Hi Dean,

>Rog sez:
"I think you'll find that the presence of an Australian will give any gathering a certain respectability."

As long as you can keep them sober, I think this goes without saying. ;-)

Don't the Germans drink more beer per head that the Australians do.

I am currently working on a project that is modeling Ocean Thermohaline circulation mainly the Gulf Stream and the effects of it over turning. (global warming and Europe going into an Ice age).

Tony

Edited by tbeasley on 04/28/2008 16:45:07 MDT.

Great debate.

I am most certainly on the side that anthropogenic global warming is an issue. And I would hazard a pretty accurate guess that 100% of Earth and Environmental Scientists at the University of Adelaide believe it exists too.

I am getting scared. One of the long-term projects I am working with a couple of other scientists (inc and IPCC one) is of an incredibly intensive pit-fall trapping grid in the South Australian Desert. The grid contains quite a variety of retilian diversity-Australia's arid zone has pretty much the greatest reptilian diversity in the world. Why? Well, although to an outsider it may not look very exciting, the environment in this one hectare is incredibly diverse. And with natural fluctuations between drought for a few years (eg 2-6 or so) and then a big rain, the dynamics of boom and bust reptiles (we are exploring these dynamics-its not easy!) helps to increase diversity.

What will happen with Global warming? Well, as its probably already mentioned somewhere in this thread (I haven't read it all and don't have the time) variation in weather cycles will increase. This means in the Arid Zone of Australia, longer, bigger fluctuations in rainfall events, ie droughts will be much longer (though they may be interspersed with even greater rainfall events). We hypothesis the doom of many reptile species. Many of them seem dependent so far (data in writing), on rainfall periods causing grass and plant surges, which cause various insect surges, which results in the opportunity for breeding events. Its complex, with different species doing different things at different times.

However, if there are longer lag times between rainfall events, it is very likely that many species (I am talking dozens out of dozens just in this site, which was randomly chosen of course) will become locally and/or extinct. It won't take much. And its not just a rainfall thing either...breeding cycles in many spp are dependent on a range of temperature "occurances".

The scary thing this is only one simple arid zone example, in a system that although highly degraded, is relatively protected from other human influences compared to other parts of the world. Natural systems can buffer changes to some degree, however place other pressures on them (such as grazing by domestic stock, for example), and they start to falter rapidly. Arid zone systems in many ways are also considered by tradition to be quite "resiliant" and "adaptable" to weather fluctuations.

Adam

Sorry I haven't referenced in this, I don't have the time. Alot of it is unpublished data/papers we are still working on.

The debate is over. Here is the undisputed conclusion. Now we know allocation of risk and can declare a War on the Sun...

14% anthropogenic
51% our sun
7% our molten core
2% debate exhaust
7% good luck
13% bad luck
6% flatulence



: )

I think George may have hit it on the nail, but there are definitely regional differences. In NZ, flatulence is closer to 30% due to a large population of ruminants :o

“>Rog wrote: “GISS is the hottest of the indexes I think skots told us…”

>Indicating that “GISS is hottest” in the example above, points to the casual and simplistic distillation of information common to your posts in this thread. Because of your pattern of omitting the enlightening detail, ( in this case, the base period and treatment of the arctic ), it’s difficult for me to reconcile your loose interpretations with “care(ing) passionately about scientific honesty and truth.” Sincerely, Rog, I don’t know if you believe what you’ve written or if you’re entertaining us with your tenacity. I’m left thinking of your posts as a caricature of the very thing(s) that you’re critical of.

Ouch.
"Simplistic distillation" - Well I did at least refer people back to your excellent post on data sources so that those who hadn't followed the debate so far could get the detail they may (or may not) want. It's difficult to make progress in a debate if we have to fully reiterate information every time. Anyway, apologies for my brevity if you found it inappropriate.

However, lets take a look at the graph you linked to settle the issue.


>it’s difficult for me to reconcile your loose interpretations with “care(ing) passionately about scientific honesty and truth.”

Now is GISS the hottest, yes or no?

I don't really need you to answer this, as anyone with half a brain can see that what I said was in fact correct, regardless of the extra nuances of baselines and year ranges. With respect to the treatment of the arctic, those without the scientific vocabulary should be aware that 'interpolated' means 'made up'. ;-)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=500424&in_page_id=1811

Dennis Compayre raises bushy grey eyebrows as he listens to the environmentalists predict the polar bear's demise.

"They say the numbers are down from 1,200 to around 900, but I think I know as much about polar bears as anyone, and I tell you there are as many bears here now as there were when I was a kid," he says as the tundra buggy rattles back to town across the rutted snowscape.

"Churchill is full of these scientists going on about vanishing bears and thinner bears.

"They come here preaching doom, but I question whether some of them really have the bears' best interests at heart.

"The bear industry in Churchill is big bucks, and what better way to keep people coming than to tell them they'd better hurry to see the disappearing bears."

After almost three months of working with those who know the Arctic best - among them Inuit Indians, who are appalled at the way an animal they have lived beside for centuries has become a poster species for "misinformed" Greens - Nigel Marven finds himself in broad agreement.

"I think climate change is happening, but as far as the polar bear disappearing is concerned, I have never been more convinced that this is just scaremongering.



'It's the photo that became a symbol of global warming: polar bears stranded on a melting ice-floe in mid-winter. The truth? It was taken in summer.'

Edited by tallbloke on 05/06/2008 10:57:48 MDT.

Hey, welcome back, Rog,

I hope that you had a great time.

To determine which pot is heaviest, when comparing a 4 ounce pot to a 140 gram pot, it is necessary to convert the numbers to a common base.

In describing the graph that you showed in your post above, I wrote “the data are graphed as reported. The data from the different records are not converted to a common base.”

As you know, the graphed GISS, NCDC, and HadCRUT data represent temperatures from a combination of land stations and sea surface. Comparing GISS, NCDC, and HadCRUT, after conversion to a common base, is an apples to apples comparison.

The UAH and RSS data, shown in the lower two plots on the graph in your post, represent temperatures from the lower troposphere, (the lower five miles of the atmosphere). A UAH – RSS comparison is also an apples to apples comparison.

This graph shows GISS, NCDC and HadCRUT data that has been converted to a common base period, but the three organization’s differences in data collection and data treatment remain.


So, to answer the question, is GISS the hottest, yes or no? 07 yes, 06 yes 05 yes, 04 no, 03 no, 02 no, 01 no, 00 no, 99 no, 98 no, 97 no, 96 yes, 95 tie, etc., etc. Hottest or coldest in a given year, and we are talking tenths of a degree C here, these three records are strikingly similar.

The graph from your post, shows that by and large, the temperature records, (surface and troposphere), are picking up the same signal; rising and falling in rough unison. Interestingly, the 2007 HadCRUT plot moves downward, contrary to the direction of the other records. These graphs and analysis can be found:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/01/24/giss-ncdc-hadcru/

http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/01/food-for-tamino-while-looking-at.html


Finally, interpolated does not mean “made up”.

Hi Skots, lovely time thanks, there's a brief write up <---overthere somewhere in the 'trip reports' forum.

Thanks for your analysis and links, Interesting to note that the second link has a graph which superimposes the satellite data, but misses the hadCRUT line off that graph. To my eye, it looks like hadCRUT is in closer agreement with the satellites than GISS is on recent trends.
It's also worth noting how far below the doom-mongers 1988 projections we are. ;-)


Also of interest are the sea ice area graphs for north and south. Northern sea ice was at a greater extent last winter than it was in winter 1996. I know one extra polar bear doesn't make a cooling trend, but it's encouraging anyway.


Last winter antarctic sea ice reached a record extent, counfounding global doom mongers.
At least it'll keep the penguins happy.

Interpolated data not made up:

Just how many stations and buoys does GISS have in the arctic cicle? Covering how many million square miles?

Edited by tallbloke on 05/07/2008 10:16:19 MDT.

Hi Skots,


Here's what Hansen has to say about the extrapolated interpolations.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/

"One large source of differences is the attempt in the GISS method to estimate the temperature anomaly for all areas that have at least one station located within 1200 km, using weights for these stations that decrease linearly with distance from the station. At any given point the temperature anomaly ****estimated in this way can be substantially in error****, but the increased coverage usually allows an improved estimate of the global temperature anomaly, as judged from tests made with spatially and temporally complete data sets generated by a general circulation model. However, in some cases ****this method can increase error by giving undue weight to one isolated station with anomalous temperature****.
Another source of difference is the method of averaging over the world, given the fact that data is not available everywhere. In the GISS method, we divide the Earth in four latitude belts. Within each belt the region with data is weighted by area. The anomaly for the entire belt is then taken as the anomaly for the portion of the belt that has data. The global anomaly is then the area-weighted mean of the four belts. This method gives equal weight to the hemispheres, but if one of the belts has little data that is not actually representative of the entire belt, ****substantial error can occur****."

(my emphsis)

So, Hansen et al fiddle around with the empirical data and subject it to weightings determined by the output of GCM's (General Circulation Models). No GCM has ever successfully predicted temperature changes, as the graph above showing Hansen et al's 1988 forecasts amply demonstrate.

Hansen is also the only person ever to claim that the ice core records show that CO2 drives temperature change rather than the other way around.... Unless Dean has found another paper yet? ;-)

By the way, a circle of 1200km radius covers around one and three quarter million square miles. Lol.

Anyone interested in how Hansen (Al Gore's climate advisor) has been fiddling the Giss/NASA data to show a continuing upward trend should read this:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/a_tale_of_two_thermometers/
"NASA has a very small number of long-term stations in the Arctic, and even fewer in Africa and South America. The data has been systematically adjusted upwards in recent years - "

Edited by tallbloke on 05/15/2008 05:52:31 MDT.

Comments from Roger, Tony B, Arapiles and any other Aussie contributors on the following please.

http://gustofhotair.blogspot.com/2008/01/australias-climate-change-rainfall-non.html

We've been told over and over again how global warming will result in a decrease of rainfall over Australia.

The CSIRO have said that

"Projected reductions in precipitation and increases in evaporation are likely to intensify water security problems in southern and eastern Australia"

"In no regions or season do models suggest a 'likely' increase in rainfall"

"For 2030, best estimates of rainfall change indicate little change in the far north and decreases of 2% to 5% elsewhere"

and "The rainfall decrease in south western Australia since the mid-1970s is likely to be at least partly due to human-induced greenhouse gases"

Notice the language, "likely", "Best estimates" (not average estimates??) and "partially due". In other words, no-one is really sure, and it is clear that no-one has done the appropriate statistical analysis to prove or disprove the argument.

So how did we go in 2007 with rainfall? With decreases predicted Australia wide, lets take a look at the stats.

Australia 8.8% more rainfall than normal
New South Wales 3.8% more rainfall than normal
Northern Territory 23.3% more rainfall than normal
Queensland 6.9% more rainfall than normal
South Australia 2.3% less rainfall than normal
Tasmania 8.9% less rainfall than normal
Victoria 3.1% less rainfall than normal
Western Australia 8.6% more rainfall than normal.

So some up, a few down. But the general nature of it is pretty obvious, Australia wide we have seen an increase in rainfall in 2007 than the norm.

This complements our findings that show that every state in Australia has had an increase in rainfall in since 1950 compared to the 50 years before that. Almost a 10% increase in fact, with south Australia, our driest state, recording a 14% increase.

Australia's rainfall deficiency's graphs show, well, not a lot. The last 3 months show no deficiency at all, anywhere in Australia.

Even the last 12 months show only a small patch in central western Western Australia with low rainfall.

But that doesn't the BOM from reporting Australia wide deficiencies.
Notice the title,

"Short-term deficiencies ease, long-term deficiencies remain"

Which, would at first glance make people believe that the short term problems have gone away, but the long term problems are hear to stay.

However, this is just more spin. In reality it means that 2 years ago we had lower than normal rainfall, but the last year was just fine. In fact last year, we had great rainfall. If we get something similar in 2008, there will be no drought statement from the BOM

Edited by tallbloke on 05/15/2008 02:02:35 MDT.

"Comments from Roger, Tony B, Arapiles and any other Aussie contributors on the following please.

http://gustofhotair.blogspot.com/2008/01/australias-climate-change-rainfall-non.html"


Lies, damned lies and statistics ... Eastern Australia has just had seven or more years of drought, Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane were on stage 3 or 4 water restrictions, there were record low inflows into the Murray-Darling system, acquifers dropping to previously unseen lows, etc, etc. As an example of what's going on, there's an avenue of trees that stretches some 30 km along the highway outside Ballarat that commemorates WW1 deaths. The trees have been there for at least 50 years (I'm not sure when they were planted but they are mature elms). My parents tell me that many of them are now dead or dying, and no that's not because they're mature, it's the unusual lack of rainfall over the last 6 or 7 years. Sydney had good rains earlier this year but I was watching Landline last Sunday and they reported that 43% of NSW was still in drought, and parts of it were officially going back into drought.

And just as a matter of common sense, and to prevent blatant abuse of statistics, and all sorts of logical fallacies, just because the rainfall in a couple of states is (allegedly) slightly up (and I haven't looked at the source so that may be dodgy anyway) and another few are allegedly slightly down that DOESN'T mean that you can conclude "Australia wide we have seen an increase in rainfall in 2007 than the norm".

Interesting, so what do you make of this?

Breaking Weather News - Rain records tumbling across WA
Tom Saunders, 18 April 2008
Rain is set to persist over southwest WA through the weekend, continuing what is now a record wet month for much of the region.

Perth’s rain for the month has reached 137mm, over three times their average and wettest April in 82 years. The city is now only 12mm off breaking its all time April record of 149mm set in 1926.

Further inland Brookton with 99mm is only 2mm off recording its wettest April in 100 years of records. Northam has already hit that mark with 91mm making it the towns wettest April in over a century of records.

The unusually wet weather is due partly to very warm sea surface temperatures off the west coast of the state. The warm seas are supplying increased moisture to passing cold fronts, leading to thicker cloud and heavier rain.

"Historically rainfall in Australia is closely associated with periods of increased cloudiness (big surprise) and La Nina events. Recently rainfall has occurred when low pressure troughs have formed down the east and west coasts sucking tropical air southwards. The inland has also benefited. Notice the cloud band in the map stretching from SE Asia across the driest part of the Australian continent. This is unusual. Western Australian wheat farmers are frenziedly planting wheat after an extraordinarily early and generous break to the winter season and in parts the added benefit of good soil moisture levels due to summer rain. South Australia, after a record heat wave, is still waiting for rain. It has been in a rain shadow with the continent to the north and has missed out on summer rain. This summer, Eastern Australia has in many places had record summer rainfall with very cool cloudy conditions up and down the East coast."

Arapiles said:
just because the rainfall in a couple of states is (allegedly) slightly up (and I haven't looked at the source so that may be dodgy anyway) and another few are allegedly slightly down that DOESN'T mean that you can conclude "Australia wide we have seen an increase in rainfall in 2007 than the norm"

Errr, the list showed 5 up (one by more than 20%) and 3 down (none by more than 10%)
If the rainfall in the majority of states is up on the long term norm by significantly more than the fall below the long term norm in the minority of states, why is it not logically valid to say that the rainfall for the continent as a whole is up on the norm?

While your anecdote about the trees is interesting, is it not possible that the root cause of their demise by be a more mundane effect of mans activity, such as increased demand for irrigation water in the locality?

Wikipedia says:

...in Australia in recent years. Much of the country's population appears to be losing its traditional water sources due to persistent drought even as most of the outback receives large increases in rainfall....

Could this be part of the reason for the nomadic lifestyle of the aboriginal people?

And here's one for Roger C:

Brett Dutschke, 28 April 2008

Snow has been falling in the Blue Mountains amidst bitterly cold winds, and it’s only April.

The snow has even been heavy on the western side of the Blue Mountains where it settled on the ground. Further south there has been about 15 to 30 centimetres worth on the Alps.

Cold winds responsible for this snow are also generating a significant chill.

Just after one o’clock this afternoon the temperature at Mount Boyce near Katoomba was just 2 degrees and the wind chill was minus four degrees. At about the same time it was only 4 degrees at Goulburn with a wind chill of minus 1. Goulburn’s average maximum in April is 19.

This cold outbreak is a result of the strongest front since last winter. Fronts of this strength normally don’t arrive until at least May, so some are experiencing their coldest April day.

Wellington only reached 13 degrees, breaking a 90-year April record.

Edited by tallbloke on 05/15/2008 05:43:17 MDT.

"Interesting, so what do you make of this?

Breaking Weather News - Rain records tumbling across WA"


Australia is a big country. The situation is a little different in Victoria:

http://www.eldersweather.com.au/vic/melbourne/melbourne?fc=9477

Just to pick a few highlights:

Average total rainfall for Melbourne for the month of May, for the years 1855 - 2006: 56.4 mm

Rainfall for Melbourne for the month of May 2008: 15.6 mm

You'll also notice that today happened to be the hottest May day on record.

And just to be abundantly clear, it's AUTUMN in the Southern Hemisphere and in Melbourne it's supposed to be cold, wet and raining.

2007 was just as bad:

"Bureau of Meteorology data reveals that Melbourne has just experienced its driest 365-day period on record to 9 am this morning, Tuesday 15 May 2007.

Head of the Victorian Climate Services Centre, Dr Harvey Stern, noted: “Melbourne’s average yearly rainfall is 638.8 mm, but for the 365-day period ending today Melbourne had received less than half that amount, 316.4 mm.”

According to Dr David Jones, Head of the Bureau’s Climate Analysis Section, today’s record highlights the severity of the drought that continues in the southeast corner of Australia. “This record shows that unprecedented severe drought conditions persist in Melbourne and surrounding areas over the last year”, said Dr. Jones.

The extremely low rainfall during the last year continues a pattern which commenced in late 1996, and which has seen Melbourne record a record 10 below average rainfall years in a row.

“Melbourne will need to experience significantly higher than average rainfall for sustained periods for water catchments to return to near normal levels”, said Dr Jones.

The previous 365-day record of 318.0 mm was set in 1967-68, although 2002-03 was almost as dry when only 320.2 mm were received."

You said:

"Errr, the list showed 5 up (one by more than 20%) and 3 down (none by more than 10%)
If the rainfall in the majority of states is up on the long term norm by significantly more than the fall below the long term norm in the minority of states, why is it not logically valid to say that the rainfall for the continent as a whole is up on the norm?"

Are you seriously going to suggest that a claimed 5% increase in rainfall in one part of the country on a normal rainfall of X and a claimed 3.1% decrease in a different part of the country on normal rainfall of Y can somehow be averaged? Frankly that's nonsensical. If the total amount of rainfall was identical right across Australia, including WITHIN the states then perhaps that comparison might be valid - but to state the blindingly obvious, Australia has some very diverse climates!!!

And like I said, what are the figures they're quoting percentages of? In 2007 Melbourne had it's driest 365-day period ever, less than half of what's normal. How does that reconcile with the claimed "Victoria 3.1% less rainfall than normal"??? The links the blogger provides to Bureau of Meterology charts don't show any such thing.

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/rain_maps.cgi?map=contours&variable=percent&area=aus&period=cmonth&region=aus&time=latest

On the other hand this map shows below average rainfall across the entire country.

And now I think I will focus on getting my 6 day old daughter to go to sleep ...

Edited by Arapiles on 05/15/2008 07:52:50 MDT.

Congrats on your new arrival. Hope the drought restrictions don't extend to font water at the christening. ;-)

It's certainly true that Melbourne is still waiting for the rain a large part of the rest of Australia has been getting.

The month to date graph isn't very edifying, try the 12 month moving average for a less gloomy picture:

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/rain_maps.cgi?map=contours&variable=percent&area=aus&period=12month&region=aus&time=latest

And with respect to your doubt about Victoria only having 3.1% less rainfall than average in 2007, this seems to back up the claim.

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/rain_maps.cgi?map=contours&variable=percent&area=vic&period=12month&region=vic&time=history&steps=4

Edited by tallbloke on 05/15/2008 14:58:47 MDT.

> Snow has been falling in the Blue Mountains amidst bitterly cold winds, and it’s only April.
> The snow has even been heavy on the western side of the Blue Mountains where it settled on the ground. Further south there has been about 15 to 30 centimetres worth on the Alps.
> Cold winds responsible for this snow are also generating a significant chill.

One well-known consequence of the global warming process is an increase in volatility. This means we are going to get bigger swings in climate from month to month. More hurricanes in Burma and New Orleans. More droughts in *inland* Australia and increased rainfall on the Australian coast. But receding glaciers across Europe - we saw that last year, and receding glaciers in the Himalayas (big worry for Indian agriculture).

Snow in the Australian Alps at Xmas is hardly new. It happens - but it doesn't last more than a day on the ground. Snow in the Blue Mts is the same, just less common. Note the phrase 'where it settled on the ground': settled, but did not stay.

Volatility up, new records of all sorts. 'Interesting times'.

>One well-known consequence of the global warming process is an increase in volatility. More hurricanes in Burma and New Orleans.

I'll cite some contrary evidence.




The trend in the number of typhoons, and of tropical cyclones, has fallen throughout the past 50 years. The trend in rainfall from cyclones has also fallen, and there has been no trend in monsoon rainfall.

Glacier recession has been going on for 180 years and has not increased in rate sice the sharper rise of co2 started 60 years ago.

Edited by tallbloke on 05/15/2008 17:00:50 MDT.

Are you ever not wrong?

http://www.hprcc.unl.edu/nebraska/tornado-totals-monthly-US.html

Or in graphical form:

Volatility is definitely one of the key issues. The extremes at each end are becoming more pronounced. We've been seeing that in Adelaide in the last few years...lots of long-standing records have been obliterated-and at both ends of the spectrum.

In the region where I study the arid zone, in the last couple of years the drought, which of course is naturally cyclic, has taken on a whole new proportion, the likes of which are pretty extreme. Acacia aneura (Mulga) trees, most of which would be more than 200 years old are senescing. And not just senescing, they are dying and falling out of the ground! These trees live for a few hundred years. Normally I would expect that they die of old age once they reach a certain life stage. The same thing is starting to happen to alot of the native pines, which normally live even longer-over 600 years. It is also happening to Acacia papyrocarpa (Western Myall), which is another tree that usually lives for a few hundred years and dies after reaching life-stage ix. They are dying even in their prime, at life stages iii-xi. This is like all the 18-35 year olds just dropping off despite being healthy and disease free. And this is all saying nothing for the rest of the ecosystem, with dying chenopods, zero grass cover, dying shrubs such as Myoporums and Acacia ligulatas. Crashing mammal, rodent and reptile numbers.

I have no doubt that the current drought in that region is extreme, the likes of which these species may not have seen before...for a few hundred years at least. Climate change? Oh yes. The only question is, is it anthropogenically induced or not...and I would say the resounding evidence is that it is.

Hi Rick

>Are you ever not wrong?

How rude is that? Like most people, I have many faults, but being wrong isn't one of them ok? ;-)

Your dataset and Roger's graph are for *all* US tornadoes, the detection and reporting of which have increased dramatically as time has gone by, particularly since the advent of the satellite age. The graph I presented was for the incidence of *severe* tornadoes, those resulting in substantial insurance claims. These have not increased. It is noteworthy however that your dataset shows that springtime tornadoes were more prevalent in the early seventies, a very cool period, than they are today. All this is in the link I've given you several times and I really wish you'd read it and respond, although I'm not holding my breath as I'm beginning to think you are a 'true believer'.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html


Adam, thanks for your expert input. As you'll appreciate, extreme and prolonged droughts are not confined to the modern warm period, and are noted in the historical record worldwide from the bible onwards. Local and global climates are always changing, although the fact that we have enjoyed a remarkably and unusually stable period for several hundred years tends to make us believe the opposite. Change is the norm. Maybe this is the 'volatility' to which Roger refers.

Trees as a group of species are remarkably resilient, partly through genetic diversity and partly through goegraphical diversity. The oldest living tree in the world is a 9000 year old pine in sweden.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/04/17/eatree117.xml
"The summers 9,500 years ago were warmer than today, though there has been a rapid recent rise as a result of climate change that means modern climate is rapidly catching up."

One of the longest surviving tree species is the Ginkgo Biloba which has it's roots (Iknow, I know :o) in the permian 270 million years ago. This should give us pause for thought. It was warmer 9500 years ago than it is now, and it's been much colder in the last 270 million than now, and much much hotter, with a global average temp some 9C higher than the current post ice age holocene climate. But the trees and many other species they shelter and feed survived. Anyway, I sincerely hope the drought conditions round Adelaide end before species die out, even though repopulation of niche environments occurs rapidly from nearby areas where the drought is less severe.

>Climate change? Oh yes. The only question is, is it anthropogenically induced or not...and I would say the resounding evidence is that it is.

Well ok, unless you come back with some of this 'resounding evidence' to debate, I can't really respond to that without randomly repeating some of what has gone before in this thread. Until then I'll respect it as an article of your faith.

It would be great if the pro anthropogenic global warming contributors would actualy present some evidence to back up their belief though. So far, there has been none put forward in this thread which hasn't been shown to be wrong or at best unproven.

The main method of refutation of my contention that warming and cooling are natural phenomena over which we have no possibility of control seems to have consisted of appeals to a 'consensus' of scientific opinion, ad hominem attacks on myself, and flat denial or avoidance of the contrary evidence I've put forward.

Specifically, I'd like Dean or anyone else to bring forward evidence which refutes the results of ice core studies which show that changes in co2 levels lag behind changes in temperature levels by ~800 - ~2800 years and therefore are an effect of temperature change rather than a primary cause.

Secondly, I'd like an explaination of why it is that the overall temperature of the southern hemisphere shows virtually no change over the last 25 years while anthropogenic co2 output has increased dramatically and the level in the atmosphere has increased worldwide by some 20% since the late '50's. How can a gas which spreads throughout the global atmosphere only cause warming in one hemisphere?

Thirdly, I'd like to know why the temperature in the northern hemisphere has hardly risen at all in the last 10 years while anthropogenic co2 output has risen some 15% if it's true that increased co2 levels cause a greenhouse effect which warms the planet by a measurable margin.

If there is any evidence for man made global warming of any measurable quantity, please bring it on and I'll respond to it when I return from my weekend backpacking trip.

Edited by tallbloke on 05/16/2008 02:30:57 MDT.

Ok, Rog, aka “The Loyal Opposition,”

I thought that we had agreed to back off, but if you’re calling me out by name…

I did, in fact , address your point about the CO2 lag. You merely chose to dismiss it with, as I recall, a statement to the effect that “My b_llcr*p detector is trembling.” Very poignant. Especially since Cuffey won an award for that work.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v412/n6846/abs/412523a0.html

And then you quote Siegenthaler back at me as some sort of refutation. In fact, that paper was merely an extension of the existing Vostok data over a longer time period and sought to prove that the sensitivity between the deuterium and CO2 was stable. They merely wanted to show that the pattern of CO2 and deuterium fluctuations continued over this expanded timespan, but they made no attempt whatsoever to correct for accuracy in the way that Cuffey and Vimeux did. They didn’t even cite Cuffey and Vimeux in their references. (Which would be one hell of an oversight, if they were trying to refute them!) Thus, the two papers aren’t even about the same subject, and Siegenthaler is in no way “proof” that the lag exists.

I would say that I’m through playing this game with you because you are so obviously a True Believer and cannot be swayed, but I guess you did suck me in again.

For anyone else:

1) The CO2 lag, by best scientific information currently available, doesn’t exist. But it might be considered contentious, if one is feeling gracious. So, for the sake of argument…

2) Even most of the scientists who DO believe the lag exists STILL believe in anthropogenic global warming. This is because…

3) The explanation for the lag *amongst the believers* works thusly: One of the many other factors affecting global temperatures starts to raise temperatures. This leads, through a number of mechanisms, to increased atmospheric CO2. The temperature change is relatively slow, but rises much more quickly once the CO2 rises. Some estimates put the CO2 contribution to the rise in these historical examples as high as 5/6.

I would propose that the human race is acting as the “other factor” in the current episode of global temperature rise, by causing increased atmospheric CO2. Witness the Crowley paper, the abstract of which NOAA keeps on its website, and which you keep ignoring (while accusing others of ignoring your data):

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/crowley.html

Claiming that because other factors than CO2 can cause temperatures to rise somehow discounts that CO2 can cause temperatures to rise, is so logically absurd as to not need further comment. But I will anyway-

What you're saying is "I think that insolation caused these historical temperature changes, thus there is no way that CO2 can cause temperature changes, so we shouldn't worry about greenhouse gas emmissions." That’s like saying "Humans do not require food to live, because they obviously require air to live, and so there will be no repercussions if we stop eating."

Huh ?!?

And, as I have said, there is no CO2 lag, anyway.

I predict that Rog will now post some biased data “proving” that atmospheric CO2 is stable. Or he’ll go off on a tangent about how poor a greenhouse gas CO2 is, or misrepresent how it takes such large amounts of it to cause any change. Or he’ll ignore all that and post some fringe criticism of Crowley. Or something. Surprise me, Rog. Be anything but repetitious and boring. Because:

To respond to your other challenges: I and others have posted ad nauseum regarding your insistance that temperatures have been falling in the Southern Hemisphere. A belief, as usual, based in irrelevent data about limited local phenomena. You post one set of data, we post another, back and forth ad nauseum. Claiming over and over that we have not addressed your statements does not make it so. Likewise your views about the degree of temperature increase in the Northern Hemisphere. (And ,after all, in your "FOR THE RECORD" statement you granted that global temperatures have been rising.) I simply refuse to go back and forth about it any more, as it is a waste of both of our time.

I'll check back in another month or so. But I really wish you hadn't called me out by name. I am inconceivably bored with this argument, and would rather sit back and let you bash yourself silly against someone else for a while.

Love,
Dean

P.S. Heartland ?!?

Sorry. I had to get that in there. :-)

Edited by acrosome on 05/18/2008 06:23:57 MDT.