My Photo
Mobilise this Blog

Google

InvestigateDaily

INVESTIGATEMAGAZINE.TV

Kiwiblog

New Zealand Conservative

InvestigatePodcast

AmCam News Tips

  • Have you got mobile camera pix of breaking news, or a first-hand account you've written?
    email Investigate now on publicity [at] investigatemagazine.com and we'll get you online
Blog powered by Typepad

« Air Con book debuts at #1 on bestseller list | Main | The parable of the adulterous woman... »

Comments

AcidComments

"The best fit (shown) assumed only 10% of the atmospheric CO2 increase is due to human emissions (b=0.1), while the other 90% is simple due to changes in sea surface temperature. The peak correlation between the modeled and observed CO2 fluctuation is now at zero month time lag, supporting the model’s realism. The model explained 50% of the variance of the Mauna Loa observations."

Interesting.

Yeah. Man's only responsible for the least amount of CO2 emissions compared to Nature and here we're being blamed for 90% Climate Change. That's why the AGW Doomsayer Gurus are blowing hot air out both ends. They're either completely incompetent, liars, fraudsters or on a political agenda!

Carol Stewart

Ian, we can also listen to our own excellent New Zealand climate scientists, like Prof Martin Manning and Dr David Wratt. They disagree with your overall drift.

DyannT

I am currently reading "Solar Rain" by Mitch Battros. As a weather novice it makes a hell of a lot of sense to me. The chapter I'm reading at the moment talks about the link between the sun's cyclical behaviour and the La Nina and El Nino cycles. I have read very little reference to the Sun-Earth link in most discussions about us bad humans destroying the planet.

Ian

I devote a significant amount of space in Air Con to the sun's role in warming, Dyann, within the larger context of the climate change debate.

@Carol...the issue is not whether Wratt et al disagree with me - it's whether they have a more convincing explanation than people like Spencer.

I'm sorry, having read the IPCC reports and all the major studies since, I am more convinced than ever that warming is natural, for precisely the reasons I explain in the book...

Shunda Barunda

One things for sure, the science is not "settled".

Carol Stewart

Yeah, that's what the tobacco companies continued to argue.

Ian

Carol, it's really very simple. Gareth can explain on his blog why Roy Spencer is wrong.

You have shown a desire to argue the issues, and so we should. If AGW doesn't have a convincing answer, then you can take it as yet more proof that the AGW camp is trading mostly on rhetoric and slogans, not science.

Once you read Air Con, I suspect that will become blindingly obvious to you, because like everyone else who has actually read the book, you will see how Gareth's reviews utterly failed to deal with any of Air Con's main themes.

And that, Carol, is a sign of weakness in Hot Topic's position. In the book, the studies I quote are as recent as April 2009. In contrast, as you'll see when the latest Investigate comes out next week, Gareth's testimony to the ETS committee last month was out of date.

The AGW camp is quoting out of date science, and that should concern you.

peter

Carol

Did you realise how appropriate your comparison of Roy Spencer and the Tobacco Industry might be?

Why do I see a reference to this man on this site?

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=19

Exxon Mobil indeed!

Ian

Peter, Exxonsecrets is a Greenpeace front...congratulations, you fell for it.

There's nothing remotely sinister in the references to Spencer on that site, so now let's deal with the science: Spencer's study suggests strong evidence that oceanic CO2 is the primary driver of increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere. (Looking at the graphs, very strong evidence).

Not a squeak out of Hot Topic and no one posting here challenges it.

Yet this goes to the heart of all those glib and simplistic slogans about C12/C13 ratios being a sure sign of AGW.

Really?

Read Air Con, you'll learn something.

peter

Ian

If this excellent Exxonsecrets site had been the only reference, I would not have included it. It was a trap and you fell for it.

Look at this link:

http://mediamatters.org/research/200605190003

I quote:

' Roy Spencer is the chief research scientist at the University of Alabama-Huntsville. As noted above, he and Christy released a study in 2003 that, using faulty calculations, purported to show that temperatures in the troposphere had remained constant over the previous two decades.

Like Michaels, Spencer also has ties to the George C. Marshall Institute. Beyond his criticism of global warming theory, Spencer has also taken up another cause that places him well outside the scientific mainstream -- his view that "intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism." '

My god Roy Spencer has been an intelligent design fan as well !!!

I rest my case.

cj_nza

"intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism."

A conclusion that I also reached after reading several publications by Dawkins.

Shunda Barunda

"he and Christy released a study in 2003 that, using faulty calculations"

Peter, I guess you were one of those applauding "an inconvienient truth"?
Perhaps you should go check on the acuracy of the science behind that load of bollocks.

Ian

Peter, if you had read Air Con, you would see that MediaMatters has been extensively funded by organisations promoting belief in human caused global warming.

It's 'claims' are bought and paid for.

david w

OK Ian, here is a simple question.

If you think that most of the recent increase in C02 has come from warming oceans (that's the idea right?) shouldn't they be losing CO2? Aren't they, in fact, acidifying?

And while we're at it, if most of the new CO2 is coming from the ocean, how is it that both the atmosphere and the ocean have decreasing 13C:14C ratios?

Shunda Barunda

Just watched the new documentary "Earth" with the wife and kids.

Wonderful piece of work.....except for all the propaganda at the end!!

No more polar bears by 2030 apparantly!.

peter

A very good appraisal of Roy W Spencer's advocacy of Intelligent Design is contained here:

http://blogs.salon.com/0001561/2005/08/09.html

He is so wrong about intelligent design that it is hard to take him seriously on climate change.

The graphs published by Ian are too simplistic to be of any real value.

Also look at this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/20/AR2006052001151.html

' Spencer's serious academic work has sparked controversy. While at NASA -- between 1984 and 2001 -- he and University of Alabama at Huntsville professor John Christy pioneered satellite monitoring that indicated the Earth was warming more slowly than surface temperature readings would indicate. In 1991 the two researchers won NASA's Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for that work, but this month a government study concluded there was no statistical difference between the two climate records.

Spencer acknowledged that other satellite experts have found two errors in how he and Christy processed their data. '

So yes .. Spencer is a dag, and I love the photo of him playing guitar in a church band.

I don't think he is contributing much to the question Ian.

maksimovich

david w

Bomb

eg http://www.niwa.co.nz/__data/assets/image/0018/43452/Bhd_14co2_800.jpg

maksimovich

peter

Svante Arrhenius is also a "dag"

Interesting perspective on Racial purity and eugenics,

Also of interest is his views on the origins of life (it came from mars)

eg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius

Bamm Bamm

You just have to look at the gene pool in Auckland and realise it won't be long till the Government implements a Eugenics programme of its own.

david w

maksimovich,

Wrong carbon isotope I'm afraid. 14C is the one that us secular folks made up to support our creation fairy story. 13C is a stable isotope that we invented to add to our end-times myth.

Just re-reading the post that Ian reproduced I see that the 10% figure is not the percentage of CO2 increase to be credited to anthropogenic emissions - it the percantage of emissions that make it to the atmosphere! Where does the rest go?

The comments to this entry are closed.