The modern heresy of true science

david skinner

This immediately begs the question; when will Ian Plimer turn his attention to that even greater neo- religion - evolution?

Henry Sidgwick

Oh, dear. If you are going to puff this book at least mention some of the devastating responses from other scientists. That would be the intellectually rigourous thing for a lay person to do.

There is a pattern here to the use of expert opinion, whether on climate, MMR, intelligent design, or Israel.

Straydingo

Lets wait and see what the AGW camp have to say in response to both the author of Global Warming: The Missing Science and this post.

Dave

"True Science" Only slightly less offensive as a phrase than "Climate change denier"

Dr Martin Meenagh

When Dr Plimer launched his book in Australia a few days ago, he was barracked and attacked by Greens outside the bookshop; he was warmly welcomed and listened to by ordinary people who gathered above a pub to hear him afterward. I appreciate the potential comedy of the setting, but doesn't this sum up a lot of the difference between the media-political class and reality these days?

Keith Gardner

Polar ice, glaciers and ice shelfs do not need computer models, they just melt.
Deserts do not need computer models, they just expand.
Storms do not need computer models they just get stronger.
Crops do not need computer models, they just dry up when it gets too hot.
Humans tend to die in the heat but insects love it and if man is not carefull they will inherit the earth.

elixelx

Moses Maimonedes suggested, more than 800 years ago, that because the Earth is in a gravitational spiral around the Sun that INEVITABLY the Earth would someday (not too soon, we pray!) fall into the Sun!
Any objections to that such priori Science? No?
This would suggest that over millenia the Earth is moving closer to the Sun, and that the corollary is that there would be a heating up of the Earth to reflect this approximation. In fact Maimonedes calculated the solar year to within degrees of what it is now! (Read "Rabbinical Mathematics and Astronomy")
Any objection to this a posteriori Science? No?
So why hasn't the Earth's temperature risen steadily and in regular increments over the millenia? How does one explain the cooling and heating cycle?
Simple; When your campfire is dying down you have two options: move closer or throw on more wood!
The variable in "climate change" is THE AMOUNT OF DEBRIS FALLING INTO THE SUN, making said source of all life burn hotter or cooler!
Any objections to this model? Surely it would be at least as pertinent an explanation as any computer model might give!

Ian C

The theory, is exploited by an unholy alliance of the liberal conscience that has developed in the west and the 3rd World dis-order, as empowered by the UN - especially under its fateful leadership by Kofi Anan. The latter being the ultimate exponent of 3rd World double dealing - Libya and Zimbabwe participation in Human Rights and associated committees etc.

We in the west gave huge store to the credibility of the UN and it has been hijacked by the 3rd World so as to improve their competitiveness by whatever means thay could acquire. And we have let them.

And there are a huge number of 'useful idiots' like Gore (it is surely his revenge on America, not to mention a real opportunity for wealth accumulation), The Greens, all western governments who are feeling pressurised into CO2 reductions etc.

The 3rd Wolrd Order been very clever in th eway the UN has been bent to their causes and we need to find a way to reverse the devastation being caused in so many areas of life.

Ian Plimer is a start, as fara MMGW is concerned, but no more than that. There is much damage that will be done by the institution we esatblished to help worold problems, not create them.

Stanley Willis

The first sentence of the second paragraph has a word missing.

Melanie Phillips writing about "real" and "true" science is always unconvincing at best, as it's normally just the work of someone she happens to agree with. I look forward to her review of the next ID book claiming to tear apart Darwinism.

Neil Turner

Most interesting. I'll buy a copy of this book.

Are any of the parties in this week's election against the Global warming scam ?

(Dr) Mike Ward

As convincingly argued as Melanie's articles on vaccination - and just as ill-informed.

It's not enough to find someone with a PhD who agrees with your irrational prejudices. You actually have to go and look at the real (peer reviewed) science.

I sincerely hope that this science is all wrong and Melanie is right, but it's not looking good.

Tony Allwright

The “science” that purports to prove global warming is caused by anthropogenic CO2 is indeed bunkum.

Just have a look at the excellent layman's guide to the molecular physics involved (http://tinyurl.com/2zmvhl).

To summarise, CO2 molecules warm the world by vibrating when hit by infrared rays from the sun bouncing off the earth. It’s the vibrations that give off heat. But the molecules are tickled into vibrating by only 8% of the infrared spectrum. Moreover, human-caused C02 in our air is effectively a trace element (3% of atmospheric CO2) of a trace element (400 ppm in the atmosphere), getting even tracer as altitude increases.

When you do the sums, you find that the man-made CO2 molecules are 2 Angstroms wide and spaced about 1,200 Angstrom apart. Let’s now draw an analogy.

Suppose I pick up my (t)rusty Kalashnikov and start machine-gunning pinhead targets two millimetres in diameter. I will find it very hard to hit many pinheads if they happen to be scattered 1-1½ metres apart. Especially when all but 8% of my bullets are duds.

But that is, essentially, the hypothesis of Al Gore, the IPCC and their fellow global warm-mongers about the greenhouse effect – that those infrared bullets are colliding with tiny yet vastly-spaced man-made CO2 molecules, so consistently that they warm the earth up. No wonder he stays silent about molecular physics and screens out hostile questioners and audiences whenever he proselytises in public.

Alexandra

Dave, dear 'true science' involves facts - I know the Guardianistas have always struggled with those but there we are.

Someone needs to give a copy of this book to Max Hastings. Having swallowed the global warming tripe he then did what all our schoolkids are taught to do: hate anyone who never gave a fig for it. That is the only explanation I can see for his demonisation of George Bush and his demented grovelling at the feet of The One.

I fear it's all too late for facts, though. This is the new religion and Otelepomter its high priest.

EC

"... that because the Earth is in a gravitational spiral around the Sun that INEVITABLY the Earth would someday (not too soon, we pray!) fall into the Sun!"

Surely for this to happen the Earth would have to been in orbit under an inverse cube central force. (of gravity)
Ref. Roger Cotes (Spirals), Isaac Newton etc.

Thank God the inverse square theory of gravity seems to be holding up quite well - so far so good!

Vision Aforethought

To be frank, I don't think it matters what people on either side of the debate say/know/have researched. What does matter is what is happening out there in reality land - and that anyone qualified to observe can quantify. a) Increase in acidity of oceans. b) Odd weather - 82 degrees in the UK today, 1st June - never happened in my lifetime, so something's up. c) Vanishing wildlife. d) Floods in Australia and Amazon that have not received enough press coverage. e) The general ill effects of pollution on humans and animals - in particular particulates (no pun intended) from carbon fueled engines (just live by a road and enjoy wiping soot from your window sill) and of course the mess we're making with plastics that clog up landfill and strangle ocean life.

I find all this very upsetting to be frank, and the fact anyone would waste time questioning such issues highly unethical - in particular here on a forum that is mainly dedicated to exposing the truth of an unrelated matter in the Middle East.

Where there is a link to the Middle East is that as several have proposed, we build solar energy plants in the deserts, we can supply a vast amount of the world's energy needs - with no pollution. We can do it, and it must happen.

gary ashton

sadly when the author is interviewed on tv he is pummeled by journalists, they attack him without quarter and attempt to undermine his work totally. yet he manages to maintain an amazing amount of clarity . he says he wrote the book for everyday people who cannot understand the issue. it's a brilliantly researched and written book and given that geologists work over much longer time periods he would offer a much wider perspective than other scientific fields.
ironically most interviewers have not even read the book but they have a team of academics and left wing idiots who help put their argument together. the books selling very well here.

Ghillie

The proponents of socialism have the single aim of total contol, but their means of achieving it are varied and; Fear (Communists), Hatred/Fear (Nazis/BNP), Conscience/Fear (Greens), Incompetence/Fear (NewLab). Common to their strategies is instilling uncertainty by peddling untruth to create fear, and selling themselves as the only people with the answers that will save society. Kofi Annan's alarmist statement yesterday was based on a review that itself acknowedged " significant margin of error in its estimates". Annan himself said "the report could never be as rigorous as a scientific study.......we feel it is the most plausible account of the current impact of climate change today.”

The tragedy is that so many of the intelligent, liberal MSM have bought this whole AGW pup (reporting on Annan is a prime example) without any rigorous review, and that, in consequence, our troubled economy is being forced into largely worthless expenditure on unreliable alternative energy sources.

Well done Melanie - well done Plimer.

stanley Jerusalem

Henry Sidgwick
June 1st, 2009 8:19am
"Oh, dear. If you are going to puff this book at least mention some of the devastating responses from other scientists. That would be the intellectually rigorous thing for a lay person to do."
Mr Sidgwick - Blessed be he who has nothing to say and cannot be persuaded to say it.

Michael B

"When science was born" the scientistic illusion and faith - scientism, with its positivist creeds, its conclusory demands and its political machinations - was born not a half-second later.

(Likewise, science wasn't born in such a discrete and neat manner, but that's another long story of its own ...)

elixelx

"The gravitation attraction force between two point masses is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of their separation distance. The force is always attractive and acts along the line joining them."
"The force is always attractive (a la "Star Wars"?) Variable, inverse square, BUT ALWAYS ATTRACTIVE!
So, is the earth, slowly but surely, falling into the sun, EC?

Ed in Texas

Amazon.com (US version) says this book is out of print already, and it was just released last month! I've not seen that happen before, don't publishers normally just print more copies? (Perhaps printing more copies of this book would adversely affect AGW, haha)

Garry Lavin

Most interesting.
The enemy of science ...and creative endeavour is prejudice and preconcieved ideas - all hypothises, notions and ideas should be rigorously examined from all angles and robustly tested prior to being set in stone.

Garry Lavin

And whilst I am at it --there's room for reorganising how we live - but I wish people would forget the battery or fuel cell powered car.
Apart from power still needing to be generated somehow - there are not enough raw materials in the world to supply the numbers of alternatively powered cars in this country alone - let alone every other country.

caged vole

Good on yer Melanie as usual, and thank Heaven (I mean it most literally) for common sense.
Almost the most telling thing of all is that in various pre-industrial eras the Earth was hotter yet - then it reverted, and all without any input from mankind.
The humanists are half right about religion -- it sure is a case of tantum religio suadet malorum, when the "religio" in question is one of the half-baked modernist perversions, Darwinism, Gay Rights, Scientism or (of course) Warmism

Henry Sidgwick

Stanley Jerusalem, Quite so.

John Plummer

Melanie is right, the AGW "movement" is like a fundamentalist religion. Whether they worship God or Gore the believers all have a skewed and grossly inflated opinion of their own importance. God believers think the (alleged) creator of our 28 billion light year diameter universe is not only aware of their existence but that it actually cares about how they live their lives. Wow, how important is that!

Likewise, Gore believers think that if they ditch their SUV's and start riding their bicycles to work that they will effect some change in the climate of our planet.

Oh good grief, get real. Tough as it may be for all religious people to swallow, we humans are not as powerful and influential as some of us would like to believe. A pox on all their delusions!

David Martin

If we neutralise 100% the effects of man-made global warming, what is the underlying trend for the climate?

Is AGW amplifying natural warming? Is it overcompensating for a smaller amount of cooling? Or is it exactly counter-balancing a cooling trend? In other words, without AGW will the climate cool, warm or stay the same?

I need to know what I am being sold here. And if I am being sold climate stasis, can I vote for what my preferred climate is to be?

EC

"So, is the earth, slowly but surely, falling into the sun?

Yes constantly, but by the time it gets there its somewhere else! You haven't taken into account the orbital velocity component of the system. eg. For a circular orbit this acts at 90 degrees[varying angle for elliptical orbits] to the direct line between the two bodies involved. For a stable orbit the two components have to be perfectly balanced. eg. otherwise the Moon would have crashed into the earth a long time ago!

Ronald Seal

I have long been a doubter of the orthodoxy surrounding the theory that mankind's activities can alter the climate on a planetary scale.

Two things have convinced me that the whole construct is faulty.

One, the vast glacier that used to cover my home town a mere 10,000 years ago has receded back to Greenland. This it has achieved with no help whatsoever from mankind; most of the recession occured before we had discovered the arts of communication, let alone industrial skills.

Two, the proponents of this theory, most unlike proper scientists, seem to become vindictive and condemnatory when presented with any argument, however logically phrased, which runs counter to their pet theory. I have seen this behaviour many times before, but mainly associated with tightly held religious beliefs.

It is reassuring that at least some people are brave enough and elightened enough to challenge the orthodoxy despite the threats to their professional and personal standing - some of the responses here illustrate my second point.

Well done Mr Plimer, your book is on my "to buy" list already.

Mike Glynn

The point of the 'global warming' issue, amongst other fables is to frighten and homoginise an ignorant public into conceding to whatever a global goverment might demand in the future. Globalisation is being driven by monopolists and oligarchs and their lackey governments,all bent on destroying competition and enslaving nations through poverty.

Augustus

It stands to reason that the global climate here on Earth has been hyper-sensitive to the activities of the Sun through the ages. But the cabal of climate change doomsayers cannot, or will not, be persuaded to change their position that something approaching the collapse of civilization is imminent, and is only a few decades away.

It is true that the Sun's influences on climate in the past is not completely understood: The only real result that meteorologists can measure is the amount of sunlight received on Earth, and that varies by only one tenth of one percent. So the IPCC declares in it's infinite wisdom that the Sun doesn't influence climate change. But in fact nobody knows how AGW or
natural climate change balance out against each other, either now, or in future. The chance is very great, however, that the IPCC and others are barking up the wrong tree, and that the role of mankind is vastly overblown, and the Sun's role vastly underestimated.

The best course of action is to forget the idiotic emphasis on climate change management and concentrate on the management of
energy resources. For oil and gas are in finite decline, and we are continually dependent on
unpleasant states for them. and CO2 may not alter the climate, but it could acidify the oceans, and we don't want that either.

Jeff Vincent

The earth doesn't fall towards the sun because of the conservation of momentum, a fundamental law of the universe; any increased tendency of the sun to pull the earth (eg at their closest approach to each other) is compensated by the earth speeding up in its orbit. The extra momentum acquired by the earth resists the Sun's pull. Kepler deduced this around 1610 (and it used to be O level Physics).

John Thomas

" ...predictions of climate scientists about a human-induced climate catastrophe are somewhat tainted by their own patronage arrangements with politicians, governments, NGOs and research organisations that have invested heavily in a global warming catastrophe'" - I always knew this was the way it was; now a (real) scientist has shown it, by science. And - "heavily invested" - literally in Gore's case, hence the mushrooming of his personal fortune. God save us from *** politicians! David Skinner ("that even greater neo- religion-evolution")is to be applauded - but evolutionism is a much tougher nut, since investment in that, in our materialist society, is even greater; it is much more strongly defended.

Chris G

I am inclined to agree with the author and have always been sceptical of global warming - sorry, climate change - theorists. However, I have one major problem: if I am right, then very many scientists are wrong, and indeed wilfully wrong. Why would this be so? To accuse them all of base motives (funding, acclaim, fear, etc) seems not only mean but highly unlikely. What's the answer?

Shaun Harbord

If it "is the definitive last word on the subject" then it is not a book of science but one of faith because science is an hypothesis which can be challenged and, if necessary, modified in the light of later research etc.. That you should hang such a claim on a book about a contentious subject like climate change reveals more about you than anything else.

stanley Jerusalem

Chris G
June 1st, 2009 2:51pm
"What's the answer?"
The answer is sadly that many of them are not endorsing their own findings but those of others who are not of their disciplines. And yes, there are many bandwagon climbers who see an easy buck in it and a position in the sun with their co-religionists.
Just because they started off thinking that they were scientists doesn't mean that they ever were.
They are kept cosy by the momentum of their bandwagon and the revolting treatment that those opposed to their beliefs receive.To quote from another analogy,'They're not scientists, they're just dressed like scientists.'

Stanley Willis

A couple of reviews of Plimer's book by some nasty false scientists who are content to cover up the truth:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,25433059-5003900,00.html

http://www.climatepositive.org/globalwarmingnews/article/739

elixelx

ME: So, is the earth, slowly but surely, falling into the sun?

EC: Yes constantly, but by the time it gets there its somewhere else!

I was not aware that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle was at work on the planetary level as it is on the atomic level!

Be that as it may, my original post, giving an ages-old explanation for a modern day conundrum stands, and the explanation is both apriori and a posteriori: that is the amount of fuel falling into the fire we call the sun is what drives climate change!

caged vole

Ronald Seal, you say one thing that convinces you AGW is rubbish is this:

".... the proponents of this theory...seem to become vindictive and condemnatory when presented with any argument, however logically phrased, which runs counter to their pet theory. I have seen this behaviour many times before, but mainly associated with tightly held religious beliefs."

That's it in a nutshell, and is also the answer to Chris G. As many people have already pointed out, we aren't really dealing here with run-of-the-mill error or politicising or corruption, let alone science. It's the new religion that is in process of replacing Judaeo-Christianity. The more people realise that, the better!

elixelx

"The earth doesn't fall towards the sun because of the conservation of momentum, a fundamental law of the universe; any increased tendency of the sun to pull the earth (eg at their closest approach to each other) is compensated by the earth speeding up in its orbit. The extra momentum acquired by the earth resists the Sun's pull. Kepler deduced this around 1610 (and it used to be O level Physics)" JEFF.

You say "used to be" Jeff; does this still obtain? And, of course, O level physics made us all distinguished scientists!

I have no such boast, yet even a child must understand that surely the conservation of momentum argument refers ONLY to immutable, unchanging systems which are in a perfect equilibrium from the start and are neither added to nor subtracted from unless such addition or subtraction be in an exquisite equipoise? THAT's the law of conservation of momentum that is taught at O level, Jeff, and the co-relatives are never discussed until you get to University and do Higher Level Physics and Mechanics.

So, yes; Of course its O level physics! It was made simple enough for you to understand then, and that's where most of us remained!

Yet what I'm saying is even simpler than O level physics, and nevetheless includes it: there is no randomness, no accident, no Divine Dice that are thrown every so often, a la Velikovsky!

There are heavenly spheres that grow hotter, colder, attract and die!

Nature takes its course, sometimes fitfully, sometimes predictably, and to blame man for destroying the earth because cows and cars exude CO2 is the most wilful stumbling block ever placed by the "reputable" scientists in the path of a blind and ignorant public!

Original Tony

Science depends on human beings and that says it all. What do we really know; our puny little minds puffed up with scientific pride. We have absolutley no idea how this planet works and all the variables therein.

This whole thing is a money-making scam, end of story.

gary

Al Gore was given SimEarth for his birthday but they left out the manual.

shockwaver

elixelx
as tidal forces dissipate the energy of the earth-sun gravatational interaction, the earth and sun get further apart, not closer as you surmise. same for the earth-moon distance, 3 feet/century, verified by reflections from mirrors left there by earthlings decades ago. not that any of this makes a bit of difference.
i can assure you that the present debate over agw is not science. those with reasoned questions are scorned by politicians who see a tax windfall, anti-industrialists who would shut down everything and ignorant idealists who think it is easy to just put up windmills and shut down all the coal mines.
i do not believe any of these people truley believe in agw or else they would support the ultimate carbon free energy fuel, nuclear power.
the good name of science is being ruined for political purposes.

Original Tony

It's a scam, all of it

Steve Case

Supposedly it's all about reducing CO2 from burning fossil fuels. So wouldn't it make sense to regulate the production of fossil fuels? Not being done or even proposed by the politicians.

Why do you suppose that is?

Simple: There's no tax money in it. In other words, they aren't interested in saving the planet.

Regarding models, and how well they've performed these first 9 years or so of the 100 year prjection:

If you can't hit the broad side of a barn at 25 feet, you aren't going to hit the target at 100 meters.

Richard

elixelx

"Any objections to that such priori Science? No?"

Errrrmm, rather rude to assume the answer to your own question. Yes, actually, the objection is that it is complete nonsense. The Earth's orbit is not a spiral.

Bob

Ian Plimer will never win a nobel prize in science. See
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,25433059-5003900,00.html

elixelx

Shockwaver:
The earliest that Homo Sapiens could have left instruments on the moon would have been 1969, and that would make 40 years of experiments with quite unsophisticated equipment to measure an infinitesimal movement...so I'm not convinced by scientists telling me that the earth will eventually fall OUT of orbit, rather than into the centre of gravity!

I would love to see a link to this, which is counter-intuitive, but possible!

Furthermore, in any gravitational field the law of movement is ALWAYS ATTRACTION, NEVER REPULSION. If there were steady or even random repulsion as you suggest, then the Solar Year should be getting longer; Maimonedes and Modern Science suggest the opposite; it's getting shorter.

Best of all is the notion of "zim-zum" ( I don't know much about this idea!); that gravitational fields expand and contract, like breathing out and breathing in, depending on the strength of the force at the centre: which as I've said before is, in the case of the Sun, constantly variable (there's an oxymoron!)!

elixelx

"The Earth's orbit is not a spiral" Richard.

EeerM! it's an ellipse, No?

Eeerm! And that elliptical orbit moves through space in three dimensions, not two!

Eeerm! and the figure described by that movement in three dimensions is a spiral, No?

Robert

Melanie - you might find yourself a new tagline in this Barry Brook article about Ian Plimer's book:

http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/23/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth/

"A case study in how not to be objective"

Brian O'Connor

When, in spite of increased amounts of CO2 thrust into the atmosphere, the earth stopped warming (in spite of the predictions of the computer models), we no longer talked about Anthropogenic Global Warming.

Why? Because observations had falsified the AGW hypothesis.

So, now we have to deal with hypothesis of Anthropogenic Climate Change.

How is it possible to falsify the hypothesis of Anthropogenic CC, since CC has been a happening thing forever, before humans were a twinkle in the eye of their primate progenitors? How do you separate out the effects of the Man from the forces of Ma Nature?

A truism masquerading as an unfalsifiable hypothesis that's become a political cause pushed with religious zealotry would be laughable, were the stakes not so high.

Pot Head

1998 and All That

http://tinyurl.com/l8fj67

Read Lovelock not Phillips..

caged vole

If anyone wants to know how far the AGW agenda is evidence/science driven and how far ideological, there is a priceless review of Plimer on the amazon (US) website -- same place where you will be told the book is out of print -- which could shed some light.
It is entitled "Shame, Shame", and begins
"I haven't read this book, but I think it's absolutely terrible!" (then goes on to marvel how anyone could possibly doubt, after Al Gore's great film)

Forlornehope

Just check Pilmer's figure 3 against the source of the data he is quoting and draw your own conclusion.

An FTIR spectroscopist writes:

Tony Allwright - the bending, stretching and vibrational modes of covalent bonds absorb IR radiation, not emit it.

It's a rather important difference.

Sergey

The core fallacy of AGW is over-reliance on computer models. People tend to accept every computer output as a quintessential science. One needs to be a specialist in computer modelling himself to avoid this trap. When variability of climate effects is so diverse, it always possible to cherry-pick facts to support any hypothesis. Only rigorous statistical approach can avoid this, but statistics has its traps too, it also can not be readily understood by everybody except experts, so it is not hard to fool people.

Michael B

Robert,

Your 'brave new climate' guy is a warmest among the professoriate at a funded climate program and a state run university. I have no decisive or absolute opinion on Plimer's volume as a whole, but the types of nit picking and sledge hammer approaches of his critics, evidenced on the web, reflect varying degrees of suspect tactics. A couple of examples from a supposed "point by point" criticism, recommended in your own link, is typical. When asked why he doesn't attack Al Gore's claims in the same manner, he states:

"I wasn’t engaged in public debate until early 2007 when I started writing [his own volume]"

But this is mere deflection, it doesn't even rise to the level of sophistry. Are more genuine inquirers (those who promote themselves as investigators concerned with long term planetary visions that in turn seek to channel hundreds of billions and even trillions of dollars of govt and non-govt funds) going to fail to criticize a publication because of a seven or eight month publication differential? That's the response of a purportedly conscientious investigator, a more genuine scientist? The IPCC report is treated similarly. The same critic states:

"Gore is a politician and 'An Inconvenient Truth' is largely a political book, arising from the difficulties of responding to ‘politically-inconvenient’ science."

Beyond the silly question begging, it additionally evidences sophistry since it's the underlying science in Gore's effort that remains at issue, no matter whether the social/political interests are avowed to be text or subtext (primary or secondary), in relation to the claimed science per se.

At any rate, reviewing some of the critiques of Plimer's volume (containing 500 pages and 2,000+ footnotes) similar generalized forms of dismissiveness and sophistry were evidenced in each case, without a single exception.

And, looking at the obverse side of things, these are the same types of critics who evidence the most acute sensitivity to all particulars, all technical nuances, to every jot and tittle when faced with such things as the (highly politicized) hockey stick fiasco.

Iow, nit picking and sweeping condemnations in one set of cases vs. the most acutely sensitive and stingy delectations in another set of cases - no matter the planetary visions and trillions of dollars at stake? Hmmmmm. Perhaps the BBC or Katie Couric should be sent in to decide the issue, using Al Gore's incitement as an authoritative accounting ...

vicky park

I don't think I would cite the Rambam as an authority on climate change - he was an Aristolean and into using intellect to enquire - not to lay down dogma.

Zim-zum is a gnostic kabbalistic concept to explain how a perfect unchanging god could alllow an imperfect material world to exist - god did this by, as if it where, breathing in and creating a space where a material world could occur. Whether a physicist could apply this to climate change I don't know, but I'm all for a gnostic view on climate change to add to the rich mix of debate.

Derek BLADES

Brian O'Connor (June 1) asks "How do you separate out the effects of the Man from the forces of Ma Nature?"

That is of course exactly what climate scientists and especially the ICC team are doing. It turns out to be difficult but certainly not impossible. If Mr O'Connor is really interested in the science he should read the ICC reports.

As an example of the sheer silliness of Ian Plimer's book consider these two rhetorical questions cited by Ms Phillips: "Why has Greenland cooled since the 1940s?" Answer. Greenland has been warming since at least the 1950s. Indeed, mixed agriculture is now taking hold in Southern Greenland as the ice-cap recedes and the growing season lengthens. "Why has Arctic sea ice expanded since 2008?" Answer: Arctic sea ice in 2007 was at its lowest recorded level following steady declines over most of the last two decades. A single year blip in 2008 proves nothing.

David Elder, B.Sc.Hons (biology)

Chris G at 2:51 pm asks a good question. If AGW is wrong, why do so many scientists make this mistake? I think there is a consensus that we expect some AGW, but much less consensus on how serious it will be. And the IPCC consensus, though drawing on thousands of scientists, is mainly focused on a series of summaries for policy makers written up by a relatively small number of envirocrats. Advocacy science can easily capture such a group. Especially when the subject has so many branches that it's hard for a dissenting individual to have them all at his fingertips.

C. Paul Barreira

To Henry Sidgwick: what 'devastating responses from other scientists'? One that may count, published in The Australian was mere verbiage devoid of rebuttal. Meanwhile a primary characteristic of the book is that it reads well. Worse, perhaps, it's interesting!

Mr H

Unless our theory of how fossil fuels came to be - plants and animals convered by mud compressed and refined by geologic processes -ALL this carbon was originally in the ecosphere to begin with.

The real problem is that these resources represent energy from the sun stored over many centurys and we are burning them up with no thought as to how we will replace them.

AGW debate is severly damaging the cause of those who want to promote real sustainable development of our planet.

AllanS

When we can successfully model the stock market, then I will believe we can model the weather.

Dr Robert Laundon

"It's not enough to find someone with a PhD who agrees with your irrational prejudices. You actually have to go and look at the real (peer reviewed) science."

I always roll my eyes when people suggest that "peer review" is some guarantee of correctness, especially in Climate Science. If you read the Wegman report, you'll see just how it works and be a little more circumspect about believing it adds weight to the arguments arrived at therein. It doesn't.

In my view, Melanie is absolutely right; previous articles on completely different subjects are irrelevant.

Peter Charnley.

The myth of manmade GW is like many other ideological 'avalanches' - it starts as a small snowball rolling down a political hill and eventually gathers such size and momentum that most will consequently leap aside in terror.

The groundless lunacy of it all might best be described by a quote from the wise and measured thinking of C.S .Lewis.

"All periods have their own characteristic illusions. They are likliest to lurk in those widespread assumptions which are so embedded in an age that noone dares to attack or feels it necessary to defend them." - Suprised by Joy 1955.

This quote applies to many others beliefs that presently hold sway in our world today - largely dream't up by the fantasies of the Left/liberal elite.

mike mckee

Sadly our government is no different to yours.
MikeNZ

Brian O'Connor

Derek Blades wrote:

That is of course exactly what climate scientists and especially the ICC team are doing. It turns out to be difficult but certainly not impossible. If Mr O'Connor is really interested in the science he should read the ICC reports.

Sorry — I don't know who the "ICC" is. Did you mean the IPCC?

Janet S

The problem with these models, as I recall from my Econometrics class in graduate school, is that they are based on past data that may or may not be predictive of the future. This is somewhat akin to trying to steer down the highway while only looking in your rearview mirror. No one I know would ever drive that way, yet so many put such blind faith in these models. Ridiculous.

Robin Browne PhD

Thank heavens for Prof Plimer, Christopher Monckton, Roy Spencer et al... and Journalists like you Melanie, who are trying to spread some truth and common sense, before we bury the chance of digging our way out of the current financial mess, because of disastrous and pointless taxation on the life-supporting co2 gas. Out here on Vancouver Island, horticulturalists noted the current cooling trend and have been recommending that one does not plant marginal zone specimens. My own experience in Arctic marine technology, and work with leading ice navigators, including the Russian AARI (Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute - the technical support arm of the Russian Northern Sea Route Administration who have the most extensive practical experience of all) shows that there is nothing unusual going on and that we could now be looking at another 15 years of cooling and restoration of historical maximum extents of multi-year ice. I remember back in the late 70's when scientists were experimenting with coal dust on Arctic ice in order to quantify the heat absorbing effects and assist in alleviating the coming new ice age! It's a crazy world!

Diana from Australia

Ed from Texas

The publisher of this book is a very small publisher who has never published a best seller like this which has become the book equivalent of "the Full Monty" (I don't mean the publisher or the author have formed a stripteaze group - I mean low budget big success.

Michael B

what is your point about Plimmer being from a state run university? (I assume you are not from Australia). All universities in Australia are primarily state funded (except two which are not known as research universities). Therefore nearly all research in Australia comes from government funded bodies.

shockwaver

elixelx
here is the requestd post.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2262596/posts
i googled ang got 341,000 hits.
this topic is a common one on freshman physics exams.

Nick

Robert Laundon - you're quite correct, peer review isn't perfect. But it is a damn sight better than the alternatives.

If you can suggest better checks and balances for the scientific process I'd be very keen to hear them.

Robin

Michael B - I'm not sure using the words "Gore" and "underlying science" in the same sentence is anything other than foolish.

Sergey

The assertion that there is a consensus of experts about AGW is simply wrong. In Russia leading experts in the field are very sceptical. And Russian school of mathematical modelling is one of the world best. The reason is simple: in Russia fundamental science is largely free from political pressure, we have no green party to talk about, and Russian academy of science is government funded, but administratively autonomous. No green lobby to harass politicians or academics, so scientists are free to speak their minds without threats to their careers of funding.

Richard

Elixelx

"Eeerm! and the figure described by that movement in three dimensions is a spiral, No?"

No indeed, to both issues. The Earth’s orbital path is not a three dimensional. To a very close approximation it is all within the plane of the ecliptic. The movement of the Earth within that plane is not a spiral. A spiral is not three-dimensional.

I am not sure where you got the idea that the Earth’s orbit is a spiral, but it is not. The orbit does change to affect climate, but not by being a spiral.

As for the distance to the moon, the instruments are not on the moon. They are on the Earth and perfectly capable of measuring a change of the order required to measure 3 feet per century. The reflectors are on the moon. It has nothing to do with gravity pushing, but with energy balance.

John Partridge

Mel, thank you so much for being the only one who can see behind all the lies. It's one huge conspiracy and you are a lone battler against these dark forces.
You are our knight in shining armour battling against the shadows. G-d bless you.

Stanley Willis

John Thomas writes: "- but evolutionism is a much tougher nut, since investment in that, in our materialist society, is even greater; it is much more strongly defended"

So, what's your alternative explanation?

Michael B

Diana,

The point is no more or less than a reminder/emphasis upon the apparent one: the funding source as such, the popular, media-based, political, collegial, bureaucratic, intramural, etc. bases of that funding, for specific programs, for departmental interests, for the professoriate class as a whole, the jostling and prestige-seeking related to it all. An emphasis upon the "all too human" motivations any privileged class can succomb to, forms of insularity that can result, forms of still more presumptive/insinuating privilege that can result - e.g., status-seeking in the role of epistemic gatekeepers, informal and formal hierarchies related to that gatekeeping role.

In sum, no more and no less than a reminder/emphasis upon all too human manifestations, weaknesses and interests that a privileged clerisy becomes susceptible to, variously succombs to.

caged vole

Dr Robert Laundon, You said:
"
I always roll my eyes when people suggest that "peer review" is some guarantee of correctness, especially in Climate Science..."

haha, yes.
*I* am a peer-reviewed scientist;
*YOU* may be somewhat too much in thrall to received wisdom;
*HE* is a brain-dead meme-bot

Michael B

Robin,

Point taken. Though Gore has become such a personification of absurdist hyperbole and warmist mongering, not to mention his hypocricies that throw it into still sharper relief, that he's become a self-caricaturizing figure for many, a self-parodist. Hence a certain understanding is inherent in simply using the "Gore" term, a latter-day "Quixote" absent the charm.

(And, Gore was awarded the Nobel in lieu of people such as Irena Sendler, so a deeper and wider cultural note is sounded in all this from other perspectives still.)

Forlornehope

I've just tried to give a considered technical answer to Janet S. Like a number of my posts it's been blocked. I don't expect this one to get through either. Someone doesn't like me!

Andrew Adams

No green lobby to harass politicians or academics, so scientists are free to speak their minds without threats to their careers of funding.

So, scientists in the West support AGW becuase of the power of the green lobby? But there are also powerful lobby groups whose interests would be served by scientists opposing AGW, for example those representing the oil companies and the motor industry, the road haulage industry. Do you really think that the green lobby is so much more powerful than those interests?

David Bouvier

Sergey - I am not sure I am convinced that Russian science is immune from Putin pressure.

But if you had vast territories in perma-frost, large oil reserves to exploit, and a pragmatic geopolitical stance then global warming might be an opportunity not a threat

Stephen

Forelornhope: It's not personal. I have had a post addressing Plimer's cherry picking of evidence, factual errors, personal agenda and his strange view on polar bear numbers censored too. I had thought this was an open discussion in which all sides were allowed to comment as they wished. Sadly, it would appear that this is not the case.

Forlornehope

OK, I'll try again, briefly as I don't want to waste time on a post that gets blocked, again!

The type of models used for climate change are not the same as those used for econometric data. They are essentially the same as those used for engineering design. They are based on the physics of the system being modelled not statistics drawn from past data. Good examples are aircraft and their engines, such as the A380. The engineers can predict the actual performance to within better than one percent. Any variation being largely caused by small differences introduced during manufacture. The computer comes in to do large numbers of calculations. In principle you could do these by hand but it would take too long to be useful. When this type of model is applied to the climate it cannot be tested by building a new earth (Slartiblartfast is still hibernating), so the next best thing is to feed in past data to set the starting conditions and see if it represents what really happened. You cannot model like this in the social sciences because the fundamental equations don't exist!

So if someone says it's just a model, look up in the sky. These models work very well.

Forlornehope

David Skinner, didn't you know, he is one of Australia's foremost critics of creationism!

Pete Hoskin

Forlornehope and others: sometimes comments don't get through for technical reasons as well as moderation. If one of your comments has gone missing, then you can always email me on phoskin @ spectator.co.uk and I'll gladly chase it up.

Jeff Vincent

elixelx - conservation of angular momentum wasn't taught to school children as a fable. The principle withstands Higher Mechanics; these days, undergraduates meet it for the first time. Even though the sun attempts to drag the earth, the compensatory speed-up of the earth's orbit keeps AM intact. There's no requirement for eternal stability here. As to WHY AM is conserved; no-one knows that. For that matter, we don't know why mass-energy is conserved, or why the Planck length governs the scale of quantum phenomena, or why the speed of light in a vacuum is constant.

Forlornehope

Pete,

Thank you for that and please accept an apology. I have made a number of quite lengthy contributions, trying to explain some basic science; none of them appeared. I had just concluded that people either didn't like the science, or couldn't put up with my sarcasm about the ignorance of some posts.

The really frustrating thing is that there is an important debate to be had about a centre right response to climate change. As long as people insist on hiding their heads beneath the blanket and pretending it's not happening, this is going by default. If the right does not engage in don't be surprised if you all end up with ration cards.

Forlornehope

Jeff, I just love angular momentum. As you probably know it's the explanation for why "reverse steer" works on a motorbike. If I remember rightly it was second year mechanical engineering stuff.

C. Gee

Forlornehope,
Drawing analogies is not the most rigourous form of persuasion.
So climate models are like engineer's models of aircraft where "the physics of the system is modelled out"?
Do you believe that the factors in climate science equivalent to the "physics of the system" in aircraft engineering are sufficiently understood or even known to make this analogy meaningful, let alone constitute a defense of AGW, or even an aid to discussion?
One could extend the bad-analogy argument to the foundations of AGW itself - the original "greenhouse" analogy has been misapplied to produce a theory that is transparently rigged and easily smashed.

Sergey

"The type of models used for climate change are not the same as those used for econometric data. They are essentially the same as those used for engineering design."
DEADLY WRONG! Artificial systems behavior is predictable because they are created this way - to be inherently stable. All possible instabilities in them are eliminated at the stage of projecting, often by cut and try method (flutter, for example). I was trained as a rocket scientist, so I know these things very thoroughly. There are lots of instabilities in fluid dynamics (turbulence only one of them); the essence of aerodynamical engineering is how to avoid them. This is impossible to do with weather and climate; these models are of totally different type, they can not be built from the first principles but only from observed statistical correlations, and nobody can guarantee that the correlations observed in the past are still valid relevant to the future.
THIS IS A VERY COMMON FALLACY: expect that mathematical modelling of complex natural systems can be as robust and reliable as that in mechanical engineering. It can not!

Stephen

Pete

May I echo the Forlornhope's comments and add my apology.

I'll just repeat one comment (for now!). Plimer argues that polar bears are not a threatened species because their numbers are increasing. In fact he says that the major threat to polar bears is not lack of ice but 'high winds'.

In fact polar bear numbers are increasing but only in the Hudson Bay area. And they are increasing there because hunting polar bears has been banned. But, and this is critical, although numbers are increasing, cub weights are decreasing and mortality rates are increasing. And this is caused by the distance that polar bears have to travel to the ice for food. The ice is continuing to recede so the increasing population is harder to sustain. So the rise in the polar bear population in the Hudson bay area has nothing to say to the climate change debate but the impact of receding sea ice on the increasing polar bear populations does.

It is this sort of sloppy science that does not help the debate.

Sergey

"Do you really think that the green lobby is so much more powerful than those interests?"
Actually, it is, because it is only a facade behind which hide political forces much more powerfull than all world oil and buisiness interersts combined, namely EU Brussels bureaucracy using environment scares for power grab. They need a cause to justify their diktat and imposition of one regulation upon another. If they would be able to impose cape-and-trade regime on industry, say good by to capitalism and all freedoms associated with it: their control of society would be absolute and total, like in Soviet Union.

Sergey

Stephen, in any natural population increasing numbers are associated with food shortages and higher mortality rates. The same is true for other Arctic species, like caribou, lemmings, polar fox, ets. Nobody declares them endangered species: this is a natural, self-regulating cycle. I made a mathematical modelling of lemming population and observed the same pattern of quasy-periodic oscillation, and what is most important, have shown that these cycles are totally decoupled from environment factors: this is inherent population dynamics.

Forlornehope

There are two criticisms of my point on climate models. Firstly, this is not an analogy. Climate models are based on physical models using the fundamental equations of thermodynamics and fluid mechanics. That's the same physics as used in engineering models. They are not "exactly like" engineering models but are essentially of the same genus and quite different from the models used in the social sciences. Of course in an engineering robust design there is a specific requirement to reduce instability and that is a difference with modelling natural systems. However, modern engineering systems are required to deal with complex transients. The models for the "blade-off" case in modern aero-engines being a spectacular case in point. Combustion modelling in internal combustion engines is another case where complex transient conditions are modelled with great accuracy.

Secondly, it is simply incorrect to say that climate models are based on correlations with past data and not built from first principles. If you want an introduction to how climate models are built up, from the basic physics follow this link:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/GCM.htm

Sergey

Stephen: Normal mortality rate of white bear cubs is 70%. This is an inherent feature of biology of the species. In Russian Arctic, where they are also under conservation regime, their numbers constantly growing for last two decades.

Stephen

Sergey: I'm sure we are all familiar with the principle of natural fluctuations in population and you are right to think that it could be an explanation of low birth weights and higher cub mortality rates. I didn't defend myself against your argument to keep the post shorter. Unfortunately (on several levels) it is not the likely explanation.

The end of hunting has done no more than enable the polar bear population to return towards a naturally sustainable level from a man-made low. Even in the relatively recent past the Hudson Bay area was able to sustain a higher population of polar bears. But that was when the sea-ice conditions were different. The problems caused by sea-ice conditions in Hudson Bay were masked by the impact of hunting. Now the distances involved in the hunt for food make a higher population less sustainable. And that is an sea-ice problem, not a population bloom problem.

But even if you were right the fundamental point I was making was to with Plimer's careless use of data. The increase is the polar bear population is not evidence that the species is recovering because climate change is a fallacy. It is merely evidence that hunting polar bear has been banned in the Hudson Bay area.

Neil Craig

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."The most profound of many profound statements by Henry Louis Mencken

With the end of the USSE government has been desperate for things to scare us with. Without them we might notice what useless parasites they all are. Hence the pushing of GW which was an interesting theory which for a few years was not contradicted by the facts & worthy of further study.

Catastrophic warming, even more than the late Mr bin Laden were deliberately magnified by those in charge as distractions. Even at their most magnified they didn't remotely compare with the real USSR (or to be fair to the Soviet government as the even more real threat of NATO as the Yugoslav wars proved).

Without exception those still pushing the catastrophic warming threat are brainwashed fools or charlatans. This obviously includes the overwhelming majority of MPs.

Sergey

I have Moscow State University master degree in fluid dynamics and spend two decades in mathematical modelling in this and other fields, and can assert absolutely that fluid dynamic equations can not be directly used in modelling of ocean and athmosphere interaction. It is impossible to formulate boundary conditions for such problem. So mass and heat transfer in climate models (their most important block) are described not from applying these equations, but by using bulk balance estimates based on statistical correlations. Being empirical generalisations, they can not be reliably extrapolated beyond the range of known variability. This includes also higher CO2 levels, higher temperatures and like variables. This is terra incognita; historical data are more pertinent to the curent debate than any models projections. Those who ask what are the causes of the current warming, I can say that there can be no causes at all: complex systems can generate change without any external forcing. One needs to understand the basics of chaos theory to grasp this counter-intuitive conclusion.

Joseph A Olson, PE

visit deniers website ClimateRealist.com for a complete hoax debunk and unique alternative theory....

Michael B

Climate models are comparable to engineering models?!?!

If so, pigs can be made to fly in those same models (and perhaps have been made to do so, given the digressions techno-geeks can be prone to indulge).

It was one of the original post-Enlightenment positivists - Auguste Comte, a full-bore true-believer in scientism - who proposed earth's elliptical orbit be changed to one that is circular (for the very purpose of adjusting the climate, btw).

Auguste Comte's faith is, essentially, the same type of scientism or scientistic positivism that reverberates to this day, within presumptive AGW interests, among the still more apparent Dawkins & Co. sect and aficionados, in other groups as well wherein science qua science, science more rigorously and properly conceived, serves as a core, but then is greatly leveraged and presumed upon to effect much wider political, ideological and pseudo- and quasi-philosophical interests.

And, as has been emphasized in this thread, in all periods of history alarmism and fear-mongering have been an omnipresent fact of political life, in turn effecting various degrees of tragedy and comedy both, effecting the funneling and appropriation of funds and resources, etc. Since the time of Plutarch's subjects, since the emergence of shamans who decided they were the epistemic gatekeepers of their own clan and era, such has been the case.

That's why deflationary critiques of both advocates and skeptics are warranted and that's why those who resist such deflationary critiques are, immediately, suspect.

Sergey

Arctic marine ice area is subject to very large fluctuations from year to year. It is not indicative for average global temperature. Excessive attention to this parameter in popular culture, which made polar bears emblematic to AGW hypothesis, only shows how people's emotions are cynically manipulated to achieve political gains. What these polar bears did when Vikings regularly roamed Arctic ocean, obviously clear from ice in summers, in tiny boats, from Iceland to Greenland? They survived. They are not so dependent on floes as described, only on numbers of their prey and safe areas for reproduction, like Wrangel Island and Novaya Zemlya archipelago. Most of the present population are hunting not on marine ice, but on fast ice near shores.

C. Gee

Forlornehope,

Are you confident, with a 95% degree of certainty (wasn't that the percentage set by the IPCC ?) that the complex transient conditions upon which the climate models ring the changes are necessary and sufficient to tell the story? Svensmark and other physicists are not.

In any case, you have not rebutted the argument than any modelling system can fail due to GIGO - garbage in, garbage out.

C. Gee

Stephen,
What is the ideal number for the polar bear population?
What is the ideal temperature for the planet?
How do you suggest we arrive at and keep those ideals?

C. Gee

Sergey,

Thank you.

David Elder B.Sc.Hons. (biology)

Derek Blades (June 1 10.13 pm) implies that the shrinking of the Arctic ice cap is due to human global warming. This shrinking, now reversing, is primarily due to a natural cycle, the Arctic Oscillation. Do google search for 2004 piece in ScienceDaily entitled 'Winds, ice motion root cause of decline in sea ice, not warmer temperatures'.

Forlornehope

I am afraid that I don't know what they teach in Moscow but let me quote:

"The Goddard Institute for Space Studies General Circulation Model II, described fully by Hansen et al. (1983), is a three-dimensional global climate model that numerically solves the physical conservation equations for energy, mass, momentum and moisture as well as the equation of state. The standard version of this model has a horizontal resolution of 8° latitude by 10° longitude, nine layers in the atmosphere extending to 10 mb, and two ground hydrology layers. The model accounts for both the seasonal and diurnal solar cycles in its temperature calculations."

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelii/

The Wikipedia page is also specific on the use of the Navier-Stokes equations, with which all engineers are familiar.

It is possible to assert anything and claim any qualifications. There is far too much of that in these discussions.

James Murphy

Bravo Sergey! I always knew chaos theory was involved! I only refrained from stating it myself because I wanted to give others the chance to shine. But now the truth is out - and it IS out - that computer models are just that, i.e., advanced toys for advanced boys, can all the Global Warming prigs stop pretending they know what they're talking about? Climatology is in its infancy: to pretend otherwise, to profess, in fact, to be able to draw definite conclusions about climate change one way or the other is intellectual arrogance of a transparently puerile and self-congratulatory kind. The only thing we can say with any degree of scientific accuracy, is that we don't, indeed, can't, calibrate what irreversible climate changes are ultimately occurring,(if any) and certainly cannot affect them by tinkering at the margins with silly CO2 adjustments. - Whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must remain silent... - Fat chance.

Brian O'Connor

Mr. Gore and his acolytes have claimed that AGW is settled science.

Is there anyone reading this thread who agrees with that?

Sergey

There is no existence and uniqueness theorems for solutions of Navier-Stokes equations in arbitrary geometries. They are essentially non-linear (that is, can not be solved by linearisation), so in any numerical scheme one must pose some arbitrary assumptions about general pattern of behavior. Much more simpler equations of weather prognostications are famous to involve Lorenz attractor subject to "batterfly effect". Atmospheric circulation involves thermo-gravitational convection, which is inherently instable and in rotating frame of reference generates hurricanes and tornadoes. Any direct numerical scheme for inherently instable system will diverge. So only bulk mass transfer schemes are viable for modelling, and they does not use the Navier-Stokes equations. Instead they take empirical data averages by seasons, like Hadley circulation cells, average mass transfer by westerlies, passates, planetary waves (Kelvin and Rossby waves) and so on. Nobody knew if these schemes apply to history data with different climate norms, or to future. They lack predictive power. You can not derive general patterns of circulation from Navier-Stokes equations alone, you just must KNOW these patterns to use them in any calculations.

Sergey

Forlornhope, I read your reference about Hoddard Institute model, and there is no a single mention of Navier-Stockes equations. These basic principles of conservation of mass, momentum, energy cited here are bulk equations, not first principles, and as I asserted, their using is possible only if general circulation scheme is already known from observations. These assumptions can not be extrapolated into future and do not describe historical data, like Little Ice Age, Roman warm period, Pliocene glaciations and other examples of natural variability.

Sergey

Using numerical mathematical modelling in aerodynamical engineering is possible only because of simple and adjustable geometries, feeding into models data of physical experimentation like aerodynamic tunnels to restrict possible solutions and so on. All this is impossible when geometry is irregular and physical experiments are not possible. The basic mathematics involved is very poorly understood. Non-linear dynamics is more art than science, no general methods to solve these problems exist. My own experience with fluid dynamics modelling convinced me that for real-world complex systems the state of art is so poor that I have zero trust for such models predictive value.

Sergey

To give you a gist how "settled" the science is, read the follow citation:
"In May 2002, the Clay Mathematics Institute (CMI) of Cambridge, Massachusetts, in an initiative to further the study of mathematics, allocated a $7m prize fund for the solution of seven Millennium Problems, 'focusing on important classic questions that have resisted solution over the years'. One of the $1m problems stands out for its massive practical importance: the solution of the Navier-Stokes equations (NSEs) for fluid flow.
Although there are many named variants and special cases, the fundamental equations are the incompressible Navier-Stokes for Newtonian fluids. In their most compact form, they comprise a pair of vector partial differential equations (PDEs): one expresses the forces acting (pressure, viscosity and body forces); the other is the continuity equation, which says that divergence of the velocity field is zero for an incompressible fluid (that is, 'what comes in, goes out').
The NSEs are among the most-studied partial differential systems, the subject of around 15-20 published papers a week. Nevertheless, they're among the least understood at a theoretical level."

Sergey

Another example how "settled" science is, this time about Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO):
Causes for the PDO are not currently known. Likewise, the potential predictability for this climate oscillation are not known. Some climate simulation models produce PDO-like oscillations, although often for different reasons. The mechanisms giving rise to PDO will determine whether skillful decades-long PDO climate predictions are possible. For example, if PDO arises from air-sea interactions that require 10 year ocean adjustment times, then aspects of the phenomenon will (in theory) be predictable at lead times of up to 10 years. Even in the absence of a theoretical understanding, PDO climate information improves season-to-season and year-to-year climate forecasts for North America because of its strong tendency for multi-season and multi-year persistence. From a societal impacts perspective, recognition of PDO is important because it shows that "normal" climate conditions can vary over time periods comparable to the length of a human's lifetime."
In short, nothing is known, and it is not known even if predictions are possible in principle.

kit salopian

I would find Phillips' espousal of pure science a little more convincing were she to apply the scientific method to confirm the hypotheses that "historical and biblical facts" support Israel's historic claims to occupy as much land as it chose.

Brian O'Connor

I'm still dying to know if there is any AGW advocate reading this thread who believes that AGW is settled science, as Mr. Gore, his acolytes and so many in the press (to the extent they differ from acolytes) have asserted.

Dave

Brian: You're looking for something any real scientist won't sign up to. It's the "red emeralds" argument. Can scientist be sure that in a world of emeralds it is impossible for a green gem to suddenly turn red? If you can't be 100% certain... then what colour is an emerald?
It's not how science works. Mr Gore can say what he likes, but he's not a paper in Nature.
Unfortunately Ms Phillips mistakes a healthy debate over public policy for a debate over actual science.
Scientific evidence says climate change is real and we play a part. What to do about it is politics.
Am I 100% sure the science is "settled" though?
What colour is an emerald?

Brian O'Connor

Dave — here's my first reaction to your response:

Thank you for instructing me on what science is, but please be aware that I'm well aware of what the scientific endeavor involves.

And I'm thrilled beyond belief that you yourself are open to being persuaded . . . (I did get the gist of your post correct, right?).

But the fact of the matter is that when An Inconvenient Truth appeared — you know, the flick that won a Nobel Prize for Mr. Gore — we were told by Mr. Gore and his acolytes that AGW was settled science.

The fact that you and I may agree that the science of AGW is not settled science is irrelevant to the question I asked:
Is anyone who agrees with Al Gore's assertion that AGW is "settled science" willing to admit as much on this thread?

Forlornehope

To answer all Sergey's points, some of which do have some merit, would require a book. Fortunately there is one. "The Climate Modelling Primer" is a text book that shows you how climate models are built up. It is not a book about climate change. It is available from Amazon. If you want to decide about the validity of models you can read it for yourself. I don't know how else you can decide.

However, on the question of motivation, all you experts on politics and economics might ask why a Russian with any sense would be arguing anything other than a strongly contrarian viewpoint.

Dave

Actually Brian I was talking about the philosophy of evidence.
You're asking the wrong question. It's like asking if a vaccine is "100% safe"

Australians for Non-Bigoted Thinking

CLIMATE CHANGE???: OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE DEMANDED!!!

Another great analysis and critique Melanie. Your logical, fair-minded and detailed analysis of issues in your eloquent prose is a delight to read in an era of partisan propagandists masquerading as journalists...as evidence, you are difficult to argue against. If I may add my piece regarding Ian Plimer and 'Climate Change'.

Ian Plimer has exposed that it is grossly irresponsible, dangerous, and incompetent to make sweeping government policy changes in relation to 'global warming', that can affect the living standards of billions worldwide, based on a science that is inherently subjective in its methodology, one that shows significantly different changes of global temperature at different historical time periods, and a science that ignores credible variables that may significantly influence the claims made.

If Governments have to commit economic suicide and introduce an emissions trading scheme (ETS), at least USE OBJECTIVE SCIENCE to prove the need. It leaves me with permanent jaw drop how governments are endorsing this scheme with their blinkers well and truly on. As one Labor front bencher, Greg Combet, said here recently... ‘the science has been settled’, implying that no more questions need to be asked, and therefore full steam ahead with an ETS.....It seems like some people think your being competent by actually doing something, even though it may be 100 % WRONG, not to mention the mountains of evidence that doubt the veracity of global warming and the measures that will actually be 'effective' in ‘curing’ it.

What makes me think that Plimer is on the path of enlightenment, is that on hearing him in debate with Climate Change advocates, they attack the messenger and not his message, in such ways as misrepresenting what he says, as in only concentrating on a very narrow part of his tome, which in effect, quotes him out of context. One of the most bigoted interviews I heard was on the ABC (Australia's Bigoted Communicator), where a Climate Change proponent continually ignored Plimer’s claims, appealing to the distraction that his work was not appropriately peer reviewed; ad nauseum. I can only infer from these observations that there is obviously a lot of truth in what Plimer says, and plenty of egos, reputations, and fortunes to be damaged, if one day he obtains a fair forum to debunk his critics.

On the subject of peer review, I think it is problematic that peer review for climate science is trustworthy, when you have universities that sadly lack objectivity due to political allegiances and agenda pushing to the Left, in such a high degree, and especially on this issue.

It is a convenient vehicle to appeal to in trying to prove one's credibility, but peer reviewers may be a hornet’s nest for activists, who may themselves have been complicit in fudging and suppressing data that may hijack the agenda that is being pushed, and therefore cannot necessarily be viewed as credible assessors. Also, climate science is not one that is as simple as drug A decreases the blood pressure; hypothesis supported. It is a very imperfect science, and lends itself to corrupt practices because of its unreliable measurements and lack of a credible time line to make certain claims.

Adding to these temptations for corruption, is that the climate change industry is rich and influential, and contrary results may dry up hard to access and profitable research funding.

Lastly, I read recently that Penny Wong our Climate Change minister, when she became a member of the hard Left, realized the only way to fulfill the Marxist dream was to find a really big issue. Let’s hope she is proved wrong and 'Climate Change' this is not Wong’s path to revolution.

stanley Jerusalem

Dave
June 3rd, 2009 11:31pm
"What colour is an emerald?"
Bad question. The name emerald describes the colour of the stone. If it's not green but turquoise it's an acquamarine, if pink, it's Kunzite. They are all Beryllium Aluminium Silicates. Their names describe their colours and they are all Beryls,[Lucky girl!]

Sergey

My points were not about AGW hypothesis: here I am completely agnostic. I am not a climatologist, but those famous Russian scientists to whom I trust are very sceptical. My speciality is mathematical and computer modelling in fluid dynamics, and here I can assert with confidence that for complex natural non-linear systems no model can be trusted without independent observational or experimentational verification. Prognostic value of such models is doubtfull at least, and often no prognosis is actually possible. In non-linear dynamics only simplest systems are sufficiently studied, and for 3-D fluid dynamics in arbitrary geometries mathematical hurdles are insurmountable. Non-mathematicians have no idea how formiddable these uncertainties really are.

Sergey

If somebody hints that Russian science is under political pressure from Kremlin, I can remind that Putin's economic adviser Andrey Illarionov was the most vocal critic of Putin's decision to embrace Kioto protocol, and was forced to resign because of it. Now he works in Cato Institute in USA. So if some political pressure on Russian science exists, it is in the exactly opposite direction, and RAS so far successfully resist this pressure. There is a consensus opinion of Russian scientists, that AGW is myth fabricated by Western politicians and that this myth is against Russian national interests.

Dixon

When Rachel Carson published "Silent Spring", the worldwide best-selling assault on the use of pesticides, the WHO and UN were in motion to eliminate Malaria ( as they did Smallpox ) by eradicating the mosquitoes that carry it using DDT.

As a direct result of that book and the first wave of "environmentalist" campaigning, DDT was banned. Malaria persists. In the forty years that have elapsed, more than 200 million have died from it.

So the death toll of "environmentalism" so far is greater than that of Stalin and far greater than that of Hitler.

Now they want to cripple the developed worlds economies and development in those regions which desperately need it. Clean water for all? Forget it! The "carbon footprint" would be huge. and they actually say this: that the deaths of a few nillion here and there is the necessary price for "saving the planet".

Whether AGW is correct or not is an utterly irrelevant question. The real question is why must such immense sacrifices be made on the alter of "saving the planet", whben those changes predicted are trivial by comparison. Certainly as nothing compared to the end of the last Ice Age, when coastlines receded at a rate of three metres PER WEEK and Humanity not only survived but prospered.

Brian O'Connor

Dave wrote:

Actually Brian I was talking about the philosophy of evidence. 
You're asking the wrong question. It's like asking if a vaccine is "100% safe"

Thank you for instructing me on the incorrectness of the question I asked.

But I fear you are addressing a question not asked — philosophical or practical.

What YOU are talking about is irrelevant.

What I asked was whether or not anyone reading this thread agrees with Mr. Gore and his acolytes when they assert that AGW is settled science!

It's a simple enough question. It needs no unpacking.

Anyone?

Brian O'Connor

In response to my first effort to determine if anyone reading this thread believed Al Gore that AGW is settled science, Dave June 3rd, 2009 11:31pm wrote:

You're looking for something any real scientist won't sign up to. . . . Mr Gore can say what he likes, but he's not a paper in Nature.

Perhaps, but irrelevant. I'm simply wondering if any AGW advocate believes Mr. Gore.

I didn't ask if any scientist believes AGW is settled science, though some apparently do; I didn't ask whether or not Mr. Gore violated scientific principles; I didn't ask for enlightenment on the nature of my questions or instruction in the art of science (though I'm grateful for any opinions you might care to share on those issues).

I simply asked if anyone reading this thread believes that AGW is settled science.

Dave

Stanley; Sorry it's a famous thought experiment. The exact colour of real emeralds misses the point.
Brian; What are you "unpacking"? As far as I can tell you're unable to understand how science works and just looking to make some sort of rhetorical point.
Fair enough. But don't expect anyone who knows what they are talking about to play along.

kit salopian

BRIAN OCONNOR

In so far as no science may conisdered as "settled" the answer is that this Scientist does not think that AWG is a settled science

If you ask whether most other scientists would have used the term "settled science" - they would not for the simple reason that it's an oxymoron.

BUT most scientists, including this one contend that " phenomenon " of human generated global warming (AWG) IS settled beyond peradventure even if the mechanisms and its consequneces are not.

SO you have a choice. Ignore the whole thing and take whatever consequences may or may not arise: OR try to mitigate them using the best information available to you.

And you won't find many scientists (pure or applied ) who would disagree.

.

Sergey

"Ignore the whole thing and take whatever consequences may or may not arise: OR try to mitigate them using the best information available to you."
An example of a false dichotomy. The third option is to accept change as inevitable and beyond mitigation, and find best ways to adapt to the change. We can not fight climate change, we can not significantly reduce our energy needs, we can not abandon using fossil fuels, but we can plan measures to reduce possible harm or even make advantage of higher temperatures, longer vegetation season, introducing subtropical plants, etc. Humans survived even more drastic climate changes in the past, when they have hundred times less our present technical capabilities.
But the most strange point of the present scare is its complete lack of reasons to believe that something extraordinary takes place and that we somehow are cause of the change. All empirical and historical data indicate otherwise; but people prefer to believe to computer models that have no rigorous mathematical justification, can not be verified and can be easily tinkered to predict anything you wish.

Forlornehope

I had not intended to add another post on this but Dixon has hit the nail on the head. There is no need to allow the green fascists to decide on the response to global warming. What is needed is re-engineering of our energy systems away from hydrocarbons. We can do that without a significant change to our way of life. Most of the relevant infrastructure has a life less than the timescales involved so the costs are largely those that would be incurred anyway. There are some good studies that show how this can be done. One of the best is by Prof David MacKay of Cambridge University. You can read it on line here:

http://www.withouthotair.com/Contents.html

Of course this will completely destroy the Russian, Saudi and Iranian economies. I won't lose much sleep over that! The Russians can carry on drinking themselves to death; the Saudis can go back to their camels. The Iranians that I knew at Imperial College were pretty smart guys; I reckon that they will cope quite well!

Brian O'Connor

kit salopian wrote:

BUT most scientists, including this one contend that " phenomenon " of human generated global warming (AWG) IS settled beyond peradventure even if the mechanisms and its consequneces are not.

There are in fact a great many skeptical scientists who dispute AGW. For their efforts, most are routinely savaged for being tools of the oil companies, ignorant, working out of their depth, etc. by other scientists and by a great many journalists. Frankly, I find a number of their

I'm interested that you are evidently unaware of them.

Or do you just dismiss them out-of-hand, because they question if GW is happening; if so, whether or not it is Man-caused; whether or not we westerners can do anything about it (if Man caused) without the cooperation of India and China; whether the costs in human lives to cut down drastically on CO2 emissions might exceed the benefits; etc.

Is it possible that you've lost some of your scientific objectivity? You don't seem at all skeptical.

Still, for the purposes of debate only, let's accept that MOST scientists agree that AGW is occurring. Is it at all possible for MOST scientists to be incorrect?

I offer a few examples of where consensus science failed: plate tectonics; the sad, lethal 145 year history of puerperal fever; those many who bought into Paul Ehrlich's the Population Bomb; pellagra; germ theory; etc. etc. etc.

I note with interest that you admit that the consequences of "AGW" are unknown . . . yet you have concluded that they will catastrophic — so much so that we should take massive action against what amounts to the unknown. Lomborg (an AGW believer) points out that certain benefits might be realized through GW that could offset any negative consequences by a goodly amount. If you don't know the consequences of GW, how can you dispute Lomborg's take?

A wise scientist — a much reviled and attacked heretic in his own right — told me once that science is not subject to the democratic process. The guy who's right wins, he said, irrespective of the number of wrong heads who are aligned against him. (As it happened — he turned out to be right, his many, many detractors wrong.)

Geoff K

Here is a page by page critique of the book's correct bits, plus its considerable mistakes and dogma;
http://bravenewclimate.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/plimer1a7.pdf

Derek BLADES

Dixon (4 June) makes the extraordinary claim that banning DDT was responsible for the deaths of 200 million people from malaria. That is only true if DDT would have eliminated all malaria-carrying mosquitoes. Given the adaptability of the mosquito this is fanciful in the extreme. Banning DDT in fact lead to the development of many more effective insecticides but, as Charles Darwin would have predicted, new strains of immune mosquitoes quickly emerged.

Dixon goes on to say "they actually say this: that the deaths of a few million here and there is the necessary price for "saving the planet"." Who are “they”? And where did they say it? Citation please.

Sharon Gunning

While I am no expert on the subject, I applaud the idea of having a fair,2-sided debate on the global warming issue.I find it incredible that we are just supposed to believe 1 side and condemn the other side as "deniers". If anything makes me think we're being manipulated ,it's the "let's laugh at the other side" attitude often perpetrated by the man-made global warming supporters. There obviously is a debate here, so let's hear it. For that reason, I applaud the article.

Michael B

Thirty minute on-line interview with Plimer. Informative, he speaks well, and in general he's calling for a debate, not a rote-like adherence to each and every aspect of his point of view.

Derek BLADES

Sergey (4 June) writes "We can not fight climate change, we can not significantly reduce our energy needs, we can not abandon using fossil fuels,...." That is all a bit pessimistic Sergey. Both France and Japan are fighting climate change very effectively by investment in nuclear power. Electricity generation by fossil fuels is the main source of carbon dioxide emissions. Generation by nuclear power is clean and safe and governments in other countries are now realising that the Kyoto commitments can never be met without massive recourse to nuclear power.

Brian O'Connor

Derek Blades June 5th, 2009 8:20am wrote:

Dixon (4 June) makes the extraordinary claim that banning DDT was responsible for the deaths of 200 million people from malaria. That is only true if DDT would have eliminated all malaria-carrying mosquitoes.

True. But suppose the number were — say — a mere 75 million. If the use of DDT were to have saved only 75 million lives, rather than 200 million, would that have justified its use?

I guess what I'm looking for is a kind of cost/benefit analysis. What are the costs of using DDT, and what are the costs of NOT using it?

Given the adaptability of the mosquito this is fanciful in the extreme. Banning DDT in fact lead to the development of many more effective insecticides but, as Charles Darwin would have predicted, new strains of immune mosquitoes quickly emerged.

Perhaps . . . but are you suggesting that mosquitos would fail to develop resistance and then immunity to pesticides other than DDT? (I'm thinking of the ones that became immune to pyrethroids in South Africa, which were responsible for a huge spike in malaria cases between 1995 — 2000 [from ~4,000 to ~64,500]).

Brian O'Connor

As a follow-up to my response to Derek Blades on DDT.

It occurs to me that the opponents of DDT make much of the possible/probable deleterious health effects of DDT on humans.

What remains unknown is whether or not substitutes for DDT have similar or worse effects. There just aren't many (if any) studies.

Absent such information, prudence dictates that one ought to be very cautious about abandoning DDT in favor of alternatives.

Derek BLADES

Brian O'Connor (5 June). Not absolutely sure what you want me to answer but I like to be helpful so here goes.

Mosquitoes have developed immunity to everything that has been thrown at them - DDT included. So have the little beasts inside the mosquito that actually cause malaria. Dixon’s comparison with smallpox was not helpful. That was eliminated by vaccinating enough of the population at risk so that the smallpox virus was starved of hosts. Smallpox was a different kind of target from malaria.

Since the publication of Silent Spring and the subsequent brouhaha, pesticides sold in developed countries have been tested for their side effects on insects, fish, birds, people and other mammals before they can be sold. These tests are getting better and most of the stuff we spray on insects probably causes little collateral damage. But in developing countries, who knows?

You say you would like a cost-benefit analysis of using or not using DDT etc. Sounds nice but probably impractical because it requires a valuation of human life. Insurance companies do it all the time of course but they base their calculations on estimated lifetime earnings. Some of us think we have a value that cannot be counted in Pounds or Euros so you would never get a consensus on cost-benefit.

Brian O'Connor

Derek Blades (June 5th, 2009 10:35pm) wrote:

Mosquitoes have developed immunity to everything that has been thrown at them - DDT included.

Since the publication of Silent Spring and the subsequent brouhaha, pesticides sold in developed countries have been tested . . .

But in developing countries, who knows?

You say you would like a cost-benefit analysis of using or not using DDT etc. Sounds nice but probably impractical because it requires a valuation of human life. Insurance companies do it all the time of course but they base their calculations on estimated lifetime earnings. Some of us think we have a value that cannot be counted in Pounds or Euros so you would never get a consensus on cost-benefit.

John

its not the green lobby alone.. Journalists doing their part..
Liberals doing their part..
Like a swarming they all get one punch in.. Dont you know that Gw Bush went off to war without their permission..

Derek BLADES

Brian O'Connor (6 June) writes:

"If for the cost of 250,000 cases of decreased fertility, 10,000 cases of cancer, 25,000 kidney problems, a compromised immune system in 40,000, and a 100,000 or so deaths resulting therefrom, you could save 64 million lives [by using DDT], is it a good trade-off?

You have tried to answer your own question. I could certainly agree that 64 million (lives saved by using DDT) is a bigger number than 100,000 (deaths resulting from the use of DDT). What makes your argument specious is the jump from your list of unpleasant medical conditions - reduced fertility, kidney problems, etc - to a number of deaths. How did you get there? Even if you convince me that this is possible, you would still need to bring in, on the cost side, the inconvenience to survivors of being infertile, having a compromised immune system and so on. Sorry Brian, measuring benefit/cost ratios in terms of human lives is a non-starter.

Dave

Brian; But mosquitos have developed resistance to ddt in many, many countries. As for spraing the inside of dwellings, well this may be more of a problem than a solution. The bugs fly off before taking on a lethal dose.

Brian O'Connor

Derek wrote:

Sorry Brian, measuring benefit/cost ratios in terms of human lives is a non-starter.

With respect, just that morbidity/mortality cost benefit analysis is done all the time with pharmaceuticals. It's how regulating agencies decide whether or not a drug should be "pulled" from the market.

Dave wrote:

But mosquitos have developed resistance to ddt in many, many countries. As for spraing the inside of dwellings, well this may be more of a problem than a solution. The bugs fly off before taking on a lethal dose.

You're telling the wrong guy. Tell the WHO and these guys, who don't doubt its effectiveness, just its possible side effects on humans.

John A. Davison

I am sorry to say that I do not agree. Global warming is very real, it is 99% anthropogenic, and there is probably nothing that we can do about it. The key is the worldwide retreat of the glaciers and the melting of polar ice at a rate unprecedented in the history of the planet. It is the rate of change that distinguishes the present from the past. Oddly, it is the melting of the ice that serves to temporarily delay the warming. I have discussed this matter in some depth on my website in the global warming thread and presented an essay available on the Essay button on my home page - "Why runaway global warming is inevitable."

If others are willing to read that material I will be happy to defend my thesis here or elsewhere.

I regard anthropogenic global warming as the greatest crisis ever faced by the human species and there is probably nothing we can do to stop it.

jadavison.wordpress.com

John A. Davison

Incidentally, Martin Rees, the President of the Royal Society, has written a book pertinent to the subject of this thread -

"Our Final Century."

I recommend it.

Eric D. Peterson

In case anybody needs a rebuttal to "John A. Davison", the poster above, whose thesis is that runaway warming is currently being delayed by melting ice; it is as follows: The energy being absorbed in that melting ice is negligible compared to the energy that enters the earth's atmosphere (and almost all leaves).

The earth gets hit with about 10^17 joules per second from the sun (and returns a similar amount to space). To melt 20 Gt of ice per year takes only 10^6 calories per gram times 343 joules to melt each gram of ice times 20 billion grams or 10^18 joules.

That means 10 seconds worth of energy from the normal balance (incoming from sun and outgoing) gets diverted into melting the year’s worth of ice.

John A. Davison

Eric D. Peterson

Apparently you are of the opinion that the melting now occurring at both poles as well as that associated with the world wide retreat of continental glaciers play a relatively small role in the regulation of the earth's climate. Of course that is your opinion but it is not shared by this investigator.

I am a supporter of a fellow alarmist, Tim Flannery, author of "The Weather Makers."

I will let Flannery speak for himself and for me.

"We have known for some decades that the climate change we are creating for the twenty-first century was of a similar magnitude to that seen at the end of the last ice age, but that it was occurring THIRTY TIMES FASTER. We have known that the Gulf Stream shut down on at least three occasions at the end of the last ice age, that sea levels rose by at least three hundred feet, that the earth's biosphere was profoundly reroganized, and we have known that agriculture was impossible before the Long Summer of 10,000 years ago. And so there has been little reason for our blindness, except perhaps an unwillingness to look such horror in the face and say "You are my creation."
page 210, my emphasis in caps.

It is the "rate of change" that separates the present from the changes of the past. They have never been so rapid except for catastrophic events like massive volcanic eruptions.

I have never been much impressed with calculations or with computer modeling which may be a weakness in my thesis but there seems to be no question that we are witnessing changes in the physiology of the planet which are simultaneously creating several dramatic effects. A decrease in the salinity of polar seas, a world wide increase in preciptation, a perceptible rise in sea level, an increased incidence of violent storms all combine to indicate profound alterations in the balance of natural forces which I can only attribute to man and especially to the changes he has produced in the last two centuries when the atmosphere began to rapidly rise in the concentration of the two major greenhouse gases, CO2 and H2O. It was the Industrial Revolution that made possible the Age of Technology and which still sustains it.

What I regard as most menacing is the prospect of the permafrost thawing which would release vast amounts of methane into the atmosphere. Methane is a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2 and breaks down in the atmosphere to H2O and CO2 anyway.

Another matter also concerns me which is the way this issue has been politicized by factions which have no scientific basis for their views. While I am a Constitutional Conservative I am disappointed in the way fellow Conservatives continue to dismiss global warming and climate change as of no significance. I believe that to be irresponsible and dangerous.

jadavison.wordpress.com

John A. Davison

Eric D. Peterson

Your calculation fails to take into account the geometry of the earth with respect to the sun. Very little solar energy reaches the poles which is why they are frozen. The important point is that the temperature differential between polar and equatorial seas is critical in driving the ocean currents. So is the salinity differential. Anything that serves to modify these important factors will have far reaching effect on world climate. The melting of polar ice affects both.

Eric D. Peterson

John,

Thanks for pointing me here from your site. You are correct that I made some mistakes in the calculation. Specifically the surface area is off and that does have an impact on the incoming energy from sunshine (roughly balanced with outgoing LW).

The imbalance comes from what you point out: melting of the ice. Also some energy is being stored as gradual heating of the oceans. However those amounts are very small compared to incoming and outgoing energy. There's a good article at NASA of the energy balance at this link http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/

As they point out the main portion of the imbalance causes our atmosphere to gradually warm. They do not mention the energy lost to melting of ice. Why not? Simply because it is too small to even mention.

Your analogy of a closet full of ice would be better expressed as a small bowl of ice in a 4000 square foot house. The energy absorbed by melting ice is too small to affect the temperature of the house with respect to heating losses and the heating system.

I can't post more now (I'm on the bus about to lose my internet signal)

John A. Davison

Eric

As I indicated, the secondary effects may be more important than the energy balance effects which seem to be, as as you suggest, negligible. I didn't even bother to calculate the energetics involved. An enormous fraction of the earth's surface is water in its two primary forms and its unique properties of a high specific heat, heat of fusion and heat of vaporization serve as a powerful buffer sgainst rapid temperature change. Yet those changes are occurring and require explanation.

Assuming I am dead wrong about the cooling effects of melting and subliming ice, are not the consequences of that process important nevertheless? Again, I resort to the rate of change as being the frightening aspect.

Not being an expert in such matters, I once again call on Tim Flannery -

"From 1970, a steady freshening of the surface waters of the northeast Atlantic have been recorded: The salinity graph describes a graceful, downward arc that speaks powerfully of the emerging trend."
The Weather Makers, page 193.

Flannery summarizes a large body of evidence that profound changes are occurring resulting from the melting of polar ice and increaed precipitation in the northern hemisphere. For some reason, his work is not being given much credibility which is odd becuse most of it is not his. He has done a masterful job of summarizing a huge literature. His reward is to be described as an "alarmist," as if that was a dirty word. While Flannery is not an engineer, I have great respect for Flannery as both naturalist and scientist and I was amazed to learn that you have not read his very important book. I recommend that you do. He has also been largely ignored by the internet climate community and the popular press. Once again I see ideology dominating hard science and I do not care for it one little bit!

Eric D. Peterson

John,

If I can boil it down to one question, it is: why the fear? I look at the many orders of magnitude of energy input from the sun, the corresponding outgoing longwave energy, the 2268 joules of energy to evaporate a gram of water (540 calories) which we get back in condensation.

There's about 1/2 million cubic kilometers of evaporation annually (see facstaff.buffalostate.edu/bergslet/L1_GLY452.pdf) which, at 1000 kg per m3 for water, is 10^6 (grams per m3) * 10^9 (m3 per km3) * 500,000 * 2000 J or 10^24 Joules of energy transfer per year.

Our modest effect on just that part of the energy balance is 1.5W/m2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Radiative-forcings.svg) or about 10^14 Joules per second worldwide. Multiply by 3600 * 24 * 365 and get 10^21 joules per year.

In other words, 1000 times more energy is absorbed in evaporation and released in condensation than the man-made greenhouse effect. That's not even considering the incoming sun, outgoing LW, convection, and other large energy transfers which also dwarf the man made component.

The manmade CO2 has warmed the earth by about a half degree and is part of the cause of a few mm of sea level rise per year. If we refrain from building cities 10 feet below sea level we will do just fine in that regard.

There is obviously more to worry about in ocean acidification and other biological effects that you and Tim F have much more experience with. But I would argue that when it comes to weather, energy and warming, you are waving rather helplessly at a couple of numbers that are buried in the noise.

John A, Davison

Eric

It is naive to treat the earth as simply an energy absorbing, energy emitting system. Of course these quantities must always remain in approximate equilibrium or all life would disappear very quickly. The planet has always been in a delicate balance or life could never have endured through the millions of years during which evolution occurred.

Incidemtally, evolution never occurred gradually despite the Darwinian insistence on that view. Every step was instantaneous, irreversible and, in my view, part of a predetermined sequence. We are now witnessing the final stages of creative evolution which I believe terminated with the appearance of Homo sapiens roughly 100,000 years ago. Today we see only extinction with no verifiable replacements. We have gone through a series of irreversible creative Ages which I believe were all part of an original Plan, a view I share with Robert Broom who capitalized the word Plan, much to the distress of the Darwinian atheists. The irony is that man, the purpose of evolution, has proved to be his own worst enemy, now destroying the environment which permitted his appearance.

It is a cruel cosmic joke which is hard to reconcile with any kind of altruistic ultimate purpose.

An objective analysis of the health of the planet indicates that it is in bad shape and is declining rapidly. I have summarized my "alarmism" in my essay - "The Age of Denial"

"La commedia e finita."
Pagliacci

I hate being right and pray that I am wrong.

jadavison.wordpress.com

Eric D. Peterson

John,

There is no "delicate" balance. There is a balance in the sense of inputs roughly balancing outputs, but always net warming or net cooling amid the vast energy flows that I have enumerated. No steady state can possibly exist, the only question is the magnitude of any imbalances we create. The weather that mostly convects heat to the outer atmosphere is not a "delicate" phenomenon, it will always exist in much greater quantity than any changes we can make to the energy balance with CO2. This is basically because water vapor dominates the greenhouse effect and weather is what distributes water vapor and convects heat upward.

That water vapor feedback is an entire discussion in itself. There is no way currently to model the distribution of water vapor in a warming climate. The computer models are too coarse vertically and horizontally to model mesoscale weather. Without knowing how water vapor is distributed especially how much ends up in the troposphere, we are just guessing. Current measurements in the upper troposphere don't match the models.

Even raising CO2 to toxic levels would not create much warming without that water vapor feedback. This is because CO2 saturates its part of the LW spectrum. Surely bad biological effects of such excess CO2 will happen much quicker than the few centuries it will take to melt Greenland under the most extreme scenario (it's an engineering problem: transport all of Greenland's ice to the Sahara and it will take centuries to melt) . We truly have nothing to fear from sea level rise of a few mm a year.

There are many other problems that I would worry about. I would be happy to have a longer growing season, but I am concerned when invasive species take over or blights are imported from Europe and Asia. And I am relatively lucky living here, the species loss is much more drastic in other parts of the world.

I don't any major disagreement with your thoughts on evolution, but I think any such discussion should focus on the many ways in which mankind impacts the environment in which evolution takes place. Focusing exclusively on warming is missing a lot of more important effects.

John A. Davison

Eric

I sure hope you are right but doubt it very much. You make it sound as if there is nothing to worry about. Of course that is your judgement but it sure isn't mine. I am especially concerned about your view that the earth is not a delicate system and the influence that mentality can have on others.

In any event yours is the last word on this subject as far as I am concerned.

Best regards and -

I hate being right.

John A. Davison

Eric

I forgot to respond to your statement about man's impact on the way evolution takes place. My contention is that evolution is no longer taking place. A new Genus has not appeared in the last two million years and I still maintain that a physiologically demonstrated new species has not appeared in historical times. Of course that is a different subject, but I did feel compelled to react to your tacit assumption that evolution is still in progress. I will accept that when it is necessary and not before. All I see is rampant extinction without a single replacement. That seems to be man's major effect on his environment, not a very pleasant prospectus.

jadavison.wordpress.com

Puck

Apparently this book has been comprehensively slaughtered by
Professor David Karoly, University of Melbourne; Professor Michael Ashley, University of new South Wales; Professor Kurt Lambeck, Australian Academy of Science, to name just three out of a long list of scientists who have found Plimers thesis to be utterly risible.

I know who I'd rather believe

John A. Davison

Puck

Thanks for offering the alternmative view. Another writer from "down under" is Tim Flannery, author of "The Weather Makers," a penetrating analysis of the way man is profoundly altering his environment. I recommend it for every serious student of the climate crisis.

Peter Farrell

The very idea of scientific consensus is an oxymoron; in science it either is or it isn't. Faraday didn't call for a vote when he developed the laws of electrolysis or discovered diamagnetism. In fact, Faraday, arguably the greatest experimentalist and theoretician who ever lived, was once reported to have said: ' I hold my theories by my fingertips so that the least breeze of fact might blow them away'. The religious zealots of the climate movement would do well to apply this logic to their fatuous claims about anthropogenic global warming where facts are mysteriously lacking.

Dan

"the government’s Chief Scientist, the President of the Royal Society...That is, of course, if they still have any capacity to think."

You consider that the president of the most prestigeous UK scientific society has no capacity to think? That says wonders about the capacity of mere journalists to think.