Global Warming Alarmist Al Gore and IPCC Chairman Dr. Rajendra Pachauri maintain that anyone who doubts the Global Warming science probably still believes the earth is flat.
So I’ve decided to introduce the community to a few of these ‘flat Earthers’. The second in our ‘flat earthers’ series is Jon Jenkins adjunct professor of virology specialising in computer modelling at Bond University QLD Australia.
In an opinion piece in today’s Australian Newspaper Jenkins starts out:
THE warmaholics are fond of using the phrase “official records going back to 1850″, but the simple facts are that prior to the 1970s, surface-based temperatures from a few indiscriminate, mostly backyard locations in Europe and the US are fatally corrupted and not in any sense a real record.
They are then further doctored by a secret algorithm to account for heat-island effects. Reconstructions such as the infamously fraudulent “hockey stick” are similarly unreliable.
The only precise and reliable temperature recording started with satellite measurements in the 1970s. They show minuscule warming, all in the northern hemisphere, which not only stopped in 2000 but had completely reversed by 2008 (see graph).
Graph Source: The University of Alabama in Huntsville
So you think that is a strong start, but no, the good professor is just getting ‘warmed’ up. Next he looks at those scary rising sea level predictions. Here is what leader of the Australian Greens Bob Brown was spruking back on the 3rd of October 2008.
“The alternative-waiting for a lead from the rest of the world-will sacrifice the Great Barrier Reef, Ningaloo Reef, Kakadu and the Australian Alps in the short term, and threatens a 10-metre rise in sea levels, obliterating the Sydney Opera House foyer, Melbourne’s Docklands, Hobart’s Salamanca Place and the current habitat of millions of Australians.”
.
Jon Jenkins writes:
The warmaholics also contend that global mean temperature and sea level rises are at the upper range of the Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change’s projections. Well, no, actually they are not.
Sea level rises since 1900 are of the order of 1-2mm a year, which is indistinguishable from tectonic movement, and the IPCC computer projections are simply completely wrong.
Its a great articles as Jenkins gets stuck in, but I’ll leave you with one more gem,
So that’s the real consensus: about 44 scientist mates who have vested interests in supporting IPCC computer modelling agreed that “we did it”, and this has become the “consensus of thousands of the world’s meteorologists”. Compared with 31,000 (including 341 meteorologists) in the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine petition, the IPCC’s 44 have no right to claim consensus at all.
So which group here is actually the ‘flat earthers’ Gore and Pachauri are pointing at? My mum taught me the if you look closely at people pointing fingers and accusing, there is always 3 fingers pointing back.
Have Your say!
January 6, 2009 at 7:01 pm
G’day Syd Walker,
On your thread titled “Not Far from Climate Change” 23/12/08, part way down the page:
“I tried to summarize what I meant:”
Item (4) We only have ONE habitable planet.
Item (5) It’s highly risky to conduct a gigantic, uncontrolled experiment on the whole of humanity’s habitat.
In light of those statements, what are your feelings about an experiment about to be conducted by UK scientists in the Southern Atlantic Ocean near South Georgia?
The experiment is to dump tonnes of iron sulphate into the ocean to encourage algal growth that will then capture CO2 from the ocean and sink it into the depths.
They have permission from the UN to conduct this experiment.
I repeat, Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant.
January 6, 2009 at 10:23 pm
if they do the experiment, and find it works and is harmless, then I’d prefer it to a 3 degree rise in global mean temperature that is for sure. but yeah I’d rather we just did the obvious and introduced a global cap and trade on carbon than dabble with wacky science experiements… but desperate times are fast approaching. I’d wager it is as good a bet as geosequestration.
FYI Jeff I’d figure that the kind of folks who think this is a grand idea remind me of Lomborg…. belief that we can ignore the CO2 main game and adapt to the change or beat it with science.
January 7, 2009 at 12:43 am
MattB,
But what if it’s not harmless and causes damage to the food chain. Iron sulphate is not a nice product. If I tipped some into a waterway, the EPA would fine me big time and I’d have to pay for cleaning up.
You guys like the Precautionary Principle, and yet it is OK to take the risk by the choice of some stupid experiment.
On Lomborg, you’ve gone off on a tangent.
He states that we cannot do much about climate change, as it is mostly a natural phenomena. But by using resources and applying effort in the right direction, will allow people to adapt, by allowing food and energy systems to develop.
That is not the same as paying China/Russia/Brazil vast amounts of money to not cut down trees and develop new forests. Bloody good idea if the Climate turns colder though, then we can pay them to supply us wood for heat and energy.
January 7, 2009 at 10:24 am
Jeff we’ve just opened WA up to GM crops, so it is clear that decision makers are happy to give things a go in the hope they work in spite of some opposition from people who think it is too risky. ditto nuclear power…
I assume you are a fan of nuclear power and GM crops? Because your argument about Iron Sulphate sounds just like a city slicker being a drama queen about GM crops…
But anyway you know my thought Jeff, I’d rather not be forced to go the iron sulphate route and instead bring in the great economic solution of cap and trade. Harmless.
Anyway on Iron sulpahte here is a good link showing both sides: http://pubs.acs.org/cen/science/86/8613sci1.html
http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12457&tid=282&cid=35609
for mine though Jeff you certainly are sounding a tad alarmist about Iron Sulphate.
January 7, 2009 at 11:02 am
MattB,
Two mistakes in your “assumption”.
Firstly you do this usual greenie combining of two subjects in one sentence – Wrong.
Quoting MattB:
“I assume you are a fan of nuclear power and GM crops? Because your argument about Iron Sulphate sounds just like a city slicker being a drama queen about GM crops…”
I am not really a fan of nuclear power, but it may be necessary in the future, because of the diminishing resources of coal, gas and petroleum.
Coming up is renewed work on fusion technology, which I would be happier about – the nuclear waste disposal problem would be averted.
Secondly: As the opinions on GM are still open, I would remain cautious. Yes I can see the “Advertised” advantages, but even though we’re being told everything is OK, what happens IF after it is in the field something does go wrong, – too late, whose going to clean it up? Just look at GM canola now, adjacent fields, down the roadside.
Then there’s the politicization and corporatisation of seed, and that’s a minefield that our growers would have to contend with. Then you would need your lawyer alongside, while your trying to produce crop.
Don’t assume MattB, it doesn’t become you.
And Iron sulphate is still an unknown, that article says small scale experiments have taken place, but does more mean better?
And do we really need to sequester CO2?
Ah, but it’s a nice experiment. Think of all the funding. (that could be used to fund aids research, feed people in third world countries etc, etc.)
January 7, 2009 at 11:10 am
How do you suggest Iron Sulphate becomes less of an unknown if no field experiments are undertaken?
Surely an open mind on this potential tech would be consistent with your sensible approach to GM and Nuclear power?
January 7, 2009 at 11:15 am
MattB,
To quote one of my other correspondents:
“I had an open mind, but my brains fell out”.
January 7, 2009 at 11:12 am
MattB,
After re-reading that WHOI article, it appears that this technique will only sequester carbon for a few decades.
So by having the carbon released in a few decades would only create a greater problem come the end of the century – 2100
Why bother? And it could still create a problem in the food chain.
But it’s a lovely experiment, with lots of yummy funding – maybe I should get in on the act, I will have karked it before 2100.
Oh, the grandkids, I forgot about them.
January 7, 2009 at 9:33 pm
MattB,
Sometimes something unexpected come along:
Surprising Return of North Atlantic Circulation Pump
http://tinyurl.com/8fxv5l
Amazing, another negative feedback mechanism?
January 7, 2009 at 7:18 am
NASA tells Barack Obama Australia is destroying earth with coal emissions
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,24880190-5001021,00.html
Out with the coal and in with the nuclear that is the plan.
January 6, 2009 at 2:48 pm
MattB,
That graph with a trend line reminds me of the graph of the UAH Monthly Mean of Lower Troposphere, also known as the Al Gore/A.I.T. index.
Shows a trend line from 24/1/2006 – to – 8/10/2008 of a drop in temperature of .37deg F.(Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth)
Also known as the “Gore Factor.” If you want cold,ice and snow, complete with blizzard, invite big Al to lecture in YOUR town.
“44″ IPCC folks and not the 2500 (4000 K. Rudd) scientists as reviewers. Has nothing to do with every single National Academy of Sciences. If you want to include them, I’ll take that and offer you the Heartland Institute.
How about Inhofe’s 650 scientists and counting, complete with statements from these scientists for their reasons for backing out of IPCC and other climate fairy stories.
Nah, you just got a mental block about Inhofe.
January 6, 2009 at 10:19 pm
Yes Jeff – I think that every national academy covers Inhofe and the Heartland Institute… in fact I’d suggest the national academy of Botswana would cover those two;)
ANd sorry Jeff but a drop between two months a year and a bit apart is not even worth my time discussing. Every tine I think a sceptic has a valid argument, they quote that sort of statistic and it becomes quite clear that they approach climate change with a bitter resentful streak… that’s not science.
January 6, 2009 at 11:02 pm
MattB,
Your disregard .37deg F in a period of 2years and 8.5 months? More than a third of a degree F. ?. That would result in a drop of approx 1.5deg F by 2015, and you don’t think it is significant?
It’s actually the same graph as presented above from the University of Alabama, the trend line is from the last temp. peak in 2006 (release of A.I.T on the world) until now, a straight line down.
If the trend was the other way, it would in your eyes (and Bob Browneyes )a disaster, showing the AGW was accelerating, the tipping point is near and now cannot be reversed, UNLESS we accept 100% reduction to 1970 levels and send all our money to Krudd and Wong.
Yes MattB, you may think you’ve got us all rattled, but you have just proven the fact that as a Alarmist-Warmist, nothing would shift your opinion, the science IS settled. Well maybe your science is settled.
January 6, 2009 at 11:14 pm
Actually jeff no it is not to now, it is to a few months ago, and I believe you will find it has popped back up again. I mean read what you say… trend form the last PEAK!!! That is the 1st giveaway that data is cherry picked for effect.
And also, no I would not get excited about a hot summer that was hotter than say a predicted trend, that would just be weather.
THe science is settled in that the bulk of evidence and modelling is scientific and indicates warming. But the science is never settled in anything if you want to be pedantic… that is the great thing about science. But in every science there is debate, and that debate does not stop policy and it does not stop there being a clear mainstream position and a rabid fringe of dissenting views that get ignored until such a time as the evidence starts to back them up or they lobby their way in to favour. What’s new?
January 7, 2009 at 12:18 am
MattB,
Your quibbling about a couple of months?
Cherry picking? From the last peak in 2006?
So now your telling us that the University of Alabama is incorrect?
And the rise is .08 -.09 deg since October 08
So it’s still a ~ 0.3deg drop – Brrrr.
January 7, 2009 at 10:24 am
MattB,
Nice, concise article with pictures shows the Arctic ice cap has been increasing:
http://tinyurl.com/9uwnnr
Just read and absorb how much they had to raise Dye-2 to keep it operational.
And this is over a period of ~50 years.
Yeah I know, you reckon it’s not climate but weather, because it isn’t in the climate models.
Here’s another weather(?) situation:
http://tinyurl.com/2fjugt
Sounds familiar, wonder if Jim Hansen knew about this one?
And another from history:
http://tinyurl.com/5zaonv
History from the Royal Academy 1817
Jim Hansen couldn’t massage the figures on this record, it even before his time.
There are also records released from the Admiralty, eg. Capt James Cook’s voyages, which include ice cover,water temperature.
And that’s without including the Antarctic.
Bottom line;
“…all of our models have errors which mean that they will inevitably fail to track reality within a few days irrespective of how well they are initialised.” – James Annan, William Connolley, RealClimate.org
January 7, 2009 at 11:12 am
WHere did I say UAlabama was incorrect?
January 6, 2009 at 11:59 am
But steve that graph is not from the E&E paper as far as I can see.
It woul dnot take a big effort to find that that E&E article is hotly contested (E&E not being a tier 1 journal but of course that is because there must be a conspiracy stopping publication in higher journals).
But put simply, that graph does not show a global temperature trendline suggesting temps are back at zero deviation… just as if you cut it off a year earlier it would not show them being significantly above the zero mark.
January 6, 2009 at 1:46 pm
G’day MattB,
Mate I have to admit that I thought the graph looked ‘a bit sus’ when I put it in. So I’ll not debate it with you – I’ll leave that to Jeff.
The only thing I’ll say in my defense is it’s not as sus as bob brown’s 10 metre claim.
Hey while I’ve got you, I must apologise for not responding to your Gaza post the other day. Actually what you said was valid and very debatable – but as i said its not a subject I want to get involved in.
The only reason i published it was so that any readers who wanted to get involved in that discussion could go over to Syd walkers blog and do it there. He’s doing a champion job on it.
I just felt I was getting drawn into it and so i pulled out all together.
Cheers mate
January 6, 2009 at 1:58 pm
No worries steve… as a rule I too avoid getting dragged in to such issues in the interwebs. I guess the happy Agmates vibe encouraged it out of me:)
January 6, 2009 at 11:05 am
This is a great snippet from the entries on the Oz below the article:
“That graph comes complete with a bogus “global trend line” he’s concocted himself but attributed to the Uni of Alabama. It looks like he’s had to use some sort of polynomial function to show a declining “trend” in the most recent months because a conventional linear trend would show a rising slope. The graph is also cut off at August last year. Hwat a pity, because the more recent data show anomalies of 0.161 in September, 0.166 in October and 0.254 in November. Oh yes, that’s right, the La Nina that pushed temperatures down early last year has now given way to neutral conditions and the temperature, surprise surprise, has returned to the new normal, 0.254 degrees above the long term average, smack bang on the linear trend. Not that you’d see that on the sawn-off graph. This isn’t just cherry-picking, it’s picking the cherry and chopping down the tree. Then burning it and burying the ashes. I agree with Jenkins when he says the real question is not “whether there is absolute certainty about the extent of global warming or its effects”. Of course there is no absolute certainty. No-one ever claimed there was. There is just a mountain of evidence that there is a very, very high probability that humans are causing global warming, and virtually no evidence to the contrary nor any credible alternative explanation for the temperature rise that has been recorded. Then again, the real question is not, as Jenkins claims, rather hopefully, how to apportion research spending to manage the decline in fossil fuel resources. The real question is why The Australian is so intent in throwing away its credibility by giving a soapbox to discredited, debunked crackpot conspiracy theories.”
January 6, 2009 at 11:17 am
Nice Try MattB – But I can’t let you get away with that ‘cheap shot’
Really tearing into a fellow academic like that – Shame on you
The chart above, based on thrity years worth of data from eight NASA weather satellites that have gathered more than 300,000 daily global temperature measurements, show clearly that in the past four years, a period of reduced solar activity, all of the rise in global temperatures since 1979 has disappeared.
Here is the link to the graph source
John Christy of the Department of Atmospheric Science and Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama in Huntsville and David Douglass of the Department of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Rochester, have published a paper that was accepted by the Energy & Environment scientific journal in August. The paper can be downloaded here.
Christy and Douglass conclude the following:
The global atmospheric temperature anomalies of Earth reached a maximum in 1998 which has not been exceeded during the subsequent 10 years. The global anomalies are calculated from the average of climate effects occurring in the tropical and the extratropical latitude bands. El Niño/La Niña effects in the tropical band are shown to explain the 1998 maximum while variations in the background of the global anomalies largely come from climate effects in the northern extratropics. These effects do not have the signature associated with CO2 climate forcing.
These conclusions are contrary to the IPCC [2007] statement: “[M]ost of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”
As they say around the poker table my friend – read ‘em and weep.
Sorry mate – don’t mean to sound like a smart arse – i’m just funning with ‘ya.
January 6, 2009 at 11:28 am
I’m not an academic Steve.
The graph shows that at the point in which the graph stops global temperatures were at the zero point… it says NOTHING of the temperature trends… it is a statistical smoothing, not a real trand line. Did you read the bit that the most recent data (after the graph cuts off) is back up again? YOu have there a trendline of the weather I’m afraid.
And by your own admission there the “cooling” is jsut because of some low sun activity? how long do you expect that to continue…
I had a great night at the poker tables this week actually:) you may interpret that as me being a great poker player.. but I know how to read a long term trend line;)
January 6, 2009 at 11:33 am
This wiki article is a good read on satellies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements
So basically quite a few groups churn the indirect satellite readings to get temps, with differing results…
January 6, 2009 at 11:39 am
But MattB,
It’s a published paper – just as you like them
All that time and research and you dismiss it at a glance.
Gosh your tough.
January 6, 2009 at 11:04 am
What – temperature models pre-1978 are unreliable!!!! Thank Christ no one on Agmates will ever mention the medieval warm period again!
January 6, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Gee MattB,
Did I hear you say Medieval Warm Period?
This will give you some bedside reading material.
MWP period warmer than the late 20th Century warming?
No can’t be, and all done without MBH tree rings.
http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3025
And download the 1333kb pdf
January 6, 2009 at 2:53 pm
it is not often I quote Mahorosy: post Loehle and McCulloch…
“In short, the jury is still out on whether the MWP had a global influence or if it was warmer than the Modern Warm Period. Nevertheless, the Loehle reconstruction makes a valuable contribution to the debate and should be included in the IPCC spaghetti graph that replaced the Mann et al Hockey Stick in AR4.”
January 6, 2009 at 3:59 pm
Hang on, I’ve just got off the floor -
MattB Quoting Jennifer Mahorosy . I’m socked, but impressed.
January 6, 2009 at 4:01 pm
Socked? Careful Steve, Jeff will have the typo police on to you in a flash;)
January 6, 2009 at 4:17 pm
Told You it had put me off my game – so shocked I was socked.
January 6, 2009 at 4:07 pm
MattB,
Bless Jennifer’s little heart, but here’s another opinion (actually I’m shocked and delighted by your use of her site):
http://tinyurl.com/yvkh7f
from World Climate Report.
I really wouldn’t like to see this tacked onto the spag. graph, that’s busy enough.
And after corrections by McCulloch this data is very relevant, and it gets up the nose of the Warmists as well (LOL).
January 6, 2009 at 4:09 pm
Hi Agmates Steve,
Don’tya just love it (MattB and J. Marohasy)? Never thought I’d see those names between the same brackets.
January 6, 2009 at 4:22 pm
Jeff,
Lets be honest that is why we like him – well read, articulate, engaging ……
and just like a cross eyed discus thrower at the Olympics, he never sets any records, but he’s always got our attention.
January 6, 2009 at 10:53 am
What is that graph – like a 3 month moving average or something?
the “global trand line” could not possibly plummet from 2006 to 2008 given that the number is above zero for almost the whole period 2000-2008, and has only just clipped zero now.
All that says is that this year is as cool as 2008… the suggestion of a further plummeting is rubbish. Seriously you’d not want to be studying at Bond Uni if he is citing that graph as anything to do with actual temperature trends.
As for “44″ IPCC folks… well how about every single national academy of science Vs some random petition.
January 6, 2009 at 5:10 pm
The downwards ‘trend line’ suggests we are about to plummet into an ice age.
I doubt it, but if so, I shall say “I told you so!”
Didn’t I warn that perturbing the atmosphere could trigger severe climatic instability?
Incidentally, I nominate MattB for the Climate Change Non-Gamblers Man of the Year Award. He deserves it for dogged persistance in the face of incessant hostile fire. IMO, future generations will appreciate you, MattB, even if this lot don’t
January 6, 2009 at 5:29 pm
G’day Syd,
Good to see fresh troops arrive, we needed another player to even up the teams, although MattB has been doing a grand job of holding we sceptic hordes in check.
January 6, 2009 at 11:26 pm
G’day Syd Walker,
Are you going to give MattB an ALL DAY SUCKER for being consistantly ———.?
If we plunged into an Ice Age you’d say “I told you so”.
“Didn’t I warn that perturbing the atmosphere could trigger severe climatic instability?”
Your kidding right, aren’t you?
Next thing you’ll be blaming the last few ice ages on Anthropogenic Climate Change, no that can’t be right. Anthropogenic Global Warming? Little Green Men?
C’mon, help me, I can’t find someone to blame.
Aha! It’s Mother Gaia, the Earth is doing what it has been doing for millenia, going through natural cycles.