Arctic warm periods 'inexplicable' by greenhouse gases alone

22 June, 2012 by

Drilling on Lake Unpronounceable

Quick, throw another heretic on the fire. The ABC momentarily abandons its trademark groupthink on climate to report on a paper which shows warm periods in the Arctic over the past 2.8 million years, and which cannot be explained by greenhouse warming alone.

Funny, because usually they can’t explain things but for greenhouse gases…

The Arctic went through ice-free periods of extreme warmth over the past 2.8 million years, based on a new analysis of deep sediment in Russia.

The team led by Martin Melles of the University of Cologne, Germany, drilled into an iced-over lake formed by a meteorite impact on the Chukchi Peninsula in Siberia for the longest sediment core ever collected in the terrestrial Arctic.

Since the meteorite struck an area of Lake El’gygytgyn that was not eroded by glaciers, the sediment record reaches back nearly 30 times further in time than ice cores from Greenland that cover the past 110,000 years.

The sediment reveals periods of extreme warmth that show the polar regions are much more vulnerable to change than previously thought, and are difficult to explain by greenhouse gases alone, according to the study in the journal Science.

Scientists have long known that the Arctic went through climate cycles, but the latest research shows some of these warm phases were “exceptional”, with temperatures 4°C to 5°C warmer and 30 centimetres wetter than during normal interglacials, the study’s authors write. (source)

More evidence of natural climate change perhaps? You can be sure this paper won’t make it into IPCC AR5…

Paper is here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

Lawyer's view on climate science

22 June, 2012 by

Legal analysis

It’s always interesting for me when a lawyer, trained and experienced in separating fact from fiction, turns his attention to climate science.

Put the kind of sloppy generalisations, blatant political interference, fudged data and concealed evidence that underpins the entire climate “Consensus” in front of a court of law and it would be demolished in seconds. Unfortunately, I cannot see a way of ensuring that could happen. The next best thing is to get a lawyer’s perspective, and that’s what we have here:

A review of the peer-edited literature reveals a systematic tendency of the climate establishment to engage in a variety of stylized rhetorical techniques that seem to oversell what is actually known about climate change while concealing fundamental uncertainties and open questions regarding many of the key processes involved in climate change. Fundamental open questions include not only the size but the direction of feedback effects that are responsible for the bulk of the temperature increase predicted to result from atmospheric greenhouse gas increases: while climate models all presume that such feedback effects are on balance strongly positive, more and more peer-edited scientific papers seem to suggest that feedback effects may be small or even negative.

The cross-examination conducted in this paper reveals many additional areas where the peer-edited literature seems to conflict with the picture painted by establishment climate science, ranging from the magnitude of 20th century surface temperature increases and their relation to past temperatures; the possibility that inherent variability in the earth’s non-linear climate system, and not increases in CO2, may explain observed late 20th century warming; the ability of climate models to actually explain past temperatures; and, finally, substantial doubt about the methodological validity of models used to make highly publicized predictions of global warming impacts such as species loss.

Insofar as establishment climate science has glossed over and minimized such fundamental questions and uncertainties in climate science, it has created widespread misimpressions that have serious consequences for optimal policy design.

Read it here. (h/t Hockey Schtick)

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With:

Last words on ANU FOI

16 June, 2012 by

FOI request

ANU have stifled any further attempt to reach the truth in this matter, having (a) refused to comment any further through their media office; and (b) quoted nearly $40k to search through their documents for the further evidence I have requested – a ridiculous amount clearly intended to thwart my request.

You’d think they’d have a big red file labelled “Death Threats” on a shelf somewhere, but apparently not. The threats were so serious (allegedly) that they kept no easily accessible records and will need to spend over 2500 man hours trawling through all their documents. Bizarre.

This signals the end of the line. I could appeal the quoted fee, but to be honest, I don’t have the inclination to pursue the matter any further.

Chris Merritt pens the final summary in The Australian:

ATTEMPTS to verify last year’s sensational reports of death threats against climate change scientists have been stymied by the Australian National University, which wants to be paid at least $37,800 to search its records for evidence that would support those reports.

The university has justified that fee by asserting that the search would take 2520 hours and occupy six employees for 60 days working seven-hours a day at $15 an hour.

ANU has also given notice that the final bill could be even higher as it would need to include an additional sum to cover the cost of deciding whether to make available the results of the search. Before it starts looking, the university wants a deposit of $9450.

The money demanded by ANU has forced lawyer and climate change blogger Simon Turnill to abandon his latest attempt to check the veracity of the assertions.

“I don’t know how they have arrived at this figure of over 2500 hours of work to identify these documents,” Mr Turnill said.

“The simplest option would be for ANU to come out and admit honestly what was received and what was not received. Making us go through an endless succession of hoops to get to the truth seems a very defensive and strange response.”

As part of his FOI application, Mr Turnill had also sought access to all documents and records containing communications with journalists — particularly those at The Canberra Times — about threats to staff at the university’s Climate Change Institute. (source)

Chris also writes here about the police reports of threats sent to them in 2006, years prior to the story breaking last June, and how statements from the ANU staff concerned, which would have allowed police to investigate further, were never received. The description of the letters provided by police does not tie in with the description supplied by the ANU in its statement.

So I guess we will never know the truth. People will inevitably draw their own conclusions from the evasive manner in which ANU have handled this entire episode, which has done little for openness, honesty and ultimately the credibility of the institution.

Sharing information, whether it be climate data or evidence to back up claims of death threats, seems to be very difficult for our climate scientists.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

If you emotionalise the climate debate, expect scrutiny

15 June, 2012 by

And if you make exaggerated claims about AGW, expect scrutiny of those as well.

I really didn’t want to spoil my breakfast by reading anything from extremist Clive Hamilton, but I had little choice, as it refers to the ANU email story.

Regular readers will know Hamilton has made many dangerous global warming statements in the past, including suggesting the “suspension of democracy” to tackle the climate “crisis”, so it’s no surprise what comes next.

I’m not going to bother quoting anything from it, you can read it yourself here, but suffice it to say, Hamilton fails to acknowledge that there were no death threats received by the ANU, criticises The Australian for its reporting (naturally, this is the Murdoch hate media after all), and sneakily conflates the ANU story with some far more serious emails received by Phil Jones at UEA in the couple of months after the Climategate scandal broke.

[But was anyone ever charged with a criminal offence over these emails? Yes, they are deeply offensive and unpleasant, but, again, do they contain specific enough threats to kill that charges could be brought? I very much doubt it.]

In society there will always be a tiny minority of disturbed individuals who will send such material to high profile public figures, especially when they are front and centre of the news. I’ve said it a thousand times before, but will say it again: no conduct of this kind is acceptable in any circumstances and ACM condemns it unreservedly. 

However, when climate scientists themselves use the media to emotionalise the debate, to garner sympathy for their cause and implicitly portray anyone who questions the consensus as capable of such actions in an attempt to tar all climate realists with the same brush, they should expect detailed scrutiny of those claims. It’s all a meaningless distraction from the real issue anyway.

In Hamilton’s view, like with the climate debate itself, we, the ignorant unwashed masses, are not permitted to question the infallible authority of the climate elite, whether it is about man’s effect on the climate or receiving death threats. When some impudent upstart dares to do so, that is immediately branded “hate speech” by the “denier media”.

Sorry to be so childish about this, but really, who started this in the first place?

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

Yet more on Gergis

13 June, 2012 by

Steve McIntyre’s investigation into Gergis et al continues apace. His latest post investigates the “Law Dome” ice core series, and why it has never been published officially, despite being the highest resolution available for the last 2000 years. It was “screened out” of the Gergis paper.

Josh has been on good form once again, with a trio of Gergis based cartoons (click to enlarge each):

Overheating?

Stick sifting

McIntyre at work

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With:

The Age beats The Oz for balanced climate reporting

12 June, 2012 by

Balance - today, at least

UPDATE: The Australian prints an update here (not, however, by science writer Leigh Dayton, who couldn’t bring herself to acknowledge the problem even existed).

For today, at least, The Age’s Adam Morton gets the guernsey for climate reporting (yes, you did read that correctly), for acknowledging the problems with the recent Gergis et al paper (see here, here, here, and here).

Morton, like the majority of environmental journalists, is a (self-selected?) believer in the magnitude and dangers of AGW, but today has shown a welcome streak of balance:

A WIDELY reported study that found the past half-century in Australasia was very likely the warmest in a millennium has been ”put on hold” after a mistake was found in the paper.

Led by scientists from the University of Melbourne, the study involved analysis of palaeoclimatic data from tree rings, coral and ice cores to give what was described as the most complete climate record of the region over the past 1000 years.

It was peer-reviewed and published online by the Journal of Climate in May, but was removed from the website last week at the authors’ request after the discovery of a ”data processing issue” that could affect the results.

Study co-author and climate science professor David Karoly said one of the five authors found the method of analysis outlined in the paper differed to that actually used.

The Climate Audit blog – run by Canadian Steve McIntyre, who has challenged the validity of palaeoclimatic temperature reconstructions – claimed credit for finding the issue with the paper. Professor Karoly said the authors uncovered the problem before Climate Audit blogged about it.

He said the data and results were being reviewed. (source)

Disappointingly, however, The Australian, which has usually been far more balanced in its reporting of climate matters, is so far refusing to publish anything about the developments. When contacted by ACM about the discovery of the problem, suggesting that a similar article to Morton’s be published in the Oz, science writer Leigh Dayton responded:

“I think we’ll have to agree to disagree.”

A curious answer, given the fact that the paper’s authors themselves have acknowledged the issues with the data processing. It’s an indisputable fact that the paper is on hold pending correction, and not a matter of opinion over which one can choose to agree or disagree.

It is likely that the conclusions of the paper will be substantially similar after the review, but in any event, readers of The Australian, who, like readers of The Age, were informed of the fairly sensational claims of the original paper, should also be informed of this important development.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With:

Greenhouse gases 'largely to blame' for ocean warming

12 June, 2012 by

Alarmist Broadcasting Corporation

Instead of reporting the problems with its last alarmist story, namely the fact that bloggers have once again found holes in a supposedly “peer-reviewed” paper propping up the consensus, the ABC just moves on and runs another:

A new US-led study, featuring research by Tasmanian scientists, has concluded that warming ocean temperatures over the past 50 years are largely a man-made phenomenon.

Researchers from America, India, Japan and Australia say the study is the most comprehensive look at how the oceans have warmed.

The study, published today in the journal Nature Climate Change, examined a dozen different models used to project climate change, and compared them with observations of ocean warming over the past 50 years.

It found natural variations accounted for about 10 per cent of rising temperatures, but man-made greenhouse gases were the major cause. (source)

Authors supporting “the Cause” include Aussie John Church and Ben Santer. Need I say more?

Judith Curry gets technical about it here, and ocean temperature records in general were pretty rough before the ARGO era, but concludes that the latest paper will no doubt win out in AR5. Why? Because it’s the “right answer”, according to the consensus. Politics and activism win out over impartial science every time.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , , ,

Quote of the Day: 'Gergis has lost all critical distance from her research'

11 June, 2012 by

I like to think that ACM played a small part in this story, as commentators are beginning to look closely at Joelle Gergis’ climate activism and how it invariably taints her research.

Commenter Baldrick first located Gergis’ blog here, which revealed her past climate activism, and we preserved it here and here on Webcitation so that if it ever got posted down the memory hole, it would still be available.

Guess what? That’s exactly what happened, and Gergis’ blog was “disappeared“…

Recall that Gergis, on her blog, wrote:

As a climate scientist, I am hopeful that we will finally see real action on climate change. According to COSMOS, [former Australian PM Kevin] Rudd is expected to receive a “rock star’s welcome” to the world stage at crucial U.N. climate change talks in Bali next month. He will be hailed for agreeing to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, the international agreement aimed at curbing global greenhouse gas emissions.

Up to 140 world environment ministers will attend the conference. It is hoped the meeting will bring vital breakthroughs in the effort to achieve a new climate agreement. It is expected to deliver a road map to show how to keep the planet’s temperature from rising more than two degrees. 

And now, Fritz Varenholt, author of The Cold Sun spells out the obvious conflict:

By mixing activism and science, Joelle Gergis has apparently lost all critical distance [from her] research results, which invariably leads to such errors. A science open to results is impossible with that attitude. This is not only true for Gergis. Inconvenient results are suppressed, interpretations constantly distorted in one direction, and alternatives are ignored or swept aside. Gergis’s refusal to admit to errors and to have a fruitful dialogue with opposing views can only be explained by her ideological fixation. (source)

Well said indeed. Read my post Are climate scientists a self-selecting set of climate activists? here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , ,

Sunday Silliness: 'Euthanise your old pet' to save the planet

10 June, 2012 by

Ms Tremayne

People send me links to stuff. This one came in a few days ago, and with it came a message to STOP HAVING BABIES (in capitals). The link points to a highly credible-looking site purportedly selling carbon credits, but it’s clearly an elaborate hoax as the carbon credits are apparently on “backorder” – LOL!

The purpose of the site, I eventually established, is to advertise a (genuine) book, “Biodiesel – A Novel”, which is available on Amazon, and judging by the comments may actually be a good read. An extract is available here.

The worrying thing about this whole yarn was the length of time it took me to work out it was a hoax. We have read stuff like this from genuine extreme-green advocates, so I wasn’t entirely sure whether it was genuine or not.

Here are a few extracts from an article by “Daphne Tremayne” entitled The little things we can do to reduce our carbon footprint (and think to yourselves how many times you may have read similar exhortations from the environmental headbangers):

Like me, you’ve probably realized that everyday living is a catastrophe for the environment!  In many ways, our modern lifestyle has done so much to contribute to ecological degradation and Global Warming.  But have you ever really considered what you can do to change things?  Here are just a few little things you can do to reduce your Carbon Footprint!

  • Stop Having Children

      I know!  I know!  Children are as cute as all get-out, but have you ever really considered how much carbon one child puts into the atmosphere?  Over a single lifetime, the amount is practically immeasurable.  One of the best all-around things for the environment would be fewer people in the world…

  • If You Must Have Children, Buy Baby Credits

     Baby Credits are similar to regular Carbon Credits, however, instead of being backed by non-productive parcels of land, Baby Credits are backed by non-productive women of child-bearing age…

  • Slow Down Your Breathing

      It sounds silly, but breathing is actually a major source of atmospheric carbon.  One of the ways you can reduce your Carbon Footprint is to breathe less.  That’s right, breathe less!  You’re probably asking yourself how that’s possible, but believe it or not, yoga is a great way to slow down the metabolism and reduce the need for excessive breathing.  If you’re not already into yoga, consider taking classes at your local studio.  Soon, you’ll be breathing less, and as an added bonus, feel much less stressed out!

  • Reduce Your Use of Paper Products

     Consider switching to a reusable toilet sponge.  Store your toilet sponge in a mild vinegar and water solution in a receptacle next to the commode and use it the same way you would toilet paper.   Instead of discarding your sponge, rinse it after each use before placing it back in the vinegar and water solution…

  • Euthanize Your Old Pet

     Pets have become a common feature in most homes and are an attribute of the modern, Western lifestyle.  We all love our dogs and cats, but really, when you think about it, pets are a major producer of excess carbon.  One of the best ways to reasonably enjoy your pet and reduce your overall Carbon Footprint is to determine in advance how long your pet should live.  As a family, set a date when your pet will be euthanized.  One great way to teach children the value of pet euthanasia is to turn the occasion into a family celebration.  Let’s say you’ve set March 10, five years from now, as your pet’s euthanasia date.   For the next five years, celebrate March 10 as your pet’s special day, with a family party and perhaps a visit to your pet’s future burial spot.  Teach your children to think of the occasion as a birthday in reverse.  A predetermined euthanasia date will encourage your family to love and care for your furry friend while it’s still young and playful.  What’s more, pre-planing for pet termination not only works towards reducing your family’s Carbon Footprint, but guarantees long term reduction in veterinary expenses. 

There’s plenty more at the link.

 

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

Aussie Hockey Stick paper 'put on hold'

9 June, 2012 by

UPDATE: Leigh Dayton, “science” writer for The Australian responds to an email relating to this issue from one of my readers thus:

“I deal only with peer-reviewed science, not cherry-picked “evidence” from people not engaged in research.”

Only thing I can say is: wow. Yet another self-selected environmental activist, alas. Check out this article if you are in any doubt about her blinkered approach to climate. It even uses the “D” word.

Again, thanks to the tireless efforts of Steve McIntyre, truly a hero of the realist cause, the paper by Joelle Gergis (climate activist), which claimed a Hockey Stick in Australia (and who then refused to release the data), has been put on hold.

David Karoly writes to McIntyre:

An issue has been identified in the processing of the data used in the study, which may affect the results. While the paper states that “both proxy climate and instrumental data were linearly detrended over the 1921–1990 period”, we discovered on Tuesday 5 June that the records used in the final analysis were not detrended for proxy selection, making this statement incorrect. Although this is an unfortunate data processing issue, it is likely to have implications for the results reported in the study. The journal has been contacted and the publication of the study has been put on hold.

This is a normal part of science. The testing of scientific studies through independent analysis of data and methods strengthens the conclusions. In this study, an issue has been identified and the results are being re-checked.

We would be grateful if you would post the notice below on your ClimateAudit web site.

We would like to thank you and the participants at the ClimateAudit blog for your scrutiny of our study, which also identified this data processing issue.

Note that Karoly says McIntyre’s scrutiny “also” identified the issue, hinting that they had found it themselves independently. How likely is that? Where were all the peer reviewers? Missing in action? Blinded by their own ideology? Just a coincidence that McIntyre blows holes in it and suddenly they find a problem? D’ya think they’d have bothered if McIntyre hadn’t exposed the paper as being potentially flawed? I very much doubt it – it would have just added to the “consensus”.

McIntyre however cautions:

I urge readers not to get too wound up about this, as there are a couple of potential fallback positions. They might still claim to “get” a Stick using the reduced population of proxies that pass their professed test. Alternatively, they might now say that the “right” way of screening is to do so without detrending and “get” a Stick that way.

Why are they trying to “get” a stick? Is that science, or activism?

Read Steve’s post here.

(h/t Paul M – thanks)

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , ,
«Previous Page
Next Page»