Ian Plimer's 'Heaven & Earth' Checking the GHG/GW/CC Claims
Sean
Ian G. Enting
Version 2.0
ARC Centre of Excellence for
Mathematics and Statistics of Complex Systems
The University of Melbourne
Accessing this document
The intention is that the most recent version of this document will be
accessible from:
http://www.complex.org.au/tiki-download_file.php?fileId=91
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRO
Ian Plimer's book, Heaven + Earth-GlobalWarming: The Missing Science, claims
to demolish the theory of human-induced global warming due to the release of
CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
Overall:
it has numerous internal inconsistencies;
in spite of the extensive referencing, key data are unattributed and the
content of references is often mis-quoted. Most importantly, Ian Plimer
fails to establish his claim that the human influence on climate can be
ignored, relative to natural variations.
Ian Plimer's claim that the human influence on climate can be ignored,
relative to natural
variations, seems to rest on three main strands of argument:
a: the extent of natural variability is larger than considered in
'mainstream' analyses;
b: changes in radiative forcing from greenhouse gases have less effect than
determined in
'mainstream' analyses;
c: the IPCC uses a range of misrepresentations to conceal points a and b.
Among the many errors made in attempting to establish these claims, are
cases where Plimer:
- misrepresents the content of IPCC reports on at least 15 occasions as well
as misrepresenting the operation of the IPCC and the authorship of IPCC
reports;
- has at least 28 other instances of misrepresenting the content of cited
sources;
- has at least 2 graphs where checks show that the original is a plot of
something other than what Plimer claims and many others where data are
misrepresented;
- has at least 10 cases of misrepresenting data records in addition to some
instances (included in the total above) of misrepresenting data from cited
source.
Details of these various types of flaw can be obtained via the relevant
entries in the index.
A guide to how readers can independently check my claims is given on page
40.
46 page Open PDF Doc - can copy extracts
http://bravenewclimate.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/plimer2a0.pdf
More Info here
http://www.agu.org/ourscience/index.html
Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic carbon dioxide increasing?
Most of the carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted by human activity does not remain
in the atmosphere, but is instead absorbed by the oceans and terrestrial
ecosystems. In fact, only about 45% of emitted CO2 stays in the atmosphere.
However, some studies have suggested that the ability of oceans and plants
to absorb CO2recently may have begun to decline and that the airborne
fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions is therefore beginning to increase.
Many climate models also assume that the airborne fraction will increase.
Because understanding of the airborne fraction of CO2 is important for
predicting future climate change, it is essential to have accurate knowledge
of whether that fraction is changing or will change as emissions increase.
To assess whether the airborne fraction is indeed increasing, Knorr (2009)
reanalyzed available atmospheric CO2 and emissions data since 1850 and
considered the uncertainties in the data.
In contradiction to some recent studies, he found that the airborne fraction
of CO2 has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most
recent five decades.
View abstract
http://www.agu.org/cgi-bin/highlights/highlights.cgi?action=show&doi=10.1029/2009GL040613&jc=gl
NOTE : One needs to keep in mind that the CO2 that has been and is
increasingly being absorbed by the oceans is itself one of the problems that
is killing ecosystems and threastens fish stocks to a tipping point. Higher
ocean temperatures have their own downstream effects on the climate and
weather systems. All these issues are covered in the IPCC Reports.
It is not ONLY about GHGs in the atmosphere at all ....... so even if the
affect of CO2 in the atmosphere is not as high as currently thought Climate
Change is still an undeniable and irrefutable reality now.
---
The Working Group I contribution to the IPCC Fourth
Assessment Report describes progress in understanding of
the human and natural drivers of climate change,1 observed
climate change, climate processes and attribution, and
estimates of projected future climate change. It builds
upon past IPCC assessments and incorporates new fi ndings
from the past six years of research. Scientifi c progress
since the Third Assessment Report (TAR) is based upon
large amounts of new and more comprehensive data,
more sophisticated analyses of data, improvements in
understanding of processes and their simulation in models
and more extensive exploration of uncertainty ranges.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf
It's always worth taking the time to go to the SOURCE DOCUMENTS and decide
for yourself rather than listen to what other people say and tell you what
you think about it.
In this day and age that is called Liberty .... to be able to think for
yourself. :)
Bret Cahill
>
> Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic carbon dioxide increasing?
> Most of the carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted by human activity does not remain
> in the atmosphere, but is instead absorbed by the oceans and terrestrial
> ecosystems. In fact, only about 45% of emitted CO2 stays in the atmosphere.
> However, some studies have suggested that the ability of oceans and plants
> to absorb CO2recently may have begun to decline and that the airborne
> fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions is therefore beginning to increase.
>
> Many climate models also assume that the airborne fraction will increase.
> Because understanding of the airborne fraction of CO2 is important for
> predicting future climate change, it is essential to have accurate knowledge
> of whether that fraction is changing or will change as emissions increase.
>
> To assess whether the airborne fraction is indeed increasing, Knorr (2009)
> reanalyzed available atmospheric CO2 and emissions data since 1850 and
> considered the uncertainties in the data.
>
> In contradiction to some recent studies, he found that the airborne fraction
> of CO2 has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most
> recent five decades.
>
> View abstract
>
>
> NOTE : One needs to keep in mind that the CO2 that has been and is
> increasingly being absorbed by the oceans is itself one of the problems that
> is killing ecosystems and threastens fish stocks to a tipping point. Higher
> ocean temperatures have their own downstream effects on the climate and
> weather systems. All these issues are covered in the IPCC Reports.
>
> It is not ONLY about GHGs in the atmosphere at all ....... so even if the
> affect of CO2 in the atmosphere is not as high as currently thought Climate
> Change is still an undeniable and irrefutable reality now.
>
> ---
>
> The Working Group I contribution to the IPCC Fourth
>
> Assessment Report describes progress in understanding of
>
> the human and natural drivers of climate change,1 observed
>
> climate change, climate processes and attribution, and
>
> estimates of projected future climate change. It builds
>
> upon past IPCC assessments and incorporates new fi ndings
>
> from the past six years of research. Scientifi c progress
>
> since the Third Assessment Report (TAR) is based upon
>
> large amounts of new and more comprehensive data,
>
> more sophisticated analyses of data, improvements in
>
> understanding of processes and their simulation in models
>
> and more extensive exploration of uncertainty ranges.
>
> http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf
Stuff like this will scare away rightards.
I want to have a good time watching rightards try to change the issue.
I detect a conflict of interest.
> It's always worth taking the time to go to the SOURCE DOCUMENTS and decide
> for yourself rather than listen to what other people say and tell you what
> you think about it.
>
> In this day and age that is called Liberty .... to be able to think for
> yourself. :)
Libertarianism has never been about thinking for yourself. It's about
being so weak minded you don't know if you are coming or going.
Bret Cahill
bigfl...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Which is why many feel the need to belong, either left or right. Group
support compensating for their disorientation.
On the subject, Sean, did you watch the recent youtube link I
posted?"The fall of the republic" I liked the way they posted
documentation, and the cross referencing to other conspiracy
suspicions was well co ordinated.
(I wont add 'imho' because I only ever express my pov...and Im 'over'
humility...I 'knocked off the mility wink wink :-).
I see the whole specific episode emerging with the characteristics of
religion. Very compelling view from both sides. Of course, one could
also be observing a double bluff.
I wouldnt put anything beyond the money/power lobby.
BOfL
Fred Weiss
> Ian Plimer's book, Heaven + Earth-GlobalWarming: The Missing Science, claims
> to demolish the theory of human-induced global warming due to the release of
> CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
>
> Overall:
> it has numerous internal inconsistencies;
Well, gee, in that respect then it merely reflects the pseudo-science
he was investigating.
At least in Australia it is provoking open public debate and the
gov'ts attempt to ram through envirohysteric legislation is
encountering considerable opposition - and that even given the fact
that if any place on earth is experiencing severe climate conditions
at the moment it is Australia. (But then Australia always has).
Fred Weiss
Sean
<bigfl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7b986187-36c6-44aa...@u1g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
BOfL
-----------------
Aaaah, me neither brian. :) I always assume I am never in a position to know
and work from there. it's the safest bet in the long haul. the old tie up
your camel thingy , cheers
i missed link, can repost it ofr me pls.
Sean
"Fred Weiss" <fred...@papertig.com> wrote in message
news:a2f06a67-cbe7-4151...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
Fred Weiss
-------------------
Not sure where you get the *provoking* from... open public debate is quite
normal, and on this subject even more consistent , and quite widespread, the
main thing Ian Plimer provoked was ridicule and dismissiveness after his
moment in the sun.
Bret Cahill
>
> > Stuff like this will scare away rightards.
>
> > I want to have a good time watching rightards try to change the issue.
>
> > I detect a conflict of interest.
>
> > > It's always worth taking the time to go to the SOURCE DOCUMENTS and decide
> > > for yourself rather than listen to what other people say and tell you what
> > > you think about it.
>
> > > In this day and age that is called Liberty .... to be able to think for
> > > yourself. :)
>
> > Libertarianism has never been about thinking for yourself. It's about
> > being so weak minded you don't know if you are coming or going.
>
> > Bret Cahill- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Which is why many feel the need to belong, either left or right. Group
> support compensating for their disorientation.
A lot of libertarians are shocked that I disagree with other non
rightards. They are exactly like religious fundies -- any pluralism
whatsoever is too much for them.
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
> > to demolish the theory of human-induced global warming due to the release of
> > CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
>
> > Overall:
> > it has numerous internal inconsistencies;
>
> Well, gee, in that respect then it merely reflects the pseudo-science
> he was investigating.
Anyone notice how quickly Fred cut snipped the link below and tried to
change the issue?
Here I'll repost it:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf
Let's all watch Fred debunk the pseudo science on this link.
Here I'll repost it again so Fred can cut snip it a second time.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf
OK, Fred we're all sitting on the edges of our chairs holding our
breath.
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
> > claims
> > to demolish the theory of human-induced global warming due to the release
> > of
> > CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
>
> > Overall:
> > it has numerous internal inconsistencies;
>
> Well, gee, in that respect then it merely reflects the pseudo-science
> he was investigating.
>
> At least in Australia it is provoking open public debate and the
> gov'ts attempt to ram through envirohysteric legislation is
> encountering considerable opposition - and that even given the fact
> that if any place on earth is experiencing severe climate conditions
> at the moment it is Australia. (But then Australia always has).
>
> Fred Weiss
>
> -------------------
>
> Not sure where you get the *provoking* from...
No one knows where he get's _anything_ from, other than trying to have
everything both ways.
Three weeks ago he was ecstatic that the introduction of potato
farming in Greenland was proof that AGW was a good thing.
Now he's saying he knew all along that AGW was always a scam.
Rightards put out the same slapped together internally contradictory
nonsense with health care.
After spending 70 years trying to get granny off of Social Security
any way possible including an early death by cigarette smoking, Repugs
suddenly try to pretend they want granny on federal-state cooperative
programs as long as possible.
> open public debate is quite
> normal, and on this subject even more consistent , and quite widespread, the
> main thing Ian Plimer provoked was ridicule and dismissiveness after his
> moment in the sun.
Australia has a lot of coal. The price of oil will soar next year and
you will have a gazillion coal industry shills spreading nonsense.
Bret Cahill
Don H
BOfL
# The trouble with extrapolating from the past, especially the geological
past, is that - a new factor may wreck the trend of a time-series.
The Human Factor has now intruded. And while, prior to 1800 AD, human
impact on non-human Nature was negligible, since then it has become
significant, not only re air pollution, but in many ways.
The Sixth Great Extinction is now occurring (page 186 of Gore's latest
book); mostly due to us humans.
Human Population continues to increase, from its current 6.5 billion to
nine billion by 2050 (ibid 226-7).
Deforestation continues, and while Brazil and Indonesia may have a
rethink, our human (zoologic) attitude to bushland is - botanics are our
enemies (gives fuel for bushfires).
Our Technology is massive and ecologically destructive, while the
Profit-motive urges us on to better Progress, Development, Growth, etc.
So, while Climate Skeptics may concentrate on the niceties of CO2, they
tend to miss the bigger picture, of human impact generally.
The dinosaurs probably got a big surprise when they became extinct; and
so shall we.
Eunometic
> Ian Plimer's 'Heaven + Earth'-Checking the Claims
> Ian G. Enting
> Version 2.0
> ARC Centre of Excellence for
> Mathematics and Statistics of Complex Systems
> The University of Melbourne
>
> Accessing this document
> The intention is that the most recent version of this document will be
> accessible from:http://www.complex.org.au/tiki-download_file.php?fileId=91
>
> EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRO
>
> Ian Plimer's book, Heaven + Earth-GlobalWarming: The Missing Science, claims
> to demolish the theory of human-induced global warming due to the release of
> CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
>
> Overall:
> it has numerous internal inconsistencies;
> in spite of the extensive referencing, key data are unattributed and the
> content of references is often mis-quoted. Most importantly, Ian Plimer
> fails to establish his claim that the human influence on climate can be
> ignored, relative to natural variations.
>
This is of course a hack job on Plimer. A long book will have some
omisions and limitations in thoroughness. Its scarely possible for
Plimer to have the rerources of the monumental juggernaut that is the
IPCC at his disposale.
Plimer of course does show the paucity of the IPCC process and expose
the pomposity of it. Plimer, of all academics, is not alone.
If Plimer doesn't acheive his objective neither does the IPCC.
The climate models that attempt to create a causal link between
temperature change and CO2 increase are totally inadaquete. First of
all the computers are not powerfull enough and break the earth into
squares of about 200km x 200km and 10 layers deep. It isn't enough.
You need individual cloud modelling. We can build millions of iPhones
so we should be able to built a computer capable of doing the calcs.
By the time its finished in 5 years we'll have better data and
hopefully an uncorrupted peer review process as well as raw data
widely available.
Bill Ward
Now, there's a level of cynicism to which I can only aspire. I try and
try, but it's never enough...
Sean
What Plimer needs is simply the resources of the IPCC in order to get his
data and factsa right, and then it will be obvious how right he is.
Now as opposed to the IPCC who already have some extensive and competing
groups collating data, and building models .. well these outputs, well these
are all wrong. Why? Because the IPCC is fraudulent.
And Plimer isn't.
Man, why didn;t I see that before .. it;s a brilliant solution and then the
scientists can give us the REAL facts, and we can alll go home hapy.
Sheer BRILLIANCE -- !!! Nobel Prize standard imho.
Thx.
"Eunometic" <euno...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:3efc0b26-6cc1-4461...@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
bigfl...@gmail.com
Im making an observation of the levels of some historical human
motivation. Do you think the Pol Pots of this world were abberations
of the 20th century?
There motivation, after all, was based on seeing a 'polluted world',
and were attempting to 'put it right'
BOfL
tg
Since you are such an expert, perhaps you can answer The Question(s):
What is 'global climate'?
What does 'average temperature' mean?
Not holding breath,
-tg
Rod Speed
They arent unique to the 20th century if thats what you mean.
> There motivation, after all, was based on seeing a 'polluted world',
> and were attempting to 'put it right'
Thats very arguable.
Bret Cahill
> data and factsa right, and then it will be obvious how right he is.
The State of Texas once argued in court filings they couldn't afford
to fight me. I was just too powerful.
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
> omisions and limitations in thoroughness. Its scarely possible for
> Plimer to have the rerources of the monumental juggernaut that is the
> IPCC at his disposale.
Poor weedle oil bidness ain't got 'nuff dough to afford no
scientists . . .
Bret Cahill
Sean
"Bret Cahill" <BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:dbe005a3-d9a8-4377...@15g2000prz.googlegroups.com...
ROTFLMAO .. good one!! I belive it!! <smile>
Sean
"tg" <tgde...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:66eeff23-448e-4d69...@m33g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
Not holding breath,
-tg
-------------------------
and after that, maybe he could show me the SCIENCE peer reviewed of course
and the data that proves convoincingly that the Global Climate is ina
cooling phase since 1999 ..
How about juts one science paper that hsn't been peer-reviewed yet, but it
will prove this shift in global climate from warming to cooling post 1999
and that it IS based on SCIENCE .. would LOVE to see it.
bigfl...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thats what their ideals were. They disapproved of the world as they
saw it and wished to change it (and they did).From Ghandi, to Mao.
BOfL
Rod Speed
>>>> bigflet...@gmail.com wrote
>>>>> Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote
>> Thats very arguable.
> Thats what their ideals were.
Yes, but they werent the first to fuck things up very comprehensively indeed.
> They disapproved of the world as they saw it
Yes.
> and wished to change it
Yes.
> (and they did).
Some of them did, some of them didnt.
> From Ghandi, to Mao.
Ghandi changed sweet fuck all. Jinna in spades.
Pol Pot in spades.
Bill Ward
Dictators have always been around. In the 20th century, freedom began to
spread, and hopefully, dictatorships will be "aberrations" in the 21st,
unless we foolishly destroy the world economy with wealth
redistribution. Carbon taxes are a means to that end.
> There motivation, after all, was based on seeing a 'polluted world', and
> were attempting to 'put it right'
I suspect they just wanted power, and were able to seize and hold it for
a while. The secret weapon now is the simple fact that free people are
far more effective than slaves. We outnumber the would-be dictators.
tg
> "tg" <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
Sean, on this matter, I hold the science side somewhat responsible for
not communicating well enough, since you as well are caught up in what
is a meaningless debate.
In a complex system such as the planet, the idea of 'average
temperature' is really a crude proxy for the energy balance. It is
perfectly possible for all kinds of large-scale disruptions to occur,
even though the kind of 'average' temperature calculation being talked
about ***remains the same***.
At an even more basic grade-school physics level, consider the fact
that all the ice on Greenland and Antarctica, as well as all the sea
ice at both poles, could be melted while the temperature in the near
ocean area remains the same or goes *down*.
I leave it to the student to work out and explain, :-)
-tg
1Z
> This is of course a hack job on Plimer. A long book will have some
> omisions and limitations in thoroughness.
Someone who is crtiicising some *else's* science
needs to do better -- not "reflect" it as Fred stupidly
says.
Fred Weiss
I have heard such criticisms of Plimer's book. But he gets more than
enough right.
That of course is not difficult because the supposed science
underlying AGW is so bad it's like hitting the side of a barn.
Now of course the hoaxers have admitted as much themselves, so there's
really nothing much more to argue about.
Now it's just a question of how long their jail sentences need to be.
At the very least their careers should be finished. I understand
there's a good market in science fiction which has been their
speciality all along anyway.
Fred Weiss
Bret Cahill
Of course their communications aren't understood if their Emails were
hacked.
Courts don't allow illegally obtained communications for the same
reason. It is impossible for outside 3rd parties to know what private
communications mean.
Some militias are being monitored by gummint right now under the
Patriot Act but the illegally obtained communications will never end
up in the prosecution. Instead the feds will just use the information
to help get legally obtainable evidence, i. e., "we just happened to
be training 2 dozen Secret Service agents at the function when the
defendant pulled out a gun and aimed it at the president. We had no
idea he belonged to a hate group militia and was following Obama
around."
If what rightards were suggesting was true it should be duck soup to
come up with legitimate evidence that the researchers are frauds.
They don't.
Why not?
Because their isn't any.
> since you as well are caught up in what
> is a meaningless debate.
Exactly.
There are dozens of climate models and thousands of researchers so it
shouldn't be too surprising a few researchers and a model aren't
working perfectly.
AGW researchers probably want 3 sig fig precision.
A few weeks ago rightards were claiming that potato farming in
Greenland and oil drilling the Arctic was proof enough that AGW was
good.
Now they've reversed themselves again.
We see the same internal contradictions and flip flops with their
concern for granny.
After 70 years of trying to toss granny off of Social Security they
now try to pretend they want granny on SS as long as possible.
Bret Cahill
Rod Speed
They were in the 20th century too.
> unless we foolishly destroy the world economy with wealth redistribution.
That wont happen.
> Carbon taxes are a means to that end.
Nope, they wont destroy the world economy, even tho they dont make any sense.
>> There motivation, after all, was based on seeing a 'polluted world',
>> and were attempting to 'put it right'
> I suspect they just wanted power, and were able to seize and hold it for a while.
Its more complicated than that with individuals like Pol Pot and Mao and Ghandi.
Ghandi never did get that much power.
> The secret weapon now is the simple fact that
> free people are far more effective than slaves.
Tell that to china. Dont be too surprised when they just laugh in your face.
> We outnumber the would-be dictators.
Thats never stopped them before.
tg
...
Don't tell me you're stumped by the 8th grade physics question, Bret.
-tg