Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

Climate & Climate Change

Causes of Honey Bee Decline

By

bees 4 I visited Hidcote Manor Gardens in Warwickshire earlier today. They have several honey bee hives and a notice board claiming three different reasons for the decline in honey bee colonies across the UK.

“The number of honey bee colonies in the UK has halved in recent years. This is probably due to:
1. The use of agricultural pesticides and chemicals;
2. Varroa mites, blood sucking parasite which seriously weaken or even wipe out whole colonies; and
3. Cold wet summers which prevent bees from leaving the hives to gather food.”

I wonder how much evidence there is for the three possible causes and which might be having the most impact?

Water Levels in the Swan River Estuary: A Personal Observation

By

I READ with interest an article in The Fremantle Herald newspaper in which global warming was blamed for rising sea levels, which in turn were said to be submerging the mud flats in the Swan River estuary and thus destroying the habitat of migratory birds.

Reading it, I could not but reflect on my own observations of water levels and on the accretion and erosion of mud banks in the Swan River over my life-time. I have known the river intimately since the early 1940s when as a toddler I first paddled in the waters of Freshwater Bay. Over the years I have swum and fished in, and canoed, rowed and sailed on the river. I have cycled around the riverside paths, explored the river’s shores and bushland, walked my dogs at the river’s edge, and enjoyed the wildlife – some of which (like the river cobbler) seems to have disappeared, while other species (like the black swans) appear to be flourishing. I have known the river from Preston Point at East Fremantle to the Perth Causeway and beyond for over 60 years, and since 1980 I have swum regularly at the old Bicton Baths.

Over all this time I have seen the river rise and fall with the ocean tides, respond to flood waters coming down from the Avon, and fill to its brim with the run-off from heavy rain storms. But I have also seen the Point Walter sand spit so far above the water that it has grown a small-vegetated island. And only last summer there were occasions when the water was so low at Bicton Baths that the bottoms of the swimmers’ ladders were exposed and there were acres of temporarily exposed mudflats west of Alfred Cove and along the Como foreshore.

[Read more…] about Water Levels in the Swan River Estuary: A Personal Observation

Ten of the Worst Climate Research Papers: 5 Years On

By

I consider anthropogenic global warming, AGW, a failed theory, but it still shuffles on like an animated corpse sustained by money, politics and the faithful.  The faithful keep publishing junk science.  I put a list together of the 10 worst climate science research papers in September 2008 [1].  I added to this list in April 2009 [2].  There was more by me published at Jo’s  AGW ‘science’ has fallen over a cliff.  Now I’m adding another ten papers to the worst list, so I guess it’s the ten recent worst.

Regards, Cohenite.

1. Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content. By Magdalena A. Balmaseda, Kevin E. Trenberth and Erland Kallen. Published in Geophysical Research Letters, 2013. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50382/abstract

Kevin Trenberth and his researchers have never been able to find the ‘missing heat’. Trenberth still insists it is at the bottom of the ocean. This is despite sea surface temperatures declining, demonstrable reasons why back radiation, the Deus ex machina of AGW, cannot heat the oceans and the top 700 meters of the ocean not warming, at least since the accurate measurement of Ocean Heat Content [OHC] began in 2003, as David Evans has shown.

Trenberth ignores all this and the basic point of how the bottom can heat while the middle and top don’t and explains why the deep ocean heat content is increasing: “Sensitivity experiments illustrate that surface wind variability is largely responsible for the changing ocean heat vertical distribution.”

So has there been increasing wind variability in the surface winds? Not according to the data!Cohenhite Waves

2. Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature. By John Cook et. al.  Published in Environmental Research Letters, 2013 http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

The consensus is the mainstay of AGW ‘science’.  According to Cook et. al. and many others it’s always the case that AGW is true because the majority of scientists say it is. But this is not science! It only takes one contradiction to disprove a scientific theory as Karl Popper’s swan analogy shows.  John Cook’s latest paper promoting the ‘consensus’ has been critiqued by Jo, Watts, some German guys and by Lucia. Lucia and Brandon Schollenberger analyse Cook’s methodology and Guidelines for classifying climate papers into ‘support’ and ‘reject’ AGW categories and find that Cook’s paper disproves the consensus. That is, analysis of Cook et. al. suggests that more climate papers reject AGW. So has Cook disproved the consensus theory of AGW? [Read more…] about Ten of the Worst Climate Research Papers: 5 Years On

Consensus and Controversy: The Debate on Man-Made Global Warming

By

‘IN open societies where both scientists and the general public are equipped with critical skills and the tools of inquiry, not least enabled by the information revolution provided through the Internet, the ethos of science as open, questioning, critical and anti-dogmatic should and can be defended also by the public at large. Efforts to make people bow uncritically to the authority of a dogmatic representation of Science, seems largely to produce ridicule, opposition and inaction, and ultimately undermines the legitimacy and role of both science and politics in open democracies.’

That’s the final paragraph in a new report by Emil A. Røyrvik; a social anthropologist and senior research scientists at SINTEF Technology and Society, Scandinavia’s largest independent research organisation.

The report about “the debate on man-made global warming” including an analysis of “the four myths of climate change”, “the hockey stick”, “climategate” and surveys and petitions of dissenting and contrarian positions.

Dr Røyrvik comes at the issue from an academic perspective and very clearly articulates the strength of the consensus position but also the logic of the contrarians – as he labels us.

[Read more…] about Consensus and Controversy: The Debate on Man-Made Global Warming

Thatcherism and the Climate Catastrophe

By

With the passing of Britain’s first female prime minister, Margaret Thatcher, much will be heard from the conservative side of politics about all the good that she did. But for the sack of truth, something she cared much about [1], let us also consider her role in helping to build the illusion of catastrophic climate change.

Margaret Thatcher was no friend of science, but she was a friend of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) that was established in the School of Environmental Science at the University of East Anglia in Norwich in 1972.

This is the same institution that Climategate exposed as being up to its neck in scientific fraud.

The establishment of the CRU only just preceded Thatcherism. With Thatcher’s market economics applied to public science none of the scientists at the CRU were ever guaranteed a salary. They had to generate their own income through grants and contracts.

Much of their money did end up coming from government but it had to be earned, they had to show their value to the politician and this is now par for the course [1].

It was following the miner’s strike in the UK and Prime Minister Thatcher’s increasing impatience with Arthur Scargill, then president of the National Union of Mineworkers, that the first tentative links were drawn between coal mining and the possibility of a climate catastrophe.

Various luminaries from that time have told me that Prime Minister Thatcher was keen to reduce Britain’s dependence on coal. She drew the connection between rising carbon dioxide emissions and coal mining before it was fashionable because she thought there was perhaps some scientific justification, and because she was keen to find justification for alternative energy sources, particularly nuclear.

Indeed her government became a strong supporter of climate research in the mid-1980s. Mrs Thatcher visited the CRU and assembled her entire cabinet to hear a seminar on climate change at which Tom Wigley, then director of CRU, was the star performer.

***

[1] “Where there is discord, may we bring harmony. Where there is error, may we bring truth. Where there is doubt, may we bring faith. And where there is despair, may we bring hope.” – on her election as prime minister in 1979

[2] Bob Carter explains in ‘Science is Not Concensus’ how during the 1980s there came a restructuring of the way in which government science operated. Public-good programme funding for the activities of government science agencies shrank, to be replaced by funding for individual projects with limited lifetimes.
http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/IPA-RMC-03Reviewr.pdf

The Apple on the Banana Again: Marcott Admits Temperature Spike Not Robust

By

IT is terribly unfashionable to admit it, but I’ve just never been able to believe that the late 20th Century was particularly warm. This admission despite ‘the hockey stick’ graph that featured so prominently in the United Nation’s third IPCC assessment report, and despite that amazing looking chart in Al Gore’s movie that also showed a recent spike in global temperatures relative to the last many thousand years.

My key problem with the ‘the hockey stick’ has always been that the upward spike representing runaway global warming in the 20th Century was never of the same stuff as the rest of the chart. That is the spike is largely based on the instrumental temperature record i.e. the thermometer record, while the downward trending line that it was grafted on to, is based on proxies, in particular estimates of temperature derived from studies of tree rings.

It has always, for me, been a case of Michael Mann comparing apples and oranges, or to put it another way sticking an apple on the end of a banana.

The Michael Mann and Shaun Marcott Hockey Sticks

Worst the grafting was necessary because the proxy record, i.e. the tree ring record, shows that global temperatures have declined since about 1960.

Of course we know that global temperature haven’t declined since 1960, or thereabout, so there must be something wrong with the proxy record. This is known as “the divergence problem” and it is a problem, because if tree rings are not a good indicator of global temperature after 1960, how can they be a good indicator of global temperature prior to 1960?

Indeed there doesn’t appear to be a reliable method for reconstructing the last 100 or so years based on the standard techniques used to reconstruct the last 2,000, 4,000 and even 11,000 years of global temperature.

So when someone claims the past 10 years have been hotter than the past 11,300 years, as the Australian Broadcasting Commission did recently [1], there is good reason to cringe.

Of course the ABC didn’t make it up. They were reporting on the work of climate scientists recently published in a reputable journal. In particular a paper by Shaun Marcott and colleagues published in Science [2].

Sceptic, mathematician and blogger, Steve McIntyre, broke the original hockey stick into bits to do a thorough analysis, showing that the entire shaft, not just post 1960, was a fancy construct to create the impression of runaway global warming [3], and he’s done the same with this new Marcott fabrication [2].

While some who read this blog may cringe at my use of the word fabrication, it is more than justified because as Dr Marcott now admits in his own words[4]:

“[T]he 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions. Our primary conclusions are based on a comparison of the longer term paleotemperature changes from our reconstruction with the well-documented temperature changes that have occurred over the last century, as documented by the instrumental record.”

In summary, Dr Marcott created the perception of a spike in temperatures the same way Michael Mann did in that first hockey stick paper that featured so prominently in the third IPCC report, by comparing apples and oranges… or perhaps best described as grafting an apple onto the end of a banana.

***

1. Earth on track to be hottest in human history: study . March 8, 2013
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-03-08/climate-study/4561164

2. A reconstruction of regional and global temperature for the past 11,300 years. Marcott et al.. Science, Volume 339, No. 6124, pages 1198-1201.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6124/1198.abstract

Abstract: Surface temperature reconstructions of the past 1500 years suggest that recent warming is unprecedented in that time. Here we provide a broader perspective by reconstructing regional and global temperature anomalies for the past 11,300 years from 73 globally distributed records. Early Holocene (10,000 to 5000 years ago) warmth is followed by ~0.7°C cooling through the middle to late Holocene (

3. see http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/mcintyre-ee-2005.pdf and more http://climateaudit.org/multiproxy-pdfs/ and the latest http://climateaudit.org/2013/03/31/the-marcott-filibuster/

4. Response by Marcott et al. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/03/response-by-marcott-et-al/