THIS PAGE HAS BEEN ACTIVATED AS THE NEW STATESMAN BLOG IS NOW CLOSED FOR COMMENTS
At 10am this morning, the New Statesman finally closed the Mark Lynas thread on their website after 1715 comments had been added over a period of five months. I don’t know whether this constitutes any kind of a record, but gratitude is certainly due to the editor of of the New Statesman for hosting the discussion so patiently and also for publishing articles from Dr David Whitehouse and Mark Lynas that have created so much interest.
This page is now live, and anyone who would like to continue the discussion here is welcome to do so. I have copied the most recent contributions at the New Statesman as the first comment for the sake of convenience. If you want to refer back to either of the original threads, then you can find them here:
Dr David Whitehouse’s article can be found here with all 1289 comments.
Mark Lynas’ attempted refutation can be found here with 1715 comments.
Welcome to Harmless Sky, and happy blogging.
(Click the ‘comments’ link below if the input box does not appear)
10,000 Responses to “Continuation of the New Statesman Whitehouse/Lynas blogs.”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Hi Bob,
You commented, “Nils-Axel Mörner of INQUA (2004) concludes; “…Satellite altimetry indicates virtually no changes in the last decade.” That was before the “corrections” he refers to 2007, presumably. It would be interesting if before and after graphs could be compared.”
Nils-Axel Mörner made such a direct comparison at a 2007 INQUA meeting presentation (slides 13 through 15). Slide 15 shows graphically how the “corrections” were made.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/Morner.INQUA.2.5.ppt
Satellite altimetry results:
Before “correction”: ±0 mm/year sea level rise
After “correction”: 2.3 mm/year
Good ol’ Joe Romm: 3.4 mm/year
Regards,
Max
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
I also understand that because the Seattle public officials refuse to clear the streets of snow the police must now park their cars at the bottom of hills and travel on foot as their rear wheel drive cruisers can’t navigate the grade.
Since Brute is waxing poetic as Christmas goodwill engulfs us all, I thought I would contribute this “ode to the IPCC, James E. Hansen and Al Gore”
Behind the tipping point prediction
Unswerved by those who question it
Lies the greenhouse warming fiction
Loved by those who benefit.
Straightforward are the ones who preach it
High and true are their ideals
Inciting panic as they teach it
To one and all their creed appeals.
Merry Christmas to all,
Max
Brute writes (referring to the recent wave of anthropogenic snow and ice in Seattle): “I also understand that because the Seattle public officials refuse to clear the streets of snow the police must now park their cars at the bottom of hills and travel on foot as their rear wheel drive cruisers can’t navigate the grade.”
Looks like the Seattle city officials have grounded the “cops”.
Do the “robbers” have 4-wheel drive vehicles in Seattle (stolen, of course)?
If so, this “tilts” the playing field in the “cops and robbers” battle.
Max
Christmas Greetings from the year 2100. The good news for you climate sceptics is that you were very effective with your political strategy. Effective measures to reduce GHG emissions were seriously delayed and didn’t get underway until well after 2030. The bad news is that the scientists of your day were absolutely justified in their warnings and by that time it was all too late.
There was a feeling of optimism until recently . Carbon Dioxide levels were stabilised at about 520ppm and were projected to fall to 400 ppm by the middle of the 22nd century. That was before the Great Amazonian fire of 2091; a firestorm of epic proportions. Worsening droughts made Amazonian trees, which had no evolved resistance to fire, much more susceptible to burning. Once this drying trend passed a critical threshold, it just took a spark to destroy the entire rain forest ecosystem. Once the trees were gone, desert was all that was left and the carbon released by the forests’ burning was joined by still more from the regions burnt and lifeless soils. This boosted global temperatures by a further 1.5ºC in the space of just two years.
The Congo rainforest is similarly affected. 85% of animals in the region are believed to be extinct. Chimpanzees in the wild became extinct in 2065. Gorrillas in 2074.
The south polar ice cap is badly affected – the West Antarctic ice sheet is starting to lift loose from its bedrock and collapse as warming ocean waters nibble away at its base, much of which is anchored below current sea levels. The current predictions are that global sea levels wiil rise another 5 metres in the next decade, in addition to the 3 metres we have seen already in the last one hudred years. Holland will not exist as a separate country anymore, the little that will soon remain is planned to be divided between Germany and Belgium.
In Europe, deserts are spreading in Italy, Spain, Greece and Turkey: the Sahara has effectively leapt the Straits of Gibraltar. In Switzerland, summer temperatures reached 48C last summer. There is little snow or ice left in the Alps, even in Winter. Just a tiny amount on the peak of Mt Blanc. The real Sahara and sub Sahara are now so hot they they are uninhabitable. Worldwide the UN estimate that the number of climate refugees has exceeded 2 billion for the first time.
You may be asking the question “Are these the shadows of the things that will be, or are they shadows of things that may be, only?”
Men’s courses will foreshadow certain ends, to which, if persevered in, they must lead but if the courses be departed from, the ends will change.
Response to 3330
The Ghost of Christmas Future (scenario MLTHB2100*)
*most likely to happen by 2100
The planet is continuing on unperturbed by human anxieties, hysterias and other follies.
The “Global Warming” scare died a natural death around year 2015, when it had become clear that no matter how much CO2 humans emit into the air, the sun is still controlling our planet’s climate, as it always had in the past.
Solar Cycle 24 continued to be extremely inactive, and the rapid cooling, which had already started in 2007, following a few years of no temperature change since the beginning of the new millennium, continued to lower global temperatures.
The good news was that the scientists of the late 20th century were able to find other gainful employment once the AGW funding dried up. Many started studying solar influences on our climate, and our understanding of these has become much more profound than it was back during the late 20th century overemphasis on human greenhouse warming.
At first both Hadley and GISS introduced new complicated adjustments to the temperature readings, in an attempt to make the actual record conform to the predicted temperature increases. This strategy worked through the first decade of the 21st century, but was abandoned after the all-time record cold year 2011.
By 2030 the growing season in Canada had begun to reduce grain crops. Wheat farmers started experimenting with genetically modified wheat strains that could thrive despite the shorter and colder growing season. These have brought positive results, and the wheat crops have actually increased over pre-cooling levels.
In Europe, deserts started spreading in Italy, Spain, Greece and Turkey: the Sahara has effectively leapt the Straits of Gibraltar. EU-sponsored irrigation projects have reversed this trend by 2050.
Over the 21st century sea levels continued the previous 150+ year trend of between 1.0 and 1.8 mm/year rise, despite moderate increases in both the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets.
The Maldives are still a major tourist destination, and even the previously impoverished Tuvalu island has become one of the most successful exclusive resort locations world wide.
In Switzerland, winter temperatures reached –38C by the winter of 2035. Many ski resorts had to be shut down due to extreme cold temperatures, despite all-time record snows.
Alpine glaciers began to grow again, but by the end of the century were still far from their 10,000-year high levels of 1850.
Both the Amazonian and Congo rainforests continued to flourish over the entire century, particularly once the international treaty was signed in 2020 blocking further large-scale deforestation.
Forests in the USA, Canada and Siberia continued the recovery that started already in the late 20th century, with only the very northernmost regions suffering from the colder weather.
The greatest advances were made in the energy sector. The oil shale deposits of the western USA (Colorado, Wyoming, Utah) provided enough crude oil to make the USA a net exporter of petroleum products. Efficiencies of motor vehicle engines were improved so that most cars now routinely use less than 3 liters of fuel per 100 km (80 miles per US gallon). With the development of more efficient
“plug-in” batteries, smaller electrically-powered vehicles have become commom for inner city use.
The massive switchover to nuclear power stations throughout North America, Europe, Russia, China and India has freed up natural gas to be used as a motor fuel.
New improved proceses for recovering liquid fuels from coal have also contributed to eliminate the need to purchase oil from the Middle East.
New fast breeder technology using thorium has greatly improved the efficiency of nuclear power generation and eliminated the spent fuel problem.
The most positive result of the end of the global warming scare was the lifting of the ban on constructing new coal-fired power stations in the poorest nations of the world. As a result these populations now enjoy access to electrical power and clean drinking water, saving the lives of several millions per year who had previously died as a result of being deprived of these basic needs.
You may be asking the question “Are these the shadows of the things that will be, or are they shadows of things that may be, only?”
Men’s courses will foreshadow certain ends. Yet there are other things that we now know man cannot change. During the early 21st century global warming scare, scientists were still prophesying the arrogant anthropocentric notion that man can control his planet’s climate. The facts of life only became apparent with the end of observed warming.
Man can control his immediate microclimate by installing air conditioning or heating systems, or through irrigation and flood control projects, but we have absolutely no control over the macroclimate of our planet on a global scale. To think otherwise is pure folly, as the actual events showed.
It was one of the more difficult lessons to learn.
There is an eyewitness account of the BBC’s climate change seminar (here) which I have been posting about during the last six months. It would seem that getting unbiased scientific input for the BBC to base its editorial policy on was not the name of the game. Any comments on that thread please, and not here.
Max
Just before Christmas I posted some information on ‘global temperatures since 1850’ in the hope that you would make it your New Years resolution to give up your distressing flirting with this icon of nonsense, and subsequently stop trading fractions of a degree with Peter as if they actually meant something. In reality-as surely you must know (perhaps you are teasing me?) -‘1850’ figures make sea level satellite readings seem the height of accuracy.
In my endeavour to lead you from the path that might lead to the acceptance of other meaningless IPCC data, I have enlisted the help of none other than Dr Vincent Gray – a New Zealand meteorologist who both Bob and I have a lot of time for.
We have been discussing global temperatures (modern and 1850) and after having a very good laugh at the idea that anyone can believe these figures have any merit whatsoever, he has kindly pointed me towards his own material on the subject. A link follows below.
http://www.co2web.info/Gray_Global-Warming-Scam_2008.pdf
Start the New year properly Max-renounce the falsehood that are the 1850 figures and you will become an even saner man in 2009.
Best wishes for New Year.
Your intended guide towards enlightenment and sanity TonyB
Hi TonyB
I very much appreciate your good wishes and advice, along with Dr. Gray’s very interesting de-bunking of IPCC claims.
This report is enlightening and it has, indeed, helped me retain my rational sanity, despite the throbbing headache I had from the daily bombardment of media AGW-drivel and from combing through 1,000-page IPCC reports in the futile search for “pearls of wisdom”.
After just reading Dr. Gray’s first page summary, I already noticed that the throbbing had reduced to a dull ache.
The more I read through the following pages, I realized that my headache had disappeared entirely. Not only that, as I looked at the charts and read the explanations, I became aware that my earlier feelings of pessimistic “malaise” and doom had left.
All of a sudden, it came to me like some sort of psychic vision or revelation: we are NOT all doomed to fry and our planet is not destined to become uninhabitable as a result of our evil emissions of carbon dioxide!
What a great worry was lifted from my shoulders as I contemplated a year 2100 not with the Earth resembling Venus but with happy children playing and laughing, spring flowers popping out of the earth, birds chirping in the trees and everyone going on with their lives just as today.
For a brief moment a feeling of sorrow swept over me for the 2,500 IPCC scientists that had unselfishly and altruistically invested so much of their time and effort in creating a scientific basis for the AGW theory, who would now be out of work and penniless as the AGW crisis along with funding went “POOF!”
But then I realized that many of these could switch their efforts to searching for REAL answers on how the sun influences our planet’s climate, etc. and I was relieved. Actually, I was overjoyed, not only for myself, but also for the 2,500 who would now have a more meaningful calling.
As far as the IPCC computer modelers and statisticians are concerned, these individuals can always find employment plying their trade – they can surely be gainfully employed by gambling casinos, numbers rackets operators or the governments of the world to figure out how to get out of the current economic crisis.
Thanks again for your help and all the best wishes for a happy new year!
Max
Max said;
“For a brief moment a feeling of sorrow swept over me for the 2,500 IPCC scientists that had unselfishly and altruistically invested so much of their time and effort in creating a scientific basis for the AGW theory, who would now be out of work and penniless as the AGW crisis along with funding went “POOF!”
Surely you meant 52 as that is how many special hats you ordered from China? Any news on delivery? Perhaps they are also having trouble with snow which has meant the lorries have not been able to get to the port?
tonyB
Just something to keep your minds ticking over until the New Year re CO2-it is a very interesting study of how co2 measurements are taken
http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=585
I’m waiting for the December figures from Mauna Loa as twice in the last three months there has been a dip in co2 levels which were corrected by the next day. I’m interested to see if this translates into an actual fall-year on year-or at least a levelling off.
TonyB
Hi TonyB,
Thanks for latest enlightenment.
52 or 2,500 IPCC “scientists”? If you put them all into a typical red English telephone booth (do these still exist?) it would be rather crowded in either case, so I won’t argue about details (even if the popular myth is based upon a 50x exaggeration).
Steve LeMaster’s informative report on how Mauna Loa “measures” atmospheric CO2 leads me to believe that your 19th century and early 20th century Nobel Prize winners may, indeed, have had a better understanding of atmospheric CO2 levels than our present 52 (or 2,500) scientists (who are basing ther knowledge on Vostok ice core and Mauna Loa data alone). Too bad their knowledge got censored out by Keeling (and Callendar) in their zeal to “prove” AGW.
But back to basics.
The report by Dr. Gray has pointed out something that I truly overlooked.
While I (as an engineer) was concentrating on the numerous small inaccuracies, exaggerations, lies and unfounded predictions in the IPCC reports (of which there are scores), Gray went directly to the crux of the central underlying IPCC AGW lie:
· The “globally averaged land and sea surface temperature” record is a sham
· The CO2 record upon which AGW causation is based (Vostok ice core reconstructions up to 1958 and Mauna Loa afterward) is an artifact
· The unvalidated model predictions for the distant future are so tainted by GIGO assumptions that they are totally worthless
These three underlying problems with the IPCC version of AGW and its impact on our planet’s climate are basic, as Gray points out.
But the many small inaccuracies, exaggerations, lies and unfounded predictions in the IPCC reports simply provide more evidence that the whole IPCC AGW story is a lie, so I believe that they should be exposed for what they are.
Regards,
Max
Hi TonyB,
Yes. The special hat order from China is a sad story. Due to an overload of last-minute orders for Santa hats from the USA and Canada plus for New Year’s Eve clown hats from Germany and Scandinavia, the Guangzhou factory decided to outsource our smaller order to a sister factory in Shaanxi Province, further to the north.
This turned out to be a mistake, since anthropogenic climate change had caused the temperature to drop to -40°F (= -40°C or roughly 233.15K) and the factory had to be shut down for two weeks.
By the time the hat production line was back in operation, all in-coming deliveries had been stopped due to the massive anthropogenic snowfall, bringing the factory’s supply chain process to a screeching halt.
The plastic propellers for the top of the hats (added in by the design team to give the hats a more “scientific” flair) were to be supplied by a plant in Qinghai Province further to the west. With all rail and road traffic blocked due to the anthropogenic severe weather event, these were to be flown in, but unfortunately both engines of the transport airplane iced up due to an anthropogenic ice storm, and the plane with the entire shipment had to make an emergency landing in the desert before reaching its destination. Fortunately no one was injured seriously, although the pilot suffered from frostbite due to the unprecedented anthropogenic deepfreeze.
Our supplier is already invoking the “force majeure” clause of our contract, citing the unequivocal anthropogenic root cause for the climate events leading to the delivery failures.
Last word from our contact: “So solly, but not ouah faul’. Please to blame IPCC modah expahts. We lely on dey foahcas’ foah moah hottah weadah, but expahts now say moah hottah oah moah coldah bof come flom Si Oh Too.”
Like so many other well-meant projects it looks like we have moved from inspiration to conceptualization to investigation to negotiation to initiation and just as we were about to move from implementation to realization, it looks like we will end up in litigation. A pity!
Max
Tony B 3336.
Has anyone done a comparison between the old chemical method and the method used at Mauna Loa and other sites. Do all other sites use same method as ML, Does the chemical method remove all greenhouse gases other than CO2.
Seems like a pattern, tiny tims invisible in the past now counted as sun spots to disprove link between lack of sun spots and Little iceage.
Ice extent NH, earlier sat images counting snowline as ice, (see Climate Audit Ice extent), later image has been altered removing snowline from ice extent which means you now cannot ever reach earlier higher levels.
Its a sad story Max, but one can only imagine how cold it would have been around the world without man made warming.
I think we ought to withdraw from the hat order as I have an uneasy feeling that our party of lawyers from the abortive Harmless sky ski party may be looking to make fresh trouble for us both. I think it would be unwise to fight battles on two fronts, so lets just keep quiet and hope that the rapidly warming world will mean future ski parties are impossible and warm hats uneccesary.
I am however in the market for a simple co2 gas analyser to keep a check on the various institutions around the world who seem to take their measurements in a somewhat interesting fashion. So if any of your Chinese contacts can come up with an analyser at a popular price I think we might be in business together.
The ‘co2 sceptiometer’ needs to retail for around 100$ and should find a ready market with the growing number of sceptics who realise that the IPCC reports should-as I said in my pre christmas book list-be consigned to the section marked ‘science fantasy.’
TonyB
Hi Bob
If you follow the link in my post 3336 it will take you to a very interesting analysis of modern co2 readings. All modern readings follow the mauna loa process and laboratories have to buy the reference gases and calibrate their instruments according to the ML tables.
Beck and others have caried out an analysis of old readings and they were accurate to within plus/minus 3%. Some were very much more accurate than that. The biggest criticism of Becks work is the high variabilty compared to the present.
(first graph is my excel spreadsheet-hover your mouse pointer over a figure to get the values-the second is a jpeg of the same information if you cant open the first link)
http://cadenzapress.co.uk/download/beck_mencken_hadley.xls
http://cadenzapress.co.uk/download/beck_mencken_hadley.jpg
All the co2 action takes place between 280-380ppm (around 600-820GT) As we have illustrated here before it is perfectly possible for natural sources to outgas or absorb this amount over a year when temperatures change (temperatures change first and co2 follows)
However although this appeared to happen frequently in the past- since 1958 and ‘modern gas analysis readings’ the variability has been virtually zero, and the co2 levels only go one way-up! Mans efforts are dwarfed by nature and nature doesn’t tend to create the straight lines we see in the Mauna loa figures;
Personally I believe the older figures more than the modern ones so the link in #3336 is particularly relevant.
Of course people set great store in the ice core readings of 280ppm pre industrial as ‘proof’ the modern readings are correct but I am highly sceptical of these, as how come we have such wildly fluctuating temperatures when co2 is supposedly a constant and modest 280ppm?
TonyB
Hi TonyB,
Your concept of a readily available, inexpensive and easy to operate ‘CO2 Sceptiometer’ (3340) is brilliant and very timely.
I have discussed this with my contacts in China and they believe that it could easily be produced in a factory that has been manufacturing mechanical battery-operated reindeer and Santas for the USA Christmas market, once the operators return to Guangdong Province in the south from visiting their families in the north after Chinese New Year (in early February), if the trains are not stalled due to heavy anthropogenic snow as was the case last winter.
This could obviously become a large volume product, in view of the many individuals worldwide who doubt the validity of the Mauna Loa measurements as well as those more friendly to the AGW cause who desperately wish to reduce their personal carbon footprint and save humanity (and all other animal and plant species except cockroaches and poison ivy) from extinction.
With this in mind, our Chinese manufacturer is keenly interested in pursuing this opportunity further.
The suggested retail price of around $100 should be no problem if the volume is as high as anticipated, although our manufacturer would like to cover himself for any drastic devaluation of the US$ due to the current financial crisis.
I also think (in view of the recent fur-lined, propeller-enhanced dunce hat fiasco) that we should have some legal advice in drawing up the supply agreement; maybe you can get RobinG to help us here.
A general specification for the CO2 Sceptiometer including key functions and features should be provided to the manufacturer, who will explore opportunities for reducing the production cost by introducing appropriate design modifications, subject to our approval, of course.
In China, the device will (for simplicity and ease of transcribing into Mandarin) be known as the “See Oh Too Mee Tah”.
Bobclive and Bob_FJ may have some pertinent ideas on this (as I’m sure you will also have). You may also wish to check with PeterM for compatibility with the needs of the pro-AGW sector of the market. Possibly a green-colored version could be appropriate for this sector.
Looking forward to helping out in this crucial endeavor.
Regards,
Max
Max #3342
Accuracy is the key to the ‘sceptiometer’ as is some basic instruction to ensure the user is aware that- like all machines- it may not always work properly.
I base that comment on my own weather stations-a new watch with a built in weather forecast function, a new weather station bought as a Christmas present for me with outside sensors, and an existing indoor weather station. All three have been telling me for three days that it is raining heavily, yet through actual observation and stepping outside I perceive it to be gloriously sunny if very cold. A trip to nearby Dartmoor today in this heavy but sunny rain enabled me to see again the farmsteads abandoned in the 1300’s as the climate deterioriated following the non existent MWP.
So a little booklet in 5 languages (one of them completely made up) explaining to users that co2 readings of 5000ppm might be suspect would be useful, as would a device on the machine that stopped such a reading in the first place.
I suspect the poor performance of all three of my weather stations is because of the relatively high humidity coupled to our position next to the sea which the machines interpret as rain.
The sceptiometer needs to be impressive looking-‘thats my co2 gas analyser’ said in a proud tone will get us many recommendations from admiring friends and relatives of existing owners.
Consequently the machine has to be large, have lots of dials and displays, various flashing lights in a variety of colours, and the ability to beep in a random fashion.
Additional sales will be poor I fear if the machine is small and inconsequential and merely sits modestly on a window sill minding its own business.
I think it important that we look to the future so we need to make money on peripherals-we can supply reference gases and insist on the calibration monopoly that must be carried out once a year. Perhaps we should not mention these two aspects in the initial sales material.
The ‘Scrapps co2 sceptiometer’ should come in a range of colours to suit the fashion conscious, with a pink version aimed at the female market.
At $99.95 retail and a cost price of $30 or so I think we should be able to afford to pay the lawyers to come up with a proper contract to avoid a repetition of the ski party and hat fiasco. I am forecasting sales of 100000 pieces in the first year, doubling each year thereafter.
This is split equally between the warmists wanting to prove the official figures are correct, and climate realists wanting to prove them wrong. A brilliant double edged marketing strategy.
Of course it will be in our interests to keep the AGW scare going as long as possible to maximise sales, so we might need to change our tactics on forums such as these…
TonyB
Max,
It’s odd that you seem to think that ‘puny’ humans are incapable of changing the earth’s climate. I suspect that you are holding some philosophical or religious position on this which you don’t want to tell us about. Of course, there are ways of cooling down the climate as well as warming it:
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2008/07/14/2302880.htm?site=science&topic=latest
http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/magazine/16-07/ff_geoengineering?currentPage=all
There are big drawbacks to both these schemes but I expect that they will have to be tried as a last resort. We’ll probably need a last resort.
Do you have a philosophical reason for saying these methods won’t affect the climate either?
All,
On the question of sea level the Australian CSIRO have produced this which I think you will agree gives an accurate scientific account of the current situation.
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/
Brute,
Its good that you’ve developed a measure of compassion for “Widows, the elderly and children”. Which is a bit odd as you
previously have been against the idea of giving them decent medical treatment, if they were sick, and hadn’t been able to afford private medical insurance.
However the USA still ranks pretty highly on the worlds’ rich list.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita
Richer that the Poms and us, and nearly as well off as Ireland! So I’m sure you can afford to help out the poor in America a bit better than you do when climate change mitigation finally gets under way.
Tony B,
Mauna Lua isn’t the only place where CO2 measurements are taken. They get very closely the same figures in the Shetlands too.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/csiro/csiro-shetland.html
You could buy one of these:
http://www.vaisala.com/instruments/products/carbondioxide/gm20
and pop up there in your holidays to take some readings. It will cost you a little more than your budgeted $100 though. Have you thought of contacting Exxon-Mobil? I’m sure they’d be happy to pay at least the costs of your trip if you can convince them that Dr Keeling is part of the ‘Great Conspiracy’. Who knows? Maybe the real Dr Keeling was abducted by aliens years ago and replaced by an identical android. Anyway, you’d be a real hero if you could blow the 280ppmv CO2 theory out of the water. You’d never have to pay for a tank of petrol again. Just watch out for flying saucers on the way up to the Shetlands though :-)
PS Some disappointing news about that Vaisala link to their ‘Co2’ meter, I’m afraid. I’ve just found this on their website:
“Due to global climate change, different weather phenomena are today observed and measured more extensively and accurately than ever before. Vaisala’s environmental measurement equipment and weather observation systems are in use the world over.”
Obviously they are in the grip of the ‘great conspiracy’ too. There wouldn’t be any point buying one of their meters. It would be pre-programmed to always give the same readings which TonyB is so sceptical about.
Peter
Thanks for your kind thoughts. Yes I’m quite happy to be paid a large grant by that well known conspiracy of Big Oil-provided its enough and they don’t expect too much research results for their monmey. After all Ive been paying ‘real’ climate scientists to carry out research for years and we havent got a lot for our money have we?
Demonstrably ludicrous global temperatures since 1850
Nonsensical sea level predictions using measuring equipment and terchniques that are so inacurate as to be pontless (sounds a bit like my three weather stations-still incorrect this morning-unless its my actual observations that are wrong)
Co2 measurements that suddenly changed their nature after 130 years of accurate measurements
Still as the science is settled we can all save billions of tax dollars by cutting out the climate science industry-sorry I meant scientific research. I’ll suggest that to the Hadley centre and see if they will close down voluntarily as they are now surplus to requirements.
Anyway-happy new year and thanks for your informative and welcome input over the months.
TonyB
Hi Peter,
You just wrote (3344): “It’s odd that you seem to think that ‘puny’ humans are incapable of changing the earth’s climate. I suspect that you are holding some philosophical or religious position on this which you don’t want to tell us about.”
Then you attached links to two papers both showing hare-brained schemes, neither of which would make any change to our planet’s climate.
No, Peter, it is not (as you “suspect”) that I am “holding some philosophical or religious position on humans being incapable of changing the earth’s climate”. My reasoning is more logical and practical than that. The proposed hare-brained schemes would not have any real effect on global climate.
In the case of the SO2 proposal, there could be a major negative impact on vegetation and possibly on animal and human health (at least locally), since SO2 is known to be a toxin for both plants and animals (while, as we all know, CO2 is an essential trace gas of our atmosphere, an ingredient absolutely necessary for all life on this planet).
“Last resort?” Hardly needed.
Relax, Peter, there is no dangerous AGW. It’s a virtual problem conjured up by bogus data and GIGO computer models.
As we saw, the past 150+ years’ warming (1850 to 2008) from CO2 was 0.3°C, around half of the 0.65°C total observed warming over the period. Remember?
Based on the CO2 increase expected by year 2100, the added warming from CO2 will be another 0.4°C.
This is certainly nothing to get very alarmed about, Peter. No “last resort” disaster scenarios needed. And certainly no hare-brained schemes to add a real pollutant to our atmosphere to cool things off.
I sometimes wonder how absolutely stupid some people are in looking for complicated, expensive and possibly disastrous “solutions” (with unknown side-effects) to the non-problem of AGW.
CO2 sequestering by injection into underground formations, feeding phytoplankton with iron on a massive scale to increase CO2 absorption by the oceans, blowing out megatons of toxic SO2 into the atmosphere to increase aerosol cooling, etc.. This is like amputating a leg at the hip because of an in-grown toenail.
In their stupidity, humans definitely would be able to destroy large portions of their environment with such idiotic schemes.
But they are not able to control the earth’s climate on a global basis. This has nothing to do with philosophy or religion, Peter, just plain common sense .
As to the Australian “sea level blurb”, this is nothing new. Sea level has been rising slowly at least for the past 150+ years or so. Tide gauges tell us that:
· the average rate of increase over the 20th century was 1.74 mm/year
· the rate fluctuates on a multi-decadal basis, from periods of rapid rise (up to 5 mm/year) to periods of decline (-1.3 mm/year)
· the rate of increase has slowed down slightly over the 20th century, with the rate in the first half (2.03 mm/year) slightly higher than in the second half (1.45 mm/year)
· the most recent rate of increase is no higher than the average over the entire 100-year tide gauge record ; Carl Wunsch et al. have estimated a rate of 1.6 mm/year for the decade 1993-2003, using both tide gauge and satellite data, but concluding that satellite data alone are too inaccurate today to provide reliable trend information.
The average of the various estimates of 1993-2003 rate of se level rise is 1.4 mm/year. IPCC have stated an estimate, based on satellite altimetry alone, of 3.1 mm/year.
For a better picture of the sea level trend I have attached a graph showing Proudman tide gauge data plus various estimates of the most recent trend.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3206/3144596227_545227fbae_b.jpg
As you can see, Peter, the data confirm that we’re neither going to fry nor to drown because of man-made CO2. It’s all a myth.
Regards,
Max
In the Alps, hunting for Hannibal’s trail
But ironically, Hunt thinks it would be too high, and the terrain too treacherous. “This pass has the most dramatic view,” he said. “But it’s a killer. In fact, I almost died on it last year.” He describes both the ascent and descent near the summit as “very difficult,” which runs counter to Polybius’ descriptions of an easier ascent than descent. Glaciers might have made it more feasible, he admits, but he thinks their presence 2,000 years ago was unlikely because it was a warmer period than today. Other problems also weigh against the Traversette, he says—for example, its distance from Turin and its avoidance of a more obvious, direct neighboring route across the Montgenevre Pass.
I wonder how Dr. Patrick Hunt came to the ridiculous idea that the Medieval warm period was warmer than today, I am sure Peter could put him right.
http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2007/may16/hannibal-051607.html
Bob
Hunt has done some excellent wortk on the Roman warm period. He organises walking trips to follow Hannibals trail and to look at other high level passes. Perhaps Max might think this would be a better expedition for Harmless Sky bloggers than the disastrous skiing expedition.
There is the start of a Roman pass near Chur in Switzerland which is vaguely near where Max lives. It starts at a massive waterfall. If Max could get his guides licence he could lead us.
Any luck with the negotiations for the co2 gas analysers Max, I have had several people expressing a genuine interest!!
tonyB
Pete Reur 3330, forecasting Christmas 2100:
1) I guess your imagination could not embrace all scenarios, but you completely overlooked the hypothesised disappearance of snow and ice from the Far North and some possible dire consequences. What would Father Christmas do with his sleigh, and, if they are not extinct; his redundant reindeer?
Will the millions continue to believe in Santa Claus?
Pete, does this not alarm you?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
2) Meanwhile, there is an interesting new study paper which argues that although most apparent Santas that are seen in public places are probably pretenders, there is a strong case that when Santa enters private homes and mysteriously leaves nice presents, that this guy is genuine. At last, the authors may have solved the great mystery as to how he does this all-over the World within a mere 24 hours. In a eureka moment, the paper appears to be a remarkable vindication of the concept of parallel universes. The hypothesis is that Santa exists in a huge number of parallel universes, and has the unique powers of being able to “step-across” their boundaries at any point in time or location. Thus, he can pick one universe and be everywhere there in all time zones during one night.
I’ve heard that the study is currently being refereed by the CSIRO
What are your thoughts on items 1) and 2) Pete?