Plimer Review: Backpackers Guide to Global Warming

My signed copy of Heaven+Earth: Global Warming, the missing science by Australia’s most eminent geologist arrived last week. Peter Gallagher has just reviewed it here, and I agree with most of his impressions.

Apart from anything else it seems like a useful compendium of “History, Sun, Earth, Water, Air” facts and references, with over 500 pages and 2311 references. My hardcover version is laid out in a small book format with over-narrow margins, making it look a little like a “Backpackers Guide”. The language is quite informal too, so the impression fits.

What surprised me was the frequency and intensity of vitriol directed at “Global Warmers”. This is an old-school geologist who is absolutely appalled at the sloppy methodology and opportunism that climate alarmism embodies. He wants empirical proof, independent verification, but sees strong similarities with creation science, the subject of another of his books. For example:

Climate science lacks discipline.

We live in a time when the methodology of science is suspended.

How many examples of failed predictions, discredited assumptions, evidence of incorrect data and evidence of malpractise are required before the idea of human-induced climate change loses credibility?

In many fields of science, this [Mann's hockey stick and subsequent inquiry] would be considered a fraud.

We are aligned in many ways, particularly the role of sloppy science in fostering AGW. Plimer recounts my experiences in field after field. Being a statistical modeler, my realignment began with horror at the methods used in the alarmist papers to support AGW. They were so obviously flawed, the results should never be taken seriously by anyone with any quantitative science training. And over time rebuttals have come out, proving my first impression right, but they are almost entirely ignored, by those who continue to report massive effects of climate change. As the measure of the quality of science in these fields is the magnitude of climate alarmism, science is dead in those areas.

Plimer’s diagnosis, as he treks through the debris, is “human stupidity”.

He not going to be popular. The science is so extensive, there are sure to be things to quibble about. But the reaction of many scientists to the criticism seems to be the typically immature response of taking offense:

Plimer has done an enormous disservice to science, and the dedicated scientists who are trying to understand climate and the influence of humans, by publishing this book.

Instead, a mature response would be to address the main message of the book, to see if there are systemic methodological deficiencies in climate science, and if so, propose solutions to remedy them. I don’t see any prominent climate scientists with that leadership or maturity. It is only coming from skeptics, and little heard of researchers who get no press.

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com/ Steve Short

    “Plimer’s diagnosis, as he treks through the debris, is “human stupidity”.”

    I’m afraid I must agree with him. A 60s hippie who became a 70s and 80s hard line, idealistic greenie and campaigned, and was active on, specific issues I felt deeply about, it was harrowing to realise my intellectual self respect was slowly being hijacked by complete tossers, chronically unable to apply logic to assess the issues or rationally achieve the desired outcomes and who saw everything in hyped-up, post-modernist quasi-religious terms. Damn, if only I hadn’t (accidentally) gotten that rigorous old-style education!

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com/ Steve Short

    “Plimer’s diagnosis, as he treks through the debris, is “human stupidity”.”I'm afraid I must agree with him. A 60s hippie who became a 70s and 80s hard line, idealistic greenie and campaigned, and was active on, specific issues I felt deeply about, it was harrowing to realise my intellectual self respect was slowly being hijacked by complete tossers, chronically unable to apply logic to assess the issues or rationally achieve the desired outcomes and who saw everything in hyped-up, post-modernist quasi-religious terms. Damn, if only I hadn't (accidentally) gotten that rigorous old-style education!

  • jae

    I disagree that there are no prominent climate scientists with the leadership and maturity to point out the deficiencies. Lindzen, Pielke, Christy, and many others, for example.

  • jae

    I disagree that there are no prominent climate scientists with the leadership and maturity to point out the deficiencies. Lindzen, Pielke, Christy, and many others, for example.

    • Anonymous

      Rightly or wrongly I see these people as sceptics, and are not leading the improvement of methods, verification, data archive etc. What I mean is someone like Gavin, Santer, etc who says, look, we are getting a lot of flack, maybe we could use this as an opportunity to lift our game. Instead its a fingers in the ears, la, la, la, game – childish.

  • davids99us

    Rightly or wrongly I see these people as sceptics, and are not leading the improvement of methods, verification, data archive etc. What I mean is someone like Gavin, Santer, etc who says, look, we are getting a lot of flack, maybe we could use this as an opportunity to lift our game. Instead its a fingers in the ears, la, la, la, game – childish.

  • Howard

    I don’t need to read this book. Geology is a science rooted in field studies and conceptual models. Numerical models are necessarily proved by field verification studies. The primary skill of a good geologist is an instinctual noise filter. I have no evidence or proof, but I know deep in my bones that global warming due to CO2 is not a big deal. Dead zones in lakes, oceans and rivers… thats a big deal. Coal power plants spewing mercury, radiation and ultra fine particulates is a big deal… spewing CO2, so what. How about the mining od fresh water aquifers to the point of total depletion? That’s real. Go ahead and measure water depths… no model required to get the point.

    The redirection of money and the time spent by educated people away from real environmental problems is criminal.

  • Howard

    I don't need to read this book. Geology is a science rooted in field studies and conceptual models. Numerical models are necessarily proved by field verification studies. The primary skill of a good geologist is an instinctual noise filter. I have no evidence or proof, but I know deep in my bones that global warming due to CO2 is not a big deal. Dead zones in lakes, oceans and rivers… thats a big deal. Coal power plants spewing mercury, radiation and ultra fine particulates is a big deal… spewing CO2, so what. How about the mining od fresh water aquifers to the point of total depletion? That's real. Go ahead and measure water depths… no model required to get the point.The redirection of money and the time spent by educated people away from real environmental problems is criminal.

  • ric techow

    Plimer has done a highly commendable job in compiling a wealth of information on the history of the earth’s climate, as perhaps only a geologist could, and presenting it an accessible format.

    The claim for AGW seems to largely rest on the assertion that CO2 is the only explanation for recent temperatire increases.

    Since AGW can only explain the past 150 years at best, it needs to explain why past drivers of climate change aren’t operative or aren’t dominant now. As global temperature hasn’t linearly increased over time with CO2 emissions then that is proof that other natural factors are at a minimum are as great as AGW.

  • ric techow

    Plimer has done a highly commendable job in compiling a wealth of information on the history of the earth's climate, as perhaps only a geologist could, and presenting it an accessible format. The claim for AGW seems to largely rest on the assertion that CO2 is the only explanation for recent temperatire increases.Since AGW can only explain the past 150 years at best, it needs to explain why past drivers of climate change aren't operative or aren't dominant now. As global temperature hasn't linearly increased over time with CO2 emissions then that is proof that other natural factors are at a minimum are as great as AGW.

  • Dan L.

    > “an old-school geologist who is absolutely appalled at the sloppy methodology”

    What spectacular irony.

    Plimer’s book is the epitome of sloppy methodology, as many critics have pointed out.

    http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/23/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth/

    http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2009/2586947.htm

    http://www.abc.net.au/rn/ockhamsrazor/stories/2009/2589206.htm

    That you would so uncritically fall in love with your signed copy speaks volumes.

  • Dan L.

    > “an old-school geologist who is absolutely appalled at the sloppy methodology”What spectacular irony.Plimer's book is the epitome of sloppy methodology, as many critics have pointed out.http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/23/ian-plimehttp://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/20http://www.abc.net.au/rn/ockhamsrazor/stories/2…That you would so uncritically fall in love with your signed copy speaks volumes.

  • cohenite

    danny, you link to Brooks and Robyn ‘100 metre’ Williams twice as authorities for disparaging Plimer; nice irony.

    The most detailed critique of Plimer’s book is here;

    http://bravenewclimate.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/plimer1a6.pdf

    About the p375 fig 50 Enting says;

    “However above 100ppm the values seem to be inversely proportional to concentration as expected for incremental change when temperature has a logarithmic dependence on concentration…Thus a better label for the vertical axis would be ‘incremental warming’.”

    Warmists can’t accept the fact that the temperature response for increases in CO2 is an exponentially declining one; in addition, blithe claims that all the effective radiation temperature, Teff, above the average temperature, Tave, that is 288C – 255C = 33C is due to the greenhouse effect of CO2 flow from this failure to note that CO2 ‘heating’, while asymptotic, is essentially exhausted at about 6-8C above Tave. Enting can’t accept this because it would mean “a climate sensitivity of 0.35C”! This is instead of the predicted ~3C from the various IPCC sources. The fact is all the empirical evidence supports the low [even non-existent] sensitivity figure for increases in CO2. If Plimer is guilty of anything it is overstating the effect of CO2.

  • cohenite

    danny, you link to Brooks and Robyn '100 metre' Williams twice as authorities for disparaging Plimer; nice irony.The most detailed critique of Plimer’s book is here;http://bravenewclimate.files.wordpress.com/2009…About the p375 fig 50 Enting says;“However above 100ppm the values seem to be inversely proportional to concentration as expected for incremental change when temperature has a logarithmic dependence on concentration…Thus a better label for the vertical axis would be ‘incremental warming’.”Warmists can’t accept the fact that the temperature response for increases in CO2 is an exponentially declining one; in addition, blithe claims that all the effective radiation temperature, Teff, above the average temperature, Tave, that is 288C – 255C = 33C is due to the greenhouse effect of CO2 flow from this failure to note that CO2 ‘heating’, while asymptotic, is essentially exhausted at about 6-8C above Tave. Enting can’t accept this because it would mean “a climate sensitivity of 0.35C”! This is instead of the predicted ~3C from the various IPCC sources. The fact is all the empirical evidence supports the low [even non-existent] sensitivity figure for increases in CO2. If Plimer is guilty of anything it is overstating the effect of CO2.

  • Dan L.

    > “an old-school geologist who is absolutely appalled at the sloppy methodology”

    What spectacular irony.

    Plimer’s book is the epitome of sloppy methodology, as many critics have pointed out.

    http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/23/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth/

    http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2009/2586947.htm

    http://www.abc.net.au/rn/ockhamsrazor/stories/2009/2589206.htm

    That you would so uncritically fall in love with your signed copy speaks volumes.

  • Dan L.

    > “an old-school geologist who is absolutely appalled at the sloppy methodology”What spectacular irony.Plimer's book is the epitome of sloppy methodology, as many critics have pointed out.http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/23/ian-plimehttp://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/20http://www.abc.net.au/rn/ockhamsrazor/stories/2…That you would so uncritically fall in love with your signed copy speaks volumes.

  • Dan L.

    “Warmists can’t accept the fact that the temperature response for increases in CO2 is an exponentially declining one”

    Baloney. Scientists understand the logarithmic effect of increasing CO2, that is why forcing is expressed in terms of doubling ppmv. It is denialists who have the quaint idea that this means the CO2 will become “saturated” at some point and cease contributing to warming.

    Despite the plain counter evidence of Venus staring you in the face, Cohey, and very cogent explanations available to you why it is not so, you continue to believe it. That makes you a denialist in every pejorative sense of the word.

    But thanks for the link to more reasons why Plimer’s book is a load of bollocks–not that it had not been abundantly established already.

    • http://www.ecoengineers.com/ Steve Short

      This linear programming plot shows clearly how, even allowing for an error in estimation of the order of ±5% at (say) the one standard deviation level, the mutually contrasting rates of variation of minor global climate heat fluxes with varying albedo i.e. of the fraction of SW IR absorbed in the atmosphere which is re-radiated through TOA (F_U), of the fraction of Latent Heat off the tops of clouds which is re-radiated through TOA (LH_U), and of the fraction of Sensible Heat (dry thermals) absorbed in the atmosphere which s re-radiated through TOA (SH_U) is easily enough to balance out the global major flux heat balance (SW insolation against OLR) over a mean albedo range of at least 0.35 – 0.25.

      https://download.yousendit.com/UmNKOGNhUENwaFNG

      We live in a world of ample water with an ample supply of Cloud Condensation Nuclei (CCN), both natural and anthropogenic.

      The source of CCN is in very large part biogenic, emitted by land plants and oceanic cyanobacteria and naturally increases in proportion to atmospheric CO2.

      This implies there is no reason whatsoever why the balance of SW insolation and OLR should not be maintained by the mutual adjustment of F_U, LH_U and SH_U over at least the above average albedo range.

      This means, by definition, that unless the rise in atmospheric CO2 were somehow to drive global average albedos significantly below 0.25, a point at which global average cloud cover were to fall below about 46% it is unlikely that mean global surface temperatures could rise even above about 289.1 K (surface emission ~407 W/m^2).

      Above an albedo of ~0.35 the planet would actually experience net cooling due to proportionately decreased SW surface insolation and proportionately increased global significance of LW IR derived from tops of (precipitating or icing) clouds which escapes TOA.

      At present most high cloud occurs in the 5 deg N – 5 Deg S extra-tropical band. Any effect of increasing CO2 on atmospheric specific humidity will be ineffectual as a source of forcing if at the same time it leads to increased cloudiness and decreased surface SW insolation and increased width of the extra-tropical high cloud band hence increased realization of latent heat in the atmosphere and absolute amount escaping TOA.

      The fraction of Latent Heat escaping TOA cannot go down with increasing Latent Heat as this fraction is largely geometrically controlled by the average height of extra-tropical cumulus. For it to not increase proportionately would require a significant reduction in the average height of cumulus cloud.

      Fully coupled GCMs are still markedly poor at simulation of clouds, particularly low level cloudiness and its extent. Hence IMHO our understanding of the true sensitivity of CO2 is poor and highly likely to be an overestimate.

  • Dan L.

    “Warmists can’t accept the fact that the temperature response for increases in CO2 is an exponentially declining one”Baloney. Scientists understand the logarithmic effect of increasing CO2, that is why forcing is expressed in terms of doubling ppmv. It is denialists who have the quaint idea that this means the CO2 will become “saturated” at some point and cease contributing to warming. Despite the plain counter evidence of Venus staring you in the face, Cohey, and very cogent explanations available to you why it is not so, you continue to believe it. That makes you a denialist in every pejorative sense of the word.But thanks for the link to more reasons why Plimer's book is a load of bollocks–not that it had not been abundantly established already.

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com/ Steve Short

    This linear programming plot shows clearly how, even allowing for an error in estimation of the order of ±5% at (say) the one standard deviation level, the mutually contrasting rates of variation of minor global climate heat fluxes with varying albedo i.e. of the fraction of SW IR absorbed in the atmosphere which is re-radiated through TOA (F_U), of the fraction of Latent Heat off the tops of clouds which is re-radiated through TOA (LH_U), and of the fraction of Sensible Heat (dry thermals) absorbed in the atmosphere which s re-radiated through TOA (SH_U) is easily enough to balance out the global major flux heat balance (SW insolation against OLR) over a mean albedo range of at least 0.35 – 0.25.https://download.yousendit.com/UmNKOGNhUENwaFNG…We live in a world of ample water with an ample supply of Cloud Condensation Nuclei (CCN), both natural and anthropogenic. The source of CCN is in very large part biogenic, emitted by land plants and oceanic cyanobacteria and naturally increases in proportion to atmospheric CO2. This implies there is no reason whatsoever why the balance of SW insolation and OLR should not be maintained by the mutual adjustment of F_U, LH_U and SH_U over at least the above average albedo range.This means, by definition, that unless the rise in atmospheric CO2 were somehow to drive global average albedos significantly below 0.25, a point at which global average cloud cover were to fall below about 46% it is unlikely that mean global surface temperatures could rise even above about 289.1 K (surface emission ~407 W/m^2). Above an albedo of ~0.35 the planet would actually experience net cooling due to proportionately decreased SW surface insolation and proportionately increased global significance of LW IR derived from tops of (precipitating or icing) clouds which escapes TOA. At present most high cloud occurs in the 5 deg N – 5 Deg S extra-tropical band. Any effect of increasing CO2 on atmospheric specific humidity will be ineffectual as a source of forcing if at the same time it leads to increased cloudiness and decreased surface SW insolation and increased width of the extra-tropical high cloud band hence increased realization of latent heat in the atmosphere and absolute amount escaping TOA. The fraction of Latent Heat escaping TOA cannot go down with increasing Latent Heat as this fraction is largely geometrically controlled by the average height of extra-tropical cumulus. For it to not increase proportionately would require a significant reduction in the average height of cumulus cloud. Fully coupled GCMs are still markedly poor at simulation of clouds, particularly low level cloudiness and its extent. Hence IMHO our understanding of the true sensitivity of CO2 is poor and highly likely to be an overestimate.

  • cohenite

    Oh, come on Danny; are you really saying there is isn’t an exponetially declining effect of absorbance and transmittance by extra CO2;

    http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0115707ce438970b-pi

    The expression of sensitivity by IPCC in terms of 2CO2 is a gyp which they pad out with phoney-baloney notions of Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity [ECS] and, just so people won’t be bored waiting for this new ECS wrought by 2CO2, they also dream up transient climate responses [TCR]; you know Danny, the Tropical Hot-spot, the warming surface, the cooling stratosphere, increasing ocean heat content etc ad nauseum. All those climate effects which only exist in computers.

    Why don’t you organise a search party to go out and find them? Don’t forget to send a postcard; and take Plimer’s book in case you get lost

    • Dan L.

      Your saturation argument is piffle, Coheny. Only your immunity to cognitive dissonance allows you to ignore the simple explanation why this is so.

      I have watched better qualified people than I bounce facts off your ossified brain for a while now; I am not interested in repeating their efforts. You are a denialist, irrational by definition.

      Why don’t you go back to Marohasy’s blog and post your favorite snips from Plimer’s book? The choir is no doubt eager to hear you preach; perhaps you can get your brilliant physicist Miskolczi to put in a guest appearance.

      • http://www.ecoengineers.com/ Steve Short

        Psssst. You are in the wrong place Dan L. We try to stick to the facts around here.

        • Dan L.

          Haw-haw!

          That’s why you’re so thrilled with your signed copy of Plimer’s “fact” filled book, right? It is to guffaw.

          But you are correct to say I am in the wrong place. This is another island in the woo-woo archipelago, and I am sailing away.

          • http://www.ecoengineers.com/ Steve Short

            Too roo

          • Anonymous

            Hi Dan, The reference to “Backpackers Guide” was meant to indicate that the book came across as a personal, ideosyncratic, view. I would treat it like a backpackers guide: a possibly helpful reference if you are in that situation, but not free of errors.

            You are welcome here BTW. I just delete rude, abnoxious comments.

  • cohenite

    Oh, come on Danny; are you really saying there is isn't an exponetially declining effect of absorbance and transmittance by extra CO2;http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b5803…The expression of sensitivity by IPCC in terms of 2CO2 is a gyp which they pad out with phoney-baloney notions of Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity [ECS] and, just so people won't be bored waiting for this new ECS wrought by 2CO2, they also dream up transient climate responses [TCR]; you know Danny, the Tropical Hot-spot, the warming surface, the cooling stratosphere, increasing ocean heat content etc ad nauseum. All those climate effects which only exist in computers. Why don't you organise a search party to go out and find them? Don't forget to send a postcard; and take Plimer's book in case you get lost

  • Dan L.

    Your saturation argument is piffle, Coheny. Only your immunity to cognitive dissonance allows you to ignore the simple explanation why this is so. I have watched better qualified people than I bounce facts off your ossified brain for a while now; I am not interested in repeating their efforts. You are a denialist, irrational by definition.Why don't you go back to Marohasy's blog and post your favorite snips from Plimer's book? The choir is no doubt eager to hear you preach; perhaps you can get your brilliant physicist Miskolczi to put in a guest appearance.

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com/ Steve Short

    Psssst. You are in the wrong place Dan L. We try to stick to the facts around here.

  • cohenite

    Well, you degenerated quickly Danny; I am well aware that some better people than me have lectured me on the log effect of increasing CO2; Barton warned me off Beers Law; and eli gave me a lecture on the time differential between excitation through absorption and deexcitation through collision, thus supposedly preventing saturation but which produces a Local Thermodynamic Equilibrium, which I also have been warned off; the old warhorse, Nick, has informed me of the effect of low pressures on the LTE and the consequent breakdown of the LTE and divergence of Maxwellian and Planck temperature; something which apparently allows OLR, but at increasingly higher atmospheric levels.

    All well and good; but being a simple fellow I simply look at the utter absence of any correlation between CO2 levels and temperature, over any time-span; something the pro-AGW crew can only deal with by the Keenlyside or Vecchi method.

    But the primary aspect of the saturation debate is the backradiation theory; increased CO2 causes more downward IR, in Philipona’s terminology, due to the isotropic nature of the CO2 emissions, with consequent heating of both the atmosphere and surface. This has given me pause, because, I do come to this with an open mind, but this recent paper has claered much of the DIR issue up for me;

    http://biocab.org/Induced_Emission.html

    This excerpt is relevant; read and drop the insults, eh, Danny; compared to your Deltoid brethren you’re an amateur;

    “Actually, the three processes of heat transfer by radiation have effect in the terrestrial atmosphere where induced absorption and induced emission prevail over spontaneous emission because the intensity of the solar photon stream and the intensity of the surface photon stream are always in higher energy states than the atmosphere photon stream.

    Many have alluded to nighttime inversion of radiation, but it is an inappropriate idea taken from planets without oceans. At night, the oceans release photons forming a photon stream which leads to atmospheric induced emission.

    There are many scientists who have found errors in the calculations of the proponents of the idea that carbon dioxide is causing planetary warming. The most serious of these errors resides in believing in a downwelling photon stream which, as AGW proponents say, overwhelms the surface emission of radiation and warms the surface during nighttime. However, when we analyze the issue of downwelling radiation emitted by the atmosphere, we find that such warming of the surface by greenhouse gases does not exist.

    The problem with the AGW idea is that its proponents think that the Earth is isolated and that the heat engine only works on the surface of the ground. They fail to take into account that incoming heat from the Sun is transferred by conduction from surface to subsurface materials, which store heat until the incidence of direct solar radiation declines, explicitly during nighttime.

    At nighttime, the heat stored by the subsurface materials is transferred by conduction towards the surface, which is colder than the unexposed materials below the surface. The heat transferred from the subsurface layers to the surface is then transported by the air by means of convection and warms up. The upwelling photon stream affects the directionality of the radiation emitted by the atmosphere driving it upwards, i.e. towards the upper atmospheric layers and, from there, towards deep space. This process is well described by the next formula:

    FSH = -ρ (Cp) (CH) (v (z)) [T (z) – T (0)]

    Where FSH is for Sensible Heat Flux, ρ is for density of air, Cp is specific heat capacity of air at constant pressure, CH is the heat transfer coefficient (≈ 0.0013), v (z) is the horizontal wind speed across z, T (z) is the temperature of air at 10 m of altitude, and T (0) is the temperature of the surface.

    The “minus” sign means that heat is absorbed by the colder system. For example, the sensible heat flux for a region where the temperature of the surface is 300.15 K, the temperature of air is 293.15 K and the horizontal wind speed is 40 m/s, is 0.443 kJ s/m^2 and the change of temperature caused by this amount of heat stored is 0.3 K (Compare with the result above). A change of temperature of 0.3 K occurs in the air, although the difference of temperature between the surface and the air is relatively high (7 K or 7 °C). In one second, the temperature of the air changes from 293.15 K to 293.45 K.

    I want to make clear that this formula applies to both ocean and land heat transfer, although on land it is more appropriate introducing CD instead of CH. However, CD ≈ CH ≈ 0.0013.

    The sensible heat flux (day and night) is directed upwards, that is, from the surface to the atmosphere (Peixoto & Oort. 1992. Page 233).

    Concluding, atmospheric gases do not cause any warming of the surface given that induced emission prevails over spontaneous emission. During daytime, solar irradiance induces air molecules to emit photons towards the surface; however, the load of Short Wave Radiation (SWR) absorbed by molecules in the atmosphere is exceptionally low, while the load of Long Wave Radiation (LWR) emitted from the surface and absorbed by the atmosphere is high and so leads to an upwelling induced emission of photons which follows the outgoing trajectory of the photon stream, from lower atmospheric layers to higher atmospheric layers, and finally towards outer space. The warming effect (misnamed “the greenhouse effect”) of Earth is due to the oceans, the ground surface and subsurface materials. Atmospheric gases act only as conveyors of heat.”

    TOP OF PAGE ^^

    • http://www.ecoengineers.com/ Steve Short

      Hmmmm. Nice. Now here’s a guy who clearly doesn’t get up in the night in a puddle of sweat induced by nightmares inhabited by names like Emden, Milne, Eddington, Schwarzchild, etc……(;-)

      Quite apart from what it appears to do to AGW, sort of puts a ‘white hot iron’ Torquemada-style to the ‘Mickolczi-Zagoni-Pompe-Kirchoff’ BS theory of A_A=E_D too wouldn’t you say?

      • Jan Pompe

        Steve I think that you need to get over your resentment over the face that no one is interested in your narrative of phyto-plankton creating the world that made them.

        • http://www.ecoengineers.com/ Steve Short

          I’m relaxed – and certainly never affected by non sequitors.

          But I think you need to overcome the fact that you can never see the garden for the end of your nose.

          • Jan Pompe

            “I’m relaxed – and certainly never affected by non sequitors.”

            Not a non-sequiteur it’s a diagnosis.

          • http://www.ecoengineers.com/ Steve Short

            A diagnosis huh? You came up with them on the night shift at the ward perhaps?

          • Jan Pompe

            “A diagnosis huh?”

            Yes of your behaviour which has been anything but professional.

          • http://www.ecoengineers.com/ Steve Short

            It’s spelt H-U-M-O-U_R

            Get a life, Jan.

          • Jan Pompe

            He shakes his head head combs his hair and goes to the dentist.

          • http://www.ecoengineers.com/ Steve Short

            Too roo 2 U2

  • cohenite

    Well, you degenerated quickly Danny; I am well aware that some better people than me have lectured me on the log effect of increasing CO2; Barton warned me off Beers Law; and eli gave me a lecture on the time differential between excitation through absorption and deexcitation through collision, thus supposedly preventing saturation but which produces a Local Thermodynamic Equilibrium, which I also have been warned off; the old warhorse, Nick, has informed me of the effect of low pressures on the LTE and the consequent breakdown of the LTE and divergence of Maxwellian and Planck temperature; something which apparently allows OLR, but at increasingly higher atmospheric levels.All well and good; but being a simple fellow I simply look at the utter absence of any correlation between CO2 levels and temperature, over any time-span; something the pro-AGW crew can only deal with by the Keenlyside or Vecchi method.But the primary aspect of the saturation debate is the backradiation theory; increased CO2 causes more downward IR, in Philipona's terminology, due to the isotropic nature of the CO2 emissions, with consequent heating of both the atmosphere and surface. This has given me pause, because, I do come to this with an open mind, but this recent paper has claered much of the DIR issue up for me;http://biocab.org/Induced_Emission.htmlThis excerpt is relevant; read and drop the insults, eh, Danny; compared to your Deltoid brethren you're an amateur;”Actually, the three processes of heat transfer by radiation have effect in the terrestrial atmosphere where induced absorption and induced emission prevail over spontaneous emission because the intensity of the solar photon stream and the intensity of the surface photon stream are always in higher energy states than the atmosphere photon stream.Many have alluded to nighttime inversion of radiation, but it is an inappropriate idea taken from planets without oceans. At night, the oceans release photons forming a photon stream which leads to atmospheric induced emission.There are many scientists who have found errors in the calculations of the proponents of the idea that carbon dioxide is causing planetary warming. The most serious of these errors resides in believing in a downwelling photon stream which, as AGW proponents say, overwhelms the surface emission of radiation and warms the surface during nighttime. However, when we analyze the issue of downwelling radiation emitted by the atmosphere, we find that such warming of the surface by greenhouse gases does not exist.The problem with the AGW idea is that its proponents think that the Earth is isolated and that the heat engine only works on the surface of the ground. They fail to take into account that incoming heat from the Sun is transferred by conduction from surface to subsurface materials, which store heat until the incidence of direct solar radiation declines, explicitly during nighttime.At nighttime, the heat stored by the subsurface materials is transferred by conduction towards the surface, which is colder than the unexposed materials below the surface. The heat transferred from the subsurface layers to the surface is then transported by the air by means of convection and warms up. The upwelling photon stream affects the directionality of the radiation emitted by the atmosphere driving it upwards, i.e. towards the upper atmospheric layers and, from there, towards deep space. This process is well described by the next formula:FSH = -ρ (Cp) (CH) (v (z)) [T (z) – T (0)]Where FSH is for Sensible Heat Flux, ρ is for density of air, Cp is specific heat capacity of air at constant pressure, CH is the heat transfer coefficient (≈ 0.0013), v (z) is the horizontal wind speed across z, T (z) is the temperature of air at 10 m of altitude, and T (0) is the temperature of the surface.The “minus” sign means that heat is absorbed by the colder system. For example, the sensible heat flux for a region where the temperature of the surface is 300.15 K, the temperature of air is 293.15 K and the horizontal wind speed is 40 m/s, is 0.443 kJ s/m^2 and the change of temperature caused by this amount of heat stored is 0.3 K (Compare with the result above). A change of temperature of 0.3 K occurs in the air, although the difference of temperature between the surface and the air is relatively high (7 K or 7 °C). In one second, the temperature of the air changes from 293.15 K to 293.45 K.I want to make clear that this formula applies to both ocean and land heat transfer, although on land it is more appropriate introducing CD instead of CH. However, CD ≈ CH ≈ 0.0013.The sensible heat flux (day and night) is directed upwards, that is, from the surface to the atmosphere (Peixoto & Oort. 1992. Page 233).Concluding, atmospheric gases do not cause any warming of the surface given that induced emission prevails over spontaneous emission. During daytime, solar irradiance induces air molecules to emit photons towards the surface; however, the load of Short Wave Radiation (SWR) absorbed by molecules in the atmosphere is exceptionally low, while the load of Long Wave Radiation (LWR) emitted from the surface and absorbed by the atmosphere is high and so leads to an upwelling induced emission of photons which follows the outgoing trajectory of the photon stream, from lower atmospheric layers to higher atmospheric layers, and finally towards outer space. The warming effect (misnamed “the greenhouse effect”) of Earth is due to the oceans, the ground surface and subsurface materials. Atmospheric gases act only as conveyors of heat.”TOP OF PAGE ^^

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com/ Steve Short

    Hmmmm. Nice. Now here's a guy who clearly doesn't get up in the night in a puddle of sweat induced by nightmares inhabited by names like Emden, Milne, Eddington, Schwarzchild, etc……(;-)Quite apart from what it appears to do to AGW, sort of puts a 'white hot iron' Torquemada-style to the 'Mickolczi-Zagoni-Pompe-Kirchoff' BS theory of A_A=E_D too wouldn't you say?

  • Jan Pompe

    Steve I think that you need to get over your resentment over the face that no one is interested in your narrative of phyto-plankton creating the world that made them.

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com/ Steve Short

    I'm relaxed – and certainly never affected by non sequitors.But I think you need to overcome the fact that you can never see the garden for the end of your nose.

  • Jan Pompe

    “I'm relaxed – and certainly never affected by non sequitors.”Not a non-sequiteur it's a diagnosis.

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com/ Steve Short

    A diagnosis huh? You came up with them on the night shift at the ward perhaps?

  • Jan Pompe

    “A diagnosis huh?”Yes of your behaviour which has been anything but professional.

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com/ Steve Short

    It's spelt H-U-M-O-U_RGet a life, Jan.

  • Dan L.

    Haw-haw!That's why you're so thrilled with your signed copy of Plimer's “fact” filled book, right? It is to guffaw.But you are correct to say I am in the wrong place. This is another island in the woo-woo archipelago, and I am sailing away.

  • Jan Pompe

    He shakes his head head combs his hair and goes to the dentist.

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com/ Steve Short

    Too roo

  • http://www.ecoengineers.com/ Steve Short

    Too roo 2 U2

  • davids99us

    Hi Dan, The reference to “Backpackers Guide” was meant to indicate that the book came across as a personal, ideosyncratic, view. I would treat it like a backpackers guide: a possibly helpful reference if you are in that situation, but not free of errors.You are welcome here BTW. I just delete rude, abnoxious comments.

  • Ted Cooper

    When will the CO2 alarmists realize that their critics do not deny climate change?

    I think it is fair to say that the emphasis from the deniers (empiricists would be a better label) is on identifying the causes of climate change.

    And, of course, a return to the true science of demonstrable knowledge.

    Ted Cooper
    The reduction of airbourne paticulates and noxious gases with the consideration of alternative energy from nuclear plants is high on their priorities.

  • Ted Cooper

    When will the CO2 alarmists realize that their critics do not deny climate change? I think it is fair to say that the emphasis from the deniers (empiricists would be a better label) is on identifying the causes of climate change. And, of course, a return to the true science of demonstrable knowledge.Ted CooperThe reduction of airbourne paticulates and noxious gases with the consideration of alternative energy from nuclear plants is high on their priorities.

  • Phil Hackett

    Plimer is right and can be proven right quite easily.

    Obtain access to Climate Predictive Software and run it backwards for 150000 years. If it picks up known historical climate events, the Software is validated.

    It won’t

    Obtain the Science that Governments use to justify GW Legislation and have it Peer Reviewed. Problem! No Government will provide the Science because there isn’t any!

    GW is a hoax satrted in 1972. It is all about Population Control;
    http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/gwhoaxborn.pdf

  • Phil Hackett

    Plimer is right and can be proven right quite easily.Obtain access to Climate Predictive Software and run it backwards for 150000 years. If it picks up known historical climate events, the Software is validated.It won'tObtain the Science that Governments use to justify GW Legislation and have it Peer Reviewed. Problem! No Government will provide the Science because there isn't any!GW is a hoax satrted in 1972. It is all about Population Control;http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/gwhoaxb

  • Michel

    Professor Michael Ashley wrote a useful critique of Ian Plimer’s book for The Australian. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,25433059-5003900,00.html

  • Michel

    Professor Michael Ashley wrote a useful critique of Ian Plimer's book for The Australian. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,2…

  • Phil Hackett

    The letter below was sent to the UK Prome Minister and has yey to be responded to.

    Ask your Governemnt to supply you with the Climate Science being used toi justify Kyoto to enable you to ahve it Peer Reviewed.

    The UK and Austarian Governemnts are uanble to respond and appear not to have any Climate Science which confirms Govt. Policy.

    Try yourself.

    If anyone quotes a Computer Climate Model, gain access to it and run it backwards for 150000 years to see if it picks up known climate events. If it does it is validated. The UK Met. Office has gone silent about this request.

    Dear Prime Minister:
    As accredited experts in climate and related scientific disciplines, we are writing to propose that balanced, comprehensive public-consultation sessions be held so as to examine the scientific foundation of the federal government’s climate-change plans.
    Observational evidence does not support today’s computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future. Yet this is precisely what the United Nations did in creating and promoting Kyoto and still does in the alarmist forecasts on which Canada’s climate policies are based. While the confident pronouncements of scientifically unqualified environmental groups may provide for sensational headlines, they are no basis for mature policy formulation.
    The study of global climate change is, as you have said, an ‘emerging science,’ one that is perhaps the most complex ever tackled. It may be many years yet before we properly understand the Earth’s climate system. Nevertheless, significant advances have been made since the protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases. If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.

    ‘Climate change is real’ is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural ‘noise.’ The new Canadian government’s commitment to reducing air, land and water pollution is commendable, but allocating funds to ‘stopping climate change’ would be irrational. We need to continue intensive research into the real causes of climate change and help our most vulnerable citizens adapt to whatever nature throws at us next.
    And here’s who they were:
    Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
    Dr. Tad Murty, former senior research scientist, Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans, former director of Australia’s National Tidal Facility and professor of earth sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide; currently adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
    Dr. R. Timothy Patterson, professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Ottawa
    Dr. Fred Michel, director, Institute of Environmental Science and associate professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa
    Dr. Madhav Khandekar, former research scientist, Environment Canada. Member of editorial board of Climate Research and Natural Hazards
    Dr. Paul Copper, FRSC, professor emeritus, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ont.
    Dr. Ross McKitrick, associate professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph, Ont.
    Dr. Tim Ball, former professor of climatology, University of Winnipeg; environmental consultant
    Dr. Andreas Prokoph, adjunct professor of earth sciences, University of Ottawa; consultant in statistics and geology
    Mr. David Nowell, M.Sc. (Meteorology), fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, Canadian member and past chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa
    Dr. Christopher Essex, professor of applied mathematics and associate director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.
    Dr. Gordon E. Swaters, professor of applied mathematics, Dept. of Mathematical Sciences, and member, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Research Group, University of Alberta
    Dr. L. Graham Smith, associate professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.
    Dr. G. Cornelis van Kooten, professor and Canada Research Chair in environmental studies and climate change, Dept. of Economics, University of Victoria
    Dr. Petr Chylek, adjunct professor, Dept. of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax
    Dr./Cdr. M. R. Morgan, FRMS, climate consultant, former meteorology advisor to the World Meteorological Organization. Previously research scientist in climatology at University of Exeter, U.K.
    Dr. Keith D. Hage, climate consultant and professor emeritus of Meteorology, University of Alberta
    Dr. David E. Wojick, P.Eng., energy consultant, Star Tannery, Va., and Sioux Lookout, Ont.
    Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, Surrey, B.C.
    Dr. Douglas Leahey, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary
    Paavo Siitam, M.Sc., agronomist, chemist, Cobourg, Ont.
    Dr. Chris de Freitas, climate scientist, associate professor, The University of Auckland, N.Z.
    Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
    Dr. Freeman J. Dyson, emeritus professor of physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.
    Mr. George Taylor, Dept. of Meteorology, Oregon State University; Oregon State climatologist; past president, American Association of State Climatologists
    Dr. Ian Plimer, professor of geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide; emeritus professor of earth sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia
    Dr. R.M. Carter, professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia
    Mr. William Kininmonth, Australasian Climate Research, former Head National Climate Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology; former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology, Scientific and Technical Review
    Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute
    Dr. Gerrit J. van der Lingen, geologist/paleoclimatologist, Climate Change Consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand
    Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, professor of environmental sciences, University of Virginia
    Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, emeritus professor of paleogeophysics & geodynamics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
    Dr. Gary D. Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, Calif.
    Dr. Roy W. Spencer, principal research scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville
    Dr. Al Pekarek, associate professor of geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, Minn.
    Dr. Marcel Leroux, professor emeritus of climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS
    Dr. Paul Reiter, professor, Institut Pasteur, Unit of Insects and Infectious Diseases, Paris, France. Expert reviewer, IPCC Working group II, chapter 8 (human health)
    Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, physicist and chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland
    Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, reader, Dept. of Geography, University of Hull, U.K.; editor, Energy & Environment
    Dr. Hans H.J. Labohm, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations) and an economist who has focused on climate change
    Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, senior scientist emeritus, University of Kansas, past director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey
    Dr. Asmunn Moene, past head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway
    Dr. August H. Auer, past professor of atmospheric science, University of Wyoming; previously chief meteorologist, Meteorological Service (MetService) of New Zealand
    Dr. Vincent Gray, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of ‘Climate Change 2001,’ Wellington, N.Z.
    Dr. Howard Hayden, emeritus professor of physics, University of Connecticut
    Dr Benny Peiser, professor of social anthropology, Faculty of Science, Liverpool John Moores University, U.K.
    Dr. Jack Barrett, chemist and spectroscopist, formerly with Imperial College London, U.K.
    Dr. William J.R. Alexander, professor emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa. Member, United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000
    Dr. S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences, University of Virginia; former director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service
    Dr. Harry N.A. Priem, emeritus professor of planetary geology and isotope geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences; past president of the Royal Netherlands Geological & Mining Society
    Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey professor of energy conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University
    Dr. Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist and climate researcher, Boston, Mass.
    Douglas Hoyt, senior scientist at Raytheon (retired) and co-author of the book The Role of the Sun in Climate Change; previously with NCAR, NOAA, and the World Radiation Center, Davos, Switzerland
    Dipl.-Ing. Peter Dietze, independent energy advisor and scientific climate and carbon modeller, official IPCC reviewer, Bavaria, Germany
    Dr. Boris Winterhalter, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland
    Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden
    Dr. Hugh W. Ellsaesser, physicist/meteorologist, previously with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Calif.; atmospheric consultant.
    Dr. Art Robinson, founder, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, Cave Junction, Ore.
    Dr. Arthur Rorsch, emeritus professor of molecular genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands; past board member, Netherlands organization for applied research (TNO) in environmental, food and public health
    Dr. Alister McFarquhar, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.; international economist
    Dr. Richard S. Courtney, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.
    Meanwhile, the New Zealand Herald reports that a group of leading climate scientists has announced the formation of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, aimed at refuting what it believes are unfounded claims about man-made global warming because they have had enough of ‘over-exaggerated’ claims about the effects of man-made global warming and aim to provide a balance to ‘what is being fed to the people of New Zealand’.
    The coalition includes such well-known climate scientists as:
    Dr Vincent Gray, of Wellington, an expert reviewer for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), most recently a visiting scholar at the Beijing Climate Centre in China.
    Dr Gerrit J van der Lingen, of Christchurch, geologist/paleoclimatologist, climate change consultant, former director GRAINZ (Geoscience Research and Investigations New Zealand).
    Prof August H. (Augie) Auer, of Auckland, past professor of atmospheric science, University of Wyoming; previously chief meteorologist, Meteorological Service (MetService) of New Zealand.
    Professor Bob Carter, a New Zealander, now at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Queensland, Australia.
    Warwick Hughes, a New Zealand earth scientist living in Perth, who conducts a comprehensive website: http://www.warwickhughes.com
    Roger Dewhurst, of Katikati, consulting environmental geologist and hydrogeologist.
    Owen McShane, of Kaiwaka, director of the Centre for Resource Management Studies, who is convenor of the establishment committee, said many scientists and economists were concerned that the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had an effective monopoly on public announcements on global warming.
    ’Its statements go largely unchallenged — or go largely unchallenged in a format that will carry weight with governments, the media or the general public,’ said Mr McShane.
    Is that faint thundering I hear the sound of the cavalry arriving at last?

    As ever
    Phil

  • Phil Hackett

    The letter below was sent to the UK Prome Minister and has yey to be responded to.Ask your Governemnt to supply you with the Climate Science being used toi justify Kyoto to enable you to ahve it Peer Reviewed.The UK and Austarian Governemnts are uanble to respond and appear not to have any Climate Science which confirms Govt. Policy.Try yourself.If anyone quotes a Computer Climate Model, gain access to it and run it backwards for 150000 years to see if it picks up known climate events. If it does it is validated. The UK Met. Office has gone silent about this request.Dear Prime Minister: As accredited experts in climate and related scientific disciplines, we are writing to propose that balanced, comprehensive public-consultation sessions be held so as to examine the scientific foundation of the federal government's climate-change plans.Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future. Yet this is precisely what the United Nations did in creating and promoting Kyoto and still does in the alarmist forecasts on which Canada's climate policies are based. While the confident pronouncements of scientifically unqualified environmental groups may provide for sensational headlines, they are no basis for mature policy formulation. The study of global climate change is, as you have said, an 'emerging science,' one that is perhaps the most complex ever tackled. It may be many years yet before we properly understand the Earth's climate system. Nevertheless, significant advances have been made since the protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases. If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.'Climate change is real' is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural 'noise.' The new Canadian government's commitment to reducing air, land and water pollution is commendable, but allocating funds to 'stopping climate change' would be irrational. We need to continue intensive research into the real causes of climate change and help our most vulnerable citizens adapt to whatever nature throws at us next.And here’s who they were:Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa Dr. Tad Murty, former senior research scientist, Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans, former director of Australia's National Tidal Facility and professor of earth sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide; currently adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of OttawaDr. R. Timothy Patterson, professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, OttawaDr. Fred Michel, director, Institute of Environmental Science and associate professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, OttawaDr. Madhav Khandekar, former research scientist, Environment Canada. Member of editorial board of Climate Research and Natural HazardsDr. Paul Copper, FRSC, professor emeritus, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ont.Dr. Ross McKitrick, associate professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph, Ont.Dr. Tim Ball, former professor of climatology, University of Winnipeg; environmental consultantDr. Andreas Prokoph, adjunct professor of earth sciences, University of Ottawa; consultant in statistics and geologyMr. David Nowell, M.Sc. (Meteorology), fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, Canadian member and past chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, OttawaDr. Christopher Essex, professor of applied mathematics and associate director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.Dr. Gordon E. Swaters, professor of applied mathematics, Dept. of Mathematical Sciences, and member, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Research Group, University of AlbertaDr. L. Graham Smith, associate professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.Dr. G. Cornelis van Kooten, professor and Canada Research Chair in environmental studies and climate change, Dept. of Economics, University of VictoriaDr. Petr Chylek, adjunct professor, Dept. of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, HalifaxDr./Cdr. M. R. Morgan, FRMS, climate consultant, former meteorology advisor to the World Meteorological Organization. Previously research scientist in climatology at University of Exeter, U.K.Dr. Keith D. Hage, climate consultant and professor emeritus of Meteorology, University of AlbertaDr. David E. Wojick, P.Eng., energy consultant, Star Tannery, Va., and Sioux Lookout, Ont.Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, Surrey, B.C.Dr. Douglas Leahey, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, CalgaryPaavo Siitam, M.Sc., agronomist, chemist, Cobourg, Ont.Dr. Chris de Freitas, climate scientist, associate professor, The University of Auckland, N.Z.Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyDr. Freeman J. Dyson, emeritus professor of physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.Mr. George Taylor, Dept. of Meteorology, Oregon State University; Oregon State climatologist; past president, American Association of State ClimatologistsDr. Ian Plimer, professor of geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide; emeritus professor of earth sciences, University of Melbourne, AustraliaDr. R.M. Carter, professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, AustraliaMr. William Kininmonth, Australasian Climate Research, former Head National Climate Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology; former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology, Scientific and Technical ReviewDr. Hendrik Tennekes, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological InstituteDr. Gerrit J. van der Lingen, geologist/paleoclimatologist, Climate Change Consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New ZealandDr. Patrick J. Michaels, professor of environmental sciences, University of VirginiaDr. Nils-Axel Morner, emeritus professor of paleogeophysics & geodynamics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, SwedenDr. Gary D. Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, Calif.Dr. Roy W. Spencer, principal research scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, HuntsvilleDr. Al Pekarek, associate professor of geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, Minn.Dr. Marcel Leroux, professor emeritus of climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRSDr. Paul Reiter, professor, Institut Pasteur, Unit of Insects and Infectious Diseases, Paris, France. Expert reviewer, IPCC Working group II, chapter 8 (human health)Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, physicist and chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, PolandDr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, reader, Dept. of Geography, University of Hull, U.K.; editor, Energy & EnvironmentDr. Hans H.J. Labohm, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations) and an economist who has focused on climate changeDr. Lee C. Gerhard, senior scientist emeritus, University of Kansas, past director a
    nd state geologist, Kansas Geological SurveyDr. Asmunn Moene, past head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, NorwayDr. August H. Auer, past professor of atmospheric science, University of Wyoming; previously chief meteorologist, Meteorological Service (MetService) of New ZealandDr. Vincent Gray, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of 'Climate Change 2001,' Wellington, N.Z.Dr. Howard Hayden, emeritus professor of physics, University of ConnecticutDr Benny Peiser, professor of social anthropology, Faculty of Science, Liverpool John Moores University, U.K.Dr. Jack Barrett, chemist and spectroscopist, formerly with Imperial College London, U.K.Dr. William J.R. Alexander, professor emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa. Member, United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000Dr. S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences, University of Virginia; former director, U.S. Weather Satellite ServiceDr. Harry N.A. Priem, emeritus professor of planetary geology and isotope geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences; past president of the Royal Netherlands Geological & Mining SocietyDr. Robert H. Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey professor of energy conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State UniversityDr. Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist and climate researcher, Boston, Mass.Douglas Hoyt, senior scientist at Raytheon (retired) and co-author of the book The Role of the Sun in Climate Change; previously with NCAR, NOAA, and the World Radiation Center, Davos, SwitzerlandDipl.-Ing. Peter Dietze, independent energy advisor and scientific climate and carbon modeller, official IPCC reviewer, Bavaria, GermanyDr. Boris Winterhalter, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, FinlandDr. Wibjorn Karlen, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, SwedenDr. Hugh W. Ellsaesser, physicist/meteorologist, previously with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Calif.; atmospheric consultant.Dr. Art Robinson, founder, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, Cave Junction, Ore.Dr. Arthur Rorsch, emeritus professor of molecular genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands; past board member, Netherlands organization for applied research (TNO) in environmental, food and public healthDr. Alister McFarquhar, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.; international economistDr. Richard S. Courtney, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.Meanwhile, the New Zealand Herald reports that a group of leading climate scientists has announced the formation of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, aimed at refuting what it believes are unfounded claims about man-made global warming because they have had enough of ‘over-exaggerated’ claims about the effects of man-made global warming and aim to provide a balance to ‘what is being fed to the people of New Zealand’.The coalition includes such well-known climate scientists as: Dr Vincent Gray, of Wellington, an expert reviewer for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), most recently a visiting scholar at the Beijing Climate Centre in China. Dr Gerrit J van der Lingen, of Christchurch, geologist/paleoclimatologist, climate change consultant, former director GRAINZ (Geoscience Research and Investigations New Zealand). Prof August H. (Augie) Auer, of Auckland, past professor of atmospheric science, University of Wyoming; previously chief meteorologist, Meteorological Service (MetService) of New Zealand. Professor Bob Carter, a New Zealander, now at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Queensland, Australia. Warwick Hughes, a New Zealand earth scientist living in Perth, who conducts a comprehensive website: http://www.warwickhughes.com Roger Dewhurst, of Katikati, consulting environmental geologist and hydrogeologist. Owen McShane, of Kaiwaka, director of the Centre for Resource Management Studies, who is convenor of the establishment committee, said many scientists and economists were concerned that the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had an effective monopoly on public announcements on global warming. ’Its statements go largely unchallenged — or go largely unchallenged in a format that will carry weight with governments, the media or the general public,’ said Mr McShane.Is that faint thundering I hear the sound of the cavalry arriving at last?As ever Phil

  • Phil Hackett
  • Phil Hackett

    The current situation in Oz.http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/i

  • Anonymous

    Readers who are wikipedians may wish to comment on whether Dr. Stockwell is an “established expert” for the purpose of including his review on the Wikipedia page for “Heaven and Earth” at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Heaven_and_Earth_(book)#RfC:_Should_David_Stockwell.27s_review_of_this_book_be_used_in_this_article.3F

    Others who have wondered why Wikipedia articles tend to follow the (eg) RealClimate/Al Gore party line, need look no further. Sigh.

    Thanks & cheers, Pete Tillman
    Consulting Geologist, Arizona and New Mexico (USA)

  • peterdtillman

    Readers who are wikipedians may wish to comment on whether Dr. Stockwell is an “established expert” for the purpose of including his review on the Wikipedia page for “Heaven and Earth” at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Heaven_and_Ea… Thanks, Pete TillmanConsulting Geologist, Arizona and New Mexico (USA)

  • Anonymous

    Pete Tillman

    I’m not buying into who is expert enough to review Ian’s book because it covers a number of sub-fields and many, many references. You’d need a wide-angle savant to review all the topics and such people are rare. I think you must admit partial reviews by people specialist in some sub-fields and that includes mathematics.

    As a geologist, you’d know that if 50 geologists presented their favoured views on a nominated specialist topic, you’d get more than 50 views. Very little is settled in geology. It continues to surprise.

    There is also a fundamental difference between climate scientists and geologists as to the treatment of data. The climate scientist will typically try to filter out nugget effects, while the geologist looks with heightened interest at such rare anomalies as Nature provides.

    So if a reviewer of Ian’s book is from the emerging school of climate science and is not widely read, there might be a philosophical problem of comprehension of why the book was written. It was written partially to show that climate change has always been present, as shown by excursions and events that were not caused by Man.

    BTW, I refuse to use Wiki until there is evidence that the heavy hand of censorship has been lifted. I’ve seen too many plausible examples of preferential snipping.

  • sherro

    Pete TillmanI'm not buying into who is expert enough to review Ian's book because it covers a number of sub-fields and many, many references. You'd need a wide-angle savant to review all the topics and such people are rare. I think you must admit partial reviews by people specialist in some sub-fields and that includes mathematics.As a geologist, you'd know that if 50 geologists presented their favoured views on a nominated specialist topic, you'd get more than 50 views. Very little is settled in geology. It continues to surprise.There is also a fundamental difference between climate scientists and geologists as to the treatment of data. The climate scientist will typically try to filter out nugget effects, while the geologist looks with heightened interest at such rare anomalies as Nature provides.So if a reviewer of Ian's book is from the emerging school of climate science and is not widely read, there might be a philosophical problem of comprehension of why the book was written. It was written partially to show that climate change has always been present, as shown by excursions and events that were not caused by Man.BTW, I refuse to use Wiki until there is evidence that the heavy hand of censorship has been lifted. I've seen too many plausible examples of preferential snipping.

  • oregondentist

    Oregon Dental Implants and Cosmetic DentistryMid-Valley Dental Associates:When you visit our dental offices, your care is our top priority. Dr. Geoffrey Berg and his entire team are dedicated to providing you with the personalized, professional care you expect.http://mid-valleydental.com/

Bad Behavior has blocked 66076 access attempts in the last 7 days.