Climate & Climate Change

Well, possibly a more interesting title than ‘Is the near surface temperature record robust?’ All of the above, plus more besides, can affect the readings at temperature stations. Anthony Watts has been collecting photographs of the USHCN climate stations. He is now up to ‘How not to measure temperature, part 22.’ He has two websites Watts up with that? and surfacestations.org
Obviously, in order for surface temperature measurements to accurately reflect temperature trends, all non-climatic influences must be removed. Initially, Anthony examined the fact that Stevenson screens that house the temperature sensor used to be painted with whitewash, but have been painted with latex paint since 1979. He has purchased 3 Stevenson screens, one has bare wood, one is painted with whitewash, and the other with latex. The initial results were posted here. The latest results will be available in about a week’s time.

Anthony’s work has also caused a ‘blog war’ between Hockey Stick/Big Man-Made Warming defenders Real Climate and Roger Pielke Sr’s Climate Science blog.

Moving on to the peer reviewed science cited by IPCC WG1 in order to support the robustness of near-surface air temperature trends, Roger Pielke Sr claims on his blog, “The IPCC WG1 Chapter 3 Report clearly cherrypicked information on the robustness of the land near-surface air temperature to bolster their advocacy of a particular perspective on the role of humans within the climate system. As a result, policymakers and the public have been given a false (or at best an incomplete) assessment of the multi-decadal global average near-surface air temperature trends.“ Pielke Sr has listed the papers cited by the IPCC, and those that weren’t. Additional evidence has been posted here.

You might agree that life is never dull in climate science. The good news is that Australia’s Reference Climate Station Network seems to be a model for how temperature should be measured.

I now have a list of UK stations used by Phil Jones et al. Maybe I’ll try and obtain photographs of each site. There again, maybe not!

Regards,

Paul Biggs

Australians who have their dial glued to the ABC, and who read this blog (e.g. Luke), may have just seen ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ on ABC TV as well as a discussion, following the film, hosted by Tony Jones.

Anyway.

A few observations before I open this thread to comments:

Ray Evans, a global warming skeptic, called the coal industy ‘pathetic’.

Greg Bourne from WWF, imitating Peter Garrett, suggested it was good that big business has moved on.

Michael Duffy, ABC Counterpoint, suggested Tony Jones should be as thorough with Al Gore as Martin Durkin.

Robyn Williams, ABC Science Show, suggested the Insurance Industry was good and on the money for taking global warming seriously.

David Karoly, Melbourne Uni, said the ocean was a source of carbon dioxide and that there has been a lot more (C02) in the past.

Tony Blair’s advisor said there was a consensus.

The audience talked about Eugenics.

And Bob Carter, a so-called climate change skeptic, said climate changes.

Tonights airing of The Great Global Warming Swindle and the associated discussion on ABC TV should be a hoot. The ABC has structured the panel to try to get their preferred political position aired. The panel composition will minimise scientific discussion. It contains journalists, political pressure groups and those who will make a quid out of frightening us witless.

Three scientists with a more rational view to the doomsday hype were invited to appear on the panel and have now been uninvited as they do not dance to the drumbeat of disaster. There is a VIP section of the audience with loopy-left greens and social commentators. We have the Bulletin of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (BAMOS), which was in such a hurry to publish a critique of The Great Global Warming Swindle that it contains schoolboy howlers and a lack of logic intertwined with politics.

What makes it even more amusing is that BAMOS did not criticise Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth. If this Hollywood fiction film claims to be supported by science, then why did it perpetuate a well-documented scientific fraud?

There is no panel discussion when the ABC TV religiously promotes the popular political view on global warming. Why is there a panel for an alternative view?

Science is married to evidence, scepticism and dissent. This evidence is from experiment, measurement, observation and calculation. Scientists hotly debate the methods of acquisition of evidence. Once the evidence is validated, a scientific theory is offered as an explanation. This theory must be in accord with all previous validated data and can be changed with new data. Science has no consensus, science is anarchistic as it submits to no authority, and the latest scientific view is only transitory. Science is apolitical, and when it has submitted to political pressure in the past, it has been at great human cost. Noise, political pressure or numbers of converts does not validate a scientific concept. When the president of the Royal Society says the science on human-induced global warming is settled, one is reminded of a previous president who said it was impossible for heavier-than-air machines to fly!

Since the beginning of time, climate has always changed. It has warmed and cooled faster than any contemporary change. Nothing happening at present is unusual. The atmospheric carbon dioxide content in the past has been hundreds to thousands of times the current figure and the world did not end. Quite the contrary — life thrived.

Computer models are models, albeit primitive. They are not predictions, they are not scenarios. They don’t do clouds. They don’t do turbulence. They don’t do unseen submarine emissions of greenhouse gases. They deal only with greenhouse gas emissions from volcanos in times of little volcanic activity. They don’t do starbursts, which have probably given us the greatest climate changes on Earth. They don’t do variations in cosmic ray fluxes, which produce clouds in the lower atmosphere. They don’t do mountain building, plate tectonics and closing or opening of seaways, which have profound effects on climate.

If the conclusion that humans are changing climate by carbon dioxide emissions requires the omission of validated astronomical, palaeontologic and geological evidence, then the popular view of humans causing climate change is not science. We are seeing a revival of a form of zealous Western politics intertwined with poor theology, poor economics and poor logic.

If humans have contributed to the slight warming in the 20th century, then all theories of past climate changes need to be evaluated and discarded. This has not happened. Why is it that previous global warmings have been faster and greater than the warming that started after the Little Ice Age? Is it no surprise that the planet has become warmer after the Little Ice Age? Is it no surprise that the driver of climate has been, is and will be that great ball of heat in the centre of our solar system? If evidence from the past is used, then one can only conclude that the slight warmings and cooling in the 20th century cannot be due to carbon dioxide.

Groups like BAMOS and the IPCC deny, minimise or ignore significant recent climate changes that gave us the Roman Warming, the Dark Ages, the Medieval Warming and the Little Ice Age. Both history and archaeology show that in previous warmings, temperatures were far higher than at present. Populations and the economy thrived. Previous coolings led to famine, depopulation and social disruption. History shows that it is dangerous to ignore history.

The Renaissance gave us a system where criticism, logic, scepticism and an alternative view based on evidence were valued.

It was in this environment that democracy thrived. We are now reaping the rewards of dumbing down the education system and live at a time when it is a politically correct duty to suppress alternative views. The best way to understand climate is to critically and sceptically evaluate the evidence presented to us over a very long period of time by the heavens and the Earth beneath our feet.

Ian Plimer is emeritus professor of earth sciences at the University of Melbourne and professor of mining geology at the University of Adelaide.

First published in The Age at http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/global-warming-zealots-stifling-scientific-debate/2007/07/11/1183833595634.html

Republished with permission from the author.

AL Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth was launched in May last year. Its message is that global warming is going to roon us all, and the polar bears, too. Initially, the film received eulogistic – and, one might say, generally scientifically ignorant – reviews in substantial newspapers and magazines globally.

As it came to be watched by qualified persons, devastating critiques of the looseness of the film’s science began to appear on the internet. More than 20 basic errors, some of them schoolboy howlers, were identified.

From his film, Gore seemed to have lived his life on an imaginary planet where natural change didn’t exist, and all change was anyway morally bad. Yet the official science community, represented for example by members of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, welcomed the film. The public continued to flock to its screening, and platoons of Julie Andrews clones in dirndl skirts danced and sang in the Alpine meadows.

In March, British television’s Channel 4 screened another film about climate change that had a different message.

Made by Martin Durkin, and called The Great Global Warming Swindle, this documentary explores the science of climate-change alarmism carefully and accurately. The message of Swindle, which is to be screened on the ABC this week, is that scientific knowledge does not identify carbon dioxide emissions as an environmental harm, nor does their accrual in the atmosphere cause dangerous warming.

So how is the screening of Durkin’s thought-provoking film being received?

Interestingly, in the case of the Bulletin of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, which published a highly critical film review written by several high-ranking IPCC scientists. As well as six other critical reviews written in response to the British screening of Swindle, the BAMOS paper has been widely circulated in influential circles ahead of the Australian screening. For instance, through the deans of science at universities, through the influential lobby organisation the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies, and through the Australian Marine Sciences Association, among others.

Imagine a well-provendered and equipped military fortress in time of war, for that is what the alarmist, pro-IPCC, climate lobby group represents. Suddenly, loping across the landscape outside the fort, and carrying just a single-shot rifle, appears a lone member of the enemy army.

Does the camp commander respond by sending out a platoon, including a psychologist with a megaphone to check what this naive infantryman is up to? Not on your nelly. Instead, the response is remarkable in its ferocity.

Three panzer divisions come tearing out of the fort – manned, as it happens, by many distinguished scientists who have volunteered for their politically correct duty of suppressing alternative views – blazing away with all they’ve got. In a trice, the landscape is turned into a moonscape, pockmarked with craters and littered with debris.

Why does this lone gunman represent such a threat to the warmaholic camp? Does it perhaps relate to the fact that on closer inspection several sections of the fortress wall are sagging, undermined by collapse from below and within? How could a lone gunman have effected that? Is it just possible that there are more powerful forces on earth than military and industrial might, or scientific authority? White ants, perhaps; or even scientific logic?

In any event, our lone infantryman is now wandering around, dazed, dirty, half-blinded, and staggering on the rim of a crater; and not a dirndl skirt in sight.

But he’s still standing. He miraculously still has four limbs, and what he is saying – that human carbon dioxide emissions are not an environmental hazard – still accords with all the facts and makes complete sense.

For you see, science is not about the triumph of the weight of numbers, nor about consensus, nor about the will of the social majority. An idea such as the greenhouse hypothesis is validated not by shouting but by experimental and observational testing and logical analysis.

And note especially that a hypothesis doesn’t care who believes in it, right up to and including environment ministers, heads of state and presidents of distinguished scientific academies. Rather, science requires that to be successful a hypothesis only needs to be clearly stated, understandable, have explanatory power and withstand testing.

It takes one person, not an army, to accomplish that, and the names of those individuals pass down through history: Charles Darwin, Wilhelm Roentgen, Marie Curie, Albert Einstein, Robin Warren-Barry Marshall and their like, mavericks one and all. God bless them.

Despite this reality, every day we find public figures on Australian TV and radio stations muttering about there being “a consensus” on dangerous, human-caused climate change, or that the science of global warming “is settled”. Such persons should be referred to the nearest psychologist, and gently dissuaded from inflicting their nonsense – for that is what it is – on the poor public.

Science is never settled, and it is about hypothesis testing against known facts, not arm-waving about imaginary futures that have been created by PlayStation 4 computer buffs. Consensus nonsensus.

Oh, and by the way, it turns out that our infantryman’s name wasn’t Einstein. It was Durkin. Martin Durkin, and what a service he has rendered.

By Professor Bob Carter
A geologist who researches ancient climate change.

This opinion piece was first published today in The Australian and is reproduced here with permission from the author.
The Great Global Warming Swindle will air on ABC television on Thursday night.

Jen,

As you know The Great Global Warming Swindle has been available for sometime (on places like YouTube) and screens on ABC this Thursday evening at 8.30pm.

This documentary is seriously misleading about the science of climate change.

I thought you might be interested in a review* which has been published by the Bulletin of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society. You can see a html version at http://www.amos.org.au/BAMOS_GGWS_SUBMISSION_final.htm . Feel free to use this on your blog – I saw on your blog the other day that you invite contributions.

Kind Regards,
David Jones
Bureau of Meteorology

——————————————-
* The Great Global Warming Swindle: a critique by David Jones, Andrew Watkins, Karl Braganza and Michael Coughlan, National Climate Centre, Bureau of Meteorology
Downloadable and prinable at http://www.amos.org.au/BAMOS_GGWS_SUBMISSION_final.htm

“Who would have thought that the climate models used as the basis of IPCC greenhouse forecasts would violate 72 of 89 principles of forecasting. That’s the claim from forecastingprinciples.com a site run by J. Scott Armstrong,
Professor of Marketing at the Wharton Business School, University of Pennsylvania. He and Kesten C Green from Monash University have published an audit of the forecasts from the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. The auditors come to the view that while the scientists might know something about physics, they understand little about the science of forecasting…

Read the complete blog post by Graham Young here @ http://ambit-gambit.nationalforum.com.au/archives/002137.html

Read the paper ‘Global Warming Audit, Public Policy Forecasting’ by Scott Armstrong and Kesten Green presented at the International Symposium on Forecasting, 27 June 2004, Times Square, New York here @ http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/Public_Policy/global_warming_audit.html