My Photo
Mobilise this Blog





New Zealand Conservative


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] and we'll get you online
Blog powered by Typepad

« Air Con author preparing to sue Herald, and Hot Topic | Main | Physicists shoot down global warming believers »


Sam Vilain

Come on Ian, Investigate!

Surely the RealClimate response to the above would have come up in your search? Many flaws in the post are described - including reading trends from some of the shortest timescales you could imagine. Some "definitive thumping".

btw if you think that RC is my only source, you're sadly mistaken. The IPCC Synthesis reports are much more synoptical in general, as they collate a huge amount of science, and the American Institute of Physicists have a great history book which helps debunk the older recycled claims I come across. You might also like to check out Gareth's blogroll and recommended reading list.

Ian Wishart

Sam, the IPCC reports are years out of date...I don't know why you lot cling to them. The world has moved on.

Sam Vilain

Sure, the IPCC 2007 AR4 report is a whopping 2 years out of date. Guess what, next year's report will be current.

Whereas the Original _Air Con_ rebuttal on Hot Topic was able to rebut your point about an 800 year lag with 40+ year old science, which is now well established.

So your own publication was out of date decades before it went to press.

Ian Wishart

You see Sam, this is proof that you see words but you don't read them.

Gareth's "rebuttal" turned into an embarrassing own goal from him, when in a subsequent post he tried to repeat this point and referred to SkepticalScience.

When I actually checked the Skeptical Science version it was almost exactly on point with the version in Air Con. You even quoted the relevant portion in your PDF. Evidently you failed to understand.

You are so busy being Truffle's hunting piglet here that you can't see the wood for the trees.

Just for the sake of completeness, here (again) is the transcript of my deconstruction of Gareth's fateful moment:

Item 2, your buffoonery over Milankovich cycles. Again, you quoted me out of context,
deliberately. The paragraph from page 86 of Air Con you highlighted came at the end of a
series of citations from Stott et al and Caillon et al.
Rather than deal with the scientific papers, you throw to a blogsite similar to yours, then
come up with this:

“In how many ways is Wishart’s speculation wrong? He clearly doesn’t
understand how the climate warms out of an ice age — orbital changes trigger
ice sheet melt in the northern hemisphere, which creates an albedo change as
white snow and ice is replaced by dark vegetation, reinforcing the warming.”

Newsflash Gareth, you have been overly simplistic here as orbital changes are not the only
factor that governs warm and cool periods. More to the point, if Bomber and your other
devoted followers actually read the link you helpfully provided in your 'review'
htm ), they’ll find it bears little
resemblance to your explanation of the sequence of events.

What was it you said I didn’t understand? That’s right, you claim that orbital changes
trigger ice sheet melt in the northern hemisphere, which creates an albedo
change and allows dark vegetation to grow.

What does your reference link actually say:

“It begins with the high southern latitudes (eg Antarctica)
and releasing CO2 from the oceans. The CO2 mixes through the atmosphere,
amplifying and spreading the warming to northern latitudes (Cuffey 2001). This
is why warming in the southern hemisphere precedes warming in the northern
hemisphere (Caillon 2003). This is confirmed by marine cores that show tropical
temperatures lag southern warming by ~1000 years (Stott 2007).”

Not only does your link quote the same papers I did in Air Con, it also, helpfully, says the
same things I wrote in Air Con, such as this in my words from page 85:

“Again, in simple terms, Antarctica warmed up, slowly releasing CO2 trapped in
the ice and nearby ocean, and that extra CO2 didn’t reach significant levels for
around 800 years. The warming cycle, perhaps then aided by CO2, then helped
trigger melt in the Northern Hemisphere.”

Bomber, I sure as hell hope you are taking notes here, because your local hero is taking a

“In how many ways is Wishart’s speculation wrong? He clearly doesn’t understand
how the climate warms out of an ice age”, opined Trufflehunter.

Yeah, right. There have been three explanations given. Two of them, from SkepticalScience
and Air Con, agree that warming begins in Antarctica and precedes CO2 release by 800 or
so years, eventually affecting the northern hemisphere. The third explanation, provided by
Truffle, says warming begins in the Northern Hemisphere.

The real hoot is that while Truffle references SkepticalScience, I wonder if he actually
understands it at all. Because here’s how Gareth continued his bizarre explanation:

“Eventually there’s enough extra heat to warm the oceans and start CO2
outgassing. In other words, the oceans are not responding to heat somehow
stored from an earlier period — they respond to heat as it arrives.”

OK, once again from the reference link Gareth himself provided:

“The eccentricity cycle causes changes in insolation (incoming sunlight). When
springtime insolation increases in the southern hemisphere, this coincides with
rising temperatures in the south, retreating Antarctic sea ice and melting glaciers
in the southern hemisphere (Shemesh 2002). As temperature rises, CO2 also
rises but lags the warming by 800 to 1000 years (Monnin 2001, Caillon 2003,
Stott 2007).”

Anyone with half a brain want to reconcile Gareth’s claim with what’s written in his own
source link? Gareth, you and Bomber remind me of Enron: the smartest guys in the room.

Sam Vilain

Anyone with half a brain want to reconcile Gareth’s claim with what’s written in his own
source link?

Yes, it's good to appeal to people with more brains than yourself.

Tell you what, why don't you go read the comments I wrote on the original post, where I do reconcile them very simply, and where I describe why you're misunderstanding what that lag means, and think about it a bit more.


>>>Pielke's Response: "NOT TRUE; e.g. see the University of Colorado at Boulder Sea Level Change analysis. Sea level has actually flattened since 2006."<<<

Shame the link shows it rising since 2006 then.

I can't seem to open the second one (upper ocean heat changes).

But as for the third one:

>>>3. Real Climate Claim: “shrinking Arctic sea ice”

Pielke's Response: "NOT TRUE; see the Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Anomaly from the University of Illinois Cyrosphere Today website. Since 2008, the anomalies have actually decreased."<<<

Since 2008? Who in their right claims a trend based on the last 2 years?

Anyway, ice volume is far more significant. And no, there hasn't been a recovery since 2007:


Spam makes me sad.

The comments to this entry are closed.