I would just like to complain about this lame government funded body that claims it will have a forum to continue the debate, but the link is broken.

Anyway, I will take up Michael Duffy on his challenge, and ask him when he will have the scientists like Karoly on his show and interview him.

Where did they find the audience? They came across as a mob of lunatics. I don't think one of them asked a coherent question.

Whoo hoo, the swindle forum is up and running, time to go and debate some science.

From the first question about Carbon 14, which no-one understood, including me, it was a laugh a minute. Better than Seinfeld. From the sublime to the Larouche.

SJT, the commetn about carbon 14 is about the source of soil carbon. Basically, soil carbon consists of two isotopes, C12 and C14. One is deposited by trees and one by grasses. Off the cuff, I cannot remember which is which.

I presume the commentator was suggesting that the carbon in coal and oil did not derive from the great tree forest of teh carbonaceous period, but rather, came from grasses.

There has been a lot of work done in Russia which suggests that coal and oil did not develop from vegetable matter, which is commonly believed, but rather came from carbon compounds in the earth itself.

If this is correct, then the comon view that coal and oil are non renewable resources may not actually be correct.

PP

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

But he never said it changes for a reason, it's as if it changes by some mysterious forces we can never understand.

To talk with Prof Bob and/or Prof David click here and then click on 'discussion' or 'forum'
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/swindle/

Pete

If you do not know, I suggest you look up Wikipedia on the topic, it appears to be fundamentally correct.

David Karoly certainly got a good run from Tony Jones. For a scientist, (and therefore a trained sceptic!) he was definitely unsceptical about the hypothesis that human caused carbon is a dangerous climate forcer.

I found his explanation (hypothesis?) of carbon levels increasing centuries after temperature rise (in the distant geological past) somewhat disingenious. Here, the warmer temperatures caused by a change in the Earth's orbit around the sun causes the oceans to release carbon. Which, according to Karoly, then acted as a climate forcer and, if I understood him, sent temperatures even higher. Does the relevant data show that temperatures increased significantly following the increase in carbon? Anyone know?

I've been trying to post at the ABC site... but none of my comments are showing. :-(

Helen - exactly how was Karoly's explanation / hypothesis disingenuous?

I enjoyed the debate today - interesting to see how the flaws and fraud that Tony exposed were glossed over by light weights like Bob Carter and Ray Evans.

In doing so, it was a great demonstration of what Bob and Ray perceive as the basis of a good argument! It all makes sense now!

The only thing that didn't make sense was the audience ... what were they on tonight?

As Co2 is a greenhouse gas, an increase in carbon should show a following increase in temperature. Karoly was explaining a geological anomoly whereby Co2 increased centuries after temperature increase.

Did the Co2 increase then send temperatures even higher. Does the geological record show this? If not, then in what way did karoly's explanation explain the anomoly?

My impression:

Poor old Bobby Carter got half way through his first sentence then forgot what he was saying.

Ray Evans made a dozen yapping noises that reminded me of a Chihuahua.

Durkin's film had even less credibility than his previous film that "proved" women were better off if they had silicone breast implants.

This was better than "The Chaser".

Helen

Karoly made perfect sense in his explanation. I suggest you read the transcript if you did not understand what he was saying.

Helen - take a look at this:

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462

Specifically:

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11659

While your at it, send this over to Bob Carter, too - even though Karoly shot him down on national TV, he keeps re-iterating his tired "3 points against climate change" that was in The Australian the other day.

The server seems to have crashed at ABC - no surprise really.

All I have to say is that the whole post-TGGWS content was very poor. It was too ad-hoc/unstructured and consequently deteriorated to be worse than meaningless.

Tony Jones "tried" to run the affair but failed misserably. There was no attempt at true "moderation" - it was biased from the outset starting with the tried and tested ad-hom on Ball and Singer hoping it will rubb-off on the rest of the TGGWS principals. Sad really.

OK, what should have happened? You have a pannel of experts - you get them to see the show and then ask them a series of on topic questions and each presents their view - no interruptions. They get to have a think and provide substance. You then give them a more open session to respond to the others. I mean - it's not that difficult!

The agressive approach to the Durkin interview was unnecessary - fer crissake he's a producer not a climate expert! Added nothing of value bar emotion.

By the way - the best question from the audience (the Kepler one) was totally glossed over.

Piss poor effort all round.

Did anyone notice that the ABC's correction of the Durkin graph committed the same errors that they accused Durkin of doing. When they added in the post 1980 temperatures and solar radiation they just let the temperature run off the top of the graph. They did not show how the temperature has now trended slightly downwards for the past nine years.

Karoly also applied the spin by claiming that 1998 was an El Nino event but failed to point out that the only reason the last few years has been anywhere near 1998 was that they were also El Nino years.

Karoly also neglected to mention how the temperature had moved in the opposite direction to CO2 on numerous occasions in the past 600,000 years, to the tune of more than 6C. Some relationship, some honest scientist.

And as for Williams and his claim that he doesn't know any liars, I can remember some absolute porkies from himself on the veg clearing issue.

Well, I understood the Carbon 14 question, although it might have helped everyone else if the questioner had not been so flustered when he was asking his question.

What appalled me was that the presenter dismissed the question on the basis that he did not understand it. Dreadful.

Basically, carbon 14 is a radioisotope with a half life of 5730 years. It is formed in the upper atmosphere via cosmic rays striking nitrogen 14 and magicking them into C14. The stuff combines with oxygen to make CO2, plants absorb it and it enters the food chain. The stuff is made at a steady rate and degrades back to N14. When a living thing dies it ceases to consume new C14, and the amount in its tissues halves every 5730 years from then on. That is how C14 dating works. So -

The point the bloke was making was that C14 has been found in coal seams, what he didn't explain was that this supposedly could never happen if the seams are multi millions of years old. All the C14 should be gone, converted back into nitrogen way before the end of the dinosaurs. Any scientist on the panel should have understood the implications of this immediately, it is physics/biology/paleontology/archaeology/anthropology 101. Any on the panel who didn't grasp this immediately weren't physical or biological scientists. They can't have been.

As an FYI - checking the questioners assertions on the web, it turns out he was right, there is C14 in coal!!! I was shocked, however my faith in a sane universe was restored when I found a proposed hypothesis to the effect that native radiation in surrounding rocks catalyses the creation of C14 in trace amounts.

Ian - where is your source for this temperature downtrend in the past nine years?

http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/ENSO/enso.mei_index.html - should explain the El Nino issue (no spin in this one, sorry) - I still don't follow your logic: if you say that the last few years are close to 1998, how can this be if you say in the previous paragraph that there has been a downward trend in the last 9 years?

As i said to Helen -

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11659

Should clear up your issue with the temperature / CO2 relationship.

Arnost,

I missed the Kepler question, I was distracted at just that point, although I did notice that this was another issue that was ignored because the presenter did not not understand it.

Would you (or someone else) be able to restate it?

Jen - the dial glued to the ABC quip was just to stir Rog - can't live without the Simpsons and Big brother Up Late is on now - will Travis win? Trying to win $1000 on the letter shuffle.

Impressions: TV's a hard medium. Have to be quick.

Contrarians looked stressed and didn't smile. And appeared to be old fogies - not a good format for them. Karoly did well because he was happy and smiled a lot. So emotional intelligence important. Having business side with the AGW side was strategically very useful. So Ray and Bob looked uncomfortable.

Audience was on acid - where did they find all those weirdos? Typical ABC crowd?? {And I'm not beating up on Ray & Bob either - they didn't really get into a groove - they should have smiled and been happy - probably should had a good snort of whatever the audience was on!!).

Schiller and Woody would have loved the eugenics nutters. They scared the willies out of me. Are those people really out there? Jeeezz !

As for Durkin and all that - why are we bloody arguing about it all really. What a load of total crap really. What a dodgy guy. And Gore better clean up his act too.

Will it change anything. Naaaar !

If you're a contrarian drongo you still will be next week.

And neomarxist AGW believing alarmist scum will still be scum tomorrow,

You'll probably have the shits with Durkin though - let the side down - he could have done a much better attack movie if he wasn't such a shonko ! What a bullduster. The only good thing about the Swindle was the soundtrack and shots of Miami.

Motty,

Noticed that - had a laugh when the temp graph went of the scale linearly. I asked David Jones this question on the other thread - it apears that even the Aussie "hockey team" are rounding the wagons and now using GHCN/GISS temps. No answer - same as when I questioned the disconnect between BoM and GHCN...

Can't wait to see how they will spin the record low global temps of the last two or so months...

Thomas Moore: 11:52 post

Hermeneutics posted this on the ABC forum and goes a long way to addressing your question.

David Karoly's furphies:

1. Average global temps have indeed decreased slightly since 1998--when you consider the actual data points rather than the imposed (drawn in) trend line.
2. Truth is not decided by consensus. In the history of science, the majority of scientists have been wrong--spectactualrly so! Remember a guy called Copernicus?
3. In any case, what does Karoly have to say about the 17,000+ scientists who signed the OISM petition rejecting catastrophic global warmin theory? Consensus David?
4. Urban heat islands: Karoly's response re heat islands not affecting rise is ocean temperatures was nice and smooth but also misleading and I suspect he knows it. Oceans, being so big, take hundreds of years to warm so any warmin we see now has very little to do with AGW in the 20th century. The cause was several hundred years ago.
5. CO2 and ocean feedback: Karoly's response was a classic case of begging the question ie. assuming what he trying to prove! Remember, that what is in dispute is the role of CO2. Karoly says the initial (natural) warming heated the oceans which caused more CO2 to be released. This is correct. However, he then argues that this additional CO2 caused the earth to warm more ie. it creates warming feedback. But this is the very point that is in dispute--that CO2 has ANY effect on the warming!
6. Karoly often offered an alternative explanation to various points made by the film and other panelists. However, an alternative explanation is not proof or disproof. It is just another explanation, and as I have shown above, his explanations are often very poor and illogical ones.
7. Karoly appears to think that by contradicting another's view and interrupting them that he is refuting or rebutting what they say. Sorry David it doesn't work like that. It only shows poor form, arrogance and rudeness.

Karoly's constant prattling and interruptions may have impressed people who are not scientifically literate, but those of us who do know something about science and logic can see right through all his fast-talking prattle

Regarding this issue of temperatures hit a high in 1998 and it has been colder since, therefore there is no warming.

It is true that 1998 was a temperature peak, and temperatures since have been lower, BUT - 1998 was an anomalous data point. If you remove it from the series then the long term moving average trend line is still up, it is only if that one data point is left in that the trend is mucked up. And I am afraid, in statistical analysis terms, removing a single anomalous data point which distorts the data in aggregate is the procedurally correct thing to do. So if you want an accurate idea of the long term trend 1998 should not be included in the data set.

And I say this not as a warming defender, but as an AGW sceptic.

Sorry.

Counting Cats: Anyone shown experimentally that native radiation in rocks produces C14 in trace amounts? If this hypothesis could be validated experimentally would upset a lot of carbon dating processes, wouldn't it?

Until then, it is an untested hypothesis. Like Karoly's explanation of carbon increase following temperature increase, then acting as a futher temperature forcer.

Regarding this issue of temperatures hit a high in 1998 and it has been colder since, therefore there is no warming.

It is true that 1998 was a temperature peak, and temperatures since have been lower, BUT - 1998 was an anomalous data point. If you remove it from the series then the long term moving average trend line is still up, it is only if that one data point is left in that the trend is mucked up. And I am afraid, in statistical analysis terms, removing a single anomalous data point which distorts the data in aggregate is the procedurally correct thing to do. So if you want an accurate idea of the long term trend 1998 should not be included in the data set.

And I say this not as a warming defender, but as an AGW sceptic.

Sorry.

Regarding this issue of temperatures hit a high in 1998 and it has been colder since, therefore there is no warming.

It is true that 1998 was a temperature peak, and temperatures since have been lower, BUT - 1998 was an anomalous data point. If you remove it from the series then the long term moving average trend line is still up, it is only if that one data point is left in that the trend is mucked up. And I am afraid, in statistical analysis terms, removing a single anomalous data point which distorts the data in aggregate is the procedurally correct thing to do. So if you want an accurate idea of the long term trend 1998 should not be included in the data set.

And I say this not as a warming defender, but as an AGW sceptic.

Sorry.

Helen,

I had no idea that there was C14 in coal until the show tonight, I then found a couple of references on the web confirming it.

The native radiation hypotheses? Well, I guess it is just that, an hypothesis. No idea if anyone has tested it, or if there any other hypotheses. But you are right, it might really play hob with dating.

Here's the difference between smoothed and unsmoothed data. Looks as though temperatures have flattened in recent years.

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh%2Bsh/index.html

Funny how 1998 is now an outlier which should be ignored. Don't remember that being the case a few years ago. Then it was "the hottest year in 1000 years".

No one on the panel seemed to pick up on David Karoly's admission that the temperature record is controversial. Tony Jones seemed to think the temperature record is "very accurate" when he was browbeating Martin Durkin.

I reckon you're all wanking yourselves silly on the 1998 to now trend business. You would have said that plenty of times in the last 30 years and been wrong. Give it a few more years and wait and see.

Hey maybe it's that gutless solar not holding it's end up.

And desperate stuff Arnost - the temperature profile says the oceans are warming now.

Just looking at that Hadley Centre graph, it's hard to see where there were as many years of flat temperature as the last few, since 1977.

I'll leave the wanking in your capable hands however, Luke.

Helen - this infra-read CO2 thing isn't just some old correlation stuff. There's stacks of physics, radiometers and spectrometers behind all that science.

I'll only fish out the references if you ask me but as posted recently sometimes in the really distant past CO2 does lead and drive temperature. Volcanism basically.

If an ice age is interrupted by an orbital change and an increase in solar radiation is received by the Earth - solar must lead. CO2 ain't gonna start up from equilbrium by itself.

At this point the modellers have done the maths and they're suggesting you need solar plus greenhouse forcing to get the temperatures deducted from ice core proxies. Can you check this yourself. Pretty hard - so you can track down the papers or choose to beleieve/disbelieve them. But apart from volcanism interfering why would you expect CO2 to lead out of an ice age??

Paul - maybe when CRU review their data sets 2005 might still turn out to be the warmest - then where will you all be. Calling foul I'm sure.

Luke,

I thought that Levitus et all (the definitive study) said the oceans were cooling and then did a corrigendum to say that they were NOT INCREASING IN TEMP?

Counting Cats,

Kepler is one of my top scientific "influencers" of the last millennium – actually vying with Darwin for the top spot…

What Kepler did was to ignore the then prevailing “consensus” and take a look at what the empirical data REALLY implied. Through meticulous analysis of Brahe’s data he developed the elliptical planetary orbit theory – setting the stage for Newton and the gravity theory - AS WELL AS using calculations that Leibniz and Newton later developed into the modern theorem of calculus. By the way did you know that he did most of his original work while his mother was being “inquisitioned” on charges of witchcraft?

Great man – and maybe I’m biased… But the above in mind as it has bearing on the question that was asked.

Though convoluted (and therefore only as I understood the question), what that man really was asked was “which theory best explains ALL the observed data?” and suggested/implied that statistics can LOSE/IGNORE outlying data that CAN disprove a theory/consensus.

cheers

Arnost

See Ove Hoegh-Guldberg's response to the whole discussion debacle at www.climateshifts.org.

Do go on about Kepler - most of time - the consensus isn't overturned and it won't be by shonks like Durkin. If you did a Kepler here you wouldn't come up with solar.

Which theory explains obsrved data best - the one where you put solar + greenhouse - aersols together.

I've only seen the original version of TGGWS.

Trying micro-analyse competing theoretical scientific theories misses the point - The main thrust of TGGWS, whether you agree with it or not, is that the enhanced greenhouse effect isn't behaving as the climate models suggest that it should, climate change is being used as a vehicle for an anti-human, anti-capitalist, anti-mobility agenda by groups masquerading as 'green,' and others are making a living by perpetuating the global warming industry, whilst bandwagon politicians seek to raise 'green' taxes, control enterprise and mobility via energy policy, and exert control over lifestyles.

The F-C and L graph ends in 1980 because it was published in 1991! Even the latest much-hyped Lockwood/Frohlich paper agrees that solar influence is demonstrated in pre-industrial and post industrial times, up to 1985. L/F also mention an 'unknown' solar amplification mechanism. The solar climate driver is demonstrated accross all time scales, but the mechanism of how small solar changes have a big influence on climate isn't understood. The science simply isn't settled - hence IPCC AR4 SPM solar LOSU is 'low' and 'very low.'

If you search 'swindle' over at Climate Audit, you will see that much detailed analysis has been done on the complaints about swindle graphs etc, but the upshot is that there is a much bigger fish to fry - namely the IPCC. 'Big greenhouse warming' and it's computer models need testing to destruction by objective scientists.

"The only good thing about the Swindle was the soundtrack and shots of Miami."

I thought the shots of the Star Wars wedding to highlight "The Future" was a class piece of documentary making myself.

>Can't wait to see how they will spin the record low global temps of the last two or so months...

Not sure where you are getting your data from Arnost but global temperature for the year to date are running equal warmest on record (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/may/may07.html).
The UAH satellite temperatures are running second warmest year on record (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2007/may/uah-lt-jan-may-global-land-and-ocean-pg.gif). Australian temperatures are running at +0.54C above the 1961-90 average which is 11th warmest on record.

Paul so here we go again mixing the policy and science reponse. The Swindle is inexcusable crap.
If there was a noble messge it has been lost.

Trying to divert onto other stuff is a diversion. We're dealing here with Swindle first.

Pleading about when those graphs were published and desperately trying to defend it it pointless - move on.

I'm happy to cop parts of Gore's stuff as hype and move on.

What we're doing here is delaying over twaddle. Both sides.

I thought the panel discussion was pretty disappointing - but the audience were surprisingly diverse. My impression of ABC audiences for these type of debates is that they're usually reliably on message.

It was delightful watching Tony Jones squirm when Duffy compared his Durkin interview with the treatment of Stern.

Still , perhaps a new era for the ABC?

Next time 4 Corners run a piece on Tasmanian forestry , the presenters will be subjected to a panel discussion and a tough interview on the details of their material!

Looking forward to it!

The difference being in that if Duffy did a hostile interview with Stern he'd be eaten for brekky. One's a flake and one's a pro?

I look forward with interest to Duffy interviewing Karoly.

Which is which Luke?

Jim: Within the general framework of media entertainment I reckon the ABC do quite well with their documentary and forum type programs.

In regard to our forestry issues I’ve been around on the ground long enough in critical areas to see all sides, much of it eyeball to eyeball and I say the ABC gives as a fair picture overall, particularly when compared to the commercial channels.

One of my reasons for favouring the ABC is the great deal of satisfaction I’ve had from listening to all the rural broadcasts.

It is fascinating to read John Quiggins take on last night: http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2007/07/12/delusionists-demolished/
and he calls himself a 'Professor' ;-)
And compare it to Graham Young's: http://ambit-gambit.nationalforum.com.au/archives/002151.html

Hardy hah Jim - and giggle. I suggest that Sir Nicholas might his subject a tad better than Durkin and anyone who wants to debate discount rates would get a good run for their money.

The public is still poorly served though aren't they - out of all this we have a propaganda film and few off quotes from a panel. Hardly definitive. You'd have to have an ongoing series to do the topic justice.

Would people watch it.

Luke, the Stern report is full of basic errors. the first thing I did when it came out was check what I was hearing it was saying about rainfall with what was written in the report with actual rainfall data. I checked east coast rainfall and it was wrong. but the ABC journalists checked nothing. they just repeated everything the guy said.

C'mon Luke - admit the " The Richard Wilkins of science reporting... " is a pretty good line - you've come up with some beauties in your time.

There's a better standard of debate here Jen when compared to Quiggin's blog.

Both sides of an argument get heard here and impertinent questions are welcomed!

Jen - your Quiggin/Young opinion beggars belief. If you as a scientist can support the Swindle I'm speechless. Time to give the IPA a paradigm transplant?

Surely it's pretty obvious that the Swindle's utter rot. Any attempt at moral equivalence (thanks Rog) is surely a withering defence.

Jennifer: We see the Canberra Times editorial today “Show swindles climate sceptics” and it seems somebody has a wicked sense of humour.

http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/detail.asp?class=your+say&subclass=general&story_id=1020966&category=letters+to+the+editor

Mike Lockwood was on am radio national early adding his bit.

Robyn Williams was on ABC 666 talkback from 9.30 am where he mentioned that Bob Carter was with the IPA now. With callers Robyn discussed the strange attitudes of Carter type 100% for or against one lot of science or another.

What’s the risk, of doing nothing? one caller asked. Arthur claimed to have been working on it for about 30 years since coming to Canberra. I think it was Allison who said it was good to see that lot rubbish GGWS finally exposed. How long have we got to get going? Robyn reckons 10-15 years and that’s with out zillions of conferences in between. People are interested in the hip pocket aspect in terms of long term savings was another comment but John struggled with it all.

One lady said we are more interested in all the issues than before. That’s my opinion too. Our ABC has done this community at least a service.

Luke: something else I picked up today re Prof Keeling’s son? O2 is down so that’s it for sceptics on the solar thing.

Well of course the insurance industry is "on the money" with AGW. It's a good excuse to raise premiums.

Just like government is "on the money" with AGW. Raising taxes is always, as they say, the solution.

Like you said "Surely Sir Stern checked the charts at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology which don't show any long term decline in rainfall." (east cost is context) - yea sure !!

What does http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli_chg/trendmaps.cgi?variable=rain®ion=aus&season=0112&period=1950 look like.

Run through the 8 periods BoM provide

And I wonder what it looks like after 2007 is added !

Luke, if you go through the archive you will see I've previously written somewhere that I think Durkin makes almost, but not as many, error as Al Gore. I view the documentary as a response to 'An Inconvenient Truth'.

What I find amazing is the extent to which you, Quiggin and others appear unable to critically assess polemics like 'An Inconvenient Truth'.

And, more specifically in the context of the film last night, the extent to which the ABC has gone overboard in their attack on Durkin and TGGWS and the extent to which Tony Jones, you, Quiggin and others appear unable to recognise the extent to which you are alienating many. See the comment from Susan Prior at Graham Youngs blog ... link above.

Schiller, yes the insurance industry is on the money! ;-)

What twaddle Schiller - I thought you were a big free market person. You have competition in that industry and surely you wouldn't want a company you had shares in, taking risks it didn't need to.

For a free market capitalist you're a bit chicken.

Luke, markets based on furphies are not good for "free market capitalism".

"An Inconvenient Truth" may contain a couple of errors, however Durkin's film, as Jones demonstrated, contains several outright frauds.

For example, Jones showed how a couple of Durkin's graphs were deceptive.

Just out of curiosity, were there any women researchers or AGW skeptics on TGGWS? I missed the first quarter of it but didn't see any female commentators.

I also would like to know what happens when the world goes completely digital - what will academics and scholarly types be interviewed in front of when there are no more mahogany glass-fronted or overflowing and disorganised bookshelves?

Susan says " My partner and I watched it and were totaly disgusted at Tony Jones and the way he presented it. We too gave a cheer for Michael Duffy." Well thanks Sue .. .. but others would diagree. And Jones was prepared for the sour dropkick by Mike Duffy it would have been most interesting.

Really the industry guys had them over a barrel last night - without knowing anything you have a perception of industry (that was COAL !) moving on in the 21st century and acknowledging the issue but Ray Evans, the embittered Cold War Warrior, cranky and staying on message (Schillerseque even) - a very old and tired message now. Even if he thought it slagging off your industry mates at that forum wasn't cool. Even if he believes it.

So Jen what happened to evidence based - now you're arguing for moral equivalence and equal time to make people feel good.

I reckon lots of people will get alienated if carbon taxes and mandatory targets are imposed. Frankly I think most people will vote it down. But be fair dinky - don't slag the science because you don't like the policy response or don't want the medicine.

Incidentally did you see the Wunsch interview on Lateline after - it was good stuff when we got off the tedious Durkin episode - he basically said there are no certainties in science - but he's as certain as he can be that we're seeing a CO2 based warming; the future is most problematic; this is THE grande problem of all time as it involves land, ocean, physics, chemistry, the sun, big timescales, ecosystems, human society, economics. Complex to the max. But for him in the end it was about risk management.

OK - alienation and Al Gore - I'll swap you a fair dinkum assessment of Gore's movie for a fair dinkum assessment of the contrarian literature. How about Archibald's paper - picking 5 met stations out the whole US for starters. You guys do let a all denialist stuff go through with little comment vis a vis realclimate who called foul on the thermohaline scare (as ONE example).

I've yet to see you editorialise that "this piece x of contrarian literature is wrong".

There's one big difference with Gore though - he is a politician - his movie is political and is his opinion - it's clearly not a pseudo-science documentary a la Durkin.

I don't think there was any fraud in either 'An Inconvient Truth' or TGGW. But both contained information that was misleading/incomplete.

Luke, I'm not arguing for anything. I'm just making some observations.

Jennifer - "Luke, if you go through the archive you will see I've previously written somewhere that I think Durkin makes almost, but not as many, error as Al Gore. I view the documentary as a response to 'An Inconvenient Truth'."

The only errors that I can see that Gore makes in using some single studies to slightly exaggerate some of the effects of global warming. He made no errors of fact regarding AGW. The Real Climate scientists found no factual errors regarding the science in Gore's movie.

"Several of my colleagues complained that a more significant error is Gore's use of the long ice core records of CO2 and temperature (from oxygen isotope measurements) in Antarctic ice cores to illustrate the correlation between the two. The complaint is that the correlation is somewhat misleading, because a number of other climate forcings besides CO2 contribute to the change in Antarctic temperature between glacial and interglacial climate. Simply extrapolating this correlation forward in time puts the temperature in 2100 A.D. somewhere upwards of 10 C warmer than present -- rather at the extreme end of the vast majority of projections (as we have discussed here). However, I don't really agree with my colleagues' criticism on this point. Gore is careful not to state what the temperature/CO2 scaling is. He is making a qualitative point, which is entirely accurate. The fact is that it would be difficult or impossible to explain past changes in temperature during the ice age cycles without CO2 changes (as we have discussed here). In that sense, the ice core CO2-temperature correlation remains an appropriate demonstration of the influence of CO2 on climate.

For the most part, I think Gore gets the science right, just as he did in Earth in the Balance. The small errors don't detract from Gore's main point, which is that we in the United States have the technological and institutional ability to have a significant impact on the future trajectory of climate change. This is not entirely a scientific issue -- indeed, Gore repeatedly makes the point that it is a moral issue -- but Gore draws heavily on Pacala and Socolow's recent work to show that the technology is there (see Science 305, p. 968 Stabilization Wedges: Solving the Climate Problem for the Next 50 Years with Current Technologies)."

However the same scientists found several factual scientific errors in the Swindle:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/

So how can you claim that Gore makes as many errors as Durkin when climate scientists disagree with you?

Ender, From memory it is William Connelley who details some of the 'errors' in an Inconvenient Truth in a blog post he did for a woman in the states. There is a link to her blog and the piece somewhere in the archives of this blog ... but I can't find it. It would be worth finding and re-reading.

If you want another comment, Carl Wunsch was interviewed at length on the TGGWS, on lateline. The interviewer was quite tough, and Wunsch had an answer for everything, and why he demanded to be removed from TGGWS.

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2007/s1977366.htm

"LEIGH SALES: So what specifically was taken out of context? What was the point?

CARL WUNSCH: There are a number of issues. There's one point in the film where I was attempting to explain that the ocean contains a very large amount of carbon dioxide that is there naturally. It's one of the great reservoirs of carbon dioxide in the world. And what I was trying to explain was that if you make the ocean warmer, as one likely would do under a global warming scenario, that much of that carbon dioxide now resident in the ocean could be released into the atmosphere with very serious effects.

It was put into the film in such a way, in the context that it was put to have me saying that, "Well, carbon dioxide occurs naturally in the ocean and so whatever is going on is all natural," which in some sense turned my point on its head. Or if you like, completely removing the main point, which is while the carbon dioxide in the ocean is primarily there naturally, having it expelled through warming is not necessarily natural.

All that was lost in the film as broadcast.

LEIGH SALES: When you were interviewed were you comfortable with the direction of the interview at that stage?

CARL WUNSCH: The interviewer, Martin Durkin himself, whom I knew nothing about at the time, did ask good questions and I had no reason to be suspicious.

With hindsight, I should have asked what the working title of the film was to be. Had somebody said the film is going to be called 'The Great Global Warming Swindle', I would have refused to participate instantly. Furthermore, had I realised the kind of reputation that Durkin already had in the UK for distorting people's views, I would have refused to participate.

What I thought I was doing, as I said, was making a film about the science of global warming. What I ended up being in is what I think is a political film. It really isn't about the science at all, and I guess I'm somewhat troubled that TV companies around the world are treating it as though this were a science documentary. It's not. It's a tendentious political propaganda piece of the sort I really could imagine the Bush Administration in this country could have put out on its own to throw raw meat to their believers.

It's not a science film at all. It's a political statement."

There is a lot more that is very interesting.

"LEIGH SALES: Well, straight away when you make a point like that, people are going to be thinking, "Well, he clearly hates this documentary because he must be at the other extreme of the political debate and he must be one of these people who must think climate change is about to bring the world to an end", what is your view on climate change?

CARL WUNSCH: There are extreme views in this subject, and my sense has been that it is very important for the science community to try to retain its credibility by not exaggerating what the science says.

And it is true, and this is why I think Martin Durkin got onto me, I have been somewhat critical of some of the more extreme inferences from the science, where people insist that they know that this is going to happen, or they know, as the Durkin film says, that nothing is going to happen. The science isn't mature enough to make such statements.

So here I am in the middle. I'm saying that the science suggests that global warming, climate change more generally raises a major threat to human society and to our environment, but don't go around telling people that you know, for example, that the west Antarctic ice sheet is going to collapse in the next 30 years, or that the Gulf stream is going to turn off in the next 80 years. We don't know that.

There are many things about changes going on today that present very serious potential risks to our civilisation. But I don't think in the long run it does any of us any good if the scientific community starts to go beyond what the science actually says. All this is lost, both in the Durkin film and in many other films trying to explain to the public at large. Climate change is arguably one of the most complicated of all scientific problems, because it involves the changing atmosphere, the changing ocean, the changing land, the ice, the biology on both land and sea, possible changes in the sun and anybody who tells you they know what is going to happen 20 years from now, 100 years from now, is not a good scientist, because the science can only say at this stage there's certain possibilities that we are aware of. They are possibilities that we think society should take very seriously and try to decide how it is going to deal with them if they come about.

That's quite different from my saying that I know the ice sheets are going to melt in the next 50 years. I don't know that, it's a possibility and something to worry about, but my credibility, the credibility of my colleagues is completely lost when people are broadcast saying, "I know that carbon dioxide is not changing the world," or, "I know the ice sheet will melt". This destroys the science in the long run.

LEIGH SALES: This film is a polemic, and doesn't pretend to be fair and balanced. And as you've pointed out in your answer, the other end of the debate is sometimes guilty of selective emphasis to prove its mind. How would you compare this film, for example, to the Al Gore film 'An Inconvenient Truth'?

CARL WUNSCH: Al Gore is not a scientist, he's a lawyer, politician. I don't know him, he strikes me as a very smart man who's talked to scientists and has come to be honestly worried about what the future is bringing. And he stands up in that film - there's no distortion of who he is, or who he's speaking for. He's speaking as Al Gore.

There are elements in that film that I think are scientifically incorrect, but in such a complicated business, it's not surprising that somebody trained as a lawyer might get them wrong. On the other hand, the general theme of the film I believe is right on. There's a great deal to be troubled by. There are things we probably ought to be doing. But that's quite different from Al Gore perhaps proclaiming, "Look, I know the science, I understand the science, I'm talking to you as a scientist and I know that this is what's going to happen".

You can take the Gore film as being quite openly, at least, a semipolitical statement. The Durkin film hides under the fiction that it's about the science. That's what I was told the film was to be: an opportunity if you like, to educate the public about some of the complexities and nuances of this problem.

Al Gore doesn't pretend to explain nuances. He's telling you why he is so worried, and I share many of his worries without sharing his understanding of all the details that leads him to that conclusion.

LEIGH SALES: Channel Four, which made this documentary, the "Swindle" documentary, has looked at the full transcript of your interview, it's reviewed the tapes and looked at the final product and looked at all of the correspondence between you and Durkin and his team, and they've said there's no evidence that you've been misrepresented or taken out of context.

What's your response to that?

CARL WUNSCH: I already described the way in which they used my comments about what warming the ocean would do. I do remember, for example, spending time with Durkin explaining why I thought sea level rise was something that was really very troublesome and undramatic, but very potentially damaging phenomenon that gets very little attention, because it's slow and inexorable.

None of that appears in the film. I've learned, subsequently, that the experience of having comments taken out of context or cut to remove qualifying terminology and explanation, of course, can change the import of one's words. Whether that's misrepresentation is not clear to me. Certainly in the science community, it would be regarded as reprehensible if somebody cut a statement that had a long set of caveats associated with it and only took the words out of context to reverse the sense of what the person was going to say.

I must say, I went into this a little bit naively because my prior experience with print reporters and TV crews and so forth was that often one's comments get distorted or misinterpreted, but that the reporters generally tried quite honestly to convey what I or other speakers were trying to say. I had never before encountered a filmmaker who clearly quite deliberately understood my point of view but set out to imply, through the way he uses me in the film, the reverse of what I was trying to say. As I said before, had he took...

LEIGH SALES: Can I ask you, how much is there that we don't know at this stage about the causes of global warming?

CARL WUNSCH: This is a long and interesting subject. We do know - and this is a legitimate point - that the earth has been warmer and colder in the past. This is what the geological record tells us, on timescales where people could not have had any influence on the system. As we look at what's going on today, there are people who claim to know that what we are seeing can't be due to human beings, because in the past, human beings could not have caused the change.

Well, that's a non-sequitur. The changes that we're seeing today are consistent with a great deal of what we know about the climate system, where there's very little argument about the effects. So, for example, adding carbon dioxide very rapidly that is over periods of decades, which nature doesn't do itself, we can calculate, these are calculations that go back almost 100 years, how much the earth should warm on average. We tend to see that the pattern of warming where more of it takes place at the poles are consistent with an anthropogenic input.

Is there is no proof? Well, there is no proof, but science is very rarely about proof, science is about plausibility. Most of the people who work in this subject without guaranteeing anything will say, "It seems very likely that we are seeing human induced warming because it is taking place on time scales that nature does not normally produce". There is the argument in that film that it's all due to the sun. There is absolutely no evidence, apart from the distortions they made in the graphs in that film in the version that I saw, there's no absolutely no evidence that what we're seeing is due to solar forcing.

Will I guarantee what we're seeing is due to anthropogenic causes? No. Do I think it's very likely that it is due to anthropogenic causes, and we should react on that basis? Yes, I do, it's very worrying.

There are a number of elements to the system like that. There's very little in science that we can say, "This must absolutely be true". There's a whole range of depths of scientific belief. I will tell you that the sun will rise tomorrow morning. I will tell you that quite definitely.

LEIGH SALES: I'm glad you can guarantee that for us. We're out of time unfortunately, but thank you very much for joining Lateline this evening.

CARL WUNSCH: Thank you very much for having me."

Jennifer

I cannot speak for Luke, but the An Inconvenient Truth does use basic science that is correct. I have not seen it myself, but AFAIK, the extreme scenarios are possible. Given that we cannot predict the future, and it is prudent to manage risk, we should be aware of what we may possibly be facing.

Ender, the links I was after:

http://elleeseymour.com/2007/03/14/who-swindled-who/

http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001969.html

"...Connelley then goes on to justify the approach Al Gore took in 'An Inconvenient Truth':

"Comparisons to Al Gores 'An Inconvenient Truth' may be instructive. A defence of TGGWS that I’ve seen is “it may be propaganda, but so was AIT”. While I have some quibbles with AIT, the science is fundamentally correct (though I wasn’t impressed with the images of Manhattan flooding, or the bits about spread of disease). Gore, as far as I can tell, hasn’t faked any of his graphs or mislead any of his interviewees. He ignored the tempertaure /CO2 lag stuff, which is probably fair enough as it does little except confuse people. [end of quote]

"So it seems Al Gore got a fair bit wrong: the likely extent of flooding, the spread of malaria not to mention misrepresenting the relationship between temperature and carbon dioxide in the ice-core data.

Luke is playing the same sleazy game as Karoly.
When he stated that the trend line was still rising he knew perfectly well that the trend is primarily influenced by the earlier records, not the latest ones. So a trend line is only an accurate representation of the true state of affairs at the beginning of the trend period, not the end, because the records that will produce the true state of the trend line at a point late in the series have not yet taken place.

And it is worth noting that the trend periods seem to have become longer of late. The reason being that the Global Mean temp in 2001 was 14.38C and had only gone up to 14.40C by 2006.

Jennifer: Did you notice it was all tired old men on both TGGWS and its support, here and there?

Plenty of young bloods and females of all ages have simply gone missing if this thing was ever plausible. That’s your big chance hey

However its not too late to jump ship.

There are three points you raise there Jennifer, the extreme possiblities, OK, but they are possible if the temperature rise is on the higher side. That is, the science says they are possible, if not probable.

The CO2 lead/lag point is confusing for people, as, despite the many explanations given about it, including an excellent one from Karoly last night, deniers still don't seem to understand it. It appears they never will. How can something be a forcing and a feedback effect? It can, if you understand the explanation. It's like trying to ask a heart surgeon the details of what he does and why, you can ask him, but you probably won't understand a word he says. So AIT was not deceiving people on that point, either.

Surely the audience last night was par for the course! Did it really surprise anyone?

You know, its good that the rest of Australia got a good look at the typical 'climate change sceptic'- particularly Evans and Carter up front. Prior to that programme, one might have the notion that they were upfront and competent- although the ridiculously insane piece by Carter in the Oz the other day might have let on.

Eugenics? Nazis and green movement? Climate scientists driving Panzer Tanks? Godwin's law envoked! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwins_law)

I have come to a epiphany- I'm done with engaging the deniers.

Bye forever.

".....the extreme scenarios are possible. Given that we cannot predict the future, and it is prudent to manage risk, we should be aware of what we may possibly be facing."

Even if that means examining the prospect that we might be facing nothing to be worried about at all SJT?

In that case , a healthy diversity of views is to be welcomed!

Last night, I tried posting questions to the ABC forum but to date my posting has not turned up. Oh well...

1. Tony Jones opened the show with by clearly showing where he stood - great journalistic technique there. He stated that the IPCC report was unequivocable about its support of human-based global warming - which I believe to be an absolute lie. In fact, the current Feb 2007 report backed off slightly and was less forceful that the previous ones - which is probably why it was not discussed greatly.

2. The WWF guy stated that 98% of scientists accept human-based global warming. Now that is a definite lie. The Copenhagen Convention approx 18 months ago had over 2000 scientists decide differently. The Oregon Agreement last year had 17,000 - repeat 17,000 scientists who did not agree with human-based global warming and the resulting scare tactics. And if you would note, several scientists on Durkin's show were from the IPCC, yet Tony Jones, in his unbiased manner only focused on the 2 scientist he could use to defame the show!

3. Karoly stated that 55 million years ago carbon dioxide was over 2000 parts per million. As there were no humans around then, why are we being blamed now?

4. Karoly stated that "El Nino warms the global climate" - could that not include the icebergs, especially as El Nino impacts on Australia so heavily. Does he not connect the strength of El Nino on our climate via these droughts, yet not see a similar impact on the Antarctic for example? Perhaps he thinks we humans have also 'created' El Nino.

5. In the interview with Carl Wunsch he stated "science is not about truth, it is about plausability". My dictionary defines plausability as "having the appearance of truth". I think that sums up this whole human-based global warming rubbish. If I put on make-up, stand sideways in front of the mirror and squint my eyes so that I get the blurred 'Doris Day' lens - I can have the appearance of being much younger than I am. Plausability is not truth.

6. The audience question on Carbon 14, was clear enough for me to understand in my loungeroom - and it should surely have been the same to the scientists. The question was ignored for obvious reasons.

7. Sadly, there were some nuts in the audience, but the original question on eugenics was very sound, as many 'green' groups spokespeople are now stating that polulation control is an issue. I actually googled Sir Julian Huxley - founder of the original WWF, and - in essence - he beieved in superior races. (As one speaker, who was howled down said, so did Hitler).

Often it is the side comments that are said that give clues to the real issues.

Sue

The oregan peition is not worth a cracker, it was an open invition to anyone to sign a piece of paper by a lone nutter. The OISM is a joke by any serious standard.

If you want truth from science, you are going to be seriously disappointed. Truth is something that is an abstract concept, science has to deal with reality as best it can. At the moment, the best answer is that AGW is happening, and is observed to be happening.

As farmer, you should be well aware what is happening to rainfall, as predicted.

The carbon 14 question made no sense at all. If anyone can explain what it was, I would be interested.

Karoly said what the state of CO2 was 55 million years ago, and the state of CO2 now, and why. That's what science is about, looking at something, and trying to find out why. No one has ever claimed it is only humans who influence climate. Why does this idea keep getting repeated? It completely baffles me.

Jennifer

case in point, Sue cannot understand CO2 leading and laggin, despite Karoly's clear explanation. Proves Gore was right on that point. It's not just Sue, it's numerous people, including most of this forum.

Is it possible to explain it? I wish it was, I can understand it. It's not that hard.

"The audience question on Carbon 14, was clear enough for me to understand in my loungeroom - and it should surely have been the same to the scientists. The question was ignored for obvious reasons."

Please explain. That question/statement had me baffled.

SJT, I think you are making up excuses ... you are sounding as wrong as Quiggin and Luke. Sorry, I can't agree with you.

Sue - your points

(3) yes and ask what the climate was like when CO2 was 2000 ppm - no humans, continents in different positions, different flora and fauna - yea sure humans didn't cause it - but imagine another 8-10 watts of greenhouse forcing now on today's temperatures.

(4) El Ninos have major impacts on temperatures in many parts of the world - true - but not every year is an El Nino year so that doesn't explain what we're seeing.

(5) Don't mistake what Wunsch was saying - absolute 100% science truth is elusive. He's simply be philosophical. At some point you get enough evidence to turn a hypothesis into a solid theory and act on it

(6) Not sure but I'm fairly certain the C14 guy was a creationist. And the quick answer is that if the fossil fuel deposit is surrounded by radioactive rocks yes you will get some C14 - total ruse/red herring stuff though

(7) yea sure - I don't know any greenies that believe in eugenics and they would leave/not join any group that did. Are "many" greens suggesting population control beyond normal contraception and family planning measurs. Pure bulldust.

Jennifer - "So it seems Al Gore got a fair bit wrong: the likely extent of flooding, the spread of malaria not to mention misrepresenting the relationship between temperature and carbon dioxide in the ice-core data."

No he didn't actually. He showed an image of Manhatten flooded which is dramatising the issue rather than misrepresenting it. He did not state that Manhatten would become flooded only that if we continue what we are doing these are some of the possible effects.

Gore actually got the lag between ice cores almost correct - certainly better than most people:

"Of course, those who've been paying attention will recognize that Gore is not wrong at all. This subject has been very well addressed in numerous places. Indeed, guest contributor Jeff Severinghaus addressed this in one of our very first RealClimate posts, way back in 2004."
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/

Connolly has a couple of quibbles with AIT no more than any factual movie however there are fundamental falsehoods, misrepresentations, and cherry-picked and modified data in the Swindle that would completely change the conclusion of the movie if they were corrected.

And here is the letter for people that cannot be bothered to follow the link to Real Climate that explains the lead/lag of CO2:

"Dear Jeff,

I read your article "What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming?" You mention that CO2 does not initiate warmings, but may amplify warmings that are already underway. The obvious question comes up as to whether or not CO2 levels also lag periods when cooling begins after a warming cycle...even one of 5,000 years?

If CO2 levels on planet Earth also lag the cooling periods, then how can it be that CO2 levels are causally related to terrestrial heating periods at all? I am not sure what the ice core records are related the time response of CO2 to the cooling trends. If there is also a lag in CO2 levels behind a cooling period, then it appears that CO2 levels not only do not initiate warming periods but are also unrelated to the onset of cooling periods. It would appear that the actual CO2 levels are rather impotent as an amplifier either way...warming or cooling. We are talking about planet Earth after all and not Venus whose atmospheric pressure is many times larger than Earth's.

If there is also a time lag upon the onset of cooling, then it appears that some other mechanism actually drives the temperature changes. So what is the time difference between CO2 levels during the onset of a cooling period at the end of a warming period and the time history of the temperature changes in the ice cores?

Dear John,

The coolings appear to be caused primarily and initially by increase in the Earth-Sun distance during northern hemisphere summer, due to changes in the Earth's orbit. As the orbit is not round, but elliptical, sunshine is weaker during some parts of the year than others. This is the so-called Milankovitch hypothesis [this really should say "theory" -- eric], which you may have heard about. Just as in the warmings, CO2 lags the coolings by a thousand years or so, in some cases as much as three thousand years.

But do not make the mistake of assuming that these warmings and coolings must have a single cause. It is well known that multiple factors are involved, including the change in planetary albedo, change in nitrous oxide concentration, change in methane concentration, and change in CO2 concentration. I know it is intellectually satisfying to identify a single cause for some observed phenomenon, but that unfortunately is not the way Nature works much of the time.

Nor is there any requirement that a single cause operate throughout the entire 5000 - year long warming trends, and the 70,000 year cooling trends.

Thus it is not logical to argue that, because CO2 does not cause the first thousand years or so of warming, nor the first thousand years of cooling, it cannot have caused part of the many thousands of years of warming in between.

Think of heart disease - one might be tempted to argue that a given heart patient's condition was caused solely by the fact that he ate french fries for lunch every day for 30 years. But in fact his 10-year period of no exercise because of a desk job, in the middle of this interval, may have been a decisive influence. Just because a sedentary lifestyle did not cause the beginning of the plaque buildup, nor the end of the buildup, would you rule out a contributing causal role for sedentary lifestyle?

There is a rich literature on this topic. If you are truly interested, I urge you to read up.

The contribution of CO2 to the glacial-interglacial coolings and warmings amounts to about one-third of the full amplitude, about one-half if you include methane and nitrous oxide.

So one should not claim that greenhouse gases are the major cause of the ice ages. No credible scientist has argued that position (even though Al Gore implied as much in his movie). The fundamental driver has long been thought, and continues to be thought, to be the distribution of sunshine over the Earth's surface as it is modified by orbital variations. This hypothesis was proposed by James Croll in the 19th century, mathematically refined by Milankovitch in the 1940s, and continues to pass numerous critical tests even today.

The greenhouse gases are best regarded as a biogeochemical feedback, initiated by the orbital variations, but then feeding back to amplify the warming once it is already underway. By the way, the lag of CO2 of about 1000 years corresponds rather closely to the expected time it takes to flush excess respiration-derived CO2 out of the deep ocean via natural ocean currents. So the lag is quite close to what would be expected, if CO2 were acting as a feedback.

The response time of methane and nitrous oxide to climate variations is measured in decades. So these feedbacks operate much faster.

The quantitative contribution of CO2 to the ice age cooling and warming is fully consistent with current understanding of CO2's warming properties, as manifested in the IPCC's projections of future warming of 3±1.5 C for a doubling of CO2 concentration. So there is no inconsistency between Milankovitch and current global warming.

Hope this is illuminating.

Jeff"

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/

Sue: Sorry about the ABC forum. The fact is you are posting here and a goodly number will see, Let’s be very thankful. Also we owe Jennifer for this privilege. Now can I get into several of your comments?

“Jones, in his unbiased manner only focused on the 2 scientist he could use” sure and that’s because Carter and Evans were pretty well stumped by up to date science

“55 million years ago carbon dioxide was over 2000 parts per million” hmmm how do we know that was my first thought, but have you ever wondered where our abundant coal, oil & gas reserves came from?

“Perhaps he thinks we humans have also 'created' El Nino” howz this? on balance it must be part of life on the planet

“The audience question on Carbon 14, was clear enough” aaah but was it relevant in our TGGWS context?

“Plausability is not truth” lets take a punt hey with this; Creationism is the truth.

I cant remember the name of the guy in the panel who Jones went to first, but after his initial talk he tried to discredit one of the scientist in the programme because he had smoked three cigarettes in his office when he met him.
I've not laughed so much in years.
And why we had to be shown womans breast and surgery is beyond me.
Is that the best that can be done? Shall we now discount everything Al Gore says because his son takes drugs.
It has become like religion, youre not allowed to question it because IT just IS and thats the end of it.

So Jen - what's your beef with the CO2 lag bizo in the last few glacial cycles

and last night's blog explanation offered above in this thread.

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11659

What aspect don't you like

Over to you

(Paul - scientists was Richard Lindzen - the story goes beyond the 3 ciggies in that Lindzen reputedly likes to do that to take the contrarian line that there is no absolute proof and no good link betwen smoking and cancer - so form your own opinion on his assessment of science). See here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen

Frankly the quality of Durkin's previous documentaries is surely relevant to his credibility. That's how we assess most things in life involving some element of trust? Why do people ask for references?

Paul,

The panelist was Robin Williams and I thought that the point about prefacing his remarks about Lindzen being a smoker was to make sure we all understood that he was a baddie.

As for the showing of breasts you mention, I was unfortunately not paying sufficient attention so missed that bit - would have made for better viewing than the graphs.

Well hey ..where can I send the cartons of ciggies to? Actual atmospheric scientist skeptics are as rare has hens teeth, so we could get him stuffed once he carks it.

According to the AGW true believers he's already stuffed.

melaleuca - "The audience question on Carbon 14, was clear enough for me to understand in my loungeroom - and it should surely have been the same to the scientists. The question was ignored for obvious reasons."

Please explain. That question/statement had me baffled."

The C14 is not just a creationist thing but a Young Earth Creationist thing. They think that the fact that there is C14 in coal means that it could not have formed millions of years ago therefore the Earth is only thousands of years old.

Again it has nothing to do with the Swindle.

Aren’t we all stuffed?

Thanks Ender, no wonder they quickly moved on to the next person. Where did they find all these lunatics?

OK Jennifer, do you understand the difference between CO2 as a forcing and as a feedback effect that amplifies warming?

Paul, I also notet the snide gutter remark about Richard Lindzen by Robin Williams. Williams from the ABC Science Show is well known for his left wing, dark green totalitarianism views. He attempted to stop the ABC from screening the GGWS. He along with David Karoly, who was like a 'Jack in the Box', tried to interupt and stifle other view-points being put.
Williams is bad news, and is the epitome of what is so sinister about the AGW campaign.

Sid you missed Williams on 666 as he cooked up some more film titles for that mob, Why women are inferior, Why whales make the best fertilizer for tobacco crops……..

Sid

did you listen to any of the science David Karoly was talking about? TGGWS went off on it's own merry way, ignoring the facts and creating a nice fantasy, that has been investigated, and found to be completely wrong. The sun has not been driving the warming.

Hardly a snide gutter remark at all - Lindzen's views on smoking are well known. It's completely relevant as it's about ability to evaluate science. If he smoked and made nothing of it scientifically it would be irrelevant and a personal attack. Your problem with Karoly is that he had the answers and you don't like it. Sid - everyone had a say. You're simply smarting as you guys were done like dinners.

I think Durkin has unwittingly done the world a great service. Instead of the denialist campaign continuing in secret masonic rituals in old boy societies behind closed doors in smoky rooms (?!) it has been exposed for public scrutiny and shown to be flim flam. Thanks Martin Durkin.

Williams epitomises what is sinister about the ScumBC.

And note how Luke, Ender, SJT et al have consistently returned to the old glaciation dogs vomit (thats a parliamentary term). None of them ever did explain on past trails how come there are numerous instances in the past 450,000 years when CO2 was high and the temperature went the other way to the tune of up to 6C? No link fellas. But all they did was do a bit of abusive vaudeville until the post was archived.

Karoly just rattled off the usual line while concentrating on the few parts of the ice core records that can be passed off as supporting his position.

Karoly rattled of the science, and it went right over your head, again, Ian.

It's called the Milankovich cycles and the output of the sun, which has also changed with time. You have been told that a million times, and the simple fact of the matter is, a million and one times won't make a whit of difference.

ooooo - sound of eerie music and cackling witches over a cauldron - is it the scumBC - no it's a Lavoisier meeting ...

Can't that classic Mottsian try-on go past - and what a bloody beauty - tell us the solar forcing at the time Ian. Ian loves the old shell game which runs likes this: has to be one shell or the other. The CO2 shell or the solar shell. It's actually both together sunshine. Nice try chump. Actually not even a good try.

What I really looking forward to is Ian's calculation of the solar and greenhouse forcing over the last few interglacial sequences. See how the envelope goes.

And you're now after a link are you. "Mr I disregard all journal publications as bolsh" NOW wants a link. Well polly wanna cracker too.

And the reason we keep debating Ian is that "we want to do you slowly" and that's a parliamentary term too.

Votes are in for http://www.abc.net.au/tv/swindle/ poll

Do you think human activity is a significant contributor to global warming?

Yes 47.3%
No 49.5%
Don't know 3.2%

Votes counted: 918

Jennifer

I didn't defend Gore, I pointed out that what he did was based on science, for better or worse. What Durkin did was based on pure fantasy.

This 15 year old girl has examined AIT in detail:

http://home.earthlink.net/~ponderthemaunderg/index.html

Jeepers Paul, that's pathetic.

"Farther into the movie, Al explains the greenhouse gas effect. He presents a graphic that shows the sun’s rays heating the Earth’s surface resulting in infrared rays going from the Earth’s surface and back into space. His graphic suggests that some of the outgoing radiation is reflected from the top of the atmosphere and back to Earth. This idea is the basis of anthropogenic (man made) global warming theory. He fails to mention that this effect has never been measured, only calculated, and by scientists on one side of the debate. This is one of the most hotly debated issues in the global warming debate. Not only does this issue involve complicated theoretical quantum physics, but water vapor absorbs infrared radiation. As is often the case in global warming presentations, he forgets that water vapor is by far the most abundant greenhouse gas; 3 to 4 percent of the atmosphere. And this is important because at most, man-made greenhouse gases are 1/ 10,000 of Earth’s atmosphere."

Honestly, doesn't that paragraph strike you as pretty naive and ignorant? Is she actually saying that the CO2 greenhouse effect doesn't exist? It's not rocket science, and it's been understood for over 100 years.

She's simply dead wrong. Scientists on both sides of the debate believe it's a fact. The other side just doesn't believe it's significant.

It's pathetic to see a 15 year old abused like this, couldn't someone on 'her' side have pointed out she's wrong on such a simple matter?

Hold your fire Luke!!!

She also refers to

"When you consider the effects of the 11,000 year solar high and the very positive phase in the ENSO in the past 30 years, you should start to see the real trend and exactly why temperatures changed the way they have in the past 30 years. And before anyone tries to say ENSO conditions are related to global warming or CO2, the NOAA says no it does not. Also, the only person I am aware of who predicted ENSO events several years in advance used a model of solar changes with a hit rate of almost 90%. Al Gore never puts into consideration El Nino’s or solar variation as a part of global warming which is one of his most crucial mistakes."

What???? A 'person'? That's here standard of proof. An anonymous person is referred to, with a 90% hit rate, and that's supposed to be evidence? She's doing well for a 15 year old, for a serious debate on the topic, it's so sad it's laughable.

It's possible she is referring to Theodore Landscheidt, a little know ponitificator on solar activity and astrology. Yes, astrology.

http://forums.randi.org/archive/index.php/t-10820.html

Unfortunately, this astrology site has removed teh link to his work, presumably because it was an embarrasment.

A paper by Landsheidt.

If anyone can make any sense of this, I'd love to hear it.

http://bourabai.narod.ru/landscheidt/creative.htm

Phlogiston's heyday was also more than 100 years

Here you go. Lindzen, noted contrarian and on Durkins list of supporters on CO2 and the greenhouse effect.

"Finally, there has been no question whatever that carbon dioxide is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas--albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming."

Yes, he's saying she is wrong. It's not a matter at all of it being real, just the magnitude of the results.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597

Skanks invade Swindle audience !

http://www.crikey.com.au/Media-and-Arts/20070713-The-Swindle-rent-a-crowd.html

OK who's mates are they - come on - own up ! Who made the call?

Time for another parliamentary phrase perhaps
"All the way with LBJ" - lies, bulldust and jibberish.

Still waiting for Jen on the old CO2 lag story.

That pesky Great Barrier Reef might not die after all:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,22065659-30417,00.html

Best thing of the day was ABC National with the Phillip Adams interview from the Adelaide Festival of Ideas 2007 with James Lovelock.

Same 15 years old girl takes an interest in Australian weather:

http://newsbusters.org/node/12968

Luke, while you're waitiing for Jen, have a word with Nir Shaviv:

http://www.sciencebits.com/IceCoreTruth

Everybody has a dig, whilst some are singularly proficient no one is comprehensively compliant but given the collective anxiety they feel encouraged to venture unqualified expert opinion on a scientific hypothesis which has not yet been verified.

And then they say "its a war on science"

Henry Thornton column will have an appropriate Swindle comment shortly as well as some geological facts about CO2.

Strange that the IPCC process has no geological input to speak of - they are making some howlers!

That's what happens when social scientists start mucking about with the physical sciences. Geographers are, after all, social scientists, not physical scientists.

Noticed the problem when I was an undergrad and post grad, and it seems to have gotten worse.

Gavin, I also heard the interview, it was James Lovelock talking about James Lovelock with Adams oohing and aahing in the background.

One ego defers to another, is this how science is done?

Wow I am so impressed. That is really good lil' girl.

NOT !

(1) Heaps of people end of El Ninos at that time of the year coz that's then they end - like a duh !
(2) Let her predict 5-6 events in a row 6 months in advance.
(3) Or a cross validated hindcast method for the last 120 years
(4) It ain't 2030 yet - did the IPCC make a specific prediction for 2007 - where was that again ? which page again?

Proves nuttin'. A un-trained monkey could have picked it.

Paul are you serious?

Goodness me, Luke is upset about looneys as looney as he is getting into the Swindle Forum Audience (Skanks reference and Crikey report).

Not that Crikey is an compelling source of verity.

I'm glad I didn't watch it (Censored documentary and ABC counselling session afterwards).

There's that word "howler" for the 3rd time again - must be in the IPA spellchecker/thesaurus.

Louis says "Strange that the IPCC process has no geological input to speak of -"

hmmm that's probably why the have a WHOLE CHAPTER on paleoclimate. HELLO !

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Pub_Ch06.pdf

It's not even fun anymore taking candy from Louis.

There are some good shows on ABC, Spicks and Specks, Ghosts, Chef and Cook.

So I wont ditch them altogether, just yet. But their continued anxiety must be harmful to listeners, should be a good topic for an undegrad study.

"How the ABC continues to cater to a minority on taxpayers money"

If I had more integrity I would swear off them forever, just like the fags.

Rog says “If I had more integrity I would swear off them (ABC) forever, just like the fags”. Did you quit?

Recall, fags were a feature early in the debate re weakness in the scientific argument or was it evidence?

rog; take or leave it, Allen’s Lifesavers are a much better prop in the interim. Some I met managed

Now let’s examine Lovelocks awards after 200 papers

http://www.adelaidefestivalofideas.com.au/speakers_lovelock.html

rog; some folks may not know Branson cut Lovelock, Flannery and Gore out of his grand offer (25 mil) for climate solutions by making them judges in the award

Paul

you throw up links of the same girl, without even responding to the howlers she made in her first post. If you are going to provide evidence, are you going to stand by it, or are you just hand waving.

Ian Mott - "None of them ever did explain on past trails how come there are numerous instances in the past 450,000 years when CO2 was high and the temperature went the other way to the tune of up to 6C? No link fellas. But all they did was do a bit of abusive vaudeville until the post was archived."

So when did this happen Ian? Do you have a reference to some research that says this?

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13

"This is an issue that is often misunderstood in the public sphere and media, so it is worth spending some time to explain it and clarify it. At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced warming periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000 years or so.

Does this prove that CO2 doesn't cause global warming? The answer is no.

The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data.

The 4200 years of warming make up about 5/6 of the total warming. So CO2 could have caused the last 5/6 of the warming, but could not have caused the first 1/6 of the warming.

It comes as no surprise that other factors besides CO2 affect climate. Changes in the amount of summer sunshine, due to changes in the Earth's orbit around the sun that happen every 21,000 years, have long been known to affect the comings and goings of ice ages. Atlantic ocean circulation slowdowns are thought to warm Antarctica, also.

From studying all the available data (not just ice cores), the probable sequence of events at a termination goes something like this. Some (currently unknown) process causes Antarctica and the surrounding ocean to warm. This process also causes CO2 to start rising, about 800 years later. Then CO2 further warms the whole planet, because of its heat-trapping properties. This leads to even further CO2 release. So CO2 during ice ages should be thought of as a "feedback", much like the feedback that results from putting a microphone too near to a loudspeaker. "

Yep that's the interglacial pattern SJT and if Ian was good he'd give us theoretical maths of the forcings composition. Then inform us why the theory is wrong in his calculations.

At other periods in the Earth's history lke the PETM volcanism has ejcted gigatons of CO2 through vents giving a more immediate and sustained rise.

And a recent analysis of paleo proxies indicates a climate sensitivity to 2 x CO2 of at least 1.5C and a best fit at 2.9C.

Still waiting on what Jen's issue of disbelief is.

Incidentally if you don't get http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/learning-from-a-simple-model/ you're simply not on the page.

"- So CO2 during ice ages should be thought of as a "feedback", much like the feedback that results from putting a microphone too near to a loudspeaker.

In other words, CO2 does not initiate the warmings, but acts as an amplifier once they are underway"

SJT: some dumb bum has to ask; where does the extra CO2 come from, and if CO2 is the “positive” feedback what is the original amplifier?

An unblinkered view on the diverse human influemce on climate is here:

http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2007/07/13/presentation-on-global-change-and-climate-change-by-jon-foley-at-the-april-4-6-2007-nasa-land-cover-and-land-use-change-meeting/

Ender says re Gore: "He showed an image of Manhatten flooded which is dramatising the issue rather than misrepresenting it."

If you take any 100 scientists, give them the relevant text and data from the IPCC report then show them Gore's film, I bet you almost all would agree that it is misrepresentation.

Gavin

It is getting very confusion with two Gavins around.

If you would trouble yourself to read the rest of the link, you will find the answer.

Paul Biggs

once again, arm waving, but no substance. You are acting like a netbot, that just pastes links. Did you notice that Lindzen disagrees with the 15 year old genius?

Unfortunately Luke, that simple model is too complex for a 15 year old to understand.

Gavin - (1) the earth is thought to enter ice ages due to a reduction in solar insolation due to changes in the Earths' orbit - detail is here:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/milankovitch.html
i.e. less sun
Evidence for Milankovitch theory is in many paleo proxies

(2) so extra and increasing solar radiation slowly warms the Earth
(3) the oceans being a great sink of CO2 start to release CO2 as the oceans warm - 800 years is around the time it takes to turnover the global oceans
(4) the CO2 concentration growing in the global atmopshere starts to produce enough greenhouse forcing to add extra warmth to the solar forcing and is said to be a feedback reinforcing the warming or adding to it.

You have to model the numbers to work out the detail. Not that simple. And model it they have.

'Manhatten flooded'. One wonders whether Drs. Pittock, Whetton and Jones would agree with Ender that Gore was dramatising the issue, and not misrepresenting it?

He was stating a possibility. Given that the rate of melting of the Arctic is proceeding faster than predicted, it is may be more possible than first thought.

Gore is not the IPCC's deliberations. He's a politician, I believe he's genuinely concerned by what he sees the science is telling him. However we have a silly situation now where Gore is seen to be the "voice" of global warming fraternity. He's a single voice in a cacophony of opinions on the issue. But his previous political career has obviously labelled him as a both a celebrity and a controversial figure. His wealth is always going to be baggage for him in this issue.

AIT could have done the sea level issue much better. Would have only taken a few more sentences. He could have shown us what the IPCC scenarios predicted. He could have then spoeculated if ice sheets fell apart other than melted - Hansen's current suggestion - what would have happened. He should have been frank on the likelihood or uncertainty of these events.

He could have also easily made a good case for increased storm surge risk even with the IPCC's 30-50cm.

So he's left some critical bits out and set himself up for criticism. Fair cop.

Only the CO2 lag - he should have taken a minute or two of the movie to explain there is a lag and what it means. Then case dismissed.

So AIT is less than perfect.

The only way you could do justice to the IPCC reports and hear contrarian points of view argued out is to develop a series - such as David Attenborough might do or something like the excellent Planet Earth material. Would people watch it or watch Big Brother - I don't know.

Paul Biggs' link contains a very interesting pdf of a Powerpoint Presentation. ftp://ftp.iluci.org/LCLUC_APR2007/foley_lcluc_apr2007_presentation.pdf

All good stuff and some great graphics.

However I don't know if the suggestion that the focus on CO2 solely is correct or that even revolutionary.

There has been a long standing attempt to quantify land use feedbacks, greenhouse fluxes from the biosphere, consideration of changes in albedo from forestation or deforestation.

Altough the comment about land management practices being just as important as land use are interesting.

Climate models are about solving the radiation budget from wherever the forcings come.

Indeed international modelling is already moving on that challenge:

The Australian Community Climate Earth-System Simulator (ACCESS) is a coupled climate and earth system simulator to be developed as a joint initiative of the Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO in cooperation with the university community in Australia

http://www.dar.csiro.au/access/index.html

Among many objectives ACCESS aims to include a fully coupled carbon-cycle model covering terrestrial, ocean and atmosphere systems (incorporating a dynamic vegetation model).

But Paul over to you - perhaps open up as a separate thread.

Re the Amplification of climate change by CO2 changes.

I may be a mere biological scientist, so I must ask, If CO2 is a positive feedback for climate change initiated by something 800 years before, why does this positive feedback stop after a while? The fundamental characteristic of positive feedbacks is that they spiral out of control.

On the face of it, a better explanation of the temperature and CO2 from ice cores is a negative feedback with a built-in delay. Something initiates a warming. 800 years later this causes CO2 to rise. Warming continues as before, but after a delay, the CO2 dampens warming and temp starts to fall. After another delay, CO2 falls. A classic negative feeback cycle; this sort of thing is commonly seen in biological systems.

I am not saying this is what really happens with the climate, but it is a better and simpler explanation than the strange 1/6 and 5/6 rule referred to by SJT. Why should CO2 stop at 5/6?

In the absence of clear causation, I prefer Occam's Razor. If we must postulate a factor to initiate climate change, and the initial rate of change does not soar or collapse, then then other factors, such as secondary and temporary feedbacks, are unnecessary.

Even a microphone feeding back has to stop at a certain limit, set by the physical constraints of the system.

Positive feedbacks spiralling out of control - not likely: From: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/lessons-from-venus/#more-287

"The runaway greenhouse that presumably led to the present Venus is an extreme form of the water vapor feedback that amplifies the effect of CO2 increases on Earth. Is there a risk that anthropogenic global warming could kick the Earth into a runaway greenhouse state? Almost certainly not. For an atmosphere saturated with water vapor, but with no CO2 in it, the threshold absorbed solar radiation for triggering a runaway greenhouse is about 350 Watts/m2 (see Kasting Icarus 74 (1988)). The addition of up to 8 times present CO2 might bring this threshold down to around 325 Watts/m2 , but the fact that the Earth's atmosphere is substantially undersaturated with respect to water vapor probably brings the threshold back up to the neighborhood of 375 Watts/m2. Allowing for a 20% albedo (considerably less than the actual albedo of Earth), our present absorbed solar radiation is only about 275 Watts/m2, comfortably below the threshold. The Earth may well succumb to a runaway greenhouse as the Sun continues to brighten over the next billion years or so, but the amount of CO2 we could add to the atmosphere by burning all available fossil fuel reserves would not move us significantly closer to the runaway greenhouse threshold. There are plenty of nightmares lurking in anthropogenic global warming, but the runaway greenhouse is not among them. " ENDS

It's not that 800 years later CO2 starts to rise. CO2 is rising over this whole period as the ocean warms and ougasses.

Why do temperatures decline again - an orbital change reduces the amount of solar radiation starting a cooling and the oceans start sinking more CO2 reducing the feedback.

The global temperature at any one time is a function of solar + greenhouse - aerosols - clouds plus land surface albedo changes just like the present.

Permafrost

Permafrost soil blanketing northeastern Siberia contains about 75 times more carbon than is released by burning fossil fuels each year. That means it could become a potent, likely unstoppable contributor to global climate change if it continues to thaw. So conclude three scientists in a paper set to appear Friday in the journal Science.
“Unfortunately, it’s another large pool of carbon on the list that could move into the atmosphere with continued warming,” said co-author Ted Schuur, an assistant professor of ecology in the University of Florida botany department. “You start thawing the permafrost, microbes release carbon dioxide, that makes things warmer, more permafrost thaws and the process continues.”

<A HREF="http://a.tribalfusion.com/h.click/aimNQCWdQ3UbB53bZarWTjpVa36QavLQVBZaPUmoPHY7UGMU2FPpnWitXaup2tQBPcfE2mYZbpHTmVHFf0rfiXbYiXaZapPbQZbUr3QTt3XmbBmRUfNXaQO5TBh2aMRmqjH1bjaTHf0mPUBUDBpspqdM7aLuSb0OEFMrDnJnf/http://gaming.freepay.com/a/?x=8331&c=34175316879299" TARGET="_blank"><IMG SRC=http://cdn5.tribalfusion.com/media/877666/Robots_300x250.jpg WIDTH=300 HEIGHT=250 BORDER=0></A>
The permafrost soil, which covers nearly 400,000 square miles of northeast Siberia and averages 82 feet in depth, contains about 500 billion metric tons of carbon, the scientists concluded. Cars, power plants and other fossil fuel consumers release at least 6 billion metric tons annually. If all the Siberian permafrost thawed, decomposed and released its carbon in the form of heat-trapping carbon dioxide, it could nearly double the 730 billion metric tons of carbon in the atmosphere presently — an outcome that would have huge warming impact.

http://www.physorg.com/news69692382.html

Post Swindle panel discussion
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/swindle/default.htm

and Q&A from audience (ABC viewers?)
http://auxedit.net/?p=21

gimme Oprah anyday.

ABC poll (presumably by ABC followers)

Q: Do you think human activity is a significant contributor to global warming?

Results:

Yes 48.78%
No 47.99%
Don't know 3.23%

Votes counted: 1269

Retired academic speaks out - on the ABC
http://www.abc.net.au/westqld/stories/s1971899.htm?backyard

"...The professor is adamant that the concept of carbon trading is absolute madness. "What terrifies me is the way the state governments in Australia with their emissions trading they are contemplating using the superannuation funds to invest in carbon trading - they're going to lose their money!"

He says governments are getting tied-up with carbon trading for commercial and political reasons - not scientific reasons.

The other problem that concerns the professor is his view that scholarship has taken a nose-dive. "Scholarship is being driven by media and media attention and this is a terrifying state of affairs." All the research is determined by government, he said. "You can get all the money in the world if the research you're doing is related to climate change... if you say climate change isn't caused by man it's caused by the sun, it doesn't get any money at all."

He said a lot of the business of carbon trading and global warming is just a popular delusion. He refers to a book written by Mackay in the 1840s called "Extraordinary popular delusions and the madness of crowds". "We've got it now... he could se it 150 years ago - the crowd is mad!"

What does he base his claims on? Nothing of scientific substance.

Luke: Dumb bum says; to get positive feedback you must have an amplifier not a capacitor. Besides RC or somewhere said it was difficult engineers with half baked math

SJT: Lovelock said recently the current climate models don’t include the organic bit and since I reckon any CO2 solutions must include all future life you can’t fob me off by conclusions about long winded responses from distant the past based in geology etc.

Paul: short cuts to enlightenment are something I spent a long time considering.

First time I saw Ponder the Maunder page yesterday it had me looking for the Edgar Casey connection. I expect similar societies to take off after Daly too. Believe me folks all gaps in idle wonderings are quickly plugged when the firewall is absent.

Jennifer: As braddles points out some here are not satisfied by darned climate model buffs pinching half baked engineering concepts even for an analogy.

Still waiting for Jen's issue with this.

Gavin - no it's precisely correct - you just have not identified the amplifier. The amplier is teh whole circuit not just one element. Try drawing the system with arrows & boxes.

I'm stunned that people are having any problem with this issue. Shows (1) lack of systems thinking - everyone's in linear mode (2) people don't believe CO2 is a greenhouse gas (3) people are in some sort of correlation/statisical denial phase (4) inability to add two forcings together

I give up.

Rog - looks like Lance needs to read the book on madness of ageing scientists. Obviously hasn't got his copy of Proc Royal Soc A.

He may be right about carbon trading though. Could be a balls up.

I remain unconvinced of the importance of CO2 on climate, as far as the ice core records go. It appears that orbital changes can initiate warming and can also bring it to an end and reverse it, regardless of the CO2 increase that has occurred in the meantime.

There is no need to include positive feedbacks to explain the pattern seen. The simplest explanation is that CO2 is irrelevant in the concentration ranges and timescales of the ice cores, and just follows temperature up and down, with a delay.

This doesn't prove there is no relevance at all. I just don't see it in this data. And if you are looking for more relevant data, the atmosphere of Venus is not it.

Thanks for the replies to my questions.

Re my comment on the Oregon Petition – sjt stated - ‘The oregan peition is not worth a cracker, it was an open invition to anyone to sign a piece of paper by a lone nutter. The OISM is a joke by any serious standard.”

I actually read the list of names and qualifications and many of these are not just your average-joe. Also, the comment that the IPCC report listed qualified scientists’ names as part of the research regardless of their view seems to have much the same approach. You did not however, comment on the Copenhagen Conference which produced a result from eminent and qualified scientists that went in opposition to the IPCC results.

Re Karoly’s statement that 55 million years ago carbon dioxide was over 2000 parts per million - sjt stated – “No one has ever claimed it is only humans who influence climate. Why does this idea keep getting repeated? It completely baffles me.”
It may or may not be that scientists have put the ‘blame’ on human impact, but certainly the media promote this very heavily – big business has bought into it with the growth of green-friendly products. There are a huge number of govt regulations that restrict what a person can now produce in the way of emissions, etc, etc. You know as well as I do, that if nature is to take then entire blame, then man is apparently doomed. If man is to take the entire blame, then big brother can come up with all sorts of things to almost totally stop man. If man shares the blame with nature, who can stop nature, so man again is the only part that can be regulated. The idea keeps getting repeated because our media love to shock and scare us, and govt use our fears to make new rules.

4. Karoly stated that "El Nino warms the global climate" – Luke stated - “El Ninos have major impacts on temperatures in many parts of the world - true - but not every year is an El Nino year so that doesn't explain what we're seeing.”

Luke, as a farmer I can tell you that since 1980, El Nino has ruled our climate for over 13 years. And I would assume that the El Nino situation does not suddenly pop up but other natural circumstances move and manoeuvre until an El Nino is formed, the same to see it go. Consequently it would be safe to assume that ‘natural’ circumstances are different before and after, which would stretch the effect of an El Nino period. El Nino covers time periods of years, not months.

Re the interview with Carl Wunsch he stated "science is not about truth, it is about plausability". My dictionary defines plausability as "having the appearance of truth".

From sjt – “If you want truth from science, you are going to be seriously disappointed. Truth is something that is an abstract concept, science has to deal with reality as best it can. At the moment, the best answer is that AGW is happening, and is observed to be happening.”

From Luke “Don't mistake what Wunsch was saying - absolute 100% science truth is elusive. He's simply be philosophical. At some point you get enough evidence to turn a hypothesis into a solid theory and act on it.”

From Gavin - “Plausability is not truth” lets take a punt hey with this; Creationism is the truth.”

Guys, you just proved my case. We humans are constantly being told this issue of Global Warming is a done deal, no more questions to be asked, this will happen whether we want it to or not, etc, et