Wishart. Research kiddie.

62 comments on “Wishart. Research kiddie. ”

• Comments are now closed

1. tsmithfield 1

   11 January 2010 at 7:17 pm

   I am genuinely open-minded on this topic. I agree that C02 is causing warming. However, as mentioned previously I am skeptical about the sensitivity of the climate to human activities, and how much of the current temperature rise might be due to natural factors.

   Here is a graph that demonstrates why I am skeptical. I would be interested in comments.

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record#The_long_term_ice_core_record:_the_last_800.2C000_years

   The first graph is the world climate history for the last 800000 years using ice-core samples as a proxy. If you look at the graph, there are a number of interesting points.

   Firstly, it appears there have been regular cycles of warming and cooling for the last 800000 years.

   Secondly, most of the warm periods have been warmer than the current period.

   Thirdly, we currently appear to be at the top of a warm period, although, even on the basis of natural factors, it would not be unusual to spike up a bit higher yet.

   Fourthly, for it appears that for the last 10000 years or so we have been bouncing along the top, and that the variation we have had has been within the range of “noise” for the scope of the graph.

   This is one reason I wonder if there is a much stronger natural component to climate variation that will over-ride the activities of humans regardless. Interested in comments.
   • Draco T Bastard 1.1

     11 January 2010 at 7:48 pm

     Firstly, I’d say that cycles of warming and cooling have been happening a hell of a lot longer than 800,000 years. Probably as long as the Earth has had an environment so about 4.5 billion years.

     Secondly – And we still we still wouldn’t be able to live in that environment. At ~40 degrees C our major organs shut down. With the atmosphere getting close to that our evaporative cooling system doesn’t cool us enough to prevent our organs reaching ~40 degrees. Ergo, we die.

     Thirdly, wow, really? And you don’t think that dumping a few extra giga-tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere won’t push it even further?

     Fourthly – the last 10,000 years or so have been an interglacial which is characterised by being slightly warmer and having less ice than the overall ice age that it’s in. The variation that we’ve had may have been within the noise. This doesn’t mean that it’s going to stay there and all evidence so far shows that it won’t.

     Wonder all you like, it’s not going to make any difference to the actual facts that we are altering the climate and that that alteration is probably going to push the environment into a configuration that we most likely can’t survive in over large parts of the globe unless we do something about radically curbing our consumerist society.
   • Bill 1.2

     11 January 2010 at 7:51 pm

     Unless you are yourself a scientist engaged in climate change type research, I’d suggest that it is not possible for you to be sceptical about climate change.

     Rather, you are sceptical about what the scientists who are researching and studying the matter are saying. (btw, those scientists are sceptical to the man/woman I’ll warrant, because if they weren’t they’d be pretty useless as scientists.)

     Your position on climate change then is not one of scepticism, but one of denial. Your denial stems from your scepticism of what scientists are saying. Yes?
     • Macro 1.2.1

       11 January 2010 at 9:22 pm

       Bill
       You sum up exactly what I was about to say!
       This so called ‘scepticism” by those not engaged in actual research is nothing more than denial of the facts. To dredge up some chart from wiki as an authority is little more than stupidity.Wiki has its place, and that is as a reference of last resort, and taken with a great deal of salt – particuarly on matters such as this, where there are far too many people with vested interests to publish spurious “facts”.
     • burt 1.2.2

       11 January 2010 at 9:25 pm

       Bill

       That same logic defines that people why are not deniers are just believers – plain old faith in stuff you cannot understand – sounds a lot like religion to me.
       • Bill 1.2.2.1

         11 January 2010 at 9:46 pm

         No Burt.

         I just cannot fathom why the entire scientific community would lie about this stuff. And even if for some unfathomable reason they were lying, the sheer scale of the required conspiracy..the immense amount of data from so many different areas of research all needing to be not just falsified but falsified in a way that makes it consistent with all the other falsified data….and those necessarily interrelated extrapolations all having to mesh too.

         Then there is the sheer number of people who would have to be in cahoots. Thousands. And not a single one ‘spilling the beans’

         But let us say that the above has been achieved. There would have to be intense communication between all these conspirators to ensure they all stayed on the relevant page and kept up with the developing script. Or they would have to be consulting the same blue print…the same master plan copy of climate conspiracy. ( The lack of the spilling of the beans comes back into play again here)

         Anyway, either all the above is happening and thousands of people have kept tighter wraps on things than a hamsters proverbial…

         Or there is no conspiracy.

         Occams razor and all that.
         • burt 1.2.2.1.1

           11 January 2010 at 10:36 pm

           Bill

           You are a lot more stupid than I though you were. I’ll spell it out rally simply for you.

           Unless you are yourself a scientist engaged in climate change type research, I’d suggest that it is not possible for you to be sceptical sure about climate change.

           Rather, you are sceptical sure about what the scientists who are researching and studying the matter are saying. (btw, those scientists are sceptical to the man/woman I’ll warrant, because if they weren’t they’d be pretty useless as scientists.)

           Your position on climate change then is not one of scepticism surity, but one of denial faith. Your denialfaith stems from your scepticism belief of what scientists are saying. Yes?
           • Bill 1.2.2.1.1.1

             11 January 2010 at 11:11 pm

             Burt.

             You just illustrated your inability to think things through in a logically coherent fashion.

             No scientist is sure, (ie 100% certain) about anything. That is what scepticism is…an element of doubt. Which leads to further questioning and further investigation. Denialists on the other hand….
             • burt …

               11 January 2010 at 11:21 pm

               I got that Bill, are you a scientist studying and working in climate change?
             • DavidW …

               12 January 2010 at 9:06 am

               But hell Bill, We have been assured by lots of sxcientists that “the science is settled”. Now if that doesn’t equate to certainty in the mind of those scientistys, I don’t know what does.

               So we are left with either:
               Scientists who aren’t halfway competent in that they are certain and will not countenance questioning of their “settled science” or:

               A deliberate campaign by competent scientists who have a larger agenda, to stifle debate and quell questioning of the science which they know is not “settled” and about which they cannot be certain.

               In either case I would posit that the AGW community needs a bloody good clean-out
         • quenchino 1.2.2.1.2

           11 January 2010 at 10:45 pm

           burt.

           Is there a conspiracy by the scientists to lie and hoax us all … or not?

           Yes or no.
           • burt 1.2.2.1.2.1

             11 January 2010 at 11:07 pm

             I doubt it, I think a few pivotal peer reviews may have been dodged but that is not changing anything about what I was saying.

             To say because ‘burt’ has not studied all the relevant science therefore he is denier rather than a skeptic is no different than to say ‘Bill’ hasn’t studied all the relevant science therefore he has faith rather than he is sure.
             • quenchino …

               11 January 2010 at 11:17 pm

               Thank you. I’ll take that as “no it is pretty dammed unlikely that there is a vast conspiracy by climate scientists to hoax us all”.

               The other possibility is that all these climate scientists suddenly and mysteriously lost all competence … and that a handful of amateurs are right.

               Do you want to play ‘yes or no’ to that one?
             • Bill …

               11 January 2010 at 11:19 pm

               ffs Burt!

               I’m telling you that this glass in my hand will break when I drop it.

               Are you a) sceptical over whether the glass will break or not, or

               b) sceptical about whether I am being truthful.when I say I am holding a glass which I intend to drop?

               You cannot be sceptical about a)

               geddit?
             • burt …

               11 January 2010 at 11:27 pm

               Ben

               See we have all seen glasses fall and not break, sometimes in alarmingly unlikely circumstances. So hey let me look at the glass, let me look at the floor, the distance of the fall and I’ll get back to you.

               Dropping a coin and it landing on it’s edge might be a better example, could happen but I don’t know anyone who has claimed to have seen it.
             • quenchino …

               11 January 2010 at 11:28 pm

               That’s weaseling out of burt.

               Are all the scientist’s incompetent or not?

               Yes or no?
             • burt …

               11 January 2010 at 11:40 pm

               That is a different question, did the collude to spread their version of the truth, to some level yes.

               Are they incompetent. No, I didn’t say that. I have doubts about some of their methods because I cannot see how entire historic events like the Medieval warm period can be denied and massaged out of the live data to such an extent. Skeptical.
               • lprent …

                 12 January 2010 at 8:40 am

                 You mean a regional event that didn’t show up through the vast majority of the world at the same time? So what you’re saying is that you’re upset that Europe is such a tiny place?

                 There are regional variations all of the time as the insolation shifts, volcanic events, and changing heat transfers like current and airstreams. The problem is that even where there is a pronounced effect in one area, it is usually has a counter effect in another that cancels it out when you look globally. Frequently heat or cold gets ‘stored’ in ocean currents to be released decades or centuries later.

                 That is why simple chart reading in one location doesn’t work.

                 Get a grip on yourself and turn the brain on.
         • quenchino 1.2.2.1.3

           11 January 2010 at 10:57 pm

           Come on burt… it’s either yes or no.

           Doesn’t take that long to type.
     • Andrei 1.2.3

       11 January 2010 at 9:40 pm

       Unless you are yourself a scientist engaged in climate change type research, I’d suggest that it is not possible for you to be sceptical about climate change.

       Bollocks – many if not most of the great scientific breakthroughs have come from people outside the field of research in which they have occurred or from people new to that area.

       In fact your attitude is one more akin to mystery cults where arcane knowledge is only held by those inducted into the inner sanctum.

       And this indeed is exactly how so called “Climate Scientists” have behaved which is why the whole subject is now becoming an area of ridicule.

       Furthermore many of the greatest scientists of the 20th century were able to synthesize complex ideas into forms where they were accessible to those outside the field and delighted in doing so.

       “Climate Scientists” on the other hand have consistently resorted to exaggeration and double talk to make their points.

       I don’t imagine that many future scientists will use the monika “Climate Scientist” to describe their work – rather they will call themselves Meteorologists, Atmospheric Physicists, Oceanographers etc so as not to be tainted with the disgrace that “climate science” has bought upon itself.
       • Macro 1.2.3.1

         11 January 2010 at 9:52 pm

         we simply haven’t seen any sign of upending revelation from outside the field as yet tho Andrei – and NOBODY here wants continuing global warming. NOBODY!
         • Pascal's bookie 1.2.3.1.1

           11 January 2010 at 9:56 pm

           It’s from Ian Wishart Macro. He already overturned evilution, and now this. He’s awesome.
       • quenchino 1.2.3.2

         11 January 2010 at 10:04 pm

         many if not most of the great scientific breakthroughs have come from people outside the field of research in which they have occurred or from people new to that area.

         Actually most of the deniers/sceptics are older or retired scientists whose average age is around 60. The bulk of the people publishing in support of AGW are on average about 20 years younger.
       • Bill 1.2.3.3

         11 January 2010 at 10:09 pm

         @ Andrei

         I don’t think there is anything cultist or mysterious about the scientific research or study pertaining to climate change.

         In fact, this site has provided some very informative links that in turn provided very concise explanations of the scientific reasoning and clear, easy to follow refutations of the deniers standpoint.

         The motor of science is scepticism Andrei. Scepticism leads to further questions and more thorough investigation. Scepticism leads to enhanced knowledge.

         But the denialists who seek to cloak themselves in the mantle of scepticism simply deny available knowledge. They make up stories that science is constantly showing us are not true and then simply repeat them anyway. They, sadly, seek to diminish understanding rather than enhance it.

         If there is a religion in all this, it is denialism. If anyone is looking to resurrect the culture of the Shaman; to give agency to the high priests of hocus pocus, then that person is the denialist.
     • Ron 1.2.4

       12 January 2010 at 7:50 am

       That is the BEST summary I’ve read yet. Nice work. With your permission I shall quote you three times in conversation this week
2. ben 2

   11 January 2010 at 7:31 pm

   I don’t know what Wishart has said about AGW, except that he’s a skeptic. Frankly I am uncomfortable being on the same side of any debate as Ian Wishart. In one of his books he takes on evolution (and, he says, Richard Dawkins) and rolls out very tired creationist horsesh*t. It is hard to take anybody seriously on any issue after that – basic fact checking and even more basic things like addressing the argument and being internally consistent were missing (this is creationism, afterall). In fact allowing his personal views to so freely interfere with questions of fact and evidence is fundamental. That makes me nervous about everything he writes – which bits are from evidence and which are his priors talking?
3. Andrei 3

   11 January 2010 at 7:39 pm

   The good thing about people who provide sources in their work is that you can check them.

   Unlike the so called scientists of the IPCC who pull figures out of their arses and bullshit the gulliable into believing their crap.

   cf the famous Niwa Graph which is an almost classic example of junk science for which apart from the Wellington data we are still awaiting justification for the “adjustments and for Wellington we have a move Thorndon to Kelburn and a lot of handwaving.
   • burt 3.1

     11 January 2010 at 7:41 pm

     That middle school reference was probably more robustly reviewed than some of the key IPCC documents as well.
   • Draco T Bastard 3.2

     11 January 2010 at 7:51 pm

     All the IPCCs figures can be checked right back to the original research. The fact that you think that they can’t be just goes to show how delusional you really are.
     • Bill 3.2.1

       11 January 2010 at 8:04 pm

       I hope your not labelling these chaps delusional denialists there Draco!

       You notice how Andrei contends that the gullible ( that’s us I guess) have been bullshitted into believing the scientist’s scientific crap?

       Meanwhile they have a breadth and depth of intelligence that facilitates an ability to be sceptical on matters of research and study that they themselves neither research nor study!

       Truly amazing people.

       Wonder if they snarf boogers over themselves as they collapse in self-congratulatory snorts and spasms at their own humour, wit and untouchable intellect?
       • Pascal's bookie 3.2.1.1

         11 January 2010 at 8:17 pm

         Wonder if they snarf boogers over themselves

         And spill precious bodily fluids!!? Never, I’m sure they are very careful about that sort of thing.
         • Andrei 3.2.1.1.1

           11 January 2010 at 8:51 pm

           A remarkably silly response – I can only conclude that you have nothing of substance to add to the debate.
           • Bill 3.2.1.1.1.1

             11 January 2010 at 8:59 pm

             A hankie?
   • burt 3.3

     11 January 2010 at 7:53 pm

     Draco

     Checked to the original research, but not the original data – there is the problem.

     Furthermore lprent cites one single reference from Air Can and then fails to rebut the science rather he just mocks the source.

     I don’t think it is me you should be calling deluded.

     [lprent: There are more shonky uses of data in AirCon than you have glasses of whatever per year.

     Go and look at Hot topic where they have been dissecting the book ever since it arrived on the scene. In fact this came from a comment in a post detailing factual errors from Wishart in an article. I found it highly amusing as an example for a stir post.

     However the book is completely full of crap. That is why Wishart keeps threatening to sue everyone when they write critical reviews of it or start dissecting it. But of course it is hard to find a book by Wishart recently that actually focuses on facts rather than his unsubstantiated opinions. ]
     • quenchino 3.3.1

       11 January 2010 at 8:35 pm

       Well burt I read a few chapters of Air Con, and gave up when I counted three howlers in one para.

       Really what the hell makes anyone think that Wishart is qualified or capable to say anything about this incredibly complex topic? It’s a far more difficult problem than quantum mechanics (something that was largely solved a century ago), and yet no-one would listen to Wishart’s opinions on that topic for one instant.

       Science is a wilderness to get lost in for shambling amateurs like Wishart.
       • logie97 3.3.1.1

         12 January 2010 at 9:29 am

         is this Wishart the same expert conspiracy theorist who “exposed” the suspicious death of a young IT specialist in the Winebox Case. A car crash on the Beaumont St on ramp in the dark of night. Or have I just become confused by reading too much of his rambling.
     • burt 3.3.2

       11 January 2010 at 8:57 pm

       We all get lost when the original maps are lost and only the modified versions which show all tracks going in the same direction remain.
       • Macro 3.3.2.1

         11 January 2010 at 10:08 pm

         you comment here burt is just unadulterated rubbish!
         you are supposedly an intelligent person but to gravitate to this sort of claptrap shows you have no understanding whatsoever of the scientific process!
         I shan’t waste my time on attempting to explain it all to you because you have no intention ever of wanting to come to grips with what is valid statistically and what is not.
   • Macro 3.4

     11 January 2010 at 9:55 pm

     Now what you say here Andrei is just bullshit.
     • Macro 3.4.1

       11 January 2010 at 10:00 pm

       referring to this comment
       “The good thing about people who provide sources in their work is that you can check them.

       Unlike the so called scientists of the IPCC who pull figures out of their arses and bullshit the gulliable into believing their crap.

       cf the famous Niwa Graph which is an almost classic example of junk science for which apart from the Wellington data we are still awaiting justification for the “adjustments and for Wellington we have a move Thorndon to Kelburn and a lot of handwaving.”

       your comment here is simply bullshit
4. BLiP 4

   11 January 2010 at 7:58 pm

   I hear the new edition of Air Con has a supplementary chapter which explains the changes in the sea currents as a natural variation as witnessed by anyone who’s played Pooh Sticks.
5. tsmithfield 5

   11 January 2010 at 8:08 pm

   Draco “Thirdly, wow, really? And you don’t think that dumping a few extra giga-tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere won’t push it even further?….Wonder all you like, it’s not going to make any difference to the actual facts that we are altering the climate and that that alteration is probably going to push the environment into a configuration that we most likely can’t survive in over large parts of the globe unless we do something about radically curbing our consumerist society.”

   You’d be surprised to know I actually agree with you on a lot of this. Firstly, I did say that I accepted that C02 causes warming, but am unsure about the sensitivity of the climate to C02, but open to the possibility that it may be causing a major problem.

   Secondly, I agree we need to do something urgently about the unsustainable way we live. Clearly we are using resources faster than the world can provide them. This cannot go on forever without the human population on the planet being dramatically reduced through starvation etc.

   Where I disagree is on the method to solve the problems. We have recently seen how pointless it is trying to get a world-wide consensus for an action plan on AGW. I believe this sort of approach is futile.

   If AGW is truly as serious as is claimed then more effective action is needed. I believe this action could simultaneously solve other world problems. I think strategies such as the Kyoto protocol are doomed to fail.

   Individual countries would be much more open to solving immediate problems in their own back yards such as preventing rain forests from being destroyed.

   Governments could provide the market with incentives for developing electric cars etc to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels since I am not sure that private enterprise can respond quickly enough to avoid the peak oil problem.
   • Bill 5.1

     11 January 2010 at 8:45 pm

     What is the action you are advocating? You say more effective action is needed ( I agree) but don’t say what it is. You offer what reads as a wish list.

     Questions.

     Why would governments be willing to offer market incentives to encourage alternative technologies any more under your unstated scenario than they are at present?
     What would those market incentives look like?
     And what is the point of a market incentive if you are correct in saying that private enterprise cannot respond quickly enough anyway?
     Why would governments be ‘open’ to such things as forest preservation any more so under your scenario than at present?
6. Robert Winter 6

   11 January 2010 at 8:29 pm

   Uncanny. The anti-spam word is “avoid’, which is what one should do with Mr Wishart and his fantasies.
7. tsmithfield 7

   11 January 2010 at 9:01 pm

   Bill “Why would governments be willing to offer market incentives to encourage alternative technologies any more under your unstated scenario than they are at present?”

   Because as the price of oil spikes up again, governments are going to face huge balance of payments problems due to the price of oil if they don’t find alternatives.

   Bill “What would those market incentives look like?”

   Perhaps less in registration costs for purchasing “green” vehicles. Increased taxes on petrol would motivate a move towards greener alternatives.

   Bill “And what is the point of a market incentive if you are correct in saying that private enterprise cannot respond quickly enough anyway?”

   I don’t think they can respond quickly enough. But they are starting to respond.

   http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Smaller-electric-cars-reign-apf-407335045.html?x=0

   However, if they wait for market demand it will be considerably later in the piece before the problem is solved. With the solutions I recommend above, the government can push the demand forward and thereby get progress quicker

   Bill “Why would governments be ‘open’ to such things as forest preservation any more so under your scenario than at present?”

   There are already projects underway world-wide that provide incentives for indigenous people to earn income through tourism etc rather than cutting down forests for farming. The economic spin-offs from tourism would stretch to the wider economy in those countries.
8. Lew 8

   11 January 2010 at 9:06 pm

   Turgid semantico-legal threats from Wishart in T minus five … four …

   L

   Captcha: feasible
   
   [lprent: For some reason I never get them. I feel deprived… ]
   • Lew 8.1

     12 January 2010 at 9:30 am

     Better luck next time, Lynn : )

     L
9. Sam 9

   11 January 2010 at 10:05 pm

   Bahahaha! That’s insane! How is this guy even able to get anything printed?!? Wrongly attributing research (term used in the loosest way in human history here) is in effect plagiarism. Bravo, Wishart, not only do you publish crap and lies but you also steal it!

   I think this whole thing sheds a bit of light on the whole anti-academia, anti-intellectualism that the right preaches regularly. You so often see people scorned raging against those who discount what they say because it is poorly backed up, but this is exactly why we are picky! As Wishart has shown us, any old half-witted clown can dress up any old piece of crap found on the internet as something authoritative, and some of these half-witted clowns have means and ways to get such poor argument and reasoning in front of many, many people.

   Well done to the fact checkers!
   • Crash Cart 9.1

     12 January 2010 at 8:14 am

     Funnily enough the problem of global warming goes beyond right and left. There are many right wing people who will agree that AGW is a problem (myself included) and then there are many who would deny it. I would imagine the same could be said for the left. People need to start looking at this as a problem for every one rather than “those stupid right wingers who are ruining my world”.

     I suppose it is far easier to blame someone else for everyone failures.
     • Pascal's bookie 9.1.1

       12 January 2010 at 8:21 am

       I’d say that you are right that there are left wing deniers and so on, but think about it.

       World wide, in any democracy where one main party has been skeptics and/or deniers opposing action, can you name one where that party is the centre left one?
       • Crash Cart 9.1.1.1

         12 January 2010 at 9:45 am

         Can you name one main party that has actually come up with or implemented any workable solution to this problem be they left or right?

         On a whole every one is failing and the sooner people start forgetting there left or right allegiances on this problem and decide that they personally need to side with our future the sooner we will have workable solutions.
         • Pascal's bookie 9.1.1.1.1

           12 January 2010 at 9:58 am

           No I can’t, and I agree. But I’m saying that for the most part it’s left wing parties saying we need to do something, and having to negotiate with right wing parties who are dragging the chain.

           On that basis I think it is fair to blame right wingers for the fact that shit aint getting done.
           • Crash Cart 9.1.1.1.1.1

             12 January 2010 at 10:36 am

             But that is the problem. There are left wing governments in positions to pass legislation without the help of right wing oppositions and they have failed to do so. The admition from you about these governments then insistence that it is all the fault of right wingers is just shifting blame. A left wing government that fails to act is just as guilty as a right wing government that fails to act.
             • Pascal's bookie …

               12 January 2010 at 10:40 am

               A typically authoritarian view of democracy.

               Think of it this way. If the right wingers had not engaged in a big old loud decades long campaign to discredit the idea of AGW, and to oppose any policy aimed at limiting it, do you think more would have been done?
10. burt 10

    11 January 2010 at 11:53 pm

    lprent

    You have expressed quite strongly before that warming wise you expect things to happen a lot worse and more quickly than even the IPCC predict.

    Publish an eBook lprent, If it is appropriately priced I assure you I would buy it and read it.
    • lprent 10.1

      12 January 2010 at 7:55 am

      I don’t have time to write a book. Between Lyn, the project at work, being a sysop for several things, and the stuff I do for Labour there aren’t enough hours in the day.

      Lyn has a lock on the creative project in our household at present
11. Scooter 11

    12 January 2010 at 12:13 am

    Wishart seems to be backed up on the NSF stuff by one Jim Salinger, then of NIWA, who says this in Air COn –

    ‘the Tasman is only now giving up the ground it gained during the Little Ice Age 300 years ago. “Their long response times have meant that they have simply absorbed any snow gains into their shrinking masses,” wrote NIWA’s Jim Salinger, “maintaining their areas while their surfaces have lowered like sinking lids. These glaciers have kept their LIA areas for all but the last couple of decades.” etc etc

    So Salinger is confirming glaciers have managed to hang onto their Little Ice Age sprawl right up until now basically, even though the LIA ended a couple of hundred years ago. Which Salinger calls “long response times”.

    Remind me what’s wrong with the US report? It seems entirely consistent with Salinger’s explanation.
    • lprent 11.1

      12 January 2010 at 8:07 am

      Another stupid diversion, because NZ is and will remain to be one of the least directly affected countries. Those cold currents help buffer the temperatures. So you’re looking at a local effect – just like our last chill period was later than the one in Europe.

      The ‘report’ isn’t a report in any sense. It is a online resource material for children in about their 5th-8th year of schooling to make pretty essays. You know the ones – where you use lots of different coloured pens and stick a lot of pictures in. After all the marks are more for presentation effort than content.

      The resource was designed for children. It is probably largely accurate as a kiddies summary when it was written. However it was written to highlight the nice interesting bits, and skips all of the detail.

      There is no way that it should be in a ‘serious’ book about climate.
    • Gareth 11.2

      12 January 2010 at 8:57 am

      Wishart’s “theory” is that there is a “thermal lag” in glacial response to climate change. His quote of Salinger doesn’t support that contention, because Salinger is simply pointing out that recent warming is melting the Tasman rapidly. It hasn’t slowly retreated up the valley – it’s melted in place (and dramatically). Read my full post for an explanation of how glaciers respond to change.
12. Ron 12

    12 January 2010 at 7:58 am

    Fact one. CO2 in the atmosphere has a greenhouse effect. You can test that on your kitchen bench with a drink bottle, a lamp and a thermometer.
    Fact two – the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased substantially in recent history.
    Fact three: CO2 in the atmosphere is much higher over areas of human popultation. The more human activity the higher the concentrations.
    All the quoting and insulting in the world don’t change those facts or the body of evidnce backing up the theory that human activity is causing increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere which is causing warming.
13. burt 13

    12 January 2010 at 11:46 pm

    lprent

    As noted in this article, NZ Herald: Glacial find pours cold water on world theory – By Angela Gregory 5:00 AM Monday Jun 30, 2008

    Scientists had believed the Waiho Loop moraine was created during a brief cold snap about 13,000 years ago that also affected Europe and North America.The sudden climatic event had inspired the Hollywood blockbuster movie The Day After Tomorrow, he said. But no one had ever studied the Waiho Loop sediments

    Followed by some interesting detail of the findings. It concludes;

    Professor Shulmeister said the findings, to be published this week in the international science journal Nature Geoscience, were like “throwing a cat among the palaeoclimate pigeons”..

    I don’t bring this up to dispute the concept of regional effects, or to argue with you about the science of regional effects, rather to point out that this issue was still hotly contended on the global climate stage in June last year.
    • lprent 13.1

      13 January 2010 at 4:41 am

      There are global climate events – Antarctica moving into the poles, super-volcanoes doing global dustbath into the straosphere. However almost all climate changes are regional or even local, and have to be presumed to be local until proven otherwise.

      One of the things that I despise about CCDs is that they are forever waffling about “mini-iceages” and “mini-warmings” in Europe that are known to be mainly regional climate effects, and implying that they are global (without bothering to show any proof of their logic). Then they construct conspiracy theories about climate scientists because they can’t see their favorite North Atlantic spikes and dips in global data.

      The North Atlantic is an intensely regional climate area because of that narrow ocean and the currents (especially the gulf stream), the projection of land masses into the polar regions, and the annual sea ice breakups. It is pretty close to being the worst place in the world to be generalizing climate from because every effect there is intensely regional or local. It is a region subject to high sensitivity from minor climate fluctuation.

      The best place to generalize global climate would probably be a strip that was mid-pacific and running from about 40 degrees from each pole.

      It is an appalling signature of the climate illiterates when they start sprouting on about local or regional climate or even the damn weather, and expect to be taken seriously.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS