Cases of Global Warming

There is quite a lot happening in AGW, but once again, a busy week moving house and time of the year issues, so my apologies. Here are some of events that seem to be emerging as important:

Plimer

Plimer responds to his critics in The Australian with Vitriolic climate in academic hothouse.

The cash cow climate institutes now seem to be drowning in their own self-importance.

Funny, I called his book a bit vitriolic here Backpackers Guide to Global Warming, though I must admit Peter Gallagher’s choice of the word invective is perhaps more apt. Nice to see Gavin Schmidt giving constructive feedback on his blog.

Double Dissolution

I wanted to head this up with the quote, but I see Roy Spencer beat me to it.

“There is something fascinating about science [anthropogenic global warming]. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture from such a trifling investment of fact.” -Mark Twain, Life on the Mississippi (1883)

The rejections of the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) legislation in the Senate is moving Australia towards a double dissolution trigger. For my international readers, a double dissolution resolves deadlocks between the House of Representatives and the Senate, where under Section 57 of the Australian Constitution, every seat is contested in a fresh election.

arXiv

There have been a number of interesting modeling publications in arXiv I wish to draw attention too, particularly An updated comparison of model ensemble and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere by Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick indicates Santer et al (2008) gratuitously truncated his data, again.

John Daly reported back in 1996 that a paper published in the journal “Nature” (Vol.382, 4 July 1996, p.39-46) by Ben Santer and others called “A Search For Human Influences On The Thermal Structure Of The Atmosphere” was trumpeted by as the final `proof’ that AGW was already here, proved not just by models, but also by actual observed data (thanks to Michael Sirks). He reports this inspired the much quoted claim that there was “… a discernible human influence on global climate”.

Alas it was not to be. Five months later `Nature’ published two rebuttals from other climate scientists Prof Patrick Michaels and Dr Paul Knappenberger, both of the University of Virginia, who said:

“When we examine the period of record used by Santer et al. (1st graph) in the context of the longer period available from ref.5 (2nd graph), we find that in the region with the most significant warming (30-600 S. 850-300 hPa), the increase is largely an artefact of the time period chosen”

Santer had truncated almost 10 years of the most recent data to get his result!

Apparently he finds the lure of truncation irresistible. In association with 16 other authors, he again truncated the most recent results. M&M claim that bringing the results up to date reverses the results.

Publications

I also have a publication coming out soon. Stay tuned for more.

Advertisements

0 thoughts on “Cases of Global Warming

  1. Hi David, looks like staying up late earns me the right to comment first. Shouldn’t that be “in association with 16 other authors?” Very interesting, I didn’t realise Santer was a serial offender. Do you know if anyone from the Team have made any comments so far (not counting ad hominems) on this latest McIntyre & McKitrick article?

    • Hi Alex. Have made the change you suggest. I don’t follow the team all that much. They do comment on papers on arXiv sometimes, so its not under non-peer reviewed status. Actually, it was peer reviewed! I’m hanging out to see what happens. Wouldn’t be surprised if Steve has something up his sleeve. As Plimer commented on Mann “This would be regarded as fraud in some fields”.

      From Steve’s oblique comments, they claimed he mis-understood the references (which I don’t buy, it hardly makes any important citations) and also Steve used a different series. Perhaps this is what the recent SST posts are about.

  2. Hi David, looks like staying up late earns me the right to comment first. Shouldn't that be “in association with 16 other authors?” Very interesting, I didn't realise Santer was a serial offender. Do you know if anyone from the Team have made any comments so far (not counting ad hominems) on this latest McIntyre & McKitrick article?

  3. Hi Alex. Have made the change you suggest. I don't know, though I don't follow them that much. I'm hanging out to see what happens. Wouldn't be surprised if Steve has something up his sleeve.

  4. I wish skeptics wouldn’t keep mentioning socialism, which they invariably equate to communism. It really cheapens the whole debate. You can pretty much totally ignore whatever anyone says once they reveal their own intellectually vacuous ideological dogmata regardless of whether it’s left or right, anti-industry or pro-free-trade, it’s all overly simplistic cr*p that they obviously only learned at their mothers teat. Stick to the science and the evidence – or lack of it – Plimer please.

    • I don’t like it either, though you have to admit there is an ideological bias in the AGW field. Its not wrong because its leftist, its wrong because its wrong, or at least public policy on false pretenses. I can understand a hard empiricist reacting that way though, cause sometimes I feel that way too, when you have instances like Santer and his 16 little helpers, misrepresenting by omission (my lawyer friend says its just lying). But omission doesn’t get classed as academic misconduct as that usually applies to fabrication, so its very frustrating.

  5. I wish skeptics wouldn't keep mentioning socialism, which they invariably equate to communism. It really cheapens the whole debate. You can pretty much totally ignore whatever anyone says once they reveal their own intellectually vacuous ideological dogmata regardless of whether it's left or right, anti-industry or pro-free-trade, it's all overly simplistic cr*p that they obviously only learned at their mothers teat. Stick to the science and the evidence – or lack of it – Plimer please.

  6. I don't like it either, though you have to admit there is an ideological bias in the AGW field. Its not wrong because its leftist, its wrong because its wrong, or at least public policy on false pretenses. I can understand a hard empiricist reacting that way though, cause sometimes I feel that way to, when you have instances like Santer and his 16 little helpers, misrepresenting by omission (my lawyer friend says its just lying). But omission doesn't get classed as academic misconduct as that usually applies to fabrication, so its very frustrating.

  7. I have voted left throughout my entire life so far, often voting for Greens in the Senate (not in the last election and never again!). It does seem to me though that the most religious AGW believers are also nearly all religious leftists.

  8. I have voted left throughout my entire life so far, often voting for Greens in the Senate (not in the last election and never again!). It does seem to me though that the most religious AGW believers are also nearly all religious leftists.

  9. Um, I feel in my old bones that there are going to be some rather important developments in the next few months. The work of Ryan O and the Jeffs and others on Air Vent is scientifically like a short fuse that has been lit in the Antarctic, one certain way to cause warmth. Steve Mc has another angle going. Interesting times.

  10. Um, I feel in my old bones that there are going to be some rather important developments in the next few months. The work of Ryan O and the Jeffs and others on Air Vent is scientifically like a short fuse that has been lit in the Antarctic, one certain way to cause warmth. Steve Mc has another angle going. Interesting times.

  11. It would be interesting to hear from left-wingers who are AGW skeptics, and right-wingers who are pro-AGW.

    • Yeah, I am really curious about this relationship, also. I’ll bet you don’t get many replies. I try to look at both sides of issues (I really do!), and on the CO2 issue I cannot for the life of me see any scientific evidence of an AGW problem stemming from CO2 (models are NOT evidence, and that’s all there is, really). IMHO, a person HAS to possess a type of ideological or religious-type bias in order to support anything but a possible minor effect of CO2. And that type of bias doesn’t come from the conservative side of the aisle.

      I know, it still IS possible that I’m the blind one 🙂

      • I am a Right Winger in San Francisco. I can’t think of any Right Wingers I know, here or on the net, who believe in AGW.

        I have run into a few, very few, lefties who don’t.

        Several of those who don’t still want the agenda to be pushed forward for our own good!!!

        I should mention that I also know a few Republicans who think they are Right Wing who AREN’T!!! They voted for AHHHHHNULD!!!

        HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  12. It would be interesting to hear from left-wingers who are AGW skeptics, and right-wingers who are pro-AGW.

  13. Yeah, I am really curious about this relationship, also. I'll bet you don't get many replies. I try to look at both sides of issues (I really do!), and on the CO2 issue I cannot for the life of me see any scientific evidence of an AGW problem stemming from CO2 (models are NOT evidence, and that's all there is, really). IMHO, a person HAS to possess a type of ideological or religious-type bias in order to support anything but a possible minor effect of CO2. And that type of bias doesn't come from the conservative side of the aisle.I know, it still IS possible that I'm the blind one 🙂

  14. I am a Right Winger in San Francisco. I can't think of any Right Wingers I know, here or on the net, who believe in AGW.I have run into a few, very few, lefties who don't.Several of those who don't still want the agenda to be pushed forward for our own good!!!I should mention that I also know a few Republicans who think they are Right Wing who AREN'T!!! They voted for AHHHHHNULD!!!HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  15. How about being both a member of the Australian Greens and skeptical of CAGW…yep, I am now officially outed! Was once a vitriolic warmer convinced all those evil deniers were spawn of the devil himself. As I get older I am coming to more fully understand that holding onto beliefs too tightly often leads to one making an arse out of oneself. Still vote green – unless there is an independent who charms me – but not active in the party anymore.

  16. How about being both a member of the Australian Greens and skeptical of CAGW…yep, I am now officially outed! Was once a vitriolic warmer convinced all those evil deniers were spawn of the devil himself. As I get older I am coming to more fully understand that holding onto beliefs too tightly often leads to one making an arse out of oneself. Still vote green – unless there is an independent who charms me – but not active in the party anymore.

  17. Pingback: sylwester 2015

  18. Pingback: Cheap Canada Goose Coats Toronto

  19. Pingback: strona www

  20. Pingback: kliknij link

  21. Pingback: agen bola terpercaya

  22. Pingback: o masazach

  23. Pingback: jak zalozyc sklep internetowy poradnik

  24. Pingback: link do strony

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s