A wonderful cartoon from yesterday’s Sydney Morning Herald:
Source: Fairfax Media
Even more important, an article highlighting the plight of small island nations:
The delegation of parliamentarians from four tropical Pacific Islands nations braved the Canberra cold last week, and that wasn’t the only climate shock they suffered.
They watched the impressive intellectual exchange of question time in the House of Representatives on Wednesday and then moved on. But almost as soon as they left, Parliament started to debate a motion on whether the science of man-made climate change was real. This came as a bit of a jolt to the legislator visiting from Kiribati, a country of about 100,000 people on 33 small, low-lying islands strung along 5000 kilometres of the equator.
“Climate change is real in our places,” Rimeta Beniamina, a government MP and vice-chairman of his parliament’s climate change committee, told me, expressing surprise at what was going on in the chamber a few metres away.
“A few years ago it was not taken very seriously. But now quite a few villages are experiencing hardship. Beaches are eroding, houses are falling down, crops are damaged and livelihoods are destroyed.
“The intrusion of salt water is very evident. The sea level may be rising millimetres a year, but it is still rising. The strong winds and rising tides are the worst part. Once the salt water enters the land, that’s it. Trees are falling along the coast, crops dying, pigs and chickens are affected.”
A US study published at the weekend in the journal Nature Geoscience found the global sea level had risen by 16.8 millimetres between 2005 and 2011.
Clark Wilson, a co-author of the study and geophysicist at the University of Texas at Austin, says: “There was an increase in the melting rate in Greenland starting in 2005 and that is probably the underlying story why,” according to the Wall Street Journal. The academic study was funded by NASA and the US National Science Foundation.
The rising seas are whipped up by increasingly severe El Nino weather cycles, damaging the coastlines of countries including Kiribati, pronounced kee-ree-bas.
“Some communities have been forced to move backward from the coast,” Beniamina says. “The problem is, there is not much land to move back to.”
People are jamming into the overcrowded main island, Tarawa. Its centre has a population density estimated at three times that of Tokyo, says an April report by Australian journalist Bernard Lagan in the Global Mail. Fresh water supplies are at risk and there is not enough land to bury the dead.
Kiribati President Anote Tong has declared a policy of orderly evacuation that he calls “migration with dignity”. The nation is a proverbial canary in the carbon emission coal mine, and the prognosis is unhappy.
Watching the Deniers 
Having a friend who lived on Tuvalu ( TOO VARLOO) for the past four years and lived there for four years ten years previously, this is going to be fun
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atoll#Formation
Charles Darwin noticed that Coral Islands “float” – they move up and down with changes in sea level. This should be obvious from the fact that coral atolls are usually a maximum of a few metres above sea level – which would be a remarkable coincidence, if they didn’t move up and down with changes in sea level.
The current problems of tropical atolls have been caused by dynamiting the barrier reefs, to create easy passages for boats, using reef material for building (weakening the atoll’s defence against sea), and over exploitation of rain fed fresh water reserves.
If Darwin knew 100 years ago that coral atolls float, that sea level change is no threat to them, why haven’t you guys caught up yet?
They do not float eric, they grow above the craters of sunken volcanoes,
as the SLR rises they grow, as SLR drops they have nowhere to grow so the surface dies and crumbles away, they still grow below the crumbled surface layer
On Tuvalu at Funafuti the coral has been growing with the SLR but is not keeping up now, We can see the difference between some of the tide gauges showing no SLR (atop growing coral ) and the satellite measurements, In many places the coral is dead and there are efforts by the Japanese to get it growing again
now that the coral is not keeping up the HAT’s cover a lot of the island with seawater that comes up through the coral, not only a scary experience but also pollutes the fresh water aquifers.
my friend was astounded how much the Ocean ( lagoon side) had moved towards his house in just a few years, they will need to get out with less than 1 metre SLR
mount Funafuti is 4metres ASL
The formation of coral islands was a topic of considerable scientific argument in the 19th century. The question that particularly bothered scientists was this: since corals grow only at shallow depths in the sea (rarely below 80 metres), how is it that coral rock, formed from their remains, often extends for hundreds of metres beneath the sea?
In 1842 the famous scientist Charles Darwin, who visited the Pacific in 1835-6, put forward the theory that coral islands had been built on slowly subsiding volcanic rocks. As the volcanic foundation sank, it carried the dead coral down to greater depths. Meanwhile, new deposits of coral were being added to the top of the pile, near the surface, so that the upward growth of the coral kept pace with the subsidence. At some later date another volcanic movement occurred, and pushed some of the coral up to form islands. Thus it was, said Darwin that a solid mass of coral rock could be found above the surface of the sea, and extend from there, through the waters in which it had been formed down to depths at which the coral had never lived.
After many years of discussion on the structures of atolls, the Royal Society of London decided to bore down into the coral and obtain a sample of it from far beneath the surface to see if these samples would contain traces of shallow water organisms. In 1896 an expedition was sent to Tuvalu (Funafuti) which managed to bore to a depth of 33 metres. In 1897 another party of scientists led by Professor Edgeworth David of the University of Sydney carried the boring to a depth of 200 metres while the following year a third group managed to obtain a sample from a depth of 340 metres. All the samples obtained were found to contain traces of shallow water organisms, but the drilling was never able to reach the volcanic base of Funafuti. Another attempt was made in 1911, which was also unsuccessful. The boreholes can still be seen to this day, at the site now called David’s Drill
and Funafuti does not have a fringing reef, it is the reef
On Tuvalu at Funafuti the coral has been growing with the SLR but is not keeping up now, We can see the difference between some of the tide gauges showing no SLR (atop growing coral ) and the satellite measurements, In many places the coral is dead and there are efforts by the Japanese to get it growing again
Yes, because the natives killed it. If you want to dynamite your island, dump pollution on top of the living reef, break up the barrier reefs for construction and easy access to fishing spots, then don’t whinge to everyone and blame “gerbil warming” when the natural processes of coral building start to falter.
The following NOAA report mentions pollution and resource exploitation as a significant problem for Funafuti.
Click to access icri_stateofreefs.pdf
There have been extremely rapid changes in SLR in the last 15,000 years, far more rapid than today. The reefs had no problem keeping up – because back then people hadn’t invented dynamite.
Your 1995 paper states
. Tuvalu is a region consisting of low coral islands.
The major source of natural disturbance is tropical storms. Islands are
extremely small and are dependent on the fishing and shellfish industry.
Human stress (overharvesting and some water pollution) to reefs is
limited to the heavily populated Funafuti Atoll (Maragos and Holthus, in
press).
now the reason my friend was there on tuvalu was because the Australian government gave them a patrol boat so they could keep the japanese trawlers out of the area (overfishing)
they do not harvest from the reef area, they declared it a conservation area years ago
There is no pollution the water is very clean,
John, you’re more patient than me. Having a deep familiarity with Darwin’s work on atolls all I could do was but shake my head.
It is a bit personal for me as i have seen photos of the HAT and lamented Australia’s indifference up until a few years ago, I also have a friend in Gympie ex Tuvalu, when i met him he was surprised that we even knew of their plight
What a load of codswallop!
This is what you get from lazy armchair critics who think they understand science.
It is so easy to regurgitate Watts. random bits from wikipedia and anything that that Limited News publishes.
F for effort.
+ 1 for “Limited news.” Good one.
Pumice is one sort of volcanic rock which floats based on its porosity – low density. But while you do get natural “rafts” of pumice esp. in the wake of major volcanic eruptions you do NOT see basalt islands floating.
Some of the things you mention – eg. dynamiting barrier reefs might well create local issues and play a role in exacerbating the problem(s) but Global Overheating is a major reality which these islands face. People who actually live there are telling us just that. They’d know and we need to listen to them.
Also what John Byatt very well said to you.
No the blasting is mainly fishing on reefs and getting channels through the fringing reefs to the actual islands
Has SFA to do with the nonsense from eric
Good to see Eric ignoring the last century of scientific developments. Equally good to see his grip on arithmetic is as strong as McIntyre’s. Let’s see. Darwin’s first monograph on corals was 1842. This year is, hmm, 2013. Yup, that’s about 100 in the Wattsonian universe.
Parliament started to debate a motion on whether the science of man-made climate change was real.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/canary-isle-shows-climate-change-is-real-20130603-2nm5r.html#ixzz2VK7DAjwH
shit we will have to get the Hansard on that, anyone?, how long before it is available?
http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Hansard
Private members business,Wednesday 29th May. Rob Oakeshott seeks a house expression of confidence in Australia’s science community re AGW, 40 minutes after the house acknowledges the visitors from the Pacific Nations Climate Change Committee.
tks nick
Hartcher has seriously stuffed up his summary of the numbers in the Cook study. Firstly he mentions the c.12000 papers,with the vague implication that this was all papers published that could have been surveyed.Then he said that 1.9% of that number rejected AGW,when the abstract states that 0.7% did so….and that 97% of the 12,000 argued that GW was anthropogenic. This is not what the paper found at all.
Of the 11944 papers turned up by the search terms,66.4% of paper abstracts expressed no position on anthropogenic origin of current CC [because explicit endorsement is rather redundant in papers discussing details of mechanisms within a climate change that is understood to be occurring],32.6% explicitly did so.0.7% expressed rejection and 0.3% expressed uncertainty…so 33.6% of abstracts took an explicit position about AGW and of those 97.1% endorsed the consensus position.
You might find this interesting.
The Indonesian Transport Ministry is preparing to build and relocate a total of 45 airports over the next decade in order to support the development of Indonesia’s aviation industry, Herry Bakti S. Gumay, the Director General of Air Transportation at the Ministry, said on 9 June 2012. The move was to address the rapid development of the aviation industry, not only in terms of passengers carried but also the expansion of routes and fleets in Indonesia. “In the first phase, we will build 24 new airports until 2017, and then the rest will be built gradually up to 2022,”
http://www.routesonline.com/news/37/momberger-airport-information/154885/indonesia-has-big-plans-for-airport-expansion/
Seems the Indonesian Government isn’t particularly concerned, doesn’t it.
And?
More concerned than you
Click to access 11_Yusuf.pdf
Indonesia is still in its colonial phase,securing its far flung corners. Lucky Papuans…
PIOMAS MAY
Volume up, thickness down
http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/
Meanwhile, closer to home:
“Sydney’s series of unusually warm spells is continuing into winter, with the city forecast to break its record for consecutive days in which the temperature has risen to at least 20 degrees.
Harbour City temperatures are tipped to hit the 20s each day until at least Tuesday, an eight-day sequence that would break the previous record of seven consecutive days, set in 1921.
“This is staggering, as Sydney’s average [high] for the first month of winter is just 17 degrees,” Rob Sharpe, a meteorologist with Weatherzone said. “This week would fit nicely into late April or early May.”
The question is:
“How will limited news report this?”
This morning at Home
Me “bloody freezing this morning”
missus ” well if you had more on than a pair of thongs, shorts and T shirt”
Me ” you blame me for the cold?”
Link to the above:
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/sydneys-warm-start-to-june-staggering-20130605-2np1c.html
And, further from home:
“Rescuers used helicopters to pluck families from rooftops in the southern German town of Deggendorf on Wednesday as the Danube flood crisis continues.
Meanwhile more than 30,000 people in the eastern city of Halle have been told to leave their homes after rivers reached their highest level in 400 years.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22779749
So we had higher floods 400 years ago ?/sarc off
And another record bites the dust:
The tornado that struck El Reno, Okla., on May 31 was an EF-5 twister, the strongest on the Enhanced Fujita Scale, the National Weather Service reported on Tuesday. The tornado had a stunning width of 2.6 miles, which makes it the widest tornado on record worldwide. The twister killed 13, four of whom were storm chasers, including pioneering tornado researcher Tim Samaras.
The width of the tornado was equivalent to the entire north-south length of New York City’s Central Park, which extends 2.5 miles from 59th street in Manhattan to 110th street.
http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/killer-el-reno-tornado-was-widest-ever-recorded-nws
How long before we need EF-6 ?
One more:
The month of March has proven the warmest on record in Tasmania. The Weather Bureau has released figures showing autumn began with a heatwave, with some parts of the state reaching temperatures in the mid 30s.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-03/warm-march-weather-sets-record/4730212?section=tas
All these items have been posted in the last day or so.
But of course, there is nothing unusual going on – it is all part and parcel of “natural variability”. So, everybody, please do not be alarmed and go back to what you were doing. If there is anything to worry about, then leave it to experts such as Andrew Bolt, Eric, Mark etc.. to issue the warnings. Until then, back to la-la land.
Never to be reported by Ltd News…
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V13/N33/C1.php
Ha-ha. From that web site:
“Tired of alarmist global warming propaganda? Learn what science really has to say about the issue. ”
The staff list is:
Chairman: CRAIG D. IDSO
President: SHERWOOD B. IDSO
Vice-president: KEITH E. IDSO !!!
Who can recall “Dodgy Brothers” ? (from Fast Forward?)
Yeah, I like to link to sites that I assume are going to frowned on, just to see the reaction. Somehow the data becomes less valid when its referred to by those on the unofficial blacklist.
I must admit I find this way of thinking to be curious. Personally, I wouldn’t care if the data came from Beelzebub herself if was good data.
The really interesting thing is that the data would be inherently more accepted if I’d linked here:
ftp://soest.hawaii.edu/coastal/Climate%20Articles/Atolls%20Growing%20Kench%202010.pdf
Same data but somehow better by not being referred to by the wrong type of scientist.
And “good data” is data which supports your prejudices. Bad data is any that describe the real world.
Mark, We already know that.
Idso “and they say that “given this positive trend, reef islands may not disappear from atoll rims and other coral reefs in the near-future as speculated.”
not in the conclusions that I posted
already linked to that site mark 20 minutes ago
“not in the conclusions that I posted”
But you didn’t post the full text of the conclusions, did you?
Or, in the fantasy world that is John-land, are the only valid conclusions those that you decide to truncate? Fair dinkum…
apologies
had it ready to add , but disappeared somewhere
the rest
Over 65% of islands examined have migrated toward the lagoon (away from the reef edge)
across the period of analysis.
Of significance, the results of this study on atoll islands are applicable to islands in other reef
settings, as the boundary controls on island formation and change are comparable. Results of
this study contradict widespread perceptions that all reef islands are eroding in response to
recent sea level rise. Importantly, the results suggest that reef islands are geomorphically
resilient landforms that thus far have predominantly remained static or grown in area over the
last 20 – 60 years. Given this positive trend, reef islands may not disappear from atoll rims
and other coral reefs in the near-future as speculated. However, islands will undergo
continued geomorphic change. Based on the evidence presented in this study it can be
expected that the pace of geomorphic change may increase with future accelerated sea level
rise. Results do not suggest that erosion will not occur. Indeed, as found in 15% of the islands
in this study, erosion may occur on some islands. Rather, island erosion should be considered
as one of a spectrum of geomorphic changes that have been highlighted in this study and
which also include: lagoon shoreline progradation; island migration on reef platforms; island
expansion and island extension. The specific mode and magnitude of geomorphic change is
likely to vary between islands. Therefore, island nations must better understand the pace and
diversity of island morphological change and consider the implications of island persistence
and morphodynamics for future adaptation
So mark kisks up a stink that I missed a bit but forgives Idso for missing this
However, islands will undergo
continued geomorphic change. Based on the evidence presented in this study it can be
expected that the pace of geomorphic change may increase with future accelerated sea level
rise. Results do not suggest that erosion will not occur. Indeed, as found in 15% of the islands
In his haste to cherry pick one sentence did Mark actually read any of the now 59 citations of the study ?
http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?cites=7308390799857927469&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=en
could be interesting Mark, do you really care? you were pretty sure that the global temp would take a few hundred years to get to 1.3Degc
now lets have a look at the latest research
hehe
Oh look here is one that shows that the increase in some islands is due to reclamation
Shoreline change analysis indicates the urban area has expanded both toward the lagoon and onto the ocean-facing reef flat. Shoreline change within the urban area of Majuro has been largely driven by widespread reclamation for a mix of residential, commercial, and industrial activities. Rural areas of the atoll typically have lower rates of shoreline change relative to those of urban areas. Analysis indicates that the rural lagoon shore is predominantly eroding, whereas the ocean-facing shore is largely accreting. Any shoreline response to sea level rise along the Majuro coast is likely masked by widespread anthropogenic impacts to the coastal system.
This one is interesting , about salt water intrusion , storms etc
What was funny was the one where they were selling four inch sections of hosepipe.
useless, except that in the local park at the time it was covered in plastic juice bottles and four inch pieces of hose pipe
had a servo and we could not work out why every morning the hose was four inches shorter, at least than the day before.
penny dropped after a week
“So mark kisks up a stink that I missed a bit but forgives Idso for missing this”
SOP for good old John….completely screws up and in the midst of it shouts..”hey look over there.” quick change the subject.
I didn’t forgive Idso anything. Just because I link to a page doesn’t mean I endorse absolutely every word on it. sheeesh.
“In his haste to cherry pick one sentence…”
I didn’t cherry pick anything. I merely pointed out that the sentence you asserted wasn’t in the report, in fact was. You really have no shame..not the slightest concern for the truth.
But fear not, the swarm will avert their eyes, as usual.
You seem to post a lot of stuff you do not endorse.”Just because I link to a page doesn’t mean I endorse absolutely every word on it.”
maybe then when you offer a link you might just explain what you want to get across
I suppose that allows you to post junk and then disown it.
remember last time that you actually endorsed something in the science?
you just reveal that you do not have a clue, so back away
so apologies do not count with you, we will remember that seeing that.
got the apology ready yet for the 1.3Degc TCR in a few hundred years ?
Mark’s comment
Mark says:
June 6, 2013 at 1:08 am
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V13/N33/C1.php
you have not stated which part you do not endorse, is this a guessing game?
John,
I think the broad thrust of the article is correct. Do I really need to go through the page and forensically identify every word and nuance that doesn’t meet my complete approval?
We go through this every time you screw up. The next ten posts are you searching to find some way to somehow even the score. I’m not playing.
The page I posted had some interesting data that was contrary to the thrust of the thread. If you don’t like it, well, big surprise.
But I’ve been hearing about the imminent demise of Tuvalu/Kiribati/The Maldives for two decades now and precisely nothing has happened. There are myriad articles I’ve read over the years explaining why these atolls ‘float’ and explaining why fresh water supplies are problematic due to bad land use rather than CC. Consequently I remain to be convinced that the locals are truly in danger and not simply looking to use western guilt to get a hand-out or a new life.(not that I blame
them mind you)
SO this is what we do
we put up a link and then that is it, we do not look for citations nor post citations,
we do not discuss it, because any thing else is irrelevant after Mark puts up the link
sorry sunshine, if you think you run the agenda of how far we go with out of date papers then you are sadly mistaken ,
no wonder everyone who reads your comments just shakes their heads
john,
You’re are f******g insane. All this because you made a mistake? Grow up.
I posted a link to a paper. If you want to take it further then do so. I’m not stopping you or trying to set the agenda. Check citations to your hearts content. But FFS grow up.
Now compare Idso’s conclusion of the paper that you believed was the conclusion as per the actual paper
Idso “In the words of the scientists who conducted the analysis, the results of this study “contradict widespread perceptions that all reef islands are eroding in response to recent sea level rise.” Quite to the contrary, they note that “reef islands are geomorphically resilient landforms that thus far have predominantly remained stable or grown in area over the last 20-60 years,” and they say that “given this positive trend, reef islands may not disappear from atoll rims and other coral reefs in the near-future as speculated.”
he cherry picks one para as amounting to the lot
keep getting angry and insulting, no one is listening to you
see what happens when you spit the dummy? you get confused and write
“You’re are f******g insane”
too many *** as well, can’t you spell?
There’s the correct number of asterisks. What word did you think I was inferring?
Weird that you thought that you had to disguise it.
ftp://soest.hawaii.edu/coastal/Climate%20Articles/Atolls%20Growing%20Kench%202010.pdf
Conclusions
The future persistence of low-lying reef islands has been the subject of considerable
international concern and scientific debate. Current rates of sea level rise are widely believed
to have destabilised islands promoting widespread erosion and threatening the existence of
atoll nations. This study presents analysis of the physical change in 27 atoll islands located in
the central Pacific Ocean over the past 20 to 60 years, a period over which instrumental
records indicate an increase in sea level of the order of 2.0 mm y-1
.
The results show that island area has remained largely stable or increased over the timeframe
of analysis. Forty-three percent of islands increased in area by more than 3% with the largest
increases of 30% on Betio (Tarawa atoll) and 28.3% on Funamanu (Funafuti atoll). There is
no evidence of large scale reduction in island area despite the upward trend in sea level.
Consequently, islands have predominantly been persistent or expanded in area on atoll rims
for the past 20 to 60 years.
Persistence of reef islands does not necessarily equate to geomorphic stability and the results
also show that despite small net changes in island area most islands have experienced larger
gross changes. The results show that reef islands are morphologically dynamic features that
can change their position on reef platforms (e.g. lagoon migration) at a range of timescales.
Characteristic planform adjustments in islands include: ocean shoreline erosioon, lagoon
progradation and, lateral extension of elongate islands. Mechanisms driving these observed
changes are varied and can include a combination of sea-level rise, decadal-scale variations in
wind and wave climate and anthropogenic impacts. Aggregated to the island scale these
shoreline changes indicate that islands have adjusted their nodal position on reef surfaces.
MSL increased 200mm since 1860
Tuvalu study 1984/2003
Study looks at entire atoll some islands expanding some stable and some decreasing
Mark, can you help me , you read the study, was it done at high, low or median tide.?
keep him busy for a while
study period covers about 40mm of SLR
Friend left Tuvalu this year , arrived for this tour about 2008/2009
when he left ocean lagoon side was one metre closer to house than when he arrived.
That site is funded by anonymous money via Heartland. The papers it cites are real enough,but very often the interpretation offered by the Idsos is deceptive.
Weird that you thought that you had to disguise it.
Mark “There are myriad articles I’ve read over the years explaining why these atolls ‘float’
Eric “Charles Darwin noticed that Coral Islands “float”
WTF?
Kiribati ain’t floating
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/gallery/2013/apr/16/kiribati-end-game-climate-change-in-pictures
Yeah its disappearing before our very eyes…
http://earthengine.google.org/#intro/v=1.8668577,-157.35992020000003,9.510624971357084
Yeah I agree its a less than precise term especially when someone wants to remain deliberately obtuse.
But it is a regularly used term. It refers to the idea that these atolls rise and fall with sea levels. That is, irrespective of the current sea levels the atoll will be a mere metre or two above ambient sea level.
Trying to work out how you’ll try to distort this, I’m not saying they rise and fall with the tide but rise and fall over decades and centuries.
The coral beneath them grows as sea level rises, it is no longer keeping up
and your link shows Tarawa, why do you think that it is becoming overpopulated ?
go on have a guess
“it is no longer keeping up”
Evidence?
There is evidence that the islands also growth due to debris being added t the island. eg many islands in the Maldives gained height as a result of the 2004 tsunami.
“and your link shows Tarawa, why do you think that it is becoming overpopulated ?
go on have a guess”
Don’t need to guess. The reason is higher birth rate (people always have more kids when their island is about to go under 😉 ) and people moving to the big city, so to speak.
Facepalm
As I have said my friend has lived on Funafuti for two four year periods, he was there when the teams were trying to get the dead coral areas to grow again,
this may be some of the research , it was the japanese team who thought they may be able to get the coral growing again,
Click to access 2008_Funafuti_Coral_Reef_Restoration.pdf
and please, Funafuti is not a hole surrounded by growing coral keeping the sea out
“Facepalm”
Glad to be of help.
“and please, Funafuti is not a hole surrounded by growing coral keeping the sea out”
OK? Did someone say it was?
Actually one denier did when i told him that the tide gauges were rising with the coral growth and not showing SLR despite sat data that showed the SLR was about 5mm per year
he said that is not possible as the coral would grow up the tide gauge.and cover it
After a fairly cool day, cloud cover, it is now warm, cloud cover, wonder what keeps it warm during the night with the same cloud cover?
Air-conditioning?
In the back yard?
Hilarious – Cook classified Willie Soon’s papers as “no position”.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/
I can smell a retraction brewing…
what did the abstract off the Soon paper state eric?, do you think that it took a position?
let us in on the joke ,
yes was funny ”
The Misleading alarmist of the misleading alarmist blog john cook asked a misleading question”
sounds like a balanced opinion piece
Who wrote that crud?
James Taylor
Contributor
Follow (115)
+ show more
I am senior fellow for environment policy at the Heartland Institute and managing editor of Environment & Climate News. I write about energy and environment issues, frequently focusing on global warming. I have presented environmental analysis on CNN, CNN
classic
The deniars have lost the science so they have to resort to right wing nutters to sell to gullible Libertarians. There is a ready market there, waiting to be sold to. Credible too – I get my science from Forbes and my stock picks from Geophysical Research Letters. And, yes, a lot of dummies buy this twaddle. I can name two on this board.
Cook’s paper is brilliant. The deniars must defend. They’ve set bluster to 11!
Cook’s paper is a rapidly unravelling joke – he had to classify papers by Toll and Soon as either “support” or “no position” to get his 97%.
I’ve provided a quote from Cook indicating his priority is the publicity, not the analysis.
I can’t believe you’re so desperate you actually try to push this nonsense – and I’ve got to accept that you actually believe it, which is even more disturbing.
Eric, you have not ‘unravelled’ Cook et al. You have not read it!
Do you understand methodology and disclosure?…choice of analytic/classificatory actions is set ,then followed. ‘They’ did not have to classify Tol and Soon at all: the search criteria turned up 11944 papers,and according to those, the papers entered the pool,to have the classifications applied as to all. Every paper had to fit through the same ‘filter’ They are not individually and/or arbitarily post-hoc classified.
Of course Cook is concerned that this gets publicity,but the analytical process was set and followed consistently. Stop spinning Cook’s remark.
Anyone with half a brain knows there is very little basic literature that argues against [‘disendorses’] AGW….stop imagining conspiracy at every turn.
Correction. Eric and Mark have set bluster to “stun”.
The surprising thing is that as many as 5 sceptical scientists have been unearthed!
The number of scientists publishing must be about 3000 (12,000 articles divided by 4 per scientist as a rough estimate).
That makes the ratio over 99.8%.
Lets be generous and double the number of scepticals to 10, the ratio drops to over 99.7%
How about we make it (an impossible 100), then it drops to just under 97%.
So, give me the names of 100 sceptical scientists who have published and I will grant you that the ratio is less than 97%.
I bet you can’t.
There’s an old Russian joke about finance people interviewing for a job in the government. Each is asked give the answer to 2 + 2 and each answers 4. But the final winning candidate says “what answer do you want?”
Cook looks a lot like that. Its all together too cute to have come up with the same results as Doran. Its all too easy to see the result being determined and then the ‘evidence’ gathered.
The money quote is from Scafetta:
““Cook et al. (2013) is based on a straw man argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission,…What my papers say is that the IPCC view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun…What it is observed right now is utter dishonesty by the IPCC advocates. … They are gradually engaging into a metamorphosis process to save face. … And in this way they will get the credit that they do not merit, and continue in defaming critics like me that actually demonstrated such a fact since 2005/2006,”
My main problem with Cook is not that it, like Doran, has to fudge to come up with the approved number. Its the use that it is put to. Its just possibly true that 90 odd % of scientists think man has some significant effect (although ‘significant’ can mean different things to different people) on GW. But this gets parleyed, in the popular media, into a view that 97% of scientists are in agreement that we need to introduce all sorts of economic and societal changes to ‘combat’ CO2. But Cook hasn’t found anything like that and never could.
As I said, the number becomes a cliché and, any time someone demurs on any lunacy around the myth, it (the number) gets used a weapon. And the ‘science’ behind Cook doesn’t justify that.
Blathering idiot,read the paper!! Those who have read it can clearly see this is transparent rubbish from you.
It
Only if you have not read,or fail to understand the methodology.
“Blathering idiot,read the paper!!”
yes, because anyone who doesn’t whole-heartedly agree with Nick is either an idiot or ignorant. There beats the heart of a true absolutist. It was these types who demanded the right to decide what was and wasn’t fit for us to read.
Let’s just take one example to see how the methodology is designed to achieve the desired result…Scafetta’s “Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900–2000 global surface warming”. At first blush, just the title would suggest that it doesn’t endorse the consensus. But alas, since it finds that only 50% of the 20th century warming was due to the sun and implies that man’s contribution caused most of the rest, this gets a category 1 “Explicit endorsement with quantification”. I can’t really argue that the committed ‘volunteer’ got it wrong, but any methodology that gives the paper the highest possible endorsement of the consensus is plain wrong.
And that’s why Cook is wrong. The mechanics of the process may have been followed reasonably correctly, but the methodology was designed to achieve a result.
1] We study the role of solar forcing on global surface temperature during four periods of the industrial era (1900–2000, 1900–1950, 1950–2000 and 1980–2000) by using a sun-climate coupling model based on four scale-dependent empirical climate sensitive parameters to solar variations. We use two alternative total solar irradiance satellite composites, ACRIM and PMOD, and a total solar irradiance proxy reconstruction. We estimate that the sun contributed as much as 45–50% of the 1900–2000 global warming, and 25–35% of the 1980–2000 global warming. These results, while confirming that anthropogenic-added climate forcing might have progressively played a dominant role in climate change during the last century, also suggest that the solar impact on climate change during the same period is significantly stronger than what some theoretical models have predicted.
U.S food waste double that of Australia
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/06/05/2105511/american-throw-out-40-percent-of-their-food-which-is-terrible-for-the-climate/
the climate sceptics party
The notion that the United Nations or the entirely of the world’s population could have any effect on the climate is so absurd that it should be dismissed out of hand, but the UN climate program and forthcoming treaty it is fashioning has nothing to do with the climate. It is about the fascist utopia being fashioned by those telling huge lies about the climate.
This is why we keeping hearing President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry issue warnings about the climate. On election night Obama said “we want our children to live in an America…that isn’t threatened by the destructive power of a warming planet.”
But the planet is not warming. It has been cooling for sixteen years at this point despite Kerry’s lies that “the science is screaming at all of us and demands action.”
“Obama and Kerry have stepped up the climate rhetoric,” says CFACT’s Rucker. “They must feel great pressure to deliver some tangible result to the Green pressure groups that supported them last fall.” And Kerry will set the agenda for the U.S. delegates to the UN climate talks.
must be the fascist utopia of revelations?
which one was the anti-christ again ?
Scafetta 1
IPCC AGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission,…What my papers say is that the IPCC view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun.
Scafetta2
We estimate that the sun contributed as much as 45–50% of the 1900–2000 global warming,
separate issue from Cook
IPCC AGW theory, “which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission,”
IPCC “most of the warming”
Most = more than 50% = 50%+
so he just lies his way out of that
or maybe a typo?
Why are you attacking Scafetta? Isn’t he part of your beloved consensus? You know, the consensus that natural forcings account for up to than half the warming since 1850.
translation?
Yeah I guessed you wouldn’t want to accept the logical conclusion of what you’ve been arguing.
“for up to than half”
yer that sounds logical alright
[…] 2013/06/05: WtD: Denying, not waving: image of the day and the fate of island nations […]