By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
The Gore Effect has struck again. Al Baby recently visited Canberra accompanied by his usual blizzard to try to convince the tiny band of eccentrics that held the balance of power in the Senate to vote to keep the “carbon” tax that has been pointlessly crippling the Australian economy.
He failed. The Senate upheld the vote in the House to bring the doomed CO2 tax to a timely end. The Australian Labor Party, which had unwisely introduced the hated tax for the sake of clinging on to office for a few more months with the support of the now-decimated Greens, is belatedly trying to whip up support from a skeptical nation for a repeal of the repeal.
Bob Carter, whose measured, eloquent and authoritative lectures all over Australia putting the minuscule global warming of the 20th century into the calming perspective of geological time helped to see off the tax, sends me the following image that the ALP are desperately circulating to their fanatical but dismayed supporters.
The propaganda graphic was accompanied by the usual mawkishly syrupy message from the Labor loonies to useful idiots everywhere:
“Just hours ago, Tony Abbott made Australia the only country in the world to reverse action on climate change.
“Not satisfied with hurting Australians through his cruel Budget, he’s now hurting future generations.
“Labor fought hard to put a price on carbon, and Labor fought hard to move to an emissions trading scheme. Through our climate action policies, investments in renewable energy topped $18 billion and 24,000 jobs in the sector were created. Houses with rooftop solar increased to 2.1 million, and wind-generated energy tripled.
“The Abbott Government and the crossbench in the Senate have taken a wrecking ball to Labor’s action on climate change.
“Let’s show Tony Abbott that we won’t stand for this. We will not give up the fight to securing a clean energy future for our children.”
The Prime Minister’s supporters have not been slow to respond. In no time, they were circulating the following take on the message.
Meanwhile, the tourist postcard industry has not been slow to sense the opportunity for combining celebration of the demise of the tax with some hearty Australian humor. Enjoy!
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
John Carter,
Appparently I touched a raw nerve, going by your lengthy reply. Sorry about that. I suppose you took the science quiz you posted. How’d you do? ☺
Regarding your statement, taken from the article, where you say that warming is…
…possibly to probably (the study authors say it is) the fastest in at least 11,000 years…
We see here that 11,000 years ago there was no global warming like we see now, as the article claims. That’s why I labeled it ‘nonsense’. The author did not bother to fact check. They got that wrong; so much for their credibility.
Next, you denigrated the data based Wood For Trees chart I posted. OK, here is another chart, by the Washington Post — hardly a skeptical publication. Global warming has stopped, John, and not just a few years ago.
Next, here is a chart showing that [harmless, beneficial] CO2 is steadily rising, but global temperature is flat to declining. That chart alone deconstructs the alarmism over runaway global warming.
Finally, you make no further mention of the methane menace. Good. That was a baseless scare anyway. And no more SkepticalScience nonsense, either. Very good! The quality of your comments is improving.
@John Carter
If your screed didn’t sound so much like the ramblings of the drunken beggars beside the subway stations I’d take you more seriously.
Bill Shorten, the Labor opposition leader now says he wants to go to the next election with the ETS as a policy. Right folks, we have 2 years to educate the public about the ETS being a way of making traders rich by dealing in thin air and that 10% of ETS payments go to the UN, the very ones who promulgate the myth of AGW. If enough people can be woken up to the grand scam of catastrophic man-made global warming, Labor will be toast. Hopefully the electorate, on finding that the Left openly supported blatant lies, fraud and ttreachery will be thoroughly discredited and shown up for evil traitors they are.
dbstealey says:
July 18, 2014 at 7:27 pm
John Carter,
Appparently I touched a raw nerve, going by your lengthy reply. Sorry about that. I suppose you took the science quiz you posted. How’d you do? ☺
Regarding your statement, taken from the article, where you say that warming is…
…possibly to probably (the study authors say it is) the fastest in at least 11,000 years…
We see here that 11,000 years ago there was no global warming like we see now, as the article claims. That’s why I labeled it ‘nonsense’. The author did not bother to fact check. They got that wrong; so much for their credibility.
Perhaps you should carefully read that “lengthy” reply, which was lengthy in order to correctly articulate the points, and not simply conclude.
In that I pointed out, from one comment in response to mine (In response to L.M.), you made three critical claims,all of which were a perfect example of finding ways to discredit the idea of climate change, and not consider but simply find ways to attack or dismiss any points that don’t serve to discredit the great bulk of climate science.
Re above, I think you mistook some stuff. The point was not that it was as warm 11,000 years ago (though maybe it was) but that the earth right now is warming faster than at any point in at least the last 11,000 years. Warming faster (or, as I perhaps clumsily pointed out, “probably” warming faster, since the study could have missed something, and certainly had to use some chosen standard to arrive at this), than at any time in the past 11,000 y ears is a strong indication of very rapid warming.
This article gives a little more information, a little more clearly stated http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/08/world/world-climate-change/
Re your other comment above, where is the link on 10 degree shifts in a 10 year period in the past 15 k years? That’s interesting stuff. (also,, kind of a short time frame so hard to put into context.) But my Gawd, if the earth can shift that radically without an external radiative forcing, imagine what it can do in response to a rapid (and huge) external radiative forcing that has suddenly changed the collective atmospheric long lived gas heat trapping quotient to its highest level in several million years? I kid, of course. But re that same comment above, if by “scared” of climate change you mean I think it is extraordinarily counter productive (and very unfair to our kids and grand kids) to radically change the long term (heat trapping, which is, despite Davidhoffer’s constant attempts to finagle, is pretty relevant) [gg] of the atmosphere, then yes.
If you mean “scared,” then no. I’ve paddled Great Falls outside of Wash DC (a National Park and 55 foot total drop rapid on the Potomac that’s a class V-VI) backward (ok, I warrant part of the backward part wasn’t “fully” intentional”) so extreme water, weather, flooding, and ocean rise isn’t scary. I just think it’s terribly counter productive. And aside from the money that will be spent on it, which will dwarf anything imaginable to shift over now (rather than later, with far less to gain, but no choice and probably a lot of over reactive and ill thought out government dictate) to better modes of production and agricultural practices, there will be a lot of harm to a lot of nations and peoples.
And I think other things, including a propensity to inherently believe that man doesn’t have the ability to inadvertently radically reshape our world in ways that might not be in our interests, or believe that whatever we do is by definition “good” (i.e, or even in our interests), as well as I think (speaking of fears), way overblown fears of economic duress, and excessive government entanglement, (hence why I think this is relevant http://theworldofairaboveus.blogspot.com/2014/07/by-far-easiest-simplest-most-efficient.html and a belief that there is an inherent right to use of the common resource whatever can be gotten, no matter how it infringes, PLUS a lot of energy industry backed intense misinformation on a subject that is easy to wrangle on (see most of Davidhoffers posts on this thread), all of which is driving an unrealized desire to discredit the bulk of climate change science, and attach to anything that serves to discredit the bulk of climate change science.
On the science quiz, I didn’t take it. I did the first two (silly stuff), then balked on amplitude. Was gonna guess it, but wasn’t sure, and went back to what I was doing. So you prolly beat me.
@John Carter – Did you read dbStealey’s response at all? Did you even bother with a link or 2? Your rebuttal indicates you either did not, or could not understand what he wrote. He cites raw data, you cite opinion pieces at news sites.
Try reading what he wrote the next time – and following the links. You made a fool of yourself by ignoring them this time.
I am starting to think John Carter is an AI ( that means addled intelligence).
Mr Carter continues to insist that the world is warming faster now than at any previous time in the past 11,000 years. This is not true. The world warmed more than twice as fast from 1694-1733, before the Industrial Revolution began, than it has warmed over any similar period since. Furthermore, it is not scientific to say the world is currently warming fast – or at all – given that there has been no global warming for approaching two decades.
Science is not a belief system. Approaching these questions aprioristically is a mistake. We already know what the Party Line on the climate is. The Party Line, in all fundamental respects, is plumb wrong.
TomB says:
July 18, 2014 at 9:04 pm
@John Carter
If your screed didn’t sound so much like the ramblings of the drunken beggars beside the subway stations I’d take you more seriously.
I actually had one write two of my last three. (Only cost me a half pint, too – his subway beggar ghost comment writing prices were certainly reasonable..) But, seriously, I notice, not a lot of on point substantive response. Aside. “somewhat” from Davidhoffer, (whose interest and time I respect and appreciate, it’s just too much to get back to this moment, but will try, but there’s a lot of errors),though a lot of that isn’t on point, and some of the other stuff is wrong.
David, let”s just focus on this one thing for now:
“davidmhoffer says:
July 18, 2014 at 5:28 pm
John Carter;
but is changing the net energy balance of the earth,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
At equilibrium, the net energy balance of the earth changes by precisely zero in response to a doubling of CO2. If it doesn’t:
a) you’ve invented perpetual motion, and;
b) you’ll be awarded a Nobel prize for discovering it.
I wouldn’t hold my breath on either.:”
———-
I don’t really see how what you write, despite all the intimations, is actually addressing my comment(s). The earth’s energy balance (meaning, total net energy) is not increasing? You’re really claiming this?
The claim that the earth can not increase in total energy from a doubling of CO2 levels is ridiculous,and it doesn’t matter how many big words and bigger phrases and equations you use. So, what’s your point? Is this sort of the ultra sophisticated version of the two separate commenters who decided to take issue with substance by trying to teach me that species has an s at the end of it, or just remind me and all other readers of the phenomenon known as the typo; but that – sophisticated version – really has nothing to do with the substance but has managed to convince that it somehow does? Because I’ve seen that a lot.
Maybe we need to get our terms straight. What do you mean by yours? Where do you teach or practice physics? Because while I’m not the brightest physics student on the planet, I’m not the worst, and I don’t follow some of your points. And many of those I do I find to be mistaken. (Will get back to as time allows), or having badly misconstrued mine. Very badly, given the level of erudition your comments seem to aim for.
The earth is always in equilibrium, at least under “street physics.” In the sense that maybe the whole universe is, as I understand it. E = MC squared and all that. Energy comes in, it goes somewhere. Energy in = energy out + net energy retained or lost. According to you, Is this correct or not? Not the symbology I chose, but the meaning.
If you are half the physicist you seem to suggest you are, you know exactly what I mean.
The solar radiation that comes in has to go somewhere. The earth emits heat back into space. the amount emitted back into space is not always equal to the amount that comes in.
If the net energy balance is changing over a given time period, that means that amount emitted back into space is either a little more on average per unit of time, or a little less per unit of time, than is entering in to the system via incoming solar radiation.
My statement was that that -what I here call the net energy balance of the earth – is changing, and in a positive direction; meaning that the amount of energy going out of the system per unit of time (on average) has been less than the amount coming in per unit of time.
Agree or disagree? And why. Without the mumbo jumbo. If possible.
Monckton of Brenchley
Thanks for the comment http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/17/australia-no-longer-a-carbon-tax-nation/#comment-1689260 I’ll try to reply to each of your three points.
First, I said probably and possibly warming at the fastest rate in (or at least) 11,000 years, based on a recent study. http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/08/world/world-climate-change/ I don’t know if they simply looked back 11,000 years and didn’t find anything, or looked back until they did and at 11,000 found the same or stronger. (I think the former though.) They took the last decade on record, 2000-2009, and compared its ave temp with one a century earlier, 1900-1909, which happened to be a very cold one; they couldn’t replicate at least that difference between any decades a century apart, going back at least 11,000 years.
Its not dispositive (time frames and parameters have to be defined, plus we re inferring past records from methodologies, not direct same time measurements.) But the only point was, as the comment made clear, to point out that the statement that we have not seen global warming for the last few decades, was not accurate.
I presumed by warming, you meant warming. If you meant the phenomenon referred to as Global Warming, that’s not about current global temperatures. I think my earlier comment gave some framework for what that entails, http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/17/australia-no-longer-a-carbon-tax-nation/#comment-1689130 (also see below). But it is the earth response over time to a radical increase in the atmospheric accumulation of greenhouse gases, and subsequent trapping of thermal radiation, respectively, which would ultimately affect climate in a dramatic way.
But that study,again, though interesting, isn’t really necessary to the point, which is that contrary to the original comment I was responding to, earth has warmed the last few decades. http://climate.nasa.gov/interactives/warming_world.
As for oceans (second point), “best evidence” we have? Whose one seventh??
This is what is concerning: The belief that on climate change, scientists professionally studying it, going against the opposite of what science is, are engaged in some massive fraud or (more reasonably) error (which on some secondary level I imagine they are.) Fine, but re’ almost all the very scientists who claim against (spencer, christy, etc.) he basis of what is widely accepted among scientists – and in particular the scientists who study this – most of the “information” they provide is deceiving, often centrally (not peripherally, a key difference) incorrect, and very manipulated. (A couple quick examples, and some perspective, here http://theworldofairaboveus.blogspot.com/2014/07/why-poorly-named-climate-change-thing.html I suppose if one doesn’t want to believe that climate change is a problem, it is more appealing, but that doesn’t change, to outside observation.
What it is.a good case for a minuscule actual science minority is when they consistently do the opposite of this; not when their science is, instead, far worse than the massive main scientific community that they seek to disparage, or, more professionally, merely refute.
Most have also all but identified that they are ideologically driven. Awful for science. Spencer even said he views his role to help taxpayers “limit government.” A fine role. But a terrible role for a scientist then trying to manufacture studies that he thinks will lead to that.
The general mainstream scientific consensus that our radical change to the heat trapping atmospheric quotient will likely lead to radical (or at least, extremely bad) climate changes, makes sense here; a lot of sense. And is pretty rigorous and ongoing . (And a challenge is good; but not for the purpose of just clinging to anything that seems to discredit the bulk of climate science as the guiding reason to cling to it. That’s the opposite of science.)
I think the idea that we can’t tell why oceans are warming is again a perfect example of clinging to any idea to discredit the bulk of mainstream science. Solar radiation in is what it is. Suddenly, over a several hundred year period, much of it in the last 50 -100, man inadvertently effects a massive external forcing sufficient to change atmosphere levels of gg gases (and thus of thermal radiation that is absorbed and re emitted) to wallop us back at least several million years in terms of being able to find similarly high collective levels, and does so in a near instant of geologic time. This would lead to far more re radiated heat, some warming, and a massive build up of energy as ice sheets warmed (and then started to melt) , surface permafrost warmed (and then started to melt), and in particular, oceans, the main driver of climate long term, warmed. And, lo and behold, we are seeing oceans warming.
A lot. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/oceans/ocean-heat.html http://www.weather.com/news/science/environment/where-global-warming-going-ocean-20140205 and they have accumulated energy at a massive rate. As the link above notes, over the past 55 years, at a rate of about 136 trillion joules per second. (That’s 11,750,400,000,000,000,000 per day), or as they suggest, about “the amount of energy released by two Hiroshima atomic bombs – every second. [That’s about 172,800 per day, and over 63 million approximate Hiroshima atomic bombs worth of energy every year]
In more recent years, that pace has quickened to about 250 trillion joules per second, or roughly four atomic bombs per second. And in 2013, that pace accelerated even more, roughly tripling to about 12 atomic bombs per second.
Picking at the accuracy of pinpoint predictions (for example, I tend to doubt the just mentioned acceleration in 2013 by 300%, but I don’t know on what time frame they measured), in what is a massive geologic event, over time framed onto what is, by its nature, volatile – and probably made more so for a while by radical energy changes – has nothing to do with the underlying dynamics of the issue. It’s not a discredit of the basic theory. It is, however, widely being confused for that. And leading to a lot of confusion misunderstanding, and misconception on the issue.
Your last point I have more trouble addressing. Specifically Mr Carter also says I am trying to minimize the dangers posed by our minuscule influence on the climate I don’t think, but I really don’t know, that you are actively trying to minimize or maximize anything. I think you think, or thought, the issue was overblown. I also think there’s a huge amount of spin in that statement, (where, while it does of course pop up (I’m sure I’ve inadvertently done it to try to advance a point) spin really shouldn’t be). Namely, in the idea of “minuscule” influence. There is nothing to support that idea. And an excessive amount of presumption reflected that man can’t, or wouldn’t inadvertently be able at this point to have a massive effect on the ecology (and ultimate climate) of the world in which we live, or that he is not deeply in the process right now. (I also think it’s more of a reluctance to acknowledge that last fact, or idea,, as if it’s some bad thing. It’s not. It is what it is.)
As far as “best wait and see,” if you’re being genuine, it is not a wait and see issue by the very nature of it, it is an issue that when you see, the issue is past, the effect is already had. It’s not “oh, we have a radical climate now, this is awful, Arizona (inland U.S.) will soon be beachfront, let’s fix it.” It doesn’t work like that, nor anywhere remotely close. Any solid non ideological climate scientist will tell you the same.
Climate change is a little like rolling a large, almost stuck, train (massive stabilizing and albedo magnifying sheets of ice, etc.)a bit away from a slightly increasing downward incline. Huge amounts of energy are only going to get it rolling a little bit. Same huge amounts of energy (far worse if the energy is then increased on top of that) are then going to effect a far greater real change in its movement, then it’s rolling, until a new general equilibrium or stases is finally reached. The earth is not instantaneous reacting in terms of energy > climate, but is like that train. (And much of the time barely movable, or much less so: just not so when the extra energy being suddenly poured in is on the measure of a geologically radical, multi million year and still rapidly increasing shift in total atmospheric levels of the gases responsible for keeping energy from being released back out to space.)
Also, the idea of changing practices to not radically alter the atmosphere is not a bad thing. This idea that in order for us to thrive we have to damage (from our perspective, and probably that of many species) our planet or world in a way that significantly harms our own interests, ultimately seems inane. And the idea to deal with it (“it” being, fear of addressing and working to improve production practices having a high accumulating negative effect), by coming up with ways to instead “convince” that we’re in fact not likely effecting radical negative (for us) long term change, while certainly understandable, is also ultimately very counter productive as well.
Seems to me. Doesn’t it to you?
Way upstream:
John Carter says:
July 17, 2014 at 5:10 pm
JohnWho says:
July 17, 2014 at 2:13 pm
Now that folks in the Land of Oz have awoken,
will the rest of the world listen?
Jack says:
July 17, 2014 at 3:38 pm
Very fine day when parliament finally stopped defying the voters of Australia.
Yes, in one sense, but, speaking of the land of Oz, and whether the world should listen to Australia, what about the equally serious problem of the voters of Australia being incredibly misinformed on the issue of Climate Change?
You are correct, the voters of Australia had been incredibly misinformed on the issue of “Climate Change”, but now, as they are recognizing the correct information, they are rejecting the CO2 Taxation plans.
Give people the proper, correct information and they will make the rational conclusion most of the time, but feed them false information and half-truths and they will not.
Can we get Tony Abbott on a temporary transfer to help sort team UK out please ?
Has he got an agent ?
What would be the transfer fee ?
Whatever it was it would be worth every penny !
John Carter;
Energy in = energy out + net energy retained or lost. According to you, Is this correct or not?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It is correct for the transient state and incorrect for the equilibrium state. The terminology that I use is not mumbo jumbo. It is standard terminology that has specific meaning, and if you don’t understand the terminology, then you had best learn it before claiming to be proficient at physics.
In two scenarios, one with 1X the CO2 and the other with 2X the CO2, at equilibrium, the energy in and the energy out of both systems are all equal. There is no change to net energy. There is a period of time beween CO2 doubling when net energy changes, but the amount is mniscule as it is bounded by the heat capacity of the additional CO2 which is an amount so small in this context that it can effectively be treated as zero anyway.
Your confusion comes from accepting at face value the repeated use of the words “heat trapping gasses” which you don’t seem to understand is a misnomer. The amount of heat trapped is not what causes the greenhouse effect. What causes the greenhouse effect is that as CO2 increases, the height of the mean radiating layer increases. The mean radiating layer being higher, temps below it increase and temps above it decrease. But the average temperature from top do bottom if the atmospheric air column doesn’t change at all.
So, while you have been proceeding on the assumption that CO2 is a “heat trapping gas”, this isn’t what the main issue is. By analogy, you could think of it as a teeter totter that is level. Meansure it every foot along its length and find its average height above the ground. Now, push one end of the teeter totter down to the ground so the other end goes up in the air. Measure its height every foot and determine the average. You will get the exact same number. Which, if the high end represented temperature change at earth surface, would certainly represent a higher temperature even though the average hadn’t changed.
So, at 240 w/m2 in, the earth has an effective black body temperature of 255 K and radiates 240 w/m2 out.
CO2 doubles.
Since this doesn’t affect albedo, we still have 240 w/m2 in, and at equilibrium, a black body temperature of 255K and it radiates 240 w/m2 out. 240 in = 240 out in the first case, and in the second case, 240 in = 240 out.
BUT, at equilibrium, the surface is warmer and the upper atmosphere colder, like that teeter totter tipped at an angle, the average may be the same but if you’re on the high end of the teeter totter you have an entirely different perspective than someone who is on the low end. Nevertheless the average across the atmospheric air column remains the same, in accordance with Stefan-Boltzmann Law. In accordance with any of the IPCC reports. In accordance with any text book explanation of the SB Law.
asybot says:
July 19, 2014 at 2:41 am
I am starting to think John Carter is an AI ( that means addled intelligence).
Well, it’s either that, or re evaluate your entire position on climate change, so probably easier to suggest AI. Or do what DBhealey does, just keep coming up with more and more irrelevant (as my original point about fealty to anything that serves to discredit the great bulk of professional climate science suggested), incorrect, or misleading points, or dwelling on peripheral mistakes and somehow conflating them with having disproven the main substance, ’cause you know, that’s what’s done. The search for anything to find to discredit climate science, under the guise, the belief, that it is the search for what the real nature of the climate change issue is.
Monckton of Brenchley says:
July 19, 2014 at 3:45 am
Mr Carter continues to insist that the world is warming faster now than at any previous time in the past 11,000 years. This is not true. The world warmed more than twice as fast from 1694-1733, before the Industrial Revolution began, than it has warmed over any similar period since. Furthermore, it is not scientific to say the world is currently warming fast – or at all – given that there has been no global warming for approaching two decades
Science is not a belief system.
As I wrote in my comment awaiting moderation for a while now, I never insisted any such thing:
“I said probably and possibly warming at the fastest rate in (or at least) 11,000 years, based on a recent study. http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/08/world/world-climate-change/ I don’t know if they simply looked back 11,000 years and didn’t find anything, or looked back until they did and at 11,000 found the same or stronger. (I think the former though.) They took the last decade on record, 2000-2009, and compared its ave temp with one a century earlier, 1900-1909, which happened to be a very cold one; they couldn’t replicate at least that difference between any decades a century apart, going back at least 11,000 years.
Its not dispositive (time frames and parameters have to be defined, plus we re inferring past records from methodologies, not direct same time measurements.) But the only point was, as the comment made clear, to point out that the statement that we have not seen global warming for the last few decades, was not accurate.”
Also, that time frame you reference is much shorter. The longer the time frame, the more relevant, hence why the CNN study is more relevant. But again, that really doesn’t matter one way or the other.
You say be guided by the science, yet say “there’s been no global warming for the last two decades.” First off, the issue of Global Warming does not mean a rise in our temperatures concurrent to the rise in atmos’ CO2 and other greenhouse gases. It raises this question. I do warrant that a lot of people don’t know that, but if one doesn’t know it, how can one have any real opinion on the subject, let alone one so deeply and passionately (zealously?) felt?
As for the temperatures warming, a couple of decades does not make a climate, though I imagine it could start to be mildly suggestive towards one. Regardless, the statement that the temperature is not warming, or that it has not warmed over the past two decades, or that there has not been a statistically significant trend of warming, are all incorrect. So is the statement that there is no global warming the last “two decades” (not to mention the much larger relevance of more than two decades) guided by the science, or is it being guided by belief?
Here’s science. http://climate.nasa.gov/interactives/warming_world 1880 – 2010. 1980 to 2010 shows the sharpest rise. But again, the shorter the time period, the less relevant.
John Carter says:
…where is the link on 10 degree shifts in a 10 year period in the past 15 k years?
It is here:
http://oi43.tinypic.com/1zoanbc.jpg
What is “incorrect, or misleading” about that? It is what you asked for. R.B. Alley’s peer reviewed paper records the abrupt change in global temperature 11,000+ years ago. And Lord Monckton notes:
The world warmed more than twice as fast from 1694-1733, before the Industrial Revolution began, than it has warmed over any similar period since.
Now that your central argument has been deconstructed, what will you do? Will you admit that the current warming is nothing unusual or unprecedented, and thus is most likely a completely natural event?
Or will you move the goal posts again, disregarding all the evidence presented? Will your evidence-free belief trump reality? Or will you man up and admit that the alarmist crowd has nothing but baseless assertions for their arguments? Because there is no scientific evidence supporting any measurable human-caused global temperature rise.
The main question for you, John Carter, is this: what will it take to convince you to be a skeptic? Or is that even possible? All honest scientists are skeptics, first and foremost. What are you? Will you decide based on the evidence? Or are you one of those closed-minded individuals who could watch glaciers descend over Europe and the U.S. again, and still believe in catastrophic AGW?
Which are you? A skeptic, or a true believer? Because you can’t be both.
Carter says:
The longer the time frame, the more relevant, hence why the CNN study is more relevant.
Here is a long time frame. Note that there is no acceleration in global T, which is rising within clear parameters since the LIA. Nothing happening now is unusual or unprecedented, yet you insist that there is.
The planet is warming from the LIA. Here is another chart to show you. And another. See? Nothing unusual or unprecedented is happening. Only a True Believer would assume that these normal and natural events are caused by human activity. But there is no empirical evidence to support that belief. Why do you Believe, based on zero evidence??
Look at the Holocene, and tell us that the current warming episode is any different from about twenty other rapid warming episodes before that. But somehow I think that no matter how much real world evidence is presented, you will react the same way. Your belief in cAGW is religious, therefore it is impervious to reason.
I would like to think I am wrong, that you are amenable to reason. But I have encountered so many closed-minded individuals on this issue that I have little hope. There is about as much chance to convince a Jehovah’s Witness that he’s wrong, as to convince a global warming True Believer that he is wrong. Some things are simply impossible.
John Carter;
I don’t know if they simply looked back 11,000 years and didn’t find anything, or looked back until they did and at 11,000 found the same or stronger. (I think the former though.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So you simply parroted the conclusion that was reported and didn’t read the paper for yourself. If you’re relying on CNN to tell you what the paper says, you’re in trouble from the get go. Start reading these papers for yourself, you’ll soon find that what they actually say is rather different than what is reported in the media.
Case in point being the UN IPCC reports themselves. Read them for yourself. Among other things, you’ll find that they agree with the physics as I have been trying to explain it to you, and they agree that the models are exhibiting much higher sensitivity than observational evidence can support.
philjourdan says:
July 18, 2014 at 6:37 am
Thanks, Phil. While in general that is true, if conditions are right you can see a rainbow near noon. Bear in mind that at local noon the sun may be a long ways from the zenith. Remember that Canberra is at 35° south, plus we’re in the middle of Australian winter, so the sun at solar noon in Canberra would only be at 90° – 35° latitude – 23° inclination = 32° above the horizon, and it wasn’t solar noon, it was 11 AM.
So it is more than possible, it is quite likely that a rainbow could be seen under those conditions.
All the best,
w.
@Willis – Arrggh! I always forget the latitude slant! Ok, sorry. Forget my comment.
davidmhoffer says:
July 19, 2014 at 8:41 amJohn Carter;
I don’t know if they simply looked back 11,000 years and didn’t find anything, or looked back until they did and at 11,000 found the same or stronger. (I think the former though.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So you simply parroted the conclusion that was reported and didn’t read the paper for yourself. If you’re relying on CNN to tell you what the paper says, you’re in trouble from the get go. Start reading these papers for yourself, you’ll soon find that what they actually say is rather different than what is reported in the media.
This is ridiculous. It’s tactic number 7 in the arsenal to discredit. (Your last air physics post, I’ll get to it later, combined tactics numbers 5 and 6. And you also still didn’t answer the main question. And you should be able to write on science so that people can follow you. Yet you didn’t. Why?)
Tactic no. 7: Find peripheral stuff and make it seen like that somehow undermines the substance of the point made, or mislead on peripheral stuff and make it seem like it is all less credible.
Now, you seem like a smart enough guy to be able to read, so, no more b.s. First off, it was a CSM link. It was only cited for the point that a study suggested the earth has warmed more quickly recently than in a really long time (in fact, I very specifically used the word “probably.” You can quibble, originally I had “probably or possibly”; made for awkward reading, and my sentences are long enough. I did not assert it as fact.) I re-posted in response, found the CNN link, better explanation. And yes, as I noted, it seemed like they simply went back up to 11,000 years, but I wasn’t delivering a report on the article, and it really didn’t matter. And yes I usually read studies (and agree media often botches), but I can also cite news sources as can you and everybody on here for the point it makes. And it was cited correctly for the context, and was sufficiently relevant, and certainly interesting. Problem was, it didn’t help discredit the bulk of professional climate science, so, hence, tactic no 7. .
So, before I write anything more, and this is being asked in rather stronger form, to try and emphasize this: Here is the original comment in response to Lord Monckton’s. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/17/australia-no-longer-a-carbon-tax-nation/#comment-1689130 Now please read it carefully and you tell me, in light of how it was first used and the specific point I was clearly addressing, what is really the point of your comment above (unless you just got distracted and sort of mistook things – I know that happens) if not to just find ways that look nice, to discredit.
Maybe I’m not leaving you an “out” here (other than maybe to just repeat tactic no. 7, or, go with no. 9 maybe), and, if so, sorry for that. I’m exhausted. But your comment above seems picayune, and misplaced. Let’s save that for the physics. where’ I’m going to read up when I can, and we can really have it out in layman’s terms (mine) and terms no one can follow (yours) so that your arguments appear more authoritative. And you can show me if you are just leaving stuff out on purpose, or are just kidding yourself and using fancy teeter totters to do it, and ultimately just arguing that the earth is not gaining in net energy, or that simply because the radiating layer shifts, GG gas concentration levels really aren’t that relevant to climate (another huge coincidence given the clear 100 year plus and fairly strong warming trend, and increasing ocean heat). And thus hence why all the, sorry, but, “mumbo jumbo.” Because it’s an asinine proposition. And if it’s not, you can explain it in a way someone as dumb as me can understand,right? And then you can explain it to most of the world’s atmospheric physicists, who apparently don’t know it either. Or you can come on over to the dark side (or, really, leave the dark side, grin) and not have to do this delicate physics contortion dance you are doing.
Carter says:
‘Tactic #7? Tactic #9?
Geez, I don’t even know the secret handshake! How am I supposed to know the tactic numbers?
Carter, you are always avoiding the central issue: global warming has stopped. And not just recently. It stopped many years ago. But harmless, beneficial CO2 continues to rise. How does that compute on your planet?
Those facts debunk all the wild-eyed alarmist nonsense that you post. The entire alarmist premise was based on runaway global warming causing climate catastrophe. But those things have not happened — and there is zero indication that they will happen.
So tell us: what would it take to convince you that the alarmist crowd is wrong? Is there anything that would do it? Or are you such a religious True Believer that nothing could possibly convince you that you are on the wrong track?
@John Carter – wrote
” the earth right now is warming faster than at any point in at least the last 11,000 years.
[…]
where is the link on 10 degree shifts in a 10 year period in the past 15 k years?”
John – as I understand you have a data about global temperatures extending as far back as 15k years ago, that are presented with a resolution precise enough to catch every possible 10-years spike? Where is that data?
John Carter;
And you should be able to write on science so that people can follow you. Yet you didn’t. Why?)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
LOL. I had high hopes for you when you first showed up. Turns out you’re just a garden variety troll who doesn’t understand the science.
davidhoffer says:
[Carter is] just a garden variety troll who doesn’t understand the science.
Even Carter admits he doesn’t understand science:
On the science quiz, I didn’t take it. I did the first two (silly stuff), then balked on amplitude. Was gonna guess it, but wasn’t sure, and went back to what I was doing.
“Silly stuff”, eh? Carter got through 3 questions, but he was stumped by the one asking what “A.M.” meant in radio [hint: ‘amplitude’].
We are dealing with someone who has no science knowledge — but who pontificates as if he understands. He doesn’t. Carter gets his talking points from alarmist blogs, but he does not understand the subject. No wonder he is losing the debate.
Posting from ignorance.
Take the quiz you posted, Carter. Report back. Then we can decide if your comments are worthwhile or not.
dbstealey;
“A.M.” meant in radio [hint: ‘amplitude’].
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I didn’t take the quiz, but once might forgive John Carter for not knowing that AM stands for Amplitude Modulation, for I assume he is of a different generation than you and I. Heck, even FM (Frequency Modulation) has gone out of the public consciousness now that we live in a digital world. We live in a “plug and play” world where people just expect that they turn things on and they work, the how they work part has become “magic”. I expect he is too young for terms like AM and FM to be relevant to his generation.
For someone who purports to have expertise in physics however, such ignorance is telling. Someone who refers to terms like equilibrium, transient, heat capacity, energy flux, Stefan-Boltzmann, heat capacity as gobbledy gook clearly has no background in physics at all. By his standard, everything Kevin Trenberth ever wrote would be considered gobbledy gook, ad so are all the IPCC AR reports including the most recent one. Mr Carter is inadvertently attacking the very science he purports to represent.
Is Carter still going? I gave up on him the moment he talked about methane and then linking to SkS.
Mr Carter appears confused about the temperature record. So let us state the facts:
The RSS satellite dataset shows no global warming at all for 214 months from September 1996 to June 2014. That is 50.2% of the entire 426-month satellite record.
The fastest measured centennial warming rate was in Central England from 1663-1762, at 0.9 Cº/century – before the industrial revolution. It was not our fault.
The global warming trend since 1900 is equivalent to 0.8 Cº per century. This is well within natural variability and may not have much to do with us.
The fastest warming trend lasting ten years or more occurred over the 40 years from 1694-1733 in Central England. It was equivalent to 4.3 Cº per century.
Since 1950, when a human influence on global temperature first became theoretically possible, the global warming trend has been equivalent to 1.2 Cº per century.
The fastest warming rate lasting ten years or more since 1950 occurred over the 33 years from 1974 to 2006. It was equivalent to 2.0 Cº per century.
In 1990, the IPCC’s mid-range prediction of the near-term warming trend was equivalent to 2.8 Cº per century, higher by two-thirds than its current prediction.
The global warming trend since 1990, when the IPCC wrote its first report, is equivalent to 1.4 Cº per century – half of what the IPCC had then predicted.
In 2013 the IPCC’s new mid-range prediction of the near-term warming trend was for warming at a rate equivalent to only 1.7 Cº per century. Even that is proven exaggerated by events.
Though the IPCC has cut its near-term warming prediction, it has not cut its high-end business as usual centennial warming prediction of 4.8 Cº warming to 2100.
The IPCC’s predicted 4.8 Cº warming by 2100 is well over twice the greatest rate of warming lasting more than ten years that has been measured since 1950.
The IPCC’s 4.8 Cº-by-2100 prediction is almost four times the observed real-world warming trend since we might in theory have begun influencing temperature in 1950.
Since 1 January 2001, the dawn of the new millennium, the warming trend on the mean of 5 datasets is nil. No warming at all for 13 years 5 months.
There has been no warming distinguishable from the combined measurement, coverage and bias uncertainties for close to two decades (mean of all datasets), or more than 26 years (RSS satellite dataset).
Recent extreme weather cannot be blamed on global warming, because there has not been any recent global warming. It is as simple as that.
Bottom line: The climate scare was based not on observation (for no unprecedented consequence of rising CO2 concentration has yet been observed. It was based on predictions. The above data demonstrate that the predictions of future temperature rise have been shown to be very considerably exaggerated. Remove the exaggeration and the supposed climate problem disappears.
Thank you Lord Monckton, especially for the giggle over the Gore effect. Yes. It is true. It happened just like it happened in Copenhagen. We had extreme cold weather because Al Gore was in town… and of course it is winter. Up until Gore arrived in our country we were having a mild winter.
Yes, we did it. The carbon tax is gone…. may it always be R.I.P… and I say NO to an ETS. This is just another money-making scam that will make the rich get richer and the rest of us will suffer.