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.
Brute, re cheerleading for the apocalypse, I think that’s true in some cases, maybe not in others. Some people IMO are genuine “eco-worriers” – usually folks who already have enough money to provide for their immediate needs and express what appears to be white, middle-class guilt at being fortunate at the expense of others, as they see it. But yes, I think there are some who almost seem to revel in their anticipation of the end times, and this includes certain scientists (I’m thinking of James “Revenge of Gaia” Lovelock.)
It’s telling that when arguments of AGW proponents falter, the fall-back position is often 1) peak oil and 2) overpopulation (i.e, reasons for cutting back on cheap carbon-based energy.) The underlying thought is that we’re consuming too much (peak oil, coal, food, whatever) and that there are too many people in the world.
For some (more the “eco-worrier” type of person) this thought is born of fear – fear of scarcity, and living in a nightmare overcrowded world where there is not enough to go round (“Soylent Green” type scenario.) Maybe if this person is relatively affluent, it goes back to the fear of having everything taken away from them (mixed with the guilt of having more than others in the first place.)
For others, I think there’s something of the romantic “noble savage” type dream of living “at one with nature”, in the manner of idealised indigenous people. Think of movies like “Last of the Mohicans”, “Dances with Wolves” and now “Avatar”, and you can see the appeal. Who has not fantasised, at some point, of living in a depopulated world, where majestic forests have replaced ugly housing estates and shopping malls? Where you can spend your time roaming around with a bow and arrow instead of sitting in a dull office.
When I was a boy I used to watch a TV series in the UK called “Survivors”, which was about those who survived a deadly virus that had killed off over 99% of the human race. My friends and I used to discuss what we would do in this scenario, conveniently assuming that we would each of us escape the deadly virus and would require little in the way of medical care, dentistry etc. in that brave new world. The reality, however, might have been a little different. Now I’m older, I appreciate our modern, cheap-carbon-energy- based civilisation more and more, with every year that passes.
Bob_FJ,
Your blanket analogy is OK. We all know a blanket doesn’t create any heat, it reduces the rate of cooling so that the internal body heat is retained, and so increasing the temperature.
GHG’s work in a similar sort of way. Except that the blocking process isn’t by reducing conduction or convection. Instead they block the radiation of IR from the ground. Like Spencer says, this causes the surface temperature to increase without any violation of the second law of thermodynamics.
Anyone who has ever argued otherwise, should seriously ask themselves if they can be wrong on that, maybe they could be wrong on the wider question too.
Max,
Once again you added a few words when quoting me? How many times have I told you that’s a no-no?
The figure in question was 90%. Not 3 degrees. I’m asking what Robin thinks it is, given the IPCC own published results. It sounds a bit too much like a round number to be accurate. The guys on Realclimate have said the same thing, but they would put it higher.
I don’t think it matters, even if the figure is less. Its still a problem that needs to be fixed.
Brute,
Saying there is a problem isn’t the same thing as ‘cheerleading for…. apocalyptic revelations to come to fruition’. No-one wants an apocalypse. We want the problem fixed.
The situation is no different in principle if you were to give a warning that a gas heater was unsafe. Maybe the flue was blocked and harmful fumes leaking out. Naturally you wouldn’t do this for no reason at all, and you wouldn’t be happy if people ignored your advice. However, if they did and suffered illness, or worse, as a result you’d be quite justified in saying “I told you so”.
No Pete.
You’re the epitome of the professional hypochondriac. No matter the evidence to the contrary, you insist, in fact desire, that you have developed cancer…..a professional malcontent.
You ignore second (and third) opinions and continuously refer back to the original flawed diagnosis to illicit the concern and pity of others, wallowing in self pity.
Al Gore is the quack doctor selling the placebo……
PeterM
If you were talking (8246) about the probability of the 2xCO2 climate sensitivity being 3.2degC, I’d say that would be “extremely unlikely” (i.e. “less than 5%”), to put it into IPCC-doubletalk.
Max
PeterM
For the basis for my estimate of <5% probability (of the 2xCO2 temperature impact being 3.2degC as suggested by IPCC) see my post 8769.
It refers to studies, based on empirical data from physical observations, made after IPCC SPM 2007 was published, thereby rendering the IPCC postulations, based on model simulations, obsolete.
Science marches on, Peter, and yesterday’s IPCC report very quickly becomes outdated as new scientific advances are made.
Max
Peter M
You wrote (8777)
Bob_FJ is right, of course. This may be a moot point, but atmospheric CO2 does not “cause the surface temperature to increase”. Instead, it “causes the surface temperature to cool more slowly”.
Only the sun can cause the Earth’s temperature to increase, i.e. it is essentially the sole source of energy for our planet. This comes in the form of SW radiation. The global mean SW radiation at the surface is +162 W/m^2, according to NASA.
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7i.html
Clouds (plus back scattering and surface reflection) reflect a portion (around 30% on average, according to NASA) of the incoming SW radiation back into space. A smaller portion is absorbed by the atmosphere (around 19%).
The remainder is converted to LW radiation, some of which is radiated back into space and some of which leaves the surface as sensible heat by convection and conduction or as latent heat by evaporation of water.
GHGs slow down the radiation of LW energy from our planet to space, thereby allowing more of this energy to be re-radiated back and remain on Earth. The global mean LW radiation at the surface is –48 W/m^2.
All of the above should be taken with a large grain of salt, as Bob_FJ pointed out in his post 8751 with the “Trenberth cartoon” and the Trenberth quotation:
The recent Lindzen + Choi study based on ERBE satellite observations may have cleared up some of Trenberth’s uncertainty. This study has shown that the net outgoing radiation (LW + SW) increases as surface temperature increases, thereby resulting in an overall net negative feedback with warming.
As this study points out, the observed (negative) feedback with warming is mostly from observed increased outgoing SW radiation (presumably being reflected by increased low altitude cloud cover) while the simulated (positive) feedback in the model estimates is mostly from simulated decreased outgoing LW radiation (presumably being absorbed and re-radiated by increased atmospheric water vapor and high altitude cloud cover).
Max
Brute, Reur 8775:
“…Trenberth’s regret and dissatisfaction that the earth “isn’t warming” as he and his colleagues have prophesized is quite apparent.
These guys (including Peter Martin) are actually cheerleading for their apocalyptic revelations to come to fruition………they are actually hoping that some cataclysmic environmental event will occur……………pretty sick and twisted when you think about it.”
Yes, quite…. There is also a Climategate Email…. Can’t find at the moment, where Phil Jones wrote words to the effect that he hopes one day that their prognostications on the end of the world are proven to be correct, although he admits to selfish feelings.
Another example I remember was over at RC where one of the regulars wrote to the effect that it was good news that a fault in an NSIDC satellite sensor had resulted in underestimation of sea-ice loss
Some years ago I knew of a schismatic group of Christadelphians in Adelaide who moved up into the hills to get away from the sins of the city, and where they figured they would not be washed away by a huge tidal wave to be sent by God, expected in year 2,000. Apparently they were very disappointed when it did not happen, and came out with new predictions.
I was just wondering how many of you would dispute the natural GHE which increases the earth’s temperature by around 33 degs?
A popular contrarian argument is that the GHE ( both natural and extended) contravenes the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Who thinks this and why?
Max,
A few posts ago, you expressed opposition to the IPCC being a part of the UN.
How would you suggest that the IPCC be constituted so that people like yourself could have confidence in their findings?
PeterM
You asked three questions (8783):
Answer: Not me.
Answer: Not me.
Answer: Unlike the first two questions, this is a difficult question to answer. The IPCC was specifically set up to evaluate the anthropogenic impact on our climate and the resulting effects on our environment. This made it necessary for IPCC to find an anthropogenic impact with alarmingly negative effects in order to justify its continued existence. There have been several reports describing the politicized workings of the IPCC. The increasingly arrogant wording, the blatantly one-sided conclusions of the IPCC reports as well as the statement by a past IPCC Chair that “the science is settled” do not help inspire “confidence in their findings”. It is all too apparent that IPCC is not searching for the truth about our planet’s climate, but rather searching for the proof for its postulation of alarming anthropogenic greenhouse warming. The proposed carbon caps and taxes (direct and indirect) will amount to trillions of dollars, to be administered and controlled by the parent organization of the IPCC, the UN. The prospect of gaining control over such extremely large sums of money makes it highly unlikely that the UN or IPCC will take an objective non-partisan position on AGW, as the one-sided stand of the UN General Secretary as well as the IPCC Chairman as advocates for the AGW cause has demonstrated. The latest “Climategate” revelations as well as the current cooling of both the atmosphere and the ocean make it even more difficult to have any “confidence” whatsoever in the findings or predictions of the IPCC.
What to do? Probably the best solution would be to shut down the IPCC entirely.
Does it need to be replaced? I would not think so, but maybe other posters here might have a different idea on this.
Max
Max, Reur 8784:
I agree with everything you say except in detail in your nominal agreement WRT:
“…the natural GHE which increases the earth’s [so-called average] temperature by around 33 degs?”
But then; I am very much less patient than you in attempting to educate that QQ person!
1) It is not only the GHE that affects global temperature. The effect of the atmosphere AND oceans (A & O) currently results in massive lateral advective energy transfer from the “heat engine” of the tropics, and would arguably do much the same even if there were zero GHG’s*.
2) In the popular calculation of effective global radiative temperature, parameters such as surface quality of the earth without A & O, for example; albedo, regolith thermal characteristics, and terrain geology without erosion or sedimentation, or tectonic state, etc; are pure assumption, and should certainly be very different to what we have now.
3) In the calculation of regional radiative heat loss, there is a highly non linear function of T to the fourth power such that a simple average is…. Let’s say a tad daft…. See below:
4) In an earth without A & O, there would be a huge variation in surface temperature in which by far the most rapid heat loss would be under and near the hot-spot at tropical midday, per T^4. This makes nonsense of the concept of a global effective radiation T! (averaged on T^4’s!)
5) If we simplistically compare the Moon; midday temperatures there reach well in excess of the boiling point of water, and elsewhere they are chillier than -200C, although differences in albedo, day-length, and regolith specific heat, (under waterless 1/10 G compression), etc, are amongst the complications in precise comparison with the Earth.
6) However, it is apparent that the effect of A & O is to hugely COOL THE TROPICS, largely by ADVECTIVE REDISTRIBUTION of energy laterally*, thus resulting in MAJOR WARMING at the higher latitudes. Consequently, a single number of 33C warming globally is totally naïve, and anyway it cannot be sensibly attributed solely to GHE as is popularly claimed.
* Per law 2; energy flows from high to low potential difference…. From tropics to the higher latitudes having low to nil insolation…. Nothing to do with GHG’s
Lunar Temperature, per Google, extract:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BTW, when that QQ person wrote:
I have been unable to find such a comment in the Spencer article cited by him.
There are several other “errors” in his 8777, but what’s new, and why bother?
Bob_FJ
Regarding the “natural GH effect” on temperature of 33degC, I have not spent any time or effort confirming or negating it. I have simply accepted it as “generally accepted knowledge” without subjecting it to any rational skeptical scrutiny (as you have apparently done).
You point out that:
I cannot dispute your statement.
I do believe, however, that there are other facets of the so-called “consensus” belief on AGW, which are more easily refuted.
Even if one accepts as fact the natural GHE of 33degC (caused primarily by water vapor BTW) and the 2xCO2 temperature impact of a bit less than 1degC, as postulated by the GH theory, it is very easy to refute the IPCC notion that this should be increased by a factor of more than 3 by “positive feedbacks”, which have been estimated by computer model simulations, but not confirmed by empirical data derived from actual physical observations.
Without these virtual positive feedbacks AGW is a meaningless paper tiger and certainly no threat.
PeterM has been unable to provide any empirical data to support the postulation of these positive feedbacks, while I have been able to provide data based on physical observations, which clearly refute the notion of net positive feedback.
My point to PeterM is simply that there are no empirical data confirming his premise that AGW is a potential serious threat. So far he has not been able to provide these data.
Max
Peter M
You asked me (8783):
I did not answer this directly (8784), but rather listed the many reasons why the IPCC has lost its credibility and why many people, such as myself, have lost confidence in its findings.
But let’s look at how the UN and IPCC could regain their lost credibility on global warming.
Here are my suggestions:
– Revise the charter of the IPCC to include all climate science, eliminating the emphasis on anthropogenic influences on climate and “mitigation” steps against these influences.
– Replace U.N. Secretary General, Ban Ki-Moon, with someone who is not using fear-mongering to promote the concept of carbon caps and taxes to be administered by the U.N. and who is truly neutral and objective on the subject of climate change.
– Scrap the concept of carbon caps and taxes (direct or indirect), thereby eliminating the multi-billion dollar root cause for non-objectivity in climate science.
– Change out the entire IPCC management structure, starting with its Chairman, Dr. Pachauri, replacing the managers with individuals who are not political AGW advocates, but are truly objective on climate change.
– Fire Yvo de Boer, the current Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, replacing him, as well, with someone who is not a political AGW advocate.
– Eliminate all the political and bureaucratic IPCC reviewers.
– Screen contributing authors for objectivity; reject all papers from political AGW advocates or activists, such as James E. Hansen.
– Throw out all papers authored or co-authored by the dozen or so scientists exposed by the “Climategate” scandal: Phil Jones, Michael Mann, etc.
– Pull back the AR4 report, starting with the Summary for Policymakers; at the same time, openly concede that there are many facets of climate change, which are still unknown at present, and that the attribution of the late 20th century warming cycle to anthropogenic causes was based on computer model simulations involving considerable guesswork.
– Insist on a complete open audit of the HadCRUT, GISTEMP and NCDC temperature records by an independent auditor.
– Insist on an open independent audit by an independent auditor of the Argo ocean temperature measurements by NODC (NOAA).
– Concede that the claim of ice mass loss in the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets over the period 1993-2003 was based on partial spot information and ignored continuous satellite altimetry results over the entire period, which showed mass gain in both locations over the period.
– Concede that the claim of reduced Northern Hemisphere snow cover was erroneous.
– Concede that the claim of accelerating sea level rise in the period 1993-2003 over earlier periods was based on comparing two different scopes and methods of measurement (satellite altimetry covering the entire ocean, compared with tide gauge measurements at selected coastlines), and is, therefore, invalid.
– Concede that the surface temperature measurements are distorted by urbanization and poor weather station siting, as well as by the shutdown of a majority of the rural stations, resulting in a significant upward distortion of the record, particularly in the period starting in the 1980s.
– oncede that the surface record shows a faster rate of warming than the more comprehensive satellite record since it started in 1979, even though greenhouse warming should occur more rapidly in the troposphere than at the surface.
– Concede that the projections on increased extreme weather events caused by human influence are unfounded and should be ignored.
– Concede that the paleoclimate reconstructions (“hockey sticks” and “spaghetti copy hockey sticks”), which concluded that the current warming is unprecedented in 1300 years, are based on faulty science and should be ignored.
– Concede that surface and tropospheric air temperatures have been cooling after 2000, and that ocean temperature has been cooling since the comprehensive Argo measurements were put into service in 2003, despite model projections of continued warming.
– Concede that the natural forcing factors and/or multi-decadal oscillations, which are causing the current cooling, could also have been instrumental in causing the 20th century warming.
– Concede that the full radiative forcing from changes in solar activity is unknown today, as are the mechanisms by which the sun may influence our climate, such as the galactic cosmic ray / cloud connection, etc.
– Concede that warming and sea ice loss in the Arctic during the 1930s and 1940s was as rapid and pronounced as is currently being observed since 1979, so that an anthropogenic attribution for the current warming and sea ice loss is not apparent.
– Concede that Antarctic sea ice extent has been growing since satellite records started in 1979.
– Concede that the assumptions made on feedbacks in particular those from water (as vapor, liquid droplets in low-altitude clouds and ice crystals in high-altitude clouds) are based on model simulations, not substantiated by actual physical observations, and appear to have exaggerated the future warming projections by a factor of three to four.
– Concede that model scenarios on future atmospheric CO2 projections are skewed to give exaggerated projections, in some cases even exceeding the amount available in all optimistically estimated fossil fuels reserves on this planet.
These steps would represent a good start.
They would be painful and they would not be easy to implement. But I believe that they would go a long way toward achieving the objective of re-gaining the credibility required for people to have confidence in the IPCC findings, as you have specified.
Any comments (from you or anyone else)?
Max
Max, Reur 8787;
Nice listing on IPCC issues, that I don’t think I can add to, but by coincidence, I have had a brief exchange today over at Chris Colose’s site after posting the Trenberth ‘energy balance’ Emails; http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2008/12/10/an-update-to-kiehl-and-trenberth-1997#comments
BTW; Patrick 027 is still rambling away over there.
Respondent, Blous 79 has provided the following link that is relevant to your 8787:
http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/opinion/35820
Max, Reur 8786
I really should not gnash my teeth with the ‘GHE = 33C’ thingy, but I just wish that climate scientists would not issue such naïve crap. It would be far better to say something like:
Without an atmosphere and oceans, the tropics would be lethally HOT, and the higher latitudes would be lethally cold. (and BTW, the GHE plays some part in all that.)
A much more crucial issue is the concept of average global temperature, e.g. Hadley, which some have also described as a nonsense number.
Even the concept of an average day temperature, at any particular station, as being the simple average of thermometer max and min is crap. It should be derived from an integration of the full distribution of T’s over the 24 hrs. (which is only available with modern continuous plots)
Below is a compilation of some interesting graphical records that I’ve retained from the Oz BOM. They are certainly not typical, but they do illustrate the latter issue, I do believe.
BTW; It is quite remarkable that Hadley quote T’s to threeeee decimal places in some of their data!
I’m sure that Tamino (Grant Foster) would have an elaborate clarification for that!
Hey look; perhaps on a miserable rainy day; I might find time to ask him, just for FUN!
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4018/4226870941_7473f5598b_o.png
BTW, I’ve retreated inside this afternoon with the A/C on low because of another very hot day; enabling this substantial afternoon post….. It’s currently about 36C locally.
Max,
I’m somewhat concerned that you should demand a long list of concessions in advance from your reformulated IPCC. If you are serious about answering the question scientifically you can’t impose preconditions.
On the other hand, it is just a basic principle of good science that all records, on snow cover, Arctic Ice etc that you mention should be checked, double checked and rechecked. There can’t be any serious objection to that. And, yes, if it is found to be incorrect, it should of course be corrected.
So the question is:Who, would you entrust to do that? And it would be good if you could avoid answering in the negative.
Peter 8790
To answer the question you posed to
Max, the only organisation with the infrastructure to cope would be the Met office.
Would I trust them at present? Certainly Not-but that is becaise I have had professional dealings with them. They are undoubtedly highly politicised and are working to a Govt agenda. (£143 million in govt grants since 1993 specfically to ascertain human climate change).
Could they be rehabilitated?
Yes, I’m sure they could, but it would need a genuinely independent overseeing panel comprised of scetics and believers, with the political element completely removed. Clear and attainable goals also need to be set-the first of which is a thorough audit of the temperature records and how/why they are adjusted.
They also need to pay proper regard to the historical aspect of past climate change.The Met office are within 10 miles of some of the finest examples of past climate change in the World-on upland Dartmoor- but pay no regards to this at all.
The Met office and CRU have treated publicly funded temperature records as state secrets and say a number of blatanly untrue things such as past temperature variation being minimal, that UHI has no practical efect, that the only places cooling are in the south atlantic.
With the current trio in charge at the Met office -and political interference daily from the Dept of Climate Change- that necessary scrutiny is not possible at present so a change of leadership would be necessary to restore any trust in their climate change activities.
Tonyb
Bad news from the Frogs Pete……
French Constitutional Court Rejects Carbon Tax
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601092&sid=aY9Dhj8qZZZE
Peter M
We are talking the theory of “how would a perfect world look” here, but you did raise an interesting philosophical question (8783).
I first explained why my confidence in IPCC is not there today (the negative part, as you put it) and then answered your question about what a reconstructed IPCC would need to do “so that people like [myself] could have confidence in their findings” (the positive part) (8787).
You have apparently not taken issue with my suggestions for personnel changes, so let’s allow these to stand.
You have also not objected to my suggestion to scrap the concept of carbon caps and taxes (direct or indirect), including “guilt taxes” to be paid by the industrialized world to the less-industrialized countries, thereby eliminating the multi-billion (or trillion) dollar root cause for non-objectivity in climate science. I believe that this is a key element. Money corrupts, especially the prospect of having control over extremely large sums of money. And we have witnessed that scientific objectivity has been compromised and corrupted as a result.
TonyB has given a suggestion for a basic organizational change (8791), including some necessary personnel changes, as well. As I understand his suggestion, an independent climate research group replacing the UN’s IPCC would be set up under the UK Met Office, essentially taking the UN out of the climate research business. Whether this group would work in collaboration with similar independent government-funded groups in the USA and elsewhere, under some loose multi-national (but non-UN) structure, was left open, but that would be a solution. Of course, there would need to be personnel changes in these other locations to replace AGW advocates or activists with un-biased, objective scientists, as Tony has suggested for the Met Office.
As I suggested, another first step would be to throw out all references to reports authored or co-authored by those few scientists implicated by the “Climategate” scandal.
Another step would be to submit the complete temperature records (HadCRUT, GISTEMP, NCDC) to completely transparent independent external audits (led by someone like Steve McIntyre), to correct any manipulations that may have crept in while these records were being kept by non-objective AGW advocates.
You have apparently not taken issue with the above points, so I assume they are OK for you.
You have taken issue with the other points I made, which relate specifically to one-sided or outright erroneous claims made in recent IPCC reports. To these recommendations you opined (8790):
The precondition of exaggerated and erroneous “findings” (i.e. “claims”) by IPCC exists de facto. It is not being “imposed” by me.
These claims have misinformed that large segment of the general public, which does not rationally and skeptically check the claims out more closely.
Having checked the claims out more closely myself, I have found that they present an exaggerated and false picture of several aspects of what is going on with our climate and why this is so. As a result, a precondition for people like myself having “confidence in the findings” of the IPCC successor organization is that this organization openly concedes those IPCC errors that I have listed.
It is like issuing an “errata” for doubtful claims that were made, so that “climate science” can start with a “clean slate”, where only the non-controversial claims still stand.
Max
Bob_FJ
I like your revision to the 33°C natural GHE “thingy” (8789):
I would add in at (based on lunar observations):
It is clear that in addition to our fortuitous distance from the sun, it is our atmosphere, in more ways than one, which makes our planet livable, and, yes, the GHE (primarily from water vapor) helps as does the small amount of atmospheric CO2, which BTW is essential for all life.
Will our planet be “more livable” or “less livable” (or will there be no discernible change) with a few hundred ppmv higher CO2 concentration (and resulting few hundred ppmv lower oxygen concentration)?
My guess on this:
– No discernible change for animal life including humans.
– No significant change for our climate.
– Some increase in growth rates of forests plus certain crops and other vegetation, possibly enhanced in many locations by slightly higher temperatures, as well.
PeterM may see this differently (through his doomsday-colored glasses), but that would be my estimate, based on what we have seen with the actually observed 75 ppmv or so CO2 increase since measurement started at Mauna Loa in 1959.
Max
Max,
Because you are a scholar of Latin, far better than me, I’m surprised that you have not alerted me to the following definition of ‘Al Gore‘, that I’ve just picked-up from browsing on WUWT, per Wikipedia:
Algor mortis (Latin: algor—coolness; mortis—of death) is the reduction in body temperature following death. This is generally a steady decline until matching ambient temperature, although external factors can have a significant influence.
A measured rectal temperature* can give some indication of the time of death. Although the heat conduction which leads to body cooling follows an exponential decay curve, it can be approximated as a linear process: 2° Celsius during the first hour and 1° Celsius per hour until the body nears ambient temperature.
* such as with a thermocouple mounted on the end of a hocky-stick
Max,
I had a look through all your waffle about the IPCC and carbon taxes (which, incidentally, confirms that you are rejecting the problem because you don’t like the solution) but you weren’t suggesting anything at all. So am I right in thinking that you’d just like to see the IPCC scrapped with no replacement at all?
And your rationale for this?
“My guess on this [doubling of CO2 levels -PM]: – No discernible change for animal life including humans. – No significant change for our climate.”
Why bother funding the IPCC when we can have your ‘guess’ for free?
Pete,
I suspect that 2010 has arrived down under by now……….Happy New Year!
Snowstorm squelches climate change protest
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_14096723
No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Finds
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm
These made me smile:
The BBC’s Mark Kinver: “Global average temperature may hit record level in 2010.”
The BBC’s Andrew Neil: “It’s going to be a cold 2010.”
To all, a very Happy (and not too climatically dreadful) New Year in 2010!