Our sustainable mirth

Another successfully peer reviewed paper from the IOP. Spell check optional.

Bishop Hill writes of a new paper, one so “toe curling” it is worth mentioning here to get more exposure. He writes:

This is science? This is progress?

Reports on Progress in Physics, a journal published by the Institute of Physics here in the UK, has published a paper by Raymond Orbach, an engineer at the University of Texas at Austin. It’s available in return for free registration, and I actually think it’s worth it, if only because it’s so toe-curling.

In some ways the paper’s title tells you all you need to know about it. `Our Sustainable Earth’ looks at (you guessed it) eight climate myths propagated by bad people. Like every other set of climate myths you have ever seen, each of the myths is entirely devoid of sources – Orbach has taken them from this page at his university’s website. Where they got them from is a mystery.

In fact, absence of citations is a bit of an issue. Here’s how Orbach starts to deal with claims about the medieval warm period.

Climate scientists now understand that the Medieval Warm Period was caused by an increase in  solar radiation and a decrease in volcanic activity, which both promote warming. Other evidence suggests ocean circulation patterns shifted to bring warmer seawater into the North Atlantic.  Those kinds of natural changes have not been detected in the past few decades.

Interesting claims – but where did they come from? We are not told. We are expected to take Prof Obach on trust. At the risk of repeating myself, one would never get away with this kind of thing on a blog.

(PS: Note to Prof Orbach – the ocean near the top of the globe is the Arctic (with a c in the middle). And it’s Santer not Senter.

 

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley

You couldn’t make it up. Oh, wait…

TinyCO2

It’s the juggernaut of misinformation that drives AGW. How much more trash are they going to load into the back of their artic? 😉

snert

o gawd….not again

DaveF

We have ‘Artics’ here in the UK. Short for ‘Articulated Lorry’, which is what Americans call ‘Semi-trailers, I believe. ‘Finding Artic warming especially high during the past decade’ is worrying – we don’t want those blooming great trucks catching fire on our roads, do we?

David Schofield

In the UK an ‘artic’ is an articulated lorry.

Orbach should have consulted RealClimate before he published his nonsensical paper. The discussion of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) in the Orbach paper…
“Other evidence suggests ocean circulation patterns shifted to bring warmer seawater into the North Atlantic. Those kinds of natural changes have not been detected in the past few decades.”
…is contradicted by the RealClimate AMO webpage:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/11/atlantic-multidecadal-oscillation-amo/
RealClimate writes: “This pattern is believed to describe some of the observed early 20th century (1920s-1930s) high-latitude Northern Hemisphere warming and some, but not all, of the high-latitude warming observed in the late 20th century.”
Orbach also notes how the GISS Land-Ocean Temperature Index data includes the Arctic, but he should have noted the bogus method GISS employs to extend land surface temperature data out over open ocean (in areas with seasonal sea ice). In effect, GISS deletes Sea Surface Temperature data so that they can replace it with land surface data, with its greater variability. Refer to:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2010/05/31/giss-deletes-arctic-and-southern-ocean-sea-surface-temperature-data/

Mike Bromley the Kurd

Another hastily-scrawled memegurgitation? I think so. What is doubly irking, however, is the “Artic”. That’s about as slap-dash as it gets. Noting p** me off more than grammatical laziness, coupled with geographic ignorance. There is just no excuse for it at all. Then add in the vacuous, tossed-together ‘science’…???

http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps
NB: lowest global sea level temp for this day in past 10 years!

Steve C

“GISS estimates temperature anomalies throughout most of the Arctic, finding Arctic warming to be especially high in the past decade”

That statement alone is beyond parody.

Wait wait wait… so what did they blame Chinese coal for just the other day?

John Marshall

He needs to do a science refresher.

Mike McMillan

“The climactic consequences of this human dominated increase in atmospheric CO2 define a geologic epoch that has been termed the ‘Anthropocene.'”
I’ve found that “c” missing from Arctic. He put it in the “climactic” consequences.

Ian W

This is a professor with tenure at University of Texas?
Is the University accredited?

KnR

I wonder who the reviewers were on this ?

Simon

(PS: Note to Prof Orbach – the ocean near the top of the globe is the Arctic (with a c in the middle). And it’s Santer not Senter.
Maybe he found Santa at the Artic?

View from the Solent

Mike Bromley the Kurd says:
October 12, 2011 at 1:36 am
“… What is doubly irking, however, is the “Artic”. That’s about as slap-dash as it gets. Noting p** me off more than grammatical laziness, …”
================================================================
‘Noting’? Murphy’s Law with a vengeance! 😉

hey check out figure 8 and myth 3, apparently the hotspot exists after all! I assume he is using the ‘thermometers dont measure heat, wind measures heat by proxy’ argument for claiming the existance of the hot spot.
This whole thing reads like an advanced high school student’s essay, no maths i notice.

“Sunspot activity …does vary in a regular
11-year cycle, but since at least 1950, average sunspot activity
has remained flat.”
-umm so either its stable since 1950, or its flat. And I’m pretty sure its not flat, I notice there are no citiations for this claim.

-umm so either its an 11 year cycle, or its flat since 1950, cant really be both. And I’m pretty sure its not flat, I notice there are no citiations for this claim.
*mod oops feel free to unmangle my last posts:)

Espen

“Flawn academic center”? Is that flawed English for “flawed”?

Brendan H

Mike Bromley the Kurd: “Noting p** me off more than grammatical laziness…”
Bad spelling is also quite annoying.

Alan the Brit

As noted on Climate Realist, 4% x 4/10,000ths = 16/1,000,000ths = 1/62,500th part of the atmosphere, meaning that 62,499/62500ths are perfaectly natural. More importantly, as AR$ et al notes, these are estimates, not detailed figures. (This guy needs to read his history too, & read the lette rfrom Sir Joseh Banks (President of the Royal Society) to the Lords of the Admiralty in 1817, regarding the “much abated” ice cover in the Arctic Circle due to an unknown source of warmth!) If they can show me how they make a very small number create a very big number, I’ll take 0.01& of their gross profits, because they’ll be genius’s! This crap needs loading in with the Met Office study that the UV & EUV variation from Solar output causes “weather”, but not “climate”!!!!!! They really have become so amazingly arrogant that they must think everyone is so stupid to be taken in by it all, but that’s what you get when one becomes so arrogant!!!

Bill Marsh

Prof Orbach really likes commas.

Bill Marsh

What’s ‘toe curling’ is googling Prof Orbach and seeing this from the UT Austin announcement of his hiring. Aug 1, 2009 “has been appointed director of The University of Texas at Austin’s Energy Institute, a multi-disciplinary institute that combines the strengths of the university’s schools and colleges to advance solutions to today’s energy-related challenges.”
This has to be some kind of joke directed at Dr Orbach, doesn’t it?

Bill Marsh

From the above, the enitre quote somehow did not get into the post. here’s the entire quote, “Dr. Raymond Lee Orbach, the U.S. Department of Energy’s first undersecretary for science, has been appointed director of The University of Texas at Austin’s Energy Institute, a multi-disciplinary institute that combines the strengths of the university’s schools and colleges to advance solutions to today’s energy-related challenges.”
This gentleman was a DOE Undersecretary for Science? God save us all, 1984 is here.

polkyb

So… UK researchers Extrapolate Arctic warming from Global Temperatures and GISS Estimates the Arctic temperature… I seem to remember reading that the satellites can only measure up as far as 80 degrees north (and south) so my real question is this.
Does anyone actually measure the Arctic (and Antarctica for that matter) temperature with any great degree of accuracy?
And to round off, another question… If the poles are showing the greatest amount of warming over the last decade or two and these Estimates are off, is there a record for global temperature between 80 north and 80 south that I can find anywhere WITHOUT the polar guesswork?

Martin

common sense says:
October 12, 2011 at 1:40 am
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps
“NB: lowest global sea level temp for this day in past 10 years!”
Hey, ever wondered why the global sea temp is low at the moment?
How about why the global sea levels have not risen much lately, although the ice is still melting. Now where did all that water go?
Could it be that all those record rains that have been causing catastrophic flooding recently is due to increased evaporation due to global warming? And all that extra water that’s been sucked up and dumped on land is making it’s way back into the oceans – keep an eye on the sea levels as that happens….

Daggett

“The scientific data do not support the claim…” I’m assuming he means “does not”? Clearly proofreading is optional at Texas. Its like he worked all weekend on another project and remembered Sunday night that this was due Monday at 8am.
Any student he has ever docked points for spelling errors has to be hyperventilating.

H.R.

Maybe the good professor will organize an “Occupy The Artic” protest.
Lead on, professor!

Beth Cooper

Tell me, why should I believe anyone who can’t spell ‘Arctick’? 🙂

Even the Aggiest of Aggies can spell better than this Tea Sipper.
Dr. Orbach scored a perfect trfecta: Ignorance of Quaternary geology, ignorance of Hansonian data manufacturing methods and he misspelled Arctic & climatic in a paper dealing with Arctic climatic variation.

Rhys Jaggar

Here’s a link to CET data:
http://www.newtownweather.co.uk/cetdata/cetdata.html
Make your own minds up.
Of course, understanding that the accuracy of records may not be so good 300 years ago as now. May not be consistent.
A better test is how many times the Thames froze over in London. That’s never happened in my lifetime, although we’ve had some pretty cold winters.
Those records surely exist somewhere.
Perhaps someone would like to make them accessible to those at this site?!

Alex. Sinclair

Daggett says ““The scientific data do not support the claim…” I’m assuming he means “does not”? ”
Actually Daggett data is plural, the singular being datum.

Greg Holmes

The Earth is flat, how many times do I have to keep on saying it? The EARTH is FLAT!
Cold is hot, how many time do I have to keep on saying it? Cold is HOT!
Got it?
Save me from Apostles. Keep going chaps, we have your measure

Alan the Brit

Rhys Jaggar says:
October 12, 2011 at 4:10 am
If memory serves, my father told me once that the last time he knew the Thames had frozen was back in 1947-8 or thereabouts, I will do some research. A guy back then drove an Austin Ruby or 7 model across it too, will come back on it later! 🙂

naturalclimate

“The problem with that analysis is that it is incorrect” – Herman Cain.

The joys of typographical errors aside, I posted the following at “bishop hill”, where commenters made fun of Orbach’s claim about “”…the ‘greenhouse’ effect of solar radiation being trapped by gases in the upper atmosphere…”:
I have been trying to tell people that the atmosphere is warmed by direct absorption of incident solar infrared radiation, not from the ground up, based upon the hard quantitative fact I uncovered, in my comparison of temperatures in the atmospheres of Venus and Earth, that the Venus T at any given pressure is just 17% higher than the Earth T at that same pressure, and that is just what is required by the difference in the two planets’ distances from the Sun, and nothing else. Thus there is no greenhouse effect (greater warming with greater atmospheric carbon dioxide) and no albedo effect (the Venus atmosphere is warmed by 1.91 times the power per unit area as is Earth, again as precisely provided by Venus’s smaller distance from the Sun, even though the thick clouds of Venus reflect much of the visible radiation from the Sun). So point Mr. Orbach to my blog article, “Venus: No Greenhouse Effect”, where he (and any other interested reader) can see that the atmosphere IS warmed, fundamentally, by absorbing incident solar radiation. No one is going to make progress in climate science until my Venus/Earth comparison is properly confronted and generally accepted, thus establishing a true climate consensus to replace the current incompetent one.

We all make mistakes, but I try to focus upon the ones that miseducate the world (or those that ironically correct such miseducation), rather than make it laugh. That makes me a party pooper in the current tattered intellectual climate.

klem

“The climactic consequences of this human dominated increase in atmospheric CO2 define a geologic epoch that has been termed the ‘Anthropocene.’”
I have said this many times before; when I was in undergrad science, we used to joke about calling modern times the ‘anthropocene’. It was a science-geek type of joke that was oftern heard after a few too many brewskis at the local watering hole. Now it is an official geological epoch? I find this deeply offensive, and I’m guessing that this is now taught in undergrad science. Science today is unfamiliar to me now.

Thank Ghu this schmuck is “an engineer at the University of Texas at Austin.”
If he were in the private sector and doing any work likely to result in mechanical, chemical, industrial, or electrical engineering projects achieving operation, I’d be looking for the sort of massive bloodshed and death seen at Bhopal in 1984.

Patrik

Ok, the logic is that if NASA GISS is wrong and HAD, UAH and RSS are right – then we HAVE HAD global cooling since 1998? Isn’t that exactly what Orbach is saying? 🙂

BradProp1

With educators like this teaching our kids, It’s no wonder that “Johnny can’t read.”

Gail Combs

DaveF says:
October 12, 2011 at 1:16 am
We have ‘Artics’ here in the UK. Short for ‘Articulated Lorry’, which is what Americans call ‘Semi-trailers, I believe. ‘Finding Artic warming especially high during the past decade’ is worrying – we don’t want those blooming great trucks catching fire on our roads, do we?
_____________________________________________
If we do not want those “blooming great trucks catching fire on our roads” then we had better return to the use of asbestos brake pads. Brake fires are all to common when coming down off high mountains which is why fire extinquishers are carried. Had a friend use up not only his extinguisher but his cousin’s (luckily following him) to putting out a brake fire not too long ago.

Another typo. “We are expected to take Prof Obach on trust.” Should be Orbach.

Tom in Florida

Now we know why A&M decided to move to the SEC.

We’ve been told, over and over, that they won’t listen to anything we say, unless it’s supported by a “peer-reviewed” paper. Papers like this one.
It’s also amazing that, in appearing to be scientifically honest, they’ll put out facts that they think support their claim.
Such as this “fact” (paraphrased):
“GISS determined that 2010 statistically tied with 2005 for warmist on record, and that 1998 is in a statistical tie for third with 5 other years (’02, ’03, ’06, ’07, and ’09)”.
They say this doesn’t support global cooling.
When 5 of the last 10 years are tied for third with a period 13 years ago, it sure doesn’t support runaway global warming, either.

“At the risk of repeating myself, one would never get away with this kind of thing on a blog.”
Well, not on a well read blog such as WUWT, anyway. “Peer review” here can be thorough and tough.
Some blogs are fanatics fueling fanatics and anything goes there. That form of “peer review” appears to exist at Reports on Progress in Physics, even if it does claim:
Reports on Progress in Physics publishes review articles covering all branches of physics, written by invited authors who are worldwide experts in their field..
From website: http://iopscience.iop.org/0034-4885/

Nigel S

Alex. Sinclair says:
October 12, 2011 at 4:13 am
Daggett says ““The scientific data do not support the claim…” I’m assuming he means “does not”? ”
Actually Daggett data is plural, the singular being datum.
A question: What is the plural of Ordnance Datum?
POD has:
data n.pl. (also treated as sing., although the singular form is strictly datum) 1 known facts used for inference or in reckoning. 2 quantities or characters operated on by a computer etc. [Latin data from do give]
Usage (1) In scientific, philosophical, and general use, this word is usually considered to denote a number of items and is thus treated as plural with datum as the singular. (2) In computing and allied subjects (and sometimes in general use), it is treated as a mass (or collective) noun and used with words like this, that, and much, with singular verbs, e.g. useful data has been collected. Some people consider use (2) to be incorrect but it is more common than use (1). However, data is not a singular countable noun and cannot be preceded by a, every, each, either, or neither, or be given a plural form datas.

Leon Brozyna

Oh dear … the contagion is spreading … appears that the National Hurricane Center is confused (or perhaps that’s geographically challenged) about where Tropical Storm Irwin is at … pull up the Warnings/Cone map and … can it be? … it’s 0° lat 0° long … that’s off the coast of Africa.
Check it out … but you might want to do a screencap for chuckles
Go to the NHC for the Eastern Pacific:
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/?epac
then pull up the Warnings/Cone map for Irwin (you can even see it in the thumbnail):
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/refresh/graphics_ep1+shtml/094654.shtml?5-daynl#contents
Hmmmmm … Zero Zero Island … my age is showing…..

dtbronzich

There are a couple of rules down here in Texas Y’all will have to learn.
1. If a scientist in Austin makes a claim about anything, it’s probably the opposite of what he claims. (example; on September 30, the state climatologist made the claim that our drought could last 10 years. It’s been raining fairly steadily ever since that dire pronouncement)
2. Austin, the capitol of Texas, is the home of every liberal in the state. Most of these are AGW proponents who will shrilly scream at you their belief should you make the mistake of mentioning that the weather seems nice today.
http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2011/09/30/climatologist-says-texas-drought-could-last-until-2020/

Green Sand

Rhys Jaggar says:
October 12, 2011 at 4:10 am
Here’s a link to CET data:

Why does the data stop at 2006?
Take a look at the official Met Office numbers:-
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/
Take particular note of their red trendline