The Sun Is So Boring.....

[Renato1]

....... well, relatively speaking, that is.

Today I remembered that I owned a Personal Solar Telescope (PST), so I had a look at the sun. Saw two ultra tiny sunspots, and then could just make out a third teeny one, and a little solar flare.

I bought the PST eight or nine years ago and the sun has been a disappointment ever since (apart from the occasional flare).

I fondly remember the days back in 1982 and 1983 when, with my newly acquired K-Mart Focal 114mm reflector and its sun projection attachment, one could see most of the face of the sun heavily pock marked with dozens of sunspots.

Is anybody else here old enough to remember those wondrous solar days of 30+ years ago?

Cheers,
Renato

[h0ughy]

um little confused - maybe you needed to change your eyepiece;)

last Monday in the space of 15 min a flare let rip and had cleared out into space. it is a dynamic ever changing body - its like watching an open fire, it is beautiful, yet deadly - LOL almost described my wife there too:rofl:

as for 30 years ago - no but i do remember the pics in Astronomy and S&T

[tonybarry]

Hi Renato,

I am definitely old enough, but my Focal 114mm reflector DID NOT HAVE the solar projection attachment !!! After all this time, I am seriously hacked off that such a thing existed and I did not know !

It did come with a solar filter, a piece of dark glass that screwed into an eyepiece. Even at fifteen years of age I was pretty dubious about the ability of this piece of glass to dissipate the 100 W or so of insolated energy on a 5" mirror. So I tested it … I put it in the scope, aimed at the sun using the shadow, and stayed right away from the eyepiece. After fifteen seconds I heard the "crack !" of the dark glass shattering. I pushed the scope off the sun, removed the eyepiece and filter, and sure enough it was hot as the hinges of hell, and cracked down the middle.

In the bin it went.

Regards,
Tony Barry

[Renato1]

Thanks. Your pictures describe perfectly what I mean - negligible sunspots.

My PST shows the facula, though not as well as in your photos. But I yearn for proper sunspots.

Cheers,
Renato

[Renato1]

Hi Tony,
I've been trying to reply to you for the last hour and a half, but for some weird reason, when I hit Reply with Quote, the quote doesn't show up.

I can see that you would be annoyed with Focal. That filter you got was a disgrace. What I got was a nice 6 or 7" square of aluminium painted white on one side and black on the other. It was connected by a rod to a clamp which exactly matched the outside of the focuser. So that the sun's image projected onto the white square.

It took me a while before I noticed that the 6mm and 20mm Hyguens eyepieces got darn hot as I was projecting the amazing images. But the heat didn't wreck them, and they still work fine (though I bought better ones for it).

Cheers,
Renato

[Pinwheel]

My first Kmart 900mm refractor also came with this clamp, bracket & metal plate. Now 30 years on I have a 12" Dob & recently I've ordered a 12" sq polymer sun filter to make a 14" near full aperture filter. Anything I should be aware of apart from removing the spotting scope!

[Amaranthus]

Make sure you use a shroud on your truss, Doug (unless you have a solid tube).

[cometcatcher]

There's a big group of sunspots moving into view now. The next couple of days should see them better.

I do remember some big groups in the 80's. I used to view them with my Tasco 10K 80mm F15 refractor and projection screen.

[George Ionas]

I agree with HOughy, time to change the eyepiece.

Here is the sun today.

George

[Pinwheel]

Thanks Barry, I have a solid tube. Looking at those latest's photos isn't the fusion process a wonder to behold. :thumbsup:

[cometcatcher]

Even in white light there's a big group of spots moving over.

[Robbos30]

Hi Renato, I can certainly remember the Kmart 114mm reflector. It was in fact the first telescope I ever had that sparked off my love affair with telescopes and astronomy back in 1983. Many happy memories and an awesome solar attachment to the focuser, allowing solar projection onto the white power coated metal plate. I grew up viewing sun spots thg safest way!
Alas I gave her away to a teacher friend of mine back in 1997. I sometime miss it!

[Pinwheel]

You should ask her about it, chances are it's in a dark spot forgotten gathering dust.

[Renato1]

That's my problem with the sun nowadays.

Back in my day, with my trusty Focal Reflector, those sunspots in your excellent picture, would have been considered a teensy group.
Cheers,
Renato

[Renato1]

Well, we're showing our age, but yes, when properly aligned and a with a 6X30 finder added to it, mine was and still is a pretty good telescope. I even upgraded the eyepieces and bought a SkyGlow filter for it.

I keep it at my parent's home where my brother now lives with his family.

I pull it out when I visit, and show them and visitors the moon and planets and big DSOs.
Cheers,
Renato

[Renato1]

Thanks. Nice to see someone else who remembers them.

Curiously or coincidentally or not so coincidentally, that was the time that coincided with the increase in the earth's temperature.

And curiously or coincidentally or not so coincidentally, ever since the big sunspot groups have dried up in the late 1990s, the earth's temperature has entered a pause, a hiatus - has failed to increase.
Regards,
Renato

[Peter Ward]

What utter rubbish.

While you won't hear this on 2GB, a quick look at almost all peer reviewed climate journals shows that Earth has warmed since 1880.

Most of this warming has occurred since the 1970s, with the 20 warmest years having occurred since 1981 and with all 10 of the warmest years occurring in the past 12 years.

Even though the 2000s with a solar output decline resulting in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures continue to increase.

While surface warming has slowed..it's still going up....and more disturbingly the deep ocean is warming at an alarming rate.

As for the Sun being boring....my H-alpha filter seems to show the Sun is quite active (http://www.atscope.com.au/BRO/gallery297.html) perhaps that PST needs some work??

[Renato1]

When temperature rises and then stops rising - well it stays at the same level - which means that it hasn't risen or fallen.

So, when you say 10 of the warmest years occurred in the last 12 years, that is an irrelevance as it in no way disproves my statement that the earth's temperature has entered a hiatus.

Far from being rubbish spouted by 2GB, the existance of the "hiatus" is acknowledged in the 5th Assessment Report of the UN's Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change. Perhaps you can approach them and tell them that their statement is rubbish?
Regards,
Renato

[Peter Ward]

Where did you get that from???

Section 2, Observations: Atmosphere and Surface

page 162,

states the temperature increase for: "the 2003– 2012 period is 0.78 [0.72 to 0.85] °C "

They also stress:

"Owing to natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends"

You can spin that into a zero, but you'd be misrepresenting the facts.

[stephenb]

T minus 10...

[Peter Ward]

Yes, well, sorry, but it irks me when tobacco-lobby like distortions continue to get re-hashed over and over again and often go unchallenged because people often don't actually read the source data..... :shrug:

[stephenb]

Fair enough Peter :thumbsup:

[Renato1]

Where did I get this from?
Well, one can spend four or five minutes doing the following.
Search for "5th Assessment Report" in Google, and one finds the Assessment report here.
http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/

One then types "Hiatus" into the search box, which delivers these two documents which address the Hiatus (well, try make excuses for it anyway - but admit it they do in fact do).
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/plattner15paris.pdf
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter09.pdf

One then waits a couple of minutes while the files are downloaded. Then one uses the Adobe Find feature, and types in "Hiatus" to read all about the Hiatus you claim I made up when I said the IPCC said there was one.

There you can read stuff like,
"Box 9.2: Climate Models and the Hiatus in Global-Mean Surface Warming of the Past 15 Years
The observed global-mean surface temperature (GMST) has shown a much smaller increasing linear trend
over the past 15 years than over the past 30 to 60 years (Section 2.4.3, Figure 2.20, Table 2.7; Figure 9.8;
Box 9.2 Box 9.2 Figure 1a,c). Depending on the observational data set, the GMST trend over 1998–2012 is
estimated to be around one-third to one-half of the trend over 1951–2012 (Section 2.4.3, Table 2.7; Box 9.2
Figure 1a,c). For example, in HadCRUT4 the trend is 0.04 ºC per decade over 1998–2012, compared to 0.11
ºC per decade over 1951–2012. The reduction in observed GMST trend is most marked in Northern-
Hemisphere winter (Section 2.4.3, (Cohen et al., 2012))."

So you read 0.78 degrees increase over 2003-2012 in the report, and I read 0.04 degrees per decade over 1998-2012 in the report, in a section on the Hiatus.

As I said, if you don't like the IPCC addressing "the Hiatus in Global-Mean Surface Warming of the Past 15 Years" in their report, go complain to them.
Regards,
Renato

[andyc]

With due apologies for raising it, but Renato, do you realise that the total heat content of Earth has continued to rise unabated over the past 15 years (http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-not-slowing-its-speeding-up.html)? The "Earth's temperature" is not just the air (2%), but also the oceans (93%), land (2%) and cryosphere (2%). Ignore the oceans, and you ignore almost all the heat that Earth is accumulating due to our enhancement of the greenhouse effect. And the oceans have warmed most in the past 15 years. That enhanced heat trapping effect is the byproduct of a top-of-the-atmosphere energy imbalance brought about by infrared absorption and emission at the wavelength of a certain familiar, but non-condensing triatomic molecule. As astronomers, we should be familiar with the spectral fingerprinting possible due to spectroscopy, which directly confirms this enhanced effect. And extra atmospheric insulation means the stratosphere is cooling while the troposphere warms up, an effect not possible if it were simply the Sun wot done it. It ain't the sun (http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm)!

Back on topic, the Sun has been much quieter than the last solar max that I saw, but there have been a few excellent spot groups to view. You just have to be more patient than in previous decades. It's not a promising thought for visual solar observing if the Sun were to go into a prolonged quiet phase, where this could be as good as it gets for decades :(. But that wouldn't change the energy balance by enough watts per square metre to put much of a dent in our warming of the planet (http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-would-Solar-Grand-Minimum-affect-global-warming.html).

[Renato1]

Hi Andy,
The good thing about this climate debate is that most of the actual data is available just by Googling. One can read blogger sites like Skeptical Science which claims that the earth is warming at the rate of dozens Hiroshima bombs every second, and start getting scared when they point out effects on the Arctic ice as evidence of their point. Only problem occurs when one then Googles and checks the global sea ice anomaly. Which shows that earth's sea ice is of right now - at record levels. The Arctic has recovered from its lows (it didn't disappear by last year, as many had predicted), and Antarctic sea ice (which is far greater than the Arctic's) just keeps getting bigger. Anyhow, if you check the IPCC 5th Assessment report, they can't figure out why the Antarctic ice just keeps getting bigger, contrary to all predictions of theory.

As for the effect of the sun on temperature, the still unproven theory (from some group in Scandinavia) about the sun's possible role in earth's temperature changes relates to the effect of the solar wind. With an inactive sun, more cosmic rays hit the earth leading to cloud formation at lower levels, and results in a cooler earth. When solar winds predominate from a very active sun, those particles result in clouds forming at higher levels, leading to a warmer earth. (I read that in American Sky&Telescope some years back). I expect it will be some time before that theory is either proven or dis-proven.

But I didn't really want to start a debate about this. What the skeptics were calling a "Pause" since 1998 (for which they were much derided) has now been acknowledged by the IPCC, and they call it an "Hiatus".
Its existence is not debatable anymore.

Anyhow, I still miss the decent sunspots of the early to mid 80s. And I really miss the summer of 1987/1988 - where down here in Melbourne, I got a suntan in the first week of September, Carlton won the premiership on 30 September in 30C heat, and it was beach weather from September through till the very end of May. I even went to the beach on the second of June. By way of contrast, we only had a month and a half of beach weather this year.
Cheers,
Renato

[JB80]

This thread makes me sad. :(

Mainly because I think the Sun is awesome, it's probably the most dynamic and ever changing subject an astronomer can ever view.

[Pinwheel]

Who's to say that these temperature rises aren't some normal cycle that occurs say every 15-20 thousand years. It wasn't that long ago geologically speaking that earth ended an ice-age that covered the equator.

[Peter Ward]

For those who want to read it. the latest report (not some draft or summary) is here:

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter02_FINAL.pdf

Indeed they state the over this short period the trend (0.04 to 0.11 degrees to be accurate) has slowed, it is however still positive.

They also state:

"Even with this “hiatus” in global mean surface temperature trend, the decade of the 2000s has been the warmest in the instrumental record of global mean surface temperature"

Further, the IPCC report has high confidence that with further increases of greenhouses gasses, falls in aerosols, higher solar forcing will see this slowing/hiatus disappear in the near term (the oceans can only suck up so much).

As for the "boring" Sun.... I'll soon post my H-alpha system's view of today's anything but quiescent sun. ;)

[Steffen]

Agreed, though it would be nice if it was a binary :P

Cheers
Steffen.

[MortonH]

It is, isn't it? ;)

[Renato1]

Wow - you said I spoke rubbish. You said 2GB spoke rubbish. You said the IPCC said no such a thing about "The Hiatus". You cited some wild warming figure which turned out to bear no basis to current reality. And in a post to another member you deride me for not going to the raw source

So I do the work for you and give you links to the even more raw source at the exact same site that you cited, and demonstrate that
a. it is actually you who was totally unaware of what the world's temperature has been doing since 1998, and
b. that the IPCC has indeed acknowledged the "Hiatus" (Dr. Pauchuri apparently slipped up in Melbourne last year and called it a Pause, which was reported in The Australian), and
c. that a temperature increase of 0.72C over nine years would indeed be worrying, except that the rate is 0.04C per decade by Hadcrut4 (the measure they use the most). If you look at the graph below, you'll see that by cherry picking you can get something like 0.7C warming around that period. But that is as relevant as my saying that from that graph from 2006 to 2008, there was a 0.65C cooling (which there was).

The 0.04C per decade figure is so small, that even scientists who are proponents of AGW acknowledge that it is statistically insignificant.

But you respond by dismissing my links from the exact same site without any reason, and instead choose to cite their speculations about future falls in aerosols and higher solar forcings.

Below is a graph of the satellite record. As can be seen, the anomaly for April 2014 is 0.19C.

If you draw a line from 1979 to now, and choose that as you warming trend, then temperatures are increasing. But, if you draw a line from 1998 to now, there is no significant change in temperatures. And observing the latter line, shows that citing several years as among the hottest on record is irrelevant, as it has nothing to do with the trend.
Regards,
Renato




http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_April_2014_v5.png

[astroron]

(Quote)
They can't figure out why the Antarctic ice just keeps getting bigger, contrary to all predictions of theory. :question:
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-27381010
Cheers:thumbsup:

[Peter Ward]

True..and I'm still of the same opinion on this matter...and the sun being boring. (life on earth would get pretty exciting, albeit for a short time, without it )




I didn't deride you. But it helps if we are all looking at the same original source document.

Page 162 in the Executive Summary:"The total
increase between the average of the 1850–1900 period and the 2003–
2012 period is 0.78 [0.72 to 0.85] °C and the total increase between
the average of the 1850–1900 period and the reference period for projections,
1986−2005, is 0.61 [0.55 to 0.67] °C, based on the single
longest dataset available"

....no basis to reality? really? which bit did I make up??



You didn't, I read the IPCC report long before your post, about the sun being boring, apparently based on a sample of one (probably dodgy copy of) a PST.




Climate change looks at long term trends, not short term variability.

To quote the IPCC introduction on page 164:
"the climate comprises a variety of space- and timescales: from the diurnal cycle, to interannual variability such as the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO), to multi- decadal variations. ‘Climate change’ refers to a change in the state of the climate that can be identified by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties and that persists for an extended period of time"

Reduced to its absurd conclusion, your argument would suggest the Australian climate is getting colder ( despite the fact we are running into winter).



You are cherry picking the document in a manner that totally ignores its overall conclusion.

If pressed for time, I invite all to read the executive summary.

It overwhelmingly states greenhouse gas concentrations are increasing, warming is occurring, and even with the current "slow down" (even you admit the figure is not negative) the deep oceans are getting warmer.



It has everything to do with the long term trend....the longest of which, since instrumental records were kept, is undeniably up.

Are you seriously suggesting greenhouse is not a real physical process?

Despite Mercury getting 4x the solar flux from the Sun as Venus, the latter
is 40 degrees hotter thanks to greenhouse.

Humans activities emit about 10 billion tons of CO2 per year to the atmosphere every year...and the number is rising.

I do however recall the tobacco industry also saying in a similar manner 20 smokes a day couldn't possibly hurt anyone.....

P.S.
If you don't believe a species can change a planetary atmosphere.... might be a good to time
to regard plants with some awe... the 21% of oxygen in the air we breathe, is due their discovery of photosynthesis some 3.5 billion years ago.

[Renato1]

Let's see, I said,
"And curiously or coincidentally or not so coincidentally, ever since the big sunspot groups have dried up in the late 1990s, the earth's temperature has entered a pause, a hiatus - has failed to increase."

You said
"What utter rubbish."

I quoted the IPCC,
"Climate Models and the Hiatus in Global-Mean Surface Warming of the Past 15 Years.
For example, in HadCRUT4 the trend is 0.04 ºC per decade over 1998–2012, compared to 0.11"

You now still refuse to believe a Hiatus exists, saying that your statement about my statement being rubbish is still true, and decide to go into a homily about Global Warming and long term trends over short term trends and the planets.

A classic attempted snow job and attempt at diversion from your first factually incorrect and unsupported statement.

Do you admit the existence of the Hiatus, or do you chose to remain in denial?
Regards,
Renato

[Renato1]

Thanks but that's a prediction for the future.

Current reality is,
"In the Southern Hemisphere, autumn is well underway, and sea ice extent is growing rapidly. Antarctic sea ice extent for April 2014 reached 9.00 million square kilometers (3.47 million square miles), the largest ice extent on record by a significant margin. This exceeds the past record for the satellite era by about 320,000 square kilometers (124,000 square miles), which was set in April 2008."
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Who'd have thought that a hot atmosphere coupled with a hot ocean would lead to more sea ice? Plenty of future research projects there.
Regards,
Renato

[Peter Ward]

Yes. What about a positive number, even a cherry picked 0.04 don't you get?

Wait 500 years..or at least well past an election cycle....you get 2 degrees...wait 5,000..or roughly recorded human history... and you get 20 degrees.... I would think a run of 70C degree days would kill most flora/fauna. Let it run a little longer and we can make a cup of tea....just leave the kettle outside for a bit.



The executive summary, which I've quoted directly, twice now, includes sources other than Hadley, and indicates a much higher figure.



Again, the 15 years Hadley data is positive. The Stefan-Boltzmann law is not a homily or fantasy.




So the IPCC executive statement is wrong? I think not.






Critical thought. Give it a try.

[astroron]

From what I read it is happening NOW.

"We present observational evidence that a large section of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet has gone into a state of irreversible retreat; it has passed the point of no return," the agency glaciologist explained.

Like the Thwaites, Smith, Haynes, Pope, Smith and Kohler Glaciers in this region - the PIG has been thinning rapidly.
And its grounding line - the zone where the glacier enters the sea and lifts up and floats - has also reversed tens of km over recent decades.

"There is now little doubt that this sector of West Antarctica is in a state of rapid retreat, and the burning question is whether and how soon this retreat might escalate into irreversible collapse. Thankfully, we now have an array of satellites capable of detecting the tell-tale signs, and their observations will allow us to monitor the progress and establish which particular scenario Thwaites Glacier will follow.

Just a few quotes to show it is just not a future predicion but is happening as we speak.
Cheers:thumbsup:

[Renato1]

Again, you have unequivocally stated what I said about the Hiatus was rubbish.

And again you choose to waltz around the issue, without providing any supporting information (leaving it to me to go find it, because you are too slack?). You even call Hadcrut4 data, which together with Hadcrut3 has pretty much been the main driver of the warming debate, cherry picked - even though the IPCC cites it. Astonishing.

And again you refuse to unequivocally acknowledge or deny the existence of an Hiatus - something that is unequivocally acknowledged by the IPCC. They invented the term.

So what is your problem?

Why do you not say "I do not believe it, and where the term Hiatus was first created and used - in the IPCC documents - is rubbish"?

Or "I do believe it, but it really doesn't matter - and I apologise for saying what you said was rubbish?"

I look forward to your next waltz around this.
Regards,
Renato

[Renato1]

From what you cited,
"and the burning question is whether and how soon this retreat might escalate into irreversible collapse."
That is a prediction or fear of what may happen in the future.

One side of Antarctica loses some ice, the other side grows an unprecedented amount of it.
Regards,
Renato

[Peter Ward]

My problem is I can do just a little math. As for being slack...yep..I really haven't got the time to run you through my somewhat ancient and dog-eared undergrad Physics tome, Resnick & Halliday.

You have ignored the previous 130 years of data, and have just focused on the last 15, (an incorrect assumption as stated in the IPCC4 preamble)

A pause/hiatus would be zero.

Hence the "rubbish" statement from me, as a positive number, as much as you want to say otherwise, just isn't zero. Capish?

But assuming we just look at 15 years and Hadcrut 4 decadal data is now the new "norm" at just 0.04 degrees... (which I still maintain is a rubbish number)

....the consequences are not good.

No math required, just do the arithmetic

Humanity has been using written forms for about 6000 years.

The blink of an eye in geological scales. But, let's go forward an equivalent timespan.

600 decades x 0.04 degrees per decade = 24 degrees, making the average temperature a balmy 38 degrees C

Record highs would then be 80 degrees or so....

But taking the IPCC4 view (chapter 2, top page 162) derived from independent datasets, from 1880 to 2012 their "best estimate" trend figure is 0.78 degrees per decade.

But let's not go forward 6000 years...and say go forward about the same time as Ramesses II was building most of the Egyptian monuments in the past....say 1300 years

130 decades x 0.78 = 101 degrees C

I invite others to draw their own conclusions. I'm done with this.

[Renato1]

The waltz and prevarication continues.

Suddenly you put me up as someone who is focusing on 15 years of data and ignoring the previous 130 years of data. And then continue with your sermon.

Again - do you believe or not, that something coined by the IPCC as "The Hiatus", which they address quite a number of times in their 5th Assessment Report, and which I have given you the links to, exists?

You said that what I said - that there was a pause/hiatus - was rubbish. The onus is on you to prove it.

All you have done so far is recite bits of your Creed from your Bible, The Executive Summary, and pretend you have addressed the issue. While at the same time dismissing out of hand all references to the Hiatus in the Working Group Report that led to the creation of your Bible.

Funny how you invite everyone to read the Executive Summary (the one written to make things simple for the policy makers), which leaves out the Hiatus.

Simple question, is there a Hiatus or is there not?
And if not, what superior expertise do you possess to disagree with the IPCC who acknowledge it?

Regards,
Renato

P.S. Exactly what Resnick & Halliday, a physics book published in 1966, has to say about the hiatus in world temperature from 1998 to now, escapes me.

[Peter Ward]

Yes, the Physics therein probably does.

I know I said I was done....and my apologies for this last post:

You said: "in the late 1990s, the earth's temperature has entered a pause, a hiatus - has failed to increase"

I said: "Utter rubbish"

You rebutted: saying " the temperature hasn't risen or fallen", quoting the IPCC 5th Assessment Report.

I said and quoted the same IPCC report: " the temperature has gone up best case 0.04 degrees per decade, most likely case 0.78 degrees per decade"

Your said: "0.04 per decade is statistically insignificant"

I said: "0.04 (a POSITIVE number) is not zero", and with a little arithmetic showed what temperatures that sort of warming number generates in the future.

But, to cut through the cr@p:

0.04 does not equal zero.

You can hold your breath and turn blue.

It still won't equal zero. Hence to say so is rubbish.

[Renato1]

I note that the prevarication continues unabated.

You will not directly say whether you agree or disagree with the IPCC that there is an hiatus.

And plainly you are unable or incapable of consulting a dictionary which states that
"Hiatus" is "a pause or gap in continuity".

And you now apparently insist that there is no Hiatus, no Pause and no Gap in Contuity, and find yourself in the strange position of being at odds with just about all climate scientists in the world, where this Hiatus is the uppermost issue on their mind.

But you are equally insistent on not saying that they are speaking rubbish.

So, how come when I say one thing it is utter rubbish, and when they say the very same thing - which I have only repeated - it is not rubbish?

And perversely, when repeatedly challenged, you keep insisting that what I said was rubbish, but will not acknowledge the same for them.

Could it be that it is because you've dug yourself a hole, and I refuse to play your games of engaging in your diversions and strawman arguments, like your silly linear application of 0.04 degrees over six millennia?

Perhaps you can write to Dr. Pachauri and ask him to help you out?
Regards,
Renato

[Peter Ward]

Mate..I'm not the one digging the hole....you initial comment was "has failed to increase" ..... do you now retract that?

I've simply pointed out this is not the case.

1/2 of one degree per decade, like compound interest, still adds up.

[Pinwheel]

Play nice you two..IIS is supposed to be a friendly place! :tasdevil:

[Steffen]

Speaking of sun spots being related to global warming, how about this site:

http://www.tylervigen.com

Seems like the US should stop spending on science, space and technology immediately!

;)

Cheers
Steffen.

[Renato1]

Hadcrut4 data = 0.04C per decade
Mr. Ward = 0.5C per decade

Anomaly range over 16 year period = +0.7c to -0.3c, with typically 0.2C variation in yearly anomaly change.(see earlier graph which I posted).

There are things called standard deviation and significance testing. I can't be bothered doing the work for you, but please feel free to do it yourself.
A trend result of 0.04C per decade from data that typically jumps around by more than 5 times that amount over that 16 year period, but often by much more so, is going to be statistically insignificant.

The rest of the world's climate scientist have had to accept it, because that is the statistical reality. Why can't you?
Regards,
Renato

[MortonH]

Jeez, no wonder you shouldn't eat cheese before going to bed!

[Renato1]

Very interesting. Makes sort of sense though. US spends heaps on all that stuff, people don't get the free handouts, so they go kill themselves.

Anyhow, up till the 70s, the correlation between sunspots (Maunder Minimum) and temperature, given a 400 year record, was taken seriously. But if you Google it now, for the most part, the results that show up dispute it - using graphs that cut at at around 1980, though there is the occasional diehard supporter. Though curiously, all those reams of sunspots I saw back in the 1980s apparently weren't so great relative to the past.

Then, just when you'd think the issue was all over, back in January, NASA put this out,
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/

Interesting to see where it goes from here.
Regards,
Renato

[Peter Ward]

I do need to clarify this....

I did not intend to suggest 0.5 degrees/decade is the IPCC's projection, it's simply a random small positive number to illustrate the point.

IPCC 4 states with high confidence, meaning there is robust evidence and data agreement that temperatures by the end of the century will be 2 degrees (globally) higher than they are now (their words, not mine), which of course around 1/4 of one degree per decade, not 1/2 a degree.

[Renato1]

Rehashing obsolete stuff. They were using 90% confidence levels back then.

They've now switched to 95% confidence levels. From memory, (I can't be bothered looking it up again) IPCC5 figures are that they now have very high confidence that by the end of the century the temperature will have increased by between 1C and 7C.

Currently not on track to meet even that huge range.
Regards,
Renato

[N1]

....what if there is a hiatus in temp increase, and it is because of reduced solar activity/ solar max that doesn't deserve the name? Wouldn't that mean a strong causal link between solar activity and global temperature? And if there is a strong causal link between solar activity and global temp, shouldn't this planet be getting colder right now, like it did in the past during failed solar maxima as some might suggest?

Well, it isn't. It's just slowed its rate of warming. I take that to mean that the sh*t we're in is even deeper than initially thought, because once solar activity returns to higher levels, we might discover that 2014 was actually quite a cold year compared to what's in store :scared2:.

[MortonH]

Whether you call it a hiatus or not, it seems to me that it's over such a relatively short period that it can't be construed as more than a blip in the overall trend. Future history may prove otherwise, but it won't be clear for a long time yet.

However, regardless of one's beliefs on man-made climate change, there's no doubt that we need to take steps to reduce the amount of pollution we're dumping on the planet. The food chain is being damaged in plenty of other ways too.

[Renato1]

Hi,
Good points. And your question raises a lot more questions than you suspect. And it has been raised by others. One thing though, if there was a connection between sunspots and earth temperature, there would have to be lag effects - you wouldn't expect the planet to start going cold instantaneously.

You have to remember that the IPCC rejected all other possible causes for the increase in temperature from the mid 70s to late 1990s - stuff like that we were just coming out of the Little Ice Age, and this is what you'd expect the temperature to be doing, as well as the associated possible sunspot/global temperature connection. It took as a given that increased C02 was the cause. And all the supercomputer models have that built into them.

If you now accept, that sunspots have something to do with the earth's temperature - and it is demonstrated - then you have a problem with the models, as "the sh*t we're in" may not have been there in the first place.

The discussion on this matter seems to be all over the place, as you'd expect when there are so many variables. I forget the exact figure, but it is that something like a quarter of all the man-made CO2 that has ever been added to the atmosphere, has been added to it in the last 16 years - during the time of the Hiatus! Which has now raised all sorts of questions about CO2 sensitivity having been overestimated.

I have seen arguments claiming that the cooling effect of the sunspots is masking the horror we would have had from that huge increase in CO2, and when the sun returns to normal, disaster looms. But if one accepts the sunspot cause, it calls into question the accuracy and forecasts of the initial supercomputer models using CO2 as their root basis.

Anyhow, while 95% of the supercomputer models have had their predictions shown as flawed by this Hiatus, two of them haven't - and it will take another five of so years of Hiatus to disprove their predictions, or to show them on track. So, it will be interesting to see if the Hiatus continues, and which way the temperature goes when it ends.

Regards,
Renato

[N1]

Completely agree.



Hm. Could there be a lag effect here too? In which case I wouldn't expect the planet to heat up instantaneously. Would you? :question:

[andyc]

Renato, you've been stuffed chock full of misinformation my friend. Can I recommend a detox and some time reading about the basics of climate science (http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/PrinciplesPlanetaryClimate/index.html), before you go shooting from the hip? Not everything you read on the Internet is correct, and I prefer to get my science from the original research papers (particularly being that my PhD was in studying physical climate change). Skeptical Science is an excellent resource, in that not only does it rely on the primary research literature, but also has a good few actively publishing climate scientists among its contributors.

I'll note a couple of things -
1: Atmospheric physics tells us that the amount of non-condensing GHGs we have been emitting should be causing a large energy imbalance, much larger than the observed solar variations (have a read of Spencer Weart's history of CO2 (http://aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm) for an online starter).

2: We've observed (from the ground and from space) that there is a radiative imbalance at the top of the atmosphere, occurring at the wavelengths where CO2 scatters infrared radiation (Harries et al 2001, Philipona 2004 I think).

3: Earth has been observed to be continuing accumulating heat, dominantly in the oceans (93% of the energy goes there), see Levitus et al 2012. As most of the energy goes into the oceans, and the oceans have warmed rapidly in the 2000s, it is fair to say that the warming rate of the planet has likely accelerated. The atmosphere must follow the oceans heat-wise, and so we will continue to warm. Many atomic bombs per second equivalent, whether you like it or not - we are incredibly lucky the oceans are big, as they're the only significant buffer.

4: The hiatus is quite substantially an illusion, caused by cherry-picking the largest El Nino in recent history as a starting point, and several strong La Ninas as an end point. From memory, the average 30-year trend is about 0.16C/decade. The 15 years from 1992-2007 had a trend almost twice that, while the 15-year trend from 1998-2013 was a similar amount below the long-term trend. Were you saying global warming had doubled in speed at that point? The scientists correctly identified it as noise at the time. Both 15-year trend lines are not significantly different from the long-term warming trend, and for that reason, climate is done on 30-year trends/averages, to get rid of this noise. When you remove EL Nino, volcanic and solar factors, the trend really sticks out (Foster and Rahmstorf, 2011). Your argument is akin to suggesting a hot week in April means that winter isn't on its way!

5: There may be some small slowing of warming due to extra Chinese aerosols, and likely a slight reduction in warming rate due to the lowest solar activity in a century, but you should be very concerned as to why the climate is not sharply cooling when ENSO, solar and aerosols are aligned in such a way as to suggest it should be (see for example Feulner 2010). That because of the underlying warming trend that we know from atmospheric physics and observation is due to our extra CO2 emissions.

6: Remember that the spatial pattern of observed warming is not consistent with a solar activity origin, as I described previously. Did you think that scientists hadn't thought of the Sun? Or do you believe in a grand conspiracy comprising every national science academy on the planet, as well as thousands of academics, despite their career progression often depending on proving each each other wrong? And somehow colluding with governments to put the poor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_by_revenue), honest, suffering fossil fuel industries out of business, despite few governments actually getting really serious on climate?:rofl:

7: Actually, Antarctic sea ice increase has a number of entirely reasonable explanations... for example increased precipitation and melting land ice (which is occurring at an accelerating rate) freshens the oceans round Antarctica - and fresh water freezes more easily than salt. The ozone hole indirectly leads to higher circumpolar wind speeds, driving more rapid sea ice production, pumping more ice out onto the ocean. You'll find this information in the literature, find links to the research papers here (http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice-intermediate.htm). Counterintuitive processes like these are why one should listen to professional science bodies rather than the Murdoch press or amateur blog skeptics. Unfortunately all that extra Antarctic ice is languishing in the polar dusk of winter, contributing virtually nil to the planetary albedo. The more rapid Arctic ice decline occurs in summer and early autumn, where it does affect albedo (especially when combined with the extremely rapid decline in Northern Hemisphere summer snow cover (http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/snow_extent.html)).

8: Last point - the numbers don't sound large, but this is perhaps the fastest warming event outside a cataclysmic asteroid/volcanic eruption in geological history. The best analogues may be the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, or the end Permian mass extinction, but neither makes comfortable reading. 5C is a glacial-interglacial change (hardly small), but we're changing the climate more than an order of magnitude faster, and more rapidly than species or soils typically adapt. And we depend on agriculture, not on Gina Rineheart's profit margin. Richard Alley has a superb lecture on the palaeo evidence here (http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml). And all quite apart from ocean acidification, an even scarier beast.

Once again, I apologise to the mods for continuing this discussion, way too much from me and I'll back out now - but I can only hope that some of the above information is useful to those confused about climate. People always say that scientists should communicate more, not less :lol:

[Renato1]

Lag effect and trends are interesting. The trend from the 1940s to mid 70s was down, and the big predicted catastrophe was Global Cooling.

The 15 or 16 years of global warming from mid 70s to early 90s, was sufficent to whip alarm and start the whole stop global warming bandwagon.

And now we have had 16 years of no temperature increase.

When 16 years of one trend (lags included) is sufficient to overturn the previous 30 year trend, then when a new 16 year shows up, it cannot be so easily dismissed.

In 1977, as part of my undergraduate degree I did a course called Applied Ecology and Conservation at Monash University. The big threat taught was Global Cooling. The effects of CO2 in warming the atmosphere was mentioned, but the general view was that it could not stop Global Cooling.

It transpired that one of the gurus of the Global Cooling catastrophe, Stephen Schneider, had written a scientific paper addressing the issue, and he demonstrated that one could increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere 8 fold, and it would have neglible effect on stopping global cooling.

Of course, Dr. Stephen Schneider later went on to become the guru for Global Warming. When questioned about his earlier paper demonstrating how ineffectual CO2 was, he had a simple answer, namely that he was wrong.

I tend to take everything I read about this issue with a grain of salt.
Regards,
Renato

References:
Schneider , Stephen and Rasool, N "Atmospheric carbon dioxide and aerosols. Effects of large increases on global climate" Science July 9 1971.

Schneider, Stephen "On the carbon dioxide climate confusion", Journal of Atmospheric Sciences. Nov 19754

[Renato1]

Hi Andy,
Thanks for your detailed response.

Attached is the current satellite data. I think you are too quick to dismiss the Hiatus with notions of cherry picking from the high 1998 El Nino peak, which is largely cancelled out by the 2000 dip. Pick the 2002 point if you like, there's no upward trend. And you seem to dismiss it as being of little import, unlike what the IPCC does. Though I note that they say it's a 0.05C per decade warming trend, compared to the 1951-2012 warming trend of 0.12C per decade (I guess it would have been embarrassing comparing it to the 1975-1998 warming trend)

Climate science is about the predictions from super computer models, and what goes into them to make those predictions (and that encompasses most of the points that you raise). The whole movement to change the dependence on fossil fuels and radically change the way of life on the entire planet, stems from the predictions of those models. Models have been making predictions for a long time now, and they can now be tested against empirical reality. 95% of them have failed in their temperature predictions for the present temperature right now, having overestimated. But two are still in the hunt, as they didn't predict big temperature rises for around another five years.

Governments aren't going to take action on dud predictions and accept excuses, like we forgot about the Chinese aerosols, lack of sunspots may be having an effect (when we said they wouldn't have any effect), and the missing heat may be in the deep oceans where we don't take any measurements.

Anyhow, the British MET have now predicted no temperature increase for a total of 20 years (four years to go), before it starts rising again. So in five years, we'll see if the MET got it right or wrong.

Would you agree that 20 years of no significant warming, in the face of increasing relatively astronomical emissions of man-made CO2, would be problematic for climate science? If not, how many years?

I note that you say that there is no problem with understanding the huge increase in sea ice around Antarctica, and cite a blogger.

So I'll cite the 5th Assessment Report section, "Observations and Understanding of Recent Climate Change" which is the summary from other sections, which states,
"Sea ice trends Arctic and Antarctic
- Recent Arctic decline larger than models
- Recent Antarctic increase not well understood"

Perhaps the IPCC should have consulted Skeptical Science?
Regards,
Renato


162646

[andyc]

Renato, there's little point in having a discussion if you won't read what's written. I've twice pointed out that 93% of *observed* warming goes into the oceans, and yet you're still banging on about a non-significant short-term 'hiatus' in 2% of the climate system (the atmosphere) as if that proves Earth isn't still rapidly gaining heat.

You didn't follow the links to all the Antarctic sea ice research papers in the SkS link? Or was reading and following information to it's source too much?

Climate science is completely underpinned by *observations*. Old tired talking points about it only being models fall into the 'not even wrong' category.

You're wrong about so many things it is painful! I'm sorry to see a fellow astronomer in such a position. I only hope that one day you'll understand this and have the grace to accept it. I'd love to be wrong about climate, but based on the research literature, the chances of that are virtually nil.

Clear skies

[N1]

Doesn't that assume that the factors causing both trends were the same, or at least were of the same causative force? Were they?

[OICURMT]

Renato,

Can you please not quote previous posts in their entirety?

It makes it difficult to follow the thread... Not that I'm getting much out of it other than a good laugh....


OIC!

[Renato1]

Hi Andy,
As I replied in my response to N1 below, since having been trained and getting an A in my undergraduate studies on the perils of Global Cooling, I take anything I read about this subject with a grain of salt.

I note that you too, have adopted the position that this Hiatus doesn't matter.

So, suppose I had taken your advice and limited myself to John Cook's supposedly excellent site, with the deceptive name of Skeptical Science.

1. Up till last year, would I have read in it,
a. there are a whole bunch of nutters claiming that there has been a pause in global temperatures since 1998 or further back, which is plain wrong, or
b. how about that, there is a pause?

5th Assessment Report comes out, and the Heresy about no pause is dispelled, we have an Hiatus.

2. Up till last year, would I have read in it,
a. Michael Mann's work on the Hockey Stick graph has been invaluable, it became the centrepiece of the Assessment report, which has galvanized governments across the world to take action, and which shows that the Medieval Warm Period of the 11th to 12th century and Little Ice Age of the 18th century were essentially figments of people's imagination, (despite some 1800 or so peer reviewed geology papers which studied one or other or both of those periods), or
b. statisticians have been looking at Mann's work, and cannot reproduce his results using his raw data, when they try do what he said he did they get the opposite answer, and when they've asked to have a copy of his algorithms and computer code, he has refused to provide it citing intellectual property. The whole direction of the world's future is being predicated on results which can't be reproduced?

5th Assessment Report comes out, and the Hockey Stick is pushed to the side.

3. Up till last year, would I have read in it,
a. Global Warming is causing and will continue causing a large increase in extreme weather events - cyclones, hurricanes, droughts and floods (as recited by Wong, Brown, Rudd, Gillard, Flannery, and as still recited today by Bandt) or
b. there's one author of the IPCC report, who is a world expert on hurricanes and cyclones, who wrote for the Assessment report that the frequency and intensity of cyclones had been decreasing for decades, but when the final report came out, the exact opposite was written?


5th Assessment Report comes out, and in it it states there is limited evidence of changes in extremes during the 20th century, no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century, lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale, low confidence in observed trends in small-scale severe weather phenomena such as hail and thunderstorms, not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness.(So much for all the green alarmism that accompanies every bushfire, flood or cyclone reported on the evning news).

It appears to me that John Cook's orthodox site seems to lag significantly what is to become the new orthodoxy. I am glad I chose to take the three examples above with a grain of salt.

Cook's site does tell you about the 4 Hiroshima bombs a second of energy increase on earth due to global warming, and how that is now heating up the oceans (but not the atmosphere). The oceans are now the big thing, but they didn't rate much of a mention in the early assessment reports.

However, others have been quick to point out that Cook doesn't give additional information which may put things into a bit more perspective, like that the sun is hitting the earth with 1950 Hiroshima bombs every second, and that yes, the ocean's temperatures have been going up slightly, but only by the heat of half an Hiroshima bomb a second - thus 3.5 Hiroshima Bombs a second seem to be missing from the atmosphere and from the oceans.

So, I'll have fun waiting for the sixth Assessment Report to see what it has to say about this.
Cheers,
Renato

[Renato1]

Hi,
I don't like abridging posts - to me it may look like I'm trying to hide or divert something.

Well, I'm pleased you are getting amusement out of it.

Me - after all this discussion, I still feel like I'm not getting much value out of my PST. It's as if I'd gone to a fireworks display, and the fireworks consisted of stuff that we used to be able to buy in the corner store.
Cheers,
Renato

[Renato1]

That the factors behind the cooling trend, the warming trend and the sideways trend were the same, I doubt, but I don't know. We haven't even raised the Pacific Decadal Oscillation factor in this discussion.
Regards,
Renato

[stephenb]

Sorry I haven't had the time to contribute to this thread, I've been to busy outside actually enjoying the real world around me :P



I've tried to read through all the guff posted here and I cannot find where you actually mention the make/model/aperture of your PST?

I remember sunspot activity of 25-30 years ago and I've experienced similar activity in the last 5-odd years with Ha and white light observing! People do seem to create this illusion that many things in their life were better in the good ol' days (some things actually were however)

[OICURMT]

I honestly do not think that "abridging" a post in anyway diminishes your position, but rather focuses the reader on the most important aspects of your argument... I feel that quoting an entire post "veils" your arguement.


We have a saying in the USA... "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullsh!t..."


OIC!

[OICURMT]

I LOL'd at this comment...

I've been fortunate to travel all over the world. When ever I travel alone, I never take a camera. People ask me all the time why not. My reason?

"Because as the years go by and I get delusional with age, the images in my mind get more vivid"... :D

OIC!

[04Stefan07]

Holy crap really?

I find the Sun very interesting to observe!

[strongmanmike]

I am staying out of this but rest assured I and MANY others feel your frustration on this issue... I would like to say thanks for your succinct assessment on this matter :)

Amen :)

But the Sun is a little boring though :scared3: :lol:

[raymo]

Regardless of which scientists are right [if any are] about the global warming issue, it's still good that at least a few governments are
trying to do something about man made air pollution, which, even if
it is not causing immediate worldwide serious problems, is seemingly
bound to eventually. Wow ! I just realised that that was a very long sentence. Bye bye.
raymo
P.S. Sorry about the levity when discussing such a serious issue.

[Renato1]

It's the original 40mm PST - I didn't think there was any other one.

I bought my first Focal 114mm reflector in around 1981, but took it back. Then a year or so later bought a Focal 76mm reflector which was so fantastic the first night I used it - that I took it back to K-mart and swapped it for another 114mm. And then my solar viewing started.

In 1992 I got a C8 and Thousand Oaks filter. My thoughts were "great views - but not many sunspots compared to the Focal". Then I got an 80mm refractor and Thousand Oaks filter, so that I could use it more often to look at the sun without lugging the C8 out. My thoughts were, "great views, but not many sunspots. Then I got the PST about a year after it came out, and my thoughts were for several years "Where are the sunspots?"

Quite frankly, there wasn't much around around those days that I don't think is better today. But sunspots were better. Especially when projected through Huygens eyepieces that were close to melting.

Cheers,
Renato

[Renato1]

Well, it is interesting seeing those little solar flares which used to be impossible to see without an eclipse, and the occasional teensy sunspot group.

Just nowhere near as dramatic and exciting as it regularly used to be.

Cheers,
Renato

[Renato1]

Put it this way, if I'm replying to someone's post as a bypasser and I am only interested in one aspect of it, I'll abridge.

But if I abridge out something that has been put to me in a post, it can be taken as meaning I no longer want to talk about it, address it or acknowledge it - I dismiss it - probably because my position is untenable, and I don't want to acknowledge it.

I won't be doing that.
Regards,
Renato

[Renato1]

Well, at least we're agreed on one thing.
Cheers,
Renato

[andyc]

Thanks Mike! It's the price of a climate research training that you have to deal with vocally uninformed (or sadly misinformed) people claiming that you, and every single relevant national science academy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_chang e#Statements_by_scientific_organiza tions_of_national_or_international_ standing), and virtually every one of tens of thousands of relevant academics on the planet is wrong. All repeating tired old talking points that have been debunked a hundred times over, and who have collective blindspots to such things as the last 15 years being the time of the fastest accumulation of heat in the part of the world that collects >90% of global warming (Levitus et al 2012). No, the 2% of surface temperatures which have slowed (not stopped), despite every natural forcing going negative, is somehow much more important :screwy:. That even in surface temperatures, La Ninas in the late 2000s are warmer than every El Nino pre-1998, is apparently no problem. That if you extend the 1975-1998 trendline through the 2000s, there is no significant change - there is simply a positive trend in La Ninas, El Ninos and neutral years (http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2012/04/about-the-lack-of-warming/). I wonder if the 'hiatus' will be so popular among the blog skeptics after the next significant El Nino (absent a big equatorial volcanic eruption)?

I can't really be bothered dealing with each point of your latest Gish Gallop Renato, in which there is another worn list of long-debunked talking points, but I will address just one:

Mike Mann published one of the most talked-about papers in climate science in 1999, showing that average temperatures across the Northern Hemisphere had gradually trended slightly cooler over the past 1000 years, before very sharply warming in the past century. On a hemispheric (and subsequently a global) scale, the European historical periods known as the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age were not at all apparent. To cut a long story short, the MWP and LIA were found to be neither global in extent or in timing (as questioned by Hughes and Diaz in a seminal paper in 1994), and so while it was warm in Europe, other regions were cooler, and vice versa. This fits very well with the understanding that climate forcings were not changing too much over these periods except for the continuation long, slow cooling from a Northern Hemisphere precessional insolation peak which culminated in peak warmth in the mid-Holocene. Modern forcing from increased greenhouse gases is enormous by comparison. Mann's paper has been replicated something like a dozen or more times, many of which are shown in the relevant figure from the IPCC AR5 WG1 report (http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_Fig5-7.jpg). More recently than that, it was replicated by the massive PAGES 2k project, which you can read a summary of here (http://www.skepticalscience.com/pages2k-confirms-hockey-stick.html), and yes, you can even go and read the actual sources too (http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/abs/ngeo1797.html).

This area is of particular interest to me, as my PhD and postdoc were on studying Holocene palaeoclimate and glacier changes in the North Atlantic region (and where even the undergrads can see the scale of recent glacier retreat :rofl:). Now a couple of statisticians claimed to find errors in Mann's methods (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/07/the-missing-piece-at-the-wegman-hearing/). Strangely, they didn't try and replicate the work (just throw mud at it), and when others examined the statisticians' work, it was found to have numerous serious errors of its own, including a chronic case of cherry picking, where the program they used pre-selected the results they wanted. But nowadays, that's all ancient history, as there are so many replications of the original study, with widely differing methods and proxy sources, that Mann's work has been verified beyond any reasonable doubt. That's the scientific process.

But still some would try and throw mud at Mike Mann. Including those who think an undergraduate essay mark is supposed to impress me :eyepop::eyepop:

[Peter Ward]

Andy,

I'll happily echo Mike's remarks. Thank you for your insightful and well reasoned input. :thumbsup::thumbsup:

[astroron]

It is happening NOW.

http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Observing_the_Earth/CryoSat/CryoSat_finds_sharp_increase_in_Ant arctica_s_ice_losses

Cheers:thumbsup:

[Peter Ward]

Thanks for the link....sadly it's disturbing that antarctic ice has been OBSERVED to have shrunk since that bird was put into orbit.

[Renato1]

Hi Andy,
I must say you have me a tad confused. You give a link to all the major studies which you say confirm Mann and the Hockey Stick (i.e. WGI_AR5_Fig5-7.jpg) - and I see, for example, one solid-lined light blue graph, and a dark-blue broken line graph which give higher temperatures in the Medieval Warm Period than in 2000, and which give very low temperatures during the Little Ice Age. The dark green solid graph also gives a similar result, except that it goes a tiny bit higher by 2000. And there is a similar shape for the solid-lined dark blue graph

Thus how exactly do these graphs confirm Mann and his Hockey Stick graph, rather than disprove it?
Thanks for that graph - I think it actually proves my point. In 3rd Assessment Report the Hockey Stick was the centre piece. In 5th Assessment report, it is shoved in with a bunch of others that contradict it.

You praise Mann profusely, and claim there is no controversy. Even the Wikipedia article on the Hockey Stick Controversy (whose writers appear to be Mann supporters) wind up citing the Hans Storch review, which states at,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy

"Hans von Storch review

In May 2007, Hans von Storch reviewed the changes in thought caused by the hockey stick controversy writing:
In October 2004 we were lucky to publish in Science our critique of the ‘hockey-stick’ reconstruction of the temperature of the last 1000 years. Now, two and half years later, it may be worth reviewing what has happened since then.
At the EGU General Assembly a few weeks ago there were no less than three papers from groups in Copenhagen and Bern assessing critically the merits of methods used to reconstruct historical climate variable from proxies; Bürger’s papers in 2005; Moberg’s paper in Nature in 2005; various papers on borehole temperature; The National Academy of Science Report from 2006 – all of which have helped to clarify that the hockey-stick methodologies lead indeed to questionable historical reconstructions. The 4th Assessment Report of the IPCC now presents a whole range of historical reconstructions instead of favoring prematurely just one hypothesis as reliable."

More interesting is the testimony by fellow a Lead Author to Michael Mann at the time of the 3rd Assessment report to a US House of Representatives Committee about what happened, where he says Mann amputated Briffa's data, and shoved to never-never land Dahl-Jensen's ice bore reconstruction which showed warmer temperatures in the Medieval Warm Period than now.
https://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/hearings/ChristyJR_written_110331_all.pdf

Oh - and I noticed that you didn't want to debate what I raised, that after over 20 years and four assessment reports of hysterical alarmism over extreme weather events, they have finally been put to bed in this report. I wouldn't want to debate it either if I were you.
Cheers,
Renato

[andyc]

Oh dear Renato, you're still going on about things upon which your knowledge is sadly lacking. I don't think you understand replication or any other topic you are pronouncing so confidently about. I confess, I got it wrong, there are much more than a dozen replications these days, 28 subsequent papers support the basic hockey stick shape (gradual/small change over past 1000years, rapid recent warming), 14 are post-AR4. But do please keep citing Von Storch as if he disputes the basic hockey stick shape, it really is rather entertaining! And have you read Marcott et al 2013. By "read", I don't mean a blog post about it?

But while you're there, please enlighten me. We understand the magnitude of forcings over the past thousand years or so, with small changes in solar and volcanic forcing dwarfed by the modern enhanced GHG forcing, which the world is now responding to (including Antarctica). Your bonus question for ten points is this:

Lets imagine that you are right, and 29+ research papers on late Holocene climate are wrong... (I know, it's a stretch!)... and that Medieval climate was much warmer than the early 21st Century. The forcings, to which global climate responds, were small at the time (while they are large now). Would a strong MWP mean climate sensitivity to forcing is low, or high? Bonus question: would a large MWP give us any comfort at all given the scale of modern climate forcing?

Seriously mate, I really don't think you understand the topic anywhere near as much as you think you do.

Little value in discussing increasing extreme weather with you, because if you don't comprehend signal and noise in a temperature record, you'll really be stuffed when it comes to a dataset with small numbers of extreme values! You'll probably try and quote me some of Roger Pielke's porkies and half truths (he drowns signals in noise then claims no signal). And you'll be hopelessly lost with the concept that a warmer world means both more droughts and floods (enhanced hydrological cycle, more evaporation, more precipitation). But do go and buy a house that is next to a large river and surrounded by bushland if you think I'm wrong.

[Renato1]

Hi Andy,
Good attempt at dodging the issues, and diverting from what I wrote, and trying to get me to talk about something else. But it doesn't work.

You wrote,
"Mann's paper has been replicated something like a dozen or more times, many of which are shown in the relevant figure from the IPCC AR5 WG1 report (http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_Fig5-7.jpg)."

I look at that graph from 5th Assessment report, which you cited, and it contains many reconstructions which don't support Mann's work - as they plainly have something called the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age in them - which is notoriously absent from his work. I point this out to you, and you don't address it.

As for extreme weather, another attempt at a snow job from you. The understanding of signal and noise and data sets is completely irrelevant to understanding the statements I took from 5th Assessment report, namely.
"5th Assessment Report comes out, and in it it states there is limited evidence of changes in extremes during the 20th century, no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century, lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale, low confidence in observed trends in small-scale severe weather phenomena such as hail and thunderstorms, not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness.(So much for all the green alarmism that accompanies every bushfire, flood or cyclone reported on the evning news)."

Presumably you are of the opinion that the writers of 5th Assessment report were completely stuffed in their understanding of signal and noise and data sets when they wrote the stuff I cut and pasted.

If I were to go buy a house next to a large river, would you recommend I get one next door to Tim Flannery's place?
Regards,
Renato

[Rob_K]

Sad really the money we taxpayers must have wasted in subsidising Andy's education, when anyone who can surf the net can blow it all away with the wave of a hand. :lol:

Little wonder it is so hard to get action on climate change when even on a nominally science-based forum like IIS there are people who can't tell the difference between misinformation/pseudoscience and real science, or who have such a poor opinion of science that they are prepared to attack it from an uninformed stance.

More power to you Andy, maybe time for a lock-up of the rubbish on this thread mods! ;)

Cheers -

[Peter Ward]

Renato,

While there is no significant trend in the number of cyclones, you've conveniently failed to quote from the same report:

"Arguably, storm frequency is of limited usefulness if not considered
in tandem with intensity and duration measures. Intensity measures
in historical records are especially sensitive to changing technology
and improving methodology"

" .... the frequency of very intense tropical cyclones have been identified in the North Atlantic and these appear robust since the 1970s (Kossin et al.
2007) (very high confidence)"

So the reality appears to be (regional) cyclones apart from being more intense, are drifting to higher latitudes.

Doh! :lol:

[andyc]

Cheers Rob for the kind words.

Renato, so I'm "Dodging the issues"?! You are absolutely having a laugh, right?

It really is a waste of time trying to argue with someone who refuses to engage with empirical evidence, and who degenerates to insults and yet more Gish Gallops as a way of avoiding the substantive issues. You moved the conversation from the Sun (post #16), to temperature timeseries (post #23), to palaeoclimate (post #62) and after losing all those arguments, now to extreme weather (also #62 and again in #79 when I didn't bite first time), finally to Tim Flannery (post #81), all with an almost breathtaking lack of comprehension. And you accuse me of moving goalposts???? I had hoped you might be amenable to reading some science, but apparently not. You also seem to think that your eyeball is a better judge than the entire palaeoclimate community :rofl:, and that your interpretation (more likely that of the denierblogs) beats the whole science community. Essentialy you must think there's a huge conspiracy. Do you ever consider that you might be wrong on so many things? I seriously doubt you've actually read AR5 or any of the climate literature, let alone the more challenging world of extreme event literature. As you're unwilling to engage with substance or stick to a topic, I'm done here.

Good luck with your worldview!

Mods, this really ought to be closed. The topic of Renato vs science has probably reached the end of it's useful life.

[Renato1]

Well, I had the benefit of a totally tax payer provided education at University, where I was taught all the latest Environmental science as it stood then in 1977.

I was taught all about the imminent disaster of Global Cooling. And the text book for the course was Human Ecology by Paul Erhlich. You can still find copies of it around.

Anyhow, the text book I was required to use for my free tax payer funded education from the science faculty, forecast and in detail addressed the coming disasters of war, famine and destruction of the environment that would arise as a result of overpopulation, running out of natural resources and degradation of the planet.

And that would be just about it for planet earth, unless action was taken as of right now, since the countdown to disaster was on. And the disaster was forecast for around the year 2000.

If one doesn't become more skeptical as time goes by, after a course like that, one does not observe and one does not think.
Regards,
Renato

[Renato1]

Hi Andy,
Wow - calling for discussion to be closed because you don't like it.

And when all I have been doing is citing from the IPCC Assessment reports - which I had thought are hardly radical documents. I haven't cited anything from the "denier" blogs, as you call them and are pretending that I have done. Perhaps you don't like the Report's content much, because you sure aren't addressing them.

You say, "But do go and buy a house that is next to a large river and surrounded by bushland if you think I'm wrong." And after I respond about Tim Flannery, you seem to see breathtaking lack of comprehension in my response, relating to moving next door to Tim.

I'll leave it to you to Google "Tim Flannery House" where you can see that several years ago, Tim bought a house on an island in the middle of the Hawkesbury River. He doesn't seem to be heeding your dire warning to me.

I think that at the end of the day, we have a remarkably different world view, best illustrated by the Hockey Stick Graph from the 3rd Assessment report and the subsequent graph from the 5th Assessment report, both of which I have attached.

You look at Mann's Hockey stick graph, and see a marvel of science which has eradicated the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. I look at it and think "Isn't it amazing, there was no Mediaval Warm Period, but somehow there was a hotspot in Europe that the historical and archeological records show allowed Vikings to settle and farm Greenland for 200 years before the subsequent return of the cold and ensuing malnutrition did them in. And somehow, there was also a cold spot in Europe which ultimately led to the French Revolution and Napolean marching all over Europe. And at the same time Northern America was having big problems because of the cold. But apparently these were all local phenomena."

And then comes the graph from the 5th Assessment report. You see it as wonderful confirmation of Mann's Hockey stick. I look at it and instead see that the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age appear to have made a come back in some of the reconstructions, and that no one seems mildly disturbed with the fact that they unambiguously conflict with the first graph.

You see no problem, I see a problem.

Same story with the Hiatus.

Regards,
Renato

[el_draco]

...and if one sticks ones head far enough into the sand, (or else where), you can't see a thing.... and there is none so blind as he who refuses to see.....

Suggest you explore the concept of exponential growth as applied to population, then take a look at the consequences of feedback. Still not convinced? Go look up the term "drunken forest" and calculate the consequences of the release of all that Methane... apart from the stink.

I agree Andy, Renato verses the rest of Science is a waste of time. Please, oh Please mods., close the thread. :shrug:

[Renato1]

I am unsure what precisely it is that you are complaining about. Plainly you haven't read my posts - I am citing from what appears to be your Bible, the IPCC 5th Assessment Report.

If you have issues with the parts I have cited from it, well, the appropriate body to refer them to is the IPCC, not to me.
Regards,
Renato

[Renato1]

Hi Peter,
Thanks for citing what presumably is the limited evidence from the pieces I was citing. One paper from 2007 seems pretty limited, as I know that more have been published since, but that's outside the bounds I've limited myself to here.
Regards,
Renato

[Kunama]

If it can't see you it can't hurt you !

[nebulosity.]

I would hate for there to be global warming if I had to rely on some of you blokes to to something about it!

How about you stop contributing to the so called warming with all your hot air?

Cheers
Jo

[el_draco]

The debate over Global Warming is a dead topic. Those who continue to live in denial need to show me the dark matter equivalent of 97% of Scientists who reject Global Warming.

If you can't do that then please go join the Flat Earth Society or affiliated organisations, like the Liberal Party. I, being one of many, many millions, prefer the conservative view and I'm not prepared to take the risk on Global Warming until dissenters can provide me with another earth like planet to live on, and the means to get there....

Here's the conclusion from just one paper, (Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature), for you to consider.

Full article: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

Conclusion:
" The public perception of a scientific consensus on AGW is a necessary element in public support for climate policy (Ding et al 2011 (http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article#erl460291bib8)). However, there is a significant gap between public perception and reality, with 57% of the US public either disagreeing or unaware that scientists overwhelmingly agree that the earth is warming due to human activity (Pew 2012 (http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article#erl460291bib20)).
Contributing to this 'consensus gap' are campaigns designed to confuse the public about the level of agreement among climate scientists. In 1991, Western Fuels Association conducted a $510 000 campaign whose primary goal was to 'reposition global warming as theory (not fact)'. A key strategy involved constructing the impression of active scientific debate using dissenting scientists as spokesmen (Oreskes 2010 (http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article#erl460291bib19)). The situation is exacerbated by media treatment of the climate issue, where the normative practice of providing opposing sides with equal attention has allowed a vocal minority to have their views amplified (Boykoff and Boykoff 2004 (http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article#erl460291bib4)). While there are indications that the situation has improved in the UK and USA prestige press (Boykoff 2007 (http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article#erl460291bib3)), the UK tabloid press showed no indication of improvement from 2000 to 2006 (Boykoff and Mansfield 2008 (http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article#erl460291bib5)).
The narrative presented by some dissenters is that the scientific consensus is '...on the point of collapse' (Oddie 2012 (http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article#erl460291bib16)) while '...the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year' (Allègre et al 2012 (http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article#erl460291bib1)). A systematic, comprehensive review of the literature provides quantitative evidence countering this assertion. The number of papers rejecting AGW is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW."

Nough said i think :rolleyes:

[Renato1]

Hi Rom,
Unfortunately, when I hit Reply with Quote, it's not working on your post.

You may want to Google responses to Cook's 97% Consensus paper on the internet, where it has been criticised for various reasons, like,
a. that the so called skeptical scientists are all actually in agreement that CO2 will increase earth's temperature, so that their papers have wound up being included as part of the "Consensus", and
b. issues have been raised with the methodology, and
c. that the results are not reproducible by anybody, since Cook refuses to release half the data citing confidentiality - despite the persons asking to see the data saying that they are willing to sign confidentiality agreements.

But things took a strange turn. As reported in The Australian 17 March 2013, University of Queensland is threatening to sue one person, Brandon Schollenberger who wanted to investigate Cook's methodology and data, and who actually found the supposedly confidential data on the internet - available to anyone, as it wasn't password protected.

As far as I know, science is meant to be something where you put everything in your findings out for everyone to peruse and dissect. Not something that you start threatening to sue over, when one attempts to do just that.

As for Climate Change being a dead issue, the trade union/Association of which I am a member was the then Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia, now Professionals Australia. Most of it's members are scientists and engineers. Some five years or so ago, the Association surveyed its members on the issue of Anthropological Global Warming, and found them evenly split at exactly 50% believing it and 50% being skeptical.

This result was way out of whack with similar surveys of the general public, who at that time had a far greater number of believers. And that was before Climategate 1 and 2 happened. Quite frankly, if at the height of Global Warming hype and before Climategate, a majority of scientists and engineers - who are trade union members - couldn't be convinced, I don't think it's going to happen any time soon, especially given the Hiatus.

Regards,
Renato

[el_draco]

Like I said, there ain't none so blind as those who refuse to see... Considering we only have access to ONE livable planet, I should think that if just 5% of credible scientists said we were in trouble that should be ample grounds for a global wave of pants crapping.... but bloody minded self interest rules and we'll all pay for it BIG TIME, undoubtedly in our life time.

Above, you claim a 50:50 split of your association. For gawd sake man. THINK !! This should be a classic, "Ah, Der...", moment for you. :question:

I know a family that includes a "super engineer" who went from being one of the most rational environmentally aware people I know to a climate change skeptic all because he couldn't build the bloody dam he designed. He argues rampantly with his son, who is a climatologist, and is quite happy to say black is white to "prove" his point... Vested interest wins every time. :(

Despite all the protestations you may come up with, I am dead sure you are pisssed off because you don't like the idea of not getting what you want. There's no point in discussing this topic with you, your mind is closed to anything that does not fit your world view. :shrug: My world view includes the following image which, frankly, scares the crap out of me... "Drunken Forests" Go look it up!

I just realised how many four letter words I know that are completely unpublishable :rolleyes:

[mithrandir]

This appears to happen whenever the text contains characters outside the printable ASCII character set (hex values 0x20-0x7e).

[el_draco]

OR... The gods have spoken....:lol: Karma?

[Renato1]

Hi Rom,
Look, I just can't take this planet saving alarmism and its proponents seriously.

If one really, really thought that the earth was in danger, and that global warming was effectively hitting the place with 4 Hiroshima bombs a second, and that this was so dangerous that the entire world should emulate Tasmania into oblivion, well the solution is simple.

Just emulate France instead. There are millions of years of energy to be had for the whole of the earth by just going nuclear, and as much energy as anybody wants, and the whole global warming issue is fixed.

Fast breeder reactors all over the place. The occasional real Hiroshima sized bomb may well go off here or there from pesky terrorists or some rogue government - but that's a tiny price to pay for stopping the 4 Hiroshima bombs a second, right?

Cheers,
Renato

[Renato1]

Thanks very much for that information.

It's had me puzzled and has happened a few times during this thread, and I've had to go to previous posts, hit Reply with Quote, copy what came up, close it, go to the thread I wanted to reply with quote, open it, paste what I'd copied into it, delete its content, and copy the real quote into it - and then it worked.

Cheers,
Renato

[el_draco]

Ah... engineer...., nuclear reactors.. The vested interest angle.

Surprise, surprise. Here is another one, I agree with you. Traditional fast breeders are a liability, give me something better and you have an argument worth listening to. Try key words like "Thorium" and "Fusion" which, by the way, I know are not the same.... However, base load can be derived from renewables as well.... now that's an engineering solution worth pursuing....

Stop crapping on about global warming being a fiction, its FACT and use your engineering skills to come up with a solution that does not include 3 mile island like scenarios. The technology could work, why don't you spend your time promoting the non-melt down versions instead of wasting time :shrug:

... and by the way, Tasmania is about as far from "oblivion" as you can get. Last time I saw the mainland I couldn't stand the stink..., (No offense to the rest of you....), crowds, pollution, noise, agro, stress etc. couldn't wait to get back to "The real world". If you check out the reality of the situation, the more you build up the rest of the world, the harder it gets to maintain.... classic deck of cards. I'd love it if the rest of the world could catch up to Tassie. I can go to places of ABSOLUTE silence, that are clean. Mind you, our current F*witt premier wants us to emulate whats already proven to be a failure. He's next on the hit list and wont last his term.

[nebulosity.]

I was going to say the exactly the same thing about you!

How ridiculous to winge about someone not being prepared to change to your views when you have absolutely NO intention of considering anything other than what you have already decided is the truth???

You can spurt your 'facts', deny anything that calls your 'truth' into question, throw tantrums etc, at the end of the day you have achieved nothing other than upsetting yourself and looking ridiculous!

I'm sorry for you mate, maybe you should buy a houseboat? :shrug:

Cheers
Jo

[andyc]

Oh goody, yet another myth from Renato... the 1970s cooling myth. Dammit, I can't resist responding one last time. Heck, there's even a research paper dedicated to scotching that myth! Peterson et al 2008 (https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf), published in BAMS, explores that one.

A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008 (http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf)). The large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than 1970s scientists predicting cooling, the opposite is the case.

The summary above is from the appropriate Skeptical Science page (http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-intermediate.htm), and you can read the original paper linked above if you have the stomach, Renato. You've been through a good half dozen myths already, I dread to think how many more of the 176 skeptical arguments (http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php), you're going to bring up in the mistaken thought that they support your case.

By the end of the 1970s the Charney Report (http://web.atmos.ucla.edu/~brianpm/download/charney_report.pdf) (1979) was published, and there has been little real scientific doubt about the basics since then. Just read the foreword! Many details, of course, had to be worked out, and of course the main thrust of recent warming hadn't yet happened!

What is it with some engineers, who think that they can waltz into a subject about which they know virtually nothing, and pronounce the entire field not only wrong, but the grandest conspiracy in the history of mankind? If you asked 100 climate scientists whether a damaged bridge was structurally sound and 50 said yes and 50 said no, you'd rightly conclude that they didn't understand the topic. I don't go to engineers get my teeth checked, I don't ask engineers if the mole on my shoulder is cancer or not, but apparently I'm supposed to ask an engineer if climate science is right? :eyepop::rofl:

While we're on the topic of the 97%, there are at least three previous surveys that all come to the basically same conclusion as Cook et al 2013 - you have Oreskes 2004 (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full#), Doran and Zimmerman 2009 (http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf), and Anderegg et al 2010 (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract). Strangely the skeptics never seem to do any surveys of their own, scotching this one... they are just content to snipe from the sidelines on blogs. But then the 3% don't agree with each other!! They haven't come up with any coherent alternate explanations either to explain the increasing ocean heat content (e.g. Levitus 2012), the spectral changes at the top of the atmosphere (e.g. Harries 2001), the concept of signal and noise in climate (e.g. Foster and Rahmstorf 2011) and all the myriad other consilient lines of evidence that they are unwilling to accept.


But I'm sure Renato will find plenty of reasons to dismiss these as everything else just as in el_draco's example below. And that refusal to engage with evidence is why it's not worth the discussion.

[Renato1]

Well, this is a new one.

What I and several score university undergraduates had to sit through and learn - at the time, as part of our engineering degrees -was a myth, a figment of our imagination. And you cite a paper written over 30 years later to prove it.

Plainly you were not around then, or if you were you did not read the attempts to hype the scare, nor watch them on TV. Wikipedia documents the alarmist Newsweek and Time cover articles, and even the Leonard Nimoy's TV documentary on it at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

Who do you think was feeding this alarmism to the media? Some journalists who woke up one morning with nothing to write about, or climate scientists?

And what is it with climate scientists rewriting history? You can type "Medieval Warm Period" in Google and come across several sites which claim it was a myth, as proved by Michael Mann. And now one can type "Global Cooling" and find out that it too was a myth. Plainly the premise is that people are stupid.

Citing papers that predate and you claim support Cook's paper on the 97% consensus, is all very nice. Did they do it openly and explain their methodology, and make all their data available for perusal and scrutiny, or are they withholding data and threatening to sue people who want to examine their stuff too?

I notice that you don't want to address this deliberate withholding of information and methodology - it's not on some blogger site that you instantly dismiss (unless of course it's Cook's blog site) - but it's in a National newspaper.

And you keep citing John Cook's "Skeptical Science" blog.
In my opinion,
You know that the name is a deliberate deception, and it should be more appropriately named "Church of Hard Core Global Warming" since it contains nothing skeptical in it, and
plainly, the name is intended to mislead readers doing internet searches, and that deception is part and parcel of the method of operation of various climate science types,
and you happily accept the misleading name and promulgate it.
Regards,
Renato

[Renato1]

Plainly, regardless of what you profess, you have no interest in saving the planet. The time for action is supposed to be now - nice nuclear power is already doing it's bit in Europe. When all those hopeless green energy power supplies fail, the countries have to ask France to pump some real power from its nuclear plants into their grids.

If we ever do join the European ETS, I hope someone builds a power cable from France to Australia.

I think the figures are that half the population of Tasmania are currently on some kind of welfare benefits. The more pristine the State gets, the higher the welfare money that comes from the rest of us in the dirty States that you seem to despise.

Plainly, at the last election, most Tasmanians decided that it couldn't go on and they'd had enough. I've seen in Italy parents despairing that their kids can't get jobs. I can't imagine that Tasmanians in general wouldn't be equally worried about their kids' futures.
Regards,
Renato