The climate change debate has diminished the standing of science in some people’s minds, Australia’s Nobel Prize-winning astrophysicist said today, calling for lawmakers to ensure public policy was informed by evidence-based science.
Australian National University astronomer Professor Brian Schmidt, who was last night named the 2011 joint-winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics for his part in the discovery that the expansion of the universe was accelerating, described the relationship between science and policy as “a little messy.”
“I think that [the carbon debate] has, maybe in the short term, diminished in some people’s minds the standing of science but to my mind it is part of the scientific debate,” he said at a press conference in Canberra this morning.
“I think that science should inform public policy. Public policy needs to take it as an input. It doesn’t mean it’s the only input.”
Professor Schmidt’s comments follow fierce public debate around the science of global warming and an emboldened climate change skeptics movement. Australian climate scientists said earlier this year they have been the target of hate mail and death threats.
“Science is never absolute, that’s the problem. You have different levels of assurity. I have won the Nobel Prize with my team today for discovering the accelerating universe. We are pretty certain that’s correct but you are never absolutely certain. The carbon debate is centred around the science, is the science right? Well there are uncertainties in the science,” said Professor Schmidt.
“I think the evidence is quite strong that change is happening,” he said. “The science behind climate change predicts there should be a little change right now but in future, the prediction is it will be much more. I think we are going to do that experiment, so in 20 years from now we will see how good those models are.”
Funding
Professor Schmidt also called for more and better targeted research funding.
“For the Australian Research Council right now, people like myself who apply to this have less than a 20% chance of getting the money. So that is very low by international standards,” he said.
“You can always fund science more but you can always fund science better,” he said.
“I really want to emphasise that stability of programs is really important, so five years from now I have some idea of what I can do. That’s more important than having a new brilliant idea every three years.”
Scientific inquiry may have unexpected benefits for broader society, said Professor Schmidt, pointing to the Australian researchers who accidentally invented wi-fi while studying black holes.
“I do not know whether or not the accelerating universe will give us a better toaster but I do know it will help us understand the universe and what that eventually evolves into is to be determined. That’s the way science works.”
Professor Schmidt, who learned he was a Nobel Prize winner at 8.30pm last night when he got a call from a woman with a Swedish accent, plans to use his prize money to fund “some sort of public good” after discussing it with his research team.
He said he hopes winning the Nobel Prize does not change his life too much.
“I like my life as it is so I am hoping it doesn’t change too much. But I do hope it allows us to advance science in Australia and serve as an inspiration for young scientists in Australia.”
Join the conversation
Comments (119)
Andrew Glikson
(Earth and paleo-climate scientist at Australian National University)
In his interview on the ABC Schmidt stated he and his group checked and re-checked their observations of an accelerating expanding universe many times - being left with no alternative but accept the observation.
Likewise. Climate scientists have checked and re-checked the relality of global warming and its underlying factor, i.e. more than 500 billion ton carbon emitted from industrial sources as well as from land clearing, finding it to be - unfortunately - beyond reasonable doubt.
Note - at…
show full comment
John Nicol
(logged in via Facebook)
Andrew,
I know I was hoping to get back to you in regard to our last debate, and regret that I haven't done so yet. In relation to this post and your comment above, I am not sure that the "Ocean cooling arising from lag..." and "Similar ocean cooling consequent.." has a lot to do with the current debate on the role or otherwise of carbon dioxide's part in global warming.
The fact that 500 GT of carbon dioxide has been put into the atmosphere does not indicate that this will give rise to Global…
show full comment
Peter Lang
Retired geologist and engineer (logged in via email @netspeed.com.au)
Andrew Glikson,
The problem you and other climate alarmists have created is:
1. climate change has been politicised (by the Left ideologues)
2. climate change research has been corrupted – it is policy driven science, with massive funding and with funding given predominantly to those who will say that climate change is dangerous and catastrophic, as you do. So who can trust what we are being told?
3. The climate change alarmists are comprised of the same people and groups who have advocated other irrational and extreme positions in the past and still do – such as anti-nuclear and pro-renewable-energy.
Given all this, why would any rational person trust them or the policies they advicate?
Andrew Glikson
(Earth and paleo-climate scientist at Australian National University)
There is a difference between:
A. Peer review science and mere opinion.
B. Peer reviewed journals and ideological or political blogs
B. The climate and the weather
C. Evidence and measurements-based trends documented by climate science organizations (NASA, NSIDC, Hadley, Potsdam, CSIRO, BOM) and unreferenced plots common on pro-carbon pollution blogs
D. The basic laws of physics and interpretations inconsistent with these laws.
Proponents of atmospheric carbon pollution may, or may not, realize…
show full comment
Toby James
retired physicist (logged in via email @yahoo.com)
"It is the ethical duty of scientists to warn society regarding natural risks and dangers arising from anthropogenic activities, such as the release of over 500 billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere since the 18th century, an amount near-equal the original carbon level of the atmosphere."
Ah, the ethical duties of scientists . . . Remember Andrew, that all the non-disenting climate 'scientists' who contributed to the last IPCC report (AR4) are presumable happy to to be part of and support the…
show full comment
John Nicol
(logged in via Facebook)
As I have said before, Andrew, the increase in carbon dioxide is well known and as an issue is not the subject of debate. What is impoortant to be resolved is whether it can cause increases in global warming or an enhanced green house effect. This has not been demonstrated by anyone and from my contacts with many of the leading climatologists and proponents of the validity of models, they have been unable to provide publications, even laboratory reports, which demonstrate that carbon dioxide can do as they claim. It is all by correlation between 1979 and 1998 when both CO2 and T rose together - no more no less and I noted your own comment I believe above, saying that correlation does not prove causation. I would also point out again, since your point D above refers to physics, the physics referred to by many of the climatologists in both the areas of radiation and absorption spectroscopy and in thermodynamics is WRONG. John Nicol jonicol18@bigpond.com
Lennert Veerman
(Senior Research Fellow, School of Population Health at University of Queensland)
"It is all by correlation between 1979 and 1998 when both CO2 and T rose together - no more no less"
So this is your analysis of the entire body of climate science? You think the entire notion that CO2 enhances the greenhouse effect is based on this brief correlation? That is ridiculous.
Instead of posting uninformed opinions on websites you'd better spend your time reading up on the science.
John Nicol
(logged in via Facebook)
Lennert, I have explained in a letter comment to you that the only evidence presented by the main climatology groups in Australia is based 1. on Arrhenius hypothesis which was seriously challenged by Angstom at the time and later, and b. From Pitman (UNSW) he only quotes this correlation and is unable tooffer anyohjter evidence. I would be happy if you were able to provide us with additional evidence. The fact that the earth is warming - as it must do following the LIA, and that carbon dioxide is increasing, asit must do since we are burning coal etc, does not mean that co2 CAUSES warming.
jonicol18@bigpond.com
Michael J. I. Brown
(ARC Future Fellow and Senior Lecturer at Monash University)
Angstrom's arguments have a number of serious flaws that have been known for many decades. These were discussed by Raymond Pierrehumbert in his introduction to planetary temperature published in Physics Today (http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf).
While Arrhenius' hypothesis is a potential starting point for understanding the transmission of infrared light through the atmosphere, mainstream science now uses far more sophisticated models and data for modelling the transmission of light.
Doug Cotton
(IT Manager)
Yes but Michael we know that those models are simply not accurate enough to distinguish between net positive or net negative downwelling radiative flux - that is, they can't prove either warming or cooling because, in practice, it all comes down to the fact that measurements show it fluctuating between about plus and minus 0.5% of total incoming radiation, whereas the models have error bars equivalent to about 1% to 2%.
Now, since I last replied to a post of yours we have seen ....
(a) 2011 temperatures…
show full comment
Michael J. I. Brown
(ARC Future Fellow and Senior Lecturer at Monash University)
Doug Cotton's post contains a series of distortions, as per usual. Doug Cotton has made these points before, and despite them being rebutted time and time again, he continues to post them, as per usual. Doug Cotton's posts also illustrate his scientific illiteracy, as per usual.
Doug Cotton's points A and B rely upon selective use of data.
Point C is sourced from an anti-AGW blog famous for distorting the results of science papers (http://www.skepticalscience.com/Monckton-at-odds-with-the-very…
show full comment
James Sexton
Network administrator (logged in via email @hotmail.com)
Andrew, your faith in the peer-review process is misplaced. It has been shown that it is flawed countless times. As I alluded earlier in a response to Mr. Veerman, a simple cursory check would verify this. Consider Dr. Dessler's response to Dr. Spencer. Consider Steig et al. Even go as far back as considering McIntyre. This process is corrupted beyond redemption. Please see my response to Mrs. Western just above us for more examples of 'peer reviewed' science. What I've just expressed is…
show full comment
Andrew Glikson
(Earth and paleo-climate scientist at Australian National University)
James Toby writes"
"the non-dissenting climate 'scientists' who contributed to the last IPCC report (AR4) are presumable happy to to be part of and support the use of over 5,500 references that were never peer-reviewed."
Not so.
Scientists contributing to the IPCC are peer-rview published authors and the bulk of the references given in the IPCC Report are in the main peer reviewed papers, see for example the reference list at:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6s6-references…
show full comment
Toby James
retired physicist (logged in via email @yahoo.com)
Andrew, a list of 40+ papers does not refute the facts. We all agree that there were over 12,000 peer-reviewed papers referred to in AR4. They were mixed in with over 5,500 non peer-reviewed 'items' to which the report refers in order to support its claims and recommendations to world governments.
One can read all sorts of things into such an exercise. For example, the authors and editors of AR4 included over 12,000 peer-reviewed papers in the report but seemingly felt it necessary to surreptitiously supplement them with over 5,500 other items, which could not be identified as such without a major multi-national exercise.
For any scientist(s) to feel it necessary to support their case with over 18,000 references, of which over 30% are dodgy, might well be thought to be suffering a lack of confidence. Methinks they doth refer too much.
John Nicol
(logged in via Facebook)
Andrew, That is an impressive list of publications but hardly demonstrates that the whole of the several thousand publications in AR$ are peer reviewed. I was very intersted to note than none of them, not one, referred to the problem of demonstrating the cause of global warming to be due to carbon dioxide. I thought perhaps you might have found at least the six or so in AR4 which refer to CO2 such as Tyndall's (1847) and Arrhenius' (1896) papers. jonicol18@bigpond.com
wilma western
(logged in via email @bigpond.com)
That abusive first comment (is the accompanying photo Suzuki?) should be deleted. And why oh wny does every article that discusses climate science have to descend into a battle of authorities? While some scientists who have popularised the climate debate have done harm by appearing alarmist most of the credibility loss has resulted from front and centre fightback by those who fear their profits will be reduced if policies are introduced to reduce GHG emissions , backed up by some retired scientists not usually climate specialists . While Schmidt talked about keeping the science separate from the politics, real life is not quite so tidy, and scientists are also citizens who acknowledge civic responsibilities. The precautionary , insurance argument based on the expert consensus should inform responsible government policy . as well as considerations of what are the most effective measures.
James Sexton
Network administrator (logged in via email @hotmail.com)
Mrs. Western,
While I don't disagree that their are people that watch out for their own interests, it wasn't them that caused such a decrease in the credibility of science.
They didn't write those e-mails, they didn't include fallacious statements about the Himalayas in the IPCC report. They didn't write papers about the penguins, polar bears, the Amazon. In fact, they didn't write any of this....... http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm That list was wrote by scientists, or people posing…
show full comment
John Nicol
(logged in via Facebook)
Mrs Western, I agree that there should be no abusive words and the debate can be vigorous but always polite. But may I say that the skeptical community are generally lead by retired scientists who are no longer dependent on research funding or jobs in Universities. The number is growing and there are about the same number of very credible climate scientists, many still representing their countries on the IPCC, whose work does not support the hypothesis preferred by the global warming industry…
show full comment
Dave McRae
(logged in via Facebook)
My wife and I remember with great fondness the lectures given at Mt Stromlo. The "Astronomy by Astrologers" courses for the public given before the 2003 fires was fantastic. And we've caught the prof at various public lectures during the annual science week. His passion is wonderfully infectious and to communicate tricky stuff to the public is also wonderful to be at the end of.
The wife and I, being Prof. Schmidt fans, are delighted that he's got this gong.
Dave McRae
(logged in via Facebook)
Yikes - the Prof has appeared on MTR with Andrew Bolt (who in his Herald-Sun blog refers to him as Gavin demonstrating yet again Bolt accuracy).
Why do scientists do this? Are the science community aware that these people are not your friends no matter what they say before the interview - they hate science and despise scientists unless the scientist agrees with everything they propose and never waiver regardless of observations.
stephen prowse
(logged in via Twitter)
Scientists need to engage with people who are influential and with whom they do not agree even if they are not friends of science. In today's world scientists have a responsibility to work with the community at many levels to get evidence into policy and practice. It is difficult and demanding. I think I agree with Prof Schmidt that climate scientists have done themselves a disservice in the way the debate has been conducted which has allowed some people in the community to question the credibility of science, despite using outcomes of research extensively in their everyday lives!
James Sexton
Network administrator (logged in via email @hotmail.com)
About those "death threats" that seemed gratuitiously included in the article......... have we seen any confirmation that this occured?
Davoe McNamee
(logged in via email @gmail.com)
James, here is some video evidence of a death threat against a climate scientist - the rest are being investigated by the Federal Police.
James Sexton
Network administrator (logged in via email @hotmail.com)
Really? You believe that person meant to hang the speaker in that video? The man at the podium didn't seem too alarmed at the gesture. And you take that as a death threat? To be sure, that isn't a proper way to make a point, and if I had an opportunity, I'd admonish him to the fullest measure. I couldn't make out the words, but perhaps he was trying to show something of this nature,
http://suyts.wordpress.com/2011/09/25/by-their-fruit-you-will-recognize-them/ and, http://suyts.wordpress.com/2011/10/03/more-reaping-the-fruit-of-what-was-sowed/
I've seen people hanged in effigy with more deliberate connotations. As far as the police investigating, it is my understanding that they're not.
Davoe McNamee
(logged in via email @gmail.com)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWVFHJUYVcE
James Sexton
Network administrator (logged in via email @hotmail.com)
Nice......I love this scoring system! So, I have a -2 for this inquiry. But, all I asked was for confirmation this actually occurred. Two people took the time to bump a dislike or whatever, but provided no information towards my inquiry.
I clicked on the link, but that didn't provide any confirmation. I also clicked on the links provided in the story, but those efforts didn't provide any confirmation, either. And this is a thread discussing science?
Would I get a +2 if I swore I saw some dead floating polar bears?
Timothy Curtin
Economic adviser (logged in via email @bigblue.net.au)
Lennert Veerman said: "As for warmer being better, I think you confuse correlation with causation and hold a rather simplistic view of climate change". Really? How about the IPCC's claimed but actually never demonstrated "correlation" between rising [CO2] and GMT? on which see my ACE2011 paper Econometrics & the Science of Climate Change, which like my peer-reviewed paper on Climate Change and Food production (it's at www.timcurtin.com) goes into these issues in some depth.
Eric Ireland said "Yields…
show full comment
Timothy Curtin
Economic adviser (logged in via email @bigblue.net.au)
Lennert Veerman: your graphs are highly misleading, because the anomalies depict much steeper warming trens than are apparent in the basic reading in oC. Why do you and the AAS + IPCC NEVER show the actual trends, chnages therein, and the rspective R2 and Statistical significance numbers? I doubt Schmidt would have got his well-deserved Nobel without deploying them, which makes it the more disturbing that he extolled AAS Q&A 2010 which went out of its way NOT to show them.
But if you insist on using…
show full comment
Lennert Veerman
(Senior Research Fellow, School of Population Health at University of Queensland)
"Now there is NO evidence that the 1 oC has done any harm, as there are more people alive now with a higher standard of living than ever before in the history of the world - and equally there is no doubt that despite the "warming" food crop yields increased continuously from 1960 to 2010"
Same as the global average temperature is determined by more than CO2 concentrations only, so world food production and population numbers are determined by more factors than CO2 concentrations. The correlation…
show full comment
Timothy Curtin
Economic adviser (logged in via email @bigblue.net.au)
I was interested to hear our new Nobel Laureate extolling the immensely shoddy report on climate change by the Australian Academy of Sciences (2010). Whereas his prize is for showing acceleration of the growth of the Universe, they choose to ignore deceleration of sea-level rise here In ANZ (Watson 2011), and that there has been no statistically significant increase in the rate of increase in GMT since 1979. Am I right that calculus seems to be OK for a Nobel, but irrelevant for climate change?
Lennert Veerman
(Senior Research Fellow, School of Population Health at University of Queensland)
They had good reasons to "ignore" the Watson 2011 study for the 2010 climate change report.
Firstly because in 2010, the Watson study hadn't been published yet.
But also because there are problems with the study. Over the period Watson selected the trend may have decelerated a little, but from 1970 onwards there was an acceleration. And why start at 1940, while the data go back to 1925 and further? For a good critique of the study, see http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/1125_hunter.pdf
Seems to me that both Watson and you may have been doing some cherry-picking. But perhaps you just read The Australian.
And FYI, the global mean temparature has risen considerably since 1979. But again, if you look at a short period in isolation, you may not reach statistical significance, as Phil Watson explained: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm. Especially is you want to show an accelleration of warming. And anyway, do you find a steady pace of warming reassuring?
James Sexton
Network administrator (logged in via email @hotmail.com)
At least one satellite (Envisat) says we haven't seen any sea-level rise for 5 1/2 years.
http://suyts.wordpress.com/2011/09/27/no-sea-level-rise-in-over-5-12-years/
And the steady pace of warming?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/trend
Globally speaking, I'm not sure it would be accurate to state it is warming. Of course, given any time frame one can show rising or lowering, heating or cooling. I'm not sure that the arbitrary time frames used is any better than any other.
But, as far as temps, I think it would be more accurate to state it was warming and hasn't for over a decade.
Lennert Veerman
(Senior Research Fellow, School of Population Health at University of Queensland)
Of all the denialist nonsense, the claim that the world isn't warming is the silliest.
"At least one satellite..." James, you are looking at selected short periods and measurements instruments, selected to give either no trend of a negative trend. But if you look at the full data series of either, and the total body of evidence, the warming is undeniable (well, to a rational observer).
If you're interested in knowing what's really going on, you might want to read some serious science instead of biased blogs.
James Sexton
Network administrator (logged in via email @hotmail.com)
For clarification....... the one satellite is used for sea-level determination.
The link to the temps is HadCrut.
Yes, if I looked at the full body of evidence, we can see where it warmed. But, if data went back to the climate optimum would you be able to make such claim?
So, silly or not, how long does the lack of warming have to occur before you alarmists recognize that it isn't warming? Even if the most recent decadal trend continues for another decade, the entire database would still show…
show full comment
Lennert Veerman
(Senior Research Fellow, School of Population Health at University of Queensland)
Alarmist, English barrier... And you accuse me of being condescending?
And I am not impressed with your hard-drive full of scientific papers. I'd be more impressed if you could show you had contributed to the peer-reviewed literature. My experience with do-it-yourself scientists in this field is that their claims seldom stand up to scrutiny, and you don't come across as an open-minded scientist. So get your views published and we'll discuss further. For now I'll go with the scientific consensus.
James Sexton
Network administrator (logged in via email @hotmail.com)
Lennert, I'll give as good as I get. I didn't start with the meaningless drivel about looking at warming since records started. You did. HadCrut's data goes back to 1850. Tell me, coming out of the LIA, would you expect more or less heat?
I didn't blather the condescension about me getting my information from blogs, you did. Even though, it was quite clear my information I presented came directly from accepted vehicles of information. This is unless you believe the HadCrut dataset and Aviso…
show full comment
John Nicol
(logged in via Facebook)
I was not aware Tim that Schmidt had praised that report and in this article as written by Sunanda Creagh I interpret his statements as being very cautious not to criticize but without some misgivings about the reults of modelling and the disservice done to science by climate scientists lack of interaction with the rest of the scientific community. After all, the number of "climate" scientists or climatologists is actually very small numbering only in the hundreds world wide. The claimed 97% of…
show full comment
Timothy Curtin
Economic adviser (logged in via email @bigblue.net.au)
Mark Harrigan: I must request that you retract the following statements or else give me your lawyer's contact details.
"Tim Curtin use[s] this as a platform to promote [his] junk theories but haven't the intellectual integrity or honesty to publish [his] findings in credible peer reviewed literature that actually deal with Climate Science" et seq.
He included Doug Cotton in this but he can speak for himself. Speaking for myself those are untrue and defamatory statements.
Timothy Curtin
Economic adviser (logged in via email @bigblue.net.au)
Lennert, further to my last, you said "And what significance does the absolute average global temperature have, anyway? Yes, the changes look smaller, especially if you give it in Kelvin, but that doesn't mean the consequences are any less dire."
How dire? My wife and I, my kids, and my grandson have never had it so good. My father recorded in his diary the redletter day when his mother acquired her first electric iron, in 1925.
You and your fellow travellers wish to return all of us to non-electric conveniences.
Lennert Veerman
(Senior Research Fellow, School of Population Health at University of Queensland)
So Tim, because fossil fuels have had - and continue to have - such undeniable benefits for mankind, you think their use cannot cause climate change?
Timothy Curtin
Economic adviser (logged in via email @bigblue.net.au)
Lennert: you said "As for showing only temperature 'anomalies' - I also had to get used to that way of presenting. I was explained it stems from the fact that changes in the average are easier to ascertain than the absolute average temperature - depicting that would introduce additional uncertainty. But I stand to be corrected - it's not my field of science."
You do indeed need to be corrected. The preference of NASA-GISS and the IPCC et al for anomalies is designed to fool the world. Actually anomalies from any period, say 1951-80, convey ZERO additional information relative to the actual absolute numbers for that period from Gistemp, but do produce much more alarming graphs. Try plotting them yourself, basic math tells you that "anomalies" create NIL more information than the actual numbers, but do yield much more satisfying graphs!
You really do need to know that James Hansen is at one with Bernie Madoff.
Timothy Curtin
Economic adviser (logged in via email @bigblue.net.au)
Thanks Lennert, that is what I believe: tell me , what climate change have you observed in your life at any of your abodes? I can do that for all of mine, and none is any different now from what it was when I lived there, except for my ancestral village, Wedmore in Somerset, about 20 miles south of Bristol, which has just had its coolest summer for 30 years, even if marginally offset by probably the warmest start to October: July ave Tmax was 20.7 oC, 1.6 oC below the 30-year average; the Tmin was…
show full comment
Lennert Veerman
(Senior Research Fellow, School of Population Health at University of Queensland)
I thought we were talking about global averages here, not short-term changes in single locations?
And I don't think the expectation was that every location would warm equally.
Doug Cotton
(IT Manager)
Further to the above, I draw your attention to posts by John Nicol and myself in the thread http://theconversation.edu.au/do-cosmic-rays-influence-climate-some-new-results-from-cern-3246
Mark Harrigan
Dr (logged in via email @tpg.com.au)
Doug Cotton says
"I'm not interested in publishing thanks all the same. (I'm too busy making far more than the average physicist from my software business.)"
But, strangely he does have time to publish his own web site promoting theories on the climate that, strangely, NO-ONE else has discovered.
He also have time to make 26 posts on this thread (that's more than 20% of the total!), half of them this weekend. There's a similar frequency on other threads on climate matters.
In fact Doug has plenty of time to commit unsubstantiated climate bloggorhea all over the place.
But "don't have time to publish". Credible? I think not.
Timothy Curtin
Economic adviser (logged in via email @bigblue.net.au)
Lennert: we have already discussed the global data sets here. <Moreover the global is made up from local station data, or should be, but not for Gistemp, whose Hansen states that one station can adequately represent everywhere within 1200 km of it, whether N,S, E or W, and regardless of respective altitudes. That is why he thinks warm gulf stream islands represent mainland Scotland perfectly well, and that Heathrow is better than Oxford, perhaps 40 miles NW of the airport. In fact like BoM Hansen has a strong preference for airports, I wonder why?
Timothy Curtin
Economic adviser (logged in via email @bigblue.net.au)
Lennert: I meant to add that SkS is hardly more reputable than the Hungarian Journal of Meteorology, and its cited articles at your link seem to have dubious provenance. The main SkS graph uses Tipex to get rid of the H2O in the IR spectra - that is really scientific! The Chen, Harries et al paper cited by SkS shows that indeed there is more CO2 up there, but does not even attempt to correlate that with GMT. I have shown they do not because they cannot, as there is NO statistically significant correlation between rising [CO2] and temperature change anywhere ever.
Mark Harrigan
Dr (logged in via email @tpg.com.au)
Congratulations to Prof Schmidt for his prize.
How predictable though that his measured comments would be used a launching pad for those from the blogosphere to continue to peddle their recycled myths and misinformation about climate science.
Any debate about the climate science is more properly conducted by scientists who know what they are actually doing – not on blogosphere sites by untrained amateurs who routinely call people they disagree with “Trolls”. On a well known blogosphere site there…
show full comment
Doug Cotton
(IT Manager)
Your analogy "a bit like refusing to accept a diagnosis of a serious illness from a doctor" draws the comment that NASA data shows there is no serious illness. It is NASA saying that the world is now cooling and that sea levels have been falling for two years. I have provided the links.
With all due respect and congratulations to Prof Schmidt, his prize does not make him an expert in Physics, and nor are most climatologists.
You ask what have I won: the fact that I have in the past won four academic scholarships may well be irrelevant - what I suggest is far more relevant is the time and thought I have put into the study of the AGW hypothesis and related issues, and I wouldn't be surprised if that were somewhat more than most contributors to this forum. And I am not alone among those with a sound knowledge of physics.
I guess it will take another 20 years of cooling before you'll start to be convinced. I hope I'm still on the planet then to have the last laugh.
Mark Harrigan
Dr (logged in via email @tpg.com.au)
What Doug? No longer peddling your myths about it being due to the earth's core temperature??
Failed basic physics on that one as anyone can easily see here http://theconversation.edu.au/climate-change-its-inevitable-we-have-to-adapt-lets-spend-wisely-3182
Whatever "thought" you have put into it counts for nothing if you are delusional and your basic physics is so demonstrably unsound.
You have ZERO recdibility with respect to even basic physics let alone climate science
James Sexton
Network administrator (logged in via email @hotmail.com)
"we know the temperature is rising and the Ocean pH is dropping."........
================================
Dr. Harrigan, I'd be real appreciative if you would produce a link to the data that supports that assertion about the ocean's pH.
Mark Harrigan
Dr (logged in via email @tpg.com.au)
Can't You use Google?
The data comes from GLODAP
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/oceans/glodap/GlopDV.html
There's a report based on this data from the Royal Society here
http://royalsociety.org/policy/publications/2005/ocean-acidification/
"Carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted to the atmosphere by human activities is being absorbed by the oceans, making them more acidic (lowering the pH the measure of acidity). "
And there are links to many many papers at the bottom of the relevant Wikipedia page here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification
Why do people like you who regularly pop up in these threads seeking to deny the science have such trouble with looking this sort of stuff up yourself??
James Sexton
Network administrator (logged in via email @hotmail.com)
Yes, I do know how to use Google. I also understand it is generally accepting in blogging discourse to provide links that buttress controversial statements.
Your cited paper states the oceans have a pH 8.2 (+/- 0.3) and claim the oceans pH value has diminished by 0.1. :-|
What I was asking for was documentation, data or some other type of empirical evidence that the oceans pH has measurably become more acidic.
Why do people like you simply look at a study and accept the summary without reading it? Aren't you suppose to be some sort of scientist yourself? Is that how you conduct science in your field? If so, please name your field...... it seems they too, would need help from a skeptical perspective.
Mark Harrigan
Dr (logged in via email @tpg.com.au)
SkS has won the eureka prize for science communication - what have you won? Apart from the reward for the most dubious uncredentialled comments against science on this thread.
Blogorrhea is no substitute for real science done by real scientists
Timothy Curtin
Economic adviser (logged in via email @bigblue.net.au)
Mark Harrigan: I’m glad you got that rant off your chest, feel better? However your own diagnoses are incorrect being based on seriously inadequate science and that is why the remedies proposed are quackeries but calculated to cause serious damage to the wellbeing of all on this planet. You say “We know CO2 causes warming” – but we don’t, as no regression analysis has ever been published that show that to be true; yes, “we know we are putting excess CO2 into the atmosphere”, that is true but trivial…
show full comment
Mark Harrigan
Dr (logged in via email @tpg.com.au)
Basic ignorance Mr Curtin.
CO2 causing warming is a established fact of physics established over a century ago by Tyndall and Arrhenius. Look it up - apparently you are just too lazy.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-human-cost-of-energy here is the link for energy related deaths
You clearly know no science at all nor do you bother to even validate your arguments.
You are a classic example of the ill-informed commtting blogorrhea and obfuscating the reality of climate science.
Doug Cotton
(IT Manager)
(continued) ... The relevant paragraphs referred to above are copied below as you may not find them now ...
In order to "prove" warming your models have to show on a world wide annual basis that there is marginally more downwelling flux at TOA than there is upwelling flux. Measurements indicate this is unlikely to be more than 0.5% of total incoming radiation at TOA. Yet the models are acknowledged to have errors of the order of 1% to 2%. Hence they are simply not accurate enough to prove that…
show full comment
Doug Cotton
(IT Manager)
The Tyndall and Arrhenius experiment was trashed by Prof Woods in 1909 and again by Prof Nahle earlier this year - see summary at http://climateclash.com/2011/07/19/wood-is-correct-there-is-no-greenhouse-effect/ or read Nahle's full paper as I have in detail - as well as corresponding with him directly.
The processes in the atmosphere are far more complex anyway than anything that can be emulated in such experiments. Winds, air currents, atmospheric tides (caused by gravity of both the Sun…
show full comment
Mark Harrigan
Dr (logged in via email @tpg.com.au)
Doug - not one preference to a peer reviewed paper. Plenty of references to the unsubstantiated blogosphere. Blogorhhea at large it would seem
(your reference to the Spencer and Braswell "data" is a joke since it only goes back to 2002 - cherry picking write large.
REAL climate data cane be shown here from NASA - an organisation with credibility http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/
here's three REAL papers that show you are completely wrong
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs…
show full comment
Doug Cotton
(IT Manager)
Your "REAL climate data cane (sic) be shown here from NASA" shows exactly what I (and Knox and Douglass in their peer-reviewed paper) have been talking about - a levelling of the plot after year 2000. After all, I make it quite clear that I am using NASA sea surface data.
Your "REAL papers" do not show I am completely wrong. You exhibit by your comments that you have very little idea of what I am saying. Do you really think I don't know how insignificant is the net heat flow from the crust…
show full comment
Mark Harrigan
Dr (logged in via email @tpg.com.au)
Doug you say " Regarding the core heat, I don't see any inconsistency such as you imply in my position"
Well - you have said on your own self-published silly web site (no published papers mind you)
" We don't need a high heat flow - just a high temperature for the core to affect the surface climate. There is massive heat inside the Earth."
and on the conversation comments you say "The very basic physics that establishes that variations in core temperatures can cause variations at the surface is…
show full comment
Timothy Curtin
Economic adviser (logged in via email @bigblue.net.au)
Mark harridan: "CO2 causing warming is an established fact of physics established over a century ago by Tyndall and Arrhenius. Look it up - apparently you are just too lazy."
That is a shameful lie, my ACE2011 paper (available at its website and at mine, www.timcurtin.com) discusses both Tyndall and Arrhenius in detail. It is for YOU to explain why the IPCC (AR4, WG1) deletes all mention of the atmospheric water vapour as a primary radiative forcing that is given 13X greater effect than CO2 by Tyndall, and almost as much by Arrhenius 1896, Table 3).
You add "nor do you bother to even validate your arguments".
My cited paper gives my regression results showing no statistically significant effect of rising [CO2] on changes in global or local temperatures. Show me yours - but then from the tone of your rant it is clear you cannot do regressions.
I await your death threats.
Mark Harrigan
Dr (logged in via email @tpg.com.au)
Dear Mr Curtin
I see you are not above insults as a form of argument chossing to deliberately misspell my name. No matter.
Your "paper" as you laughingly call it was refused by Nature (a prestigious journal) but published in Environment & Energy - a highly specious journal where the editor(Boehmer-Christiansen) is KNOWN to have said "I'm following my political agenda " when challenged on why there was such a heavy publication from uncredentialled sources known to be "skeptical" about climate science.
The physics established by Tyndall etc is very well established. Your own website makes it abundantly clear you are no c;limate scientist and have an obvious political agenda. Another blogorrhea emitter. Shame we cannot tax you ;)
Doug Cotton
(IT Manager)
May I suggest that the study of heat transfer and the like comes in the domain of Physics not "climate science" and, as you avoid putting up your own personal profile on this forum, I really don't lmow if you have done even a couple of years of tertiary physics. Hence I don't know if you will understand the following (from the third page of my new site) but at least some others might ...
"A more detailed explanation of the temperature "support" mechanism is required because an objection is often…
show full comment
Mark Harrigan
Dr (logged in via email @tpg.com.au)
Arrgh! A torrent of blogorrhea! Doug - as I have said before - Publish in a peer reviewed journal or please be silent.
As to profile - for a man that has SIX on here that is a bit rich
http://theconversation.edu.au/search?q=Doug+Cotton
For the record though - I completed my PhD in Physics from the University of Melbourne in 1985 (awarded 86) and graduated at the top of my class for my BSc Hons degree also at Uni of Melb. Unfortunately as advised my Michael Morris - the technical director here - there is no facility on the Conversation to update/edit one's profile - so details on my "profile" are minimal based on what I entered when I signed up)
Doug Cotton
(IT Manager)
Regarding your above "explanation" of the greenhouse effect my response (written months ago) is here ... http://earth-climate.com/CaseAgainst.html
PS Actually there is a facility to edit profiles as I have used it. For some reason yours is not linked so your name shows in black not blue like others with linked profiles. Because of that I assumed there was no profile for you. I have six profiles only because the first five were blocked by the management of the site, so I had to keep re-registering with a different email address.
Doug Cotton
(IT Manager)
I'm not interested in publishing thanks all the same. (I'm too busy making far more than the average physicist from my software business.) But I note that you did your physics when the 60 year cycle was turning upwards and AGW was beginning to be the buzz, whilst I did mine nearly 20 years earlier under Harry Messel et al when the cycle was still causing cooling. The trend from 2000 to 2030 will be similar to that from 1940 to 1970.
And, no, long term trends are not sensitive enough to pick…
show full comment
Mark Harrigan
Dr (logged in via email @tpg.com.au)
And disputing the existence of the Green House effect is just plain dumb
http://www.skepticalscience.com/does-greenhouse-effect-exist.htm
We only have to look to our moon for evidence of what the Earth might be like without an atmosphere that sustained the greenhouse effect. While the moon’s surface reaches 130 degrees C in direct sunlight at the equator (266 degrees F), when the sun ‘goes down’ on the moon, the temperature drops almost immediately, and plunges in several hours down to minus 110…
show full comment
Doug Cotton
(IT Manager)
The measurements at TOA are not all that accurate and are more or less in line with what we would expect given the actual temperature variations observed. Now that cooling is starting to occur, we will see net TOA radiation go into the negative. It usually varies only between about plus and minus 0.5% of total incoming solar insolation anyway. Hence these measurements do prove that the Earth is warming or cooling, but don't really tell us much more than what we know already from the temperature…
show full comment
Doug Cotton
(IT Manager)
One of your three papers referred to an "air-less rock" which is what we have on the moon, so I will respond to that post and this one here. (The other papers were full of the same old wishy-washy arguments that are outdated in this day of models.)
The fact that the atmosphere has an apparent insulating effect does not prove that any or all of that effect is due to GH gases. As I have explained, there is a continuous temperature trend from the core to TOA and each end of that trend is locked…
show full comment
Mark Harrigan
Dr (logged in via email @tpg.com.au)
Doug says - "I'm not interested in publishing thanks all the same" = "I'm not interested in subjecting my crackpot theories to the critical review of my peers (who might just conclude I am totally wrong)"
When I did my studies is irrelevant - the basic physics is the same.
I note you completely IGNORE my reference to a comprehensive review of the REAL PHYSICS of the greenhouse effect published by the American Institue of Physics and reference your own blogospheric clap-trap.
It's here agin for the objective reader
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
You also have no answer for the 3 papers I referenced above (2 from the prestigious Journal Nature)
Doug Cotton
(IT Manager)
The "Real GH effect" cannot be quantified by wishy-washy discussion of back radiation. As Michael Brown says in a post above "mainstream science now uses far more sophisticated models and data for modelling the transmission of light."
The problem is, as explained in my reply to him (and in several other posts) the models have acknowledged errors the effect of which is that they can't even distinguish between warming and cooling.
Now prove me wrong on that point before we discuss anything else. Hint: you are looking to distinguish between plus 0.5% and minus 0.5% net downwelling radiative flux when the models have errors of 1% to 2%. Impossible.
Mark Harrigan
Dr (logged in via email @tpg.com.au)
Finally - your reference to Prof Nahle's paper is a joke
1) He is a biologist - not a physicist http://www.eoht.info/page/Nasif+Nahle
2) The place it was "published" http://principia-scientific.org/component/content/frontpage is NOT a peer reviewed scientific journal of any credibility - it's a political blog for "skeptics"
3) As any REAL physicist knows The "greenhouse effect" is named by analogy to greenhouses. The greenhouse effect and a real greenhouse are similar in that they both limit the…
show full comment
Doug Cotton
(IT Manager)
It really doesn't matter who Nahle is. His experiment is repeatable and I would suggest the result would be the same even if mainstream scientists dared to dabble. Most dismiss it because they don't understand it, so see my explanation in another post first.
Lennert Veerman
(Senior Research Fellow, School of Population Health at University of Queensland)
Tim, it is not true that climate scientists ignore water vapour as the strongest greenhouse gas. The preponderance of evidence suggests that it enhances the effect of rising CO2 concentrations, basically because warmer air tends to contain more vapour. See http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm
Timothy Curtin
Economic adviser (logged in via email @bigblue.net.au)
Mark Harridan: you continue to use ad hominem and appeals to authority arguments. E&E papers need to be assessed on their own merits, not those of the journal itself, especially when Phil Jones, Mike Mann and Kvin Trenberth are able to exclude all contrarian views from all climate journals, like Remote Sensing and GRL.
Just publish here your own regression analysis of the role of rising [CO2], which we all agree has risen from 315 ppm at end 1958 to 390 ppm by end 2010, in determining the change in average gobal temperature since 1958, which is less than 0.8 oC from 14.1 oC in 1958.
BTW, why are you so shy about your own climate science publication record? I am a professional economist fully capable of evaluating the bogus claims of the effects of rising [CO2} on the world, one does not need to be a climate "scientist" to do that, especially when none of them is up to that task.
Lennert Veerman
(Senior Research Fellow, School of Population Health at University of Queensland)
"... one does not need to be a climate "scientist" to [evaluate the bogus claims of the effects of rising [CO2} on the world]"
Perhaps not, but it sure would help in terms of credibility. Publications in high-ranking journals would substitute, but in my opinion Mark has convincingly shown that E&E doesn't count.
Judging papers by their own merits sounds nice but requires knowledge of what deserves merit. Not everyone has that - we can't all be experts in everything. I have limited knowledge of climate science, so to a large extent I have to rely on the scientific processes (including peer-review but also citations afterwards) and trusted sources like academies of science to help me with my judgement.
You can speak of 'authorities', but that authority is deserved.
But do publish your work in a top journal - overturn the current consensus - and I may change my mind.
Mark Harrigan
Dr (logged in via email @tpg.com.au)
Tim - plenty of Ad Hom from you - none from me. Read my other posts for basic physics arguments (which you appear to NOT understand).
I have never claimed to be a climate scientist (i'm not). I trained as a Physicist with a sub-major in maths and my PhD was in Atomic and Molecular Physics.
Your appeal to econometrics is completely bogus. You have no basis in fundamental phsyics for your sill claims and you have no peer reveiwed science of your own (which mains any "claims" you make can be subjected to proper analysis) or indeed any referecnes to reputable science.
I on the other hand have pointed to plenty of papers which DO establish the reality of AGW and have made the perfectly reasonable statement that the only uncertainties that remain in the science are to do with how far/how fast it will warm.
As Lennert says - publish in a quality Peer reviewed journal and we may listen - otherwise please cease your blogorrhea
Doug Cotton
(IT Manager)
There can be only two ways to "establish the reality of AGW" ...
(1) Dramatically improve the accuracy of the models so that they do in fact predict a positive net downwelling radiative flux at TOA. At present they are nowhere near accurate enough to do so. No amount of wishy-washy verbal argument about back radiation is sufficient proof in itself, because it does not quantify the resultant compensating increase in upward heat flow by both radiation and convection.
(2) Carry out "experiments" based on real climate data which (somehow) actually show a strong correlation between climate and carbon dioxide levels both in long-term and relatively short-term time periods, and then prove (somehow) that carbon dioxide is the forcing factor, not climate itself. Simultaneously disprove any causal effect of any and every other conceivable natural cause for climate change and explain why such natural causes apparently ceased operating late last century.
Doug Cotton
(IT Manager)
You cannot deny that a very significant change in the gradient of the temperature plot took place over the relatively short period from 1998 to 2002. A similar change happened 60 years earlier, despite much lower CO₂
Nobody can show any valid reason for the change in gradient if all they use is data on carbon dioxide and aerosols. IPCC models assumed aerosols would have a warming effect anyway. Even if they cool then it is highly improbable that the levels of aerosols are increasing at a rate…
show full comment
Doug Cotton
(IT Manager)
It seems the Chinese are on the same track. When can we expect comment on this Sydney Morning Herald item ... http://www.smh.com.au/world/chinese-sceptics-see-global-warming-as-us-conspiracy-20111007-1ldl1.html excerpts below ...
"'Global warming is a bogus proposition,'' says Zhang Musheng, one of China's most influential intellectuals and a close adviser to a powerful and hawkish general in the People's Liberation Army, Liu Yuan.
"Mr Zhang told the Herald that global warming was an American…
show full comment
Timothy Curtin
Economic adviser (logged in via email @bigblue.net.au)
Hi Mark Harridan: You are indeed what I call you, by omitting reference to both my peer-reviewed Climate Change and Food Production paper at E&E, and my currently under peer review paper that was presented at the ACE2011 here at the ANU last July. Both of those use quite sophisticated econometric techniques to show that (1) there is strong evidence that rising [CO2[] is good for food production, which is almost tautological given the high proportion of carbohydrates in all non-meat products, and…
show full comment
Mark Harrigan
Dr (logged in via email @tpg.com.au)
Really Tim?? Is that the best you can do. I've offered plenty of peer reviewed references from REAL science journals. You've offered none. zero. zip.
This link http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2011/04/energy-and-environment-900-papers
articulates quite well the problems with E&E.
It's a politically driven journal (self-admitted by it's editor), published more "skeptic" papers than any other journal by a very long margin, has peer review processes which have been seriously questioned, and has…
show full comment
Timothy Curtin
Economic adviser (logged in via email @bigblue.net.au)
Mark Harridan: Glad to see your reference to Karl Popper. He was the first to state the Black Swan effect. My regressions in my "Econometrics and the Science of Climate Change" paper show his Black Swan effect over and over again, go to www.ace2011.org.au or to www.timcurtin.com
Mark Harrigan
Dr (logged in via email @tpg.com.au)
Self referenced un reviewed self-aggrandising rubbush which establish nothing and a presentation to an economics conference do NOT establish credibility or any valid conclusions in relation ro the science of AGW.
I'm afraid it's "Curtin's" for you Tim
Doug Cotton
(IT Manager)
Mark you obviously shape your beliefs on the "standard" explanation as outlined in Wikipedia ...
"The greenhouse effect is a process by which thermal radiation from a planetary surface is absorbed by atmospheric greenhouse gases, and is re-radiated in all directions. Since part of this re-radiation is back towards the surface, energy is transferred to the surface and the lower atmosphere. As a result, the temperature there is higher than it would be if direct heating by solar radiation were the…
show full comment
Doug Cotton
(IT Manager)
Correction: Nahle's experiment claims to show that Pratt's attempted debunking of Wood's 1909 experiment was wrong.
Doug Cotton
(IT Manager)
Now, if Nahle is correct, water vapour has an effect which is more than 200 times that of carbon dioxide. Hence, as happens in El Niño for example, if the water vapour (humidity) doubles the effect is comparable with what we would expect from multiplying the carbon dioxide level by about 200.
And what do we see during El Niño? Perhaps less than half a degree of temporary warming much of which came from an initial warming of the oceans which caused extra evaporation and which had nothing to do with carbon dioxide anyway..
Doug Cotton
(IT Manager)
Like others, you talk only of the increased back radiation which we all acknowledge does happen due to carbon dioxide. What you fail to even think about is the fact that, when the ground warms (eg hot sand on the beach) it then transfers more heat back upwards by both radiation and diffusion followed by convection. Unless you can prove that (upward) heat energy is less than the extra energy from the extra downwelling radiation then nothing whatsoever is proven about the net effect.
And, by the…
show full comment
Doug Cotton
(IT Manager)
In all your posts Mark you use language such as this which, frankly, is like water off a duck's back. It is typical of anyone who is floundering to give valid, cogent argument in support of their position and, instead, resorts to mud slinging.
Not once have you put forward a word of your own genuine thinking, nor any valid counter argument (based on physics) specifically addressing any point(s) made. All you ever do is echo your selection of "peer-reviewed" authors - stuff which Tim and I have read long ago. Go join politics!
Timothy Curtin
Economic adviser (logged in via email @bigblue.net.au)
Mark - this statement of yours is ridiculous (Self referenced un reviewed self-aggrandising rubbush which establish nothing and a presentation to an economics conference do NOT establish credibility or any valid conclusions in relation ro the science of AGW.)
My CC & Food paper was peer reviewed, rather carefully, in fact, and it was my fault if I failed to respond adequately to the reviewers' comments. The ACE2011 paper is undergoing peer review - and has been for over 2 months.
However in both…
show full comment
Doug Cotton
(IT Manager)
I take it that no one has any valid contradictory evidence that refutes any material in my last few posts. This does not surprise me because the truth of the matter is that the whole AGW hypothesis is fallacious and is now being supported primarily by the “establishment” who want to save face, and who are no doubt actually hoping it warms up a bit. This is pretty unlikely given NASA’s sunspot predictions and the fact that climate seems to lag long-term sunspot cycles (not the 11 year ones) by about…
show full comment
Mark Harrigan
Dr (logged in via email @tpg.com.au)
Prof Schmidt (and collaborators) made a startling discovery that transformed our understanding of the physics of the universe.
They PUBLISHED their findings in peer reviewed literature where they could be subjected to qualified critical scrutiny and thus either overturned or validated.
They were validated. They significantly advanced our understanding of the science of the universe. Prof Schmidt and collaborators deservedly won a Nobel.
Prof Schmidt makes a very reasonable comment about climate…
show full comment
Doug Cotton
(IT Manager)
Apologies Tim - that should of course read "Mark"
Mark Harrigan
Dr (logged in via email @tpg.com.au)
Doug, It's not my job, nor do I have the inclination to spend any time refuting your crackpot theories. I have already pointed out the deep holes in some of your statements above - even simple lack of fact checking like claiming Nahle was a physicist of repute when in fact he's a biologist publishing WELL outside his sphere and all his paper established was that a greenhouse works, well, like a greenhouse!
IF you can get your somewhat outlandish claims published in some peer reviewed science I, and many others will be very interested to take the time to read them.
Timothy Curtin
Economic adviser (logged in via email @bigblue.net.au)
Lennert: the sea level data used by Watson have been collected since 1925. The authors of the AAS Q&A Report (2010), of whom seven of the nine were contributors to AR4 (Solomon et al 2007), so hardly new to the task, showed their collective lack of diligence yet again but are praised by Schmidt. I reanalysed the Newcastle data set from 1925 and it clearly shows the deceleration found by Watson.
The global mean temperature has NOT "risen considerably since 1979". Even Hansen's fudged Gistemp data…
show full comment
Lennert Veerman
(Senior Research Fellow, School of Population Health at University of Queensland)
Tim, look at NASA's temperature graph and tell me if you see warming: http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/index.cfm#globalTemp.
As far warmer being better, I think you confuse correlation with causation and hold a rather simplistic view of climate change.
James Sexton
Network administrator (logged in via email @hotmail.com)
Oh for heavens sake........ compare the graph on the right of your link to this.....http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2005/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2005/trend
Lennert Veerman
(Senior Research Fellow, School of Population Health at University of Queensland)
James, in this case I don't object to your source but to your time horizon, which is way too short to draw any conclusions. Here, try this: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1850/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend
James Sexton
Network administrator (logged in via email @hotmail.com)
Lennert, I guess I wasn't clear. I asked you to compare the graph I offered to the graph on the right of the page you offered. In retrospect, I should have said the "top", right graph.
Yes, I agree, the time frame is much too short, but, that is what you offered. Graphs are tricky things, and, as we discussed earlier, they can distort a perspective. Obviously, Dr. Hansen has let the children run wild on that page. But then, he's been paid to do so.
Thank you for acknowledging the fact that the representations there are a bit ........ off. It is offensive to us that seek to understand, when things are presented in an obviously biased manner.
Lennert Veerman
(Senior Research Fellow, School of Population Health at University of Queensland)
Not sure what you mean, James. The graph gives directly measured CO2 levels and shows an almost linear increase since 2005 - is that your point? In this case, the trend would clearly be statistically significant because there is much less variation in the values than in the temperature data.
And to aid interpretation, the graph to the left gives the results for indirect measurements, which stretches from 400,000 years ago to present. This shows the present values are much, much above anything observed…
show full comment
John Nicol
(logged in via Facebook)
Lennert, No one doubts the rise of CO2 is correctly represented by Keeling's measurements and from the amount of coal etc burned. The debate is about whether or not carbon dioxide can cause global warming. Most of the spectroscopists who study these things tell us it cannot behave as the global warming industry would have us believe. It has proved impossible to obtain from any of the climatologists a peer reviewed paper or even an internal laboratory report which demonstrates how carbon dioxide…
show full comment
Lennert Veerman
(Senior Research Fellow, School of Population Health at University of Queensland)
John, with a statement like "Most of the spectroscopists who study these things tell us it cannot behave as the global warming industry would have us believe." I would expect at least one reference to a peer-reviewed paper. You give none and I very much doubt your statement is true.
And referring to climate science as "the global warming industry" betrays a very peculiar view of the world.
John Nicol
(logged in via Facebook)
Lennert,
Well yeah, I shouldn't have referred to the AGW as an "industry" and I apologise if it appeared to be rude. With regard to peer reviewed papers, right at this moment I can only refer you to:
"Calculation of solar and thermal radiation absorption in the atmosphere, based on HITRAN data" Zastawney, A., Meteorol. Atmos. Phys. 92, 153-159 (2006)
"Parametric..." Zastawney, Met.At. Phys 85 275-281
and
"Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary atmospheres" Ference Miskolczi, Quart. Jour…
show full comment
Lennert Veerman
(Senior Research Fellow, School of Population Health at University of Queensland)
Dear John,
I am not a physicist and cannot properly interpret the references you sent, sorry. (I do think the Hungarian Journal of Meteorology may not be a very high-ranking journal, but that in itself doesn't imply the reseach is not valid or relevant.)
An explanation of why CO2 is though to contribute to the greenhouse effect that I found useful is given here http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-advanced.htm.
But I'd be surprised if you hadn't already stumbled upon the citations it gives.
Doug Cotton
(IT Manager)
Quoting Skeptical Science's website calls for contra quotes as in today's email to most Australian MP's quoted below.
Skeptical Science's argument that increased downward radiation proves warming must occur is flawed. The increase merely leads to temporary warming during the day which still cools off at night with extra upward heat transfer, not only by radiation but also but diffusion and convection.
Regarding top of atmosphere (TOA) net differences between upwelling and downwelling radiation…
show full comment
Mark Harrigan
Dr (logged in via email @tpg.com.au)
Comprehensive refuted as utter rubbish below
James Sexton
Network administrator (logged in via email @hotmail.com)
Lennert, I feel cheated because I'm an American and that site you showed was NASA. It shows 5 years of near linear CO2 increase. But, I showed the 5 years of temps...... notice how they don't correlate? The graphic displayed by NASA was for emotive purposes. It shows nothing.
The thing is, we know so little about our climate, to make pronouncements about such things is entirely premature. We don't know what we don't know. Recent literature exposes our ignorance about clouds (among many other…
show full comment
Lennert Veerman
(Senior Research Fellow, School of Population Health at University of Queensland)
Obviously, I am not a climate scientist either, and have not done the calculations. But with what knowledge I have, the view of mainstream climate science that CO2 enhances the greenhouse effect seems very plausible to me. And I know how science works, and I judge it to be highly unlikely that the vast majority of climate scientists is wrong, also given that we know for sure that temperatures are rising, sea levels are rising, polar ice cover is disappearing, land ice on Greenland and Antarctica is decreasing, glaciers are shortening.
I agree with Schmidt; absolute certainty is not a product science can deliver. But for CO2 causing climate change, it comes as near as one might reasonably expect.
Doug Cotton
(IT Manager)
Do we, as you say, "know for sure that temperatures are rising, sea levels are rising" ???
In fact the world is now cooling and NASA has confirmed that sea levels have been falling for two years ... see the links re this in my post above.
What effect would you say is due to carbon dioxide since January 2003? .... See NASA data up to 5 Oct 2011: http://earth-climate.com/2003-2011.jpg
James Sexton
Network administrator (logged in via email @hotmail.com)
Lennert, that isn't where most of the disagreement comes from. Most skeptics also agree that CO2 can effect things. How much change is what has always been the point of contention. In my clumsy and inarticulate way, I've tried to show you there are limits to how much change there possibly be. No one is asking for absolute certainty. In fact, it is the certitude that most of us skeptics object to.
We also quibble about the physical phenomena occurring that often gets attributed to an increase…
show full comment
Lennert Veerman
(Senior Research Fellow, School of Population Health at University of Queensland)
Well, one worry would be sea level rises. But good luck with your calculus. I'm off to do some more mundane work around cost-effectiveness of health interventions.
John Nicol
(logged in via Facebook)
Lennert,
Sure the temperature is increasing as it has since about 1850. From about 1860 to 1880 it apparently increased faster than it did from 1979 to 1998, even though there was much less of an increase in CO2 over that period and more importantly, there was a much larger bulk of ice to melt which slows warming. All of this increase could well follow from the fact that we were in an "ice age", the LIA, which ended about 1850 and the world has warmed, naturally, ever since. An increased rate…
show full comment
Lennert Veerman
(Senior Research Fellow, School of Population Health at University of Queensland)
Natural warming after an ice age must still have some identifiable mechanism. What is it?
Doug Cotton
(IT Manager)
There is a very strong correlation in the last 2000 years between temperatures and the inverted scalar angular momentum of the Sun and nine planets as shown here, this plot being derived from planetary orbits, not temoerature data. http://earth-climate.com/planetcycles.jpg - possible reasons are explained on my sites.
Cycles of ice age proportions also correlate well with planetary events and my hypothesis is that the "information" is transmitted by variations in the total gravitational effect (due to both attraction and relative motion) upon the Earth, this affecting marginally the heat generated beneath the surface in both the core and crust.
Mark Harrigan
Dr (logged in via email @tpg.com.au)
What's this? - Further crackpot explanations. as I have shown below the HARD data simply shows what you say to be rubbish!
But I guess it is your "very own hypothesis"
A bit like ""My theory, which belongs to me, is mine" from Monty Pythom days
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAYDiPizDIs
except that is at least funny
Publish or please shut up
Eric Ireland
(logged in via Facebook)
Yields are NOT always higher in warmer climes than in higher! They are SOMETIMES, when water and nutrients are not limiting, and where insect herbivory is not increased. Wheat and wine might grow well close to the Nile, but how well do they grow where there is not enough water?
James Sexton
Network administrator (logged in via email @hotmail.com)
Do you think our water is leaving? It cannot be that we have less water if the polar ice is melting as well as our glaciers. Where is the water going?
Eric Ireland
(logged in via Facebook)
My understanding is that there will be more rain in some areas, and less in others. Have a look here. http://www.climatechangeinaustralia.gov.au/