JohnB

iNow You are missing the point. The best thing I can do is give you an analogy. Just about everybody here would know what a "Trireme" is, just by reading the word you have a mental picture of a big boat and banks of oars. Now the simple fact is that we have never found one. There is no direct physical evidence that they ever existed at all. All we have are 500 years worth of records and writings and pictures on walls. Now let us suppose that a very bright engineer comes along and creates a computer model that says it is impossible to build a wooden vessel with three banks of oars. (And a reconstruction is essentially a computer model) What now? He's got computers and engineering and really smart and complicated maths on his side, all I've got is 500 years worth of eyewitness observations of these craft and some pictures on some walls. Do I chuck out all the written records believing the chroniclers to be deluded in some way or do I assume that there is something wrong with the reconstruction? Your argument is that the reconstruction should be trusted and not the hundreds of years of written records. Mine is the opposite, I think that the theoretical reconstuction should match the observed records and if it doesn't that it is the construct that is flawed, not reality. I don't want to paint this as a fight between historians and climatologists because the information they provide is like apples and oranges. Concerning climate the historian can give us a qualatative answer as to whether a certain area was warmer or colder than today, the climatologist strives to give a quantative answer, two very different things. However the two should agree on the basics. This is where things like wine grapes in England become important. The extent of the vinyards and their seasons can tell us much about relative warmth but not absolute variance. If grapes could be cultivted then in areas where they cannot be grown now, then we can know that it was warmer then, but not by how much. So the two should agree on direction if not amount. The trouble starts when the climatologist says that it was cooler and the written records say it was warmer. Similarly the historian can tell us how fast the climate changed but he can't put a number to it. To use a snow example. If in 1 AD it snowed in London only in December, but by 50 AD it was snowing from mid November to mid January and by 100 AD it was snowing from mid October to sometime in February then we know the climate changed a lot and quite quickly. If the reconstructions say the change was slow, then they must wrong as that would go against the observed information. Either that or the reconstructions are correct and hundreds of chroniclers really had no idea what month it was. I know which way I would bet. I'm not out to denigrate the theoreticist, but the simple fact here is that the historian is dealing with written observations and direct physical evidence while the climatologist is using a theoretical computer model. The climatologist relies on the correct interpretation of temperature proxies for reconstructions while the historian is reading what was written at the time. Your question is "Why should we trust the historian over the paleoclimatologist concerning climate in the historical period?" That the question is even asked is concerning to me. What proof are you using to show the theoretical reconstructions are correct? That they agree with other theoretical reconstructions. At what point and exactly how are these reconstructions going to be compared to reality to see if they are correct? What we have circular reasoning. "The reconstructions are correct because they agree with each other and they agree with each other because they are correct". The reasoning will remain circular until the reconstructions are compared to something that is not a theoretical reconstruction. Now let's talk about "Independent" for a bit. Climatology uses this word in ways that I have never seen in any dictionary. The names Mann, Briffa, Hughes, Schweingruber and a few others turn up again and again. The same people using the same few proxies and similar methods are getting similar answers. This is not "Independent" verification under any meaning of the word that I am familiar with. Calling it such is at best misleading (because of the practice of only showing the primary author you actually have to dig to see who was really involved) and at worst is a flat out lie. My wife and I have a small business. I do the books and my wife and brother check them, then my wife and I check them and lastly my brother and I check them. By climatological standards my business' books have been "Independently verified" 3 times. Good luck with the Tax office on that one. My view is consistent, that neither example given are "Independently verified". If you think that my business books are not "Independently verified" then please explain the difference. Try a different example. You have 5 judges, A to E. A, B and C sit on the first inquiry. A, B, and D sit on the second and C, D and E sit on the third. Are they "Independent"? This is a yes or no answer and I say "No". I would also say that anybody putting them forward as "Independent" was a liar, at the very least they would be spreading misinformation with intent to decieve. So have a closer look at the graph from Rob Wilson and see who the full author list is for each paper and who they have worked with and you'll see far less independence than you would think. Interestingly the ones who are "Independent" are the ones furthest from the IPCC and the MBH black line in the graph. One thing I have a problem with in the spaghetti graphs is colour, some just don't seem to reproduce well and this makes it difficult sometimes to identify which curve is which, but I hope I'll be clear here. The graph is in degrees C and shows a number of reconstructions and how they compare to the IPCC and MBH. these graphs are generally referred to as being in agreement simply because each curve falls within the uncertainty range of the others, but let's have a closer look. The IPCC/MBH black line from 1,000 to 1,300 AD is virtually trendless yet the lower two which I think are Moberg and Esper show a drop in temperature of between .6 and .8 degrees for the same period. Huang 2004 opens in 1500 a full .4 degrees colder than MBH does, in fact by 1500 6 of the 8 reconstructions are colder than MBH. Consider these differences in the light of the current warming of .7 degrees over 150 years, the difference between Moberg and MBH in 1300 is greater than the entire warming of the current period. Here we are trying to establish attribution of warming on centennial scales with an accuracy of a few hundredths of a degree and our reconstructions have trouble getting within .3 degrees of each other. Attribution boils down to saying that of the .7 degrees of warming .1 was due to this cause, .2 was due to that cause, etc. Now supposedly we are able to do this by hindcasting against the reconstructions, but the reconstructions vary by up to .8 of a degree. Paleoclimate attribution is like trying to work out what exact proportions of red, blue and yellow paint were used in an old painting but the painting is viewed through a filter of unknown strength that will distort the colours by at least 20% in an unknown direction. The bottom line is that you can't extrapolate or infer accurate data when there is none. If there is no data then there is no data. The folly is in imagining that a computer model can create data and in defending this idea. Essay I found them bloody silly. The funny thing is that I think the CRU guys are probably pretty good scientists, just bloody awful record managers. So instead of admitting that and working from there they tried to hide the fact. Remember what started it all, a request for the list of stations used to construct the temperature record. 120 odd stations were used, which ones were they? That was the initial request, either the original data or the list of stations with their GHCN numbers. This shouldn't have been a problem. But the story went from "We don't have the data" to "We do have the data but can only give it to qualified researchers" to "We do have the data but it's not in the interests of National Security to give it to you." to "We do have the data but we have confidentiality agreements with other nations and can't release it to you". That was where the fun started because the obvious question was "With which nations? And I'll ask them myself". The response to that was "We don't know which nations, we lost the list in an office move" which changed to (and I loved this one) "We can't tell you because we have confidentiality agreements about saying who we have confidentiality agreements with". It was that last which led to the large number of FOI requests as people were told that they would have to ask about each nation individually as to confidentiality agreements. This forced people to lodge multiple FOI requests each asking "Do you have a confidentiality agreement with nation A?" Meanwhile places like RC and others were piling up the BS saying that the information was "already available" and going to great pains to try to show how the poor climate scientists were being harassed by the nasty deniers. Unfortunately the FOI Commissioner in England didn't see it that way at all and ruled that the information was not available and should have been handed over. Which is when CRU admitted that they had in fact, deleted all the original data and only kept the "value added" data and that they had lost the list of which stations were used in the constructions. I would also point out in passing that a check of UEA records do not find any confidentiality agreements and that Dr. Phil Jones, head of the CRU as he might be, does not have the authority to enter into such agreements by the Rules of Conduct of the UEA. What was done was not proper and was not ethical and in at least one case was illegal. The only thing that prevented prosecution was a six month clause in the legislation. If not for that clause it is almost certain (99.9%) that Dr Jones would have faced criminal proceedings. But why all the secrecy? Why the hiding of data and information? Science is supposed to be open and transparent with data available so that others can check and replicate. This is basic stuff but it goes to the very principles that scientific endeavour is founded upon. And why the deafening silence from other scientists? Why is it us plebs having to quote Popper and Feynmann and not the scientific community? Maybe if you had read the bloggers instead of reading about them you would have a better idea of the true situation and how it came about. The thing I find interesting is that the "warmer" sites go out of their way to avoid mention of the others, they only want you to hear one side. They want you to hear their arguments and their rebuttals to what they say our arguments are. The sceptics OTOH have a full listing of blogs and sites and invite people to read both sides, the arguments and counter arguments, and decide for themselves. Some like to liken my side to "anti evolutionists" or similar but the fact is that creationists do not link to evolutionist sites but evolutionists do link to creationist ones. So which side behaves like creationists? Good question, and probably the biggy. Conspiracy or hoax? No, definitely not. For some advocates it might be a quasi religious crusade. Anybody that's paid attention since the 1960s knows that every problem on the planet is due to the evils of western decadence and economies. The simple fact is that there are neo-Malthusians who would dearly love to see a few billion dead humans to reduce the "blight" on the planet. These people will use anything they can to further their cause and quite a few of them are high up in the UN and "Green" organisations. While this group probably does include a few scientists I doubt the number is large. Being trained in science doesn't stop someone from holding really funny ideas in some areas. While I would expect the percentage to be less in those trained in logical thought I do assume that "scientists" as a group are human which means that there will be neo-Malthusians in there, just as there would be amoung plumbers, politicians and race car drivers. I should add here that I view advocacy as the opposite to science. Science is above all dispassionate, the facts are what the facts are. An advocate is emotionally involved and is no longer dispassionate or impartial. Historically I think the CO2 scare and obsession will come to be viewed as the 21st Century "Phlogiston". It has taken quite some time for the science of Ecology to get over the misguided idea of a "Balance of Nature" and it will take some time for climatology to get over its CO2 fixation. In a sense it is misguided belief based on some flawed assumptions right at the very beginning of climatology. Instead of the story changing to fit the facts and increased knowledge, all new facts had to be made to fit the narrative and reigning belief system. Going right back to the start of the science of climatology it was believed that planetary climate changed very slowly, around .1 degree per century. These "Gradualists" were opposed by the "Catastrophists" who said climate could change a lot and rapidly. However the Gradualists held the positions of power and tended to promote those who agreed with them Nothing new in that, it's just normal human behaviour. By the 1970s we were collecting (and had collected) a large amount of data that said the climate was changing rapidly. The Gradualists were faced with a choice, either their beliefs were wrong (along with their theories and prestige) or the theory was right and there was a new factor involved. By making CO2 the primary climate driver the Gradualists were able to keep their reputations, positions and theories intact. Note for example that the original Hockeystick is a perfect representation of what a Gradualist believes about climate change. Note also that the author of that paper with his freshly minted PhD suddenly became a "World Authority" and Lead Author of the TAR chapter on paleoclimate. Agree with the boss and get promoted, perfectly normal and perfectly human. How it goes on from there is again perfectly normal and perfectly human. There is avery good discussion about "Error Cascades" over at Judith Currys blog. Like me, the author of the blog she quotes suffered from "Consilience failure" early on. This occurs when a finding of a new science contradicts a well established fact of another, older and better researched science. The example of the Trireme I gave above is an example of Consilience Failure. So far climatology hasn't hit the other sciences too hard. However if we head into a new Maunder I would expect there to be some very large fireworks between the Solar Physicists and the Climatologists. Remember that according to the climatologists the difference in baseline output from the Sun is only .5 W/m-2 to go from a Maunder to a Solar maximum, so if the Solar boys measure a greater difference than that in baseline output, then sparks will fly. I would also point out that since 2011 wasn't all that warm we are back to "no statistically significant warming" since 1995. So since 1980 we have had 15 years of warming and 17 years of bugger all. Explain to me how that happens in the face of supposedly constantly increasing warm forcing by increasing CO2? Where is the missing heat? I kind of like Kevin Trenberths magical heat, it goes from the surface to 3,000 metres under the ocean without going past a single ARGO bouy. That is a neat trick. I would also like to comment on another area of concern, the "consistent with" research. Quite often when reading climate papers I read that the findings are "consistent with" AGW theory. The problem is that they are also very often "consistent with" warming by natural causes. In truth many findings are "consistent with" warming from any cause and as such do not strengthen the AGW case even if quoted as such. But this reversal is a concern as well. I was taught that science was about falsifying the theory, looking for evidence that contradicts the theory. In climate we see way too much of looking for things that confirm the theory. That isn't how things are supposed to work. As to Greenhouse Theory itself, my view is a bit hard to describe. The idea of GHGs warming the planet is fine, the observed fact is that we are warmer than we should be under straight S-B equations. At the same time I find the AGW theory to be extemely simplistic. Some models for example provide a very linear increase in temperature for an increase in forcing. Since the climate is a very complex non linear system I find this simplicity curious and worrying to say the least. It's like a little voice in the back of my mind saying "In such a complex system, it can't be that simple."

Strangely enough it's the reverse. To believe some of the things put forward as support for the warmers would require I ignore vast amounts of evidence from other fields. As you're probably aware I've read quite a bit of history, while Pharonic Egypt is my main area I've read a lot of general history covering the rise of Western culture. To take one simple example, the iconic "Hockeystick". People can argue the maths and statistics all they want but there is a simpler and more profound choice here. If the HS and its gentle decrease in temps is correct, then every chronicler and historian for the last 1,000 years has been wrong. Not some of them, but all of them. To accept the HS as reality requires that I accept that chroniclers in the 1500s didn't know in month the first snow fell each year and recorded it incorrectly in their records. "Minoan Warm Period", "Roman Warm Period", Medieval Warm Period", "Little Ice Age", who named these events and why? I'll give you a hint, it wasn't climatologists. These periods got their names because of what the records described as the conditions at the time. A valid argument here is that there weren't thermometers so we don't know what the temps actually were, and this argument (as far as it goes) is correct. We cannot know the temp absolutely, but we can know it relatively. If the chroniclers tell us that in say 1 AD it snowed in London each December but by 100 AD it snowed in London from mid November to mid January, then we can tell that the climate was colder in 100 AD than 1 AD. By 500 AD it snowed from November to the end of January then it was colder still. Now if by 1,000 AD it was back to snowing in London in December only then it must have warmed up again, right? But then the cold came again culminating with the "Ice Fairs" on the Thames river, the last one was in 1825 IIRC. And then it started to warm again coming into the modern period. I've just used London as an example but we have records, very detailed ones, from Europe all the way to China. One of the early Papal instructions was that each Catholic priest was to write a weekly report of the goings on in his area and forward it to Rome. Weekly reports from all Christendom, who was born, who died, who was married, how many sheep were born in a given week, whenthe first frost came. Historians have had access to these records for over 20 years. The various periods were named because of what is contained in the written records from the times. The records tell us that there is a warm/cold cycle that runs on about a 1,000 year period, the paleoclimate reconstructions say that there isn't. You might be able to find 97% of climatologists who agree with the HS, but you won't find any historians that do. So there is the choice. Do you believe the reconstructions and therefore also believe that for at least the last 1,000 years every historian could not even write down correctly what month it snowed in? Or do you accept the historical and archaeological record which means the HS is junk? There is no middle ground on this one. If the reconstructions are wrong, then any model conclusions based on them must be wrong too. Even "but it's based on physics" doesn't cut the mustard. If the model output disagrees with the historical record, then the model must be wrong. (Or incomplete, which I think is a better term) But here is a bit of fun for you. Climate is average weather or pretty close to. If you wanted to know the average weather for a region in the last 4,000 years or so who would you ask? Most people would say an archaeologist or historian depending on region and time period. The fun part is this. Find the historian or archaeologist that has served with any of the IPCC reports. I've always thought it very odd that when writing a report on climate change and its effects on societies the only people not asked to contribute are those who study the effects of climate on societies for a living. So it's not that I ignore evidence, it's that to accept some of the things AGW is based on I would have to ignore almost the entire written history of Western civilisation. I simply can't put a theoretical construct ahead of thousands of years of actual observations.

That was my thought too, but it just doesn't fit the evidence. There have been five major extinction events on this planet and every time the beasties have come back bigger and badder, (More or less) Even after the destruction of the dinosaurs and the rise of mammals we had some pretty impressive beasties. The Indricothere was 4.5 metres at the shoulder and weighed in at 15 tonnes. Over geological timespans it can be argued that "big is better" on the basis that the Sauropods/Titanosaurs were found everywhere and survived longer than any breed of predator they had. Starting in the late Jurrasic these massive beats walked the Earth for over 100 million years and only died out with the others 65 million years ago. A pretty impressive record. It is interesting to note that in general the earlier creatures in this group were larger then the later ones. The Siesmosaurus (How cool is that for a name? Says it all in one word) was significantly larger than the later Brachiosaur from the same species. As the Indricothere above shows, even after the dinos the beasties were still pretty big. 35 million years after the big impact, the mammals are showing that size matters. Similarly it didn't take the birds very long to evolve into the rather large "Terror Birds" in South America. The thing is that you can pick any Age and the top of the food chain has always been a honking big critter. Even the early amphibians had their group of large predators. This is what kills the "environmental shift" idea. One supercontinent or a wad of smaller ones, warmer than today or a 100 million year Ice Age, the big beasties were always bigger than today. It didn't really matter how the climate changed or the plantlife changed, big beasties evolved to survive the climate and eat the plants. Until recently, say the last 3 million years or so. "Bigger" has been a very successful adaptation for at least 300 million years and yet now it isn't. Why not? With the air pressure thing I don't have a dog in that fight. However, if the laws of aerodynamics say that the large pterosaurs could only fly in an atmosphere of 2 bar or more, I'm willing to accept that. They had to be able to take off. The idea of a creature surviving as long as the genus did if they had to walk back up the hill is crazy. Light boned and ungainly on the ground they would be easy pickings for any available predator. Besides, I frankly don't see what is so terrifying about the concept of planetary atmospheric pressure changing over geological timespans. (Every other thing does) Moontanman. What I meant by "primitive circularory systems" was a whole picture thing. In one respect all circulatory systems are equally efficient, they either deliver nutrients to all cells and remove wastes from all cells, or the creature dies. But how they do this can vary in efficiency. Since a circulatory system must reach all cells in the creatures body then the only way that a system can evolve is in efficiency, it already has 100% coverage. This means we are faced with three possibilities; 1/ Circulatory systems have evolved and are more efficient. 2/ Circulatory systems have not evolved and are the same efficiency as 65 million years ago. 3/ Circulatory systems have devolved and are less efficient than 65 million years ago. Since number 1 is the only viable option then modern systems must be more developed than earlier ones and therefore the early ones by definition must be "primitive" compared to modern ones. Birds don't count because they are modern creatures with modern systems. A birds system is advanced compared to its primitive dinosaur ancestor. Unfortunately there is a lack of fossilised soft tissue around so the point is a bit moot. I'm simply assuming that circulatory systems have evolved rather than devolved in the last 65 million years.

Like I said, I'm not sure I agree with the idea. However the logic seems to work this way. All the CO2 that is currently in fossil fuels as well as chalk and marble deposits was at one time in the atmosphere. It seems to be ignoring the flux of the carbon cycle to a degree, but the essential point is valid. The CO2 must have been in the atmosphere for the plants and animals to absorb it. I guess I find it attractive because I've always wondered how the primitive circulatory systems of the dinosaurs were albe to provide oxygen and nutrients to the cells. That blood has a very long way to travel in a Brachiosaur. A higher atmospheric pressure would increase the effectiveness of the circulatory system, it would be like living in a hyperbaric chamber. Even if the proportions are the same the partial pressures would mean twice as much oxygen per litre at 2 bar than is available today.

Yah. The thing is that painting with the very broad brush as you did, you placed me squarely into a very insulting position. As I take the opposite view to you then comments like; Mean that you are calling me a liar. I must either agree or be a liar, these are the two options you give. Well I DO disagree and I find the unsubstantiated claim that I'm a liar highly offensive. Similarly I would like to think that I have at all times demonstrated "integrity, coherence, consistency, and a respect for evidence". If I have failed in this then please specify where. Otherwise I suggest you retract the comment that I am a liar or ignorant. Similarly As you are well aware I always strive to back up enerything I say with factual peer reviewed literature yet I'm somehow not approaching things accurately and I'm not grounded in reality? Do you really think I'm making my arguments in bad faith? Placing ideology over facts? As for politics getting in the way of evidence I'm not even from your bloody country so I frankly don't give a rats arse about yankee politics. What next? Am I going to be accused of being an Exxon plant? A paid provocateur who gets his cheque every month just for keeping the "Denialist Machine" rolling? That's the problem when you swallow propaganda, you start believing things about people you know, that you know simply aren't true. PS. When I get to your neck of the woods the first tequila is on me and we both promise not to discuss climate until we are able to lie on the floor without holding on.

So the climate is changing. And in a changing climate the spread and/or behaviour of fauna and flora is likely to change. Congratulations. You are now at the point we sceptics were at about 30 years ago. WRT climate there are really only three things to discuss. In order they are; 1. Are the future predictions/projections accurate? 2. If so, does this constitute a problem? 3. If so, what can/should we do about it? Dealing with just the first question for the moment. Firstly I haven't heard of the predicted 4.5 billion people dieing by 2012, but I don't watch TV much so I suppose I simply missed such a minor item. Nor, as far as I'm aware has anybody seen any of the predicted 50 million "climate refugees" that were supposed to be on the move by 2010. Not doing too well so far, are we? Let's try Sea Level rise, that's always good for a scary story. Bugger. Only 1.7 mm per year and no acceleration. I know! Antarctica is warming up and melting. That one was even worth the cover of "Nature". Which was exactly what the models predicted, you have a "hit". Oh wait, due to very poor statistical techniques the warming of the Antarctic Peninsula was simply smeared over the rest of the continent. In fact most of Antarctica has been cooling while the peninsula warmed. Interestingly there is a recent press release from the same Dr Steig concerning the calving of a very large iceberg. We've gone over the predictions for increased "extreme" weather and found that there is no joy there. No discernable increase in hurricanes, tornadoes, rain or hail. Down here we had the predictions that drought was the "new normal", but then it rained, and rained, and rained........ We had the predictions that snow would be a thing of the past for the northern hemisphere because low snow was what the models said would happen. Then the north got socked in for 3 years running and suddenly (post facto) the predictions changed to "more snow". How about the predictions that malaria would spread? Pity that got squashed by the malaria experts. How about we compare the model predictions with reality? (A frightening thought for some people. ) Lucia has been looking at that particular point. As can be easily seen, with the model runs beginning in 1989 and using the SRES A1B scenario, the model predictions for temperature are now outside the 2 sigma range when compared to the major temperature series. So, put bluntly the models are currently incapable of getting it right when we already know the answer, so their predictive ability for the future is around zero. But just for fun, here is a whole page of failed predictions. There is also Figure 9.1 from AR4 WG1 9.2.2.1. Note section C in the figure. This shows the predicted enfanced warming due to increased GHG emissions, the tropical troposphere is supposed to be warming at around 1.5 times the rate that the surface is. Specifically this is a "fingerprint" for anthropogenic warming and its existence would prove the AGW case. What a pity the prediction is wrong and there is no "hot spot". The only "hits" that the AGW theory has managed when it comes to predictions are the ones that are so general that they can be applied to a changing climate from any cause. "There will be more snow in some areas and less snow in others", "Some places will get warmer faster than others and some other places will cool a bit", "Some places will get more rain and some places will get less", "With a changing climate the spread of plant species will probably change". You can't fail to "win" if you place a bet each way. I could get the same answers out of a bunch of primary school kiddies. So how about some specific and accurate predictions? Then and only then can you ask others to "do something" about "the problem". At the moment you can't even show that a problem will exist, let alone that it needs solving.

Actually Essay, in the OP I was wondering if setting "climate" as 30 year trends is a good thing or whether it could mislead us. Even in a totally regular warming/cooling cycle the "30 year trend" would be well behind the reality and almost always wrong. I was trying to show that perhaps only looking at 30 year trends could be just as misleading as only looking at any other length trend. Trends should be looked at in context. WRT temps, there has been no trend for the last 10 years, a definite warming trend for the last 30 years and a definite cooling trend for the last 8,000 years. TBH I think that there is more politics than science that goes into trend descriptions. For a science that deals exclusively with a chaotic, non linear system Climatology seems obsessed with drawing straight lines through things. I cannot think of a single valid scientific reason that it is thought to be more accurate to say "We have had warming for 30 years at .11 degrees per decade" than to say "We had warming from 1980-2000 at .16 degrees per decade, but not much has happened since then." Both statements are technically true, but I think the first is misleading as it doesn't reflect the true state of affairs. Okay, a bit broad brushed there. I was actually thinking of the serial false excuses given by the CRU as to why they could not release their data. Ya, I have a strange view of the world. I happen to think that those who are involved in serial efforts to lie and obfuscate are themselves liars and are not worthy of my respect and trust. I have this really funny notion that people who lie in response to rather basic FOI requests will also lie in other areas.

At irregular intervals I try to understand Lorentz Transformations without having my brains drain from my ears. Perhaps like others I can understand the logic as given by swansonts link, but I can't conceptualise it all. I see how causality is violated due to the pretty slanted lines in the diagram, but I don't see how it works. I think of it this way. Say I have 4 ships each at a different star some 10 LY from Earth and each star is 10 LY from its neighbour. A ship takes 1 week to travel 10 LY. I send out a ship with a recall message. So the recall ship arrives at Star A after 1 week and passes on the message. The recall ship heads to the next Star while the Star A ship heads home. At the end of the second week the Star A ship arrives home and the recall ship arrives at Star B. At the end of the third week, the ship from Star B arrives home and the recall ship is at Star C. At the end of the fourth week the ship from Star C arrives home and the recall ship is at Star D. At the end of the fifth week both the Star D ship and the recall ship arrive home. How is causality violated? Or is there no transformation because the ships awaiting the recall are sort of "at rest" and are therefore in the same frame as I am? Now for the biggy. It strikes me that one definition of Minkowski Spacetime is that it is a construct where FTL will result in causality violations. What if when travelling FTL you are no longer in Minkowski Spacetime? Why would the same rules apply. Because I'm at the "really dumb" end of the relativity spectrum here I'm thinking in similar terms to geometry. One could define Euclidian geometry as a world where parallel lines remain the same distance apart. As soon as this basis changes, then you are no longer in Euclidian space and the rules don't apply. Probably very wrongly I'm thinking of Minkowski as defining the geometry of spacetime in a similar fashion to Euclid and surfaces. Another question that I have to ask is "Does relativity apply to dark matter and energy?" I just can't see why it would. DM virtually ignores the world of baryonic matter and the EM spectrum. Why would rules formulated to describe and dependent upon the baryonic world and the EM spectrum have any relevence to non baryonic matter and non EM forms of energy?

It's something I've been considering lately and wondered if anyone had an answer. Excluding the megafauna which died out relatively recently, the current crop of fauna on the planet are the smallest they've ever been. Why? Going back through all the various ages shows that animals and fish were a lot bigger before than they are now. Pick any era and the waterlife will dwarf everything except a Blue whale while the land predators would find an elephant "snack worthy". Pre reptiles, mammal like reptiles, reptiles and mammals, the rule for over 500 million years was "Big is better". The top of the food chain was always the biggest, meanest carnivore around. So what changed? I think one of the more interesting ideas has been put forward by Octave Levenspiel from Oregon State. His two relevent webpages are; http://levenspiel.com/octave/dinosaurs.htm http://levenspiel.com/octave/dinosaur2.htm While I'm not backing it, his idea that atmospheric pressure was higher in the past than it is today would solve some problems. (And explain why the wing loading for some of the pteranodons is so wrong for flying.)

Jeez, and you wonder why I doubt your balance WRT American politics? Your side are akin to angels and my side are all liars, cheats, thieves, etc. So how's the weather in the US, Cyclops? Integrity? Would that be Mr. Cook over at SkS post facto editing of posts and comments? Or maybe Stefan Rahmstorf from Realclimate who was so free with falsehoods that the journalist concerned took him to court and wiped the floor with him. Of interest and showing the high integrity you are espousing; So you can make false claims, get wiped in court and rewrite history but in the eyes of the believers you are still of integrity and don't lie. Similarly you can conspire with others to break the bloody law and that still gets a free pass. (Phil Jones and others) You can outright lie in official responses to FOI applications and that still keeps you on the side of the angels. So I'm now officially curious, what does it take to get out of the believers good books? We already know that lieing, cheating, misrepresentation and deletion of data isn't enough, so what is? Like it or not, there are people who have good reasons to disagree with the consensus position. Firstly and foremost is that science isn't a popularity contest. There is only one vote and Mother Nature has it, the opinion of 100,000 scentists is immaterial compared to her one vote. Climate is a complex subject which is why sceptical science isn't the greatest site to understand it. Frankly the answers are too simplistic. You must understand that they are not arguing a conclusion from the evidence, they present evidence for a foregone conclusion. (Something else that doesn't match the accepted scientific method). Let's take the "Sun" argument. Temps tracked the Solar TSI quite well up to the 80s or thereabouts. This is used as evidence that warming since 1980 or so can't be sun related. This is true as far as it goes, but it doesn't tell the whole story. There are many ways that the sun could influence the climate and we are only just starting to work these out. Length of solar cycle may be inportant, we don't know as we only have 23 of them to compare to. Similarly the content of the solar TSI can have an effect. The IR that warms the planet mostly comes from converted UV and not direct IR from the sun. If the content of the TSI were to change with it having more UV then there would be more OLR and the planet would warm. We simply don't have the relevent data to know what happened in that respect. Similarly the rather bizarre claim is made by SkS that climate is not "cyclic". since there are already identified cycles ranging from 11 to 200,000 years in length, then it can't be anything but "cyclic". On that particular point and demonstrating that it could indeed be "just natural" I present Dr Nicola Scafettas new paper.(In Press) Current model GCMs do not show the major decadal and multi decadal ocsillations very well and the models used by the IPCC for their 2007 report are so far off base that it isn't funny any more. A good test of a theory is its predictive power. So far the predictive power of GCMs that rely on the CO2 theory is quite poor. Dr Scafettas model based on impirical science and not theoretical science is doing much better, it is also more in accord with the leaked version of AR5, that we won't be seeing warming again for another 20 years or so. (There is nothing wrong with theoretical science per se, but I'll take a model based on impirical observations and physical first principles over a theoretical one any day.) In short, rubbish. The changes in the latter part of the 20th century are quite well within the parameters of natural climate change. Of the three warming periods since 1850 or so only the 1970-2000 warming is blamed on CO2. Its length is that same as the 1910-1940 warming period and the 1850-1880 warming period. The rate of warming for all three periods was around the .16 degree/decade mark and the three periods are statistically indistinguishable. So taken individually the most recent warming is not unusual in any way, either by "pace" or "scope". Some claim that in this case "scope" means the entire planet is warming and content that earlier warming periods, like the MWP were only local is scope and not global events thus making the 20th century warming "unusual". This is a lie. http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/MedievalWarmPeriod.html The above link will take you a page showing 43 different temp reconstructions with locations from Antarctica to Greenland. It will also be noted that many of these reconstructions show the MWP as warmer than today. Again considering SkS, which denies these observed facts and claims that the MWP was local to the NH only, what does that say about their "integrity" and "respect for evidence"? But a bit more evidence about "pace and scope". The warming that some people are panicking about is the top one third of the little uptick on the very right hand end. Some might argue that it is unfair to only use one ice core as representative of the entire planet, however I do find it odd that warmers might claim this when they are quite happy to use one ice core to represent the planetary temperature when they want to compare it to CO2 over the last 800,000 years. In one respect I agree with iNow. People should listen to those who demonstrate integrity, openness and respect for evidence. A reading of both sides of the argument will quickly show those of average intelligence and who have a moral compass which side demonstrates these attributes. Which side encourages question and which side tries to shut down debate. Which side is open and constantly publishes code and data and which side constantly fight the release of code and data. Which side can be shown to have lied constantly on official documents. BTW iNow. Now that you have been shown by the evidence that neither the most recent warming period from 1970-2000 nor the rather mild warming from 1850-2000 are in any way unusual or outside the limits of natural variability then I can expect you to refrain from spreading the disinformation that the recent warming is "unprecedented" or "unusual" in either "pace or scope" in the future?

Are they? Really? Let's have a look at that NOAA piece you quoted, the first two points. What a piece of brilliant deduction. Either increased or decreased snow could have an impact. In fact any change in the regional climate in either direction could have an impact. No sh*t sherlock. The NOAA piece doesn't actually say anything definitive at all. An increase in the regional amounts of unicorn poo could have an impact as well. While I do applaud NOAA for its very careful phrasing, its information really isn't much use for predictive purposes. So what is the situation and are the concerns valid? Well the USA did declare the polar bear to be endangered. However the methodology used for that finding has been challenged. Personally I would think that if the bloke who wrote the textbook on forecasting says your methods are wrong, then they are probably wrong. We do know that since the curb on hunting, the numbers have gone up since the 60s when the population was estimated to be about 5,000 to an estimated 25,000. So there is certainly less cause for concern than there was. The population figures IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group claim that a number of the populations are declining however this claim is at odds with the experience of local hunters. Again, and this is purely a personal view, but I would tend to think that people who live in the area all year round would have a better grasp of the polar bear populations than a bunch who come up for two weeks to count white bears on a white background from 1200 ft in a helicopter. Now I could be wrong and this counting from helicopters could be extremely accurate. After all it gave us this headline back in 2009; "Warming blamed for dwindling caribou herds". Wow! 276,000 down to almost nothing! Sure is a reason for concern. But last year; "Scientists find herd of 'lost' caribou in Saskatchewan". Oh dear.... So a methodology that manages to lose a quarter of a million dark animals in a light background is accurate in finding white animals on a white background. Silly me, how could I ever have doubted..... But back to the point. Is the concern both "valid and justified"? Given that it can be shown that this "concern" is based on head counts that are "suspect" to say the least and that the forecasts for the future of the polar bear are based on those same dodgy head counts and methods that forecasters say are wrong, then the only answer is "No". The concerns are neither valid nor justified. Having said all that, I do think that 25,000 or so spread out over 19 populations could lead to problems due to a lack of genetic diversity in some of the populations. Numbers and health should be monitored (and more closely than we currently do) so that if valid reasons for concern about the bears survival do arise, they can be dealt with swiftly.

I was reading some papers recently that changed the estimates for volcanic outgassing. IIRC the amounts were about tripled, however that doesn't take from iNows point that anthropo causes are still far larger than volcanic ones. I find that this is an area where there is some confusion and meaning has to be made clear. For many trying to understand the various arguments the terminology can be confusing so it's always advisable to make sure whether you are talking about "amounts" or "flux". Consequently when talking about volcanoes then the anthropo emissions "dwarf" them, however when discussing the annual carbon cycle and fluxes, the anthropo content is "dwarfed" by the natural amounts. http://globecarboncycle.unh.edu/CarbonCycleBackground.pdf http://science.nasa.gov/earth-science/oceanography/ocean-earth-system/ocean-carbon-cycle/

There is a rather interesting backstory to this particular piece. Amy Coopes has written a few different versions of the story to constantly push the "climate change" angle even after being alerted to the study leader specifically denying a link. If anyone is interested in the actual press release from UQ that led to the article, it's here. The bottom line is that generally accepted theories about shark breeding say that they don't interbreed much. The finding of 57 interbred sharks shows that this actually occurs far more than anyone thought and therefore challenges the consensus view, which is probably why it was thought worthy of a press release in the first place. It could be that hybrids are far more common than we thought. To quote the press release; "The results of this research show that we still have a lot to learn about these important ocean predators,"

I like to help people along the path to enlightenment and cynicism.

It's very hard to take. Being a Queenslander I have to put up with year round sunshine and sandy beaches as well. Life is so tough sometimes.

Over the years I've heard many people assert that it exists, but when it comes down to the hard "follow the money" facts there is very little actual evidence. Usually people just point to sourcewatch or similar. On a purely factual basis you might as well believe that the Illuminatii secretly run the planet. The whole "Big oil machine" thing can only be believed by studiously and willfully ignoring half the story. When people point with alarm at $40,000 donations given to their opponents while ignoring $40 million donations by the same people to their friends they would have to be so one eyed as to warrant the nickname "Cyclops". You can go to Exxonsecrets and find that physicist Willie Soon has recieved funding from oil companies. This is somehow evidence that he and his work is biased or bought. Greenpeace tried to make out that this was somehow a "secret" and proof of dirty dealing until Dr Soon pointed out that his funding is quite openly stated at the end of each paper. Now if you want to follow the line of argument that people funded by oil money are bought, then what are we supposed to make of the fact that the CRU at East Anglia are partly funded by Shell and BP? The thing is that this is barely above ad hom attacks and really classifies as "Poisoning the Well" logical fallacies. If the facts are so strongly in your favour why are these ad hom attacks the first line of defence? They shouldn't be needed at all. As to my preferred sources, they are usually the originals. After the initial "Climategate" there were some inquiries that issued findings. I'm pretty certain that you and others would say that those inquiries "cleared" those involved. Where did you get that information? I happen to think those inquiries were very poor white washes, not because of what I read on some bloody website but because I read the freaking reports. I fact checked the reports against already published timelines. Where available I read the minutes and notes. I watched the video feeds of those who wrote the reports responding to Parlimentary committee. How many of those who contend the reports "cleared" people have done one half as much? And let's face facts. There are quite a few on your side of the fence whose reading ability doesn't go past the Realclimate and SkepticalScience websites. For these two contain the revealed truth and would not hide or prevaricate for yea they speak the holy words. Try following the very technical discussions over at Judith Currys sometime, they leave the people at RC for dead. So I do get bugged when after all that I'm told I'm misguided or read the wrong websites simply because "Realclimate says so" or some such rubbish. Like I said, philosophical primacy. I'm trying to turn the viewpoint around from essentially negative to positive. What I note in American political debate is that the arguments seem to revolve around why "My side isn't as bad as yours" when it should be about why "My side is better than yours". In American politics you don't argue about which pig is clean, it's all about which one has the least mud on it. Until both sides demand that their respective partys clean up, then you are stuck playing in the mud. Ah...There is the difference. Ours are "highly trained" poo throwing chimps.

I've been thinking about this for a while. Not really, no. My concern is simply that a global beauracracy will grow without good governance oversight. When an organisation is designed and implimented proceedures are put in place to "neutralize" the psycho minority and to simply minimise the damage that an incompetent can do. With the way things are growing it is undirected and checks and balances are not being considered or put in place. Consider the IPCC and its existent but wholy ignored "Conflict of Interest" policy. I do believe that there will and must one day be a global government. However it needs to be designed, not grown. It isn't the fact of its evolution that is cause for concern, but the way it's evolving. Pick any large gov department, let's say the EPA. What would it be like if the EPA never had to answer to a court, or a Secretary, or a Parliment and could impose fines and levies to pay for itself? Would this be a part of good governance or bad? So planned progress towards consolidation and organisation is I would think good, but haphazard progress is just as likely to go very wrong. On the soils. Perhaps I'm just not getting it. What is the problem? Are you expecting the soils to degenerate into tropical ones again? Tropical rainforests won't generally expand unless we let them. Aside from plants growing better from the extra CO2 what will the difference be? Why would we expect the soil to change? On a more practical point. To my west is the Darling Downs, a large food growing area. What is supposed to happen? Will it become rainforest? Or will we just grow other crops instead of the wheat, etc we do now? What exactly is the problem? "But it's changing" isn't a problem to me. Climate is changing, it always has and always will. We will have to deal with that. As to whether it's changing faster than before, it's not. Far more rapid changes are shown in the record. Here is where we differ. All your worry is based on CO2 being the main driver of the planetary climate and that the climate models have their predictions right for the next thousand years. Also (it appears) on a belief in the essential fragility of nature. I look at all the predictions of doom from a degree or so of warming that we have had over the last 20 years and I find nothing. No doom, no major destruction. And absolutely nothing that compares to the massive changes when going from a full blown Ice Age into an Intermediate period. If life was half as fragile as some people think then there would have been 20 extinctions in the last 400,000 years alone. The concerns are based on a particular theory being correct. So where is the missing tropical tropospheric "Hotspot" and where is the missing heat? These are things that the theory says should be happening right now in a measurable sense. They aren't. Why should I pay attention to model outputs for 100 years time when the underlying theory cannot accurately predict what is happening right now?

Sorry for the delay. Arete and swansont, unfortunately the videos won't play outside America but after a fair bit of link and story following I think I found the correct segment. One thing all this hunting has shown is that there is another great difference between our cultures. I simply didn't "get" the Politifacts page for quite some time. I'm seeing the names of Beck, Rove and Palin repeated, but nothing about "Fox News" at all. I've now realised that Americans equate the network with the commentator. We don't really have people like Beck or Maddow on TV so to me they are simply overblown talkback radio hosts. I can disagree with the host, but this has no effect on how I view the station. Americans don't make this distinction. Down here opinion is very separate from news. Which is why I can't see any untruths from Fox News, they aren't there, however there are untruths from political commentators on the Fox News Network. About the closest we have to these pundits is "The Bolt Report" on channel 10 on a sunday which is a right wing program. If Bolt were shown to have lied, then we would say that "Bolt lied on his TV show", we wouldn't say that "Channel 10 lies". Similarly since Politifacts puts Rachel Maddow as telling more half truths and mostly false stories than true ones I would take her opinions with a grain of salt but this wouldn't really reflect on my views on MSNBC News. Since she is a left wing political pundit I would expect her to slant the stories in such a fashion as to show her political ideology in the best light, just as I expect those on the right to do exactly the same. While on Fox News it is interesting to see how the left in American politics has manufactured a reality concerning Fox viewers. Politifacts took Stewart to task over the comment "Who are the most consistently misinformed media viewers? … Fox viewers, consistently, every poll", finding this false. It would seem that Fox viewers for some programs are right up there with NPR or are simply average. Of special interest is the attempt by the Daily Kos to spin this as "CONFIRMED: New Study Proves That Fox News Makes You Stupid". However they failed to inform readers that the definition of "informed" in the poll only included those who agreed with the pollsters. Yes Virginia, the left contrives to create a reality as well. I think the most worrying thing about that particular kerfuffle is that more people seem to get thier news from "The Daily Show" than from the news outlets. While I would have to agree that people having their political views formed by a biased media is bad, surely people getting their political news from the Comedy Channel is even worse. Why is the Daily Show even listed in these polls? I've seen a few interviews with Jon Stewart and he doesn't get it either. He's a comedian, why is he being lumped in with the political pundits? This makes no sense at all. To more specifics. iNow, it's not that I'm arguing against your position. I'm looking in from the outside and you are trying to sell me a series of goods. More specifically you are trying to convince me that roughly 50% of your population are sane and rational people and the other 50% live in some form of "manufactured reality". The bit you seem to have missed is that from where I sit, part of the "manufactured reality" that the left inhabits is the belief that only the right lives in a "manufactured reality". See what I mean? You mentioned climate and without going too deep there is a widely held belief (virtually entirely held by left leaning people) of the existence of some vast, hugely funded, "Denialist machine". What a perfect example of a manufactured reality. Point to Sourcewatch is you want, but $20 million paid out over 10 years worldwide isn't a lot compared to Greenpeaces annual budget of $21.9 million in 2008 for the USA alone, of which $5.6 million was specifically for "climate programs". In 2010 Greenpeace Australia alone spent $10.6 million on campaigns. And I haven't even started on the WWF. Places like Climate Audit and WUWT are funded by donation while Realclimate is owned by an advertising agency. And all the money is on my side of the fence? That my friend, is a manufactured reality. What you are trying to sell me is the idea that the people who believe in this fanciful machine are the sane and reasonable ones and it's the rest that are detached from reality. The only moderates are from the left? Now if the moderate Republicans have let the extremists gain control then they will pay for that at the ballot. Politics moves in cycles, the more extremist factions gain more and more control until the electorate banishes them to the wasteland and the party has to "reinvent" itself. Note for example the overwhelming "No" vote that the southern Democrats gave Equal Rights back in 1964. It would be hard to imagine a single dissenter today since the "left" is usually rather big on rights. Things change, people and attitudes change. Part of what you are seeing, and we are seeing it too is a revolt by the average person against the well meaning "experts" and their plans. People are fed up with 24 year old childless experts with freshly minted degrees telling them how to raise their kids. They have seen the experts listened to and watched standards fall in so many areas. This is happening on both sides of the political divide. The (leftish) "Occupy" bunch want to be listened to instead of only the 1% with the money and the "Tea Party" people want to be listened to instead of the machine. The average joe who is paying for everything with blood, time and money wants to be heard, and if the extremists are the only ones who will listen, then that is who joe will go to. Don't blame the voter, blame the parties that have stopped listening to the voters. What I'm trying to explain is that from the outside it looks quite plainly that both sides do the same things, but in different areas. You mean like calling people "deniers" for simply questioning and suggesting that they should have identifying tattoos? Or be gassed? Or face charges for "Crimes against Humanity"? Or be declared mentally unstable? How about Greenpeaces little "We know who you are and we know where you live" threat? You might feel a bit worried about extremist Republicans, but I would be frankly bloody scared if these bastards ever get within an inch of power. People will start to "disappear". What I see in american politics is a complete willingness on both sides to point with alarm to the excesses of the other side and to utterly ignore the excesses on their own side. Even when shown, the standard response is "Yes, but they do it too" or some such. Honestly it's like watching children in a kindergarten sometimes. If the best argument that the American Left can muster for philosophical primacy is "Well, the other guy is worse", then you have very serious problems.

Not the stalking, but the sherlocking skills. I thought the mention of Vegemite would be the give away. Only in the Antipodes is this ambrosial form of axle grease consumed in great quantities.

Something else we agree on. May I recommend Joses "Reserva De La Familia" as an excellent agave? As to diet I try to eat something from each of the four basic food groups each day. "Fat, Oil, Grease and Burnt crunchy bits." I firmly believe that the occasional meal that makes your arteries go "Clang" just by looking at it is a good thing. Think of bacon and eggs with the eggs nice and crunchy from being cooked in the bacon fat. Ideal breakfast before a big day working outdoors: 2 eggs, 2 full rashers of bacon, 2 sausages, 1/2 tomato, 2 hash browns, 2-4 slices of buttered toast, 1 litre of fruit juice and a huge cup of coffee. (Seriously) In general. Milk, full cream between 1 and 2 litres per day, either in coffee or as a straight drink. Milk is a great thirst quencher in a hot climate and the right biscuit dipped in milk can approach heaven. Tomatoes come in bottles of tomato paste for either Italian or Mexican cooking. Generally I'm what we call a "Meat and three veg" man. A good steak, or chops, or roast (basically any meat serving) with potato, carrots and peas or beans. Simple solid tucker that keeps a man going. But I do add fresh crushed garlic to just about everything I cook. (I seriously love my garlic.) Cereal for breakfast and "Weet Bix" with butter and Vegemite as snacks. Water, milk or fruit juice being the preferred drinks, water at least 2 litres per day. I rarely drink beer, much preferring tequila or single malts. I'm 50 and generally called "insufferably" healthy.

How about; "Fix the hole and let me be on the show and we'll call it square."?

Diamonds? Psychodelics? Pffft! It's been done. ( And by much better musos too.)

Reasons 2 and 3 in the first response. "But they do it more." "But look at Fox". Would a reasonable translation be "Well, yes, my side does spin stories, but that isn't really all that bad. But the other side are simply liars."? The thing is that I don't get your fox down here. Can you point to something where they have been proven to lie? We have funny laws down here. If a media outlet is shown to have knowingly lied, then they can be fined and their licence to transmit revoked. Media can be biased and only tell half the story, or put a bit of spin on it to suit their tastes, but they cannot actually lie without facing severe repercussions. I have always assumed that American media are regulated in a similar way and therefore cannot get away with "out and out lies". This is why I take a lot of the complaints against fox with a very large grain of salt.

Actually, I think that this is one of the big lies that Americans have been sold. From the outside it is apparent that both sides do this. The problem is that both sides have convinced their followers to be blind to their own machinations. So Democrats only see the Republical party machine, they do not see their own, they don't see their own astroturfing, and the Republicans are the same. iNow, for your statement to be true you must believe that Democrats do tell lies. Are you going to argue that Democrats do not intentionally decieve people for political purposes? That the Democrats do not have a propaganda machine? At this point it is usual to say "But they did it first!" or "But they do it more" or "But just look at Fox!" The fact is that politicians lie. Individual ones will lie to either get elected or to keep their seat. They will tell people whatever they think will advance their political career. Political partys lie to either get in or stay in. One problem that the American left has that stops it from concieving a constructive dialogue is that it views itself as morally, ethically and intellectually superior to the right. This attitude demands that the American right be therefore morally bankrupt, unethical, just plain stupid and possibly downright evil. It means that the left cannot concede the right might have a valid point because that threatens their worldview. If the other guy has valid points you can no longer consider yourself superior to him. The right has similar views concerning the left, but using different reasons. Both Parties are reinforcing these perceptions. Until the moderates accept that their side is as dirty as the other, you're stuck.

Thank you very much Mary Poppins.....You've just detailed my worst nightmare, more of those damn things.