tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22031270.post7930462944427396232..comments2023-11-03T19:05:08.512+11:00Comments on Harry Clarke: Medium term climate forecasts – tell the truth & promote understandingUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22031270.post-83919803174779488432008-08-20T22:32:00.000+10:002008-08-20T22:32:00.000+10:00DD, Your comments on the drought spot on. I must a...DD, Your comments on the drought spot on. I must admit a certain amount of guilt in this area myself.hchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13799594181016858701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22031270.post-12384819567920688732008-08-20T17:24:00.000+10:002008-08-20T17:24:00.000+10:00Harry this is exactly why I have long argued that ...Harry this is exactly why I have long argued that it is a serious tactical mistake for those seeking action on AGW to attribute the late drought to it, especially as we in fact don't know whether this particular drought had anything to do with AGW or not (we've no counterfactual).<BR/><BR/>Droughts form and break depending on much shorter term factors than AGW. That on average AGW makes droughts in SE Aust more common and severe doesn't tell us much about one particular severe drought.<BR/><BR/>To put it kindly, it would have been better if AGW activists had educated the public about the distinction between long-term AGW and medium-term ocean currents <B>before</B> those currents caused a pause in warming. Especially if we expected such a pause to occur. Instead we gave ourselves a credibility problem.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22031270.post-67551607564874205152008-08-20T15:22:00.000+10:002008-08-20T15:22:00.000+10:00HarrySeeing you’re appealing to higher authority l...Harry<BR/><BR/>Seeing you’re appealing to higher authority let me do the same.<BR/><BR/> Dick Lindzen recently argued that the relationship between C02 and a warmer climate was much lower than what the models have been claiming. <BR/><BR/>Explain exactly why he’s wrong and why your “higher authority” is right.<BR/><BR/>Here he is: <BR/><BR/>http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/PublicationsRSL.html<BR/><BR/>Go to PDF doc 230 “Taking Greenhouse warming seriously”.<BR/><BR/>Really interested in your arguments.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Regarding your assertion that Australian climate in the southern parts has been affected by AGW, the CSIRO study that made the claim has basically been debunked. According to this research paper Australian drought seasons function in 30 to 40 years cycles and nothing at this stage suggests otherwise. Seeing the CSIRO hasn’t defended itself I would take this report to be the latest authoritive work on the subject.<BR/><BR/>Here is the link: <BR/><BR/>http://landshape.org/stats/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/article.pdf<BR/><BR/><BR/>Notice he uses the CSIRO stats and throws them right back at their face.<BR/><BR/>Lindzen is particularly interesting as he asserts the models are simply too simplistic to be taken seriously, much less to base economic policy ……..that is about to direct 1% of GDP through a redistribution bonanza for big government types.<BR/><BR/>Lastly Harry, you ought to be really worried if I were you, as the government policy on AGW/ETS really looks to be a massive tax grab. A true believer in the science would be asking why the second best alterative nuke power isn’t in the policy mix and how do emissions fall.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22031270.post-91665111831544703092008-08-20T14:59:00.000+10:002008-08-20T14:59:00.000+10:00The New Scientist article is onlu avaialble for su...The New Scientist article is onlu avaialble for subscibers. <BR/><BR/>I agree it was a good article - I read the magazine on Friday but left it up in Darwin.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com