have always taken the view that the main game is conservation of the resources that the earth provides to human beings.

Any claim that population can continue to expand and that the expanding population can continue to use fossil carbon and metal ores at an expanding rate on a finite planet will ultimately be proved wrong.

For example last night's Benny Peiser email stated,
"The proven gas reserves in the US are 50% higher in 2010 than 30 years ago during which time the country consumed more than double the amount of the 1980 proved gas reserve number. That's the complete opposite of every energy prediction ever made. How could that be?"

That only shows that the earlier estimates hadn't been accurate and probably ignored shale seam gas and doesn't show that all subsurface gas, including shale seam gas, is not a finite reserve.

A friend recently calculated that at the current rate of expansion the main iron ore resources of Australia, currently estimated at 25 billion tonnes will be exhausted in about 25-30 years. Even if they lasted twice that time they would still eventually be exhausted as will copper. The industry to be in then will be scrap dealing.

Thorium and Uranium are the least exhaustible fuel resources and could supply human energy needs for thousands of generations without producing significant quantities of carbon dioxide.

I tend to agree with JohnBennetts, especially with the simplistic bare assertions in passages like this ...

" ... the Earth is essentially never in balance. As the balance changes the Earth warms or cools. Hansen and his colleagues say it's warming because less heat is going out. But the planet is actually cooling because less heat is coming in since the Sun is in a slight dimming period."

It would be appropriate to support such contentions with references and nuanced discussion of those contentions.

US politics and government are different to ours. It would be odd indeed if a federal deputy secretary were to write and speak as Hansen has done. First, he would need the support of his Minister. Second, he would be trespassing on the electoral sphere, and the Opposition would crucify him. Third, his extreme statements would be embarrassing to the Government, even if they agreed with him.

For those who want to see a 'nuanced discussion' of these matters, the best place to go is Judith Curry's 'Climate etc' website. Look through the previous posts for 'Hansen'. WUWT (Watts Up With That) is severely critical of Hansen, RealClimate is laudatory. For my part he is a good scientist captured by what he once said, and prepared to defend it to the end. He is not the only academic ever to do that!

Hansen, of course, was an enthusiastic advocate for the 'global cooling' meme for as long as that was sustainable. He really doesn't care what kind of apocalypse he preaches, as long as it gives him the oxygen of publicity and a steady supply of generous grants. See for instance:

http://rightcounterpoints.wordpress.com/2007/09/27/james-hansen-global-warming-scientist-for-hire/

John Bennetts, why does the truth upset you so much?

Even the Climategate miscreant, Phil Jones, said that there had been no global warming for 14 years, when questioned during one of the “whitewash” Enquiries which purported to clear the authors of the emails of wrongful behaviour.

Recent research shows that there has been a cooling trend in global temperature for the past two thousand years:

“For the first time, researchers have now been able to use the data derived from tree-rings to precisely calculate a much longer-term cooling trend that has been playing out over the past 2,000 years. Their findings demonstrate that this trend involves a cooling of -0.3°C per millennium due to gradual changes to the position of the sun and an increase in the distance between the Earth and the sun.”

http://www.omsj.org/issues/global-warming/scientists-calculate-global-cooling-trend

It is not news that Hansen has acted unethically in his activism promoting the AGW scam:

“As detailed in the American Tradition Institute’s lawsuit which yielded these records, Hansen suddenly became the recipient of many, often lucrative offers of outside employment and awards after he escalated his political activism — using his NASA position as a platform, and springboard.”

http://pjmedia.com/blog/a-brief-summary-of-james-e-hansens-nasa-ethics-file/?singlepage=true

Any chance of you being influenced by facts, John?

I am amazed at JohnBennets hysterical outrage to this balanced article.

Hansen is a scaremonger and agitprop; his role in perpetuating the outrage of AGW is as culpable as anyones' has been. Just recently he wrote this piece on "extreme weather" the new scare tactic along with ocean acidification of the alarmists:

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/here-comes-the-sun-chilling-verdict-on-a-climate-going-to-extremes-20120806-23q5o.html#poll

The good people at WUWT quickly noted the scientific defects of Hansen's piece:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/06/nasas-james-hansens-big-cherry-pick/#comments

None of the manifest defects of Hnsen's scare piece are picked up by the MSM; the big con of AGW has moved on to the next lie and yet we have the likes of JohnBennets rabbiting on about frogs. Well the frog isn't a frog, it's a toad and it's AGW and no princess is going to change this toad into a prince.

We have too be glad that the sun is in a slightly cooling phase? This will add just a little extra time to the window of opportunity, we still have, to reverse human caused climate change.
Yes sure, we have had some form of cyclic climate change since the dawn of human history.
And yes, the sun will eventually become too hot for planet earth and we will eventually be fried.
No need to hasten to that date with destiny, simply because a very powerful fossil fuel industry wants to protect an industry currently reaping in over 4 trillion per.
And yes there is a lot of confusion about climate change and its causes. Even though the sun is in a waning phase, the ice melt seems to be exponentially increasing?
Many Himalayas communities are almost totally reliant on glacial melt water for all their drinking and agricultural needs, and at the present rate of melt, it will be gone inside twenty years?
Thank goodness we are experiencing a cooling phase? Otherwise, it could be gone inside ten?
And the previously unheard of Northwest passage is becoming a regular summer shortcut for northern shipping.
Something is actually happening or changing!
To simply say it is caused by changes in the radiance hitting the earth, is at complete odds, with a sun currently experiencing a cooling phase.
We need to act with urgent alacrity, given the pace of measurable change, to protect ourselves, our children and their children; rather than, fossil fuel industries bottom lines!
Doing nothing to remediate human caused climate change is simply not an option, regardless of the evocations emanating from a few rouge scientists, or their grant providers?
Rhrosty.

Rhrosty and JohnBennetts

The problem has always been that there has never been any confirmation of the role of CO2 in the atmosphere. All we really know is that forecasts based on the action of CO2 have been unsuccessful. There is now a strong suspicion that its really the sun that drives climate.

But despite that lack of success the climate science industry has refused to modify its orthodoxy .. not give it up, just modify for the moment, to permit much research into the sun's influence on climate, so we can't say anything much more about the sun's influence on climate. At the moment scientists have to look at CO2 or no funds.

And people like Hansen are to blame in sticking rigidly to the CO2 othodoxy to the point of actively denouncing those who disagree with him, by comparing them with people who deny the holocaust. No wonder climate science is going no where.

As for the reference about powerful energy industry interest, Rhosty, that is simply absurd. There is no evidence that the obsession with renewables has effected the energy market at all, nor is there any reason it would. Therefore there is no reason why they should concern themselves with the greenhouse debate, and no indication that they have. If you look on an energy company site, all you will find is warmed-over green propoganda. They simply do not care about renewables, even to the point of failing to point out their obvious limitations..

@ Leo Lane:
The main thrust of my message was that the author had based his opinion on nothing and that even that single supposed fact was open to challenge.

I stand by my words.

Regarding your attempts to claim that the earth has not warmed for 14 years or thereabouts, that is irrelevant - the person who wrote the article has the duty to include the justification in it. He did not.

Further, conclusions based on only 14 years of the complete data set must be contentious in the extreme. To say that I do not accept their veracity is an understatement. It is the scientific knowledge gathered and analysed over decades and centuries which is relevant, amateur prognostications based on a selected subset of the available data. To project future outcomes based on such data is akin to predicting that the price of a corporation's share will never rise again, despite the fact that this share has a hundred year history of overall rises plus a flattish recent 14 years. This is blind, uncomprehending nonsense and completely ignores the role of statistical deviations away from the mean.

The past 14 years of atmospheric temperature records have or have not demonstrated that el nino or random variations or some other factor has hidden the well-established longer term trend. So what? Conclusions based on analysis of the whole of the data set from the longer term are far less likely to be a statistical outlier than conclusions drawn from a subset of the data.

This will be my last post on this thread, but I really couldn't let Curmudgeon's latest comment pass.

What? CO2 has no influence on climate outcomes? This flies in the face of much of the accepted science.

Curmudgeon, I suggest that you publish your work on this subject as soon as possible, because a Nobel Prize is certainly awaiting if your new theory stands up.

There's a second Nobel awaiting for the author of the work which demonstrates that the sun is the source of the perceived change (NB: this is the change which others claim isn't actually... y'know... changing... or, at least, has failed to do so for 14 years... or something.)

Meanwhile, back in the real world, the climate is indeed changing and boiling frogs continue to demonstrate through their demise that slow increases in temperature can be difficult to perceive.

Tim Ball is one of the growing number of scientists willing to speak out. The rest, either ignorant cannon fodder or self-interested parties benefitting from the scam of the century will no doubt disagree.

I am constantly amazed at how ordinary posters believe they can argue a technical point with a a professor of climatology anyway. Apparently their respect for science and scientists deserts them when they hear a dissenting voice.

The likes of the JohnBennetts of this world become very emotional when their toady like allegiance to the cause is in danger of being exposed for what it is. His post contains NO facts but simply emotionally driven attack suggesting he is offended by an alternative view. Sorry mate, but acting offended, and calling someone vile and telling a story about a frog simply makes no difference..a scam is a scam.

Simply look up Maurice Strong and tell me this guy is someone you would support. This scam has a history which few are interested in investigating.If you do you can see its a power grab of scandalous proportions which has enlisted the support of the gullible Left. But it must be funded by someone and that someone is you.

What would be the first felt effect of adjusting our economies to carbon neutral ones, to ameliorate against human caused climate change?
What would happen if we adopted all those things we know would help provide that outcome> Broad scale algae farming, converting all our biological waste into methane based energy provision?
Small localised pebble or thorium reactors, which then virtually halve the cost of energy? Hydrogen production utilising free solar thermal heat?
Well the very first effect would be the virtual bankruptcy of most of the fossil fuel industry, followed by widespread/global economic recovery?
Who wouldn't want that?
Well, the fossil fuel industry and those middle eastern potentates, who rely on it as their only source of income or influence/social outcomes; or indeed, those who see oil as a weapon?
So, who is opposed to acting to address climate change?
Well how about all of the above, who collectively, courtesy of petro dollars, currently wield the most power in the world?
We help to maintain the current status quo, by preferring fully imported and very much dirtier oil, when viewed in comparison to locally available products!
We are terrified, allegedly, that we could lose the reef and all the dollars it currently earns for us, as a direct result of carbon pollution?
Yet we continue to import oil products that produce four times more carbon in total, than that that lies beneath the very same reef system?
Rhrosty.

Out of "control" by who or what?
Perhaps the heartless "Heart"-land Institute or the right-wing Global Spin machine?

Atman,

"....a professor of climatology..."?

How about "Professor of Geography"

http://www.desmogblog.com/timothy-f-ball-tim-ball

Cumgeon, The role of Co2 in the atmosphere is minimal? Let me give you a endlessly repeatable scientific example.
[Repeatable tests being the very corner stone of best practise science!]
Collect several samples of air, around a cubic metre ea should suffice. Test the ambient temperatures, then remove all the Co2.
Remeasure the ambient temps, and you will notice the temp drops only 0,03C each time. However, removing all the atmospheric moisture and the temp drops regularly by 30C.
The greenhouse effect is caused by the fact that increased Co2, a super fertilizer, results in increased plant growth, which in turn results in more water vapour finding its way into the atmosphere, which in turn traps more radiant heat.
All borne out by the above endlessly repeatable scientific test.
Moreover, ice reflects radiant heat, while water, or melted ice absorbs it.
We see significant ice melts in recent years, proven by irrefutable photographic evidence, collected by satellites, over the last forty-fifty years, even as, we seem to be seeing a sun going through a slight cooling phase.
Something is causing the exponentially expanding ice melt and it can't be the sun, given it is currently going through a cooling phase.
My house is not likely to burn down during my lifetime. Yet I continue to pay my annual insurance premium, because the precautionary principle deems I should.
Whether just part of some as yet unexplained cyclical change, climate change is real!
Therefore, it behoves us to do something about it, but particularly, if that something presents us with endlessly sustainable energy at much lower costs than we currently shell out!
Who could be hurt by that?
Cheers, Rhrosty.

Poirot, your reeducation is going to be long and arduous; you say that Ball is 'only' a Professor of Geography; Geography is where the science of climatology began:

http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/samples/cam032/98017416.pdf

Storch and Zwiers note:

"Climatology was originally a sub-discipline of Geography, and was therefore mainly descriptive (see, e.g., Bruckner [70], Hann [155], or Hann and Knoch [156]). Description of the climate consisted primarily of estimates of its mean state and estimates of its variability about that state, such as its standard deviations and other simple measures of variability. Much of climatology is still focused on these concerns today."

JohnBennetts
You may declare it to be your last post, but you should not be allowed to get away with so grossly misconstruing what was said. I never said CO2 had no influence on climate. What I said was that there had been no confirmation of its role, and that forecasts using that basis had been unsuccessful.

As for what temperatures have been doing in the past 13 years, go look at the main temperature tracking series compiled by the Hadley centre.. its in graphical form. In any case, the notable lack of any increase has been acknowledged even by the die hard global warmists. Its time you caught up.

Rhosty - decarbonising of the energy industry is simply impossible. Sorry, nothing to do with me. It just isn't going to happen. Is a slight reduction possible? I doubt it, but it may be possible at vast expense.

I also agree with JohnBennetts. It is a truly vile article and shame, OLO, shame for publishing it. While denialists may not like to hear what climate scientist Michael Mann has to say, nevertheless, they should note what he wrote yesterday, namely, that we ignore Hansen's latest warning at our peril. Hansen's paper appeared in the August 6 Proceedings of the National Academies of Science (PNAS). Mann wrote:
"... Hansen and two colleagues argue convincingly that climate change is now not only upon us, but in fact we are fully immersed in it. Much of the extreme weather we have witnessed in recent years almost certainly contains a human-induced component. Hansen...shows that the increase in probability of hot summers due to global warming is such that what was once considered an unusually hot summer has now become typical, and what was once considered typical will soon become a thing of the past - a summer too improbably cool to anymore expect.
The time for debate about the reality of human-caused climate change has now passed."
Tim Ball, please take note and don't waste our time with such unconscionably dishonest and unscientific articles.

popnperish, the Michael Mann you refer to is infamous for his dodgy hockeystick temperature, constructed using a statistical method that would produce a hockeystick from random data. He, like James Hansen, are full of glib assertions but rather empty of evidence. Hansen certainly has abused his position and become a publicly funded climate activist, which as Ball notes, is in breach of his employment by the US government.

Hansen has a track record as a con-man (witness the manipulation at the presentation in Washington) and a purveyor of dodgy statistics (see the GISS web pages where maps of temperature anomalies are based on very little data from up to 1200km away). Both Mann and Hansen are desperate to see some warming because temperatures haven't risen since 1998 despite all the extra CO2 in the atmosphere. This absence of warming, and the warming that occurred 1977-1998 when there was less CO2 undermine the beliefs of many people and they don't like it.

Snowman
I thought someone would say something like that. You denialists have a real industry going, haven't you, that includes utter slander and libel. You resort to that because you don't have reason on your side. It must have really rattled you when the former climate science sceptic Professor Richard Muller of Berkley did his experiments and found that the results supported everything Hansen and Mann have said. And Muller was funded by the Koch brothers who have a clear vested interest in denying climate science. But no doubt you will come up with something slanderous about Muller too. Play the ball and not the man, why don't you?

John Bennetts brings to mind Lyndall Ryan, the historian who was confronted with her references being incorrect or non existent. She said that she still stood by her conclusions, despite her “facts” being disproven.

Just give us the reference to the science which has demonstrated any measurable effect of human emissions on climate, John, and you will redeem yourself for the nonsense you have posted.

A specific reference, John, not another nonsense assertion like “thousands of scientists”. Let us have a specific reference to just one.

CO2 has been increasing as a trace gas in the atmosphere for the past 14 years, with no increase in global temperature. Should the role of CO2 in global warming not be reconsidered?

Curmudgeon’s work was published a couple of years ago: ”A Guide to Climate Change Lunacy”. You should read it and disabuse yourself of your ridiculous errors.

There is no Nobel Prize for telling the truth. They are awarded to liars like Al Gore and the IPCC.

Rhosty;” Many Himalayas communities are almost totally reliant on glacial melt water for all their drinking and agricultural needs, and at the present rate of melt, it will be gone inside twenty years?"

Have you not heard of Glaciergate? ” IPCC has been forced to back down over a claim that some Himalayan glaciers would probably disappear by 2035.”

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/heeding-the-political-lessons-of-glaciergate/story-e6frg71x-1225822310448

popnperish: You are aware that you are quoting Mann the Climategate miscreant, are you? Your credibility is nil.

Oh dear, what will it take to make you see the light?
Maybe the sea rising over your favourite beach or a cyclone devastating Sydney?
It will happen now we are past the tipping point, but you just keep saying to yourself "it can't happen" and maybe it will go away.

The Psychology of Denial:
http://www.ecoglobe.ch/motivation/e/clim2922.htm

THE IRRESISTIBLE STORY OF RICHARD MULLER
http://climatedenial.org/

Climate change denial wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

popnperish

Look, where have you been for the past two decades? The global warming scare story is basically past its peak. The real problem that scientists such as Hansen and Manne face, who have both staked their careers on this, is that their audiences are falling away and once willing listeners are becoming sceptical. This has nothing to do with denial, as you seem to want to believe, but the fact that this story is following the same trajectory as the others - Y2K, acid rain, bird flu. Sooner or later the doomsters have to show some results, or people move on.

popnperish refers to Muller; that's amusing:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=13951

Muller is discredited and unpublished and has failed peer review.

And sarnian with his "tipping points".

The hysteria of AGW believers knows no limits; the world is going to end they wail and like Toffler's Future Shock sufferers desperately want to control and prevent the inevitable change that NATURE offers.

Poirot Desmogblog is known for its attempts to discredit non-believers on the grounds of supposed 'character' issues rather than disagreements over facts. Most of its claims are alarmist, trivial or in this case an outright lie.

Ball has answered this question on numerous occasions:
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/cover020707.htm

Strangely they did not complain about the qualifications of the IPCC Head Scientist Rajendra Pachauri who has no environmental science qualifications at all yet presided over the IPCC decisions for some years.

A little hypocritical one might say?

Popnperish. On behalf of Snowman-, Professor Richard Muller even has the other warmista (Mann etc) gertting as much distance from him as they can. Let's wait and see if he can get this latest paper published will we? He had little luck with his previous attempt. Without wishing to denigrate the good man, the image 'show pony' springs to mind.

Sarnian, what will it take to get deniers to see the light you ask?

Hmmm let me think... perhaps a visit to Tim Flannery's WATERFRONT COTTAGE where they can discuss rising sea levels and similar imminent disasters. Now THAT should convince them, huh?

Leo Lane
Michael Mann has been exonerated at least five times by different inquiries into the so-called Climategate affair. The crime, of course, was stealing emails but you lot don't talk about that, do you? Nor do you talk about the death threats and threats to families that climate scientists endure almost daily from the likes of you. Who are the criminals? Not Michael Mann, that's for sure.

popnperish jumps the shark and dredges up "deaththreats"; like these deaththreats:

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/05/pathological-exaggerators-caught-on-death-threats-how-11-rude-emails-became-a-media-blitz/

http://catallaxyfiles.com/2012/05/10/the-dog-ate-my-death-threats-ii/#comments

How ironic anyway coming from someone who thinks there are too many of us.

Can this get any weirder?

Mann has never been cleared, popnperish, and no one who has read the emails would seriously consider that he could be.

Typical of the pretenced “Inquiries” clearing Mann was one conducted by the mendacious warmist Lord Oxburgh:

“The Oxburgh panel did not assess the reliability of CRU’s science. Its scope of inquiry was limited to reviewing papers provided to it only for evidence of deliberate misconduct. Many of those papers selected for examination by UEA were obscure, never having been challenged by critics—while others that had been criticized were not presented for review at all.

Lord Oxburgh’s final report stated that the papers were chosen “on the advice of the Royal Society”, however this was apparently untrue. In fact many or all of those papers were reportedly selected and cleared by CRU’s director, Phil Jones, a central figure in the ClimateGate controversy.

Although at least one committee member voiced serious concerns about how the CRU science had been conducted and incorporated into IPCC documents, no word of this was reported in the proceedings. And contrary to strong recommendations from committee members, no public interviews were conducted, no formal notes were taken, and no recordings or transcripts of interviews were made available to the public.

The remarkably short five-page Oxburgh report generously concluded that it found CRU scientists to be merely an innocent “small group of dedicated, if slightly confused, researchers.”

http://blogs.forbes.com/larrybell/2011/06/28/michael-mann-and-the-climategate-whitewash-part-one/

Tim Ball is one good honest scientist that I've been following since 2009.He speaks the simple truth which most still refuse to acknowledge.

Dear Tim Ball,

Here is my problem.

I, like many other lay people, do not have the science, experience, or the knowledge to fully grasp and judge the arguments made when one scientist challenges another.

What we can do however is make an assessment of the veracity we should be give to each based on their expertise or more specifically their qualifications and their areas of study. How they are regarded by their peers is of course important as is the manner with which they conduct themselves in public.

Addressing the last point first I certainly find it unseemly to have you attack a fellow scientist with such viciousness. That surely is the role for us plebs out here in the public where the politics is hashed out, why not leave the muckraking to us? Also it certainly appears you accuse Mr Hansen of political activism while engaging in just that yourself.

James Hansen wrote a brilliant paper in 1981 describing projections based on leading edge climate science and strong physics. He had a thorough background in the study of planetary atmospheres, the type of discipline that allowed NASA to land Curiosity so successfully. “He obtained a B.A. in Physics and Mathematics with highest distinction in 1963, an M.S. in Astronomy in 1965 and a Ph.D. in Physics, in 1967” (Wikipedia).

I would have thought a good physics background was a prerequisite for an understanding of Global Climatology.

You sir appeared to have presented for your Ph.D. A paper titled “CLIMATIC CHANGE IN CENTRAL CANADA: A Preliminary Analysis of Weather Information from the Hudson's Bay Company Forts at York Factory and Churchill Factory, 1714-1850”.

Speaking only as a layperson for me historical climatology doesn't quite cut it against global climatology.

Source Watch says of you;

“Dr. Timothy Ball is Chairman and Chair of the Scientific Advisory Committee of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP). Two of the three directors of the NRSP - Timothy Egan and Julio Lagos - are executives with the PR and lobbying company, the High Park Group (HPG).”

Cont...

Cont...

"Both HPG and Egan and Lagos work for energy industry clients and companies on energy policy. Ball is a Canadian climate change skeptic and was previously a "scientific advisor" to the oil industry-backed organization, Friends of Science. Ball is a member of the Board of Research Advisors of the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, a Canadian free-market think tank which is predominantly funded by foundations and corporations.”

As Muller has demonstrated getting funding from industry isn't a definitive guarantee that certain positions will be taken, but again from a layperson's perspective it isn't a good look.

What really gets up the nose of a person like myself is any scientist from whatever side of the argument overstating their credentials. Since it is from these that we make our most serious judgement calls any exaggeration or embellishment cuts right to the heart of the trustworthiness of the scientific voice.

You quite rightly are very protective of those credentials and you yourself have vigorously questioned those of others including our Tim Flannery. In 2006 you sued one Dr. Daniel Johnson and the proprietors of a newspaper for questioning yours. In his Statement of Defence Dr. Johnson made a series of firm rebuttals to your claim.
http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/Johnson%20statement%20of%20defence.pdf

Particularly damning in my opinion was the 8 or so pages devoted to answering the charge from your Statement of Claim that “Ball had falsified his professional and academic credentials”.

I'm certainly not going to rehash them here but I do wish you had proceeded with the case because they raised serious questions that deserved answering in a court of law.

Have you addressed these matters elsewhere that is accessible by the ordinary reader like myself?

One question on them if I may, I note that in a letter to the Hon. Paul Martin, P.C., M.P. In 2003 you signed “Dr Tim Ball, Environmental Consultant, Victoria, British Columbia, 28 years Professor of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg”. Are you disturbed that the OLO editor has de-capitalised you to “former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg”?

csteele

Go back and look at your own post. Basicaly its a case of throwing stones in a glass greenhouse. Hansen's career is on the line. He has to keep spinning the global warming line or he's dead. Ball has no such incentive. None of the sceptics do. There's hardly any money at all on the sceptics side, despite the extraordinary propaganda to the contrary that you see. Find a million which can be attributed, however loosely, to the sceptic cause and I'll find you $10 billion on the global warming side.

And the best you can find against Ball is that he was once connected with an oil company advisory board, or whatever it was. If we used that same criteria against the global warming side, they would all be disqualified on the spot. Many have connections with the likes of Greenpeace and all have accepted money, often many millions, to research global warming. They can't bite the hand that feeds them.

Tim Ball should be commended for his paper.

Sadly, warmist propagandists such as James Hansen still influence the Labor Govt's advisers and policy formulation. As a result, the Govt has been conned into adopting policies to convert from low-cost reliable coal-derived power to unreliable wind energy that costs at least twice as much and intermittent solar energy that costs at least six times as much, thus forcing electricity prices to sky-rocket, but having no impact on climate change.

Hypocritically, our PM is now trying to avoid the blame for the electricity price rises by blaming the States.

If only she would come to realise that electricity prices will keep rising thanks to her carbon dioxide tax and policy-driven measures to attain the renewable energy target (RET). There is simply no scientific nor economic justification for adopting such policies.

If the PM is serious about stopping further electricity price rises, she should abandon the RET altogether. The Coalition should do likewise if it is serious about adopting policy for the advancement of Australia

Dear Cumudgeon,

Thanks for taking up the cudgel. I have been busy so not had the chance to have some fun despite OLO being awash with GW articles recently, a good proportion of them coming from lawyers or economists.

You write;

“And the best you can find against Ball is that he was once connected with an oil company advisory board, or whatever it was.”. Not at all. You've read my post and that was not the gist of my message at all. In fact I said “As Muller has demonstrated getting funding from industry isn't a definitive guarantee that certain positions will be taken”.

I'm more concerned about judging opposing scientists via “the veracity we should be give to each based on their expertise or more specifically their qualifications and their areas of study.”

Dr Tim Ball, in his first sentence, basically calls Dr James Hansen despotic and you have the hide to claim I am throwing the stones?

To your contribution; “The problem has always been that there has never been any confirmation of the role of CO2 in the atmosphere. All we really know is that forecasts based on the action of CO2 have been unsuccessful. There is now a strong suspicion that its really the sun that drives climate.”

Bunkum.

Firstly there has never been any question that CO2 plays a role in warming this planet. If you want to deny the physics of CO2 then go ahead since as a journalist we understand it is not your area of expertise, however please don't expect us to follow.

James Hansen's 1981 paper in Nature is strong proof of just how well projections based on Physics stand up over time. It was a great piece of work especially given the information and computing power he had available to him at the time and has in no way been refuted.

Finally of course the sun drives climate, most notably via the Milankovitch Cycles which history shows will over ride quite high CO2 levels when the time comes. This negates nothing of Hansen's work.

Curmudgeon
You and your fellow travellers on this forum are not sceptics; you're deniers. You don't let any facts stand in the way of maintaining your position. Sceptics do change their position in light of evidence. So don't call yourself what you are clearly not.

Csteele; you have referred to Hansen’s 1981 paper as “brilliant”; it is not. In it Hansen develops the conventional greenhouse formula responsible for producing the 33C greenhouse temperature.

This formula ignores observational evidence about the relationship between atmospheric pressure and the lapse rate profile of the atmosphere.

In their 2nd paper Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tsheuschner show that by integrating the formulae for the physical processes which determine climate, what G&T call the Barometric Formulas such as Navier-Stokes, Coriolis and centrifugal accelerations, electromagnetic fields, ideal gas laws etc, the temperature profiles of idealized atmospheres can be calculated; G&T conclude that:

"In case of the adiabatic atmosphere the decrease of the temperature with height is described by a linear function with slope −g/Cp, where Cp depends weakly on the molecular mass……Since the measurable thermodynamic quantities of a voluminous medium, in particular the specific heat and the thermodynamic transport coefficients, naturally include the contribution from radiative interactions, we cannot expect that a change of concentration of a trace gas has any measurable effect."

CO2 is a trace gas.

A couple of points; firstly G&T’s work, peer reviewed and unrebutted does not exclude a greenhouse effect; it merely establishes its minor role.

2ndly and ancillary to point 1, CO2 does have a heat-trapping capacity but due to Hottel’s principles, domination of H2O in the emissivity spectrum and Beers Law that capacity is limited to levels below the current atmospheric concentration of CO2.

Finally not one of Hansen’s predictions about temperature have been verified; see:

http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/guest/evans-david/hansen-1988-a-b-c-scenarios.gif

Hansen is not brilliant, he is an activist who is prepared to exaggerate, scarify and fudge the facts to support his cause.

What facts would they be, popnperish?

You will find that the alarmists are very short on facts, but to prove me wrong you might come up with the science which shows that human emissions have any measurable effect on climate.

For all the attacks on Ball in the comments, no one has come up with any science to refute anything that he has said, or any facts to refute what he says about Hansen.

It is clear that Hansen does not rely on science to back his activism, but on misrepresentations.

It is clear that CO2, demonised as the cause of global warming, has been increasing for the last 14 years, with no increase in temperature, and if the truth somehow emerges despite the efforts of the fraud backers, probably some cooling.

It is not science to assert that correlation demonstrates causation, but a misrepresentation, Hansen’s specialty.

But popnperish ignores facts, like his role model, the railway engineer who runs the IPCC.

When Pachauri answered a criticism regarding a misrepresentation on the Himalayan glaciers, he immediately attacked the scientists pointing out the error as “voodoo scientists”. This underlines his complete lack of scientific background.

The mistake came about through reliance by the IPCC on a WWF propaganda leaflet in lieu of any scientific observation. To underline his arrogance, Pachauri, in answer to a call for tigher standards, had a resolution passed to make “grey literature” like the WWF lies permissible as IPCC references.

csteele

Look, again we come to the problem that most of those who debate this issue about CO2 in the atmosphere have not caught up with the basics. The DIRECT effect of CO2 in the atmosphere is well known and has never been the subject of argument by either side. The level of CO2 in greenhouses is frequently pushed up to double that of the atmosphere and its a matter of simple experiment. Doubling present concentrations results in an increase of 1.1 degrees, all things being equal.

The real issue is the INDIRECT or feedback effect of the mild warming caused by increases in CO2. This has to with the levels of water vapour in the atmosphere. So the big temperature increases you read about are the result of assumed major feedback effects. Those feedback effects have msot decided not been confirmed.

I won't discuss those points further but I'd suggest you read up.

Yes, the sun does drive climate, so there is a real question about the previous mild warming I mention is swamped by other factors. For the Milenkovitch cycles you mention are just one part of it.. but that's a whole world for you to discover.. I have wrtiten about this on this forum in the past, if you search on the byline Mark Lawson.

popnperish

no, I'm a sceptic, the problem is that the new evidence does not favour your views on the subject..

csteele You are relying heavily on desmogblog an activist website which specialises in character assassination not factual rebuttal. Again we see your post attempting to "prove" that Tim Ball has falsified his credentials by referencing dubious sources. Ball has answered this question on numerous occasions but you have not apparently read his answer.

Climatology refers to a number of different disciplines including Climate Physics, Climate Chemistry, Meteorology and others such as Historical Climatology which is Ball's PhD thesis category.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_climatology

Surely you are engaging in the same vitriol of which you are complaining.

Dear cohenite,

Are you really trotting out those two Germans again? I thought their rather interesting take on the second law of thermodynamics had been dealt with a couple of years ago. Saying their work has been peer reviewed is stretching but to say they have been unrebutted is just plain wrong. Hung, drawn and quartered might be a more apt description.

Just take Halper et al's response “COMMENT ON "FALSIFICATION OF THE ATMOSPHERIC CO2 GREENHOUSE EFFECTS WITHIN THE FRAME OF PHYSICS" published later in the same journal;

“In this journal, Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner claim to have falsified the existence of an atmospheric greenhouse effect. Here, we show that their methods, logic, and conclusions are in error. Their most significant errors include trying to apply the Clausius statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics to only one side of a heat transfer process rather than the entire process, and systematically ignoring most non-radiative heat flows applicable to the Earth's surface and atmosphere. … they claim that radiative balance requires that the surface cool by 100 K or more at night, an obvious absurdity induced by an unphysical assumption.

BTW do you understand half of what you have posted?

Dear Leo Lane,

You wrote; “For all the attacks on Ball in the comments, no one has come up with any science to refute anything that he has said, or any facts to refute what he says about Hansen.”. There was not much science in Ball's article to refute, more diatribe.

Dear Altman,

So despotic, misdirector of public policy, “disregard for scientific accuracy”, “no scientist would make such a claim”, “mistakes that have been typical throughout his career”, “narrowness inappropriate in science”, “perpetuate false science to the detriment of society”, “misinterpreting for some reason”, “abuse of public trust", are fine but me linking to a source document is vitriol?

Don't make me laugh.

Dear cumudgeon,

Post limits means I will have to get to you next although I still have had no reply on your Forecasting thread.

csteele, I'm deeply shocked. Not once during the the 11 years that John Howard was Prime Minister of Australia did you accept that he was right on everything although he must have been, because on your logic, to determine who is right and who is wrong, you simply tote up the number of people who support each side of the argument. He definitely had the numbers.

Given your failure to acknowledge Howard's obvious rightness(on your logic) I can only assume that it is a convenient, not a correct, argument that you advance.

Dear GrahamY,

Perhaps it's the time of night but I will admit to having to take a minute or two to get my head around what you were putting to me.

I hope my answers are at least cogent.

To your first point;

"to determine who is right and who is wrong, you simply tote up the number of people who support each side of the argument"

My best answer is to reiterate an earlier post;

"I, like many other lay people, do not have the science, experience, or the knowledge to fully grasp and judge the arguments made when one scientist challenges another."

"What we can do however is make an assessment of the veracity we should be give to each based on their expertise or more specifically their qualifications and their areas of study. How they are regarded by their peers is of course important as is the manner with which they conduct themselves in public."

That being said I do acknowledge the truism that once a position is settled upon it is far harder to be shifted by pugnacious offerings such as this article than one might otherwise have been.

Which leads us to your second point;

"I can only assume that it is a convenient, not a correct, argument that you advance.”

Though not quite comfortable with your wording I would have to agree, yes, particularly where the science of GW is concerned. Yet I would argue that that is the fate of all of us without at least a Ph.D in Physics.

That being said I'm not sure I'm advancing too many arguments more responding in the same bullish manner that seems to pervade the skeptic/denier cohort.

While I'm of the mind the data is showing Hansen has possibly overestimated the climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 at 4.2C and that the figure is closer to 3C I think he is a fine, top shelf, if not passionate scientist. I find the attacks on him, especially from those who don't come within a bull's roar of his stature, distasteful and deserving of a response.

I believe the following statement by the author is a scientific statement: "…no study to date has positively attributed all or part of climate change observed to man-made causes.”

Can you refute that science, csteele?

You say: “"What we can do however is make an assessment of the veracity we should be give to each based on their expertise or more specifically their qualifications and their areas of study. How they are regarded by their peers is of course important as is the manner with which they conduct themselves in public."

You seem to have taken little notice of how Hansen is regarded by his peers. A letter from 48 of his work colleagues asserted that he has not only brought NASA into disrepute, but Science itself.

I make an assessment of veracity based on whether the statement is true or not, by objective observation.

If a statement is made that human emissions contribute to climate change, then the statement should be backed by scientific observation.

They are shown to have a local effect, but the global effect is trivial, and not measurable. If the waterfront dwelling Minister for Lies about Sea Levels urinates in the ocean adjoining his home, we know that the ocean is polluted, but the pollution is trivial and not measurable.

The natural CO2 cycle contains 3% human emissions of CO2. It has a 10% natural variation. How can human emissions be shown to have any significance? You believe that someone of high scientific ability misinforming us will prove it. A Realist does not believe that.

We know that human emissions have an effect, but it is trivial and not measurable.

We are grateful to Tim Ball for his informative and honest article. Smears of the author from the addled thinking alarmists amongst us are unhelpful and inappropriate

The way Hansen is regarded by his peers, you say, is relevant to you, csteele, so the following may help:

“We feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate,” they wrote. “At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.”

The letter was signed by seven Apollo astronauts, a deputy associate administrator, several scientists, and even the deputy director of the space shuttle program.”

And

“The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decision or public statements,” the critics added.”

http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/washington-secrets/2012/04/astronauts-condemn-nasa%E2%80%99s-global-warming-endorsement/469366

Hansen is a statistician, and apparently a very good one. It is a field where the practitioner has to make objective judgments. Hansen has lost his objectivity, and is no longer capable of the judgment demanded of him to carry out his work.

It is important that this be recognised, so that he is no longer in a position to mislead the public. His co-workers, and Tim Ball have contributed to recognition of his untenable status. Hopefully his misinformation will be at some point totally disregarded.

We must congratulate OLO for its role in publishing appropriate articles. It would help if the alarmists could be objective, and refrain from irresponsible outbursts when confronted wit the Truth.

Dear Leo Lane,

You wrote;

“I believe the following statement by the author is a scientific statement: "…no study to date has positively attributed all or part of climate change observed to man-made causes.”

Can you refute that science, csteele?”

Are you serious?

There have been literally thousands of studies attributing all or part of climate change to man-made causes. Even Hansen in 1981 said the global temperatures that would raise themselves over the noise after 2000 would be attributable to man-made causes.

Oh wait, I see, silly me. What you are really saying is that in the opinion of Dr Tim Ball, who must have reviewed every paper on the subject, “no study to date has positively attributed all or part of climate change observed to man-made causes.”.

That sir is an opinion not science, at least not in my world.

To your letter from the 48 serving and former astronauts and scientists. There were some distinguished names on the list including Dr Chris Kraft who should be instantly recognisable to admirers of the US space program. But of all the closest we came to a climate scientist was the last person listed, Mr Thomas Wysmuller a meteorologist. One was quite intriguing, a Dr. Harold Doiron – JSC, Chairman, Shuttle Pogo Prevention Panel. Love to know what that involved.

They are not saying the CO2 is not a principle driver only that the science is not definitive. I'm not sure these 48 out of the literally tens of thousands of current and former NASA employees requesting the organisation refrain from referring to CO2 as a climate change driver is in keeping with transparent public discussion, but as evidenced by this article the fight over the science of GW is pretty brutal and many on the list would find it distasteful as do I.

Sadly this is a consequence of nastiness displayed by many engaging in the debate.

Now my friend can you show me where I have made an “irresponsible outburst”?

Denial is a part of the human mind.
As Churchill said that the receptive capacity of a mans mind to register disaster is like a three inch pipe under a culvert. The three inch pipe will go on passing the water through under pressure, but when a flood comes the water flows over the culvert whilst the pipe goes on handling it's three inches. Similarly the human brain will register emotions up to it's three inch limit and subsequently additional emotions flow past unregistered.
Eventually it will become so obvious that global warming is a fact that even humans will accept it.

I remember Tim Ball's effort in the UK documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle" - some say a swindle itself.

In retirement, he writes numerous op-eds much the same meme as this - nothing much new.

Tim Ball disagrees with many other 'contrarian' scientists who acknowledge humanity's impact - they really should sort it.

Tim Ball is not a "Doctor of Science", despite his claim to the contrary.

Yes, csteele, you have nothing to back your assertions. No science, and no facts.

Your statement:“thousands of studies attributing all or part of climate change to man-made causes” is the usual science deficient claptrap.

Just give one study which measures the effect of man made emissions on global climate.

There are plenty of weasel worded inferences posing as scientific observations.

We know that, the statement by the Royal Society is a prime example.

We also know that there is no scientific basis for any assertion that human emissions have any significance in global climate. Fancy giving Hansen as a reference. He did not say it in a scientific paper, but in one of his misinforming articles.

In scientific terms the assertion is “plausible, but not measurable”, or “trivially true, but of no significance”.

You do not need to be a scientist to understand that, csteele, just rational.

Another smearing session from bonmot, who cannot help himself. It is surprising that he posts here considering the fool he has made of himself in the past. He now calls telling the truth about AGW “a swindle”.

Dear Leo Lane,

You wrote;

"Just give one study which measures the effect of man made emissions on global climate."

And,

"Fancy giving Hansen as a reference. He did not say it in a scientific paper, but in one of his misinforming articles"

Strewth laddie you do prattle on in absolute ignorance don't you. Have you even read Hansen's 1981 paper? It appears not.

"The global temperature rose 0.2°C between the middle 1960s and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide."

It is pretty hard to get something plainer than that in scientific parlance.

Now could I invite you to do a little more homework before shooting your mouth off so I don't have to waste another post.

Casteele,

You are offering (as Hansen was) correlation as though it were causation. It's not of course. The increase that Hansen found is also consistent with a return from the Little Ice Age, and with Martians aiming heat rays on Earth. What you were asked for is the proof of a causal hypothesis. I would be glad to see it, too. I haven't found one yet.

csteele; you dismiss G&T's 2nd paper on the basis of Halpern's paper which was in response to G&T's FIRST paper. G&T replied to Halpern's comment on their FIRST paper here:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1012.0421.pdf

You make the smug comment about me not understanding 1/2 of what I have posted; at least I can get the papers correct.

But since you have thrown out the challenge, can you in YOUR OWN words sum up how Halpern concludes that G&T are incorrect in their presentation of the defects of the Greenhouse effect?

Once you do that, then we can move onto G&T's 2nd paper, about which Halpern has been conspicuously silent.

And please, refrain from smugness; if and when you can point out where G&T have gone wrong in their integration of the Barometric Formulae, all of which are well known in describing physical processes, then you can adopt the arrogance which defines the otherwise witless comments of those who defend AGW.

Dear cohenite,

Me smug?

Some examples of smugness;

“Hansen is a scaremonger and agitprop; his role in perpetuating the outrage of AGW is as culpable as anyones' has been. Just recently he wrote this piece on "extreme weather" the new scare tactic along with ocean acidification of the alarmists:”

and

“None of the manifest defects of Hnsen's scare piece are picked up by the MSM; the big con of AGW has moved on to the next lie and yet we have the likes of JohnBennets rabbiting on about frogs. Well the frog isn't a frog, it's a toad and it's AGW and no princess is going to change this toad into a prince.”

What make you lot so enjoyable is you go all attack dog from the get go then when someone has a nibble back you go all whimpery and cry foul.

Suck it up princess.

I didn't have the wrong paper it was just that I couldn't get past the rot in the first one. But to cheer you up, since you have gotten yourself all sulky, I have had a look.

“On the one hand, since the venusian atmosphere is opaque to visible light, the central assumption of the greenhouse hypotheses is not obeyed.”
Gerlich and Tscheuschner, On The Barometric Formulas page 12..13

Please follow this link to pictures from the Soviet Venus landers.

http://www.mentallandscape.com/C_CatalogVenus.htm

You will not only see pictures from the surface of Venus, albeit a little yellow tinged, but also spectra for the 360-830nm wave lengths. Visible light is 390-750nm.

Why on earth do you persist with these dudes?

Just to aid your scientific literacy 'opaque' means “Impenetrable by light; neither transparent nor translucent.”

Incidentally Halpern is hardly going to respond to a paper that is still unpublished. The only reason he and the others responded to the first was it managed to get itself into the International Journal of Modern Physics (B). If this paper gets published as is in the same journal I will promise to take a year sabbatical from OLO.

Now go hush for a bit.

Sulky eh? Not me, not when I have dilettantes like you to play with; you say:

"You will not only see pictures from the surface of Venus, albeit a little yellow tinged, but also spectra for the 360-830nm wave lengths. Visible light is 390-750nm."

You idiot; those pictures are taken on the SURFACE of Venus, not from the TOP of the atmosphere looking down to the surface! Even wiki gets that:

"but the surface of Venus is obscured by an atmosphere opaque to visible light."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observations_and_explorations_of_Venus

Smug and stupid is not a good combination.

“Have you even read Hansen's 1981 paper?” asks csteele.

Has he ever read the paper? Here are a couple of quotes from it:

“The major difficulty in accepting this theory has been the absence of observed warming coincident with the historic CO2 increase.” . (page 957)
and “The time history of the warming obviously does not follow the course of the CO2 increase (Fig 1) indicating that other factors must affect global mean temperature.” (Page 961)

What csteele has read is a dishonest beat up of Hansen’s paper, and taken it as fact.

He should never do that when reading material produced by AGW fraud backers. He should have read past the abstract, and at least looked at some of the paper. The abstract, on its own, can be quite misleading, for a scientific document.

Hansen's scientific presentation suffers from his promotional bias.

Whether csteele should be given the benefit of the doubt and considered ignorant rather than dishonest, I will leave to you.

I consider that we have the necessary material to show that it is one or the other.

"Smug and stupid is not a good combination."

You got that right.

Cohenite, I can see you are saying that light reaches the surface of Venus, which means that the atmosphere allows the passage of light to it, and yet also saying that the atmosphere does not allow the passage of light back out, which obscures observations of it.

Does this somehow support the idea that csteele quoted?:
“On the one hand, since the venusian atmosphere is opaque to visible light, the central assumption of the greenhouse hypotheses is not obeyed.”
Gerlich and Tscheuschner, On The Barometric Formulas page 12..13

Where does the energy go if visible light enters, but does not exit? and why does this not support the greenhouse hypothesis?

csteele.
Although we can say with absolute certainty, that measurable irrefutable climate change is real, we can't say with equal certainty that it is man made?
Or what percentile is the actual product of human activity?
And or, should that matter?
With the appropriate conditioning, a subject can be made to believe, the piece of chalk held against his/her skin is hot! In fact, in some instances it will leave a blister?
Conversely, various groups have apparently walked on hot embers, without leaving any physical trace of heat trauma? And Pavlov's dogs salivated at the sound of a bell?
Likewise, it may be argued that denialism; or preferred Ideology, is part of conditioning; or a fundamental belief system, and clung to, even when every available or marshalled fact, says otherwise.
[There are Idealogs in this world, who manifestly BELIEVE that you can achieve economic growth via austerity and or, alleged reporters, who will never let the facts get in the way of a good story?]
Others will behave like the proverbial warm and comfortable frog, in a pot of water being slowly brought to the boil; and die before the penny drops.
Others with vested interest will argue against anything that harms that interest?
[An investment property in a popular seaside resort or mining shares etc?]
Is climate change real?
Well the ice is melting at an alarming rate and far faster than anyone predicted?
Is it man-made or just part of the natural cycle?
Does that really matter?
Either way, there are things we can and should do to ameliorate against its effect, preferably before our coastal cities are inundated by the rising oceans?
Which according to fish fossil finds, apparently rose around seventy metres, the last time we had a major melt down?
The very best solutions will be ones that walk out the door and confer liberty; and much cheaper energy on a still captive energy market, currently held hostage by a few private players, who simply don't give a rats, if their greed eventually destroys the economy; or indeed, lifeboat planet earth?
Cheers, Rhrosty.

Bugsy, if you are interested in a very good discussion of Venus's temperature profile, includng the details of what sunlight reaches the surface of Venus and Albedo factors, it is here:

http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/06/22/venusian-mysteries-part-two/#comment-4481

The comments of Dr leonard Weinstein of NASA are particularly informative; at July 22, 2010 at 12:57 pm he says:

"The albedo of Venus is about 0.75. That means 75% of sunlight is reflected. Of the remaining, 25%, I think that only about 10 to 20 W/m2 reach the ground near the equator at mid day (someone please correct this if I am wrong). If that is correct, the average would be about 1/4 of that due to latitude variation and night. In fact, the ground does not absorb all of this but reflects a portion.Thus the average solar heating of the ground is probably less than 5 W/m2."

It also means that only a very small proportion of the sunlight striking the outer atmosphere of Venus actually reaches the ground and it is that small amount of sunlight which is reemitted from the surface which makes the atmosphere opaque; it doesn't mean, as csteele suggests that you can't see things on the surface.

"It also means that only a very small proportion of the sunlight striking the outer atmosphere of Venus actually reaches the ground and it is that small amount of sunlight which is reemitted from the surface which makes the atmosphere opaque; it doesn't mean, as csteele suggests that you can't see things on the surface."

While I didn't see csteele suggesting such a thing (in fact I thought the exact opposite was suggested), how does this invalidate the central assumption of the greenhouse effect as G&T suggest? If sunlight enters atmosphere, sunlight reaches surface etc., why no greenhouse effect?

Dear Bugsy,

Well put and far more forgiving than what I had prepared. Thank you.

Oh dear Cohenite,

Now I'm feeling a touch sorry for you my friend.

You really should have cut the Germans loose and left well enough alone. The whole premise of the argument “since the venusian atmosphere is opaque to visible light, the central assumption of the greenhouse hypotheses is not obeyed.” has to be predicated on the idea that no light reaches the planet's surface. But you went right ahead, compounding their ignorance about Venus' atmosphere by illustrating your own lack of understanding about the physics and mechanics of the atmospheric greenhouse effect.

Extending your argument would mean that there is no greenhouse effect under a cloud on earth since although light can pass through it it is indeed opaque to light from the surface for an observer in space. That is just stupid.

But visible light from the surface is not even the issue rather it is the infra-red spectrum that is reflected from it and absorbed by GHGs. The Venusian atmosphere is 96.5% CO2 causing trapped heat to elevate its surface temperature to the hottest of all the planets.

Sigh.

My problem mate is this. I will readily admit to failing Year 12 Physics but even a cursory look at the German's paper revealed a gaping hole. You however are writing articles on this issue published in places like OLO and being read by I assume thousands. I asked earlier about one of your posts whether you understood even half of it. Based on your latest offering I feel I was generous. This worries me and should worry others.

When you double down after it is shown a paper is so obviously incorrect then your ability to examine evidence with any kind of objectivity has to be seriously questioned. In my opinion this unfortunately labels you firmly as a denier.

Dear Rhrosty, Leo and Don,

Thank you for your posts addressing me. I am under the pump today but hope to get to them tomorrow if I may.

"But visible light from the surface is not even the issue rather it is the infra-red spectrum that is reflected from it"

You raised visible light, not me; and:

"has to be predicated on the idea that no light reaches the planet's surface."

That is not true; the spectrum of radiation emitted from a surface depends on the temperature of that surface, but even a very hot surface such as the sun's emits over the full range of the spectrum; read Wien's law and Stefan-Boltzman.

Venus's surface is very hot even though light and IR barely reach it; the reason for this is that the UV part of the spectrum still warms the surface. That surface is so hot CO2 only exists as a super critical fluid; how can a fluid block any IR which leaves the surface; the short answer is it doesn't but clouds of sulphuric acid will.

The greenhouse effect on Venus is at the characteristic emission level [CEL] for CO2, which is about 50 klms above the surface; this again is based on the fact that surfaces emit a spectrum which is based on their temperature; the CEL for CO2 is much cooler than the surface and accordingly that is where CO2 emission occurs.

A couple of points;

Venus is temperature stable; if it were being warmed by a Greenhouse effect it would keep getting hotter; it isn't so it isn't.

Venus's temperature profile is consistent with its pressure profile; so is Earth's and tellingly, so is Mar's which has an atmospheric concentration of CO2 about the same as Venus's; if CO2 were the super greenhouse agent asserted by AGW, wouldn't Mars be as hot as Venus?

csteele has adopted a supercilious tone which defines the AGW advocates; also typically he has shown he does not have even the basic idea of the science which is being misrepresented by AGW; in this he is in good company; in Halpern's alleged rebuttal of G&T the 'Greenhouse Effect' is not even defined.

Anthony, with all due respect - stick to your day job.

Sarnian,

'Oh dear, what will it take to make you see the light?
Maybe the sea rising over your favourite beach or a cyclone devastating Sydney?'

Respectfully, yes, that would do.
When is your prediction for those 'extreme weather events'? .

'Eventually it will become so obvious that global warming is a fact that even humans will accept it.'

Does this indicate that you think it is only 'super' or 'sub' humans who can currently able to accept 'global warming'?

If it is I'd agree with you. Only elitists and/or cretins ... hmmmm interesting?

Rhoasty,

tell me all you know about the fabled North West Passage.
Did you know it was discovered in the 19th century and was then navigatable by tall ship sail boat

Nowadays, it is navigatable by modern motor/sail boat for only a 4 week window each year.

Hint; goggle Baffin Island for useful info.

I intend to undertake a NW passage by sail boat and have been advised to have sufficient fuel on board to complete the passage as the winds are light during the ice free period.

You should assess the climate, in that region, in light of the impact of the current weather facts. ie Ice expanding and receding anually, likely warmer/cooler temps of water, and consequent air temps and consequent light winds.
Then read historical accounts of NW Passage attempts. I'd be interested in your intrepretations. I'd be shocked if they were different to mine, but I'd learn something or confirm something ... for sure.

"stick to your day job."

A good day job would be waiting for you to say something relevant to supporting AGW.

I linked to Dr Weinstein and the discussion about the pressure contribution to Venus's temperature, csteele is off genuflecting to a picture of his God, Hansen, so it is all up to you bonmot; do you agree with Weinstein, or SOD or Arthur Smith? If you don't agree with Weinstein then can you explain why AGW is now focusing on Stratospheric cooling as a result of the CEL for CO2 expanding upwards due to increased CO2 and CO2 emitting at a higher level therefore cooling the Stratosphere, and why this isn't happening?

Dear Cohenite,

Now I'm feeling more than a bit embarrassed for you. I was going to quote the adage 'when you find yourself in a hole the first thing you should do is stop digging', but that wouldn't quite do justice to your last post.

Perhaps a better metaphor is when you have been dakked (for our overseas readers 'dakked' - having one's strides pulled down to the ankles by another) the best course of action is to pull them straight back up and rescue some dignity by blaming the offender. We would have had a laugh but recognised it wasn't all your own fault. What you don't do is promptly strip off your jocks and reveal just how little you have been playing with.

I mean did you even pause a moment before making the statement? “Venus is temperature stable; if it were being warmed by a Greenhouse effect it would keep getting hotter; it isn't so it isn't.”.

How can we now look at any of your future offerings with any sense that you know what you are talking about?

This is exactly why a background in planetary atmospherics such as Hansen's is such a strong grounding for studying our own global climate. What do you think the likelihood of him making such a fundamental error as your two?

In fact it was the global warming calculations of Venus where Carl Sagan cut his teeth. You trot out a couple of obscure German's to challenge and dismantle the work of greats such as he and don't think you might get tripped up?

I think bonmot is wrong saying you should stick to your day job because that is actually exactly what you are doing. There aren't too many lawyers who will throw their hands up in court and say my case is hopeless and I give up. They will divert, bring in irrelevancies, challenge minor points but in the end they are usually done and dusted just as you are now my friend.

Who's next?

"This is exactly why a background in planetary atmospherics such as Hansen's is such a strong grounding for studying our own global climate."

You are full of it and so is Hansen; after all Hansen has concluded that Earth will end like Venus due to the Greenhouse effect; he's called it The Venus Syndrome:

http://climatechangepsychology.blogspot.com.au/2008/12/james-hansens-agu-presentation-venus.html

Even Humbert thinks this is nuts:

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/28/more-views-on-global-warmin-and-arctic-methane/

Humbert says:

"I think that Jim Hansen is demonstrably wrong in his assertion that a Venus-type runaway greenhouse is a virtual certainty if we burn all the coal; he is right about almost everything and I greatly admire him, but he is wrong about this."

There you go, Humbert thinks the sun shines out of Hansen's orifaces yet still thinks he's wrong about Venus on Earth.

For the benefit of csteele, who is increasingly looking like a troll, I'll clarify the issue:

If the Greenhouse is still operating on Venus and sunlight in the form of UV is penetrating the atmosphere and heating the surface but IR is being prevented from leaving the surface by the ~96%CO2 concentration in the Venusian atmosphere then why isn't Hansen right about a runaway effect, not on Earth, but on Venus?

Can csteele and bonmot, or anyone, please sort this out for the poor deluded fools who are trying to make sense of this.

We are producing more co2 than nature can support, so we are creating a green house effect, and gaining momentum.
Extreme weather events right around the globe.
Floods in qld two years running, why not three.
A dry winter in the south, drought is predicted.
On track for another record ice melt.
Greenland melting faster than ever.
It all points to nature being compromised, and out of control.
Time for argument has expired.

What a joke.

This coming from a guy who has been caught out lying about his credentials and was completely unheard of until he started taking money from oil industry investors.

Denialists don't seem to be too fussy about the integrity of their sources. They'll accept the word of anyone who says what they want to hear.

Dear Leo Lane,

I quoted this to you;

"The global temperature rose 0.2°C between the middle 1960s and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide."

You replied with;

“What csteele has read is a dishonest beat up of Hansen’s paper, and taken it as fact.”

That 'dishonest beatup' was taken from the summary of Hansen's actual paper as published in the journal Science.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_etal.pdf

I am happy to concede that the editor, rather than Hansen and his co-authors, may well have written it to introduce the paper but to impugn that one of the world's most prestigious scientific journals is a “AGW fraud backer” and would indulge in a 'dishonest beatup” is ludicrous in the extreme. If your conspiracy theories run this deep I'm not sure there is much use in engaging with you.

Retract and I will endeavour to address the other quotes.

Dear Don Aitken,

You wrote;

“You are offering (as Hansen was) correlation as though it were causation.”

It is not a 'casual hypothesis' but rather strongly grounded calculations of positive and negative forcings on the climate, particularly from the increased concentrations of CO2.

If you examine Fig 5 on page 963 of the journal you will see modelling for a climate sensitivity of 2.8C for a doubling of CO2. Once forcing from volcanic aerosols and sun variance are included there is indeed strong correlation to the observed temperatures but he has only gone there to explain why “The time history of the warming obviously does not follow the course of the CO2 increase”. The base calculations of warming from increased GHG's are his concern, the other two are what he refers to as 'noise'.

“It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980's.”

Indeed it did.

Dear Rhrosty

You wrote;

“Is it man-made or just part of the natural cycle? Does that really matter? Either way, there are things we can and should do to ameliorate against its effect,”

In a way you have hit the nail on the head. If Ghia decides its time to let the earth slip into another Ice Age I'm selfish enough to say bugger that and stand shoulder to shoulder with the next bloke shovelling coal into a furnace as fast as I could. If someone claimed it was our destiny and tried to stop me I would pause only long enough to deliver the flat side up along side of their head.

We have had a rather blessed 10,000 years of relatively stable climatic conditions that has allowed human civilisation to flourish. Call me selfish I for one am pretty keen for them to continue for myself and for my species.

We are getting some pretty strong indications from some solid science that we are tipping the balance the other way. On this occasion the people getting in our way of us doing things to ameliorate against its effect are those claiming it is all just a scam, often with vested interests.

I'm just swinging a shovel here.

for csteele:

I wrote about a 'causal hypothesis', not a casual one!

You haven't answered my objection, and have added another weakness. Yes, he argues that the correlation is strong, but that's all it is. It's not my job to provide an alternative hypothesis. His job is to disentangle CO2 from natural variability. He doesn't do it, or even try.

And you say that he was proved right as warming did increase by the end of the 20th century. And indeed it did, but after 1998 warming went down and then up and then down again, and then up, and so on, and the line that he thought would continue to the present has faltered. There's got to be something else than CO2 out there, hasn't there. Do you know what it is? Is there only one factor, or are there many? How would you go about deciding?

How about you retract your baseless statement:” to impugn that one of the world's most prestigious scientific journals is a “AGW fraud backer” and would indulge in a 'dishonest beatup” is ludicrous in the extreme”, csteele?

The reason you cannot reply to the quotes, is that I have given you the reason, from the paper itself, as to why it is nonsense to assert that Hansen was right.

The last 14 years has seen a continuous rise in the proportion of the trace element CO2 in the atmosphere, and no rise in global temperature. The warming up to 1998 released the CO2 into the atmosphere. The CO2 has caused no warming, so there is not even a correlation now, never mind the causation that never was.

Do you realise how stupid your statement about “world’s most prestigious” sounds?

The Royal Society was the world’s most prestigious until it was subverted to publishing untrue statements about AGW.

As the Hon. Nigel Calder, who was editor of New Scientist, and has followed the AGW scam from its inception says: ”Many eminent folk from science, politics, industry, finance, the media and the arts are taken in by man-made climate catastrophe. (In London, for example, from the Royal Society to the National Theatre.) Sadly for them, in the past ten years they’ve crowded with their warmist badges into a Hall of Shame, like bankers before the crash.”

http://calderup.wordpress.com/2011/08/24/cern-experiment-confirms-cosmic-ray-action/

I do not expect that you have the prestige to make it into the Hall of Shame, csteele, but your assertions would get you there, if only you had the prestige.

By the way, I had to obtain the quotes from secondary sources. Hansens’s 1981 paper is disabled, on the NASA website. I wonder why?

Possibly to cover the fraud backers who make assertions that he was right.

For Anthony:

>> If the Greenhouse is still operating on Venus and sunlight in the form of UV is penetrating the atmosphere and heating the surface but IR is being prevented from leaving the surface by the ~96%CO2 concentration in the Venusian atmosphere then why isn't Hansen right about a runaway effect, not on Earth, but on Venus?

... please sort this out for the poor deluded fools who are trying to make sense of this. <<

I do understand why wannabe fools such as yourself, cohenite, might have difficulty. Like I said, stick to your day job.

The high albedo of Venus is due to its sulphuric acid clouds. Consider an albedo of say 30%; then the adsorbed solar radiation early in its history would have been about 330 W/m2 (which is just barely in excess of the mandatory ‘runaway threshold’ of about 310 W/m2 for Venus’ surface gravity). Therefore, if we neglected (we don't) the effects of clouds, higher surface albedo, sub-saturation, etc., Venus could exist in a hot and steamy but ‘non-runaway’ state with a liquid ocean (the high water vapour content of the upper atmosphere would still allow an enhanced rate of photo-dissociation and escape of water into space). Venus probably succumbed to a ‘runaway’ state since even with the present solar constant, the absorbed solar radiation without sulphuric acid clouds would be about 460 W/m2, well in excess of the ‘runaway threshold’.

'Part-time' lawyers (when they're not blogging or hosting the likes of wannabe 'Lords') pretending to be climatologists should leave planetary atmospheric physics well alone – or undertake a real undergraduate course in the principles of planetary climate.

bonmot; I am glad you verify G&T's statement that the atmosphere of Venus is opaque to visible light, which csteele strove to disagree with; and it is true that Venus's albedo is largely due to suphur content in its clouds; other then that however, I don't think your scenario for runaway on Venus can be laid at its previous ocean/cloud based surface and atmosphere [if indeed that was the case]; for 2 reasons.

Firstly, it is now beyond doubt that water clouds are a NEGATIVE feedback to warming through IR thermalisation.

Secondly, your scenario ignores the tectonic structure of Venus; which is to say it has no tectonic structure which allows internal heat to be removed and CO2 sequestration to occur [see Craig O'Neill's work on planetary tectonics]. That lack is sufficient in itself through geologically periodic upheaval and planetary volcanic activity to have produced the current conditions on Venus, although, no doubt there was some greenhouse contribution.

Anyway, you have not answered my query about why Venus does not continue to heat if its greenhouse atmosphere is still 'greenhousing' with a solar constant, as it should if AGW theory is correct.

Anthony, I understand why you do it, you really don't understand what you are talking about.

"you really don't understand what you are talking about."

Well, explain why; I mean I'm still waiting for any analysis by you; you keep linking to sites and expect that to mean something; for instance you linked [on another thread] to the CSIRO site on sea rise, as though that repudiates Houston and Dean's paper on sea level when they use the same data which the CSIRO site refers to.

I mean that doesn't make sense; do you even know what Houston and Dean did; let's talk about that paper since I'm not going to get any sense out of you about Venus. So, do you think Houston and Dean have answered Rahmstorf's critique of their paper? If not, why not?

"Climate science and policy: the tension between argument and debate."

http://theconversation.edu.au/climate-science-and-policy-the-tension-between-argument-and-debate-8761

Dear Leo Lane,

http://pubs.giss.NASA.GOV/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_etal.pdf

Actually Loopy Leo Lane does have a certain ring.

You are off the scale my friend and really need to dial it back more than a few notches.

Dear Don Aitken,

I have answered your objection just not well enough to have it understood it would seem. I'm happy to accept that is my fault as you haven't thus far indicated you are a 'la la la' intoning, fingers in ears, rocking back and forth, rabid denialist like some who will remain nameless.

This is my understanding of the paper. As a physicist Hansen takes the properties of CO2 and its impact on a planet's greenhouse effect calculations as a physical given. He provides an explanation of the effect but rightly doesn't see his job as proving the mechanics of effect in this paper.

It is like someone explaining why Australia is hotter in summer. There may well be vast differences in temperatures throughout the season but the underlying 'forcing' is the fact the daylight hours are extended during that part of the year. Discussion of the tilt of the earth is of course warranted but offering proofs about this tilt is not.

At the top of fig 5 Hansen presents the effect of CO2 completely unencumbered from natural variability only later entangling it to help overcome peoples “difficulty in accepting this theory” because of the 'absence of observed warming coincident with historic CO2 increase.” and of course to help ground his model for the projections he then made.

Hansen is saying with a doubling of CO2 the world will be around 3C warmer than it would have been without it. For instance he was not to know that a ban on CFCs would come into effect years later (seeing a plateauing and now dropping of their concentrations) thus affecting projections, indeed there is evidence he may have even underestimated their impact back then.

But while the base temperature of the globe may well change due to other factors the elevating effect of the physical ramifications of a doubling of CO2 will not.

csteele refers to Figure 5 of Hansen's 1981 paper and confirms that he does not know what he is talking about. The climate sensitivity from that Figure is 2.8C for 2XCO2, which is less than the 3.2C from the IPCC.

In any event that IPCC figure has been undermined by Foster and Rahmstorf's [F&R] latest paper which shows "no indication of any slowdown or acceleration of global warming".

The significance of that finding in respect of the difference between transient climate sensitivity [tcr] and equilibrium climate sensitivity [teq] is that F&R, by removing all possible feedbacks in the system, except ocean heat uptake, have produced a ‘pure AGW’ [or as csteele puts it: "completely unencumbered from natural variability"] signature which is different from both tcr and teq. The temperature response to 2XCO2 which F&R have isolated BEFORE feedbacks are considered is 1.4-1.8C.

You're a dope csteele.