jump to navigation

Modellers Remove Evidence of Cooling and Editor Removes Comment by Climate Sceptic January 24, 2009

Posted by honestclimate in Discussions.
Tags: ,
trackback

Modellers Remove Evidence of Cooling and Editor Removes Comment by Climate Sceptic

From the Jennifer Marohasy blog, January 23, 2009

WITHIN the scientific community it has generally been accepted that as a continent, Antarctica, has been getting colder – or at least not warming.  Those who subscribe to the general consensus that climate change is driven by manmade carbon dioxide emissions, and that the world is generally getting warmer, have claimed this is not inconsistent with their greenhouse gas theory or the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) models.  They have explained that Antarctica is a general exception to the global trend because of a loss of ozone in the polar stratosphere.  [1]

When communicating with the general public, however, some high profile scientists, including from the CSIRO, have been so bold as to falsely claim even the Antarctic is warming.  Perhaps because they wanted to avoid appearing inconsistent or having to explain such an annoying exception to the generally accepted global warming trend over the last 100 or so years. [2]

Now the prestigious journal Nature has published an article explaining that the Antarctic has been generally warming and at about the same rate as the rest of the planet.  [3]  This news made the cover of the latest issue of the journal with a dramatic graphic illustration of the new reconstruction of Antarctic surface temperature trends for 1957–2006.

One of the authors of the new paper, Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, has explained that he is pleased that the previous inconvenience of a cooling trend in Antarctica can now be dismissed.  Indeed he now has a paper published in the prestigous and peer-reviewed journal Nature claiming as much.    But this does not necessarily make it true.

Dr Mann is famous for managing to falsely recreate past temperatures so they accord with the popular global warming consensus.    Indeed Dr Mann is responsible for the infamous hockey-stick graph that suggested the medieval warm period did not exist.

In this new study Dr Mann and others have combined incomplete data from both satellites and weather stations with some complicated statistics to generate a model of climate for the continent for the period 1957-2006.

Bill Kininmonth, formerly of the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, was interviewed on Australian national radio as part of a segment on the new findings.   Mr Kininmonth explained that there has been no reduction in the cycle of Antarctic sea ice and that he was generally sceptical that the west Antarctic ice sheet was likely to melt – a claim made earlier in the segment by Dr Barry Brook from Adelaide University.

In apparent contravention of ABC Broadcasting principles, the comment from Mr Kininmonth has been expunged from the transcript and the podcast. [4]

It seems computer models can remove evidence of cooling and editors can remove comment from climate change sceptics – but of course the truth does not cease to exist because it is ignored.

Read the rest here

Comments»

1. Jeremy C - January 24, 2009

I don’ think Jennifer Maharosy has given you the full story about her complaint. It seems to me she is just making a beat up over the average say in the live of a live radio carrent afafirs programme. This is what I’ve posted below on her site yesterday and am still waiting for a reply back from her on her site…… and waiting.

Jennifer,

I’ve just listened to the Kininmonth addition to the transcript/podcast from yesterday. The problem is that he takes a long time to say what he does and what he says cames across as obscure for the average listener wrt to Antarctica warming and its only at the end of the interview when the journalist asks him to sum up does Kininmonth say something. By then the only thing you can really use is that last comment and its too short to be useable in the context. It sounds like the journlists should’ve done the interview again explaining to Kininmonth that he needed something more concise and to the point but perhaps the journalist ran out of time. You’ve have had experience with journalists Jennifer so you should know how this goes, they make mistakes, they run out of their alloted time, they need 30 seconds and the talent gives them 65 seconds of material that is useful to you and me but nor useful to them for the time alloted in the broadcast.

As to Art Raiche saying that everything runs to an alloted time well that not quite true as live programmes and their segments can run longer, or shorter than planned and this can cock up the timing required for the subsequent podcasts or recorded playouts, so they go to work either getting rid of material that doesn’t work i.e. where people don’t have anything to so or whatever or if the piece ends up running short they might add further material.

I notice no one has answered my question as to whether Art Raiche can tell us if anybody else was dropped from the live show of yesterdays AM for the other podcasts.

Now Barry Brook has listed above how his contribution was mangled for the same piece which goes to show that its a cock up rather than a hidden agenda and again with your experience in dealing with journalists Jennifer this is something I expect you would know. So Jennifer, if you want to disprove my earlier post that you are just using this whole thing as a beat up, geeing up the troops by standing on the hill top and proclaiming bias and leading them by their collective noses in using the ABC and its mistakes as an easy target will you instead now join me in making a joint complaint to the ABC about their disgraceful mangling of Barry Brook’s contribution…..

2. Francis Tucker Manns - January 25, 2009

Keeping in mind that windmills are hazardous to birds, be wary of the unintended consequences of believing and contributing to the all-knowing environmental lobby groups.

Climate and ecomony are being linked. Climate is a multiple loop, multiple input, complex system. The facts and the hypoteses do not support CO2 as a serious ‘pollutant’. in fact it is plant fertilizer and seriously important to all life on the planet. It is the red herring used by the left to unwind our economy. That makes the science relevent.

Water vapour (0.4% overall by volume in air, but 1 – 4 % near the surface) is the most effective green house gas followed by methane (0.0001745%). The third ranking greenhouse gas is CO2 (0.0383%), and it does not correlate well with global warming or cooling either; in fact, CO2 in the atmosphere trails warming which is clear natural evidence for its well-studied inverse solubility in water: CO2 dissolves in cold water and bubbles out of warm water. The equilibrium in seawater is very high; making seawater a great ‘sink’; CO2 is 34 times more soluble in water than air is soluble in water.

Correlation is not causation to be sure. The causation is being studied, however, and while the radiation from the sun varies only in the fourth decimal place, the magnetism is awesome.
“Using a box of air in a Copenhagen lab, physicists traced the growth of clusters of molecules of the kind that build cloud condensation nuclei. These are specks of sulphuric acid on which cloud droplets form. High-energy particles driven through the laboratory ceiling by exploded stars far away in the Galaxy – the cosmic rays – liberate electrons in the air, which help the molecular clusters to form much faster than climate scientists have modeled in the atmosphere. That may explain the link between cosmic rays, cloudiness and climate change.”

As I understand it, the hypothesis of the Danish National Space Center goes as follows:

Quiet sun → reduced magnetic and thermal flux = reduced solar wind → geomagnetic shield drops → galactic cosmic ray flux → more low-level clouds and more snow → more albedo effect (more heat reflected) → colder climate

Active sun → enhanced magnetic and thermal flux = solar wind → geomagnetic shield response → less low-level clouds → less albedo (less heat reflected) → warmer climate
That is how the bulk of climate change might work, coupled with (modulated by) sunspot peak frequency there are cycles of global warming and cooling like waves in the ocean. When the waves are closely spaced, the planets warm; when the waves are spaced farther apart, the planets cool.

The ultimate cause of the solar magnetic cycle may be cyclicity in the Sun-Jupiter centre of gravity. We await more on that.

In addition, although the post 60s warming period appears to be is over, it has allowed the principal green house gas, water vapour, to kick in with humidity, clouds, rain and snow depending on where you live to provide the negative feedback that scientists use to explain the existence of complex life on Earth for 550 million years. The planet heats and cools naturally and our gasses are the thermostat.
Check the web site of the Danish National Space Center.
http://www.space.dtu.dk/English/Research/Research_divisions/Sun_Climate/Experiments_SC/SKY.aspx


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: