Author: bobmcgee

Physics and the art of global warming …

In 2007 the American Physical Society leant its august weight to the consensus thus …

The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.

If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

Some of its members were less than impressed. 160 members of the APS protested. Some prominent scientists like Nobel Prize winning Ivar Gievar (“Incontrovertible is not a scientific word. Nothing is incontrovertible in science“) and long-standing Professor Hal Lewis (” … the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist“)  resigned.

Under the APS rules such policy statements must be reviewed each half-decade. The review is underway. Perhaps with one eye on its membership and the other on the lookout for more climategates or Himalayan glaciers melting at impossible rates, the committee that it has set up is remarkably balanced, three climate modellers and three skeptical scientists. The proceedings are fairly transparent for instance the Workshop Framing Document can be read <HERE>.

It raises some excellent questions. For a moderately lengthy discussion read Tony Thomas.

A sample …

While the Global Mean Surface Temperature (GMST) rose strongly from 1980-98, it has shown no significant rise for the past 15 years…[The APS notes that neither the 4th nor 5th IPCC report modeling suggested any stasis would occur, and then asks] …

To what would you attribute the stasis?

If non-anthropogenic influences are strong enough to counteract the expected effects of increased CO2, why wouldn’t they be strong enough to sometimes enhance warming trends, and in so doing lead to an over-estimate of CO2 influence?

What are the implications of this stasis for confidence in the models and their projections?

What do you see as the likelihood of solar influences beyond TSI (total solar irradiance)? Is it coincidence that the stasis has occurred during the weakest solar cycle (ie sunspot activity) in about a century?

Some have suggested that the ‘missing heat’ is going into the deep ocean…

Are deep ocean observations sufficient in coverage and precision to bear on this hypothesis quantitatively?

Why would the heat sequestration have ‘turned on’ at the turn of this century?

What could make it ‘turn off’ and when might that occur?

Is there any mechanism that would allow the added heat in the deep ocean to reappear in the atmosphere?

IPCC suggests that the stasis can be attributed in part to ‘internal variability’. Yet climate models imply that a 15-year stasis is very rare and models cannot reproduce the observed Global Mean Surface Temperature even with the observed radiative forcing.

What is the definition of ‘internal variability’? Is it poorly defined initial conditions in the models or an intrinsically chaotic nature of the climate system? If the latter, what features of the climate system ARE predictable?

How would the models underestimate of internal variability impact detection and attribution?

How long must the stasis persist before there would be a firm declaration of a problem with the models? If that occurs, would the fix entail: A retuning of model parameters? A modification of ocean conditions? A re-examination of fundamental assumptions?

Searching questions are also posed regarding climate sensitivity, climate modelling, the unexpected increase in Antarctic sea ice and the scale of anthropogenic forcing.

The questions are excellent but it’s how they are answered that matters. If the APS finds that the science is not settled, that observations do not match the model projections, that the evidence is not incontrovertible then their support for the AGW hypothesis must be withdrawn. In that case they will be the first significant scientific body to step back onto the path of science.

It will then be safe for the flat earthers, headless chickens and climate deniers to come out of hiding without fear of being tried for criminal negligence.

Electricity Bill …

Ms Gillard promised she would not introduce it.

She and Mr Swan heaped scorn on the then opposition for the suggestion that Labor would introduce it.

The nation saw Labor as liars when they did introduce it.

Energy prices and business costs have gone up because of it.

An optimistic forecast of its effect … restraining the increase in world temperature by 0.0034°C by 2100.

Prior to the last election Labor promised to abolish it.

The electorate certainly gave the Coalition Government the mandate to abolish it.

Today Labor joined with the Green to frustrate its removal.

It may be detrimental to the economy, useless for the environment but anything that hampers Australia’s recovery is good news for Labor because it reflects on Abbott.

 

Caution, offensive language …

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ACT 1975 – SECT 18C

Offensive behaviour because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin

(1)  It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:

(a)  the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and

(b)  the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.

Being offended is really a very easy thing to do. If, for instance, I was called a pom, which accurately describes my national or ethnic origin, I could take offense and give the lawyers a call. The assumption seems to be that we are all peculiarly sensitive about our race, colour or national or ethnic origin.

On the other hand we are expected to be extremely tolerant of offensive language and behaviour in every other aspect of our lives.

The former arbiter of good taste, our ABC, can see nothing wrong in designating one of its critics a dogfucker and photoshopping a picture of him thus engaged and offering it on national TV for the amusement of the masses. The same organisation showed considerably more sensitivity by not showing any of these pictures in its extensive coverage of March in March.

marchinmarch-protestors-600The Fuck Abbott t-shirts were originally designed and produced by Clementine Ford, an Age columnist (calumnist?) and promoted in the Age newspaper. You will be relieved to know that they are are ethically produced …

It seems that there are a lot of people out there who are keen to speak freely, expect me to be very tolerant of their free speaking but are not happy to extend that courtesy to others.

As a foot note I do like Tim Blair’s explanation of March in March … because there isn’t a month called Stupid Whiny Bitching.

 

The dope on climate change …

Screen Shot 2014-03-18 at 1.09.04 pm

  • 80 percent of all marijuana grown in the USA comes from California.
  • In 2013, California authorities seized 329 outdoor pot grow sites with: 1.2 million plants, 119,000lbs of trash, 17,000lbs of fertilizer, 40gal. of pesticides, 244 propane tanks, 61 car batteries, 89 illegal dams, and 81 miles of irrigation pipe.
  • During California’s growing season, outdoor grows consumed roughly 60 million gallons of water a day – 50% more than is used by all residents of San Francisco.
  • In California, indoor pot growing accounts for about 9% of household electricity use.
  • For every pound of pot grown indoors, 4600lbs of carbon dioxide goes into the atmosphere. California’s production equates to emissions of 3 million cars.
  • The energy needed to produce a single joint is enough to produce 18 pints of beer, and creates emissions comparable to burning a 100 watt light bulb for 25 hours.

Source – “Mother Jones” magazine.

Facts are not enough …

I cannot believe these people, are they intent on scuttling their own case?

In yet another own goal, and once again at the Conversation, which our taxes are paying for …

A colleague of mine recently received an invitation to a Climate Council event. The invitation featured this Tim Flannery quote: “An opinion is useless, what we need are more facts.”

My first thought was that my colleague was taking the piss. Tim Flannery is an experienced science communicator, but that phrase made my jaw drop. It was apparently meant in earnest, but it’s wildly off the mark.

The quote is ludicrously, appallingly, almost dangerously naïve. It epitomises the reasons we are still “debating” climate science and being overwhelmed by climate skeptics/deniers/contrarians in the public space.    Rod Lamberts, Deputy Director, Australian National Centre for Public Awareness of Science at Australian National University.

One of the traps folk are prone to fall into is to think of those that do not share our opinions as a homogenous other, and since they don’t share our opinions a stupid homogenous other.

What on earth is a climate denier? The climate is a fact of life … no one denies it. Climate change is quite another thing … and again climate change is a fact of life, no one with any brain denies that, the geologic record is rich in evidence that climate changes. Anthropogenic global warming? OK, now we have a debate.

A recent study of the skeptics in that debate finds them to be well educated, engaged and well informed, most have tertiary qualifications. They are well aware that an there is an inconvenient difference between the warmist predictions and the measured temperature. Aware too that the earth has been warming since the little ice age and aware that along the way there have been several periods where the rate of warming matched that of the late 20th century …

Subatlantic_Had

Also aware that there has now been no significant warming in 17 years despite an increase in atmospheric CO2. There is, in fact, no convincing evidence that the climate is doing anything different from its previous behaviour at all, temperature may continue to trend up or even down. There is a considerable amount of evidence that up will provide a net benefit to human productivity and it is abundantly clear that previous down turns in temperature have been rather bad for civilisation. Nonetheless the Deputy Director argues …

The fact is that the time for fact-based arguments is over.

We all know what the overwhelmingly vast majority of climate science is telling us. I’m not going to regurgitate the details here, in part because the facts are available everywhere, but more importantly, because this tactic is a core reason why climate messages often don’t resonate or penetrate.

and a little bit of circular reasoning …

How much more evidence do you need than the singular failure of scientific facts to convince deniers that humans are buggering up the climate?

… leads inexorably to the Orwellian conclusion …

What we need now is to become comfortable with the idea that the ends will justify the means. We actually need more opinions, appearing more often and expressed more noisily than ever before.

No, Rodney, the debate is going against you because the opinions you express are derived from computer models that are delivering predictions that simply do not match the facts. Shouting at me will not re-educate me.

Jail beckons …

The first thing that crossed my mind when I saw this article was agent provocateur, it was a fake written to discredit the thermageddonites. But, folks, there is a Rochester Institute of Technology not far from the shores of Lake Ontario in New York State. It has a web site. Professor Torcello is listed, he exists …

Lawrence Torcello, assistant professor of philosphy at Rochester Institute of Technology, calls for the funders of climate skepticism to face sanctions for criminal negligence.

Accurately understanding our natural environment and sharing that information can be a matter of life or death. When it comes to global warming, much of the public remains in denial about a set of facts that the majority of scientists clearly agree on. With such high stakes, an organised campaign funding misinformation ought to be considered criminally negligent.

He goes on to discuss the case of the Aquila earthquake in Italy in 2009 after which six Italian scientists and a local defence minister were subsequently sentenced to six years in prison, takes the critics of that case to task and comes up with …

The charge of criminal and moral negligence ought to extend to all activities of the climate deniers who receive funding as part of a sustained campaign to undermine the public’s understanding of scientific consensus.

Can we generalise from this that Professor Torcello places a high value on accuracy in presenting information about important matters? Or should we should we consider the alternative explanation that he has made up his mind and therefore further discussion should be suppressed? Is he on the side of accuracy or censorship?

There is a clue in his paper. One of the references the good professor cites in his support is the Guardian Newspaper. This is an article published just over two years ago based on leaks from an insider revealing that the Heartland Institute was engaged in a concerted campaign, funded by Big Oil interests, aimed at “dissuading teachers from teaching science.” This was a big story for the alarmists, the smoking gun that nailed Big Oil and the Koch brothers.

It subsequently turned out that the anonymous whistle blower was not an insider at all. Enter Peter Gleik who runs a Californian research organisation called the Pacific Institute …

The Pacific Institute’s Integrity of Science Initiative responds to and counters the assault on science and scientific integrity in the public policy arena, especially on issues related to water, climate change, and security.

Integrity however was not high in his attributes when he faked his identity, fraudulently obtained documents from the Heartland Foundation and released those documents to the press. And here’s the good bit, the documents did nothing to incriminate the foundation … but the two page fake memo that was added to them was a ripper.

He was eventually obliged to make an apology in which he acknowledges “a serious lapse of my own and professional judgment and ethics” and concludes …

My judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts — often anonymous, well-funded, and coordinated — to attack climate science and scientists and prevent this debate, and by the lack of transparency of the organizations involved. Nevertheless I deeply regret my own actions in this case. I offer my personal apologies to all those affected.

Please note the words “and prevent this debate“. Just who is trying to prevent debate? And what better way to suppress debate than to throw one side of the debate in jail.

On the other hand we could go back to the title of Professor Torcello’s article, Is misinformation about the climate criminally negligent?, and if it is we might start to think of suitable punishments for those who misinformed us that …

… snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event, Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” Dr David Viner, CRU, March 2000.

 So even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and river systems”, Tim Flannery (Australian Climate Commissioner) 2007.

The entire north polar ice cap will be gone in 5 years” Al Gore, 2008.

50 million climate refugees by 2010. United Nations Environment Programme 2005.

seas could rise 100 metres in a century. Robyn Williams of their ABC, 2007.

to mention just a few.