Articles Tagged "Jennifer Marohasy"

Colleagues and Friends,

FYI, Please find attached a paper, I co-authored, that was recently published in the British Journal ‘Environmental Law & Management’ on FOI, AGW and the IPCC.

We are obviously very grateful to David Holland for supplying the ‘raw material’ for this assessment.

Cheers, Jennifer

CLICK to download New Peer-Reviewed Paper by John Abbot & Jennifer Marohasy

Abstract

The UK Freedom of Information Act (FoIA) and the Environmental Information Regulations (EIRs) are intended to provide a mechanism whereby information held by public authorities can be accessed by the public. The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee recently considered the disclosure of information from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia and concluded that e-mails revealed scientists encouraged colleagues to resist disclosure and delete e-mails, apparently to prevent disclosure through FoI requests. The case study presented here focuses on requests under FoI legislation to obtain climate information from the Met Office, particularly relating to assessments of global warming and causal relationships with greenhouse gas emissions. Evidence suggests both the CRU and the Met Office are part of a culture where institutional climate scientists are antagonistic towards disclosure of information. This has serious implications for both the effective operation of FoI legislation and the openness and transparency of climate change assessments.

Published in Environmental Law and Management, Volume 22, Issue 1, pgs 3-12

MOST scientific sceptics have been dismissive of the various reconstructions of temperature which suggest 1998 is the warmest year of the past millennium. Our case has been significantly bolstered over the last week with statistician Steve McIntyre finally getting access to data used by Keith Briffa, Tim Osborn and Phil Jones to support the idea that there has been an unprecedented upswing in temperatures over the last hundred years - the infamous hockey stick graph.

Mr McIntyre’s analysis of the data - which he had been asking for since 2003 - suggests that scientists at the Climate Research Unit of the United Kingdom’s Bureau of Meteorology have been using only a small subset of the available data to make their claims that recent years have been the hottest of the last millennium. When the entire data set is used, Mr McIntyre claims that the hockey stick shape disappears completely. (Yamal: A “Divergence” Problem, by Steve McIntyre, 27 September 2009)

Mr McIntyre has previously showed problems with the mathematics behind the ‘hockey stick’. But scientists at the Climate Research Centre, in particular Dr Briffa, have continuously republished claiming the upswing in temperatures over the last 100 years is real and not an artifact of the methodology used - as claimed by Mr McIntyre. However, these same scientists have denied Mr McIntyre access to all the data. Recently they were forced to make more data available to Mr McIntyre after they published in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society - a journal which unlike Nature and Science has strict policies on data archiving which it enforces.

If these guys can do it so can we....join the FaceBook group Fire James Hansen and network with people who may be able to protest in your area against Al Gore and James Hansen.....

ANYONE who denies global warming is in the pay of big oil. Remember that is what the big man, Al Gore, said in his movie ‘An Inconvenient Truth’. But like so much that Mr Gore says, it just isn’t true.

Updated below from Richard Courtney

We have received a few emails concerning our comments on Bloggers Tackle Global Warming Questions, we said at the time...Many people say to us how can the experts have it so wrong about CO2 and a warmer world, the answer to that is, the science of climate change did not exist at the time of the first analysis and was improvised with data that supports the "effect" of change" and NOT the "cause" of change. It is a classic case of a misdiagnosis of "cause and effect" with the "effect" being labeled the "cause".....This issue has appeared again recently from the JenniferMarohasy.Com site.

CENTRAL to discussion of climate change models is the concept of “forcing” and “feedback”. So, reference is made to global warming from radiative “forcing” from elevated concentrations of carbon dioxide in the troposphere and then “positive feedback from water vapour”, adding to global warming.

Everyone talks in these terms, and it is politically correct to do so. But there are two problems.

It's nice to feel your not the only blogging site who promotes an anti "Man Made Climate Change" campaign. Take time out to look at this YouTube concerning sites like ours, it has some very good points to make. Each time we find an article to promote on ClimateRealists.Com we feel that much closer to the end game.

Many people say to us how can the experts have it so wrong about CO2 and a warmer world, the answer to that is, the science of climate change did not exist at the time of the first analysis and was improvised with data that supports the "effect" of change" and NOT the "cause" of change. It is a classic case of a misdiagnosis of "cause and effect" with the "effect" being labeled the "cause".

We and other sites work several hours per day looking for material that supports our side of the argument, our webmaster gives up his free time to ensure an easy and trouble free running of the site. There are costs involved and the use of advertisement revenue helps, please feel free to look at the products on display as this reduces our cost. If you wish to make a donation to us, we have a donate area for such use.

BECAUSE the increase in the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide has correlated with an increase in the use of fossil fuels, causation has been assumed. Tom Quirk has tested this assumption including through an analysis of the time delay between northern and southern hemisphere variations in carbon dioxide. In a new paper in the journal Energy and Environment he writes:

“Over the last 20 years substantial amounts of CO2 derived from fossil fuel have been released into the atmosphere. This has moved from 5.0 gigatonnes of carbon in 1980 to 6.2 gigatonnes in 1990 to 7.0 gigatonnes in 2000… Over 95% of this CO2 has been released in the Northern Hemisphere… “A tracer for CO2 transport from the Northern Hemisphere to the Southern Hemisphere was provided by 14C created by nuclear weapons testing in the 1950’s and 1960’s.The analysis of 14C in atmospheric CO2 showed that it took some years for exchanges of CO2 between the hemispheres before the 14C was uniformly distributed…

Please click the following link to read FULL report

THERE are 3,000 free-drifting buoys in the world’s ocean; first deployed in the year 2000 they allow continuous monitoring of the temperature, salinity, and velocity of the upper ocean. There has though been some difficulty in interpreting the data from these buoys. Initial signs of cooling were dismissed as due to technical errors subsequently corrected based on a small sample of the 3,000 buoys known as profiling floats.

Please click source link to read FULL article

CLIMATE is complex and represents exactly the kind of system that cannot be modeled with any accuracy. At least that is according to Kesten Green, a forecasting expert at Monash University, Australia. Dr Green argues that a key question when trying to predict future climate is to ask: Can we do better than assume future temperatures will be the same as current temperatures?

In the following paper, based on a presentation to be given at the second international Climate Conference in New York later today, Dr Kesten explains that there is no scientific basis for the United Nation’s International Panel on Climate Change forecasts of global warming.

Climate change forecasts are useless for policymaking
By Kesten C. Green, J. Scott Armstrong, and Willie Soon

CLIMATE is complex but in an attempt to understand the effects of increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide on global temperatures simplified General Circulation Models (GCMs) have been developed and are used by the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Al Gore, in his famous movie ‘An Inconvenient Truth’, explained that as the concentration of carbon dioxide increases in the atmosphere, more energy is trapped, warming the planet. This assumption is central to the GCMs and the current consensus on climate change.

Some sceptics complain that the GCMs do not realistically simulate climate because there are many processes that can’t be adequately modelled including cloud formation. Michael Hammer, an engineer who specializes in spectroscopy, is also sceptical of the GCM but his criticism is more fundamental.

YESTERDAY, a former chief at NASA, Dr John S. Theon, slammed the computer models used to determine future climate claiming they are not scientific in part because the modellers have “resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists”. [1]

Today, a founder of the International Journal of Forecasting, Journal of Forecasting, International Institute of Forecasters, and International Symposium on Forecasting, and the author of Long-range Forecasting (1978, 1985), the Principles of Forecasting Handbook, and over 70 papers on forecasting, Dr J. Scott Armstrong, tabled a statement declaring that the forecasting process used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) lacks a scientific basis. [2]