wrote on Mar 17^th, 2008 at 1:36pm:

Climate models of today are considerably more accurate than those of the early 80's, but the interesting thing is that using some of the earliest models, we can predict what has happened over the last 20 years or so - with no iteration involved. Long term climate is largely deterministic, whereas short-term weather is stochastic.   There are some natural influences of course, and the biggest errors are related to polar effects, aerosols and cloud albedo modelling. There are also cyclical effects such the Southern Oscillation Index and the effects of large explosive volcanoes, such as Mt Pinatabo. La Nina episodes such as the one we are currently experiencing generally have a short-term global cooling effect, as do explosive volcanoes. - but the biggest single factor that we can't model is the response of mankind. How quickly can we curb emissions and develop alternative energy sources? The latest IPCC synthesis reports provides us with a range of possible scenarios.

These models still rely on making assumptions about processes that aren't fully understood, eg the role of clouds and water vapour.  

Could you explain further what you mean? There are feedbacks that are not fully accounted for, but generally these are all positive feedbacks.

If you mean that the IPCC synthesis report for 2007 is inaccurate due to political pressure, mainly from China, I agree with you.

I know one climatologist personally, and from what he says, the IPCC report was not even discussed in much depth in Bali, because it was woefully understating the reality.

Even though the IPCC Third Assessment Report (WG1- 2001) was much more conservative than AR4 last year, the real situation is much worse.  

wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2008 at 6:41pm:

Could you explain further what you mean? There are feedbacks that are not fully accounted for, but generally these are all positive feedbacks. If you mean that the IPCC synthesis report for 2007 is inaccurate due to political pressure, mainly from China, I agree with you. I know one climatologist personally, and from what he says, the IPCC report was not even discussed in much depth in Bali, because it was woefully understating the reality. Even though the IPCC Third Assessment Report (WG1- 2001) was much more conservative than AR4 last year, the real situation is much worse.

They are assumed to be positive feedbacks, but whether we know enough to be sure this is the case is another matter. If these assumptions are wrong then all the modeling and predictions become invalid.

PJ I didn't say you can't draw a line around it. I even conceded that you could. It's the conclusion you draw from that which doesn't hold water.

Not only is it senseless to claim that because you are a small part of a big problem and a small part of a big solution that you might as well not bother, but in Australia's case the implications of our choice are far stronger than for any other group of 20 million people, because we are a welathy western country with the highest per cpaita emissions. Refusing to particpate in the global solution will have a far greater impact that our population alone would suggest.

pjb05 wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2008 at 7:08pm:

They are assumed to be positive feedbacks, but whether we know enough to be sure this is the case is another matter. If these assumptions are wrong then all the modeling and predictions become invalid.

Of course they are positive feedbacks. You don't need a degree to understand that reduced snow cov er will add to the heating effect.

freediver wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2008 at 7:11pm:

PJ I didn't say you can't draw a line around it. I even conceded that you could. It's the conclusion you draw from that which doesn't hold water. Not only is it senseless to claim that because you are a small part of a big problem and a small part of a big solution that you might as well not bother, but in Australia's case the implications of our choice are far stronger than for any other group of 20 million people, because we are a welathy western country with the highest per cpaita emissions. Refusing to particpate in the global solution will have a far greater impact that our population alone would suggest.

Its total emissions that count - not per captia of a small country, if man made global warming really is a problem. Trying to slash our high per capita emissions will have huge consequences for our economy and quality of life and is not the easy fix you seem to make out.  

You aren't making any sense PJ. Sure, it's the total emissions that count. But If you insist that we make small contribution then you also have to accept that the cost of reducing our emissions is equally small - probably smaller given our relative profligate waste. Otherwise you are just being selfish and hypocritical. It's a fairly simple concept. Any group of 20 million people could make the same argument. We all have to do our part, not try to pretend we are a special case because you can draw a smaller circle around us.

freediver wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2008 at 7:52pm:

You aren't making any sense PJ. Sure, it's the total emissions that count. But If you insist that we make small contribution then you also have to accept that the cost of reducing our emissions is equally small - probably smaller given our relative profligate waste. Otherwise you are just being selfish and hypocritical. It's a fairly simple concept. Any group of 20 million people could make the same argument. We all have to do our part, not try to pretend we are a special case because you can draw a smaller circle around us.

No it won't be equally small. We are a small part of the world economy, just we are a small part of the world's emissions. But to slash our emissions won't be a small cost to us as a nation.

How do you propose we do it? All you seem to be proposing is a tax on carbon. That won't magically reduce our emissions. Deep cuts are a huge ask and I don't think renewables are up to it. Clean coal or nuclear might but really requires governments to mandate the technology and large capital investments.

First of all, I'd like to discuss this if possible in a non adversarial way. I think we'll achieve more understanding by talking through the issues.

The science behind climate change is extremely subtle, and it took me a good 5 years for me to understand all the implications of it myself, however some very basic principles apply.

The feedbacks I'm talking about are not crucial to the fact that Global Warming is happening and that it is largely anthropogenic. We've gone way beyond that in our understanding.

Sure there are skeptics, and I think I've read just about every argument presented, and looked at counter arguments by climate scientists and counter - counter arguments etc.

Having gone through this process in detail, I am convinced that Climate Change poses a real threat - not all of it due to temperature increase or rising sea levels alone.

I think the most old and infirm of the Australian population could probably outrun sea level change.  Some of the other intangibles include salination of coastal aquifers, reduction in the calcification rates of certain crucial marine organisms, such as coccolithophorids and corals.
The pH of sea water has already decreased globally by 0.1 from 8.3 to 8.2. We can very accurately predict the rate of calcification based on Seawater pH, and we can predict Seawater pH change very accurately from atmospheric pH.  A recent paper in December last year showed that a level of 450ppm was likely to cause extinction of the vast majority of coral species in the world today. This level is projected to occur around 2050. That's not very far off.

The melting of tropical glaciers is likely to have far ranging consequences for water supplies in highly populated countries like India and China, and will affect local weather patterns including monsoons.

PJ - The point you make about global emissions is correct, and I also agree that we need to take into account economic factors. We can't make huge technological shifts while we're bankrupt.  Clean coal may well have a role to play in the near future, but nobody to date has actually costed this out.

Regarding CO2 and ocean pH I found this blog which raises some interesting points:


1). This confirms that the alarmists are feeling the heat badly. First, the woeful rebutall by Environmental Defense and Michael Oppenheimer to the Senate Report and now this. They know they are losing the scientific debate badly nowadays, so they are openly admitting that a change in tactics is required. Nothing like changing the rules of the debate when you find yourself being clobbered.

2). It remains that since 1850, the total of human emissions (even including those from land use changes) consists of about 500 billion metric tons of carbon. According to the models, about 45% of that has remained in the air, the rest going 50/50 to the oceans and land. So this means that approximately 138 billion metric tons of carbon have gone into the ocean. According to the models.

Now, the ocean's reservoir of carbon stands at around 40,000 billion metric tons, the vast majority of which is dissolved in the lower depths, where pressure and coldness promotes absorption of far more CO2. Warmer surface waters tend more easily to release it.


So here are two things to consider.

A). Assume that the preindustrial surface ocean contained 1030 minus 138, or 892 billion metric tons. Following that proportion, the present surface ocean would seemingly be 15% more rich in CO2. Given that the ocean is a complex buffer solution, resisting pH changes, can a 15% increase of CO2 actually bring about the 0.1 pH change that is claimed? This question goes to the heart of the issue. (By the way, a 0.1 pH change represents a 26% increase of hydrogen ions.)

B). If it turns out that a 15% increase cannot bring about such a change, yet the 0.1 pH change is true, then consider thermohaline currents. To me it seems very reasonable to suppose that a warming ocean would circulate heat to the lower depths and thus release some of the CO2 dissolved there. This would rise up into the surface waters and necessarily influence the pH. It is entirely possible, then, that to the extent pH changes ARE real, they originate not from the sky but from the ocean below.

Just as Gore and others have the CO2/Temperature relationship backwards, prevailing assumptions about ocean acidification may be backwards too.

3). The most recent posting at CO2Science.org on this suggests that the extra CO2 stimulates biological growth in the upper ocean, which in turn is known to increase pH. So, maybe there is a biological negative feedback that helps stabilize ocean pH values?

4). According to Anthoni, whom I've cited before:

The most important limiting factor in aquatic ecosystem is the dearth of hydrogen ions (H+), which has also been overlooked. The more acidic the water, the higher biological productivity becomes, and the denser the amount of life. In the sea this is borne out by the observed fact that highly productive upwelling areas are more acidic. In other words, acidic seas are a good thing.

Bottom line, this is a confusing topic. But it does seem safe to say that how organisms use the pH that's available to them is not to be found or predicted in chemical calculations alone. I think Marc is right on target, then, that the ocean acidification issue should not be given a free pass. My own observations lead me to suspect that the present model of CO2 distribution is flat wrong. For instance, if the preindustrial ocean had nearly the same carbon content as the present one, fine, let's grant it around 40,000 GtC. But then the preindustrial atmosphere weighed 590 GtC compared to our 815. The partial pressure exerted by that preindustrial atmosphere being much less, the ability of the ocean to hold onto CO2 would have to have been correspondingly less too - in which case its carbon content could NOT have been 40,000 GtC. In short, the preindustrial ocean should have been degassing CO2 in response to the relative vacuum above it.

But if on the other hand we say, no, the preindustrial ocean was colder, so it held onto CO2 better - then we admit that the present ocean, being warmer, should be discharging CO2. And this point ties into Lance Endersbee's analysis, which shows atmospheric CO2 rising as a function of ocean temperature. But where, anywhere within the IPCC model, does it attribute rising atmospheric CO2 levels to a warming ocean? Nowhere. In fact it makes the ocean a passive sink rather than an active source. As a sink, yes, it should be getting more acidic. But as a source - CO2 upwelling from warming reservoirs below - surface waters would ALSO become more acidic. That's my point.

Here's a study which suggests higher CO2 levels will increase phytoplankton growth:

Global warming: Oceans could absorb far more CO2, says study
Nov 11, 2007

PARIS (AFP)  The ocean's plankton can suck up far more airborne carbon dioxide (CO2) than previously realised, although the marine ecoystem may suffer damage if this happens, a new study into global warming says.

The sea has soaked up nearly half of the CO2 that has been emitted by fossil fuels since the start of the Industrial Revolution.

The gas dissolves into surface waters and is then transported around the oceans.

But a key role is played by plant micro-organisms called phytoplankton, which take in the dissolved gas at the ocean's sunlit surface as part of the process of photosynthesis. This plankton dies and eventually sinks to the ocean floor, thus storing the carbon for potentially millions of years.

One of the big questions is how much more of CO2 the sea can absorb.

If, like a saturated sponge, the oceans cannot take up any more, atmospheric concentrations of CO2, the principal greenhouse gas, would sharply rise and stoke global warming.

Another concern is that rising levels of dissolved CO2 also causes acidification of seawater. Wildlife such as coral, which secretes a skeletal structure, are known to be affected by acidification but the impact on other marine species is largely unknown.

In an innovative experiment reported on Sunday in Nature, researchers closed off part of Raune fjord in southern Norway to see how plankton reacted to different levels of CO2.

They used nine large enclosed tanks of seawater that were exposed to CO2 concentrations likely to prevail over the next 150 years.

These three levels were today's concentrations of CO2; double that concentration, to simulate the air in 2100; and triple, replicating the air in 2150).

To feed the plankton, the researchers added nutrients to simulate food usually brought up by ocean currents and upwelling, and then monitored plankton levels over the next 24 days.

The investigators found that, the higher the CO2 level, the more the plankton bloomed.

The organisms were able to gobble up to 39 percent more dissolved carbon compared with today, but did not need any additional nutrients to achieve this.

The findings "underscore the importance of biologically-driven feedbacks in the ocean to global change," say the authors, led by Ulf Riebesell of the Liebniz Institute of Marine Sciences in Kiel, Germany.

The paper, though, warns that taking the carbon out of the air and placing it into the sea could cause problems.

Algal blooms could inflict oxygen depletion in some parts of the ocean while rising carbon levels may cause an imbalance in primary nutrients, with implications that could ripple across the marine food web.

Supporters of so-called geo-engineering -- unconventional projects aimed at easing global warming -- have been closely looking at plankton, seeing in it fantastic potential as a carbon sponge.

Their schemes entail sowing the sea with iron filings and other nutrients to encourage plankton growth and thus suck up more of the atmospheric CO2.

Mainstream scientists say such experiments are unjustified, given the uncertainty surrounding the environmental impact and the many knowledge gaps that persist about ocean topography and currents.

Do you actually understand what is being said here, or are you just cutting and pasting?

You've cut and pasted quite a lot of details. Would you understand enough if I were to rebutt every point made, or would I be wasting my time because you don't understand the science?

You also neglected to show the source:

http://awesternheart.blogspot.com/2008/01/greenies-getting-rattled-now.html

The most amusing part of the commentary was this:

"Just as Gore and others have the CO2/Temperature relationship backwards, prevailing assumptions about ocean acidification may be backwards too."

Gore as in Al Gore? The famous politician? He isn't even a climate scientist, he's basically a messenger. In fact I very much doubt if Al Gore understands very much of what he says.

Point 2 is totally misleading. The "models" that it refer to is a single diagram taken from the IPCC   Working Group I report in 2001. It isn't actually a model, it's a simple diagram showing a snapshot of the global carbon fluxes in 2001. He then assumes that this model has been valid since 1850!

Point 4 is almost as entertaining as his Al Gore Remark. First he makes an assumption that the carbon content of the oceans in 1850 was 40,000 Gigatons, then later he states that this assumption (which he made himself) could not possibly be correct. What's he trying to say here?

The purpose of his post is basically to muddy the waters. Of course the actual mechanism for ocean pH reduction is complex, but the root cause for all the mechanisms proposed by all the workers cited is a combination of increased CO2 emissions, reduction of carbon sinks and some increase in temperature.  

pjb05 wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2008 at 8:50pm:

Here's a study which suggests higher CO2 levels will increase phytoplankton growth:

(First of all I promise not to cut and paste, except from my own articles.)

Fine. We need studies like that to fine-tune our understanding of the process. So far nothing that you have said so far has denied the fact that the Ocean pH is falling.  I mentioned calcification earlier. That refers to the reliance on marine organisms to deposit calcium carbonate from sea water.

OK, the obvious organisms that are being affected by ocean acidification include corals, crustaceans and even some tiny plant-like creatures called coccolithophores which form calcium carbonate skeletons and drive a pump, essentially, where CO2 is absorbed by the ocean. They too are under threat. In the Southern Ocean, coccolithophores have been shown to be responsible for up to 30% of the CO2 absorption.

Then there are increasing cases of very interesting new diseases in crabs and lobsters which are basically caused because things are not calcifying anymore, and they're not calcifying at a rate that keeps up with the processes that take away that calcium carbonate.

Fish have a single crystal of calcium carbonate beneath their brain. They're called otiliths, and they're used for balance. Basically fish can't survive without them.

Otiliths grow during the lifetime of the fish if the conditions are right for the deposition of calcium carbonate. As the pH decreases, the rate of calcification also decreases.

It's not the absolute values that are important, rather the rate of change, and the somewhat different conditions that exist today compared with the past. We're talking extremely high human population, an almost unprecedented rate of change in atmospheric CO2 which is demonstratively derived from fossil fuels (from the isotope ratios) and we're talking about changes that are happening too fast for ecosystems to adapt.

I'll elaborate further, but first let's put temperature rise in some kind of perspective.

The most recent work on grain for example yields indicates that the small amount of warming that has already occurred has reduced what the yields are today over what they would have been just based on technological change. In other words the yields haven't been going down but they haven't been going up as fast as they might have because of the problems of crop varieties having thermal limits on them, particularly the world's feeding base which of course are those three famous grains- Wheat Rice and Corn.

Taking rice as an example - it's within two or three degrees of its limit over most of Asia.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1645590.stm

What this is all about is averting human disasters. We currently have 6.77 billion people and counting. It's all very well to talk about the geological past, mass extinctions included, but the important issue is the here and now. What will be the effects on the staple foods now - fish stocks, rice, wheat and corn?

Of course, we should be able to breed new strains that will be able to do just great when the planet is 6°C or 7°C hotter. There are actually such seed banks, but what you do with seed banks is that you select organisms for storage attributes not for their ability to reproduce under new climatic conditions. The only way to save the genetic diversity of crops is to keep planting them out in diverse circumstances and diverse strains and subsidise farmers to grow less productive ones so you have the diversity safe.

However, they're not doing that - they're not even thinking about it over most of the world.

Times have changed since the beginning of the Eocene, and even since the medieval period.

- like the fact that we have 6.77 billion people instead of 150 Million during Medieval times, or the fact that we now have 1/100 of the Tropical rainforest that we did then, and that fish stocks are down by 99% on Viking days. The buffering effect of 'Gaia' has certainly declined considerably since the peak of the Eemian interglacial, 125,000 years ago, when global temperatures were higher than today and sea levels were some 4-6 metres higher. The current atmospheric carbon dioxide is now 383 ppm compared with a peak of 225ppm at the height of the Eemian.

The last time we had 383 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere was just after the Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM). Now that makes for some very interesting reading.

Do you actually understand what is being said here, or are you just cutting and pasting?

You've cut and pasted quite a lot of details. Would you understand enough if I were to rebutt every point made, or would I be wasting my time because you don't understand the science?

Now thats not very nice. I thought you said you wanted to discuss the issues in a reasonable non-adversarial way? What's actually wrong with cutting and pasting? I'm not a published climate scientist and I suspect neither are you. We have to refer to the work of others.  

You also neglected to show the source:

http://awesternheart.blogspot.com/2008/01/greenies-getting-rattled-now.html

I said it was a blog.

The most amusing part of the commentary was this:

"Just as Gore and others have the CO2/Temperature relationship backwards, prevailing assumptions about ocean acidification may be backwards too."

Gore as in Al Gore? The famous politician? He isn't even a climate scientist, he's basically a messenger. In fact I very much doubt if Al Gore understands very much of what he says.

Actually he studied environmental science at uni, he barely scraped through with a pass I heard. In any case what is wrong with countering/ questioning his claims? Given that he is at the forefront of the global warming campaign its quite an admission to say he doesn't understand much of what he says!

Point 2 is totally misleading. The "models" that it refer to is a single diagram taken from the IPCC   Working Group I report in 2001. It isn't actually a model, it's a simple diagram showing a snapshot of the global carbon fluxes in 2001. He then assumes that this model has been valid since 1850!

Point 4 is almost as entertaining as his Al Gore Remark. First he makes an assumption that the carbon content of the oceans in 1850 was 40,000 Gigatons, then later he states that this assumption (which he made himself) could not possibly be correct. What's he trying to say here?

The purpose of his post is basically to muddy the waters. Of course the actual mechanism for ocean pH reduction is complex, but the root cause for all the mechanisms proposed by all the workers cited is a combination of increased CO2 emissions, reduction of carbon sinks and some increase in temperature.  

He said that increase in temperature migh be a cause of lower ocean PH. That doesn't mean that the increase in temperature is man made. The other points highlight the complexities and possible negative feedbacks. You call this 'muddying the waters'.  

First of all, I don't defer to Al Gore for my information, and the very fact that he is a political figure is unhelpful because it polarises opinion about party lines. This is not some leftish plot. We're talking about measurable increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide - around 30% since industrialisation which have led to measurable increases in Global temperatures in line with Arrhenius Equation predictions.


Quote:

He said that increase in temperature might be a cause of lower ocean PH. That doesn't mean that the increase in temperature is man made. The other points highlight the complexities and possible negative feedbacks. You call this 'muddying the waters'.

That may be what he's trying to say, but he shows a very rudimentary understanding of the relationship between seawater pH and atmospheric CO2 concentration. These people take research totally out of context. The researchers involved take pains to point out that  their findings do not deny that anthropogenic global warming is taking place.

If you don't accept that the observed temperature increase is man made, what do you attribute it to?

But to slash our emissions won't be a small cost to us as a nation.

That's where the double standard is. You consider the reduction in emissions from a global perspective to make it seem small, then consider the cost to us from a local perspective, to make it seem larger. You can't have it both ways. Your logic would support all kinds of selfish behaviour which is considered abhorrent in modern society.

All you seem to be proposing is a tax on carbon. That won't magically reduce our emissions.

Yes it will. Thought I wouldn't go calling it magic just because you don't understand economics.

But to slash our emissions won't be a small cost to us as a nation.

That's where the double standard is. You consider the reduction in emissions from a global perspective to make it seem small, then consider the cost to us from a local perspective, to make it seem larger. You can't have it both ways. Your logic would support all kinds of selfish behaviour which is considered abhorrent in modern society.

You have admitted its total emissions that count, our emissions don't seem small - they are small. You don't deny the cost would be large on a local scale, especially if you rely on punitive taxes. Believe me if you find yourself unemployed and/ or unable to meet your mortgage payments the cost will seem pretty big to you.  

All you seem to be proposing is a tax on carbon. That won't magically reduce our emissions.

Yes it will. Thought I wouldn't go calling it magic just because you don't understand economics.

Don't presume to tell me what I understand or not. Your proposing that by creating a phoney market where there is a cost on carbon then market forces will lead to the adoption of low carbon technologies. This may lead to all sorts of unintended problems, eg driving carbon emitting industries offshore. It would create an unwanted burden for the already tapped out lower and middle income earners in the form of higher energy costs and have the effect of dampening the economy. A lot of wealth generating industries will suffer eg aluminium, coal, iron and steel. If we are determined to reduce our emissions wouldn't it make more sense to mandate new 'clean' technologies. After all technologies like clean coal or nuclear will require considerable government support in any case.

You have admitted its total emissions that count, our emissions don't seem small - they are small.

So is the economic burden compared to the global economy. If a big change is made up of lots of small changes then the fact that each small change would only contribute a small amount is not a valid reason for not making the small change. Your argument might be jsutified if Australia was the only country making changes. We are not. We are one of the highest per capita emitters and we are lagging most of the developed world.

You don't deny the cost would be large on a local scale, especially if you rely on punitive taxes.

Taxes achieve the necessary change for the smallest possible cost.

Your proposing that by creating a phoney market where there is a cost on carbon then market forces will lead to the adoption of low carbon technologies.

Not quite. It will lead to a reduction in CO2 emissions, without discrimination for any particular method. I think the 'phoney market' slogan applies far better to trading schemes.

This may lead to all sorts of unintended problems, eg driving carbon emitting industries offshore.

This will only happen to a few industries and there are way to address the problem. Furthermore I am not suggesting we avoid international agreements.

If we are determined to reduce our emissions wouldn't it make more sense to mandate new 'clean' technologies.

No. You complain about the impact on the coal and steel industries. This would do far more damage. Clean energy technologies are a relatively expensive way to reduce emissions.

You have admitted its total emissions that count, our emissions don't seem small - they are small.

So is the economic burden compared to the global economy. If a big change is made up of lots of small changes then the fact that each small change would only contribute a small amount is not a valid reason for not making the small change. Your argument might be jsutified if Australia was the only country making changes. We are not. We are one of the highest per capita emitters and we are lagging most of the developed world.

The reality is rather different. China is more concerned with maintaining their breakneck economic growth. Same for India. Projections are that China will exceed all the World's present CO2 emissions in a few decades. The USA has said it will not curb its emissions if the developing World won't. Europe is trying to water down its emission targets.

PS try telling to someone you have put out of a job that this is only a small economic impact compared to the rest of the World.

You don't deny the cost would be large on a local scale, especially if you rely on punitive taxes.

Taxes achieve the necessary change for the smallest possible cost.

Energy taxes are regressive. They put a unfair burden on low income earners.


If we are determined to reduce our emissions wouldn't it make more sense to mandate new 'clean' technologies.

No. You complain about the impact on the coal and steel industries. This would do far more damage. Clean energy technologies are a relatively expensive way to reduce emissions.

That doesn't make sense. There are only two ways to curb emissions. Either you introduce clean technologies or you reduce energy consumption. The latter only goes so far before you star reducing economic activity. You will also need clean technologies if deep cuts are to be made. In any case you can also mandate for energy efficiency.

Energy taxes are regressive.

No they aren't. Whether a change to the taxation system is regressive depends on whether you use them to replace other taxes and if so, which ones. It also depends on how you spend the money, but the model I put forward is for a revenue neutral tax change.

There are only two ways to curb emissions. Either you introduce clean technologies or you reduce energy consumption. The latter only goes so far before you star reducing economic activity.

Those are two very broad groups. Improving efficiency will be far cheaper. Yes you are correct that eventually clean energy will become as cheap as we exhaust the cheap ways to improve efficiency etc. However, you should choose the cheapest options first, especially if you are cocnerned with economic impact. At any point in time, taxation will give you the cheapest transition/balance of the two strategies and all the componenet 'substrategies'.

You will also need clean technologies if deep cuts are to be made.

Taxes will achieve that for you. Whatever the extent of the cuts to be made, taxes are the best option, unless you want to go to a 100% reduction.

In any case you can also mandate for energy efficiency.

No you can't. At least, not effectively. There are millions of decisions made each day regarding energy efficiency all up and down the supply chain. There is no way for the government to get at the cheap options. You inevitably end up mandating expensive options while cheaper options go begging.

---

A timeline of climate change science

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/03/31/Intro.timeline/

LONDON, England (CNN) -- Climatology was once a small and often overlooked branch of science. But important discoveries made as the early 19th century have contributed to what is the most important field of scientific study in the world today. Listed below are some key dates in climate change history.


April 2008: Negotiators from 180 countries are attempting to draft a plan against global warming. According to a UN official these climate change talks could lead to the most complicated treaty in history.

1824

French physicist Joseph Fourier is first to describe a "greenhouse effect" in a paper delivered to Paris's Académie Royale des Sciences.

1861

Irish physicist John Tyndall carries out research on radiant heat and the absorption of radiation by gases and vapors including CO2 and H2O. He shows that carbon dioxide can absorb in the infrared spectrum, and it can cause a change in temperature. Tyndall famously declares: "The solar heat possesses. . . the power of crossing an atmosphere. But when the heat is absorbed by the planet, it is so changed in quality that the rays emanating from the planet cannot get with the same freedom back into space. Thus the atmosphere admits of the entrance of the solar heat, but checks its exit. The result is a tendency to accumulate heat at the surface of the planet."

1896

Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius first proposes the idea of a man-made greenhouse effect. He hypothesizes that the increase in the burning of coal since the beginning of industrialization could lead to an increase in atmospheric CO2 and heat up the earth. Arrhenius was trying to find out why the earth experienced ice ages. He thought the prospect of future generations living "under a milder sky" would be a desirable state of affairs.

1938

British engineer Guy Stewart Callendar compiles temperature statistics in a variety of regions and finds that over the previous century the mean temperature had risen markedly. He also discovers that CO2 levels had risen 10 percent during the same period. He concludes that CO2 was the most likely reason for the rise in temperature.

1955

John Hopkins University researcher Gilbert Plass proves that increased levels of carbon dioxide could raise atmospheric temperature. By 1959 Plass is boldly predicting that the earth's temperature would rise more than 3 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century.

In the same year chemist Hans Suess detects the fossil carbon produced by burning fuels, although he and Roger Revelle - director of the Scripps Institute of Oceanography - declare that the oceans must be absorbing the majority of atmospheric carbon dioxide, they decide to conduct further research.

1958

Revelle and Suess employ geochemist Charles Keeling to continuously monitor CO2 levels in the atmosphere. After only two years of measurements in Antarctica an increase is visible. The graph becomes widely known as the Keeling Curve and becomes an icon of global warming debate and continues to chart the year on year rise in CO2 concentrations to this day.

1970

The first "Earth Day" takes place on April 22nd across America. Twenty million people participate in the event organized by Democratic Senator Gaylord Nelson. It follows and precedes a series of U.S. Department for Energy reports highlighting concern about global warming

1979

The first World Climate Conference is held in Geneva attended by a range of scientists and leads to the establishment of the World Climate Program.

1985

Scientists at the World Climate Program conference at Villach in Austria confidently predict that increased CO2 concentrations will lead to a significant rise in the mean surface temperatures of the earth. A hole in the ozone layer is discovered over Antarctica.

Dust plays huge role in climate change

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0403/p14s01-sten.html

Scientists know that dust affects climate. Tiny particles create veils that reflect sunlight and cool the atmosphere. Dark particles absorb sunshine and warm things up. But as scientists look deeper into the dust-climate connection, they find that they have underestimated its importance.

Research published April 3 in Nature reveals the tight linkage between atmospheric dust flows and Antarctic temperatures during ice ages over the past 800,000 years. A research review published March 23 in Nature Geoscience online shows that black carbon particles in the atmosphere have a more powerful global-warming effect than any of the greenhouse gases except carbon dioxide. And these particles are 60 percent as effective as CO2 itself. That's far more powerful than the estimate in last year's report of the UN-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

pjb05 wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2008 at 2:37pm:

Don't presume to tell me what I understand or not. Your proposing that by creating a phoney market where there is a cost on carbon then market forces will lead to the adoption of low carbon technologies. This may lead to all sorts of unintended problems, eg driving carbon emitting industries offshore. It would create an unwanted burden for the already tapped out lower and middle income earners in the form of higher energy costs and have the effect of dampening the economy. A lot of wealth generating industries will suffer eg aluminium, coal, iron and steel. If we are determined to reduce our emissions wouldn't it make more sense to mandate new 'clean' technologies. After all technologies like clean coal or nuclear will require considerable government support in any case. [/i]

OK, I have first hand experience with carbon trading, so 'hypothetically' here's how it works (at the moment). All real names are protected etc. Trading on the international market, one tonne equivalent of CO2  is worth about $13 at the moment. 'Australian Consolidated Fertilisers' produces a product which emits nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas with a Global Warming Potential (GWP) of 310 (310 times that of CO2). Amalgamated catalysts manufacture low NOx catalyst technology which costs quite a lot, however stay tuned. When Consolidated Fertilisers buy the new catalyst, the GHG emissions drop below the baseline for that company. That means that they have carbon credits that they can sell.

Japanese Energy Giant Mitsui will purchase carbon credits from Consolidated Fertilisers, and the bottom line is that it's worth about $4 million per year to CF, which is quite substantial for a medium sized company. The technology supplier charges a (say) 25% royalty on the transaction, with payback in 5 years.

This is actually happening as we speak. Currently there are two types of credits available. EGC's (Energy Grants Credits) are the lesser of the two in value. I can't remember the other one offhand, but they are in short supply.

All this will change when the Australian Government bring in Carbon Trading locally in around 2010-11.

There is a net reduction in emissions due to the new catalyst technology.  

Now without being fired, that's as close as I can come to telling you how it operates. Carbon trading not only works - It's quite lucrative.

muso - thanks for giving us your experience.
no need at all to give real company names, initials are perfect.
it is just to illustrate a case anyway.

A 5 year repayment term would be much too long for me, however if that is what is accepted, so be it.

I was aware carbon was being traded, last i heard the price was very low, when it was traded.
But they were very vague rubbery figures. I may well be wrong/outdated/

Muso do you know anything about the state based trading agreement here in Australia?

Also, I read in the paper that the Japanese government was buying emissions rights from some Eastern European government. Is it up to each country whether the emissions rights belong to the government or to private companies?

I only know of international trading, but there may be local state schemes. I'm attending a conference on this later this month, so I'll let you know.

International carbon trading has become possible only since Australia ratified the Kyoto Protocol, and yes, it's up to each country to decide how they implement carbon trading under Kyoto.

So it wouldn't be a problem if we implemented carbon taxes locally and the government rented out our emissions rights on the international market?

muso wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2008 at 10:15pm:

[quote author=pjb05 link=1206174117/15#16 date=1206247070] Now without being fired, that's as close as I can come to telling you how it operates. Carbon trading not only works - It's quite lucrative.

Define 'works'. Emissions are still rising and are likely to continue to do so. Europe has emissions trading and is struggling to meet targets.  

Emissions are lower than they otherwise would be without carbon trading. Obviously the extent of the reduction depends on how many countries join up and what the emissions levels are set at.

freediver wrote on Apr 5^th, 2008 at 7:11pm:

Emissions are lower than they otherwise would be without carbon trading. Obviously the extent of the reduction depends on how many countries join up and what the emissions levels are set at.

If you suscribe to the theory of AGW then this is nowhere near enough. We are told that to stabilise and then bring down CO2 in the atmosphere we need to make deep cuts in CO2 emissions. I can't see how this can be done without governments mandating technologies like nuclear or clean coal.

Carbon trading and technological mandates are not mutually exclusive. Furthermore pricing mechanisms will create the economic incentive for the changes you describe, but only after cheaper alternatives have been exploited. Pricing mechanisms remove the need for specific mandates.

The lack of reductions is down to the soft targets chosen, not the mechanism. The same lack of political will would hamstring a mechanism based on specific mandates, in addition to the extra economic damage they would do.

freediver wrote on Apr 5^th, 2008 at 7:35pm:

Carbon trading and technological mandates are not mutually exclusive. Furthermore pricing mechanisms will create the economic incentive for the changes you describe, but only after cheaper alternatives have been exploited. Pricing mechanisms remove the need for specific mandates. The lack of reductions is down to the soft targets chosen, not the mechanism. The same lack of political will would hamstring a mechanism based on specific mandates, in addition to the extra economic damage they would do.

There is no guarantee that making fossil fuels more expensive will curb their use. The oil price for instance has quadrupled in the last few years and demand is still increasing. Also if a greener energy saves someone money you can't be sure that they won't spend the money saved on a high emitting activity. Eg using the money saved driving a 'green' car to work on holiday air travel.  

The greatest emitters are power plants generating electricity. These are therfore the biggest opportunity for reductions. A lot of these are government owned and therfore lend themselves to direct measures rather than relying on some price signal.

There is no guarantee that making fossil fuels more expensive will curb their use.

Yes there is.

The oil price for instance has quadrupled in the last few years and demand is still increasing.

Demand would be higher if the price were lower.

Also if a greener energy saves someone money you can't be sure that they won't spend the money saved on a high emitting activity.

They may do so, but there would be fewer emissions involved if a price on emissions was the driving force. If government mandates were the driving force, what you describe may well result in more emissions.

The greatest emitters are power plants generating electricity. These are therfore the biggest opportunity for reductions. A lot of these are government owned and therfore lend themselves to direct measures rather than relying on some price signal.

You are ignoring the cheapest way to reduce emissions from these plants. It is not through government mandates for changes to the plant. It is through a reduction in electricity consumption. Both will reduce emissions from the plant, but the path of goverment mandates will be more expensive, partly because you will be trying to get the same reduction through far fewer mechanisms.

Of course they 'lend themselves' to government mandates, especially if you are looking for a politically easy solution. But it would be worse for the economy.

---

Here is an example for you PJ. In addition to reducing the number of passengers, high fuel costs are forcing airlines to 'cut the fat' in any way they can. There is no way that the government could start effectively legislating on the weight of a spoon that is allowed to be used on a plane.

Airlines Try To Lighten Up - Literally

http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/04/airlines-try-to.html

What do airlines do when their annual fuel bills double? For one thing, they put their planes on a diet.

With fuel now an airline's single largest expense (followed by labor), CNN reports that carriers are desperately trying anything that will save money at the pump. Reducing aircraft weight is one strategy, so the airlines are going over their planes with a fine tooth comb and tossing anything that isn't absolutely necessary .

You have to give it to the airlines, they've left no stone unturned. Just how far are they going?

US Airways is chucking meal carts and replacing them with models that are 12 pounds lighter. They've also tossed the glassware in first class in favor of less jet-set but lighter plastic cups. Carriers also are pulling magazine racks, trash compactors and ovens (because honestly, what U.S. airline is broiling up hot meals these days?)

American Airlines has all but called in Jenny Craig to shave weight from its fleet, pulling in-seat phones and their heavy wiring, removing lavatory power converters and investing in lighter silverware for business class passengers. American, which has something of a reputation for chopping costs (its legendary former CEO Bob Crandall once bragged that he saved the airline $40,000 by removing olives from first class dinner salads), has fired up the troops by forming an employee-driven "Fuel Smart Team" charged with continually searching for ways to save energy. Though it should be noted that American was lambasted earlier this year for flying a 225-seat Boeing 777 from Chicago to London with just five passengers on board.

---

And another:

Smaller Is Bigger

http://gas2.org/2008/04/06/smaller-is-bigger/

Auto sales in the U.S. during the last three months have been down, except for the smaller, cheaper and not-so-thirsty cars, with starting prices from $12,000 to $14,000, according to Autodata.

pjb05 wrote on Apr 5^th, 2008 at 6:18pm:

muso wrote on Apr 3rd, 2008 at 10:15pm: [quote author=pjb05 link=1206174117/15#16 date=1206247070] Now without being fired, that's as close as I can come to telling you how it operates. Carbon trading not only works - It's quite lucrative. Define 'works'. Emissions are still rising and are likely to continue to do so. Europe has emissions trading and is struggling to meet targets.

Some reduction is better than none. California is quite a good success story. They have cut carbon emissions across the board through alternative energy and smart building design. In comparison to the other states in the US, we're talking about a 50% reduction. If they can do that using off-the-shelf technology, why can't others. If it were a country, California would be about number 11 in the world in terms of gross GDP.

I could also give the example of Iceland, which plans to phase out fossil fuel completely by 2050 but that's only about 250,000 inhabitants, and (like Australia) has enormous geothermal reserves.

Interesting link:

http://www.geothermal-resources.com.au/

pjb05 wrote on Apr 5^th, 2008 at 6:18pm:

Europe has emissions trading and is struggling to meet targets.

That's quite true unfortunately. In the 1990's we were increasing CO2 production by around 1% per annum globally. Between 2002 and the present day, we had an annual global increase of 2-3% per annum.

The word runaway springs to mind.

An interesting article in the Australian today:

No smoking hot spotFont Size: Decrease Increase Print Page: Print David Evans | July 18, 2008
I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.

FullCAM models carbon flows in plants, mulch, debris, soils and agricultural products, using inputs such as climate data, plant physiology and satellite data. I've been following the global warming debate closely for years.

When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects.

The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.

But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

There has not been a public debate about the causes of global warming and most of the public and our decision makers are not aware of the most basic salient facts:

1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.

Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever.

If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. If we had found the greenhouse signature then I would be an alarmist again.

When the signature was found to be missing in 2007 (after the latest IPCC report), alarmists objected that maybe the readings of the radiosonde thermometers might not be accurate and maybe the hot spot was there but had gone undetected. Yet hundreds of radiosondes have given the same answer, so statistically it is not possible that they missed the hot spot.

Recently the alarmists have suggested we ignore the radiosonde thermometers, but instead take the radiosonde wind measurements, apply a theory about wind shear, and run the results through their computers to estimate the temperatures. They then say that the results show that we cannot rule out the presence of a hot spot. If you believe that you'd believe anything.

2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. There is plenty of evidence that global warming has occurred, and theory suggests that carbon emissions should raise temperatures (though by how much is hotly disputed) but there are no observations by anyone that implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause of the recent global warming.

3. The satellites that measure the world's temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980). Land-based temperature readings are corrupted by the "urban heat island" effect: urban areas encroaching on thermometer stations warm the micro-climate around the thermometer, due to vegetation changes, concrete, cars, houses. Satellite data is the only temperature data we can trust, but it only goes back to 1979. NASA reports only land-based data, and reports a modest warming trend and recent cooling. The other three global temperature records use a mix of satellite and land measurements, or satellite only, and they all show no warming since 2001 and a recent cooling.

4. The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect.

None of these points are controversial. The alarmist scientists agree with them, though they would dispute their relevance.

The last point was known and past dispute by 2003, yet Al Gore made his movie in 2005 and presented the ice cores as the sole reason for believing that carbon emissions cause global warming. In any other political context our cynical and experienced press corps would surely have called this dishonest and widely questioned the politician's assertion.

Until now the global warming debate has merely been an academic matter of little interest. Now that it matters, we should debate the causes of global warming.

So far that debate has just consisted of a simple sleight of hand: show evidence of global warming, and while the audience is stunned at the implications, simply assert that it is due to carbon emissions.

In the minds of the audience, the evidence that global warming has occurred becomes conflated with the alleged cause, and the audience hasn't noticed that the cause was merely asserted, not proved.

If there really was any evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming, don't you think we would have heard all about it ad nauseam by now?

The world has spent $50 billion on global warming since 1990, and we have not found any actual evidence that carbon emissions cause global warming. Evidence consists of observations made by someone at some time that supports the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming. Computer models and theoretical calculations are not evidence, they are just theory.

What is going to happen over the next decade as global temperatures continue not to rise? The Labor Government is about to deliberately wreck the economy in order to reduce carbon emissions. If the reasons later turn out to be bogus, the electorate is not going to re-elect a Labor government for a long time. When it comes to light that the carbon scare was known to be bogus in 2008, the ALP is going to be regarded as criminally negligent or ideologically stupid for not having seen through it. And if the Liberals support the general thrust of their actions, they will be seen likewise.

The onus should be on those who want to change things to provide evidence for why the changes are necessary. The Australian public is eventually going to have to be told the evidence anyway, so it might as well be told before wrecking the economy.

Dr David Evans was a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005.

pjb05 - yes, hopefully it will see the end of the ALP.

The libs mistake is to follow ruddydudd down the populist sham avenue.

David Evans is an ass. Rocket scientist? Don't make me laugh. He's just a computer geek. I refuse to waste my time on such nonsense because thankfully there is less and less of it these days.

The problem is that gullible journalists actually report this kind of thing.

muso wrote on Jul 19^th, 2008 at 7:44am:

The problem is that gullible journalists actually report this kind of thing.

No, they're not gullible. It just a tactic of disinformation to confuse and stifle the facts. Basically, it the skeptic's favourite catch-phrase "Some experts disagree....."

All his points about the science are well known, peer reviewed and largely undisputed. So far all I have heard here in rebutal is name calling.

pjb05 wrote on Jul 20^th, 2008 at 7:54am:

All his points about the science are well know, peer reviewed and largely undisputed. So far all I have heard here in rebutal is name calling.

Yeah. He's good at the science - of computer programming. Ever wonder why he's always the second author? "..... and Evans"

By the way, you know that most of his work was related to computer models such as CAMfor and fullCAM? Those models are very much down at the detail level, and are totally unrelated to atmospheric science and climatology. They were accounting models used to determine carbon emissions for a number of low-end emitters such as forestry and domestic scenarios. They are useful as a few extra jigsaw pieces added to give us the full picture on Australia's carbon emissions.

Maybe his contract was up and he wanted something more lucrative.

(edit - I meant unrelated)

Here's a link to Dave's company, "Science Speak":

http://www.sciencespeak.com/


Quote:

Science Speak is a scientific modeling and programming company, specializing in creating Windows programs written in C/C++. We are currently working on Writus, a word processor with full support for equations and very long documents. Sounds like fun, eh? Should be a best seller! Our last scientific modeling job was to do carbon accounting for the Australian Government, from 1999 to 2005. We helped develop FullCAM, a leading carbon accounting model that estimates carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and agricultural products............. .....David Evans has a background in mathematics, computing, and electrical engineering. He also researches mathematics, in the areas of Fourier analysis, calculus, the number system, and multivariable polynomials.

You've got to use a certain ...discrimination with somebody who describes himself as a "Rocket Scientist" on their own CV  ;D

I thought it was obvious that he was using the term "rocket scientist" in a self mocking sort of way. As to his credentials, are they really that relevant when he is quoting other (climate) scientists work?

pjb05 wrote on Jul 20^th, 2008 at 9:47am:

I thought it was obvious that he was using the term "rocket scientist" in a self mocking sort of way. As to his credentials, are they really that relevant when he is quoting other (climate) scientists work?

Correct. His credentials and experience are not relevant. They just seem to be relevant to the more gullible members of the general public.

If you look at his main arguments to date, he's basically saying that he doesn't understand the forcing effects of atmospheric CO2 and the related feedback of water vapour. Therefore they must be wrong. It goes against all scientific principles. If he really wanted to attack the basics, he would come up with some research that demonstrated it to be wrong. The problem is that he doesn't understand the basics enough.

Acid is quite correct in implying that it's a deliberately engineered campaign. They recruit people like Evans.

This article was also posted here:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216342758

In addition to my comments there:

Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect.

Can the computer programmer say what this important message is, or does his code not cover it? The fact that there may have been other causes previously is not in any way evidence that CO2 is not the cause today. That's the whole point of the current research.

If there really was any evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming, don't you think we would have heard all about it ad nauseam by now?

Of course, unless you've got your head in the sand...

The world has spent $50 billion on global warming since 1990, and we have not found any actual evidence that carbon emissions cause global warming.

That's wrong PJ. Even the programmer acknowledges that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

All his points about the science are well known, peer reviewed and largely undisputed. So far all I have heard here in rebutal is name calling.

Maybe, but his interpretations of them are illogical.

As to his credentials, are they really that relevant when he is quoting other (climate) scientists work?

No, but if he uses his credentials to back up his absurd intepretations, then yes.

freediver wrote on Jul 20^th, 2008 at 10:43am:

Can the computer programmer say what this important message is, or does his code not cover it? The fact that there may have been other causes previously is not in any way evidence that CO2 is not the cause today. That's the whole point of the current research.

I missed the other thread.

Basically you're talking about a company that was hired to write a computer program that accounted for carbon in organic substances such as timber, soils etc, based on instructions from experts in the field.  

It's like asking the electrician who rewired the White House to comment on US politics. He might offer all kinds of expert opinions at the bar after the job.

PB - You might hire somebody that puts "Rocket Scientist' on their CV, but I wouldn't.

wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2008 at 6:41pm:

Could you explain further what you mean? There are feedbacks that are not fully accounted for, but generally these are all positive feedbacks. If you mean that the IPCC synthesis report for 2007 is inaccurate due to political pressure, mainly from China, I agree with you. I know one climatologist personally, and from what he says, the IPCC report was not even discussed in much depth in Bali, because it was woefully understating the reality. Even though the IPCC Third Assessment Report (WG1- 2001) was much more conservative than AR4 last year, the real situation is much worse.

Anyone with any brains knows that "man made" global warming is a scam,Just read "the club of romes-first global revolution- in it they state why the super rich agreed on it ,for their purposes.It is for the mass idiot,and scientists who don't do their own research! I can't believe how so many people can get sucked into this.It prob wasn't discussed because they all know the report is totally flawed & tampered with.They only talk about it when they are trying to sell you(the mass idiot) some bullshit enviromental policy.

The climate change smokescreen
August 2, 2008

Global warming scepticism is being manipulated by tactics reminiscient of an earlier campaign of denial, writes David McKnight.

When the tobacco industry was feeling the heat from scientists who showed smoking caused cancer, it took decisive action, engaging in a decades-long public relations campaign to undermine the medical research and discredit the scientists.

The aim was not to prove tobacco harmless but to cast doubt on the science. In the space provided by doubt, billions of dollars in sales could continue.

....

In May, the multibillion-dollar oil giant Exxon Mobil acknowledged it had been doing something similar. It said it would cease funding nine groups that had fuelled a global campaign to deny climate change.

Exxon's decision came after a shareholder revolt by members of the Rockefeller family and big superannuation funds to get the company to take climate change more seriously. Exxon (once Standard Oil) was founded by John D. Rockefeller.

Brad Miller, chairman of the US House of Representatives oversight committee on science and technology, last year said Exxon's support for sceptics "appears to be an effort to distort public discussion". The funding of an array of think tanks and institutes which house climate sceptics and deniers also worried Britain's premier scientific body, the Royal Society. It found that in 2005, Exxon distributed nearly $3 million to 39 groups which "misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence that greenhouse gases are driving climate change". Its protests helped force Exxon's recent retreat.

....

In Australia, the main body trying to undermine the science of global warming is the Lavoisier Group. It maintains a website with links to the Competitive Enterprise Institute (more than $2 million from Exxon), the Science and Environmental Policy Project ($20,000) and the Centre for the Study of Carbon Dioxide (at least $100,000). The Competitive Enterprise Institute returns the compliment to Lavoisier in its publication, which praised the group for its work in defeating the Kyoto protocol. Lavoisier, it said, "provides the principal intellectual and organisational opposition in Australia to Kyoto". Its sources of funding are not public.

The Lavoisier group is certainly influential in the Federal Opposition. During the Howard years, a senior figure in the group told Guy Pearse, author of High & Dry, a study of climate policy in Australia, there was "an understanding in cabinet that all the science is crap".

....

The full SMH article here

Common Myths About Climate Chnage



The world has been cooling since 1998.
Temperatures have been going up and down slightly, but the clear trend is upwards. Since regular temperature records began in 1850, 12 of the past

13 years have been the hottest on record. Air samples from bubbles trapped in ancient ice, and cross-checked with other samples, show temperatures are rising faster than at any time since modern humans appeared.


The world is getting warmer but we don't know the real cause.
The causes of global warming are not absolutely certain, but the overwhelming majority of researchers, working independently in different parts of the world and using different models, have been coming to the same conclusions for two decades. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has reached the conclusion that it is "very likely" that human activity is the main cause of climate change; that is, there is a certainty "greater than 90 per cent". Few scientific theories approach that level of certainty.


Climate change is caused by solar activity.
Changes in radiation from the sun affect Earth's climate, as do oscillations in the Earth's orbit. But since the 1970s, when temperatures increasingly rose beyond norms, both the sun's energy output and the Earth's orbit have been stable. In any case, solar activity is included in climate models.


There is no consensus among scientists.
There is clear and growing consensus in the world scientific community, and in Australia, that human activity is the main driver of climate change, and that cutting greenhouse gas emissions is the only way of slowing it. This is now the view of all the world's leading national science academies and institutes. This does not constitute a unanimous view, however, with a small minority of scientists in relevant fields believing it is too early to be sure.


Why believe long-term predictions when meteorologists cannot even say if it will rain next week?
Climatology takes a step back from day-to-day weather prediction and looks at longer-term patterns. Numerous independent studies have concluded that carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases put into the atmosphere by humans are the new variable causing climate change. Climate models have been repeatedly tested and shown to accurately simulate climate scenarios.


Human emissions are smaller than natural emissions, so cannot be blamed for climate change.
Rotting vegetation releases far more greenhouse gases than does human activity, but those emissions are absorbed by an equal amount of growing vegetation and by the oceans. The new element in this closed system is the extra carbon humans are removing from underground coal, oil and gas reserves and putting into the atmosphere.

....

The full SMH article here

I saw the SMH article. Those small amounts of funding by the fossil fuel industry are hardly startling giving that it is dwarfed by the funding available for climate research. This flow of money depends on keeping the AGW threat alive.  

"The aim was not to prove tobacco [climate change] harmless but to cast doubt on the science. In the space provided by doubt, billions of dollars in sales could continue."

Therefore, there is no need to provide huge funding to debunk climate change science - only enough for them to mutter their favourite phrase, "some experts disagree" or "there isn't a concensus on the data".

Acid Monkey wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2008 at 10:37pm:

"The aim was not to prove tobacco [climate change] harmless but to cast doubt on the science. In the space provided by doubt, billions of dollars in sales could continue." Therefore, there is no need to provide huge funding to debunk climate change science - only enough for them to mutter their favourite phrase, "some experts disagree" or "there isn't a concensus on the data".

So are you saying that every scientist who disagrees with the AGW theory only does so because they are in the pay of the fossil fuel industry?

pjb05 wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2008 at 11:10pm:

So are you saying that every scientist who disagrees with the AGW theory only does so because they are in the pay of the fossil fuel industry?

I'll give my opinion here. I'd say no. Most 'scientists' in this category are more than a little bit eccentric, including the 'odd' rocket scientist  ;)  There are some who are obviously being paid, not by the fossil fuel industry, but by the very conservative business lobby. Interestingly enough, the fossil fuel industry doesn't fund them any more. Exxon made that decision a couple of years ago. Anglo Coal even provides public sessions on the dangers of Climate Change.

You don't have to be a 'rocket scientist' to see that some very conservative groups see climate change as a threat to their economic survival, and will stop at nothing to derail the debate. I can understand their rationale, but it's for short term gain. Unfortunately mainstream economists have a myopic view on anything beyond 10 years.  

Here's one of the groups I'm talking about:

http://www.ipa.org.au/

It seems I was wrong about Exxon:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/05/exxon_still_funding_misreprese_1.php


   "in 2008 we will discontinue contributions to several public policy interest groups whose position on climate change could divert attention from the important discussion on how the world will secure the energy required for economic growth in an environmentally responsible manner."

Remember Jimmy Durante? "Did you ever have the feeling that you wanted to go, and still have the feeling that you wanted to stay?"

I would point out though that everyone has a stake in the economy. Those of lefty-green bent seem to forget (or don't care) that the ordinary worker cops it in the neck first when the economy turns pear shaped.

To be fair, we generally do a little research, listen to views of experts, and or, commentators we respect, run it all past our own experience and then form our opinions.

Could we be misled? Sure, but I certainly do not believe we are in regards to the scientific belief in Climate Change.

The skeptics camp, includes the ultra right wing, whose political attachment to the earliest and most vociferous deniers, the political friends of big oil, saw them wed themselves totally to the denialist camp, and then we have the conspiracy theorists who see collusion and corruption behind every rock, making for very strange bedfellows indeed.

The most ludicrous claim of the denialist camp is that the world's pre-eminent scientists, colluded with each other to create a myth so they could guarantee financial gain for themselves.
This myth presupposes that these highly intelligent scientists would otherwise be unable to stave off starvation, without concocting a false theory to leech funds from governments.

Just how these imaginary conspirators, manage to gain the acquiescence of the vast majority of the scientific community to partake in their claimed swindle, is never even attempted to be explained, apart from whispered innuendo about secret cabals.

So while the denialists cannot all be classified as nutcases, I am satisfied that the description will adequately encompass the majority of them, without too much dispute.

As the remaining denialists shrink in number, they will start to look more and more like nutcases and greedy whores. There will not be 100% consensus until the last of them die out. Witch is the way with almost all scientific theories.

This flow of money depends on keeping the AGW threat alive.

That doesn't mean that it impacts on the net results. Individual scientsts would still get far more money if they disproved AGW. It would take an absurd global conspiracy to do what you imply. Given that it is difficult enough to get even two scientists to agree on a new idea you would have to have a slim grasp on reality to take this seriously. Furthermore scientists would get more money if there were greater uncertainty. They would talk up the uncertainty, rather than talking it down as they have been (with the exception of Exxon funded scientsts). The money does not depend on keeping the risk alive as you claim. It depends on keeping it unknown. The skeptic camps are the ones keeping the money pouring into this field of research.

pjb05 wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2008 at 11:10pm:

So are you saying that every scientist who disagrees with the AGW theory only does so because they are in the pay of the fossil fuel industry?

I don't think that I've said or have implied that in any of my posts. I'm saying that the business lobby or large corporations whose business is linked directly or indirectly to GW do not have to debunk the science. They only have to cast doubt.

Australia should be leading the way in fighting climate change and can influence other countries to join in, according to the head of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

Angel Gurria, who is in Melbourne for meetings, said Australia had a particular responsibility to face up to climate change.

"Australia is also a very big exporter of raw materials including coal, and therefore it has to set the example," he told ABC Television.

"Australia has a lot to contribute to this process so keep at it."

Australia is the world's largest exporter of coal which, when burned for energy, releases carbon dioxide.

Mr Gurria noted Australia produced more carbon emissions than most other countries.

The OECD represents the 30 mostly wealthy nations who have embraced democracy and the market economy. Members include Australia, the US, Japan and the UK.

Mr Gurria, the OECD's secretary-general, praised the federal government's proposed emissions trading scheme, and said the world was watching.

He said Australia's efforts to reduce greenhouse pollution would "absolutely" influence other nations to follow suit.

"Australia is already leading, it's an example, we're all looking at it."

Mr Gurria denied that moving to cut emissions would hurt Australia's big exporters.

He said a whole new industry of "green" businesses would spring up and there were attractive "first mover opportunities" for the nations who embraced the concept of reducing emissions.

Mr Gurria is in Melbourne for Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation group (APEC) meetings dedicated to removing international market barriers.

© 2008 AAP

Copied from SMH website

http://news.smh.com.au/national/oecd-wants-australia-to-lead-on-climate-20080805-3q8i.html

The increased pressure on America to ratify kyoto will do far more good than any localised reductions. The global political benefits of joining in (we're still far from taking a lead) are real. China an India also have one less excuse for stalling.

pjb05 wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2008 at 9:32am:

I would point out though that everyone has a stake in the economy. Those of lefty-green bent seem to forget (or don't care) that the ordinary worker cops it in the neck first when the economy turns pear shaped.

Well since you prefer to attach dollar signs, how much is the Great Barrier Reef worth to the Australian Economy?

The figures I've seen suggests that the Great Barrier Reef alone is worth about $5.8 billion a year in associated tourist dollars and sustains the equivalent of 63,000 full-time jobs.

No. I don't prefer to attach a dollar sign - I have a concern for human welfare. You know that boring stuff like having a job, putting a roof over your head etc.

I take it you are implying that if Australia doesn't curtail our emissions the GBR will disappear. Firstly if your subscribe to the AGW theory its thw World's emissions that matter (of which we contribute 1.5%).  Secondly its by no means certain that warming of a few degrees will actually harm the reef.

PS those tourist dollars will go anyway if some get their way as cheap air travel is a significant source of CO2 emissions.

It's not exactly some outrageous theory that nobody can agree upon, PB.

The main issues are ocean acidification when it comes to the reef. It will be the combination of the increase in global temperatures peaking around 2030 and ocean acidification which reduces calcification in shallow water tropical corals. There are of course natural cycles superimposed on the anthropogenic warming, and failing a major stratospheric volcano occurring around 2030, that will be the time that reef systems will start to fail due to this 'double whammy' effect.


Quote:

Firstly if your subscribe to the AGW theory its thw World's emissions that matter (of which we contribute 1.5%).

The 1.5% is a total strawman. The world's CO2 emissions have been in balance for millions of years. The fact that atmospheric CO2 have been  building inexorably since the beginning of Industrialisation is due almost entirely to anthropogenic factors, which include the changes in tropical land use, the burning of fossil fuels and the production of cement. Those are the major factors concerned.

It's not due to changes in solar activity. It's not due to volcanoes, so why deny the inescapable conclusion?

Just because air transport is largely non sustainable today does not mean that it will continue to be non sustainable.

Times change. They always have done. The technology of 2050 will be different to that of today.  The factors that will drive the economy in the future will be different to those of today.

We're not talking about sudden changes either. It's sudden change that will cause downturns in the economy.

It doesn't matter what skeptics believe or say. The momentum is there. Solar Thermal Energy and Geothermal energy are already big business in the US, and they will be equally big in Australia.

Solar Themal is already more cost effective than natural gas based power generation, so why would you subsidise inefficient technology that is about to become obsolete anyway?

As far as jobs are concerned. People can be retrained. There is currently a skills shortage in Australia, and that's not going to end any time soon.

pjb05 wrote on Aug 21^st, 2008 at 7:24pm:

I take it you are implying that if Australia doesn't curtail our emissions the GBR will disappear.

Even my 14 year old nephew realises that it's a global issue. Substitute 'the world' for "Australia' and you're on the ball.  

muso wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2008 at 10:28am:

It's not exactly some outrageous theory that nobody can agree upon, PB. The main issues are ocean acidification when it comes to the reef. It will be the combination of the increase in global temperatures peaking around 2030 and ocean acidification which reduces calcification in shallow water tropical corals. There are of course natural cycles superimposed on the anthropogenic warming, and failing a major stratospheric volcano occurring around 2030, that will be the time that reef systems will start to fail due to this 'double whammy' effect.

Will they. It's nice to be so sure of everything. The evidence is that corals have been increasing their calcification rates over the past 50 years.

Here's some more on coral reefs. Yes I know it comes from a sceptics site and you will tell me that it is funded by profit crazy fossil fuel companies. But it refers to a published peer reviewed study on the GBR:

The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (www.co2science.org.), however, has drawn attention to a study by Lough and Barnes, published in 2000 in the Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, that assembled and analyzed the calcification characteristics of 245 similar-sized corals of Australias Great Barrier Reef. It found that increasing CO2 would increase, not decrease, the calcification of coral reefs. Their study notes that, "This increase of ~4% in calcification rate conflicts with the estimated decrease in coral calcification rate of 6-14% over the same time period suggested by Kleypas et al. (1999) as a response to changes in ocean chemistry."


The Center comments, "In light of these real-world empirical-based calculations, and in stark contrast to the doom-and-gloom prognostications of the world's climate alarmists, Lough and Barnes thus conclude that coral calcification rates may have already significantly increased along the GBR in response to global climate change.  And they are likely to increase even more, we would add, if the air's CO2 content and temperature continue to rise in the years ahead."

Did it take acidification into account?

Quote:

Here's some more on coral reefs. Yes I know it comes from a sceptics site and you will tell me that it is funded by profit crazy fossil fuel companies. But it refers to a published peer reviewed study on the GBR:

anything that is not of mainstream will attract this sort of accusation. alternate views are fine by me..

freediver wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2008 at 6:21pm:

Did it take acidification into account?

I'd say so seeing it refered to increased CO2 levels and changes in ocean chemistry.

Here's some more:

http://www.co2science.org/subject/c/summaries/calcification.php

Another major blow to the Kleypas et al. model was provided by the work of Lough and Barnes (2000), who assembled and analyzed the calcification characteristics of 245 similar-sized massive colonies of Porites corals obtained from 29 reef sites located along the length, and across the breadth, of Australia's Great Barrier Reef (GBR), which data spanned a latitudinal range of approximately 9° and an annual average sea surface temperature (SST) range of 25-27°C.  To these data they added other published data from the Hawaiian Archipelago (Grigg, 1981, 1997) and Phuket, Thailand (Scoffin et al., 1992), thereby extending the latitudinal range of the expanded data set to 20° and the annual average SST range to 23-29°C.

This analysis revealed that the GBR calcification data were linearly related to the average annual SST data, such that "a 1°C rise in average annual SST increased average annual calcification by 0.39 g cm-2 year-1."  Results were much the same for the extended data set; Lough and Barnes report that "the regression equation [calcification = 0.33(SST) - 7.07] explained 83.6% of the variance in average annual calcification (F = 213.59, p less than 0.00)," noting that "this equation provides for a change in calcification rate of 0.33 g cm-2 year-1 for each 1°C change in average annual SST."

With respect to the significance of their findings, Lough and Barnes say they "allow assessment of possible impacts of global climate change on coral reef ecosystems," and between the two 50-year periods 1780-1829 and 1930-1979, they calculate a calcification increase of 0.06 g cm-2 year-1, noting that "this increase of ~4% in calcification rate conflicts with the estimated decrease in coral calcification rate of 6-14% over the same time period suggested by Kleypas et al. (1999) as a response to changes in ocean chemistry."  Even more stunning is their observation that between the two 20-year periods 1903-1922 and 1979-1998, "the SST-associated increase in calcification is estimated to be less than 5% in the northern GBR, ~12% in the central GBR, ~20% in the southern GBR and to increase dramatically (up to ~50%) to the south of the GBR."

In light of these real-world observations, and in stark contrast to the doom-and-gloom prognostications of the world's climate alarmists, Lough and Barnes concluded that coral calcification rates "may have already significantly increased along the GBR in response to global climate change."  But in spite this compelling evidence, as well as the similar findings of others, claims of impending coral doom caused by rising air temperatures and CO2 concentrations have continued to rear their ugly heads ... on a regular basis ... and in the usual places.

How do they get the historical calcification rates?

Not sure FD, you would have to look at the original paper.

pjb05 wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2008 at 6:19pm:

The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (www.co2science.org.), however, has drawn attention....

More slight of hand from Idso and Idso
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_the_Study_of_Carbon_Dioxide_and_Global_Change

Sorry, I don't have much free time to post here these days, but some of the commentary on that site  is quite laughable. Of course the calification process has a biological basis, but calcification should be considered from an empirical viewpoint, not just the secretion of aragonite by marine organisms. We all know that warmer conditions are condusive to increased calcification, but the crux of the problem is the acidity. It doesn't matter how quickly these clever little polyps can secrete the stuff, the overall determining factor is the pKa of the bicarbonate/carbonate system in seawater. If the stuff is going to simply dissolve away then the increased activity is to no avail.

It's interesting that they should attack an obscure early paper on the subject published in 2000, and don't go after the paper that made the frontispiece of Nature late last year.


Well you can believe me, or you can enjoy watching CO2 Science's new DVD "contrasting the fantasy world of Al Gore and James Hansen with the factual findings of real-world science". Go on - you know you want to buy it. It's only $20 - a small price for increasing your calcitrant rate.  

There have been a large number of papers published since that paper in 2000.

Have to go.

So what are you saying by putting up the Source Watch on Idso and Idso - have they been bought off by Exon? Craig Idso seems to be rather well qualified in the field:


Biographical information
A biographical note states that Craig Idso "received his B.S. in Geography from Arizona State University, his M.S. in Agronomy from the University of Nebraska - Lincoln, and his Ph.D. in Geography from Arizona State University, where he studied as one of a small group of University Graduate Scholars. Dr. Idso's current research focus is on carbon sequestration, but he remains actively involved in several other aspects of global and environmental change, including climatology and meteorology, along with their impacts on agriculture. Dr. Idso has published scientific articles on issues related to data quality, the growing season, the seasonal cycle of atmospheric CO2, world food supplies, coral reefs, and urban CO2 concentrations, the latter of which he investigated via a National Science Foundation grant as a faculty researcher in the Office of Climatology at Arizona State University. In addition, he has lectured in Meteorology at Arizona State University, and in Physical Geography at Mesa and Chandler-Gilbert Community Colleges."[1]

It states that Idso was "Director of Environmental Science at Peabody Energy in St. Louis, Missouri and is a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Geophysical Union, American Meteorological Society, Arizona-Nevada Academy of Sciences, Association of American Geographers, Ecological Society of America, and The Honor Society of Phi Kappa Phi."[1]

LOL, thanks Muso. You always have to be cautious about 'scientists' who go after people like Gore and Hansen rather than their peers, then try to pretend they are being objective or contributing to science. Maybe the 2000 paper was the first one they came across. Or maybe it was a deliberate deception.

So effectively they did not take acidification into account, because they were looking at changes to the rate at which polyps lay down structure and ignoring the rate at which it is dissolved?

I highlighted a few sections from the CO2 science article. Lough and Barnes refer to increases in calcification per year. Would this not then take into account the ocean acidity effect given that the studies were conducted over a time of elevated CO2 levels?

The writers seem to regard the results as relevant to climate change if this quote is anything to go by: "With respect to the significance of their findings, Lough and Barnes say they "allow assessment of possible impacts of global climate change on coral reef ecosystems,".

Their work contradicts the Kleypas study which claims to show that calcification rates are decreasing on the GBR, which has been widely trumpeted by environmentalists.

I highlighted a few sections from the CO2 science article. Lough and Barnes refer to increases in calcification per year. Would this not then take into account the ocean acidity effect given that the studies were conducted over a time of elevated CO2 levels?

I don't think so, but I'm no expert. Calcification seems to refer to the laying down of calcium. Acidity wouldn't necessary prevent that, it would just gradually leach it away. Hence the sourcewatch comments:

It doesn't matter how quickly these clever little polyps can secrete the stuff, the overall determining factor is the pKa of the bicarbonate/carbonate system in seawater. If the stuff is going to simply dissolve away then the increased activity is to no avail.

Their work contradicts the Kleypas study which claims to show that calcification rates are decreasing on the GBR, which has been widely trumpeted by environmentalists.

Strawman. What environmentalists have been trumpetting is coral bleaching and the impact of acidity on things like oysters.

Basically the argument is similar to saying that increased temperature equates with increased calcification rates. Well of course it does - to a point. We all know that most plants and animals do better in the summer than the winter. The effect that we're discussing is just a tad more complex than that.

However there are little troublesome effects such as coral bleaching that occur when temperatures increase. Then we have the progressive increase in temperature and the superimposed natural cycles.

As an analogy, take a sandcastle on the beach. The waves are like the natural cycles and the incoming tide is like global warming.  Eventually you get to the stage where a large wave destroys the sandcastle, but it happens after the tide comes in enough for that to take effect. The peak of the wave is due around 2030-2035. During that period there will be an excessive coral bleaching episode, with the additional effect of decreasing seawater pH.

Extensive work on decreasing pH and  calcification has been carried out on a number of organisms, in many cases using aquarium studies. The effect is far from simple, and involves homeostatic imbalance on the organism as well as pKa effects on the deposited aragonite. Organisms studied include Porifera, Cnidaria, Phytoplankton (particularly Coccolithophores) as well as many fish species. As far as fish are concerned, the main effect is on otolith calcification. The otolith is an important organ which is sensitive to gravity (balance) and linear acceleration.

It's a very simplistic argument that has been disguised to make it look more subtle than it actually is, and quite frankly it disgusts me that people would stoop to such tactics. They are obviously fully aware of what they are saying, and their entire reason is not to clarify the issue, but to to obfuscate and 'muddy the waters', presumably so that business is freed of inconvenient economical obstacles such as carbon trading.

The other slightly more subtle and insidious effect is that increased temperature of surface water leads to reduced oxygen content.

Well it appears that Lough and Barnes didn't just look at rates of calcification but also density and extention of the reef. If the latter two are increasing it would be safe to assume that Muso's theory (ie about the calcification rate not being able to keep up with the negative effect of CO2 induced ocean acidity), has not been demonstated so far. Indeed quite the opposite:


Historical Coral Growth at the Great Barrier Reef
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference
Lough, J.M. and Barnes, D.J.  1997.  Several centuries of variation in skeletal extension, density and calcification in massive Porites colonies from the Great Barrier Reef: A proxy for seawater temperature and a background of variability against which to identify unnatural change.  Journal of Experimental and Marine Biology and Ecology 211: 29-67.
What was done
Annual density, linear extension and calcification rates were determined from several coral cores retrieved from 35 sites at the Great Barrier Reef from 9° to 23°S, providing information about long-term variability in coral growth there since the late 15th century.

What was learned
All three of the parameters studied showed a general decrease in values from the north to the south.  Temporally, the authors' results indicated that growth characteristics for Porites are "highly variable," with extension and calcification rates varying "as much as ±20-30% about the mean, both from year to year and over the 10-30-year periods."  The temporal variability of density was much less at ±10% about the mean, both inter-annually and over 10-30 year periods.  The authors also note that their data showed frequent and extended periods of coral growth characteristics that were above or below the long-term mean, cautioning that "it would be unwise to rely on short-term values (say averages over less than 30 years) to assess mean conditions," adding it would be "rash to compare one year's value with another and it would be reckless to compare individual years in different decades without analyzing the long-term trends."

Analysis of average annual calcification rates revealed a statistically significant correlation with available sea surface temperature records, suggesting (though not confirming) that long-term variations in Porites calcification rates on the Great Barrier Reef are driven by variations in sea surface temperatures.  Using this relationship, the authors calculated that a rise in sea surface temperature from 20° to 21°C would increase the calcification rate by about 3.5%.

What it means
Because calcification, extension and density were shown to decrease with increasing latitude (or with decreasing water temperature), the authors suggested that calcification rate in Porites may not be an acceptable proxy for assessing the health of coral reef communities.  "Unfortunately," they note, "declines in calcification in Porites on the Great Barrier Reef over recent decades have been interpreted to be as a result of degradation of the marine environment."  And true it is, their record indicates a recent decline in calcification rates for this region.  However, their data show that "a decline in calcification equivalent to the recent decline occurred earlier this century and much greater declines occurred in the 18th and 19th centuries."  Furthermore, analyses of annual density banding from the coral samples "indicate that the 20th century has witnessed the second highest period of above average calcification in the past 237 years."  As a result, the authors conclude that "the observed decline in coral growth in recent decades may be, simply, a return to more 'normal' conditions."


Reviewed 1 August 1999

indicate that the 20th century has witnessed the second highest period of above average calcification in the past 237 years

So one 100 year period was the second highest out of a period of just over two centuries?  :P

freediver wrote on Aug 28^th, 2008 at 5:41pm:

indicate that the 20th century has witnessed the second highest period of above average calcification in the past 237 years So one 100 year period was the second highest out of a period of just over two centuries?  :P

No it says "the twentieth century has witnessed", that does not mean the whole century. If you look back a line you will find this:

However, their data show that "a decline in calcification equivalent to the recent decline occurred earlier this century (ie the 20th) and much greater declines occurred in the 18th and 19th centuries."

Do they know what caused the previous declines, and whether the same cause is attributable to the 'recent' one? Does the presence of the previous declines mean that the pending acidifcation of the ocean will not cause a far greater decline in the future?

pjb05 wrote on Aug 28^th, 2008 at 4:55pm:

it would be safe to assume that Muso's theory (ie about ............

Oh so it's my theory? That's almost as laughable as the quote from the front page of "CO2 science" that says  "contrasting the fantasy world of Al Gore and James Hansen with the factual findings of real-world science"


Are you really so naive that you can't see through that sort of thing? Al Gore is a public presenter - an ex politician, not a serious worker in the field.

Let's say you disagreed with the reporting of the Russian Georgian conflict on Channel 9 news. I don't know where you live but if you're in Melbourne, it would be like saying, " This guy Tony Jones is totally wrong about the Georgian situation - he's living in a fantasy world. Or in Queensland - Bruce Paige (9 anchorman)  is totally deluded about the situation in Georgia.

The question you have to ask is just who are they trying to kid? Certainly not serious workers in the field. They would find the Al Gore analogy as amusing as I do. Maybe the odd member of the general public who didn't bother to think too deeply on the subject would be caught out by it.

The point is that the Ocean pH has already dropped by 0.1 from 8.3 to 8.2. (That's a logarithmic scale by the way. pH is the negative log of the Hydrogen ion activity). Most of that drop has occurred during the last 40 years or so, so any studies previous to that are totally irrelevant.

As the buffering capacity of the ocean drops, the atmospheric CO2 levels will rise even faster. Remember that currently 50% of the excess CO2 produced is taken up by the oceans. That figure will drop as time goes on.

You have gone off on a tangent Muso. I thought we were discussing the findings of Barnes and Lough, not if CO2 Science are a bunch of shonks. Here B&L explain there work:


Proxy Records Of Coral Calcification And Rising Atmospheric CO2
D.J. Barnes and J.M. Lough
Australian Institute of Marine Science, PMB 3, Mail Centre, Townsville Qld 4810
www.aims.gov.au/pages/auscore/auscore-abstracts-2001-01.html#03

A number of papers in the past two years have suggested that coral reefs are threatened by rising atmospheric CO2. The basic arguments for this are contained in the first of these papers (Kleypas et al., 1999). It is proposed rising atmospheric CO2 acidifies surface ocean waters because atmospheric CO2 dissolves in seawater to maintain air-sea equilibrium. This acidification shifts the seawater carbonate equilibrium such that surface seawater contains less carbonate ions. Experimental evidence suggests that calcification in reefal organisms is decreased by decreased carbonate ion concentration. Thus, reefal constructive processes will decline and eventually be outweighed by natural destructive processes. Kleypas et al (ibid.) calculated that coral calcification should have declined 6-11% between 1880 and 1999.

We used annual skeletal density variations to determine calcification rates over the past 200 years in 10 large colonies of the major reef-building coral, Porites. These colonies came from sites along and across the Great Barrier Reef (GBR). Calcification rates for the latest 50-year period, 1930-1979, were significantly higher than in the previous three 50-year periods. Calcification rates in the previous periods were not significantly different. This increase in calcification can be ascribed to increase in seawater temperature on the GBR.

At least 3 factors may be involved in this difference between predicted and measured coral calcification. (1) Seawater pH is not wholly controlled by the concentration of dissolved CO2. (2) Coral calcification may not depend upon the concentration of carbonate ions. (3) Solution of shallow water carbonates may return seawater pH towards its original value while increasing the concentration of carbonate ions.

As an experimental test of the third factor, we raised concentrations of CO2 in seawater to levels approaching the doubling level now predicted to occur in 2065. We then added various forms of powdered carbonate. We followed pH throughout. Addition of calcite and aragonite did not affect the pH of the acidified seawater. However, addition of high magnesian calcite and magnesium carbonate returned pH to values approaching or higher than initial values. Dilution of seawater showed that carbonate supersaturation values were considerably lower than the theoretical values. It is these theoretical values that have been used to indicate that solution of shallow marine carbonates will not occur as atmospheric CO2 rises.

Under this scenario calcification in reef organisms may be increased by increased atmospheric CO2 because possible effects of slightly deceased pH on calcification are likely to be offset by an increase in calcification due to increase in carbonate ion concentration, and in total dissolved inorganic carbon.

These results also affect predictions of atmospheric CO2 levels. All models used to make such predictions assume no solution of shallow marine carbonates. Under such an assumption, the capacity of the surface ocean to remove and store CO2 from the atmosphere becomes more and more limited as atmospheric CO2 rises. The capacity of solution of the oceans to store CO2 is greatly enhanced if there is solution of shallow marine carbonates.

PJB, These are old papers, cherry picked to make them look more significant than they are,  and a great deal of work has been done since that time.  

If this paper, written in 2001 was so significant in indicating that ocean acidification was a non issue (it wasn't), why then do we have such an emphasis on ocean acidification today (seven years later) by the same researchers ? Did they forget about their own research in 2001, or has there been more extensive work done since then? What do you think?

Same group:

http://www.aims.gov.au/docs/media/news2008/20080306.html

"All media are invited to visit AIMS on Tuesday 11 March to meet scientists participating in a workshop on the growing issue of ocean acidification.

The consequences of increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have already been seen in, for example, the coral bleaching that has afflicted the Great Barrier Reef in recent years.

A subtle but potentially more serious effect of climate change is arising as the oceans absorb much of the extra atmospheric carbon dioxide. This is making the oceans more acidic and will reduce the ability of marine organisms to form their skeletons and shells.

AIMS has assembled some prominent national and international experts who will be at the Institute’s headquarters at Cape Ferguson near Townsville 11-14 March to discuss research directions over the coming years as this phenomenon develops.

Please come to AIMS at 10am on Tuesday 11 March 2008 to meet with AIMS scientists and their colleagues from other research organisations. Among the scientists present will be AIMS climate change team leader Dr Janice Lough, AIMS research manager Dr Lyndon Llewellyn, Dr Joanie Kleypas from the Institute for Study of Society and Environment in Boulder, Colorado and Dr Bronte Tilbrook from CSIRO Marine Laboratories in Hobart."


I mean let's lose the tunnel vision of the denialist sites for a change and take a look at the real world for a change. This is a major issue.

That link you put up Muso, is merely a press release. I don't think that the Barnes and Lough paper is 'cherry picked' or insignificant. Do you think it is not significant because it is not full of gloom and doom? It is certainly a more extensive and rigorous study than the Keyplas research.  

It is certainly a more extensive and rigorous study than the Keyplas research.

That hardly makes it significant.

Well do you think it is significant or not FD? If not why?

pjb05 wrote on Sep 1^st, 2008 at 4:07pm:

That link you put up Muso, is merely a press release. I don't think that the Barnes and Lough paper is 'cherry picked' or insignificant. Do you think it is not significant because it is not full of gloom and doom? It is certainly a more extensive and rigorous study than the Keyplas research.

You're missing the point. You imply that Barnes and Lough are somehow showing in their paper that ocean acidification is not an issue. The fact is that they are among the top researchers in the field, and that the paper was just one of many papers that investigated the nature and rate of calcification in marine organisms.

The problem is that denialists latch on to this kind of thing and use the research to design arguments that are totally 180 degrees out of phase with the findings of the original researchers. It's a form of 'cherry picking'. Don't look behind that curtain!  I am the great wizard of obfuscation.

Ask Barnes or Lough how significant they think ocean acidification to be.

What do you think would be their answer?  I'll email them if you like and let you know.

Do you really think that there exists two groups on researchers - one of which thinks that ocean acidification is a non issue, and the other  believes it to be significant?

If you believe that then you're living in cloud cuckoo land.  

I wish you would drop the 'denialist' tag of anyone skeptical of the so called orthodoxy on AGW, muso. It's a disgusting allusion to the holocaust and those who deny it. It's totally irrelevant that the B & L paper has been highlighted on a sceptics site.  

I haven't missed the point at all. I would point out that firsty you said that the GBR would be gone by 2030. Then you said that B&L only looked at calcification rates and that this is irrelevant because they will be overtaken by acidification eating away the coral structures. I have shown that this is a gross misreprentation of their work. Then you tried to say that their work is not significant because the paper is a few years old and there are lots of other papers out there.

Is it any wonder that people like me are a bit sceptical about claims by environmentalists?    

I don't think I want to drop the denialist tag. I reserve it for those who ought to know better because of their qualifications, and in some cases know exactly what's going on.

It is actually much more serious than the holocaust because we need to act much quicker than we are currently acting.

This is not a game about maximising profit. People will die this century as a result of the changing climate. These people who spread confusion have blood on their hands. No - I don't have a crystal ball, but the various projected outcomes for a variety of emission scenarios have been subject to the scrutiny of peer review, and are accepted by every National Academy in the world. Many years ago I learnt  that you never shoot the messenger, even if you don't like the news that he brings.

Governments are committing themselves to a future of coal production without considering the fact that clean coal may not be such a cost effective alternative. The fact is that there are some who continue to block the progress of renewable energy production, not by putting up a coherent case that stands on its own merit, but by nibbling away at the edges, by deliberately muddying the waters and by regurgitating half truths at every opportunity.  

A frequently used tactic is to use somebody else's research and twist the results to support the case. In all cases the original researchers are horrified to find that their work is being used for this purpose without doing the common courtesy of consulting with them first.

I asked you a question before. Would you like me to ask one of the original researchers for their opinions on the matter? You're not an expert on the subject, and it's not my own specialised field, so I can hardly see how you could object to asking an expert.

I think you are well aware what the result of that enquiry would be.

I think denialist is an appropriate term, given the strong scientific consensus and all the rubbish coming out of the denialist camp. It doesn't have to hark back to holocaust deniers. We can't make the word taboo forever because people used it once to refer to nazis.

You don't need my permission to contact Barnes and Lough Muso. Their answer will rather depend on the questions you ask. Why don't you ask them if the study in question was 'significant' or if it didn't account for acidic attack on corals? Ie your earlier criticisms.

You might as well ask them if it is 'interesting', or how long is a piece of string. It's a pretty meaningless question without context. No researcher is going to describe their work as insignificant.

freediver wrote on Sep 4^th, 2008 at 4:15pm:

You might as well ask them if it is 'interesting', or how long is a piece of string. It's a pretty meaningless question without context. No researcher is going to describe their work as insignificant.

Actually I wasn't the one who used that term FD, you and Muso did (thats why the inverted commas).

I just did a text search. The term wasn't used on page 4 of this thread, was used three times on page 5 - all by you. You used it a further three times on page 6 before it was used once by anyone else.

freediver wrote on Sep 4^th, 2008 at 4:38pm:

I just did a text search. The term wasn't used on page 4 of this thread, was used three times on page 5 - all by you. You used it a further three times on page 6 before it was used once by anyone else.

Nice try FD but you should have looked a bit closer. I looked back at the thread the old fashion way and found that Muso was first to use the term 'significant' in the context of the B&L paper and its significance to the issue of acidification and the GBR (post 464 p6). The prior references attributed to me weren't actually my words but commentary from the CO2 Science website describing actual rates of calcification that B&L found over a certain time period. Ie an entirely different context!    

These two statements contradict each other:

Muso was first to use the term 'significant' in the context of the B&L paper

The prior references attributed to me weren't actually my words but commentary from the CO2 Science website describing actual rates of calcification that B&L found

The fact that you were copying and pasting doesn't change the fact that you brought it up in the context of B&L's work. Furthermore you are the one who suggested asking about significance in the absence of any context at all.

freediver wrote on Sep 4^th, 2008 at 5:38pm:

These two statements contradict each other: Muso was first to use the term 'significant' in the context of the B&L paper The prior references attributed to me weren't actually my words but commentary from the CO2 Science website describing actual rates of calcification that B&L found .

Only because you chopped this bit out (mid sentence in fact):

and its significance to the issue of acidification and the GBR (post 464 p6).


[quote author=freediver link=1206174117/90#97 date=1220513935]
The fact that you were copying and pasting doesn't change the fact that you brought it up in the context of B&L's work. Furthermore you are the one who suggested asking about significance in the absence of any context at all.[/quote]

You being rather obtuse, FD. The context in my earlier posts was totally different - that's my point. And as to my suggestion of asking B&L about the 'significance' I did refer to Muso's use of the term.  

Muso added some context.

My last post for a while, but it seems we don't need to ask the original authors:

http://www.climateshifts.org/?p=142

"The paper outlines Porites growth at two sites in the northern reaches of the GBR, about 450km apart. The project examined calcification rates, which are a combination of coral skeleton density and the linear rate at which the coral grow.

“The fact that the two sites are reasonably well separated and have different general characteristics and different average water temperatures but are still showing the same decline in calcification is good evidence that something unusual is happening,” Dr Lough said.

Reef-building corals create their hard skeletons from materials dissolved in seawater. When large amounts of carbon dioxide enter seawater, the resulting chemical changes effectively reduce the ability of marine organisms to form their skeletons.

“It is basically an equation – change the background conditions like temperature or pH and that shifts the equation,” Dr Lough said.

Calcification will not switch off completely, according to Dr Lough, but marine creatures won’t be able to do it as well as they have in the past.

Rates of coral calcification are known to be naturally variable over long time scales. What is concerning now, according to Dr Lough, is that the rate of change exceeds what would be expected in natural cycles of coral growth.

Earlier analyses of coral growth data had shown that calcification had been increasing during the 50 years up to around 1980, in line with a rise in average sea surface temperature over that time. Dr Lough and colleagues had suggested back then that some corals might initially respond to global warming by increasing their growth rates.

However, it appears that the higher growth response only goes so far and that a sharp decline now may indicate that the greater acidity is overwhelming any growth effects caused by warming.

“A decline in coral calcification of this magnitude with increasing seawater temperatures is unprecedented in recent centuries based on analysis of growth records from long cores of massive Porites,” according to the paper.

If projections are correct that pH could decrease by up to 0.4 by the end of this century, this would be “well outside the realms of anything organisms have experienced over hundreds of thousands of years,” Dr Lough said."

Matter settled ?

Dr Lough doesn't seem to think the 'matter settled' Muso.
PS- you seem to have picked up FD's habit of chopping bits out of quotes to suit your case. From the same release:

AIMS climate change team leader, Dr Janice Lough, a co-author of the paper, said that much more needs to be done to understand all the implications of the increase in carbon dioxide entering the oceans and to put these preliminary coral growth data into context.

“We need more information about the chemistry of the GBR and how that has, is and will change,” Dr Lough said.

LOL

That's a very weak argument, PB. Of course we need to understand all the implications and further work needs to be done to confirm the data.

Something significant enough to wipe out the reef needs to be investigated as thoroughly as possible!

If you had been following the debate for the last 2 years instead of cherry picking old papers then it would be abundantly obvious that marine biologists are extremely concerned about this issue.

Put it this way. It's a question of "We're in the poo - I wonder how deep it is" rather than a "I wonder if I stood on something. Maybe I'd better taste that brown substance on my shoe to see if it's actually chocolate" kind of check.

PJ I think he meant settled in terms of the current debate here, not in terms of scientific research.

Then why did you chop it out of the quote, muso?

I did not deliberately chop anything out. I was just concerned about post length. Read the whole report rather than just the paragraph you deliberately chopped out, PJB.  ;D

Now thats silly, Muso. I only left the rest of the article out because it is already up on the thread.

Here's some notes by Dr Walter Starck which appear to refer to this study. It might explain why Dr Lough gave such guarded comments:


Three widespread studies of reef coral calcification rates in South-East Asia, on the Great Barrier Reef and in the Caribbean, all found substantially increased calcification rates during the past half century: however, the reef catastrophists have now come up with a much smaller scale study that found reduced average calcification during a 16-year period encompassing two bleaching events in a few specimens from inshore reefs on the Great Barrier Reef. Much has been made from this barely detectable trend in a very limited, highly varied, sample. Without the tenuous suggestion of a link to global warming it is doubtful the study would have even found publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

During the Cretaceous period when vast marine carbonate beds were deposited carbon dioxide levels were far higher than anything projected in connection with anthropogenic emissions.

During the Cretaceous period when vast marine carbonate beds were deposited carbon dioxide levels were far higher than anything projected in connection with anthropogenic emissions.

So, 100 million years ago, when the continents were still joined together and mammals were first emerging? You have no qualms about modifying conditions on earth in a way that hasn't been seen in that long, at a time when we are also initiating a mass extinction event?

"at a time we are initiating a mass extinction event"

ROTFLMAO

SCAREMONGER!!!!!!

pjb05 wrote on Sep 5^th, 2008 at 4:25pm:

Now thats silly, Muso. I only left the rest of the article out because it is already up on the thread. Here's some notes by Dr Walter Starck which appear to refer to this study. It might explain why Dr Lough gave such guarded comments:

I doubt it. Dr Walter Starck keeps some unusual company, including  certain rocket scientists and retired JCU geologists.

Mate, you're dead in the water with this debate.  Nobody could seriously think that the paragraph you posted was an accurate synopsis of the article I linked to on the previous page.

The final two paragraphs say it all.  

You seriously need to get out more and start to broaden your horizons beyond the denialist sites.

I have read them all and found nothing of substance. All I ask is that you read both the denialist article and the point by point dissection that you'll find on sites like Real Climate.

It makes sense to read both points of view and then decide for yourself which one makes sense. You don't have to tell anyone else. Just be honest with yourself. If you have a half decent BS detector, you'll discover very quickly that something is very rotten in the state of Denmark in the case of Bjorn Lomborg, Bob Carter, Dave Evans and friends.

I've already knocked down a few of your posts in flames, but still you reappear from the ashes. What can I say? I refuse to use silver bullets because I'm a pacifist at heart, and a crucifix is against my more secular nature.

Grendel wrote on Sep 5^th, 2008 at 6:23pm:

"at a time we are initiating a mass extinction event" ROTFLMAO SCAREMONGER!!!!!!

"Each door is held in the open position by a suitable friction clutch, which can be instantly released by means of a powerful electro-magnet controlled from the captain's bridge, so that in the event of accident, or at any time when it may be considered advisable, the captain can, by simply moving an electric switch, instantly close the doors throughout and make the vessel practically unsinkable."

The Shipbuilder Magazine 1911
Article describing the construction of the Titanic.

Ah yes your ability to FACTUALLY refute is once more proven.

There is no definitive proof, scientific or otherwise that anthropogenic emissions are causing the earth's climate to change.

So this is how you factually refute someone is it?


Grendel wrote on Sep 5^th, 2008 at 6:23pm:

"at a time we are initiating a mass extinction event" ROTFLMAO SCAREMONGER!!!!!!

Only an idiot would wait for absolute certainty before taking evasive action to avoid a threat. Imagine a ship's captain refusing to accept the possibility his ship could be in danger until it has actually sunk. The need for certainty is an indication of fear or difficulty dealing with the uncertain reality, rather than an indication of a firm grasp of reality.

caught out in a lie and not liking it fd.

You claim all the time you just have your strance due to "risk mamagement'  Yet you make bald statements like this...  "we are also initiating a mass extinction event"

Tsk, tsk, tsk...  seems you've swallowed it hook line and sinker.

You are being a goose Grendel, you are demanding definitive, and unequivocal proof before acting on a serious threat to civilisation, which has supporting evidence from thousands of reputable sources, yet you structure your life around a fantasy belief in your sky daddy, which has no shred of proof, and never will.
Rational people would take that as inconsistent.

Look Mozz, you have no proof to believe what you do.

Fine, that upsets you.

but honestly you'll have to do better than chuck a tanty at me.

freediver wrote on Sep 5^th, 2008 at 8:15pm:

Only an idiot would wait for absolute certainty before taking evasive action to avoid a threat. Imagine a ship's captain refusing to accept the possibility his ship could be in danger until it has actually sunk. The need for certainty is an indication of fear or difficulty dealing with the uncertain reality, rather than an indication of a firm grasp of reality.

Yes and how sensible would it be to scuttle his ship to avoid that hypothetical threat. Suicide is far more certain. Thats what we are being asked to do by drastically cutting emmissions before alternative sources are ready. How do we force other countries to do it when industrialisation is lifting many millions of its citizens out of poverty, eg rapidly growing India and China? Yes we can do it gradually with the biggest cuts down the track. We will have to sooner or later as fossil fuel will run out eventually. In the meantime its more than likely that the AGW theory will be fully tested.

If AGW really is a dire threat then what do you link about environmentalist's zero tolererance for nuclear power? Also the fact that they have similar distain for clean coal and geo-engineering solutions.

PJ the cost of cutting emissions is likely to be far less than even the short term costs of climate change. It isn't committing suicide.

freediver wrote on Sep 6^th, 2008 at 2:51pm:

PJ the cost of cutting emissions is likely to be far less than even the short term costs of climate change. It isn't committing suicide.

The short term looks like the Earth isn't warming at all. A small amount of warming would likely to be benificial. And how much to we have to cut our emissions by to stabilise and then reduce CO2 levels in the atmosphere? How much would the Western World would have to cut them by if the developing World continues to emit? How will we do it (short of a major depression) if nuclear and clean coal are off the table? Do you really think renewable are up to the task in the foreseeable future?

Sure it's easy. It doesn't involve a major depression, just a 1% or so cut in economic growth over the next 50 years. We are not as addicted to cheap energy as the doomsayers make out.

Check the IPCC reports for how much we should cut back. As always, there is no certainty that a given cut will prevent a runaway climate change scenario.

Let's recap on your position PJB. It's been a while since I had enough time to talk to you on the subject. I'd like to explore at which point your understanding breaks down.

1. You understand that the CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere is currently at around 385ppm (seasonally adjusted )
2. You realise that the level of CO2 has increased around 25% since the 1950's and around 30% since the industrial revolution(I think)

3. You realise that  through Isotopic measurements, the increase in CO2 can be attributed to the burning of fossil fuel (true or false?)

4.  You understand that the highest atmospheric CO2 levels from 1800 back 1 million years was about 300ppm? (true of false)

5. You realise that variations in temperature in the pre industrial region has a direct effect on the equilibium concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere (I'm not sure where you stand on this one)

- and let's try not to mention red herrings like Al Gore.

reef coral bleaching


Quote:

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority is using data from the weather bureau to formulate its yearly forecast, which indicates there is a high risk the bleaching will be widespread. The authority's Dr Paul Marshall says global warming is having a significant impact on the ocean. "So particular species of coral reef fish that depend on coral either for food or for shelter, but those very very hot summers that affect the corals also affect many other sorts of plants and animals as well," he said. "Seagrasses suffer a great deal from hot temperatures, sea birds and turtles can also suffer, particularly when they're nesting."

tallowood wrote on Dec 1^st, 2008 at 8:56am:

reef coral bleaching Quote: The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority is using data from the weather bureau to formulate its yearly forecast, which indicates there is a high risk the bleaching will be widespread. The authority's Dr Paul Marshall says global warming is having a significant impact on the ocean. "So particular species of coral reef fish that depend on coral either for food or for shelter, but those very very hot summers that affect the corals also affect many other sorts of plants and animals as well," he said. "Seagrasses suffer a great deal from hot temperatures, sea birds and turtles can also suffer, particularly when they're nesting."

- and that's in a La Nina year too.  :o

muso wrote on Oct 9^th, 2008 at 3:08pm:

Let's recap on your position PJB. It's been a while since I had enough time to talk to you on the subject. I'd like to explore at which point your understanding breaks down. 1. You understand that the CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere is currently at around 385ppm (seasonally adjusted ) 2. You realise that the level of CO2 has increased around 25% since the 1950's and around 30% since the industrial revolution(I think) 3. You realise that  through Isotopic measurements, the increase in CO2 can be attributed to the burning of fossil fuel (true or false?) 4.  You understand that the highest atmospheric CO2 levels from 1800 back 1 million years was about 300ppm? (true of false) 5. You realise that variations in temperature in the pre industrial region has a direct effect on the equilibium concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere (I'm not sure where you stand on this one) - and let's try not to mention red herrings like Al Gore.

do you realise that activity of the sun has increased at a very similar rate to the temperatures of earth throughout history, while co2 has not?

there are other theories out there

Classic Liberal wrote on Dec 1^st, 2008 at 10:02pm:

muso wrote on Oct 9th, 2008 at 3:08pm: Let's recap on your position PJB. It's been a while since I had enough time to talk to you on the subject. I'd like to explore at which point your understanding breaks down. 1. You understand that the CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere is currently at around 385ppm (seasonally adjusted ) 2. You realise that the level of CO2 has increased around 25% since the 1950's and around 30% since the industrial revolution(I think) 3. You realise that  through Isotopic measurements, the increase in CO2 can be attributed to the burning of fossil fuel (true or false?) 4.  You understand that the highest atmospheric CO2 levels from 1800 back 1 million years was about 300ppm? (true of false) 5. You realise that variations in temperature in the pre industrial region has a direct effect on the equilibium concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere (I'm not sure where you stand on this one) - and let's try not to mention red herrings like Al Gore. do you realise that activity of the sun has increased at a very similar rate to the temperatures of earth throughout history, while co2 has not? there are other theories out there

Pender - that is partially correct. The CO2 and temperatures have trended quite closely in the pre industrial past (See the Vostok CO2 and temperature plots). Much of this large scale variation can be attributed to changes in the sun's activity and 'orbital' factors - the Milankovitch cycles.   However the crux of the matter is that any such correlation went well and truly off the wall in the last 50 years.

As I explained in the other thread, the Solar Irradiance as measured by several independent authorities has roughly followed the ENSO (El Nino Southern Oscillation) cycle, however the CO2 increased by 30 % and there has been an increase in Global temperatures too.

In other words, what we have seen in the last 50 years can not be explained by solar irradiance (which is due to a combination of activity and orbital factors)

I'm happy to go over the data with you if you like, but let's stick to the researchers who actually collected the data in the first place.  

Climate Change is happening due to the carbon emissions and pollutants released from the Coal.

There is a major role for "Clean Coal Technology" to protect the Climate Change.
Follow the Link:sp@m/

PeterSon_12k wrote on Dec 30^th, 2008 at 10:47pm:

Climate Change is happening due to the carbon emissions and pollutants released from the Coal. There is a major role for "Clean Coal Technology" to protect the Climate Change. Follow the Link:sp@m/

It may not be the best option for the long run, but I don't think we can afford to ignore one clean energy source and rely on only one. The advantage of coal is that it's quite a concentrated energy source. If we can beat the problem of effective sequestration with losses of less than 0.1% per annum, then it's doable.

Climate change is happening due to the increase of CO2 emissions in the environment.CO2 emissions are coming from the Coal produced plants.Coal is a very dirty renewable energy source which cause Global Warming and release very dangerous chemicals.But there is a technology called "Clean Coal Technology" can purify the pollutants coming from Coal and makes the coal very clean.

But this technology would cost high amounts of dallors and this became a big challenge to the Government.

Follow the Link:sp@m/ 8-)

Coal gasification offers one of the most clean and versatile ways to convert the energy contained in coal into electricity, hydrogen, and other sources of power. Turning coal into synthetic gas isn't a new concept, in fact the basic technology dates back to World War II.

During the gasification process, coal is subjected to heat, pressure, and steam - catalysts, breaking the coal down into various gases, mostly hydrogen. The resulting gases can then be burned to generate electricity and the waste heat created by the process used for co generation.

Coal gasification plants are cleaner than standard pulverized coal combustion facilities, producing fewer sulfur and nitrogen byproducts, which contribute to smog and acid rain. For this reason, gasification appeals as a way to utilize relatively inexpensive and expansive coal reserves, while reducing the environment impact.

Pioneering coal gasification electric power plants are now operating commercially in the United States and in other nations. These plants produce significant quantities of syngas from a variety of feedstocks and produce a wide variety of products.

The mounting interest in coal gasification technology reflects a convergence of three changes in the electricity generation marketplace. These changes are:

 1 .The increasing maturity of gasification technology;
 2. The extremely low emissions from Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) plants, especially air emissions, and the potential for lower cost control of greenhouse gases than other coal-based systems; and
  3.  The recent dramatic fluctuations in the costs associated with natural gas based power, which is viewed as a major competitor to coal based power.

Follow the Link:sp@m/ :-[

Thar Coal Mining Company (TCMC) has been activated for the purpose of supplying coal to the prospective Independent Power Producers (IPPs).

The key world-players like Mitsui & Co of Japan and AES Corporation of the USA are willing to invest to the tune of over one billion dollars each in Pakistan to set up the respective 1,000-1,200 MW integrated power plants based on imported coal and developing its related infrastructure.

    We saw recently that, as the price of oil rises, the coal industry is planning to replace oil by turning coal into liquid fuels and into feed stocks for the chemical industry. Of course they are also planning to burn ever-more coal to produce electricity. If these plans materialize, green chemistry and renewable solar energy both will be sidelined for the rest of this century.

There's one major problem with the coal industry's plans, and that's carbon dioxide, the most important global warming gas. Therefore, the coal industry's plans all hinge on the development of "clean coal" -- a clever name for an untested idea, burying billions or trillions of tons of liquid, pressurized carbon dioxide in the ground, hoping it will stay there forever. Burying CO2 is called "carbon capture and storage."

The coal industry has spent hundreds of millions promoting ‘Clean Coal’ technology, but in reality, there is not a single large-scale demonstration project in the United States for capturing and safely burying all of coal’s CO2 emissions,” Gore said. “The industry must make good its promise if they truly want to do their part to solve the climate crisis. Until that happens, coal cannot be called ‘Clean.’”  

Follow the Link:sp@m

Isn't "CLEAN COAL" an oxymoron?

Like, "an honest politician".

Put it this way, unless we develop clean coal technology, there will either be a huge energy deficit in the next 100 years or civilisation will go retrograde (or both).

On the balance, development of clean coal power generation may actually be more important than biofuels. Time will tell.

All the elements of clean coal technology have been proven in practice, they just haven't been put together on a large scale to capture power station emissions.  

I think it's best to view it in economic terms. If it is likely to be a cheaper strategy to make our initial emissions reductions via clean coal, then we should do it.

pjb05 wrote on Jan 6^th, 2009 at 1:03pm:

All the elements of clean coal technology have been proven in practice, they just haven't been put together on a large scale to capture power station emissions.

The first one in Australia is being constructed not too far from where I live, but I'm sure that I read somewhere that a Clean Coal Power Station was already in operation in Germany somewhere.

http://news.theage.com.au/national/clean-coal-project-goes-ahead-in-qld-20081113-65ve.html

The German industrial area of Schwarze Pumpe, about 4 km south of the city of Spremberg, is home to the world's first CCS coal plant. The mini pilot plant is run by an Alstom-built oxy-fuel boiler and is also equipped with a flue gas cleaning facility to remove fly ash and sulphur dioxide. The Swedish company Vattenfall AB invested some 70 million Euros in the two year project which began operation September 9, 2008. The power plant, which is rated at 30-megawatts, is a pilot project to serve as a prototype for future full-scale power plants. 240 tonnes a day of CO2 are being trucked 350 kilometres (210 miles) where it will be injected into an empty gas field.

It's just a pilot plant at this stage. Here's a link:

(The text comes from an email - It's not on the web)

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/SmartHome/story?id=5844357&page=1

My friends, I had not intended to discuss this controversial subject at this particular time. However, I want you to know that I do not shun controversy. On the contrary, I will take a stand on any issue at any time, regardless of how fraught with controversy it might be. You have asked me how I feel about whiskey. All right, here is how I feel about whiskey.

If when you say "whiskey" you mean the devil's brew, the poison scourge, the bloody monster, that defiles innocence, dethrones reason, destroys the home, creates misery and poverty, yea, literally takes the bread from the mouths of little children; if you mean the evil drink that topples the Christian man and woman from the pinnacle of righteous, gracious living into the bottomless pit of degradation and despair and shame and helplessness and hopelessness, then certainly I am against it.

But if when you say "whiskey" you mean the oil of conversation, the philosophic wine, the ale that is consumed when good fellows get together, that puts a song in their hearts and laughter on their lips, and the warm glow of contentment in their eyes; if you mean Christmas cheer; if you mean the stimulating drink that puts the spring in the old gentleman's step on a frosty, crispy morning; if you mean the drink which enables a man to magnify his joy, and his happiness, and to forget, if only for a little while, life's great tragedies, and heartaches, and sorrows; if you mean that drink, the sale of which pours into our treasuries untold millions of dollars, which are used to provide tender care for our little crippled children, our blind, our deaf, our dumb, our pitiful aged and infirm, to build highways and hospitals and schools, then certainly I am for it.

This is my stand. I will not retreat from it. I will not compromise.

Noah S. "Soggy" Sweat, Jr.

The Irishman in the video below gave good advice in his gallows speech:


Francis Elroy Duffy, Prisoner: Now Preacher?

The Preacher: You may say your piece now.

Francis Elroy Duffy, Prisoner: You're now looking, for the last time, at the mortal body of Francis Elroy Duffy, born to John and Edna Duffy, good, God-fearing folk. Who raised me up to be a good man and a good Christian, and I was a good Christian, a good husband to my beloved wife, good father to my children, who I leave behind, hoping that they, and all you, will learn this here lesson which I leave you with. When you take the devil into your mouth, you're doomed! For he is lying there in wait for you inside that bottle of whiskey. Waiting for you to take him into your mouth. Waiting to get down into your guts where he can do his devil's work. Liquor is the most foul, evil thing in this here world. It destroyed good men like myself. It'll destroy you too. Beer is not much better - it's slower, cheaper. So take these words of advice. And remember, you heard them from a poor sinner, got no more cause to lie, 'cause he's going to meet his Maker. Now he's ready. Well that's all I've got to say.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BocJIlRPVvU

A man goes to the GP for his test results. “Bad news, I’m afraid,” says the doctor, looking at his watch. “You’ve only got three minutes to live.”

“Three minutes?” the man cries. “Surely there’s something you can do for me?”

“Well I could boil you an egg,” says the doc.

I was put in mind of this delightful old joke last month by the lugubrious face of UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres (an honorary doctor nine times over) as he introduced the latest increment of climate concern, announcing, with deadpan comic timing, that we have now entered “the era of global boiling”.

It wasn’t immediately apparent what precisely will be boiling if the Earth’s temperature increases by one or two degrees over the next century (the thermal equivalent, by my unscientific calculation, of moving from Sydney to Port Macquarie). The oceans? The planet itself? Molten rock as it flows out of a volcano looks inhospitable enough, but boiling? Ouch, that’s seriously warm. Are you proud of yourself, Antonio? The sight of a grown man spouting such drivel in an attempt to frighten the simpletons among us is as ludicrous as it is contemptible.

The irritating thing is that by pointing out that nonsense, countenancing even the slightest deviation from the alleged consensus, you are damned by the zealots. God forbid you should suggest, with Bjorn Lomborg, that it might be smarter – and cheaper – to adapt to whatever climatic perturbations might inconvenience us (as Alfred Wainwright, who wrote the definitive walking guides to England’s Lake District, used to say, “There’s no such thing as bad weather, only unsuitable clothing”). Fail to applaud and indulge the grandiose ambition to change the world’s climate and no matter how much you treasure and respect nature, you’re treated as though you’re announcing a plan to pack the throats of loggerhead turtles with plastic bags.

What happened to civilised debate, the tacit agreement that it’s possible for decent, thoughtful people to hold a different view from yours that isn’t motivated by malice? We see the same attitude towards those who question the wisdom of establishing a permanent Constitutional voice as the most effective mechanism to address Indigenous disadvantage. Much easier to dismiss them as racists than engage with their arguments.

Meanwhile, follow the money back to the cynical beneficiaries – ni hao, Xi Jinping! – of our misplaced pieties. In Scotland, it was revealed this month, 16 million trees – you know, the tall, pretty things that soak up the carbon dioxide Antonio is worried about – have been cut down to make way for Chinese-built wind farms. Saving the planet; just not the wooden bits. Or here, where we scythe vast corridors through native bush and across lovingly tended farmland to accommodate transmission lines for “renewable” energy projects. (These are designed to spare us from using the coal and iron ore we’ve just dug up and sent thousands of kilometres so an environmentally irresponsible communist state can turn them into wind turbines, solar panels and electric cars, and sell them back to us at an inflated price; who could fault that logic?)
...
Steve Waterson is a senior writer at The Australian

And the wildfire in Hawaii? Not climate change.

Hawaiian Fires: Fueled by Invasive Grasses, a Wet Spring and Human Ignition Sources

"According to Hawaii Wildfire Management Organization, 98% of all Hawaiian fires are started by people, of which 75% are due to carelessness.

...

As Maui’s pineapple and sugar cane plantations were abandoned, they became dominated by invasive annual grasses that flourish in disturbed soils. Fire experts categorize such small diameter grasses as 1-hour lag fuels, meaning that within half a day of dry weather, these grasses become highly flammable, allowing fires to rapidly spread in even moderate winds. Annual grasses typically die during the dry seasons. Maui’s rainless period typically lasts from about May 25 to July 15.

Furthermore, Lahaina is situated on the leeward side of Maui’s mountains. These highlands wring out the moisture carried by the trade winds, with only 15” of rain falling in Lahaina compared to 300” on the mountains to the east. Thus, Lahaina’s surrounding grassland vegetation is primed each summer to rapidly burn once ignited.

Figure 2 Precipitation Departure NOAA – Courtesy Cliff Mass

Counterintuitively, wet seasons create higher fire danger by increasing the abundance of dead grasses for the dry season. Spring of 2023 was cooler and wetter than normal (Figure 2), leading to high grass fuel load.

In contrast, dry seasons have little impact, as the dead invasive grasses become highly flammable quickly every season. Thus, the only protective measure for Lahaina’s future requires managing the grasslands as well as creating firebreaks that suppress a grass fire’s rapid invasion into the town.

Firebreaks protecting the whole town are especially important. If a grassfire reaches just one house in a densely packed neighborhood, such as much of Lahaina, that one house will radiate enough heat to ignite its neighboring house, which then sets off a cascading conflagration that can destroy a whole town.

The CO2 Coalition’s scientists caution against adopting useless remedies such as that proposed by the national director of the Green New Deal Network, who demanded that “President Biden declare a climate emergency and activate politicians to take further climate action.”

James Steele is a biologist, author and former director of San Francisco State University’s Sierra Nevada Field Campus. He is a proud member of the CO2 Coalition.
Tags: Fire, invasive species, Lahaina, wildfires, Steele, Hawai
https://co2coalition.org/2023/08/11/hawaiian-fires-fueled-by-invasive-grasses-a-wet-spring-and-human-ignition-sources/

But wait! There's more! The myth of cheap wind power so beloved of the climate cultists is unravelling rapidly:

https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Wind-Power/Wind-Industry-Seeks-More-Support-As-Costs-Spiral-Out-Of-Control.amp.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrE23my0t8k&ab_channel=PaulineHanson%27sPleaseExplain

;D ;D ;D

Very satisfying




Mass arrest of climate/capitalism hysterics blocking road.

https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1695983304728531397

A mass turbation (mass mixing of the sediment) ::)

John Kerry, the unthinking senior Gretas' favourite silly old bugger.


https://twitter.com/wideawake_media/status/1696070353720582621

I see JM is insisting that all CO2 after 1880 is anthropogenic. So volcanoes don't exist and neither do CO2 vents. ::)

I see both Lin us and JM pointing to papers they say says CO2 was 280ppm in 1880. What they both fail to realise is that it is an estimate. The paper Linus posted actually said 292ppm. ::)

The former head of Snowy Hydro has expressed surprise at reports the price tag for the already overblown and delayed Snowy 2.0 pumped-hydro project could hit $12 billion. (From an estimate of $6billion a few MONTHS ago, according to the ABC).

The major energy project, which was announced under former coalition prime minister Malcolm Turnbull in 2017, is expected to play a key role in Australia’s clean energy transition.

High construction costs and other challenges have already pushed back the 2021 completion date and blown out the $2 billion originally estimated cost of the project.

A report in the Nine newspapers suggests the cost of the project has blown out to more than $12 billion, based on sources familiar with the details of an internal review into the matter.

Former chief executive of Snowy Hydro, Paul Broad, said he was surprised by the scale of the rumoured costings.

“I’m a bit shocked. I don’t know where this $12 billion comes from, that’s news to me. Twelve months ago it was nothing like that,” he told 2GB radio.

“That seems mad.”
https://www.aap.com.au/news/former-snowy-hydro-boss-shocked-over-cost-blowout/

‘Fantasy land’: Renewable energy expert says prices won’t fall

https://www.2gb.com/fantasy-land-renewable-energy-expert-says-prices-wont-fall/

And JM in  nitpicking mode about Co2.

"The Highest Levels of Co2 in Recent History"

https://earth.org/data_visualization/a-brief-history-of-co2/

It doesn't help when earth.org can't get it right.

https://i0.wp.com/andymaypetrophysicist.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/070121_1120_greenlandic2.jpg

Figure 2: Antarctic ice core CO2 trends during the past 1000 years compiled from Figure 1. Data references in figure 1.

https://andymaypetrophysicist.com/2021/07/01/greenland-ice-core-co2-during-the-past-1000-years/
So which one is "correct".

Antarctica CO2 history

When one of the Greenpeace founders and a Nobel physics prize winner speak out about the climate scam you know it's all unravelling:

https://tacticalinvestor.com/global-warming-hoax-destroyed-by-nobel-laureate/

Belgarion wrote on Aug 31^st, 2023 at 11:19am:

When one of the Greenpeace founders and a Nobel physics prize winner speak out about the climate scam you know it's all unravelling: https://tacticalinvestor.com/global-warming-hoax-destroyed-by-nobel-laureate/

It's not surprising  that you found Moore and Linzden on a website spruiking fossil fuel investment.  ::)

Linzden and Moore have been roundly debunked.

https://archive.thinkprogress.org/lindzen-debunked-again-new-scientific-study-finds-his-paper-downplaying-dangers-of-human-caused-c931eeb2ecf6

https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2021/06/04/Fact-Checking-Patrick-Moore-Climate-Skeptic

Linus wrote on Aug 31^st, 2023 at 8:46pm:

Belgarion wrote on Aug 31st, 2023 at 11:19am: When one of the Greenpeace founders and a Nobel physics prize winner speak out about the climate scam you know it's all unravelling: https://tacticalinvestor.com/global-warming-hoax-destroyed-by-nobel-laureate/ It's not surprising  that you found these Moore and Linzden on a website spruiking fossil fuel investment.  ::) Linzden and Moore have been roundly debunked. https://archive.thinkprogress.org/lindzen-debunked-again-new-scientific-study-finds-his-paper-downplaying-dangers-of-human-caused-c931eeb2ecf6 https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2021/06/04/Fact-Checking-Patrick-Moore-Climate-Skeptic

Linus : Do you think you could stop turning up in topics with your dead links/links to Left wing whackjob fact check sites? I’m getting tired of pwning your red raw arse every time you do this.

Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 31^st, 2023 at 8:56pm:

Linus wrote on Aug 31st, 2023 at 8:46pm: Belgarion wrote on Aug 31st, 2023 at 11:19am: When one of the Greenpeace founders and a Nobel physics prize winner speak out about the climate scam you know it's all unravelling: https://tacticalinvestor.com/global-warming-hoax-destroyed-by-nobel-laureate/ It's not surprising  that you found these Moore and Linzden on a website spruiking fossil fuel investment.  ::) Linzden and Moore have been roundly debunked. https://archive.thinkprogress.org/lindzen-debunked-again-new-scientific-study-finds-his-paper-downplaying-dangers-of-human-caused-c931eeb2ecf6 https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2021/06/04/Fact-Checking-Patrick-Moore-Climate-Skeptic Linus : Do you think you could stop turning up in topics with your links to Left wing whackjob fact check sites? I’m getting tired of pwning your red raw arse every time you do this.

Could you stop lying, LJ?

And in the same vein could you stop beating your left-wing hubby?  ;D

( You did post somewhere that your husband is a lefty, yes?)

Linus wrote on Aug 31^st, 2023 at 9:06pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 31st, 2023 at 8:56pm: Linus wrote on Aug 31st, 2023 at 8:46pm: Belgarion wrote on Aug 31st, 2023 at 11:19am: When one of the Greenpeace founders and a Nobel physics prize winner speak out about the climate scam you know it's all unravelling: https://tacticalinvestor.com/global-warming-hoax-destroyed-by-nobel-laureate/ It's not surprising  that you found these Moore and Linzden on a website spruiking fossil fuel investment.  ::) Linzden and Moore have been roundly debunked. https://archive.thinkprogress.org/lindzen-debunked-again-new-scientific-study-finds-his-paper-downplaying-dangers-of-human-caused-c931eeb2ecf6 https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2021/06/04/Fact-Checking-Patrick-Moore-Climate-Skeptic Linus : Do you think you could stop turning up in topics with your links to Left wing whackjob fact check sites? I’m getting tired of pwning your red raw arse every time you do this. 1. Could you stop lying, LJ? 2. And in the same vein could you stop beating your left-wing hubby?  ;D 3. ( You did post somewhere that your husband is a lefty, yes?)

1. Telling the brutal truth isn’t a lie (unless you’re an unhinged psychopath). 

2. You only ever say that to me under your Meister id.

3. My husband is (unfortunately) both a lefty and an agnostic.

Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 31^st, 2023 at 9:13pm:

Linus wrote on Aug 31st, 2023 at 9:06pm: Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 31st, 2023 at 8:56pm: Linus wrote on Aug 31st, 2023 at 8:46pm: Belgarion wrote on Aug 31st, 2023 at 11:19am: When one of the Greenpeace founders and a Nobel physics prize winner speak out about the climate scam you know it's all unravelling: https://tacticalinvestor.com/global-warming-hoax-destroyed-by-nobel-laureate/ It's not surprising  that you found these Moore and Linzden on a website spruiking fossil fuel investment.  ::) Linzden and Moore have been roundly debunked. https://archive.thinkprogress.org/lindzen-debunked-again-new-scientific-study-finds-his-paper-downplaying-dangers-of-human-caused-c931eeb2ecf6 https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2021/06/04/Fact-Checking-Patrick-Moore-Climate-Skeptic Linus : Do you think you could stop turning up in topics with your links to Left wing whackjob fact check sites? I’m getting tired of pwning your red raw arse every time you do this. 1. Could you stop lying, LJ? 2. And in the same vein could you stop beating your left-wing hubby?  ;D 3. ( You did post somewhere that your husband is a lefty, yes?) 1. Telling the brutal truth isn’t a lie (unless you’re an unhinged psychopath).  2. You only ever say that to me under your Meister id. 3. My husband is (unfortunately) both a lefty and an agnostic.

I do not keep on coming into Oz pol with "whackjob"left-wing fact-checkers. And, you're quite free to dispute any facts you think are wrong. From my observations, you have a problem with facts.

I only have one ID- LINUS.

I guess I hit a bullseye. I had no idea someone else said that you beat up your lefty husband. 

How do you co-exist under the same roof? Does he put your Nazi helmet out with the garbage every week, and do you dutifully run out and retrieve it?  ;D

Linus wrote on Aug 31^st, 2023 at 8:46pm:

Belgarion wrote on Aug 31st, 2023 at 11:19am: When one of the Greenpeace founders and a Nobel physics prize winner speak out about the climate scam you know it's all unravelling: https://tacticalinvestor.com/global-warming-hoax-destroyed-by-nobel-laureate/ It's not surprising  that you found Moore and Linzden on a website spruiking fossil fuel investment.  ::) Linzden and Moore have been roundly debunked. https://archive.thinkprogress.org/lindzen-debunked-again-new-scientific-study-finds-his-paper-downplaying-dangers-of-human-caused-c931eeb2ecf6 https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2021/06/04/Fact-Checking-Patrick-Moore-Climate-Skeptic

Debunked by who? Those in the grip of the money making machine that is the climate cult?  ::)

Belgarion wrote on Aug 31^st, 2023 at 9:56pm:

Linus wrote on Aug 31st, 2023 at 8:46pm: Belgarion wrote on Aug 31st, 2023 at 11:19am: When one of the Greenpeace founders and a Nobel physics prize winner speak out about the climate scam you know it's all unravelling: https://tacticalinvestor.com/global-warming-hoax-destroyed-by-nobel-laureate/ It's not surprising  that you found Moore and Linzden on a website spruiking fossil fuel investment.  ::) Linzden and Moore have been roundly debunked. https://archive.thinkprogress.org/lindzen-debunked-again-new-scientific-study-finds-his-paper-downplaying-dangers-of-human-caused-c931eeb2ecf6/ https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2021/06/04/Fact-Checking-Patrick-Moore-Climate-Skeptic Debunked by who? Those in the grip of the money making machine that is the climate cult?  ::)

Try following the links I provided. Better still, you could start by putting up the points and arguments you think they're right on. Perhaps one at a time.

Linus' second link is about the GBR being 93% "Bleached, Suffering or practically Dead". Of course Terry Hughes said it was dead. Great Lazarus comeback.

And according to the final report it was nowhere near 93%. Some PARTS were 80% affected. Some PARTS were 20% affected and other PARTS not affected at all.

There goes the credibility of a ...Journalism Professor. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

His first link is "Access Denied". Ho hum. But I did find it. Poor Linus obviously thinks the climate models aren't wrong, despite Hausfather, Peters and Schmidt saying so.

But according to think progress Clouds are a positive feedback.

"Our initial reading of their article had us independently asking, how we could have missed such explicit evidence of the cloud feedback as shown in LC09? "

The models don't do clouds well at all. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

I think Linus is a sock. Gweggy most probably. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Aug 31^st, 2023 at 10:22pm:

Linus' second link is about the GBR being 93% "Bleached, Suffering or practically Dead". Of course Terry Hughes said it was dead. Great Lazarus comeback. And according to the final report it was nowhere near 93%. Some PARTS were 80% affected. Some PARTS were 20% affected and other PARTS not affected at all. There goes the credibility of a ...Journalism Professor. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D His first link is "Access Denied". Ho hum. But I did find it. Poor Linus obviously thinks the climate models aren't wrong, despite Hausfather, Peters and Schmidt saying so. But according to think progress Clouds are a positive feedback. "Our initial reading of their article had us independently asking, how we could have missed such explicit evidence of the cloud feedback as shown in LC09? " The models don't do clouds well at all. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D I think Linus is a sock. Gweggy most probably. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Here's that first link again. It should work now:

https://archive.thinkprogress.org/lindzen-debunked-again-new-scientific-study-finds-his-paper-downplaying-dangers-of-human-caused-c931eeb2ecf6/

I don't know why there's this pre-occupation to pigeonhole me as one or another poster. I have only one ID- LINUS.

Perhaps "Lee" you are  a sock for "Lisa Jones".  ::)

With respect to corals read the whole article. It's still clear that the GBR is still under threat from rising temperatures and is being adversely affected by them, in spite of your attempt to downplay.

The article shows how Moore misrepresented mainstream climate science. Moore is crook.And given that you support his views then it follows you don't know what you're talking about. In fact, weren't you the person who supported a crackpot senator's "bicycle pump theory" of atmospheric warming?  The yoke is on you.  ::)

After that, read the second article carefully. You quoted out of context. Initially, climate scientists were surprised by Linzden and Choi's article but on examination found it to be BOLLOCKS...


With respect to climate models, they are valuable tools for understanding climate dynamics and projecting potential future scenarios. While models have uncertainties, they have improved over time, continue to improve, and provide useful insights into long-term trends. and models' overall projections align with observed warming trends.

Read about  Hausfather, Peters and Schmidt and how you got it wrong about what they said.



 

Lee says:


Quote:

Poor Linus obviously thinks the climate models aren't wrong, despite Hausfather, Peters and Schmidt saying so.

---

Let's take a look at Hausfather, Peters and Schmidt:

"Climate models are often attacked, but most of the time they're remarkably good


The computer models used to simulate what heat-trapping gases will do to global temperatures have been pretty spot-on in their predictions, a new study found.

After years of hearing critics blast the models' accuracy, climate scientist Zeke Hausfather decided to see just how good they have been. He tracked down 17 models used between 1970 and 2007 and found that the majority of them predicted results that were "indistinguishable from what actually occurred."

"By and large our models have gotten it right, plus or minus a little bit," said Hausfather, a UC Berkeley scientist who is climate and energy director at the Breakthrough Institute. "If they get it wrong, it's slightly on the warm side, but I wouldn't read too much into that."

Ten of the 17 were close to the temperatures that actually happened, said Hausfather, lead author of a study in Wednesday's journal Geophysical Research Letters.


But scientists actually got the physics right even more than that, Hausfather said.


Climate models are based on two main assumptions. One is the physics of the atmosphere and how it reacts to heat-trapping gases. The other is the amount of greenhouse gases put into the air.

A few times, scientists were wrong in their predictions about the growth of carbon pollution, saying there would be more of the gases than there actually were, Hausfather said. If they got the amount of heat-trapping gases wrong, they then got the temperatures wrong.

So Hausfather and colleagues, including NASA climate scientist Gavin Schmidt, looked at how well the models did on just the pure science, taking out the emissions factor. On that count, 14 of the 17 computer models accurately predicted the future.

The scientists also gave each computer simulation a "skill score" that essentially gave a percentage grade to each one. The average grade was a 69%.

One of the earliest computer models, made in 1970, got a 91%. What's so impressive about that is that at the time, climate change wasn't noticeable in the yearly temperature records like it is now, Hausfather said.


Stanford University climate scientist Noah Diffenbaugh, who wasn't part of the study, called the work creative and the results striking.

"Even without knowing what the current level of greenhouse gas concentrations would be, the climate models predicted the evolution of global temperature quite well," Diffenbaugh said.


It's crucial that these models are accurate because "we have one planet Earth, so we can't conduct controlled experiments on the actual climate system," he added.

University of Illinois climate scientist Donald Wuebbles, who wasn't part of the study either, said climate change "deniers do a lot of weird things to misrepresent models. None of those analyses have been valid and they should be ignored. We should no longer be debating the basic science of climate change." "

https://phys.org/news/2019-12-climate-theyre-remarkably-good.html


I wouldn't be laughing and dismissing climate models, if I were you, Lee. And Hausfather, Peters and Schmidt would agree. 

You misrepresented them, Lee.  ::)

Linus wrote on Aug 31^st, 2023 at 9:26pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 31st, 2023 at 9:13pm: Linus wrote on Aug 31st, 2023 at 9:06pm: Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 31st, 2023 at 8:56pm: Linus wrote on Aug 31st, 2023 at 8:46pm: Belgarion wrote on Aug 31st, 2023 at 11:19am: When one of the Greenpeace founders and a Nobel physics prize winner speak out about the climate scam you know it's all unravelling: https://tacticalinvestor.com/global-warming-hoax-destroyed-by-nobel-laureate/ It's not surprising  that you found these Moore and Linzden on a website spruiking fossil fuel investment.  ::) Linzden and Moore have been roundly debunked. https://archive.thinkprogress.org/lindzen-debunked-again-new-scientific-study-finds-his-paper-downplaying-dangers-of-human-caused-c931eeb2ecf6 https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2021/06/04/Fact-Checking-Patrick-Moore-Climate-Skeptic Linus : Do you think you could stop turning up in topics with your links to Left wing whackjob fact check sites? I’m getting tired of pwning your red raw arse every time you do this. 1. Could you stop lying, LJ? 2. And in the same vein could you stop beating your left-wing hubby?  ;D 3. ( You did post somewhere that your husband is a lefty, yes?) 1. Telling the brutal truth isn’t a lie (unless you’re an unhinged psychopath).  2. You only ever say that to me under your Meister id. 3. My husband is (unfortunately) both a lefty and an agnostic. 1. I do not keep on coming into Oz pol with "whackjob"left-wing fact-checkers. And, you're quite free to dispute any facts you think are wrong. From my observations, you have a problem with facts. 2. I only have one ID- LINUS.

1. Liar. In fact BOTH your recent links prove it!

2. Liar. You’re a cyber junkie Multi Mong from Monk’s Manure Mound.

Now off you go. Log back in with one of your other Multi Mong ids. Give your Lienus id a rest for now. It’s sore from being pwned. Again.

lee wrote on Aug 31^st, 2023 at 10:22pm:

Linus' second link is about the GBR being 93% "Bleached, Suffering or practically Dead". Of course Terry Hughes said it was dead. Great Lazarus comeback. And according to the final report it was nowhere near 93%. Some PARTS were 80% affected. Some PARTS were 20% affected and other PARTS not affected at all. There goes the credibility of a ...Journalism Professor. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D His first link is "Access Denied". Ho hum. But I did find it. Poor Linus obviously thinks the climate models aren't wrong, despite Hausfather, Peters and Schmidt saying so. But according to think progress Clouds are a positive feedback. "Our initial reading of their article had us independently asking, how we could have missed such explicit evidence of the cloud feedback as shown in LC09? " The models don't do clouds well at all. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D I think Linus is a sock. Gweggy most probably. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Now you know why I enjoy making fun of that ID.

Although .... he sometimes reminds me of someone else.

(I wish Freediver allowed each person here to have 1 ID).

1. Lisa, you made a sweeping statement based on two links in this topic only. And if you look closely, there the actual climate scientists are speaking. Talking facts and not rubbish like you.
Is physics.org a left wing site? That's my 3rd link in this topic.

2. With respect to calling me a "cyberjunkie", that's rich coming from you. I have nowhere been online as much as you. I'm relatively new to this. However, I did catch you elsewhere railing against posters for being 20 years online. This means you were right there along with them. And you're on this forum, by the looks of it, almost 24/7. You are the cyberjunkie. Take your personal projections elsewhere.

3.You barge into threads, screaming ranting and raving spewing paranoia about who you think posters are and have nothing constructive to say. If this is how you behave in the real world, it's amazing you haven't been scheduled.

4. Oh, and if you look at my responses to Lee, you will know that the last laugh was on him. Like all climate change deniers, they never can get their facts straight and virtually always misrepresent the climate science.

5. How about engaging in genuine discussion for a change, Lisa? What are your views on climate change? i

Lisa Jones wrote on Sep 1^st, 2023 at 9:40am:

lee wrote on Aug 31st, 2023 at 10:22pm: Linus' second link is about the GBR being 93% "Bleached, Suffering or practically Dead". Of course Terry Hughes said it was dead. Great Lazarus comeback. And according to the final report it was nowhere near 93%. Some PARTS were 80% affected. Some PARTS were 20% affected and other PARTS not affected at all. There goes the credibility of a ...Journalism Professor. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D His first link is "Access Denied". Ho hum. But I did find it. Poor Linus obviously thinks the climate models aren't wrong, despite Hausfather, Peters and Schmidt saying so. But according to think progress Clouds are a positive feedback. "Our initial reading of their article had us independently asking, how we could have missed such explicit evidence of the cloud feedback as shown in LC09? " The models don't do clouds well at all. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D I think Linus is a sock. Gweggy most probably. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Now you know why I enjoy making fun of that ID. Although .... he sometimes reminds me of someone else. (I wish Freediver allowed each person here to have 1 ID).

Nope! Linus is 10000% a Mong (shared btwn Bwian and Groggy etc).

Their ridiculous Mong personas are now way too easy to spot: For starters ALL Manure Mound Mongs lie AND deflect in the face of brutal truth. Anyway ... I’m happy to discuss Climate Change with you Lee. And with Freediver.

Linus wrote on Aug 31^st, 2023 at 11:11pm:

With respect to corals read the whole article. It's still clear that the GBR is still under threat from rising temperatures and is being adversely affected by them, in spite of your attempt to downplay.

And nowhere was the GBR 93% bleached. And of course corals have been around for millions of years. Sometimes hotter and sometimes cooler, but now it is thermageddon. ::)

Edit: "Reconstructing Four Centuries of Temperature-Induced Coral Bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef"

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2018.00283/full


Linus wrote on Aug 31^st, 2023 at 11:11pm:

Initially, climate scientists were surprised by Linzden and Choi's article but on examination found it to be BOLLOCKS...

How exactly did they determine that clouds were likely net positive? I will give you a hint. They didn't, that's why they parameterise them in the models. It helps with their theory.


Linus wrote on Sep 1^st, 2023 at 1:12am:

"Climate models are often attacked, but most of the time they're remarkably good

So that is why Hausfather etc say the models run too hot?

Oh I see you are using a 2019 paper.

"Climate simulations: recognize the ‘hot model’ problem
The sixth and latest IPCC assessment weights climate models according to how well they reproduce other evidence. Now the rest of the community should do the same.

    Zeke Hausfather, Kate Marvel, Gavin A. Schmidt, John W. Nielsen-Gammon & Mark Zelinka"

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-01192-2

From 2022

A description -

"Scientists need to get much choosier in how they use model results, a group of climate scientists argues in a commentary published today in Nature. Researchers should no longer simply use the average of all the climate model projections, which can result in global temperatures by 2100 up to 0.7°C warmer than an estimate from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). “We need to use a slightly different approach,” says Zeke Hausfather, climate research lead at payment services company Stripe and lead author of the commentary. “We must move away from the naïve idea of model democracy.” Instead, he and his colleagues call for a model meritocracy, prioritizing, at times, results from models known to have more realistic warming rates."

https://www.science.org/content/article/use-too-hot-climate-models-exaggerates-impacts-global-warming

I see JM now believes a climate modeller is a climate scientist. :)

Lucless Lee wrote:


Quote:

And nowhere was the GBR 93% bleached. And of course corals have been around for millions of years. Sometimes hotter and sometimes cooler, but now it is thermageddon. Roll Eyes Edit: "Reconstructing Four Centuries of Temperature-Induced Coral Bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef" https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2018.00283/full

None of which says the GBR isn't under threat from  AGW You like to trot out articles thinking they support your case against AGW but it's clear you can't or refuse to understand them.

From the mouths of the authors of the article you quoted:

"Over the past 400 years, the time span covered by our cores, Great Barrier Reef corals have shown evidence that they can recover from widespread bleaching events. However, since the 1800s, both the number of such events and the number of corals involved have increased, indicating they may not be able to cope well with sustained increases in temperature, and are possibly reaching a tipping point."

https://theconversation.com/the-great-barrier-reef-has-been-bleaching-for-at-least-400-years-but-its-getting-worse-101691



Quote:

[quote]Linus wrote on Sep 1st, 2023 at 1:12am: "Climate models are often attacked, but most of the time they're remarkably good

So that is why Hausfather etc say the models run too hot?[/quote]

Linus did not say it, Hausfather said it. Hausfather said that climate models are remarkably good. He embraces them unlike you. Can you read or not? Moreover, can you read without going cross-eyed and confusing who is saying what?

Recognising that models are imperfect doesn't mean they are wrong. The article I pointed you at makes that clear. Models are being improved all the time and they are getting a lot of what is going on right.

By the way Lee, have you and the Qld senator figured out how to pass your "bicycle pump" theory on global warming through peer-review?   :)

Lisa Jones wrote:


Quote:

Nope! Linus is 10000% a Mong (shared btwn Bwian and Groggy etc). Their ridiculous Mong personas are now way too easy to spot: For starters ALL Manure Mound Mongs lie AND deflect in the face of brutal truth. Anyway ... I’m happy to discuss Climate Change with you Lee. And with Freediver.

Well, you've had half a dozen cracks at trying to pin me to some or other ID and you haven't been able to do it. I only use this one ID- LINUS. 

And I'm still waiting to hear your views on climate change. All you have done thus far is carry on like a deranged, paranoid lunatic that's lost touch with reality

Oh, didn't you see that even Freediver keeps a barge poll distance from Lee on climate change. Freediver almost fell over laughing at Lee embracing a "bicycle pump" theory of global warming proposed by some crackpot senator from Queensland.

Sure, you and Lee go discuss climate change in between your doses of Thorazine.  ::)

Linus wrote on Sep 4^th, 2023 at 7:30pm:

None of which says the GBR isn't under threat from  AGW You like to trot out articles thinking they support your case against AGW but it's clear you can't or refuse to understand them.

You were the one posted about the GBR being 93%  bleached, and now it is my fault. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


Linus wrote on Sep 4^th, 2023 at 7:30pm:

"Over the past 400 years, the time span covered by our cores, Great Barrier Reef corals have shown evidence that they can recover from widespread bleaching events. However, since the 1800s, both the number of such events and the number of corals involved have increased, indicating they may not be able to cope well with sustained increases in temperature, and are possibly reaching a tipping point."

So much wombling. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


Linus wrote on Sep 4^th, 2023 at 7:30pm:

Linus did not say it, Hausfather said it.

I never said you did. ::)


Linus wrote on Sep 4^th, 2023 at 7:30pm:

Recognising that models are imperfect doesn't mean they are wrong.

If they are imperfect, they are by definition wrong. A maximum of only one can be right.  ::)


Linus wrote on Sep 4^th, 2023 at 7:30pm:

Models are being improved all the time and they are getting a lot of what is going on right.

That doesn't mean they are fit for purpose. That's why they want to drop the ensemble approach. An ensemble can never be right because of all the ones that are wrong. The only one close to being right is the Russian one, which doesn't have a tropospheric hotspot. ::)


Linus wrote on Sep 4^th, 2023 at 7:30pm:

By the way Lee, have you and the Qld senator figured out how to pass your "bicycle pump" theory on global warming through peer-review?

So you don't believe the science that says atmospheric pressure is increasing? You denier you. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Sep 4^th, 2023 at 7:54pm:

Linus wrote on Sep 4th, 2023 at 7:30pm: None of which says the GBR isn't under threat from  AGW You like to trot out articles thinking they support your case against AGW but it's clear you can't or refuse to understand them. You were the one posted about the GBR being 93%  bleached, and now it is my fault. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Linus wrote on Sep 4th, 2023 at 7:30pm: "Over the past 400 years, the time span covered by our cores, Great Barrier Reef corals have shown evidence that they can recover from widespread bleaching events. However, since the 1800s, both the number of such events and the number of corals involved have increased, indicating they may not be able to cope well with sustained increases in temperature, and are possibly reaching a tipping point." So much wombling. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Linus wrote on Sep 4th, 2023 at 7:30pm: Linus did not say it, Hausfather said it. I never said you did. ::) Linus wrote on Sep 4th, 2023 at 7:30pm: Recognising that models are imperfect doesn't mean they are wrong. If they are imperfect, they are by definition wrong. A maximum of only one can be right.  ::) Linus wrote on Sep 4th, 2023 at 7:30pm: Models are being improved all the time and they are getting a lot of what is going on right. That doesn't mean they are fit for purpose. That's why they want to drop the ensemble approach. An ensemble can never be right because of all the ones that are wrong. The only one close to being right is the Russian one, which doesn't have a tropospheric hotspot. ::) Linus wrote on Sep 4th, 2023 at 7:30pm: By the way Lee, have you and the Qld senator figured out how to pass your "bicycle pump" theory on global warming through peer-review?    So you don't believe the science that says atmospheric pressure is increasing? You denier you. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

1. I was not posting about the GBR being 93% bleached, I was posting articles about how Moore and Linzden misrepresent climate science/scientists or get the science wrong. You seized one aspect of one article in your constant lame attempts to dismiss/discredit AGW.

2. "Womblng"? You cited authors to make a case that the GBR was not in danger from AGW. Contrary to this  lame attempt, the authors did not support your case. They themselves recognise the danger.

3. And you again, produced a climate scientist, Haufather, thinking he supported your denialism and I demonstrated from his own words he does not.

4. Contrary to what you say, the models confirm AGW and have been very useful. And if you stick your head out the window you can see it happening: retreating glaciers, retreating Arctic ice, melting Antarctic ice sheets, increasing temperatures, rising sea levels and acidification thereof, increasing extreme  weather events etc.

5. With respect atmospheric pressure, I told you before in another thread that it plays a minor role in the unfolding AGW. It's not a sole determinant like you and the crackpot senator appear to think.

Luckily, governments around the world are listening to climate scientists and not the idiots you dig up( and choose to follow), who can't see the forest for the trees.

Linus wrote on Sep 5^th, 2023 at 2:25pm:

1. I was not posting about the GBR being 93% bleached, I was posting articles about how Moore and Linzden misrepresent climate science/scientists or get the science wrong. You seized one aspect of one article in your constant lame attempts to dismiss/discredit AGW.

It was the article you linked to, own it. ::)


Linus wrote on Sep 5^th, 2023 at 2:25pm:

2. "Womblng"? You cited authors to make a case that the GBR was not in danger from AGW. Contrary to this  lame attempt, the authors did not support your case. They themselves recognise the danger.

They went from science to necromancy. Seeing as they start in 1620, that bleaching occurred in the LIA. So both cool and warm causes bleaching. ::)


Linus wrote on Sep 5^th, 2023 at 2:25pm:

3. And you again, produced a climate scientist, Haufather, thinking he supported your denialism and I demonstrated from his own words he does not.

You didn't read his 2022 paper did you. The one with Gavin Schmidt.


lee wrote on Sep 1^st, 2023 at 1:23pm:

"Climate simulations: recognize the ‘hot model’ problem The sixth and latest IPCC assessment weights climate models according to how well they reproduce other evidence. Now the rest of  the community should do the same.     Zeke Hausfather, Kate Marvel, Gavin A. Schmidt, John W. Nielsen-Gammon & Mark Zelinka" https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-01192-2

or

https://www.science.org/content/article/use-too-hot-climate-models-exaggerates-impacts-global-warming

Same author different conclusion. ::)


Linus wrote on Sep 5^th, 2023 at 2:25pm:

4. Contrary to what you say, the models confirm AGW and have been very useful. And if you stick your head out the window you can see it happening: retreating glaciers, retreating Arctic ice, melting Antarctic ice sheets, increasing temperatures, rising sea levels and acidification thereof, increasing extreme  weather events etc.

So how do models "confirm" AGW. What is the seminal paper that concluded that?  Models can confirm nothing. Garbage In/Garbage Out. GIGO. ::)

So we are warming coming out of the LIA. Who knew? ;D ;D ;D ;D

It is about the same temperature as twe Roman Warm Period - where Hannibal took elephants over the Alps, the Minoan warm period and Holocene Optimum.

The models only confirm we are warming. Not AGW. IF it is AGW when did it start? Back in 1880 when CO2is estimated to have been 280ppm or 292ppm as the paper you listed insisted?


Linus wrote on Sep 5^th, 2023 at 2:25pm:

5. With respect atmospheric pressure, I told you before in another thread that it plays a minor role in the unfolding AGW. It's not a sole determinant like you and the crackpot senator appear to think.

If it is such a minor role why is it in the models? ::)


Linus wrote on Sep 5^th, 2023 at 2:25pm:

Luckily, governments around the world are listening to climate scientists and not the idiots you dig up( and choose to follow), who can't see the forest for the trees.

So now Hausfather is an idiot? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

But tell us more about the "journalist" behind Mediabiasfactcheck. ;)

lee wrote on Sep 5^th, 2023 at 2:51pm:

Linus wrote on Sep 5th, 2023 at 2:25pm: 1. I was not posting about the GBR being 93% bleached, I was posting articles about how Moore and Linzden misrepresent climate science/scientists or get the science wrong. You seized one aspect of one article in your constant lame attempts to dismiss/discredit AGW. It was the article you linked to, own it. ::) Linus wrote on Sep 5th, 2023 at 2:25pm: 2. "Womblng"? You cited authors to make a case that the GBR was not in danger from AGW. Contrary to this  lame attempt, the authors did not support your case. They themselves recognise the danger. They went from science to necromancy. Seeing as they start in 1620, that bleaching occurred in the LIA. So both cool and warm causes bleaching. ::) Linus wrote on Sep 5th, 2023 at 2:25pm: 3. And you again, produced a climate scientist, Haufather, thinking he supported your denialism and I demonstrated from his own words he does not. You didn't read his 2022 paper did you. The one with Gavin Schmidt. lee wrote on Sep 1st, 2023 at 1:23pm: "Climate simulations: recognize the ‘hot model’ problem The sixth and latest IPCC assessment weights climate models according to how well they reproduce other evidence. Now the rest of  the community should do the same.     Zeke Hausfather, Kate Marvel, Gavin A. Schmidt, John W. Nielsen-Gammon & Mark Zelinka" https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-01192-2 or https://www.science.org/content/article/use-too-hot-climate-models-exaggerates-impacts-global-warming Same author different conclusion. ::) Linus wrote on Sep 5th, 2023 at 2:25pm: 4. Contrary to what you say, the models confirm AGW and have been very useful. And if you stick your head out the window you can see it happening: retreating glaciers, retreating Arctic ice, melting Antarctic ice sheets, increasing temperatures, rising sea levels and acidification thereof, increasing extreme  weather events etc. So how do models "confirm" AGW. What is the seminal paper that concluded that?  Models can confirm nothing. Garbage In/Garbage Out. GIGO. ::) So we are warming coming out of the LIA. Who knew? ;D ;D ;D ;D It is about the same temperature as twe Roman Warm Period - where Hannibal took elephants over the Alps, the Minoan warm period and Holocene Optimum. The models only confirm we are warming. Not AGW. IF it is AGW when did it start? Back in 1880 when CO2is estimated to have been 280ppm or 292ppm as the paper you listed insisted? Linus wrote on Sep 5th, 2023 at 2:25pm: 5. With respect atmospheric pressure, I told you before in another thread that it plays a minor role in the unfolding AGW. It's not a sole determinant like you and the crackpot senator appear to think. If it is such a minor role why is it in the models? ::) Linus wrote on Sep 5th, 2023 at 2:25pm: Luckily, governments around the world are listening to climate scientists and not the idiots you dig up( and choose to follow), who can't see the forest for the trees. So now Hausfather is an idiot? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D But tell us more about the "journalist" behind Mediabiasfactcheck. ;)

1. Poor try. If you scroll back, anyone can see I was addressing the post about Linzden and Moore. Like your pals, you like to cherry pick and misrepresent. Linzden and Moore were debunked.

2. And you still overlook the fact the authors you chose to debunk danger to the GBR in their own words acknowledged that rapidly rising temperatures threaten the reef. A reference was provided.

3. Models and the reality they reflect debunk the denialists you follow. The models indicate that if we continue increasing CO2 emissions we are heading to a very uncomfortable future.

Here read about why you're full of crap, Lee, in respect of climate models:

https://theconversation.com/three-reasons-why-climate-change-models-are-our-best-hope-for-understanding-the-future-175936

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/

4. We are supposed to be in a cooling period, yet temperatures are rising. And do note everything else I noted about what's going on.

5. No, Hausfather isn't an idiot but he and Shmidt made an idiot out of you.  ::)

""By and large our models have gotten it right, plus or minus a little bit," said Hausfather, a UC Berkeley scientist who is climate and energy director at the Breakthrough Institute. "If they get it wrong, it's slightly on the warm side, but I wouldn't read too much into that.""

Unlike you, Lee, they see the forest from the trees. You don't know what you're talking about Lee, and it seems that in your case it's IIGO- Information In Garbage Out.

6. Atmospheric pressure is a component of modelling amongst a host of factors. That you and the senator you latched onto are fixated on  it as a primary determinant is just plain dumb.

Linus wrote on Sep 5^th, 2023 at 3:49pm:

1. Poor try.

So you don't want to own it. ::)
Linus wrote on Sep 5^th, 2023 at 3:49pm:

Linzden and Moore were debunked.

By whom?


Linus wrote on Sep 5^th, 2023 at 3:49pm:

2. And you still overlook the fact the authors you chose to debunk danger to the GBR in their own words acknowledged that rapidly rising temperatures threaten the reef. A reference was provided.

You still can't accept that corals bleach under cooling and warming conditions. It is historical fact. Millions of years they have survived. Both warmer and cooler than now. ::)


Linus wrote on Sep 5^th, 2023 at 3:49pm:

3. Models and the reality they reflect debunk the denialists you follow.

Models ONLY reflect reality when they are programmed in that reality. The models have too many parameters.

"Fermi evokes his friend von Neumann who, when asking him how many arbitrary parameters he used for his calculations, replied, "With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk." By this he meant that the Fermi simulations relied on too many input parameters, presupposing an overfitting phenomenon.[1]'

Source wiki.


Linus wrote on Sep 5^th, 2023 at 3:49pm:

The models indicate that if we continue increasing CO2 emissions we are heading to a very uncomfortable future.

Which of course doesn't make it so. ::)


Linus wrote on Sep 5^th, 2023 at 3:49pm:

Here read about why you're full of crap, Lee, in respect of climate models:

Oh dear. NASA believes that there is a 97% consensus.

Here is the Cooke et al survey -

https://skepticalscience.com/tcp.php?t=search&s=a&a=&c=&e=1&yf=1991&yt=2011

Now that is set to "Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as +50%"

The results? 65 papers. Out of 11,944. That's 0.5%. Scary eh?  ;D ;D ;D ;D


Linus wrote on Sep 5^th, 2023 at 3:49pm:

4. We are supposed to be in a cooling period, yet temperatures are rising.

Who said we are supposed to be in a cooling period? ::)


Linus wrote on Sep 5^th, 2023 at 3:49pm:

""By and large our models have gotten it right, plus or minus a little bit," said Hausfather, a UC Berkeley scientist who is climate and energy director at the Breakthrough Institute. "If they get it wrong, it's slightly on the warm side, but I wouldn't read too much into that.""

And as time goers by the errors increase. ::)

That's from your paper. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Try the later one. ;)

"Researchers have since tracked down the causes of the too-hot models, which include those produced by the National Center for Atmospheric Research, the U.S. Department of Energy, the United Kingdom’s Met Office, and Environment and Climate Change Canada. They often relate to the way models render clouds; one result has been excessive predicted warming in the tropics."



Linus wrote on Sep 5^th, 2023 at 3:49pm:

6. Atmospheric pressure is a component of modelling amongst a host of factors.

And it is parameterised. Computer games. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

From your think progress site -

"That idea of course meant ignored the myriad observations that climate impacts are occurring faster, not slower, than the models had predicted, and that therefore the multiple strong amplifying feedbacks are overwhelming whatever few week negative feedbacks occur in the climate system — see Study: Water-vapor feedback is “strong and positive,” so we face “warming of several degrees Celsius” (and below)."

There are NO observations of climate impacts occurring faster. Clouds are water-vapour.

Oh I see they "inferred" it. ::)

If you think different, post the proof. ::)

1.How about you read the links I provided instead of asking stupid questions which indicate that you did not read them.

2. The models and the reality around you, says it is so. Thousands of climate scientists around the world, virtually all, come to the conclusion it is so, clown. But you and the crackpots you grasp know better.  ::) ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

3. In respect of all your garbage on climate models. The scientists you quoted in your lame attempt to debunk climate models, embrace them. Your high school debating "skills" have let you down. And more specifically,

"Overall, climate models remain incredibly successful research tools, and nothing about this “too hot” generation invalidates the tenets of climate science, says Kate Marvel, a climate scientist at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and co-author of the commentary. The greenhouse effect is still warming the planet. Ice is melting, seas are rising, and droughts are becoming more frequent in some areas. "

https://www.science.org/content/article/use-too-hot-climate-models-exaggerates-impacts-global-warming

4. God, you're trying. Who said we should be in a cooling period? Look here:

"In 1998, researchers from the US University of Massachusetts Amherst and the Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research at the University of Arizona published a study

showing the average annual global temperature over the past 1,000 years.

To work out earlier temperatures going back half a millennium before the thermometer was invented, they studied so-called proxy or natural records — measurements of ice cores, tree rings and corals.

The outcome illustrated little variation for many hundreds of years until the 20th century, when there was suddenly a sharp rise.

In 2013, research published in the journal Science analyzed even earlier temperatures, dating back 11,000 years. The conclusion was the same: our planet has warmed faster in the past century than at any time since the end of the last ice age.

The study also revealed that for the last 2,000 years Earth has actually been in a natural cooling period in terms of its position relative to the sun.

But this natural cooling has gone unregistered due to unprecedented warming caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases, the paper explains. "

https://www.dw.com/en/fact-check-is-global-warming-merely-a-natural-cycle/a-57831350

5. Is there any connection between your brain and mouth? Atmospheric pressure, clouds or whatever else you want to throw under "parameterised" have proven their effectiveness regardless of that. And you haven't been able to prove otherwise. The scientists you thought supported you, didn't. Now that was laughable.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


6. Now I'm convinced you're a cretin. Why would they say climate impacts are happening faster than predicted? Because, dopey, they looked at their predictions and looked at what is actually happening.


https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00585-7

https://phys.org/news/2022-05-reveals-climate-rapid.html

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-faster-than-predicted/

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-15550-z


And the website  you quoted in trying to argue your case ie, "https://skepticalscience.com/" is  entirely devoted to debunking AGW denialism/"scepticism". You seem to have a penchant in finding scientists, crackpots, papers and websites that backfire on you.  ;D ;D ;D

You haven't got a clue and you don't even read or contextualise what you throw up as supporting your case. Everything has backfired on you so far , and all we're left looking at is your dopey grin. ::)

Linus wrote on Sep 5^th, 2023 at 6:29pm:

1.How about you read the links I provided instead of asking stupid questions which indicate that you did not read them.

I quoted from them. ::)


Linus wrote on Sep 5^th, 2023 at 6:29pm:

2. The models and the reality around you, says it is so.

The models say no such thing. The models can't tell what the temperature was a year ago. Let alone a year one hundred years ago. ::).


Linus wrote on Sep 5^th, 2023 at 6:29pm:

Thousands of climate scientists around the world, virtually all, come to the conclusion it is so, clown.

You mean quite apart from those scientists that are shills for fossil fuel? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


Linus wrote on Sep 5^th, 2023 at 6:29pm:

3. In respect of all your garbage on climate models. The scientists you quoted in your lame attempt to debunk climate models, embrace

Oh dear an appeal to authority. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


Linus wrote on Sep 5^th, 2023 at 6:29pm:

The greenhouse effect is still warming the planet. Ice is melting, seas are rising, and droughts are becoming more frequent in some areas. "

And the greenhouse effect has always been there. The seas have been rising for hundreds of years, And the magical gas CO2 can determine which areas of land get to be drought affected. OK. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D



Linus wrote on Sep 5^th, 2023 at 6:29pm:

"In 1998, researchers from the US University of Massachusetts Amherst and the Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research at the University of Arizona published a study showing the average annual global temperature over the past 1,000 years.

Oh the holy tree rings. They measure precipitation more than warming. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


Linus wrote on Sep 5^th, 2023 at 6:29pm:

The outcome illustrated little variation for many hundreds of years until the 20th century, when there was suddenly a sharp rise.

So we never had a MWP or an LIA? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


Linus wrote on Sep 5^th, 2023 at 6:29pm:

But this natural cooling has gone unregistered due to unprecedented warming caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases, the paper explains. "

OOH unprecedented? 1.5C in 100 years is unprecedented? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


Linus wrote on Sep 5^th, 2023 at 6:29pm:

Atmospheric pressure, clouds or whatever else you want to throw under "parameterised" have proven their effectiveness regardless of that.

So tell us which peer-reviewed paper says that clouds are net positive? ;)


Linus wrote on Sep 5^th, 2023 at 6:29pm:

Why would they say climate impacts are happening faster than predicted? Because, dopey, they looked at their predictions and looked at what is actually happening.

So which extreme weather events are happening faster than predicted. ::)


Linus wrote on Sep 5^th, 2023 at 6:29pm:

https://phys.org/news/2022-05-reveals-climate-rapid.html

You didn't read the paper. What a con.

"New data reveals climate change might be more rapid than predicted"


Linus wrote on Sep 5^th, 2023 at 6:29pm:

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00585-7

Oh dear. The iPCC says nothing like that at all. The IPCC don't do science. They review science. So tell us which peer-reviewed paper said that. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

This is what the IPCC says, with the appropriate references -

Floods - In summary there is low confidence in the human influence on the changes in high river flows on the global scale. Confidence is in general low in attributing changes in the probability or magnitude of flood events to human influence because of a limited number of studies and differences in the results of these studies, and large modelling uncertainties.

IPCC  AR6 WG1 11.5.4


Droughts - There is medium confidence in the ability of ESMs to simulate trends and anomalies in precipitation deficits and AED, and also medium confidence in the ability of ESMs and hydrological models to simulate trends and anomalies in soil moisture and streamflow deficits, on global and regional scales

IPCC AR6 WG1 11.6.3.6


Cyclones - There is low confidence in most reported long-term (multi-decadal to centennial) trends in TC frequency- or intensity-based metrics due to changes in the technology used to collect the best-track data.

IPCC AR6 WG1 11.7.1.2

Cyclones - The SREX (Chapter 3) concluded that there is low confidence in observed long-term (40 years or more) trends in TC intensity, frequency, and duration

IPCC AR6 WG1 11.7

Now that is what the IPCC said. Anything else is bunkum. ;)


Linus wrote on Sep 5^th, 2023 at 6:29pm:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-faster-than-predicted/

Oh dear A magazine. Hardly scientific. ;)


Linus wrote on Sep 5^th, 2023 at 6:29pm:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-15550-z

Climate change did it? Not fertiliser use. Goodo. ;D ;D ;D ;D

Continued -


Linus wrote on Sep 5^th, 2023 at 6:29pm:

And the website  you quoted in trying to argue your case ie, "https://skepticalscience.com/" is  entirely devoted to debunking AGW denialism/"scepticism". You seem to have a penchant in finding scientists, crackpots, papers and websites that backfire on you.

And you didn't find what I posted. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

The reason I quoted Cook et al 2013 was because it was fatally flawed. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Lee wrote:


Quote:

I quoted from them

And you failed to make any effective counterpoint.

Lee wrote:


Quote:

The models say no such thing. The models can't tell what the temperature was a year ago. Let alone a year one hundred years ago.

You'd be delusional. Even Hausfather who you used in a vain attempt to dismiss climate models, refuted you, as did others I quoted. You keep returning to your vomit as if it's new. You've been debunked but lo here we are again. Are you playing a scratched record or is your brain scratched? ::)

Lee wrote:


Quote:

You mean quite apart from those scientists that are shills for fossil fuel?

Yes, the overwhelming consensus of climate scientist who refute the fossil fuel shills you have pathetically dragged out to support your case. And let me add, even the pro-climate change scientists you thought supported your points, didn't.  ::)

Lee wrote:


Quote:

Oh dear an appeal to authority

Are you deranged? You appealed to them to support your case. I found they didn't. Accept you failed.

Lee wrote:


Quote:

And the greenhouse effect has always been there. The seas have been rising for hundreds of years, And the magical gas CO2 can determine which areas of land get to be drought affected. OK.

The greenhouse effect has been enhanced by anthropogenic CO2 emissions since the advent of the Industrial Revolution. Climate scientists studying this  "magical gas" through time and space know enough to assert that if it keeps increasing: droughts, floods and extreme weather events will increase. Their modelling is constantly improving and directed to being able to reach great specificity in prediction.

Pointing out that the modelling does not satisfy your need for specificity does not negate the theory of AGW and what it entails.


Lee wrote:


Quote:

Oh the holy tree rings. They measure precipitation more than warming.

You've misrepresented the quote. Tree ring data were studied in conjunction with ice cores and corals to reach high degree of confidence about the cooling of the Earth. And this expected cooling is consistent with what we know through Milankovich's theory.And you think you can fob off the study and all the science associated with it  with one unsupported sentence. Do better.  ::)


Lee wrote:


Quote:

So we never had a MWP or an LIA?

The researchers are talking about a general cooling trend. This does not mean we didn't have or couldn't have had an MWP or LIA.  ::)

Lee wrote:


Quote:

OOH unprecedented? 1.5C in 100 years is unprecedented?

Sigh. Climate scientists here are talking about limiting the average global temperature rise to no more than 1.5c above the average pre-industrial global temperature.

Lee wrote:


Quote:

So tell us which peer-reviewed paper says that clouds are net positive?

I did not say they were net positive. You brought up the question of clouds. As it stands, clouds can have a positive and negative feedback. Low level clouds such as stratocumulus clouds can have a warming effect by trapping heat radiated from the Earth's surface at night.

The only point you had was the parameterisation of clouds. Because of this uncertainty in climate models, you thought that was enough to discount them completely. And you were given references earlier that falsified your assertion.

Lee wrote:


Quote:

So which extreme weather events are happening faster than predicted

::)

Here's a quote from one of them;

" Here we present data from a twelve-year monitoring program, involving 6200 observations of 166 estuaries along >1100 kilometres of the Australian coastline encompassing all estuary morphologies. Estuary temperatures increased by 2.16 °C on average over 12 years, at a rate of 0.2 °C year−1, with waters acidifying at a rate of 0.09 pH units and freshening at 0.086 PSU year−1. The response of estuaries to climate change is dependent on their morphology. Lagoons and rivers are warming and acidifying at the fastest rate because of shallow average depths and limited oceanic exchange. The changes measured are an order of magnitude faster than predicted by global ocean and atmospheric models, indicating that existing global models may not be useful to predict change in estuaries."

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-15550-z


Lee wrote:


Quote:

You didn't read the paper. What a con.

You glossed over the above paper from which I quoted from.  ::)

Ok you didn't like:


Quote:

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00585-7

Heavens, how did the prestigious scientific journal Nature allow this in?

Climate change is hitting the planet faster than scientists originally thought


I think the only bunkum has been coming from you- pretty clear now.


Lee wrote:


Quote:

Climate change did it? Not fertiliser use. Goodo

Well, blow me down, we have researchers on one hand who analysed this with the use of 12 years of data and 6200 observations and written a paper, and from you we have  a speculation about fertilizer and a sarcastic "Goodo". Sorry, a sarcastic Goodo, and the speculation you thought you warranted it, doesn't pass muster. Where's your proof that it's fertilizer, do provide me with a peer reviewed paper. Chop chop.  ::)

Continued...

Lee wrote:


Quote:

And you didn't find what I posted. The reason I quoted Cook et al 2013 was because it was fatally flawed

You gave me a reference to a list with 2 pages of listed articles. Why didn't you give an exact reference? It doesn't change the fact that the entire website you used is devoted to collecting and debunking the works of climate denialists you support and providing evidence for AGW. I'm glad you referenced it though. I hope others check your bullshit with it.

To merely cherry pick one paper that you didn't even discuss, nor reference properly and just say it's flawed doesn't amount to squat- like your" Goodo".And one paper out of hundreds of papers debunking denialists doesn't make a summer for you. ::)

Your AGW denialists are all flawed.  ;D ;D ;D

The scientific consensus overwhelmingly agrees to anthropogenic induced climate change..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEb49cZYnsE&t=207s

Goodo Lee thinks he and his crackpots know better.  ::)

Linus wrote on Sep 5^th, 2023 at 10:11pm:

And you failed to make any effective counterpoint.

Only according to you.


Linus wrote on Sep 5^th, 2023 at 10:11pm:

You'd be delusional. Even Hausfather who you used in a vain attempt to dismiss climate models, refuted you, as did others I quoted.

You still haven't read Hausfather's 2022 paper have you? What a denier you are. ::)

.
Linus wrote on Sep 5^th, 2023 at 10:11pm:

You keep returning to your vomit as if it's new.

Talk about return to vomit... You can't even bring yourself to read Hausfather's paper from 2022. ::)


Linus wrote on Sep 5^th, 2023 at 10:11pm:

Yes, the overwhelming consensus of climate scientist who refute the fossil fuel shills you have pathetically dragged out to support your case.

So give us this number of thousands of climate scientists who believe. ;)


Linus wrote on Sep 5^th, 2023 at 10:11pm:

You appealed to them to support your case.

I showed what they actually said not what you thought they said. ::)


Linus wrote on Sep 5^th, 2023 at 10:26pm:

You gave me a reference to a list with 2 pages of listed articles.

You didn't read what it said , did you? The number of papers that said that AGW was more than +50%. and they showed the 65 papers. Those 65 papers represent 0.5% of the 11,944 papers they reviewed. ::)

As to the rest that supported AGW go back to the skepsci reference and change the Endorsment level too 2 and then 3. and search Abstracts.
Level 2 - Explicitly endorses but does not quantify - 934 results.

Level 3 - Implicitly endorses AGW - 2934.

That of corse the Imlicit is actually implied. ::)

So 934 out of 11944 is 7.8%

2934 out of 119444 is 24.5 %

And all of that does not add up to 97%. As Cook et al themselves say "32.6% endorsed AGW"


As to the actual paper -

"We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed
scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate
change’ or ‘global warming’. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed
AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing
a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdf
Linus wrote on Sep 5^th, 2023 at 11:58pm:

The scientific consensus overwhelmingly agrees to anthropogenic induced climate change..

As I just showed, no it doesn't. All of the papers have flaws, you just want to believe. And nothing will convince you otherwise. So I am not going down to your level. Bye.

https://i.postimg.cc/JzjZ3krB/Screenshot-2023-09-07-at-08-03-07-Conservative-Cartoons.png

1,389,499 views  Sep 1, 2023 

Climate change is happening, but has it ever happened before?




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpvd9FensT8

The climate changes every day.

Jasin wrote on Sep 7^th, 2023 at 10:16pm:

The climate changes every day.

The weather you mean?

It's all unravelling for the climate cultists: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/sep/4/climate-science-has-degenerated-into-discussion-ba/?mibextid=S66gvF

1.Climate science is established. Rising CO2 is driving climate change.    That rise stems by and large from human activity.

2.There's no controversy amongst the top tier climate scientists, that is, as you ascend the ladder of expertise there's a greater consensus. See the video I posted on the Queensland University study that confirms this. Here it is again:

https://youtu.be/pEb49cZYnsE


3. The pseudo-controversy generated comes from the ignorant, vested interests in fossil fuels, shill scientists or scientists that aren't climate scientists, and crackpots like Lee.

4. Climate models are excellent and improving.  See here:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPtR8YrT-fg


Pack it in  Lee and same goes to all you other climate science deniers. You don't know what you're talking about. You can cherry pick, focus on minutiae, misinterpret climate scientists and their papers, marshal crackpots and shills etc etc but all your bullshit doesn't change the truth.

Poor Linus.

Just can't or doesn't want to understand. 32.6% of papers, as per Cook et al 2013, is  not and can never be 97%.

"We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming."

So Linus is really JM's sock. Keeps on denying in the face of certain truth.  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Of course you could always quote the paper that says it with references. ;)

lee wrote on Sep 10^th, 2023 at 2:09pm:

Poor Linus. Just can't or doesn't want to understand. 32.6% of papers, as per Cook et al 2013, is  not and can never be 97%. "We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming." So Linus is really JM's sock. Keeps on denying in the face of certain truth.  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Of course you could always quote the paper that says it with references. ;)

Crackpot Lee strikes again with telltale misrepresentation.


Cook et al. found that approximately 97% of the papers that expressed a position on climate change endorsed the consensus view that global warming is primarily caused by human activities. This percentage is often cited as evidence of a strong scientific consensus.

The claim that "32.6% of papers" debunk the 97% consensus is a misinterpretation of the study's findings. Cook et al. did identify a small percentage of papers that rejected the consensus, but these papers represented a minority view within the scientific community.

The scientific consensus is not determined by the number of papers but by the weight of the evidence and the agreement among experts. The fact that a minority of papers express dissenting views does not undermine the overall consensus.

Subsequent studies have also supported the idea of a strong scientific consensus on climate change. While the exact percentage may vary slightly, the consensus among climate scientists remains robust.

The claim that "32.6% of papers" debunk the consensus is a misinterpretation of the study's findings and does not accurately represent the state of scientific agreement on this issue. The consensus view on climate change is based on a substantial body of evidence and the agreement of a large majority of experts in the field.

Typical to form, Lee is just another AGW crackpot pissing in the ocean thinking that he can change its level. If you or your gaggle of AGW deniers had anything worthy to rebut the scientific consensus then it would have changed.

It hasn't.  ::)

Maybe we should look at Oreskes, 2005 100% paper.

"The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position."

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1103618

And yet, when she gave a lecture on this later she showed the Figure 4.1.

http://www.project2061.org/events/meetings/climate2010/includes/media/NotwrongClimateChange.MITPress.2007.pdf

Only about 220 papers out of 928 (there's that number again) papers endorsed AGW. Of course, none refuted.

"Figure 4.1
A Web of Science analysis of 928 abstracts using the keywords
‘‘global climate change.’’ No papers in the sample provided scientific
data to refute the consensus position on global climate change."

It all depends on what you are looking for. ;)

Linus wrote on Sep 10^th, 2023 at 3:46pm:

Cook et al. found that approximately 97% of the papers that expressed a position on climate change endorsed the consensus view that global warming is primarily caused by human activities.

Not even close. I gave you the paper. I gave you the link to their calculations. 65 Papers out of 11,944 said AGW was greater than +50%. Why do you deny the science?


Linus wrote on Sep 10^th, 2023 at 3:46pm:

The claim that "32.6% of papers" debunk the 97% consensus is a misinterpretation of the study's findings.

Nope. A total of 3933 papers out of 11,944 papers Endorsed, either explicitly or implicitly, AGW.

"Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."

So 97.1% of 32.6% Endorsed + 0.7% rejected or a total of 33.3%.

97.1% of 33.3% is 32.3%.

WE know you are mathematically challenged, but that is what the paper said. ::)

You keep saying other studies, which is your preferred? ;)

Well, in my 70+ years on this planet, I've personally
witnessed global warming caused by the post-WW2
increase in population and industrialisation—here in
Australia too.
https://i.postimg.cc/fLqDpx4j/Screenshot-2023-09-10-at-16-06-31-Ch-5-Vic-Climate-Projections-2019-Technical-Report-20200218-pdf.png
          Mean annual temperature of Victoria with an 11-year
          running average shown in dashed red (the linear
          trend in the 20 years of 1999–2018 shown as a solid
          red line).

lee wrote on Sep 10^th, 2023 at 3:54pm:

Maybe we should look at Oreskes, 2005 100% paper. "The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position." https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1103618 And yet, when she gave a lecture on this later she showed the Figure 4.1. http://www.project2061.org/events/meetings/climate2010/includes/media/NotwrongClimateChange.MITPress.2007.pdf Only about 220 papers out of 928 (there's that number again) papers endorsed AGW. Of course, none refuted. "Figure 4.1 A Web of Science analysis of 928 abstracts using the keywords ‘‘global climate change.’’ No papers in the sample provided scientific data to refute the consensus position on global climate change." It all depends on what you are looking for. ;)

How quickly you ran away from your misrepesentation of Cook. Now you're trying to run backward through time to find something.

Regardless, you just found something else that doesn't shake the overwhelming scientific consensus.

Try "Evolving Consensus on Human Anthropogenic Global Warming" by Carlton et al. (2015): This paper examined the evolution of the consensus on AGW in the scientific literature over time and found that it has steadily increased... :P

Again, Lee, if you had anything but quibble and bullshit, you and your pals would have changed the consensus on climate change. You haven't.

Have a rest, you're fighting a battle that you've already lost.  ::)

And can you positively attribute it to CO2 Only. Or some natural variation like coming out of the LIA, UHI effect due to the flight from the country to the cities etc.

Linus wrote on Sep 10^th, 2023 at 4:17pm:

How quickly you ran away from your misrepesentation of Cook.

I merely gave you another example. ;D ;D ;D ;D


Linus wrote on Sep 10^th, 2023 at 4:17pm:

Try "Evolving Consensus on Human Anthropogenic Global Warming" by Carlton et al. (2015): This paper examined the evolution of the consensus on AGW in the scientific literature over time and found that it has steadily increased.

So I'm guessing you haven't read that paper either.

"The results suggest a broad consensus that climate change is occurring: when asked 'When compared with pre-1800's levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?', 93.6% of respondents across all disciplines indicated that they thought temperatures have risen, 2.1% thought temperatures had remained relatively constant, 0.6% thought temperatures had fallen, and 3.7% indicated they had no opinion or did not know. "

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/9/094025/meta

Just have temperatures risen. ;)

And I see they still quote Cook et al. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

I Left Out the Full Truth to Get My Climate Change Paper Published
I just got published in Nature because I stuck to a narrative I knew the editors would like. That’s not the way science should work.

By Patrick T Brown

September 5, 2023

https://www.thefp.com/p/i-overhyped-climate-change-to-get-published

To put it bluntly, climate science has become less about understanding the complexities of the world and more about serving as a kind of Cassandra, urgently warning the public about the dangers of climate change. However understandable this instinct may be, it distorts a great deal of climate science research, misinforms the public, and most importantly, makes practical solutions more difficult to achieve.

Why is this happening?

It starts with the fact that a researcher’s career depends on his or her work being cited widely and perceived as important. This triggers the self-reinforcing feedback loops of name recognition, funding, quality applications from aspiring PhD students and postdocs, and of course, accolades.

But as the number of researchers has skyrocketed in recent years—there are close to six times more PhDs earned in the U.S. each year than there were in the early 1960s—it has become more difficult than ever to stand out from the crowd. So while there has always been a tremendous premium placed on publishing in journals like Nature and Science, it’s also become extraordinarily more competitive.

In theory, scientific research should prize curiosity, dispassionate objectivity, and a commitment to uncovering the truth. Surely those are the qualities that editors of scientific journals should value.

In reality, though, the biases of the editors (and the reviewers they call upon to evaluate submissions) exert a major influence on the collective output of entire fields. They select what gets published from a large pool of entries, and in doing so, they also shape how research is conducted more broadly. Savvy researchers tailor their studies to maximize the likelihood that their work is accepted. I know this because I am one of them.

lee wrote on Sep 10^th, 2023 at 4:34pm:

Linus wrote on Sep 10th, 2023 at 4:17pm: How quickly you ran away from your misrepesentation of Cook. I merely gave you another example. ;D ;D ;D ;D Linus wrote on Sep 10th, 2023 at 4:17pm: Try "Evolving Consensus on Human Anthropogenic Global Warming" by Carlton et al. (2015): This paper examined the evolution of the consensus on AGW in the scientific literature over time and found that it has steadily increased. So I'm guessing you haven't read that paper either. "The results suggest a broad consensus that climate change is occurring: when asked 'When compared with pre-1800's levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?', 93.6% of respondents across all disciplines indicated that they thought temperatures have risen, 2.1% thought temperatures had remained relatively constant, 0.6% thought temperatures had fallen, and 3.7% indicated they had no opinion or did not know. " https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/9/094025/meta Just have temperatures risen. ;) And I see they still quote Cook et al. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Supports and no where denies the thrust of AGW unlike you. Sorry, no cigar. And it seems that Cook doubled down on the climate scientists' consensus:

Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming" by Cook et al. (2016): This follow-up study by Cook et al. reaffirmed the consensus finding and addressed criticisms of their 2013 paper. It concluded that the consensus remains robust.

Keep flailing about, Lee. ;D

Frank wrote on Sep 10^th, 2023 at 5:47pm:

I Left Out the Full Truth to Get My Climate Change Paper Published I just got published in Nature because I stuck to a narrative I knew the editors would like. That’s not the way science should work. By Patrick T Brown September 5, 2023 https://www.thefp.com/p/i-overhyped-climate-change-to-get-published To put it bluntly, climate science has become less about understanding the complexities of the world and more about serving as a kind of Cassandra, urgently warning the public about the dangers of climate change. However understandable this instinct may be, it distorts a great deal of climate science research, misinforms the public, and most importantly, makes practical solutions more difficult to achieve. Why is this happening? It starts with the fact that a researcher’s career depends on his or her work being cited widely and perceived as important. This triggers the self-reinforcing feedback loops of name recognition, funding, quality applications from aspiring PhD students and postdocs, and of course, accolades. But as the number of researchers has skyrocketed in recent years—there are close to six times more PhDs earned in the U.S. each year than there were in the early 1960s—it has become more difficult than ever to stand out from the crowd. So while there has always been a tremendous premium placed on publishing in journals like Nature and Science, it’s also become extraordinarily more competitive. In theory, scientific research should prize curiosity, dispassionate objectivity, and a commitment to uncovering the truth. Surely those are the qualities that editors of scientific journals should value. In reality, though, the biases of the editors (and the reviewers they call upon to evaluate submissions) exert a major influence on the collective output of entire fields. They select what gets published from a large pool of entries, and in doing so, they also shape how research is conducted more broadly. Savvy researchers tailor their studies to maximize the likelihood that their work is accepted. I know this because I am one of them.

The article doesn't deny AGW. The author writes:

"So in my recent Nature paper, which I authored with seven others, I focused narrowly on the influence of climate change on extreme wildfire behavior. Make no mistake: that influence is very real."
https://www.thefp.com/p/i-overhyped-climate-change-to-get-published

And it appears that the author is fibbing when he says that Nature rejects papers outside the narrative:

"And yet climate scientist Richard Black did a quick survey of just the past month’s publications in Nature and found papers:

• suggesting Amazon deforestation is primarily the result of shoddy law enforcement;

• blaming a severe rainfall event in Japan on ocean waters mixing; 

• suggesting underlying social vulnerabilities were more to blame than climate for extreme-weather disasters.

That third paper was co-authored by Friederike Otto, a pioneer in the burgeoning science of attributing extreme weather events to climate change. That work has practically won her household-name status as a climate Cassandra, a high-profile career she apparently doesn’t mind risking by countering Brown’s alleged narrative.

All of which suggests Nature has no problem publishing research that counters said narrative. Nature’s editor in chief, Magdalena Skipper, has denied that her publication pushes any agenda and criticized Brown for trying to manipulate it."

Skipper also pointed out that peer reviewers suggested Brown should include other wildfire factors in his research beyond climate, but he argued (pretty convincingly) that it wasn’t necessary for the purposes of his paper. This suggests not only that Brown’s work might have had an easier time getting published had those factors been included, but also that, if any censorship was happening in the climate-science community, it was Brown censoring himself. ..."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/09/08/no-climate-scientists-aren-t-being-forced-to-exaggerate/452dfb72-4e36-11ee-bfca-04e0ac43f9e4_story.html

Linus wrote on Sep 10^th, 2023 at 8:17pm:

upports and no where denies the thrust of AGW unlike you.

Wow. You really have it bad. From the title of your reference -

"The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists"

So after being told, erroneously, for over 10 years, that there is 97% of climate scientists, now the uneducated public accepts the meme. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


Linus wrote on Sep 10^th, 2023 at 8:17pm:

Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming" by Cook et al. (2016):

Oh dear. They cite themselves. Talk about circular reasoning. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

But tell me how 32.6% of papers, according to Cook et al, can be magically transformed to 97%. You really are no good at maths. ;)

They even cite Oreskes 928 papers where she didn't look for sceptical papers. ::)

Oh dear. Linus quotes the Washpo. Next he'll be citing the LAtrineTimes. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

And attributing extreme weather events? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Linus wrote on Sep 10^th, 2023 at 8:33pm:

Frank wrote on Sep 10th, 2023 at 5:47pm: I Left Out the Full Truth to Get My Climate Change Paper Published I just got published in Nature because I stuck to a narrative I knew the editors would like. That’s not the way science should work. By Patrick T Brown September 5, 2023 https://www.thefp.com/p/i-overhyped-climate-change-to-get-published To put it bluntly, climate science has become less about understanding the complexities of the world and more about serving as a kind of Cassandra, urgently warning the public about the dangers of climate change. However understandable this instinct may be, it distorts a great deal of climate science research, misinforms the public, and most importantly, makes practical solutions more difficult to achieve. Why is this happening? It starts with the fact that a researcher’s career depends on his or her work being cited widely and perceived as important. This triggers the self-reinforcing feedback loops of name recognition, funding, quality applications from aspiring PhD students and postdocs, and of course, accolades. But as the number of researchers has skyrocketed in recent years—there are close to six times more PhDs earned in the U.S. each year than there were in the early 1960s—it has become more difficult than ever to stand out from the crowd. So while there has always been a tremendous premium placed on publishing in journals like Nature and Science, it’s also become extraordinarily more competitive. In theory, scientific research should prize curiosity, dispassionate objectivity, and a commitment to uncovering the truth. Surely those are the qualities that editors of scientific journals should value. In reality, though, the biases of the editors (and the reviewers they call upon to evaluate submissions) exert a major influence on the collective output of entire fields. They select what gets published from a large pool of entries, and in doing so, they also shape how research is conducted more broadly. Savvy researchers tailor their studies to maximize the likelihood that their work is accepted. I know this because I am one of them. The article doesn't deny AGW. The author writes: "So in my recent Nature paper, which I authored with seven others, I focused narrowly on the influence of climate change on extreme wildfire behavior. Make no mistake: that influence is very real." https://www.thefp.com/p/i-overhyped-climate-change-to-get-published And it appears that the author is fibbing when he says that Nature rejects papers outside the narrative: "And yet climate scientist Richard Black did a quick survey of just the past month’s publications in Nature and found papers: • suggesting Amazon deforestation is primarily the result of shoddy law enforcement; • blaming a severe rainfall event in Japan on ocean waters mixing;  • suggesting underlying social vulnerabilities were more to blame than climate for extreme-weather disasters. That third paper was co-authored by Friederike Otto, a pioneer in the burgeoning science of attributing extreme weather events to climate change. That work has practically won her household-name status as a climate Cassandra, a high-profile career she apparently doesn’t mind risking by countering Brown’s alleged narrative. All of which suggests Nature has no problem publishing research that counters said narrative. Nature’s editor in chief, Magdalena Skipper, has denied that her publication pushes any agenda and criticized Brown for trying to manipulate it." Skipper also pointed out that peer reviewers suggested Brown should include other wildfire factors in his research beyond climate, but he argued (pretty convincingly) that it wasn’t necessary for the purposes of his paper. This suggests not only that Brown’s work might have had an easier time getting published had those factors been included, but also that, if any censorship was happening in the climate-science community, it was Brown censoring himself. ..." https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/09/08/no-climate-scientists-aren-t-being-forced-to-exaggerate/452dfb72-4e36-11ee-bfca-04e0ac43f9e4_story.html

You are but one example of TOTALLY unscientific, totally non-dispassionate, totally not objective "climate crisis" fever.  You are dripping with agitation and seething partisanship. If you really had science on your side you wouldn't need to be so Gretaesque.

He just doesn't want to read/comprehend papers. ::)

lee wrote on Sep 10^th, 2023 at 8:37pm:

Linus wrote on Sep 10th, 2023 at 8:17pm: upports and no where denies the thrust of AGW unlike you. Wow. You really have it bad. From the title of your reference - "The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists" So after being told, erroneously, for over 10 years, that there is 97% of climate scientists, now the uneducated public accepts the meme. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Linus wrote on Sep 10th, 2023 at 8:17pm: Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming" by Cook et al. (2016): Oh dear. They cite themselves. Talk about circular reasoning. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D But tell me how 32.6% of papers, according to Cook et al, can be magically transformed to 97%. You really are no good at maths. ;) They even cite Oreskes 928 papers where she didn't look for sceptical papers. ::)

He noted the criticisms and responded to them. You are cherry picking one study, and you think that makes a case or proves that denies the consensus.

You are only nitpicking Lee, failing to see the forest for the trees- typical of an AGW denier. And you overlooked another paper that showed consensus has only been growing. Selective filtering, huh?  ::)

Frank wrote on Sep 10^th, 2023 at 8:52pm:

Linus wrote on Sep 10th, 2023 at 8:33pm: Frank wrote on Sep 10th, 2023 at 5:47pm: I Left Out the Full Truth to Get My Climate Change Paper Published I just got published in Nature because I stuck to a narrative I knew the editors would like. That’s not the way science should work. By Patrick T Brown September 5, 2023 https://www.thefp.com/p/i-overhyped-climate-change-to-get-published To put it bluntly, climate science has become less about understanding the complexities of the world and more about serving as a kind of Cassandra, urgently warning the public about the dangers of climate change. However understandable this instinct may be, it distorts a great deal of climate science research, misinforms the public, and most importantly, makes practical solutions more difficult to achieve. Why is this happening? It starts with the fact that a researcher’s career depends on his or her work being cited widely and perceived as important. This triggers the self-reinforcing feedback loops of name recognition, funding, quality applications from aspiring PhD students and postdocs, and of course, accolades. But as the number of researchers has skyrocketed in recent years—there are close to six times more PhDs earned in the U.S. each year than there were in the early 1960s—it has become more difficult than ever to stand out from the crowd. So while there has always been a tremendous premium placed on publishing in journals like Nature and Science, it’s also become extraordinarily more competitive. In theory, scientific research should prize curiosity, dispassionate objectivity, and a commitment to uncovering the truth. Surely those are the qualities that editors of scientific journals should value. In reality, though, the biases of the editors (and the reviewers they call upon to evaluate submissions) exert a major influence on the collective output of entire fields. They select what gets published from a large pool of entries, and in doing so, they also shape how research is conducted more broadly. Savvy researchers tailor their studies to maximize the likelihood that their work is accepted. I know this because I am one of them. The article doesn't deny AGW. The author writes: "So in my recent Nature paper, which I authored with seven others, I focused narrowly on the influence of climate change on extreme wildfire behavior. Make no mistake: that influence is very real." https://www.thefp.com/p/i-overhyped-climate-change-to-get-published And it appears that the author is fibbing when he says that Nature rejects papers outside the narrative: "And yet climate scientist Richard Black did a quick survey of just the past month’s publications in Nature and found papers: • suggesting Amazon deforestation is primarily the result of shoddy law enforcement; • blaming a severe rainfall event in Japan on ocean waters mixing;  • suggesting underlying social vulnerabilities were more to blame than climate for extreme-weather disasters. That third paper was co-authored by Friederike Otto, a pioneer in the burgeoning science of attributing extreme weather events to climate change. That work has practically won her household-name status as a climate Cassandra, a high-profile career she apparently doesn’t mind risking by countering Brown’s alleged narrative. All of which suggests Nature has no problem publishing research that counters said narrative. Nature’s editor in chief, Magdalena Skipper, has denied that her publication pushes any agenda and criticized Brown for trying to manipulate it." Skipper also pointed out that peer reviewers suggested Brown should include other wildfire factors in his research beyond climate, but he argued (pretty convincingly) that it wasn’t necessary for the purposes of his paper. This suggests not only that Brown’s work might have had an easier time getting published had those factors been included, but also that, if any censorship was happening in the climate-science community, it was Brown censoring himself. ..." https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/09/08/no-climate-scientists-aren-t-being-forced-to-exaggerate/452dfb72-4e36-11ee-bfca-04e0ac43f9e4_story.html You are but one example of TOTALLY unscientific, totally non-dispassionate, totally not objective "climate crisis" fever.  You are dripping with agitation and seething partisanship. If you really had science on your side you wouldn't need to be so Gretaesque.

And you're hoisted on your own petard.

You  have AGW denialism is "dripping with agitation and seetihing partisnaship".

You found an article of one climate scientist, who doesn't even reject AGW, but made an unfair claim that Nature only publishes what it wants to hear. And that was shown to be false. Deal with it.

Linus wrote on Sep 11^th, 2023 at 3:24pm:

He noted the criticisms and responded to them.

And stuck to his methodology and outcomes. That is 32.6% of papers endorsed AGW at some level. Not +50%  that level. You are such a denier.


Linus wrote on Sep 11^th, 2023 at 3:24pm:

You are cherry picking one study, and you think that makes a case or proves that denies the consensus.

So, so far I have cherry-picked two studies. ;) Do you want  me to try a third?

Here goes -

"Table 2. Rating of climate papers, as per C13.
Level of endorsement      Description      Example
(1) Explicit endorsement with quantification      Explicitly states that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming      'The global warming during the 20th century is caused mainly by increasing greenhouse gas concentration especially since the late 1980s'
(2) Explicit endorsement without quantification      Explicitly states humans are causing global warming or refers to anthropogenic global warming/climate change as a known fact      'Emissions of a broad range of greenhouse gases of varying lifetimes contribute to global climate change'
(3) Implicit endorsement      Implies humans are causing global warming. e.g. research assumes greenhouse gas emissions cause warming without explicitly stating humans are the cause      '...carbon sequestration in soil is important for mitigating global climate change'
(4a) No position      Does not address or mention the cause of global warming      —
(4b) Uncertain      Expresses position that humans' role in recent global warming is uncertain/undefined      'While the extent of human-induced global warming is inconclusive...'
(5) Implicit rejection      Implies humans have had a minimal impact on global warming without saying so explicitly. e.g. proposing a natural mechanism is the main cause of global warming      '...anywhere from a major portion to all of the warming of the 20th century could plausibly result from natural causes according to these results'
(6) Explicit rejection without quantification      Explicitly minimizes or rejects that humans are causing global warming      '...the global temperature record provides little support for the catastrophic view of the greenhouse effect'
(7) Explicit rejection with quantification      Explicitly states that humans are causing less than half of global warming      'The human contribution to the CO2 content in the atmosphere and the increase in temperature is negligible in comparison with other sources of carbon dioxide emission' '

"Table 3. Results of rating and categorization of 3000 abstracts.
Rating/categorization      # of abstracts
1—Explicit endorsement with quantification      19
Impacts      7
Methods      9
Mitigation      3
2—Explicit endorsement without quantification      413
Impacts      204
Methods      78
Mitigation      124
Not climate-related      4
Opinion      1
Paleoclimate      2
3—Implicit endorsement      460
Impacts      95
Methods      119
Mitigation      199
Not climate-related      43
Paleoclimate      4
4a—No position      2104
Impacts      915
Methods      790
Mitigation      60
Not climate-related      235
Opinion      3
Paleoclimate      101
5—Implicit rejection      2
Methods      2
6—Explicit rejection without quantification      1
Paleoclimate      1
7—Explicit rejection with quantification      1
Methods      1
Grand Total      3000 "

From this it is clear - 19 + 413 + 460 = 892 papers out of 3000.

Now a normal person would have said 892/3000 or 29.7%. But NO, according to their methodology - "

"Our estimate of the proportion of consensus papers was 1 − (4/2718) = 99.85%"

So they exclude the actual papers and then calculate the effective scepticism using the bulk of papers. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966

Lynas et al 2021.

You will probably disagree with this as well.
Linus wrote on Sep 11^th, 2023 at 3:24pm:

And you overlooked another paper that showed consensus has only been growing

Wow. Fancy having 97% pushed down your throat and the numbers go up. Who woudda thunk? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Sep 11^th, 2023 at 5:33pm:

Linus wrote on Sep 11th, 2023 at 3:24pm: He noted the criticisms and responded to them. And stuck to his methodology and outcomes. That is 32.6% of papers endorsed AGW at some level. Not +50%  that level. You are such a denier. Linus wrote on Sep 11th, 2023 at 3:24pm: You are cherry picking one study, and you think that makes a case or proves that denies the consensus. So, so far I have cherry-picked two studies. ;) Do you want  me to try a third? Here goes - "Table 2. Rating of climate papers, as per C13. Level of endorsement      Description      Example (1) Explicit endorsement with quantification      Explicitly states that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming      'The global warming during the 20th century is caused mainly by increasing greenhouse gas concentration especially since the late 1980s' (2) Explicit endorsement without quantification      Explicitly states humans are causing global warming or refers to anthropogenic global warming/climate change as a known fact      'Emissions of a broad range of greenhouse gases of varying lifetimes contribute to global climate change' (3) Implicit endorsement      Implies humans are causing global warming. e.g. research assumes greenhouse gas emissions cause warming without explicitly stating humans are the cause      '...carbon sequestration in soil is important for mitigating global climate change' (4a) No position      Does not address or mention the cause of global warming      — (4b) Uncertain      Expresses position that humans' role in recent global warming is uncertain/undefined      'While the extent of human-induced global warming is inconclusive...' (5) Implicit rejection      Implies humans have had a minimal impact on global warming without saying so explicitly. e.g. proposing a natural mechanism is the main cause of global warming      '...anywhere from a major portion to all of the warming of the 20th century could plausibly result from natural causes according to these results' (6) Explicit rejection without quantification      Explicitly minimizes or rejects that humans are causing global warming      '...the global temperature record provides little support for the catastrophic view of the greenhouse effect' (7) Explicit rejection with quantification      Explicitly states that humans are causing less than half of global warming      'The human contribution to the CO2 content in the atmosphere and the increase in temperature is negligible in comparison with other sources of carbon dioxide emission' ' "Table 3. Results of rating and categorization of 3000 abstracts. Rating/categorization      # of abstracts 1—Explicit endorsement with quantification      19 Impacts      7 Methods      9 Mitigation      3 2—Explicit endorsement without quantification      413 Impacts      204 Methods      78 Mitigation      124 Not climate-related      4 Opinion      1 Paleoclimate      2 3—Implicit endorsement      460 Impacts      95 Methods      119 Mitigation      199 Not climate-related      43 Paleoclimate      4 4a—No position      2104 Impacts      915 Methods      790 Mitigation      60 Not climate-related      235 Opinion      3 Paleoclimate      101 5—Implicit rejection      2 Methods      2 6—Explicit rejection without quantification      1 Paleoclimate      1 7—Explicit rejection with quantification      1 Methods      1 Grand Total      3000 " From this it is clear - 19 + 413 + 460 = 892 papers out of 3000. Now a normal person would have said 892/3000 or 29.7%. But NO, according to their methodology - " "Our estimate of the proportion of consensus papers was 1 − (4/2718) = 99.85%" So they exclude the actual papers and then calculate the effective scepticism using the bulk of papers. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966 Lynas et al 2021. You will probably disagree with this as well. Linus wrote on Sep 11th, 2023 at 3:24pm: And you overlooked another paper that showed consensus has only been growing Wow. Fancy having 97% pushed down your throat and the numbers go up. Who woudda thunk? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Methodology. Always check the methodology.
A statistical analysis of key words.

"We conclude with high statistical confidence that the scientific consensus on human-caused contemporary climate change—expressed as a proportion of the total publications—exceeds 99% in the peer reviewed scientific literature."
That sounds eerily like a Chinese or North Korean or Soviet press release on their election results.
And who is the author of this 99% consensus article??
Step forward, Mark Lynas, a British author and journalist whose work is focused on environmentalism and climate change. He has written for the New Statesman, The Ecologist, Granta and Geographical magazines, and The Guardian and The Observer newspapers in the UK, as well as the New York Times and Washington Post in the United States; he also worked on and appeared in the film The Age of Stupid. He was born in Fiji, grew up in Peru, Spain and the United Kingdom and holds a degree in history and politics from the University of Edinburgh.[1] He has published several books including Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet (2007) and The God Species: Saving the Planet in the Age of Humans (2011). Lynas is research and climate lead for the Alliance for Science and is co-founder of the pro-science environmental network RePlanet. Since 2009 he has been climate advisor to former president of the Maldives Mohamed Nasheed.
Ah...

Lee, firstly, attacking the consensus does not vitiate the science.
But anyway, this paper states the overwhelming consensus:

Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming

John Cook16,1,2,3, Naomi Oreskes4, Peter T Doran5, William R L Anderegg6,7, Bart Verheggen8, Ed W Maibach9, J Stuart Carlton10
, Stephan Lewandowsky11,2, Andrew G Skuce12,3, Sarah A Green13, Dana Nuccitelli3, Peter Jacobs9, Mark Richardson14, Bärbel Winkler3, Rob Painting3 and Ken Rice15

Abstract

The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming. A survey of authors of those papers (N = 2412 papers) also supported a 97% consensus. Tol (2016 Environ. Res. Lett. 11 048001) comes to a different conclusion using results from surveys of non-experts such as economic geologists and a self-selected group of those who reject the consensus. We demonstrate that this outcome is not unexpected because the level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science. At one point, Tol also reduces the apparent consensus by assuming that abstracts that do not explicitly state the cause of global warming ('no position') represent non-endorsement, an approach that if applied elsewhere would reject consensus on well-established theories such as plate tectonics. We examine the available studies and conclude that the finding of 97% consensus in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies.


https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

Linus wrote on Sep 11^th, 2023 at 11:53pm:

Lee, firstly, attacking the consensus does not vitiate the science. But anyway, this paper states the overwhelming consensus: Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming John Cook16,1,2,3, Naomi Oreskes4, Peter T Doran5, William R L Anderegg6,7, Bart Verheggen8, Ed W Maibach9, J Stuart Carlton10 , Stephan Lewandowsky11,2, Andrew G Skuce12,3, Sarah A Green13, Dana Nuccitelli3, Peter Jacobs9, Mark Richardson14, Bärbel Winkler3, Rob Painting3 and Ken Rice15 Abstract The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming. A survey of authors of those papers (N = 2412 papers) also supported a 97% consensus. Tol (2016 Environ. Res. Lett. 11 048001) comes to a different conclusion using results from surveys of non-experts such as economic geologists and a self-selected group of those who reject the consensus. We demonstrate that this outcome is not unexpected because the level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science. At one point, Tol also reduces the apparent consensus by assuming that abstracts that do not explicitly state the cause of global warming ('no position') represent non-endorsement, an approach that if applied elsewhere would reject consensus on well-established theories such as plate tectonics. We examine the available studies and conclude that the finding of 97% consensus in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

Cook, John (Global Change Institute, University of Queensland, Australia ; School of Psychology, University of Western Australia, Australia ; Skeptical Science, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

Linus wrote on Sep 11^th, 2023 at 11:53pm:

Lee, firstly, attacking the consensus does not vitiate the science.

So then you can tell us exactly what climate scientists agree on. Please tell us.


Linus wrote on Sep 11^th, 2023 at 11:53pm:

Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming. Poor Linus. Doesn't understand the papers or can't be bothered reading them. Relies on others to do it for him; but only if it agrees with his preconceptions. ;D ;D ;D ;D Linus wrote on Sep 11th, 2023 at 11:53pm: Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming.

There's that link again the Linus doesn't want to read or comprehend. He doesn't want to deep dive into what the papers actually say. What a tosser. ;)

Media consensus


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F50f41HW8AAm1b8?.jpg

You know the so-called 'renewables' scam is beginning to come apart when even the ABC starts waking up : https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-12/robbins-island-appeal-turbine-shutdown-for-orange-bellied-parrot/102841830

lee wrote on Sep 12^th, 2023 at 6:51pm:

Linus wrote on Sep 11th, 2023 at 11:53pm: Lee, firstly, attacking the consensus does not vitiate the science. So then you can tell us exactly what climate scientists agree on. Please tell us. Linus wrote on Sep 11th, 2023 at 11:53pm: Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming. Poor Linus. Doesn't understand the papers or can't be bothered reading them. Relies on others to do it for him; but only if it agrees with his preconceptions. ;D ;D ;D ;D Linus wrote on Sep 11th, 2023 at 11:53pm: Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming. There's that link again the Linus doesn't want to read or comprehend. He doesn't want to deep dive into what the papers actually say. What a tosser. ;)

Actually, it is you who hasn't got the foggiest and believe in crackpot theories like the one proposed by that idiotic QLD senator on the pressure of greenhouse gases causing warming.  ;D :D

No one in their right minds, and not the overwhelming majority of scientists and scientific institutions, dispute that the Earth's climate is changing, primarily due to human activities, and that this change poses significant risks to the environment and human societies. This consensus is based on extensive research and data collected by climate scientists around the world.

The climate change consensus is supported by the overwhelming majority of climate scientists and scientific organizations. Organizations such as The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), World Meteorological Organization (WMO), The Royal Society, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) have consistently affirmed the reality of human-induced climate change. Thousands of peer-reviewed scientific studies contribute to this consensus.

One of the primary reasons for believing in the consensus is the extensive evidence of global warming. Average global temperatures have risen over the past century, with the last few decades experiencing particularly rapid warming. This warming trend is supported by a variety of temperature measurements, including surface temperature records, satellite data, and ice core sample.

The consensus is also based on the understanding that human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas), deforestation, and industrial processes, are releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. These gases, such as carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4), trap heat and contribute to the greenhouse effect, leading to increased global temperatures.

Climate scientists rely on multiple lines of evidence, including not only temperature data but also changes in sea level, ocean acidity, and shifts in weather patterns. These various indicators consistently point to a changing climate driven by human activities.

Climate models, based on our understanding of physical and chemical processes in the atmosphere, have successfully reproduced past climate trends and are used to make future climate projections. These models have been validated against historical data and have proven to be reliable tools for predicting future climate changes.

Scientific research on climate change is subject to rigorous peer review by experts in the field. The fact that the consensus has withstood such scrutiny adds to its credibility.

International agreements, such as the Paris Agreement, are based on the climate change consensus. Countries around the world have recognized the need to take action to mitigate and adapt to climate change, further indicating the global acceptance of this consensus.

The consensus also draws strength from the observed and projected consequences of climate change, including rising sea levels, more frequent and severe heatwaves, changing precipitation patterns, and disruptions to ecosystems. These impacts are already being felt in various regions.

Keep pissing in the ocean, Lee, you still haven't  raised its level.  ::) ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

And here's a heads up.......you never will. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ::)

Linus wrote on Sep 17^th, 2023 at 3:01am:

No one in their right minds, and not the overwhelming majority of scientists and scientific institutions, dispute that the Earth's climate is changing, primarily due to human activities, and that this change poses significant risks to the environment and human societies. This consensus is based on extensive research and data collected by climate scientists around the world.

But not according to those people you listed. Why don't you want to read their actual papers instead of their circle jerk paper? ::)


Linus wrote on Sep 17^th, 2023 at 3:01am:

Thousands of peer-reviewed scientific studies contribute to this consensus.

And yet it is not 97% or anything like it. Cook - 32.6%, Lynas - 29.7%. Why do you not want to read their papers?  ::)


Linus wrote on Sep 17^th, 2023 at 3:01am:

Linus wrote on Sep 11th, 2023 at 9:53pm: Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming.

Your own quote - But even that is fallacious. From Table 3 of their paper 3896 papers not 4014 endorsed AGW out of 11,944. That is even on their misreading of their own paper would make it 4014/11944 which is 33.6%, not the 97% claimed. Shot yourself in the foot again. ::)


Linus wrote on Sep 17^th, 2023 at 3:01am:

One of the primary reasons for believing in the consensus is the extensive evidence of global warming. Average global temperatures have risen over the past century, with the last few decades experiencing particularly rapid warming. This warming trend is supported by a variety of temperature measurements, including surface temperature records, satellite data, and ice core sample.

Now all you have to do is definitively link it to CO2. The IPCC hasn't been able to. It is likely, however, the earth is not a greenhouse and there are many cause of warming and cooling. ;)


Linus wrote on Sep 17^th, 2023 at 3:01am:

These gases, such as carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4), trap heat and contribute to the greenhouse effect, leading to increased global temperatures.

GHG's do not "trap" heat. They accept heat and they emit heat, no entrapment. That is why CO2 is a coolant. (R744) ::)