Guest essay by Eric Worrall
h/t Judith Curry (one of the guests): The ABC, Australia’s government owned media outlet, has dedicated an entire Science Show program, including a star cast of climate skeptics, to exploring why some politicians and academics dispute the alleged climate consensus.
Has ‘denying’ won?
Saturday 24 June 2017 12:05PM (view full episode)
The science is 150 years old and growing each day, yet it is still being rejected by politicians and some academics. We shall talk to a few of those who remain unconvinced by climate research and its conclusions: a former vice-chancellor, a renowned Princeton mathematician, a space scientist from WA who worked on the Apollo program, a fellow of the Australian Academy of Science and a climate researcher in America. Have they ever changed their minds on the topic? Do they perceive any risk at all? What do they think of President Trump’s policies? How can critics remain unmoved as the evidence mounts? Sharon Carleton reports.
…
Read more: http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/has-‘denying’-won/8618656
My favourite exchange from the transcript;
…
Judith Curry: Say 10 or 12 years ago, I was working on a few narrow problems that were related to climate change, but I wasn’t looking at the whole picture. And since I wasn’t looking at the whole picture I thought it made sense to accept the consensus conclusions from other scientists who were looking at the whole picture, namely the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC. I bought into their meme ‘don’t listen to what one scientist says, listen to what this group of hundreds of scientists have concluded after years of deliberation’.
I changed my mind in 2009 after the climategate emails, if you are familiar with this, it was the unauthorised release of emails from the University of East Anglia, included email exchanges by a number of the authors of the IPCC reports.
Sharon Carleton: No less than eight top-level, independent committees investigated and published reports on this so called ‘climategate’ affair. The reports found there was no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct and the scientists were completely exonerated.
Judith Curry: From what? Basically what I saw from those emails, and I read pretty much all of them, was that I really did not like the sausage-making that went into this consensus. It was a lot of skulduggery and bullying going on, and trying to hide uncertainties and thwart people from getting papers published and trying to keep data out of the hands of people who wanted to question it. I realised that there was a lot of circular reasoning, a lot of uncertainties, a lot of tuning, just a lot of things that made me not have any confidence at all in what they had done. So I started speaking out. This basically turned me into an outcast amongst the establishment climate scientists.
…
Read more: Same Link as above (Click Transcript)
The guests on the show were;
- Don Aitkin
Former Vice-Chancellor
University of Canberra
- Brian O’Brien
Adjunct Professor of Physics
University of Western Australia
Perth WA
- Judith Curry
Former Professor and Chair
School of Earth & Atmospheric Sciences
Georgia Institute of Technology
Atlanta Georgia USA
- Freeman Dyson
Former Professor of Physics
Institute for Advanced Study
Princeton University
Princeton New Jersey USA
- Garth Paltridge
Retired Atmospheric Physicist
Visiting Fellow at the Australian National University
Emeritus Professor and Honorary Research Fellow
Institute of Antarctic and Southern Oceans Studies
University of Tasmania
Hobart Tasmania
- Andy Pitman
Professor and Director
ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science
The University of New South Wales
Sydney NSW
- Steven Sherwood
Climate Change Research Centre
University of New South Wales
Sydney NSW
In my opinion, the Australian ABC frequently mistreats climate skeptics. Last year Aussie climate skeptic Senator Malcolm Roberts faced a hostile reception to his views during an ABC appearance. In my opinion the Roberts appearance last year amounted to an attempt to set Roberts up, to deride his views without giving him a fair chance to answer criticism.
The ABC Science show Has ‘denying’ won? starts with a reference to the Roberts appearance – but this time things are very different.
This latest crack in the facade of solid media support for “settled science” will be noticed by Australia’s climate community.
Has any skeptic ever asked in public of a believer this simple question: The human contribution to the influx of atmospheric CO2 is 3%; the rest comes from natural sources. How can this 3% cause a climate catastrophe?”
Supposedly it disrupts the balance and accumulates.
I hope that Freeman Dyson lives to be 100. At least.
ABC moderates every comment on their site.
They are without doubt the most partisan horrid media outlet in the world, closely followed by CNN
They only allow the “right” comments on their site, the ones they can deal with, I even wonder if they actually post straw men in their comments to attack
What if you comment that the comments are censored on a political basis which is completely inapropriate for a taxpayer funded media corporation? Would it post?
My experience is any Conde Nasty publication is worse. Ars Techica is hands down the worst I’ve seen.
I made a post in reply, copied the text, a respectful post with a solid argument against someone claiming we know what warming is human vs natural, with a realclimate citation!!
I doubt it will appear after their moderators shred it.
I used the recent spike in CO2 at Mauna Loa and the surprise it caused by NOAA co to show we cant even separate human and natural CO2, ever mind even more difficult to prove warming
Perhaps the ABC could present a similar program addressing the issue of sea level changes along the coasts of Australia. On one side, the alarmists, with their models. On the other side, the realists, who look at the tide station data, who go to the beach to look for changes, or who go to Sydney to see if the great city is already under water. It could be a lively show.
ABC is cancer, they only let skeptic opinions on to misrepresent them and attack the straw men.
They are as bad as the conversation who sanitised all the posts in the comments of their Gergis interview.
Post with the email contents that showed she was lying throughout the whole intervew
Gergis is no scientist. She is a pathological liar
Although it was nice to give prominent skeptics, I felt the program was designed to refute skeptics and characterize their concerns as wrong and or dishonest. I would bet Pittman was given the skeptics comments before hand so that he could craft his rebuttals. PIttman often repeated that anthropogenic climate change is unequivocal, he stated what evidence justifies that assertion.
I saw the program as a cleverly crafted attack on skeptics.
The program left out the nuances of the science, as any short program on this topic would given time constraints.
For example, Pittman would have us believe that adding CO2 will increase temperatures – no mention of logarithmic effects nor saturation points. Perhaps he also believes that merely adding heat to water will make it rise above 100C.
In denying the ‘models are tuned’ argument he was adamant that the models are based on physical science and could not be tuned to provide any result desired. No mention that there are dozens of model outputs that disagree with each other even though they are all based on the same scientific principles (apparently).
And, according to Pittman, the IPCC is squeaky clean in all of its processes and procedures and all reviewer comments are considered and responded to (and he has a nice bridge in Sydney Harbour that you can have for a song)
The best though has been CNN this year.
CNN Jan 2017 “Climate change causes record low sea ice”
The ice was compacted by storms but meh ok.
CNN June 2017 “Canadian expedition canceled due to Climate change”
The compacted ice caused late June heavy floes and the expedition could not get an ice breaker becaue they were all busy/
The expedition was canceled due to no free ice breakers.
CNN is cancer
Yes, the icebreaker conundrum. The US is, I understand, looking to build it’s first, and biggest ever, ice breaker in 30 years ….because the ice is melting?!
Those icebreakers will just open up water to vent more heat into space.
The ice in the Artic is at its lowest level recorded, 95% of the glaciers are retreating, snow cover is retreating, the rise in sea level Is accelerating.
Is this because 1) the data on global temperature has been frigged up by dishonest scientist Or
2) the ice is actually increasing, the sea levels are not rising at an increasing rate we are only been told this by communist photographers and tide table writers Or 3) the data calibration by the scientist, although not an exact science and has flaws does actually reflect a warming of the earth
What is therefore your opinion of climategate?
Antarctic low, storms, the ice increased to maximum in 2014, so why did AGW wait until 2014? and and even then it was not warming
The Antarctic peninsula is cooling over a decade..
The Antarctic sheet went nowhere when temps were 20c higher (British Antarctic Survey)
Arctic low, warm air and storms
and what a massive straw man argument to attack 😀
Warming melts ice. STOP THE PRESS 😀
What is causing the warming is the question.
UGH
Are we back to “warming” now? I thought since shortly after “The Pause”, “change” was the issue.
Hard to keep up sometimes on whatever the latest that Man is supposed to have caused.
Which, of coarse, gives the Elite an excuse to control the rest of us.
( I wonder how many of the Elite envy Kim Jong-un? He doesn’t have to fool the electorate. He doesn’t have one.)
Gunga Din
June 25, 2017 at 2:01 pm
What is causing the warming is the question.
Are we back to “warming” now? I thought since shortly after “The Pause”, “change” was the issue.
Hard to keep up sometimes on whatever the latest that Man is supposed to have caused.
Which, of coarse, gives the Elite an excuse to control the rest of us.
( I wonder how many of the Elite envy Kim Jong-un? He doesn’t have to fool the electorate. He doesn’t have one.)
_________________________
Never, warming happens, I merely pointed out to our nice visitor that “warming” is a misnomer.
MMMMMechanism 😀
and how many of that 95% of glaciers are retreating since 1800s?
And even more telling is what they are finding under those glaciers as they melt: tree stumps and occasionally archaeological sites, sometimes well above the current timber line. There is ample written historical evidence and archaeological evidence to refute any assertion that this modern warm period is different from past ones, other than it’s not yet quite as warm. If anybody doubts that I suggest they try to farm and raise cattle on Greenland like the Norse settlers did for centuries. Good luck! Maybe in a century or two that will again be possible.
Ice in the Arctic is not at the lowest level ever recorded, neither on land or sea.
Where did you get that false impression?
Let me quote Lindzen “The accumulation of false and/or misleading claims is often referred to as the ‘overwhelming evidence’ for forthcoming catastrophe. Without these claims, one might legitimately ask whether there is any evidence at all.”
As usual, the good doctor is right yet again.
There is no actual evidence that having four instead of three molecules of CO2 per 10,000 dry air molecules is in any way bad. In fact, it’s a good thing, and five or six would be better. Eight or 12 would be best of all, but alas, we’ll probably never get there.
I got them from the NSIDC website which is open to anyone.
2012 was the lowest ice cover. 2017 is the third lowest at the moment following 2016
Argument from Acoustics – The claim shouted loudest must be the right one.
Dave,
You are sadly mistaken, based upon NSIDC’ own (highly suspect) data.
As of yesterday, Arctic sea ice extent was higher than on that date in 2012, 2016, 2010 and practically tied with 2011. It was lower than in 2013, 2014 and 2015, so it’s in the middle of the range for the past eight years, counting this one.
Gabro, regarding Arctic sea ice extent……do you know what 2 standard deviations below the average means?
Mark S Johnson June 25, 2017 at 2:50 pm
Since I taught statistics at one of the best universities in the world, yes, I do. What is the point of your question?
Do you know that 1979 was probably the highest Arctic sea ice year of the past century? Do you know that Arctic sea ice was just as low in the 1930s as now? Or that it also was in 1973? And that it was lower for most of the Holocene than now?
The “normal” range for 1981 to 2010 is higher than for most of the past several thousand years, at least, although lower than for the Little Ice Age. Nothing the least bit unusual is happening in Earth’s climate system.
Excellent to hear that you know about statistics. Then, since the current level is 2 standard deviations below the average, then you can’t reject the fact that given 100 years of measurements, that today’s level would be below 95 out of 100 of them, correct?
Gabro says: “Do you know that 1979 was probably the highest Arctic sea ice year of the past century?”
…
Well, if you can provide me with satellite data from 1917 thru the present I might consider evaluating your statement. Otherwise you have to do better than use the word “probably.” What data are you basing this absurd statement on?
Gabro says: “Do you know that Arctic sea ice was just as low in the 1930s as now? ”
…
I doubt it, because all you are doing is hand waving. They didn’t have satellite data in 1930, so your claim is garbage.
PS Mr. Statistics Teacher:….you compare today’s level with 2012, 2016, 2010, 2011, 2013, 2014 and 2015.
…
That’s a total sample space of eight.
…
Did you ever teach your students about “standard error?”
I most certainly can and do reject that conclusion.
The trend is your friend until it isn’t. NSIDC “data” are not suitable subjects for application of the statistical operation which you inappropriately use. Trends in climate are sure to reverse, in most cases on about a 30-year interval.
Based upon climate history, Arctic sea ice should soon start growing again. All during the secular decline in Arctic sea ice since 1979, Antarctic sea ice has grown. Hence, CO2 in the air can’t be to “blame” for the beneficial reduction in Arctic sea ice.
This year Antarctic sea ice is below the “normal” range, but that’s a weather event attributable to the super El Nino of 2016. The high in Antarctic sea ice of the dedicated satellite era occurred in 2013, the year after the Arctic sea ice low. Thus, real scientists can be sure that CO2 isn’t the culprit in the Arctic case.
Mark,
We don’t need satellite data to know what past sea ice extent has been.
1) The only way you can justify rejecting that conclusion is to provide me with an alternative data source. Please provide us with an alternative to NSIDC.
..
2) “Arctic sea ice should soon start growing again.” Well, if you flip a coin, your choice of result would be right half the time. You need a better word than “should.” Based on the 30 year trend, a betting man would say, “Arctic sea ice should continue to decrease.”
..
3) Bringing up Antarctic doesn’t mean anything when discussing Arctic sea ice.
“We don’t need satellite data to know what past sea ice extent has been.”
…
OK, show me your tree ring data then.
NSIDC “data” are is extremely suitable for application of statistics. They give you a time series measurement of sea ice area. This number can be averaged. The current measurement can then be compared to this average. Are you sure you taught statistics at the university level?
Mark,
The mistake you’re making is assuming that the trend observed since the anomalously high year of 1979 will continue. Given the nature of Earth’s climate, science can be sure that the trend won’t continue.
Indeed, the “now” trend is bottoming behavior. Since the then record (since 1979) low of 2007, each three-year average in Arctic sea ice minima has been about the same (2007-09, 2010-12 and 2013-15). The current such interval might end up a little lower than the previous three, given that 2016 was a low year and that this year will also probably be below “normal”. The record low year of 2012 was followed by two years in the normal range, and barring summer cyclones, is liable to remain the record.
1) ” anomalously high year of 1979″ …. based on a single proxy at a single location? You are displaying your ignorance of climate.
..
2) The “nature of Earth’s climate” does not imply the trend will not continue. Based on trends in surface measurments of air temperature, satellite measurements of lower troposphere temps, SST and ocean heat content, it’s a pretty good bet that the trend in Arctic sea ice will continue downward.
..
3) you don’t have enough data to call what is happening today, “bottoming behavior.” You seem to have a serious problem differentiating the “noise” from the “signal” in data. What you desire to have happen is clouding your analysis of what is actually happening.
Mark,
We know from every possible source of data that 1979 was high, to include satellite observations from the 1960s and ’70s.
There is no reason to assume that the trend since 1979 will continue. That’s the same mistake made by those in the 1970s who expected the postwar cooling trend to continue, which was more pronounced than was the warming cycle which followed it.
Climate is cyclic on the decadal and centennial scales, as on longer time frames. The bottoming behavior has now gone on for 11 of the 38 years of the dedicated satellite interval. Unless this year should set a new record lower than 2012, it will continue. The effects of the super El Nino should wear off next year.
Air temperature has little or nothing to do with sea ice melt, anyway. Ocean temperature does, as the secular increasing trend, 1979-2013 in Antarctic sea ice shows.
“Air temperature has little or nothing to do with sea ice melt, anyway.” </b
…
A picture is worth a 1000 words correct:
..
https://robertscribbler.com/tag/north-pole-melting/
Mark,
Liquid water is not unusual at the North Pole. Air T, as I said, and as your link demonstrates, has little to do with it.
BTW, Arctic sea ice minimum in 2013 was within in the NSIDC’s two SD “normal” range.
The liquid water that you see in the picture is from ice melting. The air temp at the North Pole was high enough to melt the ice. Therefore your statement that “Air temperature has little or nothing to do with sea ice melt, anyway” is demonstratively false.
Mark,
Please read your own link. As is the case throughout the Arctic, winds move ice around, making shifting polynyas. They can and do form at the Pole.
Nothing in your link supports your contention that it was air temperature rather than sea temperature, currents and winds that produced that instance of liquid water at the Pole, or near it, as the cameras move around.
Gabro, the picture is not a “polynyas”
..
http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2013/07/open-water-at-north-pole.html
…
“Clearly, there still is some ice underneath the water, as is evident from the stakes that have been put into the ice to indicate the depth of surface water.”
….
What is even funnier is that you claim air temps cannot melt the ice, but when air temps drop below freezing , they sure can freeze the water. Hate to say it, but you can’t have it both ways.
Mark,
As I said, air temperature has relatively little effect, compared to ocean temperature.
Sunlight all day will indeed cause surface melt ponds on sea ice, which was a problem for satellite observation until ways around it were found. Allegedly. But sea ice primarily melts from the bottom up.
The dirtier the ice is, the more effect sunlight shining on it has, due to lower albedo. I’d recommend your studying up on sea ice before commenting on it.
http://gizmodo.com/temperatures-rose-above-freezing-at-the-north-pole-toda-1750376570
…
Please note ice melts when air temp is above freezing.
Gabro, I’d recommend your studying up on global ice before making “excuses” for Arctic sea ice. Greenland’s ice sheet is melting, so much so, that GPS measurements of the bedrock show isostatic rebound. Mountain glaciers are retreating, so much so, Glacier National Park may have to change it’s name in a few years. If you widen your view, you’ll notice the earth is getting warmer, and the loss of Arctic sea ice is a symptomatic of that “trend.”
Mark,
The average summer T at the North Pole is exactly freezing. It has little effect on melting ice there. For the whole region above 80 degrees N, summer T is just a little above freezing. If there were ice under the water in your link, it’s not because warm air melted the ice.
As I said, you need to study up on ice. Greenland’s ice sheet is growing. Right now its mass balance is above normal for the 30-year reference period. I posted the latest from DMI. The East Antarctic Ice Sheet, repository of most of the fresh water on Earth, is also growing. No warming has been observed at the South Pole since records were first kept there. Yet that is precisely where the GHE should be observed, since there is so little water vapor in the dry air there.
Some glaciers are retreating, some are growing and some are staying the same. On balance, glaciers have been retreating since the depths of the LIA 300 years ago, after growing in the preceding centuries from their Medieval Warm Period positions. It’s natural. A fourth molecule of CO2 out of 10,000 dry air molecules has little or nothing to do with glacial advance or retreat.
Gabro: “We don’t need satellite data to know what past sea ice extent has been.
Mark S Johnson: “OK, show me your tree ring data then.”
Here you go, Mark:
And another one:
TA,
Thanks for more inconvenient truth.
Would be funny if not so tragic for humanity that today’s ClimaStalinists are trying to rewrite and disappear climate history recorded and observed by Soviet scientists. Unhistory wiped out by Watermelons.
“Greenland’s ice sheet is growing.” ….and…. ” I posted the latest from DMI. ”
..
You are very funny Gabro.
…
From DMI description: “The snow and ice model from one of DMI’s climate models is driven every six hours with snowfall, sunlight and other parameters from a research weather model for Greenland, Hirlam-Newsnow.”
…
http://beta.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-mass-budget/
…
NOTE THE WORD MODEL
…
You are mistaking model output for real data.
Gabro, here are direct measurements of the effect of ice loss in Greenland. This is not a “model”
..
https://www.unavco.org/science/snapshots/cryosphere/2016/khan.html
…
Now if you need more actual measurement, do you want me to post a link to GRACE data?
DMI’s model has been verified and is constantly checked against reality. You can read their methodology. It’s not like the GCMs, based upon false assumptions and lack of important parameters.
DMI also relies upon satellite observation, which shows a tiny loss of ice due to increased iceberg calving, the rate of which of course is due to more snow and ice upstream, confirming the mass balance calculation. DMI estimates recent annual loss at about 200 Gt/yr, ie practically nothing. We have been in a natural warming cycle since the depths of the LIA 300 years ago, so some continued ice loss would be expected.
Antarctic ice mass increase has been directly observed. As noted, the EAIS is what matters. The GIS and WAIS aren’t pimples on the posterior of the EAIS.
TA…..I like how you splice data from two different sources together. Reminds me of Marcott.
Mark,
I already commented on the satellite data, which show tiny loss. Your link on GPS data say that the satellites might have underestimated the loss by 10%. Still nothing, and below average rate of the past 300 years, following growth during the first half of the LIA, which drove the Norse away.
Please do post the GRACE data, which show, as mentioned, that the EAIS is growing. It stopped retreating 3000 years ago. Earth’s climate is in a long-term downtrend, so any slowdown in that tendency should be welcomed. The Current WP is unfortunately a temporary relief, a normal natural cyclic phenomenon.
Gabro, here’s GRACE for Greenland: ftp://podaac-ftp.jpl.nasa.gov/allData/tellus/L3/mascon/RL05/JPL/CRI/mass_variability_time_series/greenland_mass_200204_201608.txt
..
Here’s the data for Antarctica: ftp://podaac-ftp.jpl.nasa.gov/allData/tellus/L3/mascon/RL05/JPL/CRI/mass_variability_time_series/antarctica_mass_200204_201608.txt
Gabro: “Antarctic ice mass increase has been directly observed.” Did they use a bathroom scale to measure the mass?
..
Antarctica is losing 125+/-39 Gigatons per year. Where do you think the water for sea level rise is coming from?
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/land-ice/
Mark,
Thanks.
“TA…..I like how you splice data from two different sources together.”
Well, you should thank Mr. Heller for that splice, not me. Splicing doesn’t change the facts in this case. There was a lot less arctic ice in the recent past (the 1930’s for example) when compared to today, splice or no splice. So claiming arctic sea ice is abnormally low today is just wrong. It’s been lower in the past.
Disclaimer:
This was from a NOAA monthly weather review in 1922.
The glaciers have been retreating since the little ice age, not sure where you get the very broad “snow cover is retreating” thing from and there is very little if any solid evidence that sea lever rise is accelerating.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-sierra-nevada-snowpack-measurement-20170330-story.html
http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/02/greenland-enters-2017-adding-extraordinary-amounts-of-ice-and-snow/
Any of these things could be due to a naturally warming climate. In fact most people here don’t dispute there is some warming occurring. The point being made is its substantially less than what climate scientists have been forecasting and has been for many years. This despite billions being thrown at them to figure out whats going on.
The amount of money wasted on frivolous science based on catastrophic predictions designed only into scaring people to part with their cash, is a crime. If this money was actually put into actually understanding our climate we might be closer today to understanding our climate a little better, both natural and human causes.
For sea level rise pleas refer to the longest set of data from the Liverpool tide monitoring group. It is showing an acceleration in the mean sea level rise in Liverpool.
True the evidence for sea level rise is nor solid it’s liquid
Snow cover has increased markedly in recent years, as has lake ice.
Dave, I looked at several UK tide gauges and couldn’t find one with any kind of acceleration. E.g.
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global_station.htm?stnid=170-161
But it doesn’t and neither do any of the others.
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr.monthly.plots/15_high.png
Speaking of snow, the pack is so titanic in the Sierras and Cascades, that it’s endangering hikers on the Pacific Crest Trail.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/wet-winter-creates-hazards-for-hikers-on-popular-us-trail/ar-BBD79LN?OCID=ansmsnnews11
To Dave (June 25 at 12:34pm)
If you believe everything you are told by government bureaucrat “scientists” and climate activists,
then everything I say will bounce off of you:
Why do you trust the government so much?
The people who invented the Gulf of Tonkin incident to ramp up the Vietnam War !
The people who used weapons of mass destruction to start a war with Iraq !
The people who have been fighting a war in Afghanistan since 2001
and still have not won !
The people who said “You can keep your plan” and ‘You can keep your doctor”,
knowing you COULD NOT keep your health insurance plan, and maybe your
doctor would be part of the new plan, or maybe not. (I lost my plan, lost my doctor,
and had insurance premiums triple from ObamaCare, so I know the truth).
Why, oh why, would you trust the government on predictions of the climate in 100 years
when they have made wrong predictions for the past 30 years in a row?
Snow cover has been increasing since 1990 per Rutgers University.
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_anom.php?ui_set=0&ui_region=nhland&ui_month=5
95% of the glaciers are NOT retreating.
Sea level rise has NOT accelerated at any time in the past 150 years.
If all that ice is allegedly melting, as you claim,
then tide gages would clearly accelerating sea level rise.
The Earth has a slightly warmer average temperature since 1880,
+ 1 degree C. +/- 1 degree C.
consider that reasonable margin of error and
we may be up +2 degrees C.,
… or we may be be the same as 1880
Half the warming was before the “rising man made CO2 emissions era” began in 1940.
That warming is blamed on “natural” climate change.
Half the warming was after that “1940 era” began.
That very similar warming is blamed on man made CO2
How could anyone claim one warming in the 20th century is “natural”
while a similar warming in the same century is “man made”?
If CO2 is causing any warming at all, then why is there no temperature or sea level evidence in the second half of the 20th century that shows ANYTHING unusual compared with the first half of the century?
And why has there been a flat temperature trend from the early 2000s to 2015?
And why was there no warming from 1940 to 1975?
And why is there no warming in Antarctica in 50 years, except the tiny (2%) peninsula warmed by an underseas volcano — not CO2?
Dave, You are too busy believing what you are told by CO2 is Evil believers,
and not skeptical like a real scientist would be.
“…Sharon Carleton: No less than eight top-level, independent committees investigated and published reports on this so called ‘climategate’ affair. The reports found there was no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct and the scientists were completely exonerated…”
Sharon missed the big picture, either willfully or ignorantly.
“…Sharon Carleton: No less than eight top-level, independent committees investigated and published reports on this so called ‘climategate’ affair. The reports found there was no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct and the scientists were completely exonerated…”
Excerpt the Climategate emails show a con spiracy to change the temperature record between major players of the Earth’s temperature records, when they told each other they had to get rid of the 1940’s “blip”, and then lo and behold, after they were done, the 1940’s blip disappeared from the global surface temperature record.
But we have the records before the 1940’s blip was removed, so we can show before and after pictures of the surface temperature charts and we can see that they systematically cooled the past in order to make it look like the present is much hotter than it really is.
If they were not found guilty of con spiracy it’s only because those doing the investigating didn’t want to find any guilt. It was a whitewash, meant solely to supply people like Sharon Carleton with a means to refute the Climategate dishonesty.
Here’s a little taste of the Climategate dishonesty:
She also didn’t think about her response.
How does one characterise an affair as “so called” and then say that “eight top-level, independent committees investigated and published reports” on it.
Eight independent investigations would suggest there was nothing “so called” about it.
But then, ‘The team’ consider lots of things that don’t fit the narrative as “so called” — e.g. the coming ice age scare, the MWP, the LIA.
No less than eight top-level, independent committees investigated and published reports on this so called ‘climategate’ affair. The reports found there was no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct and the scientists were completely exonerated.
Completely wrong even has rubbish has they were, and who can forget the ‘there was no need to ask them when we could just take them at their word’ approach . They still find problems with what went on , and by the way they made a point of saying THEY DID NOT LOOK AT THE SCIENCE.
So they start with a lie or simply do not know what they are talking about .
A couple of the ABC’s favourite Climate Scientologists have slipped form view including the execrable Pol Sci thing, Cook, and the once much-feted paleoanthropologist Flannery. There has been a certain growth in skepticism, particularly following the announced ‘death’ of the Reef, which makes talk of ‘saving the Reef’ a non-goer as a scare.
I post a link and it goes in the mod bin. not everyone it seems
I mention the words d0u6 c0tt0n and my post goes in the mod bin
Frikkin annoying bs
I suspect that “d0u6 c0tt0n” triggered an auto response to forms of the name that a “mod” never saw.
(Sort of like the real guy “auto-edits” anything that doesn’t support “the cause” on Wikipedia.)
We apologise for the break in normal transmission, regular programming will be resumed next week.
See sidebar ‘coming up’: http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/
Gabro The record for the Artic sea ice goes back 38 years the last ten years why do you only quote the last years few years not say 1990?
Because you left out 2010.
Why do you leave out the previous 11,400 years of the Holocene?
You might also want to consider Arctic land ice as well. Surface mass balance of the Greenland Ice Sheet for the same interval:
http://beta.dmi.dk/uploads/tx_dmidatastore/webservice/b/m/s/d/e/accumulatedsmb.png
Garb, that shows the mass of ice. I stated the extent of ice, not the mass. The area of ice cover on land in the northern hemisphere is reported to be declining. The mass increase is regional to Greenland.
Dave, the Arctic sea ice extent trend has been flat for the last decade. What happened? Did CO2 lose its punch? Or, could it be the changes are completely due to the changes in the AMO.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/from:2006.33/to/offset/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/from:2006.33/to/trend
http://www.climate4you.com/images/AMO%20GlobalAnnualIndexSince1856%20With11yearRunningAverage.gif
Read the artice you got these graphs it stated that accumulation exceeded melting but that calving was removing more than the difference. So there was a net Loss of ice on Greenland, so area and mass is declining. Ps glaciers move quicker when there is more meltwater
Dave, why don’t you quote back to 1890?
That’s right. WE DON”T KNOW.
PS https://www.navalhistory.org/2011/08/11/uss-skate-ssn-578-becomes-the-first-submarine-to-surface-at-the-north-pole
“Global Warming” melted the ice in the 50’s before the ’70’s “New Ice Age” set in?
Why not admit that we don’t know enough about the past to say the present is an unnatural “change”?
Conclusion by reporter: “The science is 150 years old and growing each day…”, therefore catastrophic global warming is true.
The Holocene was not recorded. It was only been deduced by people like Michael Mann.
The arctic ice is now for a few years been outside the interdecile range for the known record.
Therefore it is reducing beyond normal variation.
Dave,
The Holocene is well recorded in paleo proxies. Mann is the last person on the planet whose reconstruction you should trust. But there are good surveys by genuine scientists.
I’ve seen bowhead whale skeletons myself which show that Arctic sea ice extent was lower than now in the past.
Nothing the least bit out of the ordinary is happening in the Arctic or any place else now.
Gabro June 25, 2017 at 3:18 pm says:
“Mann is the last person on the planet whose reconstruction you should trust.”
why?
his (and his co-author’s) results have
been confirmed dozens of times
by now.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379109000419
Inconvenient truth from Canadian Arctic paleoclimatic proxy data.
Gabro, you (as a teacher of statistics) should know better than using a single geographic data point as a proxy for the entire Arctic sea ice extent. Besides, comparing a proxy to photographic evidence is a lot like comparing apples to oranges correct?
It’s a large chunk of the whole Arctic, and I could provide similar results from the rest of the region.
I just happen to have worked more in the American Arctic than the Eurasian, where the Northern Sea Route was open in the 1930s and ’40s, aiding the Soviet war effort.
The SS Vega first traversed the Northern Sea Route around 1878. and is usually open about two months of the year.
Mark,
Apparently you’re unaware that Vega didn’t complete her voyage in 1878. She was locked in sea ice from September 1878 until July 1879.
This despite the fact that those years were during the late 19th century warm cycle, first of the Current Warm Period.
It was not until 1932 that an expedition steamed all the way from Arkhangelsk to the Bering Strait in the same summer without wintering en route. As I wrote, it was more open during the ’30s and ’40s than during the ’50s, ’60s and ’70s, which is why the USSR built nuclear icebreakers.
Arctic sea ice, like so many other climatic phenomena, is cyclical.
Dave…so when the Brits set out to explore the North West Passage in the first decade of the 19th century…was it below ‘normal’ back then in like 1810?
38 years is enough to deduce “normal variation”? Sheesh!
10 results are often sufficient if they are normal. These obviously are skewed. QED
Idiot troll, 2SD in climate means NO significant difference. Get back under your bridge, before I send in the Billygoats.
Please stop being abusive. The data is falling outside 2sigma. Therefore we see that there is a real change happening. And the arrow is pointing to warming. At the moment we only have models and speculation as to where it will lead.we have proxy for historical which either camp seem to exclude the other party. I have just been sent a graph purporting to accumulation of ice on Greenland (Gabro) but the document actually states that calving exceeds the excess deposition and that there is a net Loss of ice from Greenland.
So Dave, why do you deny Stein et al 2017?
http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Arctic-Sea-Ice-Holocene-Stein-17.jpg
Read what I have written I have never mentioned Stein.
Dave – “10 results are often sufficient if they are normal” . . . You have a very strange concept of “normal”. You can quote any quasi-statistical mumbo-jumbo you like, but there is no way that 38 years of data can define what has been “normal” over the past 10000 years.
Especially when many/most climate cycles are significantly longer than 38 years.
Use yer common sense, man!
Meanwhile from the ‘renewables crash dummy state’, the state with largest known single deposit of uranium in the world, comes a paper co-authored by one of the inventors of CAGW (Tom Wigley) discovering the bleeding’ obvious “… while many modelled scenarios have been published claiming to show that a 100% renewable electricity system is achievable, there is no empirical or historical evidence that demonstrates that such systems are in fact feasible …”:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032117304495#
I noticed that the format gives the moderators the last word on all subjects where they give the IPCC line. I’m not impressed by this show of “debate.” It’s a show trial format where the “guilty” are shown no respect.
Not that it is a is problem, but for our foreign listeners, all the ABC presenters, including Andy Pitman, are British born and have thick British accents.
The last two people listed as sceptics are in fact warmists.
Given the ABC’s track record on this, I expect it’s going to be “here’s what the sceptics claim and here’s some real climate scientists to say why they are wrong”.
Sharon Carleton questions Andy Pitman by stating she believes The UN IPCC has stated that there was no evidence of worsening extreme weather.
Pitman responds that that was the 2013 AR 5 finding of the position up to 2011. But things have ‘evolved ‘ since then!
Just wait for the findings and papers on ” extreme weather events” next time round.
Just extraordinary!
How much air time is given to basic fact checking like comparing global satellite temperature measurements to IPCC prediction?
At around the 37 minute mark, Andy Pittman from CCRC lets off a few bombshells. Firstly, he counters the evidence and conclusions from the TAR that extreme weather events are not getting worse with the unbelievable statement that a 6 year old assessment is out of date because “it’s a long time in science”.
Secondly, he goes on to say that a 4 degree rise in global mean temperature will “probably” result in a 6 degree rise over continental land, which “probably” translates to an 8 degree rise over land at mid latitudes. He then goes on to state with some confidence that extreme hot days in Sydney (Australia) will “probably” be 10 degrees higher than the current extreme mid 40 degree days recently experienced.
Even if I was to believe 100% in the CAGW proposition, I would have huge problems accepting the above. He he doesn’t mention at all that the southern hemisphere is warming at half the rate of the north, nor the fact that the record high temperatures for the entire state of NSW, for all three months of summer, were set way back in the late 1800’s. Australia’s highest official temperature was set at Oodnadatta in South Australia in 1960. Using his own line of reasoning, 1 degree of global warming should already be translating to 3 degrees of Australian continental warming, which is absolutely not the case. Even the most recent record temperature in Sydney CBD is less a degree warmer than the previous mark set in 1939, in spite of a near 2 degree UHI contamination. Of course, any student of climate and AGW knows that an increase in mean temperature is in (AGW) theory dominated by elevated night-time temperature, not the daytime t-max.
But having already said that 6 years is a long time in (climate) science, he automatically kills himself with the big uncertainty monster anyway.
“Even the most recent record temperature in Sydney CBD is less a degree warmer than the previous mark set in 1939”
1939, huh. There’s the 1930’s again. The 1930’s always seem to pop up when we talk record high temperatures. I sense a pattern.