Take the greenhouse gasbags with a grain of salt
Bjorn Lomborg
October 15, 2008
The Australian

HAVE you noticed how environmental campaigners almost inevitably say that not only is global warming happening and bad, but also that what we are seeing is even worse than expected?

This is odd, because any reasonable understanding of how science proceeds would expect that, as we refine our knowledge, we find that things are sometimes worse and sometimes better than we expected, and that the most likely distribution would be about 50-50. Environmental campaigners, however, almost invariably see it as 100-0.

If we are regularly being surprised in just one direction, if our models get blindsided by an ever-worsening reality, that does not bode well for our scientific approach.

Indeed, one can argue that if the models constantly get something wrong, it is probably because the models are wrong. And if we cannot trust our models, we cannot know what policy action to take if we want to make a difference.

Yet if new facts constantly show us that the consequences of climate change are getting worse and worse, high-minded arguments about the scientific method might not carry much weight. Certainly, this seems to be the prevailing bet in the spin on global warming. It is, again, worse than we thought and, despite our failing models, we will gamble on knowing just what to do: cut CO2 emissions dramatically.

But it is simply not correct that climate data are systematically worse than expected; in many respects, they are spot on, or even better than expected. That we hear otherwise is an indication of the media's addiction to worst-case stories, but that makes a poor foundation for smart policies.

The most obvious point about global warming is that the planet is heating up. It has warmed about 1C over the past century and is predicted by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to warm between 1.6C and 3.8C this century, mainly owing to increased CO2.

An average of all 38 available standard runs from the IPCC shows that models expect a temperature increase in this decade of about 0.2C.

But this is not at all what we have seen. And this is true for all surface temperature measures and even more so for both satellite measures. Temperatures in this decade have not been worse than expected; in fact, they have not even been increasing. They have actually decreased by between 0.01C and 0.1C a year.

On the most important indicator of global warming, temperature development, we ought to hear that the data are actually much better than expected.

Likewise, and arguably much more significantly, the heat content of the world's oceans has been dropping for the past four years where we have measurements. Whereas energy in terms of temperature can disappear relatively easily from the light atmosphere, it is unclear where the heat from global warming should have gone, and certainly this is again much better than expected.

We hear constantly about how the Arctic sea ice is disappearing faster than expected, and this is true. But most serious scientists also allow that global warming is only part of the explanation. Another part is that the so-called Arctic oscillation of wind patterns over the Arctic Ocean is in a state that it does not allow build-up of old ice but immediately flushes most ice into the North Atlantic.

More important, we rarely hear that the Antarctic sea ice is not only not declining but is above average for the past year. IPCC models would expect declining sea ice in both hemispheres but, whereas the Arctic is doing worse than expected, Antarctica is doing better.

Ironically, the Associated Press, along with many other news outlets, told us in 2007 that the "Arctic is screaming" and that the Northwest Passage was open "for the first time in recorded history". Yet the BBC reported in 2000 that the fabled Northwest Passage was already without ice.

We are constantly inundated with stories of how sea levels will rise, and how one study after another finds that it will be much worse than what the IPCC predicts. But most models find results within the IPCC range of a sea-level increase of 18cm to 59cm this century. This is, of course, why the thousands of IPCC scientists projected that range. Yet studies claiming 1m or more obviously make for better headlines.

Since 1992, we have had satellites measuring the rise in global sea levels and they have shown a stable increase of 3.2mm a year: spot on compared with the IPCC projection. Moreover, over the past two years, sea levels have not increased at all; actually, they show a slight drop. Should we not be told that this is much better than expected?

Hurricanes were the stock image of former US vice-president Al Gore's famous film on climate change, and certainly the US was battered in 2004 and 2005, leading to wild claims of ever stronger and costlier storms in the future. But in the two years since, the costs have been well below average, virtually disappearing in 2006. That is definitely better than expected.

pt1

Gore quoted Massachusetts Institute of Technology hurricane researcher Kerry Emanuel to support an alleged scientific consensus that global warming is making hurricanes much more damaging. But Emanuel has published a new study showing that even in a dramatically warming world, hurricane frequency and intensity may not substantially rise during the next two centuries. That conclusion did not get much exposure in the media.

Of course, not all things are less bad than we thought. But one-sided exaggeration is not the way forward. We urgently need balance if we are to make sensible choices.

Bjorn Lomborg is adjunct professor at Copenhagen Business School.

end pt 2

It's amazing how many times the sceptics can repackage the old 'frost this morning, therefor no global warming' argument and pretend they have something new.

But this is not at all what we have seen. And this is true for all surface temperature measures and even more so for both satellite measures. Temperatures in this decade have not been worse than expected; in fact, they have not even been increasing. They have actually decreased by between 0.01C and 0.1C a year.

Crap. The people who come up with this BS never actually plot the temperature, because that would expose their lie.

Thanks Grendel. I'll spend a bit of time with that drivel later on. In today's Australian? It's got to be paid editorial.

Quote:

This is odd, because any reasonable understanding of how science proceeds would expect that, as we refine our knowledge, we find that things are sometimes worse and sometimes better than we expected, and that the most likely distribution would be about 50-50. Environmental campaigners, however, almost invariably see it as 100-0.

Environmental campaigners probably would. Isn't that what they do? Environmental scientists on the other hand, just present the facts, and some interpretation.


Quote:

If we are regularly being surprised in just one direction, if our models get blindsided by an ever-worsening reality, that does not bode well for our scientific approach. Indeed, one can argue that if the models constantly get something wrong, it is probably because the models are wrong. And if we cannot trust our models, we cannot know what policy action to take if we want to make a difference.

That's too vague a statement to defend, Bjorn. Give some examples. Which models? Which inputs? - For example if we did some modelling 10 years ago, using some predicted Greenhouse emissions and subsequently found that emissions had increased more than expected, would that be a fault of the model or just a failure to predict the increase in emissions?  


Quote:

Yet if new facts constantly show us that the consequences of climate change are getting worse and worse, high-minded arguments about the scientific method might not carry much weight. Certainly, this seems to be the prevailing bet in the spin on global warming. It is, again, worse than we thought and, despite our failing models, we will gamble on knowing just what to do: cut CO2 emissions dramatically.

All I can say is that Bjorn has changed his tack. He was the one that previously said that Global Warming will be good for you - and even better for polar bears ;D

Now he's done a total about-turn. He has now decided, based on a single solar cycle  (and by the way we're currently around the minimum) that  - wait for it  - Global Warming isn't even going on.

Now I know that even if he is just an economist in scientist's clothing, Bjorn knows full well about the 11 year etc Solar Cycles. Come on - he must know. They teach kids that sort of thing in primary school - even in Denmark.

This interview with Bjorn is quite revealing. He really is quite a slippery customer. Most readers of The Australian probably won't be aware of his charges on Scientific Dishonesty. He managed to weevil out of that charge on the basis that he wasn't a scientist.

“The most misunderstood idea is that I think it’s all a hoax, which I definitely don’t think it is. Or that I’m saying, “Oh, let’s just continue to use those oil wells” — I don’t do a Texas accent very well, do I? — that I’m a spokesperson for big oil.” Bjorn Lomborg (One of his previous whims)

I think he changes his mind as often as most of us change our underwear.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/08/29/bjorn_lomborg/index2.html

You might have to click 'Enter Salon' to bypass the ads.

Shooting the messneger muso...  a favourite past-time for you deniers.

Grendel wrote on Oct 15^th, 2008 at 3:56pm:

Shooting the messneger muso...  a favourite past-time for you deniers.

I'm a denier? Just what exactly am I denying?

The Messenger  hmmm. He has had several messages - none of which have been compatible with the others. Which one do you want? You choose.

Bjorn Lomborg Message No1: Climate change is not happening.
BL #2: Silly me - Climate change is happening.
BL#3: Climate change will benefit us all, including Polar Bears, which will change brown and live on land.  

Didn't you read the interview with him? I don't need to shoot him. He shot himself in the foot several times ;D

Grendel,

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Why don't you explain to us how they derive past temperatures from Ice Cores? No cutting and pasting allowed- just use your own words.

After all, this data is used by denialists and you seem convinced that they are right (even though they have different messages)

By the way, here is Gristmill's take on the latest fad by denialists that the world is actually cooling:

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/5/2/115552/7430/

You are denying that climate change is extremely complicated.
You are denying that the modelling is flawed.
You are denying the scientific opinion against the current propaganda.
You are denying it is more propaganda than fact.
You are denying the anecdotal evidence against warming.
You are denying the evidence against man made warming.
You are denying that the IPCC is as much political or even more political than it is scientific.
You are denying that a temperate or warmer climate is in fact good for us.
You are denying that co2 levels rise after warming periods.  
You are denying that we are/wer in just such a period.
You are denying that in the past warming periods occurred witout man-made emmissions like those being blamed today.
Will that do for now?

Chew on this for a while.

http://www.underwatertimes.com/news.php?article_id=32978501016

Almost forgot...  oxygen isotope ratios reflect temp in ice cores.
Then there is also particulate matter, colour, layer thickness, patterning etc, that also provide information re climate and other environmental conditions.

Quote:

You are denying that climate change is extremely complicated.

Or are you projecting Beo?
I have not seen any post from muso to validate your statement.


Quote:

You are denying that the modelling is flawed.

What modelling?
Are you stating that ALL modelling is inherently flawed?
Do you have a specific model in mind?
If you do, I am sure that you would be better served to use that specific case, and argue for it, rather than use a blanket statement without any justification.


Quote:

You are denying the scientific opinion against the current propaganda.

I have seen muso question opinions proffered as scientific, and then give reasons why he has issues with them, and offer references to sholarly opinion to show why he disagrees.
I think we would be more accurate to call that "critical analysis".


Quote:

You are denying the scientific opinion against the current propaganda.

I haven't seen muso defend unsubstantiated propaganda, perhaps you could provide an example of him doing so?
If not, do not try and lump all scientific opinion as being equivalent to tabloid sensationalism, which though it does exist, does not negate the validity of the other.


Quote:

You are denying it is more propaganda than fact.

Got any statistics to back that up?


Quote:

You are denying the anecdotal evidence against warming.

Like "It is cold today, so global warming is a lie?"
Got any more gems of anecdotal wisdom to impart?


Quote:

You are denying the evidence against man made warming.

Sorry I must have missed that, what "evidence" has he denied?


Quote:

You are denying that the IPCC is as much political or even more political than it is scientific.

Who has provided you with that fact?
How did they quantify the political to scientific ratio?


Quote:

You are denying that a temperate or warmer climate is in fact good for us.

Is this the, "It's not happening, but if it is, then it will be good anyway" argument?
If so, please advise the half of you that thinks it isn't real to fight it out, with the half of you that thinks it is, but it will be good for us.
Then you can stop having to argue with strangers.
Unfortunately for you, you will not even be half right.


Quote:

You are denying that co2 levels rise after warming periods.

I have seen that argument qualified and explained, do YOU consider that denial?


Quote:

You are denying that we are/were in just such a period.

I thought everyone had agreed we are in a warming period, even the denialists, and just that they were still arguing against actually trying to do anything constructive to mitigate, as much as possible, exacerbating the situation?


Quote:

You are denying that in the past warming periods occurred witout man-made emmissions like those being blamed today.

I have not seen anyone deny that the earth has cycles of warming and cooling, I have seen many refer to the timeframes involved, and point out the uncharacteristic rate of change we are currently experiencing, as you well know, but do not let truth slow down your assault on sensible behaviour.


Quote:

Will that do for now?

Yes it will, god yes, it certainly will.

I was expecting this sort of reply...
Gotta worry about that eh Mozz...  might mean I've got lots of links and info to dump.

But I'll wait till muso answers if its ok with you.

Grendel wrote on Oct 16^th, 2008 at 9:01am:

You are denying that climate change is extremely complicated.

It is complicated, but the usual statement made by Climate Change deniers compares weather to climate. They are totally different. Weather is stochastic (chaos theory), whereas climate is largely deterministic, especially when it comes to predicting single variables such as CO2 content and global mean temperatures over a given year. Believe me, I know just how complicated the current climate models are having worked with their great grand daddies at Monash in the 90's. The point is that even taking the earliest models, if you input the CO2 concentrations for the years since then, the global temperature rise is pretty easily predicted. It's not perfect of course, and the biggest anomalies occur in the Polar regions. Modelling has improved dramatically even in the last 3 years, and guess what? they don't show a cooling trend in the latest models either.

After all, it's basic physics.


Quote:

You are denying that the modelling is flawed.

All science is flawed. We don't yet have a grand unifying theory of everything. It may be flawed, but it's the best we have at the moment, and something like 28 independantly developed modelling systems worldwide all point to the same general conclusion.

We could all throw our arms up in the air and say - electronic theory is flawed. We don't know why Avogadro's number is 6.0221367·1023 particles/mol or why the Boltzmann constant is 8.617385·10-5 eV/K or why an electron has a base mass of 9.1093897·10-31 kg. We basically have to work with them.

We could all say that science is flawed. Let's not manufacture any new computers until we work this thing out. We don't understand the basics well enough.  

Equally, faced with the fact that we are pumping CO2 into the atmosphere at rates we can measure extremely well (we have the bean counters to thank for that) should we say - hey maybe we should try to measure this effect as accurately as possible. All our scientific observations show that this is pretty dodgy behaviour.

or should we say

- nobody can possibly measure this effect, so let's just pretend it doesn't exist?

What do you think?


Quote:

You are denying the scientific opinion against the current propaganda.

The only propaganda is coming from fringe figures who are not even qualified to comment. The bulk of scientific opinion is fully behind the fact of anthropogenic global warming. That includes National Academies from every single country in the World.

There isn't even a single serious researcher among the denialists. They even use data like the ice core data from Vostok that is the work of real scientists.


Quote:

Almost forgot...  oxygen isotope ratios reflect temp in ice cores. Then there is also particulate matter, colour, layer thickness, patterning etc, that also provide information re climate and other environmental conditions.

Well they do, but Deuterium is the primary proxy in virtually all the published research from Vostok and Law Dome, and the Greenland cores. You can use either δ18O or δD, but δD has been used in the past.

Do you understand how Deuterium can be used as a proxy for temperature?

Do you understand why a trapped bubble of air doesn't simply lose its CO2 to the surrounding ice over thousands of years, or the technique that they use to shave wafer thin layers of ice at a typical temperature of -40 C ?  Do you understand the basics behind the data collection? Most of the skeptics don't, but they are still quite happy to use it.  

Grendel wrote on Oct 16^th, 2008 at 9:01am:

You are denying that co2 levels rise after warming periods.

Didn't you read my post on the other thread? The equilibrium can be driven from either end. Nobody is denying that at all.

Case 1: Increase the temperature, and the equilibrium changes - more CO2 is emitted from the upper layers in the ocean (and other sources).

Case 2: Increase the CO2 and the temperature will increase because it is a greenhouse gas, and it traps heat within the surface-troposphere system. Water is also a greenhouse gas, but it's a feedback, driven by increasing temperature.  

Grendel wrote on Oct 16^th, 2008 at 9:01am:

You are denying that in the past warming periods occurred witout man-made emmissions like those being blamed today.

Again it's ludicrous to suggest that anybody could be denying that. Exactly who is denying that there have been no past Ice Ages and interglacials?

The difference is the enormous rate of change, and the fact that the CO2 levels have increased to a level way above anything seen in the past - Like 385ppm compared to about 300ppm.

We're actually in a period of the cycle where the earth should be cooling slowly. In fact the data shows such a cooling trend over the last 8000 years or so prior to the beginning of industrialisation.

You've raised a lot of points. I have work to do, and I'm not cutting and pasting anything, so it will take time to reply to all your points in detail.  

Here let me add some general answers for Mozz first.

You are denying that climate change is extremely complicated.


Or are you projecting Beo?
I have not seen any post from muso to validate your statement.


If one follows the "religion" of climate change/global warming  one is accepting that man-made emissions is the cause.  Hence accepting simplification.


Quote:
You are denying that the modelling is flawed.


What modelling?
Are you stating that ALL modelling is inherently flawed?
Do you have a specific model in mind?
If you do, I am sure that you would be better served to use that specific case, and argue for it, rather than use a blanket statement without any justification.

The modelling used by the IPCC.  They have changed their predictions several times now.  No doubt it will continue to be changed and continue to be inaccurate or just plain wrong.

Quote:
You are denying the scientific opinion against the current propaganda.

I have seen muso question opinions proffered as scientific, and then give reasons why he has issues with them, and offer references to sholarly opinion to show why he disagrees.
I think we would be more accurate to call that "critical analysis".

I have seen several quotes from scientists dismissed as rubbish for no other reason than they work in a particular industry or merely disagree with the "faithful".


Quote:
You are denying the scientific opinion against the current propaganda.

I haven't seen muso defend unsubstantiated propaganda, perhaps you could provide an example of him doing so?
If not, do not try and lump all scientific opinion as being equivalent to tabloid sensationalism, which though it does exist, does not negate the validity of the other.

Like I said messenger shooting and off-hand dismissal eg; the last lomberg comments.  

Quote:
You are denying it is more propaganda than fact.

Got any statistics to back that up?

Can supply as many as you can.


Quote:
You are denying the anecdotal evidence against warming.

Like "It is cold today, so global warming is a lie?"
Got any more gems of anecdotal wisdom to impart?

LOL...  once a denier always a denier.
If one cannot believe what one's senses tell them about the weather etc, then that would make one what?


Quote:
You are denying the evidence against man made warming.

Sorry I must have missed that, what "evidence" has he denied?

As a "believer" denial of all scientists who speak out against the "religion"  is denial.
Off hand dismissal and messenger shooting is denial.
Acceptance of one side and refusal to give equal credence to the other is bias and hence denial.

Quote:
You are denying that the IPCC is as much political or even more political than it is scientific.

Who has provided you with that fact?
How did they quantify the political to scientific ratio?

Sorry...  you are unaware of the make up of the panel and the organisation it is part of?

Quote:
You are denying that a temperate or warmer climate is in fact good for us.

Is this the, "It's not happening, but if it is, then it will be good anyway" argument?
If so, please advise the half of you that thinks it isn't real to fight it out, with the half of you that thinks it is, but it will be good for us.
Then you can stop having to argue with strangers.
Unfortunately for you, you will not even be half right.

ah sorry...  we had an ice age in the past we are now in a WARMER period.
There are cooling and warming events and always have been apparently with or without mans intervention.
Are you denyiing that this current temperate (WARMER) period is worse for us than the Ice Age was?

Quote:
You are denying that co2 levels rise after warming periods.  

I have seen that argument qualified and explained, do YOU consider that denial?

If you agree withe the premise that temperature rises cause co2 emmission rises, No, if you don't, Yes, because I've seen it accepted by a great many people many of whom are scientists and climatologists.

Quote:
You are denying that we are/were in just such a period.

I thought everyone had agreed we are in a warming period, even the denialists, and just that they were still arguing against actually trying to do anything constructive to mitigate, as much as possible, exacerbating the situation?

Well you'll have to wait to see when this recent/current waming period has been seen to have officially ended.   Next time there's a thunderstorm I'll give you a call so you can get someone to mitigate it.

Quote:
You are denying that in the past warming periods occurred witout man-made emmissions like those being blamed today.

I have not seen anyone deny that the earth has cycles of warming and cooling, I have seen many refer to the timeframes involved, and point out the uncharacteristic rate of change we are currently experiencing, as you well know, but do not let truth slow down your assault on sensible behaviour.

Yet they seem to accept the current theory in spite of the historical evidence.

     
      

Funnily enough, the politicisation of this debate, which was very well orchestrated, has polarised the views of too many, who are like drowning men searching for anything that floats.

Unfortunately for us, it seems sh1t floats, because they keep latching onto every log that floats by, but it just leaves them more frustrated and just a little bit icky, and feeling the need to flick it around.

You see Grendel, you made lot's of claims about how you perceive muso's stance, but I could not see any justification for a single claim you made.

You don't like the denialist term for those opposed to addressing climate change, so attempted to throw it back, when the only thing that they deny, is that we should just ignore it.

Nobody thinks any of this is cut and dried, but some are doing their best, to gather the best information, to best inform us, of the best options for our futures.

Nobody objects to any scientist adding to our knowledge, and helping to expand our understanding, and if that means that predictions and plans can be improved, then that benefits everyone, but elevating every voice who may find an area of dispute, into a messianic prophet of "I told you so", by the denialists, is plain silly.

How many have had there work quoted by denialists and then had to come out to say that the denialists had twisted and misrepresented their findings?

No doubt there are agendas at play, but the credibility of the denialists is appalling, and as much as we would like them to be right, they just don't have the evidence to back it up.

If none of you follow the "party" line on climate change and gw that's fine by me.

I obviously don't.

But don't expect me to follow a line that says; maybe, kinda, sorta or it might.

Yeah, we know that.
Your line is pretend nothing is happening and hope for the best.

I think we all agree with you on the "hope for the best" bit, it is the "pretend nothing is happening" we have a problem with.

Not doing that at all Mozz...

just not one of the Emporers New Clothes gang.

There is a theory but...  no proof we are the prime cause of  anything...  therefore there is no certainty if we do anything that things will change.  It's like jumping at shadows.

My theory/belief is that it is cyclical and completely natural and that it's bigger than us.  We need to learn to adapt.  

Grendel,

I'll put some time into this if you will at least read my posts and respond.

I'll leave the emotion and character assasination bit out of it and just stick to the facts. If you're expecting some kind of go team Gore from me, don't bother. As an environmental professional, I've made a point of checking through the data in detail. This isn't about personalities and I don't have to appeal to the authority of the IPCC. This is fairly basic stuff, which I can explain if you're willing to listen.

Adopting the same line of questions that I had for PBJ, let's see how you go:

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 period has a direct effect on the equilibium concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere (I'm not sure where you stand on this one)


All I'm asking you to do is relax, forget about your preconceptions, and listen. Don't feel threatened. You're not going to lose face.

How about you just explain to me how man-made CO2 emmissions is the major contributing factor in global warming.  

And then explain how past warmings where man made emmissions were zero or negligible occurred.

Then explain how this is any different.

Grendel wrote on Oct 16^th, 2008 at 2:52pm:

How about you just explain to me how man-made CO2 emmissions is the major contributing factor in global warming.   And then explain how past warmings where man made emmissions were zero or negligible occurred. Then explain how this is any different.

Good. We're getting somewhere.
I'll have to explain that in steps. First of all we need to look at the CO2 in the atmosphere itself and the isotopes that makes up the Carbon in the carbon dioxide. Can I ask you how much chemistry you are familiar with? Can I assume that you know about isotopes?

HSC level 2 unit
Organics and all.
Engineering Science 2 unit.
Top of my school.
Physics 2 unit

Ok. So do you understand how Carbon 14 is produced in the atmosphere? Basically Cosmic rays collide with the atmosphere producing neutrons, and the neutrons collide with atmospheric nitrogen 14 to produce carbon 14 or 14C as we usually write it. So every living breathing animal and plant absorbs the carbon 14 through respiratory processes. Ok?

That Carbon 14 decays losing a beta particle to form Nitrogen 14 again. The half life is around 5700 years or so. So after decayed biological matter has been in the ground for millions of years, it contains virtually no carbon 14. There are also differences in the 12C to 13C ratio.

So we have a way of analysing the carbon isotope composition of the Earth's atmosphere. For that we can use a device called a mass spectrometer. Do you follow me so far?

HSC level 2 unit
Organics and all.
Engineering Science 2 unit.
Top of my school.
Physics 2 unit

They made him sit on the roof because he gave everyone the irrits. ;D

Don't distract mozz or I'll throw the chalk at u  ;D

ok... Life is based on a Carbon matrix, carbon and carbon dating etc, maybe 1 in 1 trillion carbon atoms are carbon-14.  Etc, etc...

So by measuring the isotope ratio in the atmosphere , we have a way of determining how much of it is due to the burning of fossil fuels, the odd volcano(not as big an effect as you may have been led to believe), and the heating of limestone in a kiln to make cement (This drives off CO2 as I'm sure you're aware).

If I appear to be skimming over the facts at any stage, just say so.  I am, but it would take a lot longer to explain why we actually use C13 and not C14.

We can also measure the isotope ratios of carbon absorbed by the oceans. That's one of the biggest sinks for carbon dioxide. The CO2 is absorbed to form bicarbonate or carbonate depending on the pH. With Ocean water, it becomes predominantly bicarbonate.

We have a pretty good handle on the concentration of bicarbonate in the oceans worldwide.

I'll take this up at a later stage.  Don't you just hate it when work interrupts?

Ah Mt ST Helens, MT Pinataubo, Krakatoa....  not exactly all small fry and then we have active volcanoes belching forth gases all over the world every day and many more beneath the oceans all adding to the carbon mix.

yep dissolved carbon in water is a biggy.  yep diatoms etc, etc....
Storms/typhoons etc deposits  more carbon in the oceans than annual rainfall does.

carry on muso - interesting stuff.

Yes, thanks muso, I will jump in with a question here if I may.
So the Isotopic "signature" for fossil fuel carbon emissions is identifiably different from say, CO2 from animals, and termites etc.?
Is that right?

That's right, Mozz, and by the way I was just joking . Feel free to jump in any time.  ;)

Grendel raised an interesting point about volcanoes. Let's examine that.

If we look at the graph of mean global temperature, we can see a small blip about 18 months after the eruption of Mt Pinatabo in 1991. The interesting thing is that the blip is in the negative, and that's because explosive stratospheric volcanoes like Mt Pinatabo release primarily dust and sulphur dioxide which have an overall cooling effect. You can discount virtually all volcanoes beneath the sea, because almost without exception, they are basaltic, and have very little gas evolution.  The ones that make the difference are very large stratospheric volcanoes.

Gases and dust from stratospheric volcanoes are carried up into the stratosphere (12 to 15 km above the ground). There, because this is well above the clouds and rain of the troposphere, the sulphates can hang around for a long time (sometimes a few years).

Prior to that El Chichon (Mexico, in 1982), Mt. Agung (Indonesia, 1963), Santa Maria (Guatemala, 1902) and Krakatoa (Indonesia, 1883) all had noticeable cooling effects. There was quite a large volcano in Chile last year, but that is not expected to have any significant cooling effect. The main reason is that it was too far from the equator, and was too small to have any appreciable effect.

---

Sorry, boys, this is all reading of entrails and the flight of birds.

There is absolutely no way of establishing or proving man made global warming scientifically.
Man made global warming is a sentiment.

That's an extraordinary statement Soren. On what basis do you say that?

Grendel,

You may have seen this before, but it's the graph of atmospheric CO2 from Mauna Loa. The black line is seasonally adjusted. The red line is raw data showing seasonal variations (Why do you think there are seasonal variations?). Also note the years 1980 and 1991, the years Mt St Helens and Pinatabo erupted. Nothing of note here. No peaks in CO2 certainly.

---

muso wrote on Oct 16^th, 2008 at 8:22pm:

That's an extraordinary statement Soren. On what basis do you say that?

1. SCience requires that a hypothesis be falsifiable. What would, in other words, be accepted as proof that global warming is NOT man made?

2. A scientific experiment has to be conducted repeatedly to test the falsfiable hypothesis. This requires controls as well as reruns. There is no control cohort or group or site to test the global warming hypothesis against. there are no reruns - we don't live long enough. We do not have experimental data from long enough and we have only one cohort - this earth.

2.a  Climate is complex beyond our present grasp. It is influenced by far too many factors. Tthe conceivable experiments would neeed to be controlled for a vast amount of variables we cannot, in fact account for, let alone control.

3.  Whatever models we may construct, they are only partial maps of this complex phenomenon. To treat the partial models, and whatever may be surmised from them, as proof or full explanations of the whole climate phenomenon is absurd and scientifically untenable.

4. We cannot make accurate predictions for the weather for even for local areas byond a day or two, and even then it is inaccuare guesses in significant

Soren,

You haven't been reading the whole thread. Weather is short term and stochastic, long term trends in Climate is what we're looking for. Chalk and cheese.

Ok, point taken regarding proof. What we're looking at is near certainty. the extra atmospheric CO2 had to come from somewhere - It didn't come from Grass fires in Africa. The isotope signature confirms that it originated from fossil fuel burning or Carbon sources consistent with that.

Soren, if we eliminated our CO2 emissions and it had no impact on climate change, that might disprove AGW.

AGW is not a single theory. It is comprised of many scientific theories, all of which are far more easy to falsify.

Ultimately the political response comes down to risk management, not science. It is important not to confuse the two approaches and demand a scientific approach to making political decisions. One approach would lead you to conduct the grand experiment, the other to avoid it.

freediver wrote on Oct 16^th, 2008 at 9:44pm:

Soren, if we eliminated our CO2 emissions and it had no impact on climate change, that might disprove AGW.

Good point FD. Of course the lag factor is always there. There is every possibility that even if we eliminated our CO2 emissions, it might already be too late. It's an experiment that we don't get a chance to repeat.

I don't have a problem if peeople decide to cut CO2 emissions because it might be the cause, as long as they undertsand that it might not be. I am all for irsk management. That would be acting on a sentiment, like insurance.
But it is not scientific proof of anything. It's a guess. It might be prudent like not walking under a ladder.

I would be interested if someone could engage with the falsifiability question. What woul be acceptable proof, in the current thinking and hypothetical framework, that climate  change is NOT man made?

There are a few people tht think climate change has happened before men arrived.



"Natural Climate Change May Be Larger Than Commonly Thought
ScienceDaily (Feb. 17, 2005) — A new study of climate in the Northern Hemisphere for the past 2000 years shows that natural climate change may be larger than generally thought. This is displayed in results from scientists at the Stockholm University, made in cooperation with Russian scientists, which are published in Nature on 10 Feb 2005.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See also:
Earth & Climate
Climate
Global Warming
Environmental Issues
Ice Ages
Weather
Natural Disasters
Reference
Consensus of scientists regarding global warming
Instrumental temperature record
Temperature record
Geologic temperature record
The most widespread picture of climate variability in the last millennium suggests that only small changes occurred before the year 1900, and then a pronounced warming set in. The new results rather show an appreciable temperature swing between the 12th and 20th centuries, with a notable cold period around AD 1600. A large part of the 20th century had approximately the same temperature as the 11th and 12th centuries. Only the last 15 years appear to be warmer than any previous period of similar length.

This study builds on an analysis of indirect climate data, such as information from ocean and lake bottoms, ice sheets, caves and annual tree rings. The use of this kind of material to reconstruct climate far back in the past is nothing new in itself. The difference between the new study from previous ones, is the selection of data series and the method used to estimate temperatures from them.

A 1000-year long climate simulation, undertaken (by another research group) with a computer model for the physics of the atmosphere and the oceans, show large similarities with the new reconstruction. The climate in this model is governed by reconstructed variations of solar radiation and the amount of volcanic dust in the atmosphere (which reflects sun-light back into space). The fact that these two climate evolutions, which have been obtained completely independently of each other, are very similar supports the case that climate shows an appreciable natural variability - and that changes in the sun's output and volcanic eruptions on the earth may be the cause.

This means that it is difficult to distinguish the human influence on climate from natural variability, even though the past 15 warm years are best explained if one includes human influence in the simulations. The new study underscores the importance of including natural climate variability in future scenarios. It is not only the humans that can cause appreciable climate changes - nature does it all the time by itself."


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/02/050212195414.htm

this is similar to many other scientific thoughts. They are unfashionable though, so are not as visible.

Sprint,

Every last Climate Scientist knows that there are natural cycles. To say that they overlook that is total nonsense, but certain people are trying to muddy the waters by claiming that the huge increases in CO2 over the late 20th century and early 21st century are the same ballgame, whereas they are not!

The main driver for climate is the sun. We know that the Earth has natural cyclical changes in its orbit (Milankovitch cycles) that resulted in a cycle of ice ages and interglacials every 130,000 years. Prior to about 1 million years ago, the period changed, but that's not relevant to this discussion. The predicted changes in orbital forcing suggest that the next glacial period would begin in around 50,000 years.

Apart from orbital forcing, the other sigificant factor is that of small fluctuations in the solar irradiance. We can measure that today using satellites. There was a blip around the 1940's which caused the slight increase in temperature. We'd know if there was another blip, but it's really the last thing we'd need right now. There are ways that we can extrapolate Solar irradiance back through the ages. The techniques match pretty well with direct satellite data. An  example is Beryllium proxy data. These proxies are not perfect, so that's why we use different proxies as a check.

I'm sure you've seen graphs like this before. Sorry I don't have a better example, but work is catching up with me, and this will be my last post probably until next week. The important thing is the scale. You're talking tens of thousands of years as against years. The rate of increase in the past 150 years is totally unprecedented. The CO2 levels are higher than anything we've seen for the last 50 million years and the rate of increase matches suspiciously well with the rate of carbon emissions from Anthropogenic sources.

We'll take a look at the Global Carbon Balance next week some time. To understand what's going on, you really need to study that with an open mind.

It's a question of approach. My approach has been to examine the data and decide what is the most likely scenario, and once you do that, It becomes as obvious as canine gonads. The anthropogenic signature is not even subtle.

Those who seek proof are obfuscating, pure and simple. Of course you can't get hard rigorous proof. It's like running a chemical process. You run it according to the data you get from the process. If you were to agonize over every single variable point, the chemical plant would come to a screaming halt pretty quickly. You'd get nowhere.

The Earth's troposphere and hydrosphere together has become a huge chemical process. Whether we like it or not, we (humans) are driving it. It will be interesting to see what happens to the CO2 levels if there is a long economic depression.  It might mean that alternative energy would go out the window as too expensive, but emissions would almost certainly go down during the period of the depression.

If the economic downturn goes on for a few years, we even might see its mark on the Mauna Loa station monthly CO2 emissions.  

---

That would be acting on a sentiment, like insurance.

Insurance is not acting on sentiment. Even rational businesses take out insurance.

But it is not scientific proof of anything.

There is no such thing as scientific proof.

Soren wrote on Oct 16^th, 2008 at 10:00pm:

I don't have a problem if peeople decide to cut CO2 emissions because it might be the cause, as long as they undertsand that it might not be.

How does 'by far the most likely explanation' sound to you?

If you tread on something on the pavement and it's brown and it smells bad and it's dog turd shaped, you act on the most likely explanation. Maybe there is a possibility that it's chocolate. Can you prove otherwise?  No?

Ok, Hopefully this will convince some people who are otherwise not convinced. This one shows the same graph as before (CO2 only this time) with the last 150 years tacked on to the beginning. See what I mean about canine gonads? 385ppm doesn't quite fit on the scale.

---

Seriously - how is the causality established, as distict from co-occurence, regarding any warming (cyclical) and CO2 amounts (also cyclical even if now obviously greater than at the last few peaks)?
I mean what would you accept as proof of co-occurence or coincidence and therefore a logical proof of no causal relationship?

muso wrote on Oct 17^th, 2008 at 8:47am:

Soren wrote on Oct 16th, 2008 at 10:00pm: I don't have a problem if peeople decide to cut CO2 emissions because it might be the cause, as long as they undertsand that it might not be. How does 'by far the most likely explanation' sound to you? If you tread on something on the pavement and it's brown and it smells bad and it's dog turd shaped, you act on the most likely explanation. Maybe there is a possibility that it's chocolate. Can you prove otherwise?  No?

Perhaps if you were a climate change denier, you would demand that it be tasted before wiping it off your shoe, just in case it turned out to be a snickers.

freediver wrote on Oct 17^th, 2008 at 11:23am:

muso wrote on Oct 17th, 2008 at 8:47am: Soren wrote on Oct 16th, 2008 at 10:00pm: I don't have a problem if peeople decide to cut CO2 emissions because it might be the cause, as long as they undertsand that it might not be. How does 'by far the most likely explanation' sound to you? If you tread on something on the pavement and it's brown and it smells bad and it's dog turd shaped, you act on the most likely explanation. Maybe there is a possibility that it's chocolate. Can you prove otherwise?  No? Perhaps if you were a climate change denier, you would demand that it be tasted before wiping it off your shoe, just in case it turned out to be a snickers.

Dogshit is a much less complex phenomenon than the weather. You must not let an analogy run away with you.

I think it is a great analogy. Many climate change deniers are not interested at all in risk management. Rather they demand some kind of proof before we take action. Just like the guy who refuses to wipe dog poo off his shoes until it has been tasted.

Sure there are a few with a genuine interest in either the science or the risk analysis, but they are few and far between in the denialist camp.

Soren wrote on Oct 17^th, 2008 at 11:22am:

Seriously - how is the causality established, as distict from co-occurence, regarding any warming (cyclical) and CO2 amounts (also cyclical even if now obviously greater than at the last few peaks)? I mean what would you accept as proof of co-occurence or coincidence and therefore a logical proof of no causal relationship?

You're talking about proofs again. Proofs occur quite often in mathematics, but very rarely in natural systems. We need to get back to the basics. Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas. The dominant greenhouse gases (that absorb infrared radiation) are water vapour, carbon dioxide, ozone, methane and nitrous oxide.

Basically, what greenhouse gases do is to trap heat within the troposphere. This is basic physics. If you want to read up more on the Greenhouse effect, I can provide a reference.

Carbon dioxide occounts for about 1/4 of the Greenhouse Effect caused by water vapour, however if you reduce atmospheric temperature, water vapour drops out as rain whereas carbon dioxide does not. The water vapour concentration in the atmosphere is driven by temperature. It's termed a feedback, whereas Carbon dioxide is a forcing. The temperature change due to CO2 is given by the forcing equation:

dT=[alpha]ln([CO2]/[CO2}orig)/(4[sigma] T^3, which we obtain from the derivative of the Stefan Boltzmann equation.

The actual CO2 contribution is relatively low, however the resulting water vapour feedback is what predominantly causes the warming effect. As I said previously, you're talking about a ratio of about 4:1 depending on the relative humidity.

We're jumping ahead of the explanation I was giving, but I'll come back to carbon balance, probably next week.

The next part of the puzzle is to look at general circulation models.  

I should ask you the same question as Grendel - In the Mauna Loa atmospheric CO2 Graph for the last 40-50 years, why do you think there are seasonal variations in CO2 concentration, and what is the period of those variations?

You asked about causality. I should have added that the main mechanism for the absorption of Infred Red radiation is the  symmetric and asymmetric stretching of the C-O bonds etc.

This picture explains the process of global warming far better than a detailed explanation.

---

I'll also ask any of the deniers to tell me the significance of the ln (the natural log) in the forcing equation above. You can ask your pseudo experts in the denialist forums and blogs. They probably won't know either, although it's one of the half truths they spout in parrot fashion, not understanding a word they say.

Letter in yesterday's Oz:

ATMOSPHERIC CO2 is currently 382 parts per million. The Ordovician-Silurian (450-420 million years ago) and Jurassic-Cretaceous (151-132 million years ago) glaciations occurred when the atmospheric CO2 content was more than 4000 and at least 2000 parts per million respectively.
If CO2 drives climate, why was there glaciation and not a runaway greenhouse?

Professor Ian Plimer
School of Earth & Environmental Sciences,
The Mawson Laboratories,
The University of Adelaide, SA

Odd that a scientist would go to a newspaper for answers rather than his colleagues. Odd that he would provide a question rather than an answer. Scientists normally consider it their duty to inform the public, not confuse them.

He posed a quick and elegant question in a paper. What's odd about that? Are you insinuating something?

You can go through his scholarly publications here:
http://www.ecms.adelaide.edu.au/civeng/staff/iplimer01.html

What do you expect from the deniers Soren...  it's always shoot the messenger.

Soren wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2008 at 9:35am:

... ATMOSPHERIC CO2 is currently 382 parts per million. The Ordovician-Silurian (450-420 million years ago) and Jurassic-Cretaceous (151-132 million years ago) glaciations occurred when the atmospheric CO2 content was more than 4000 and at least 2000 parts per million respectively. If CO2 drives climate, why was there glaciation and not a runaway greenhouse? ...

could be due to lower level of sun radiation.

Soren wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2008 at 10:28am:

He posed a quick and elegant question in a paper. What's odd about that? Are you insinuating something? You can go through his scholarly publications here: http://www.ecms.adelaide.edu.au/civeng/staff/iplimer01.html

Yes, I am insinuating that it is odd that he posed the question, but did not give the answer. Scientists are usually keen to inform the public.

Soren wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2008 at 9:35am:

Letter in yesterday's Oz: ATMOSPHERIC CO2 is currently 382 parts per million. The Ordovician-Silurian (450-420 million years ago) and Jurassic-Cretaceous (151-132 million years ago) glaciations occurred when the atmospheric CO2 content was more than 4000 and at least 2000 parts per million respectively. If CO2 drives climate, why was there glaciation and not a runaway greenhouse? Professor Ian Plimer School of Earth & Environmental Sciences, The Mawson Laboratories, The University of Adelaide, SA

I agree with fd, imagine a scientist asking the readers of that rag, The Australian, for advice, he must be the bloke who Piers Ackerman gets all his illinformed stories from.

rotflmao
of course no one has ever heard of a rhetorical question.  ::)
and of course deniers don't need an excuse to ignore the obvious.  ;D

shhhh...  tallowood!
That's heresy!!!!!
What's the sun got to do with climate?

It is odd for a scientist to use a rhetorical question because it creates ambiguity and can easily mislead.

I see no ambiguity in the statement nor a desire to mislead.
Scientists can speak plain English you know if they want to   ;D

maybe he was a muslim scientist  ??

Oh, maybe not, only a single rhetoric question stated and no diversion tactic used .

There is plenty of ambiguity. For example, he appears to create the strawman than only CO2 concentration drives climate change. In his effort to use questionable rhetorical techniques he misleads the public about the science of global warming. He phrases his question in a way that he knows will lead to many people drawing all sorts of incorrect conclusions. Just because a scientist can use misleading rhetorical techniques does not mean they should, especially when they are taking advantage of public ignorance of their topic.

ROTFLMAO

::)

almost forgot...  snow in the blue mtns in october for the first time in 14 years..

i know i know... it's all part of global warming.  ::)

Soren wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2008 at 9:35am:

Letter in yesterday's Oz: ATMOSPHERIC CO2 is currently 382 parts per million. The Ordovician-Silurian (450-420 million years ago) and Jurassic-Cretaceous (151-132 million years ago) glaciations occurred when the atmospheric CO2 content was more than 4000 and at least 2000 parts per million respectively. If CO2 drives climate, why was there glaciation and not a runaway greenhouse? Professor Ian Plimer School of Earth & Environmental Sciences, The Mawson Laboratories, The University of Adelaide, SA

- because things have changed since the Silurian. The laughable thing about that post is that a geologist should know exactly how inaccurate CO2 proxies are from around 450 million years.

Also - think about my earlier question about the natural log relationship and you might be able to answer the question yourself.

(Oh I forgot - you prefer to cut and paste rather than think independently. )

Apart from that, the periods where CO2 concentration was high coincided with periods where the earth had extensive and dense rainforests. Compare that to today and it's obvious that we're dealing with chalk and cheese. Biota provides buffering capacity.

Our proxies for CO2 are about as inaccurate as our proxies for solar irradiance during that period.

CO2 and temperature are inter-related, as I have explained, increase one and the other increases, but hey, let's compare apples with apples.

Grendel wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2008 at 12:58pm:

What's the sun got to do with climate?

A lot. Remember - ice ages and interglacials - caused by variations in solar irradiance caused by perturbations in the Earth's Orbit.

Grendel - Are you going to actually read my posts or am I wasting my time?

Grendel wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2008 at 1:59pm:

ROTFLMAO ::) almost forgot...  snow in the blue mtns in october for the first time in 14 years.. i know i know... it's all part of global warming.  ::)

Why do I bother?  Look Grendel, read the section that explains the difference between Weather and Climate and make sure you understand the distinction before posting such inane comments.  
Here:

http://epa.gov/climatechange/kids/index.html

Sprintcyclist wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2008 at 1:50pm:

maybe he was a muslim scientist  ?? Oh, maybe not, only a single rhetoric question stated and no diversion tactic used .

Trying to explain basic Year 10 science to adults on an Internet Forum is somewhat analogous to explaining the concept of 'square root' to a cat.

Were the continents in significantly different positions back then?

lol muso

I do know the difference

BTW Sydney...  lowest october temperatures in 30 years.
Go global warming.

freediver wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2008 at 9:44pm:

Were the continents in significantly different positions back then?

Well yes they were. A Wiki link tells a thousand words:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gondwana

Grendel wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2008 at 9:49pm:

lol muso I do know the difference BTW Sydney...  lowest october temperatures in 30 years. Go global warming.

So you know about Solar cycles, El Nino / La Nina patterns etc too then, I suppose, and you probably know when you are being conned by graphs that run for insanely short periods and all the other denialist tricks?

I sometimes get the feeling that you are trolling for reaction.

muso wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2008 at 9:49pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 22nd, 2008 at 9:44pm: Were the continents in significantly different positions back then? Well yes they were. A Wiki link tells a thousand words: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gondwana

Odd that a geologist wouldn't mention that in comparing conditions back then to today.

muso... you shouldn't assume that everyone else is dumber than you.
You'll sound like aboo.

He's a professional skeptic. The reason he's writing to the Australian is that he wants a public audience. He has no credibility in the field of climate science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Plimer

"Plimer is also critical of what he sees as irrational elements within the environmental movement. He is critical of greenhouse gas politics and argues that extreme environmental changes are inevitable and unavoidable. He suggests that meteorologists have a huge amount to gain from climate change research, and that they have narrowed the climate change debate to the atmosphere - Plimer claims that the truth is more complex. He suggests that money would be better directed to dealing with problems as they occur rather than making expensive and futile attempts to prevent climate change.

He differs markedly from the climate change consensus in contending that the Great Barrier Reef will benefit from rising seas, that there is no correlation between carbon dioxide levels and temperature, that only 0.1 % of carbon dioxide emissions are due to human activities, and that 96% of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapour.

He claims that the current theory of human-induced global warming is not in accord with history, archaeology, geology or astronomy and must be rejected, and that promotion of this theory as science is fraudulent, and that the current alarmism on climate change is not science."

Grendel wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2008 at 10:08pm:

muso... you shouldn't assume that everyone else is dumber than you. You'll sound like aboo.

Grendel - draw a natural log function. What does that tell you about the relationship between atmospheric CO2 concentration and temperature?

I'm just trying to get you to think.  I don't think you'll be able to cut and paste this.

Plimer claims that the truth is more complex.

That's a bit rich coming from a geologist who compares the climate from over 100000000 years ago with today and leaves out the impact of continental drift, or even the fact that it occured. He is correct that radical climate change occurs over such time frames, but why this means we should create it in human time frames is a bit of a mystery.

You are right muso, he does sound like a media whore. I don't know many scientists who would sacrifice their reputation for a letter to the editor in the Australian.

more messenger shooting kiddies... ::) ::) ::)

freediver wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2008 at 10:17pm:

Plimer claims that the truth is more complex. That's a bit rich coming from a geologist who compares the climate from over 100000000 years ago with today and leaves out the impact of continental drift, or even the fact that it occured. He is correct that radical climate change occurs over such time frames, but why this means we should create it in human time frames is a bit of a mystery. You are right muso, he does sound like a media whore. I don't know many scientists who would sacrifice their reputation for a letter to the editor in the Australian.

The Earth's primeval atmosphere actually started off with carbon dioxide and nitrogen. Oxygen was poisonous to early lifeforms.

It's just a tad different today with 6.85 billion people on the planet and most of the buffering capacity of rainforests gone, most of the oceans fished out etc....

The hazard of climate change is all about the hazard to people, and the changes to the environment that will impact them - the fact that we're only about 2 degrees C off the critical temperature for most of the world's staple cereals.  

As temperatures rise, the yields will drop and you get a little detail called famine. It probably wasn't really a major ticket item back in the Silurian.

muso wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2008 at 10:33pm:

... The hazard of climate change is all about the hazard to people, and the changes to the environment that will impact them - the fact that we're only about 2 degrees C off the critical temperature for most of the world's staple cereals.   As temperatures rise, the yields will drop and you get a little detail called famine. It probably wasn't really a major ticket item back in the Silurian.

Since humans haven't ability to prevent green house effect without without creating nuclear winter nature will do it for us using its uncanny and unfunny ways to keep equilibrium.

tallowood wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2008 at 7:42am:

muso wrote on Oct 22nd, 2008 at 10:33pm: ... The hazard of climate change is all about the hazard to people, and the changes to the environment that will impact them - the fact that we're only about 2 degrees C off the critical temperature for most of the world's staple cereals.   As temperatures rise, the yields will drop and you get a little detail called famine. It probably wasn't really a major ticket item back in the Silurian. Since humans haven't ability to prevent green house effect without without creating nuclear winter nature will do it for us using its uncanny and unfunny ways to keep equilibrium.

Tallowood,

There are a number of aspects to the whole crisis. One is the rising temperature, which will have severe repercussions on crop yields. We're talking 100km away from the equator for each 1 degree rise as a rule of thumb.

Sea level rise will have a gradual and expensive effect, but that's probably not an emergency. Put it this way, I think even the most infirm of geriatrics could probably outrun sea level rise.

Increasing atmospheric CO2 is probably the most imminent problem facing us, especially when you consider the effects on aragonite and calcite secreting organisms such as corals, bivalves, and most fish (otoliths).

That will potential result in mass marine extinctions within the lifetime of our youngest generation. It will be a gradual, but rapid onset.

We certainly have the technology to do something about it. We could invest large sums of money in solar thermal power for example. Together with other carbon neutral power generation technologies, we have the capability of replacing current fossil fuel generation and gradually reducing the atmospheric CO2 content. The amount of money that the US spent on the Iraq war could have probably fixed the problem.

We have the technology to do all this. What is limiting us is basically politics and getting countries to agree to it all.  

Nuclear winter? I'm not sure how you think we'd get to that stage.

Somebody else said that the planet would probably adapt, but that we wouldn't like the way it adapted. That's true too.

tallowood wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2008 at 7:42am:

muso wrote on Oct 22nd, 2008 at 10:33pm: ... The hazard of climate change is all about the hazard to people, and the changes to the environment that will impact them - the fact that we're only about 2 degrees C off the critical temperature for most of the world's staple cereals.   As temperatures rise, the yields will drop and you get a little detail called famine. It probably wasn't really a major ticket item back in the Silurian. Since humans haven't ability to prevent green house effect without without creating nuclear winter nature will do it for us using its uncanny and unfunny ways to keep equilibrium.

Humans do have significant control and I would much prefer that option.

muso wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2008 at 8:16am:

There are a number of aspects to the whole crisis. One is the rising temperature, which will have severe repercussions on crop yields. We're talking 100km away from the equator for each 1 degree rise as a rule of thumb. Sea level rise will have a gradual and expensive effect, but that's probably not an emergency. Put it this way, I think even the most infirm of geriatrics could probably outrun sea level rise. Increasing atmospheric CO2 is probably the most imminent problem facing us, especially when you consider the effects on aragonite and calcite secreting organisms such as corals, bivalves, and most fish (otoliths). That will potential result in mass marine extinctions within the lifetime of our youngest generation. It will be a gradual, but rapid onset. We certainly have the technology to do something about it. We could invest large sums of money in solar thermal power for example. Together with other carbon neutral power generation technologies, we have the capability of replacing current fossil fuel generation and gradually reducing the atmospheric CO2 content. The amount of money that the US spent on the Iraq war could have probably fixed the problem. We have the technology to do all this. What is limiting us is basically politics and getting countries to agree to it all.   Nuclear winter? I'm not sure how you think we'd get to that stage. Somebody else said that the planet would probably adapt, but that we wouldn't like the way it adapted. That's true too.

I'm not argue against your apocalyptic vision, Muso. What I'm saing that every time humans attempt to solve a global problem they tend to create more new problems but nature will correct it in its own not human way because humans are not anything special in infinity field.

freediver wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2008 at 8:52am:

tallowood wrote on Oct 23rd, 2008 at 7:42am: muso wrote on Oct 22nd, 2008 at 10:33pm: ... The hazard of climate change is all about the hazard to people, and the changes to the environment that will impact them - the fact that we're only about 2 degrees C off the critical temperature for most of the world's staple cereals.   As temperatures rise, the yields will drop and you get a little detail called famine. It probably wasn't really a major ticket item back in the Silurian. Since humans haven't ability to prevent green house effect without without creating nuclear winter nature will do it for us using its uncanny and unfunny ways to keep equilibrium. Humans do have significant control and I would much prefer that option.

Yes we have enough nukes to solve the real problem of overpopulation that's why I've mentioned about nuclear winter.

What I'm saing that every time humans attempt to solve a global problem they tend to create more new problems

That doesn't mean we shouldn't solve global problems, it just means we have to stay on the ball.


Grendel wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2008 at 10:32pm:

more messenger shooting kiddies... ::) ::) ::)

He (and you) made an appeal to his authority. His authority is fair game for criticism. I'd expect you to be last person to suggest we have to take his word for it (whatever his point is supposed to be) just because he is a scientist.

tallowood wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2008 at 12:02pm:

Yes we have enough nukes to solve the real problem of overpopulation that's why I've mentioned about nuclear winter.

I see what you mean now. It's not just overpopulation. Most of the population growth is taking place in developing countries which have very little contribution to CO2 emissions. The countries with highest CO2 emissions have relatively stable populations.

muso wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2008 at 3:12pm:

tallowood wrote on Oct 23rd, 2008 at 12:02pm: Yes we have enough nukes to solve the real problem of overpopulation that's why I've mentioned about nuclear winter. I see what you mean now. It's not just overpopulation. Most of the population growth is taking place in developing countries which have very little contribution to CO2 emissions. The countries with highest CO2 emissions have relatively stable populations.

India, China etc. are developing nations. Also lots of developed nation's doctors help developing nation's people to decrease mortality without decreasing birth rates then when there is a famine developed nations provide food to developing nations. To grow ever increasing  amount of food doesn't help environment.

The only thing they don't supply is condoms, but that's OK because AIDS makes up for it.

freediver wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2008 at 4:52pm:

The only thing they don't supply is condoms, but that's OK because AIDS makes up for it.

They did but...

Use of condoms in 3rd world
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6403/1156/1600/condomheadgear.jpg

So Grendel, What's your conspiranut theory behind the great man-made GW scam?
Is it more funds for sub-standard scientists?
Is it a scam to drive up oil price?
Is it a capitalist scam to keep the poorer nations from developing?
...or maybe something else?

Surely there must be a reason for trying to fool the world into living cleaner greener lives?

tallowood wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2008 at 4:50pm:

muso wrote on Oct 23rd, 2008 at 3:12pm: I see what you mean now. It's not just overpopulation. Most of the population growth is taking place in developing countries which have very little contribution to CO2 emissions. The countries with highest CO2 emissions have relatively stable populations. India, China etc. are developing nations. Also lots of developed nation's doctors help developing nation's people to decrease mortality without decreasing birth rates then when there is a famine developed nations provide food to developing nations. To grow ever increasing  amount of food doesn't help environment.

I knew my answer was too brief. On a per capita basis, China is way behind Western Countries in terms of CO2-e emissions. However, they have an enormous population, and the population is becoming richer and more wasteful.

India is way behind China, but is catching up.

Until last year, the US was the biggest emitter of CO2-e. China caught up in the last year, and is now slightly ahead of the US.

China's population is still relatively stable for a developing country, but the proportion of richer people who have a bigger carbon footprint is increasing.

By far the majority of population growth is outside the main areas where CO2 is produced. For example, the entire country of Sudan has a similar electricity consumption to that of a small Australian town.

freediver wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2008 at 12:09pm:

What I'm saing that every time humans attempt to solve a global problem they tend to create more new problems That doesn't mean we shouldn't solve global problems, it just means we have to stay on the ball. Grendel wrote on Oct 22nd, 2008 at 10:32pm: more messenger shooting kiddies... ::) ::) ::) He (and you) made an appeal to his authority. His authority is fair game for criticism. I'd expect you to be last person to suggest we have to take his word for it (whatever his point is supposed to be) just because he is a scientist.

It's also incredibly bad taste to drag the University's name into it. If he wasn't such a prominent Mining Geologist, he would have had his marching orders long ago. I think he chairs some national mining body too.

It's a bit like a politician using official letterhead to get a police department to waive her parking fees. (This has happened too)

This guy is also a bit of a poo stirrer with the creationists. He was the one involved with the Noah's Ark business. He's a leading skeptic and humanist too.

Amadd wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2008 at 5:45pm:

So Grendel, What's your conspiranut theory behind the great man-made GW scam? Is it more funds for sub-standard scientists? Is it a scam to drive up oil price? Is it a capitalist scam to keep the poorer nations from developing? ...or maybe something else? Surely there must be a reason for trying to fool the world into living cleaner greener lives?

The reason usually given is that Al Gore stands to make billions from his shares in Solar Energy generation.  ;D

I don't have conspiranut theories... I leave them to the resident conspiranut Amadd.

I'm simply waiting for proof.
Something none of you "deniers" have supplied as yet.

I leave the name-calling and messenger shooting to you, it's part of denial.

There is no proof to back your theory.
But there is proof that the Sun, the Earth, etc, etc, etc affect climate.  beyond that it all gets a little bit too theoretical.  
You have NO PROOF.

Provide it...  I'm happy to say gee look at that man-made CO2 is the driver of climate change...  LOL   ::)  

Grendel wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 8:44am:

I don't have conspiranut theories... I leave them to the resident conspiranut Amadd. I'm simply waiting for proof. Something none of you "deniers" have supplied as yet. I leave the name-calling and messenger shooting to you, it's part of denial. There is no proof to back your theory. But there is proof that the Sun, the Earth, etc, etc, etc affect climate.  beyond that it all gets a little bit too theoretical.

You mean that it involves Year 10 Maths, and these tricky little natural logs, and you can't remember much about them.

Grendel, can you just prove to me that the Sun will rise tomorrow morning? That should be easy enough.

muso wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 8:20am:

tallowood wrote on Oct 23rd, 2008 at 4:50pm: muso wrote on Oct 23rd, 2008 at 3:12pm: I see what you mean now. It's not just overpopulation. Most of the population growth is taking place in developing countries which have very little contribution to CO2 emissions. The countries with highest CO2 emissions have relatively stable populations. India, China etc. are developing nations. Also lots of developed nation's doctors help developing nation's people to decrease mortality without decreasing birth rates then when there is a famine developed nations provide food to developing nations. To grow ever increasing  amount of food doesn't help environment. I knew my answer was too brief. On a per capita basis, China is way behind Western Countries in terms of CO2-e emissions. However, they have an enormous population, and the population is becoming richer and more wasteful. India is way behind China, but is catching up. Until last year, the US was the biggest emitter of CO2-e. China caught up in the last year, and is now slightly ahead of the US. China's population is still relatively stable for a developing country, but the proportion of richer people who have a bigger carbon footprint is increasing. By far the majority of population growth is outside the main areas where CO2 is produced. For example, the entire country of Sudan has a similar electricity consumption to that of a small Australian town.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm under impression that you think that overpopulation of the planet is not the main factor in degradation of the planet's environment?

rotflmao

well if it doesn' t muso we won't have to worry about climate change.

but thanks for agreeing that you have no proof for your belief.

tallowood wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 9:07am:

Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm under impression that you think that overpopulation of the planet is not the main factor in degradation of the planet's environment?

Increasing population has resulted in the degradation of the environment in the past. That's a no brainer.

As I said before, the major population growth is happening in developing countries which generate little CO2.

By far the greatest emergency is the continued use of fossil fuels resulting in increased CO2 levels and the repercussions that derive from that. If we had this same level of population and used renewable energy instead of fossil fuel derived energy, the stress on the environment would still be there, but would not be imminently dangerous.  

We can certainly sustain high levels of population by using smart techniques, including renewable energy use, sustainable fish farming etc.

Grendel wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 9:20am:

rotflmao well if it doesn' t muso we won't have to worry about climate change. but thanks for agreeing that you have no proof for your belief.

Is that a bit like (fingers in ears) La la la ?

I've been trying to explain the science behind it, but you've suddenly lost interest because it involves thinking.

muso wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 9:32am:

tallowood wrote on Oct 24th, 2008 at 9:07am: Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm under impression that you think that overpopulation of the planet is not the main factor in degradation of the planet's environment? Increasing population has resulted in the degradation of the environment in the past. That's a no brainer. As I said before, the major population growth is happening in developing countries which generate little CO2. By far the greatest emergency is the continued use of fossil fuels resulting in increased CO2 levels and the repercussions that derive from that. If we had this same level of population and used renewable energy instead of fossil fuel derived energy, the stress on the environment would still be there, but would not be imminently dangerous.   We can certainly sustain high levels of population by using smart techniques, including renewable energy use, sustainable fish farming etc.

And as I said before China and India are developing countries to which you reply "Until last year, the US was the biggest emitter of CO2-e. China caught up in the last year, and is now slightly ahead of the US." and it seems that you insist that all they need to do to prove you right is to increase the population so they are low per capita. IMHO, this is dead brain argument.


"We can certainly sustain high levels of population by using smart techniques, including renewable energy use, sustainable fish farming etc"

It will slow it down but then what will happen when population will increase again?

Besides you fail to look at the planet as closed system in which globalisation tendency is on the rise.

Quote:

I've been trying to explain the science behind it, but you've suddenly lost interest because it involves thinking.

lia liar...  I was patiently listening to your explanation...  YOU went off forgot me and started talking to someone else.

Not to worry...  you just stated you have NO PROOF!!!!!

Grendel wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 10:03am:

Quote: I've been trying to explain the science behind it, but you've suddenly lost interest because it involves thinking. lia liar...  I was patiently listening to your explanation...  YOU went off forgot me and started talking to someone else. Not to worry...  you just stated you have NO PROOF!!!!!

I asked you a question about the natural log, and you couldn't answer. I'm still waiting for you to answer that.

tallowood wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 9:49am:

It will slow it down but then what will happen when population will increase again? Besides you fail to look at the planet as closed system in which globalisation tendency is on the rise.

Put it this way - the limiting factor will be consequences of burning fossil fuel. The inability to produce enough food, the collapse of the economic system and eventually anoxic oceans will be a consequence of that. The reduction of human population on this planet will also be a consequence of that.

If you simply try to slow down the rate of population growth on this planet, then you'd probably concentrate on the developing countries which is where the growth is occurring. In doing so, you'd be ignoring the far more imminent risk.

I have a feeling that we may actually agree on some of this. It may be just semantics.

would that have been days after you forgot me?


frankly...  I have no PROOF is proof enough for me you're argument is pointless.

I was willing to listen... you dropped the ball.
('bout 10 days ago )

Grendel,

You're obviously looking for an out, because you're out of depth and out of your usual modus operandi of making shallow snipes without substance and without thinking it through.

Let's say you were planning a holiday several months ahead, would you give up on the basis that we have no proof that the airline will still be in business then?

If we wanted proof, we'd never carry out engineering projects for example.

The best we can do is to make our predictions on the basis of the best evidence available.

Does Carbon dioxide act as a Greenhouse Gas? Yes. Does the Earth's Carbon balance demonstrate that carbon dioxide is building up in the atmosphere, adding approximately 1-2ppm each year? Yes.

Is there evidence that the CO2 is from fossil fuel burning and cement production? Yes - on the basis that these sources have a specific isotope signature.

Will the CO2 translate to an increase in global average temperatures?
Yes, because of the fundamental propoerties of CO2.

But isn't water the most important Greenhouse Gas, and didn't you guys forget about it when you did your calculations?

- er guess what - It's accounted for. This may surprise you but climatologists do actually know elementary climatology theory.

"Human activities contribute to climate change by causing changes in Earth’s atmosphere in the amounts of greenhouse gases, aerosols (small particles), and cloudiness. The largest known contribution comes from the burning of fossil fuels, which releases carbon dioxide gas to the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases and aerosols affect climate by altering incoming solar radiation and out-going infrared (thermal) radiation that are part of Earth’s energy balance. Changing the atmospheric abundance or properties of these gases and particles can lead to a warming or cooling of the climate system. Since the start of the industrial era (about 1750), the overall effect of human activities on climate has been a warming influence. The human impact on climate during this era greatly exceeds that due to known changes in natural processes, such as solar changes and volcanic eruptions."  - AR4WG1 - FAQ's

We're talking about convincing evidence that we're headed for trouble right now. It's not a 50:50 Pascal Wager situation, it's about as dead cert as you can get.

- and Grendel - Why don't you find a nice girl and settle down? ;)

As usual BO, your replies are not making much sense.


Quote:

I don't have conspiranut theories... I leave them to the resident conspiranut Amadd.

I was asking you what you think the "motif operandi" may be.
It must be a pretty way out conspiranut theory if you can't even provide at least one simple motif operandi.
Al Gore? Have you really used that one?


Quote:

I'm simply waiting for proof. Something none of you "deniers" have supplied as yet.

Well it's you that is in denial. I'm merely trusting the greater opinion of well trained scientists.
And yes, I'd trust their opinion over yours.



Quote:

I leave the name-calling and messenger shooting to you, it's part of denial.

You're not being a messenger, you're up on a soapbox stating that anybody who doesn't believe what I say is true is a denier of truth....please show us your scientific credentials before your make those types of claims.


Quote:

There is no proof to back your theory. But there is proof that the Sun, the Earth, etc, etc, etc affect climate.  beyond that it all gets a little bit too theoretical.   You have NO PROOF.

It's not my theory. I didn't invent it. I'm simply making a personal decision that if they are 10% correct on this one, then we should be doing something about it; the consequences of doing nothing may be 1000 times greater than the consequences of taking action.


Quote:

Provide it...  I'm happy to say gee look at that man-made CO2 is the driver of climate change...  LOL

There is no way that I can provide proof. I'm not even one scientist, and either are you.
All that I can say is, that given the current information that we have at our disposal, it would be ridiculous to not take this threat seriously.
If it's ever proven that this whole thing has been a scam, then there will no doubt be hell to pay, and I'll go into battle with you in search of heads on sticks.

Getting bored conspiranut.
I don't believe I was talking to you

You will get your proof, or as close as we are going to get, when we cut back our CO2 emissions and see what impact it has on climate change.

But proof isn't really what you are after is it?

To tell you truth BO, boredom was reached many many moons ago with you. The lack of logical response that you provide tanscends boredom, it goes into uncharted territories.

ah yes it is freediver.
I can think of no other thing required.

oh you always bore me Amadd.  :D

Of course answering simple questions has always been one of your pet aversions hasn't it BO?

You still haven't quite grasped that concept have you?

Comment deleted by moderator. Name calling is uncalled for.

So why do you keep asking for proof? Why not just wait to see what happens when we reduce our emissions?

Quote:

I was asking you what you think the "motif operandi" may be. It must be a pretty way out conspiranut theory if you can't even provide at least one simple motif operandi. Al Gore? Have you really used that one?

;D

muso wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2008 at 7:41pm:

Soren wrote on Oct 22nd, 2008 at 9:35am: Letter in yesterday's Oz: ATMOSPHERIC CO2 is currently 382 parts per million. The Ordovician-Silurian (450-420 million years ago) and Jurassic-Cretaceous (151-132 million years ago) glaciations occurred when the atmospheric CO2 content was more than 4000 and at least 2000 parts per million respectively. If CO2 drives climate, why was there glaciation and not a runaway greenhouse? Professor Ian Plimer School of Earth & Environmental Sciences, The Mawson Laboratories, The University of Adelaide, SA - because things have changed since the Silurian. The laughable thing about that post is that a geologist should know exactly how inaccurate CO2 proxies are from around 450 million years. Also - think about my earlier question about the natural log relationship and you might be able to answer the question yourself. (Oh I forgot - you prefer to cut and paste rather than think independently. ) Apart from that, the periods where CO2 concentration was high coincided with periods where the earth had extensive and dense rainforests. Compare that to today and it's obvious that we're dealing with chalk and cheese. Biota provides buffering capacity. Our proxies for CO2 are about as inaccurate as our proxies for solar irradiance during that period. CO2 and temperature are inter-related, as I have explained, increase one and the other increases, but hey, let's compare apples with apples.

With due respect, this is a lot of abracadabra (to pick up on the muslim theme).
There is no testable scientific theory in climate speculations. There is only conjecture and speculation based on computer models. All the abracadabra is about tic-tacing about the data of the simulations. This is not science in the sence of formulating a theory, testing it experimentally and trying to replicate the experiment to test the findings and thus refining the original theory.

With cliamte change, as with the flights of birds, there is only selective bolstering of the original pronouncement (not testable theory) of global warming and its causes.
I think it is ridiculous to to be so convinced that human can influence the climate. Talk about not knowing one's station. I think it an apocalyptic delusion of grandeaur.  

I am open about cliamte change. Maybe it is happeningh again, as it has been happening beforee over the centuries, millenia, eons. To blamee humans is a major political overreach.  In any case there is no way of experimentally showing (proving, to use a dirty word) human causation.
Beyond that it is a political, not a scientific, argument and thee most huristic kind by the boosters. They get really, really upset because they have no way of pulling the political wool over people's eyes.i

There is no testable scientific theory in climate speculations. There is only conjecture and speculation based on computer models. All the abracadabra is about tic-tacing about the data of the simulations. This is not scinece in the sence of formulating a theory, testing it experimentally and trying to replicatee the experiment to test the findings and thus refining the original theory.

There are plenty of testable theories. Using similations does not negate this.

freediver wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 7:02pm:

There is no testable scientific theory in climate speculations. There is only conjecture and speculation based on computer models. All the abracadabra is about tic-tacing about the data of the simulations. This is not scinece in the sence of formulating a theory, testing it experimentally and trying to replicatee the experiment to test the findings and thus refining the original theory. There are plenty of testable theories. Using similations does not negate this.

Oh yes it does. Sitting by a computer is not conducting an experiment. It is sitting in a room, playing with numbers in 'what if' scenarios. it has rather a lot in common with marketing but not science.

The fact that sitting in front of a computer is not conducting an experiment has no bearing on whether the theories underpinning climate change science are testable. They are still testable, even if someone decided to consult their tea leaves over them.

gigo

parameter fiddling etc, etc,etc...

I want proof freediver.

So far Soren puts up better arguments.

Amadd wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 6:16pm:

Quote: I was asking you what you think the "motif operandi" may be. It must be a pretty way out conspiranut theory if you can't even provide at least one simple motif operandi. Al Gore? Have you really used that one? ;D

;D ;D

I'm sorry...  what part of I have no wish to converse with you don't you understand?

Amadd wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 7:33pm:

Amadd wrote on Oct 24th, 2008 at 6:16pm: Quote: I was asking you what you think the "motif operandi" may be. It must be a pretty way out conspiranut theory if you can't even provide at least one simple motif operandi. Al Gore? Have you really used that one? ;D ;D ;D

;D ;D ;D

muso wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 10:27am:

tallowood wrote on Oct 24th, 2008 at 9:49am: It will slow it down but then what will happen when population will increase again? Besides you fail to look at the planet as closed system in which globalisation tendency is on the rise. Put it this way - the limiting factor will be consequences of burning fossil fuel. The inability to produce enough food, the collapse of the economic system and eventually anoxic oceans will be a consequence of that. The reduction of human population on this planet will also be a consequence of that. If you simply try to slow down the rate of population growth on this planet, then you'd probably concentrate on the developing countries which is where the growth is occurring. In doing so, you'd be ignoring the far more imminent risk. I have a feeling that we may actually agree on some of this. It may be just semantics.

I agree that any scientifically proven way to reduce environmental degradation should be use but unless the main problem is addressed they all will be to no avail in longer run and, IMHO, the overpopulation of the planet by humans is the main problems.
It is very political though and the public discussion of it unfortunately is discouraged.

freediver wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 7:12pm:

The fact that sitting in front of a computer is not conducting an experiment has no bearing on whether the theories underpinning climate change science are testable. They are still testable, even if someone decided to consult their tea leaves over them.

Well, why doesn't somebody test them already?

No can do, that's why.

Blaming humans for a posssible change in the climate is the latest attempt to force a hairshirt onto people.

It's a monumental guilt trip by fiat from the Central Committee. Al Gore is embraced by half the right-on crowd not because they undertsand a word he says but as a way of sticking it to Bush. The guy is a mutt (Gore).

Here's the bottom line: if there is a change in climate, that can be measured.
Why it is changing cannot be measured. It can be only be speculated on. If a hypothesis is formed as to the cause, that has to be tested by experiment (not computer manuipulation of meeasurement data).
This experimental phase of the scientific method is missing and will remain missing forever.


As far as theories are concerened, though, we have data, appaarently, to show that the climate varied wildly long before humans appeared.  The good professsor's letteer to the Oz point this out in a far-too-snappy manner for some.

Soren wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 8:57pm:

... If a hypothesis is formed as to the cause, that has to be tested by experiment (not computer manuipulation of meeasurement data). This experimental phase of the scientific method is missing and will remain missing forever. ...

A hypothesis can be tested not only experimentally but also by modelling and computers are good for that. Of course there are different stages of modelling and the way to go is from bottom to top, the ultimate test is to switch on to real system but it should not be the starting point of course not to model at all is even less helpfull.

Well, why doesn't somebody test them already?

They are soren.

Here's the bottom line: if there is a change in climate, that can be measured.

Yes it has been measured.

Why it is changing cannot be measured.

Duh.

It occurs to me Soren, that you don't even know what theories you are decrying as untestable. YOu are arguing from ignorance. Your argument is nothing more than "I have no idea what the theories actually are, let alone how they test them, therefor they are not testable.

Ok, who has been listening to Richard Lindzen on Counterpoint?

hmmm. (narrows eyes)

Soren, apart from an apparent overdose of coffee in one post, it looks like you're maybe prepared to listen, and you obviously have some capacity for logical argument.

You talk as if we're not actually doing research, and everything is done using climate models. That isn't true. There is a great deal of atmospheric research going on. It's only true in the case of Richard Linzen. He hasn't done any research since the 80's and he's still harping on about the Iris effect and clouds, years after it was proven wrong on the basis of actual research into atmospheric physics.

Can you see that a thing like proof is just not forthcoming? All we can do is to provide forecasts based on best knowledge. Nobody is claiming the ability to foretell the future with 20:20 forward vision.

What we're talking about is using the data to make informed decisions.  

Amadd - It's modus operandi fcs.

Quote:

Amadd - It's modus operandi fcs.

muso, fair enough in strict legal terms, but I'm talking about a motivation or a reason, and not a method.

If you haven't realised yet that you won't get an honest answer out of Grendel, then you eventually will.

There's no honest debating here...just the upholding of  ignorance. It's essentially tits on a bull.

Amadd wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 11:49pm:

Quote: Amadd - It's modus operandi fcs. muso, fair enough in strict legal terms, but I'm talking about a motivation or a reason, and not a method. If you haven't realised yet that you won't get an honest answer out of Grendel, then you eventually will. There's no honest debating here...just the upholding of  ignorance. It's essentially tits on a bull.

OK. Let's not feed the troll.

freediver wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 9:27pm:

Well, why doesn't somebody test them already? They are soren. Here's the bottom line: if there is a change in climate, that can be measured. Yes it has been measured. Why it is changing cannot be measured. Duh. It occurs to me Soren, that you don't even know what theories you are decrying as untestable. YOu are arguing from ignorance. Your argument is nothing more than "I have no idea what the theories actually are, let alone how they test them, therefor they are not testable.

Just because I am not right-on should not mean to you that I am ignorant.

There is no possibility of testing climate change theories because we do not have a supply of climates, like we have of lab mice.
And perhaps no longer needless to say, we have no way of deploying controls in any climate experiments,  shouldd we be able to devise an experiment with the only one climate we have.
So there is no replicability, and there are no controls - crucial element in any scientific experiment. In this light, what does it matter what theories are shouting loudest if they cannot meet the two basic requirements of scientific testing?
Do you know of any climate eexperiments that have controls andd can be replicated. Those onees i am interetsted in. the rest are not worth taling about because that's all they are good for - talk.

I don't mind a bit of doomsday harangue and millennial brimstone and hairshirt  but don't make it out that it is actually scientifically settled and beyond questioning and doubt because  then it all sounds a bit Soviet or muslim to me (to remain contemporary).

Soren,

We can and do test the effects of solar irradiance on climate. We can measure solar irradiance directly from orbit.  One of the leading agencies has been PMOD in Switzerland, and SVISS, the Swiss Solar Institute.

http://www.pmodwrc.ch/

We can directly take measurements of track seasonal variations in carbon dioxide and take direct measurements of ocean bicarbonate concentrations and pH.

The basic theory is tested every year by cyclical seasonal fluctuations in CO2 level and temperature.  

It's not an iterative process (GIGO) either. There are some very basic climate models you can download from here:

http://www.climateprediction.net/

It's worth playing with the models to get a better understanding of them before making nonsensical statements based on what you might have heard from the likes of Bob Carter or Richard Lindzen.

Just because I am not right-on should not mean to you that I am ignorant.

What does that mean? I think you have no idea what theories AGW is based on. It is only your ignorance of the theories that allows you to make these claims.

There is no possibility of testing climate change theories because we do not have a supply of climates, like we have of lab mice.

Crap. Do you need a supply of planets to test the theory of gravity, or to test the claim that the earth revolves around the sun? What separates a good scientist from an idiot is being able to design a simple experiment to test a theory.

gravity and planetary revolution are events, mathematically decribable. They are movements of actual, identifiable, observable, singular bodies. Climate is not an event in this sense, nor is it a singular, observable entity. There are too many players (ocean, air, sun,  jungle etc).
Climate change predictions are like psychology - dangerous when taken too seriously.

We can't forecast the weather one week out. In the 70s they were making gloomy predictions about gobal cooling, would you believe.

Be it noted, though, that I am all for clean air, renewable energy and clean and healthy environment. I just don't believe we are as big as to be able to change the climate.i

Soren wrote on Oct 25^th, 2008 at 10:43pm:

gravity and planetary revolution are events, mathematically decribable. They are movements of actual, identifiable, observable, singular bodies. Climate is not an event in this sense, nor is it a singular, observable entity. There are too many players (ocean, air, sun,  jungle etc). Climate change predictions are like psychology - dangerous when taken too seriously. We can't forecast the weather one week out. In the 70s they were making gloomy predictions about gobal cooling, would you believe. Be it noted, though, that I am all for clean air, renewable energy and clean and healthy environment. I just don't believe we are as big as to be able to change the climate.

Forget about weather forecasting. We're not trying to predict what the temperature wind speed and precipitation will be in Wagga Wagga on the 23rd January 2023. All we're interested in is the atmospheric CO2 concentration, the ocean water bicarbonate and some fairly basic parameters. These things are all very deterministic.

We can understand enough to know that we're in trouble. To understand that requires a very basic knowledge.

In the 70's it was not the general consensus that there would be global cooling. You have been misled, and I can provide details if you like.

You mentioned understanding psychology. Cognitive Psychology is actually quite an exact science, but let's not go into that.

As an analogy, weather prediction is like a psychologist predicting exactly what your frame of mind will be tomorrow morning at 10:30, including exactly what you'll be thinking.

Climate prediction is like if you consumed an entire bottle of Laphroaig (might as well make your hypothetical drink a good one, although I don't partake myself) and predicting if two hours later you can still sing the Major General's song from the Pirates of Penzance word and tone perfect.

Soren wrote on Oct 25^th, 2008 at 10:43pm:

Be it noted, though, that I am all for clean air, renewable energy and clean and healthy environment. I just don't believe we are as big as to be able to change the climate.

On your last point, it becomes apparent when we start looking into the relative magnitude of carbon fluxes that we put into the atmosphere each year from burning fossil fuel, manufacturing cement etc as compared to natural fluxes. We have a very good handle on these figures. It doesn't take rocket science to work out the carbon fluxes in enough detail to know that we have a problem. Maybe I should talk a bit about fluxes next.

On your point about being in favour of renewable energy - that's great. If everybody was in favour of replacing fossil fuel with renewable energy, then it wouldn't really matter what else they understood.

If we can effect a change to renewable energy quickly enough, that will solve the crisis.

The global economic crisis may actually buy us some time, and a few years hence, we may be able to demonstrate the effect of it. If the Chinese and the Americans burn less coal as a consequence of it, we should be able to track that in terms of atmospheric CO2 levels. They won't decrease, but the rate of increase may drop.

I don't the economic crisis will be much help, as it will also divert attention away from the problem and lead to people giving short term economic issues a priority over more important things.

gravity and planetary revolution are events, mathematically decribable. They are movements of actual, identifiable, observable, singular bodies

That doesn't make it any more or less scientific. It's like saying the scientific theories used to predicted the motion of 100 billiard balls on a table are not testable, bu the ones used to predict the motion of two billiard balls are.

We can't forecast the weather one week out. In the 70s they were making gloomy predictions about gobal cooling, would you believe.

We can make predictions one week out. Just not detailed ones. The broader your prediction, the further out you can make it accurate.

And yes, up until a few decades ago the earth was cooling, very slowly, as part of the natural cycle. It could have become a problem - but one that we had a few centuries to respond to, if we chose to do so, rather than a few years.

As an analogy, weather prediction is like a psychologist predicting exactly what your frame of mind will be tomorrow morning at 10:30, including exactly what you'll be thinking.

No it isn't. It is a very borad prediction. It's the opposite of what you describe.

freediver wrote on Oct 26^th, 2008 at 9:06am:

As an analogy, weather prediction is like a psychologist predicting exactly what your frame of mind will be tomorrow morning at 10:30, including exactly what you'll be thinking. No it isn't. It is a very borad prediction. It's the opposite of what you describe.

OK, my analogy wasn't very good. What I'm getting at is that we can't really predict what the weather will do in any detail. We can't say "This year, a cyclone will hit Bundaberg, causing extensive damage", but we could say that "there is a 99% chance of at least one major cyclone this season".

Weather is short term detail, whereas climate is long term trends.

To say that 'we had the coldest day in 40 years in Orange' is talking about weather, whereas to say that 'there is a trend of increasingly longer periods of drought in Northern parts of NSW', is climate.

freediver wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2008 at 10:17pm:

Plimer claims that the truth is more complex. That's a bit rich coming from a geologist who compares the climate from over 100000000 years ago with today and leaves out the impact of continental drift, or even the fact that it occured. He is correct that radical climate change occurs over such time frames, but why this means we should create it in human time frames is a bit of a mystery. You are right muso, he does sound like a media whore. I don't know many scientists who would sacrifice their reputation for a letter to the editor in the Australian.

Enviromentalism is a new fundamentalist religion. Plimer identifies all the hallmarks.
He is not a media whore. I have seen and heard more of Flannery, Gore, Suzuki, far more than I ever wanted to. Plimer just happens to disagree. Don't call him a media whore, especially since you had never heard of him before either. He has something to say that is worth hearing.

http://fora.tv/2008/08/19/Environmentalism_is_the_New_Religion

Soren, I'm about as non-religious as they will allow me to be in this forum. What I'm talking about is about 5 years after completing my degree in Environmental science, I started to look into the details of the research extremely carefully. It took me about 18 months to get a detailed grasp of the data.  It is the single most important issue that concerns us this century, and I don't take anything on faith. I'm just not a faith type person.

Please don't take anything I say on faith either. Please research the facts, but do yourself a really big favour and try to remain detached. Act as if you don't care what the correct answer is as long as it's correct.

On the basis of the evidence provided from sites such as Real Climate,  the NASA sites, etc - just do a point by point comparison with some of the denialist sites.  In both cases decide for yourself if the data presented is self-consistent, then read and try to understand the arguments made. Look for emotive terms, and ignore them wherever you see them. Emotion is totally irrelevant when it comes to the validity of a scientific argument.

Now, do you honestly believe that almost every single climatologist in the World is part of a mass conspiracy? In a general sense, if you're a research scientist, it's because you want to know the truth. Try and tell one of them that his research needs to come to certain  fixed conclusions and just see how far you get. (and in some cases, how many teeth you have left after the experience)

Do you regard it as some kind of coincidence that most of the people who are denying the very unpleasant facts about climate change just happen to have a vested interest in mining groups, or work for right wing business-related think tanks?

The alternative is that the climatologists are actually wrong, but that a select few retired astronomers, mining geologists, economists and the odd mathematician/ computer geek have it right.

Soren, Let's suppose that you have a tooth that hurts. Do you go to the dentist like most of us, or do you instead go to a mechanic that you met in a bar once, who told you that he didn't trust dentists, and that next time you needed a tooth fixing, to just come to him, and he'd fix it for you with his hammer?

Just going back to the point about the 70's and so called global cooling predictions:

Today, you have a widespread scientific consensus, supported by national academies and all the major scientific institutions, solidly behind the warning that the temperature is rising, anthropogenic CO2 is the primary cause, and it will worsen unless we reduce emissions.

In the 1970s, there was a book in the popular press, a few articles in popular magazines, and a small amount of scientific speculation based on the recently discovered glacial cycles and the recent slight cooling trend from air pollution blocking the sunlight. There were no daily headlines. There was no avalanche of scientific articles. There were no United Nations treaties or commissions. No G8 summits on the dangers and possible solutions. No institutional pronouncements. You could find broader "consensus" on a coming alien invasion.

Here is a collection by WilliamConnelly (who has much more free time than I do) that details what was actually written:

http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/

Please check the link.

Put it this way, you don't get a degree by reading 'The Cooling' or Time Life publications. These are great to have on your coffee table when you have a spare moment, but scientific reference materials ? I don't think so.

Don't call him a media whore, especially since you had never heard of him

Why not? A prostitute is stil a prostitute even if I don't buy anything from her.

freediver wrote on Oct 28^th, 2008 at 9:58am:

Don't call him a media whore, especially since you had never heard of him Why not? A prostitute is stil a prostitute even if I don't buy anything from her.

Whoever you disagree with in the media is a media whore? That's a bit of a mindless reaction. And inaccurate, as well. A prostitute is indiscriminate. Plimer isn't. He has a particular thing to say - as opposed to say what you might want to hear, like Flannery, Gore, Suzuki. You can disagree but that is no reason to speak without thinking.

Plimer is indiscriminate and he has very little to say. He is being paid by the mining industry. He is a geologist who brought up the climate eons ago without mentioning the fact that the continents, and lots of other things, were different back then, in the hope that people would mistakenly assume something about the current climate change debate. He included an appeal to his own authority. He sacrificed his reputation for a mere letter to the editor in the Australian. I think whore is a very apt discription given the circumstances.

muso wrote on Oct 28^th, 2008 at 9:10am:

Soren, I'm about as non-religious as they will allow me to be in this forum. What I'm talking about is about 5 years after completing my degree in Environmental science, I started to look into the details of the research extremely carefully. It took me about 18 months to get a detailed grasp of the data.  It is the single most important issue that concerns us this century, and I don't take anything on faith. I'm just not a faith type person. Please don't take anything I say on faith either. Please research the facts, but do yourself a really big favour and try to remain detached. Act as if you don't care what the correct answer is as long as it's correct. On the basis of the evidence provided from sites such as Real Climate,  the NASA sites, etc - just do a point by point comparison with some of the denialist sites.  In both cases decide for yourself if the data presented is self-consistent, then read and try to understand the arguments made. Look for emotive terms, and ignore them wherever you see them. Emotion is totally irrelevant when it comes to the validity of a scientific argument. Now, do you honestly believe that almost every single climatologist in the World is part of a mass conspiracy? In a general sense, if you're a research scientist, it's because you want to know the truth. Try and tell one of them that his research needs to come to certain  fixed conclusions and just see how far you get. (and in some cases, how many teeth you have left after the experience) Do you regard it as some kind of coincidence that most of the people who are denying the very unpleasant facts about climate change just happen to have a vested interest in mining groups, or work for right wing business-related think tanks? The alternative is that the climatologists are actually wrong, but that a select few retired astronomers, mining geologists, economists and the odd mathematician/ computer geek have it right. Soren, Let's suppose that you have a tooth that hurts. Do you go to the dentist like most of us, or do you instead go to a mechanic that you met in a bar once, who told you that he didn't trust dentists, and that next time you needed a tooth fixing, to just come to him, and he'd fix it for you with his hammer?

I am not sceptical about change. I am sceptical about the claims that it is man-made change. And even if it is man-made change, I am sceptical about the fervently proferred antidotes.
The dentist analogy is silly.
I suggest that the analogy of depression/contentment is probably better than the dental one. A pill or a lobotomy will get rid of the symptoms but being sad or content is a much bigger thing than a local (brain) chemical imbalance.

The language, the fervour, the rhetoric of 'sin no more' of climate doom  is remarkably religious. It is similar to the 'scientific 'dialectical materialism of marxist talk. Or to the unfliching certianty of the Muslims, who can't take a step without consulting some imam (a climate scientist or computer simulation) but has memorised and can quote suras (data) suitable for all occasions. Or the other fundamentalists.i

So when scientists say they are 90% certain on the issue, or economists say that this justifies action, you think that is a sign of religious fervour? Or do you merely mistake the extremists for the mainstream?

freediver wrote on Oct 28^th, 2008 at 10:52am:

Plimer is indiscriminate and he has very little to say. He is being paid by the mining industry. He is a geologist who brought up the climate eons ago without mentioning the fact that the continents, and lots of other things, were different back then, in the hope that people would mistakenly assume something about the current climate change debate. He included an appeal to his own authority. He sacrificed his reputation for a mere letter to the editor in the Australian. I think whore is a very apt discription given the circumstances.

Lestat - is that you?!?

freediver wrote on Oct 28^th, 2008 at 10:59am:

So when scientists say they are 90% certain on the issue, or economists say that this justifies action, you think that is a sign of religious fervour? Or do you merely mistake the extremists for the mainstream?

Where does that data - 90% - come from?

It was in the latest IPCC report I think.

Soren wrote on Oct 28^th, 2008 at 10:56am:

I am not sceptical about change. I am sceptical about the claims that it is man-made change. And even if it is man-made change, I am sceptical about the fervently proferred antidotes.

OK, Let's start with that. Do you accept that the increase in atmospheric CO2 of approximately 25% since the 1950's is essentially manmade?


Quote:

The language, the fervour, the rhetoric of 'sin no more' of climate doom  is remarkably religious. It is similar to the 'scientific 'dialectical materialism of marxist talk. Or to the unfliching certianty of the Muslims, who can't take a step without consulting some imam (a climate scientist or computer simulation) but has memorised and can quote suras (data) suitable for all occasions. Or the other fundamentalists.

You've been listening to Al Gore again. See if you can find any such religious fervour on this site:

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Climate/ClimateFrameset.html

This is probably one of the best sites out there that summarises the basics.

freediver wrote on Oct 28^th, 2008 at 11:49am:

It was in the latest IPCC report I think.

You can find the reports here:

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/index.htm

The technical summary from WG1 can be found here:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-ts.pdf

"Very High confidence  - At least 9 out of 10 chance of being correct"

Soren, It would be worth your while at least leafing through the technical summary. When you read in one of the denialist sites broad accusations such as "Water vapour has not been considered", you can check this against the contents and see for yourself whether or not it's true.

freediver wrote on Today at 11:49am:

Quote:

It was in the latest IPCC report I think.

Can't seem to find anything like that on the IPCC website. Please help.

Found only a graph on "synthesis of risk-management approaches to global warming" in the google book version of the fourth report (2007)
that talks about probablilities. To look it up, google
synthesis of risk-management approaches to global warming

Not showing anything about 90 % certainty of climate change being man-made.

You'll find in in various reports. Probably the easiest to find is in the Summary for policymakers, where it says:

In general, uncertainty ranges for results given in this Summary for Policymakers are 90% uncertainty intervals unless stated otherwise, that is, there is an estimated
5% likelihood that the value could be above the range given in square brackets and 5% likelihood that the value could be below that range. Best estimates are
given where available. Assessed uncertainty intervals are not always symmetric about the corresponding best estimate. Note that a number of uncertainty ranges in
the Working Group I TAR corresponded to 2 standard deviations (95%), often using expert judgement.

If you find the Summary for Policy Makers a bit hard to digest, here is quite a good summary of it:

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/02/ipcc_climate_wa.html

People are sceptical because of this sort of thing, written exactly 40 years ago, perdicting unavoidable calamity:

The battle to feed all of humanity is over.  In the 1970's the world will undergo famines--hundreds
   of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon
   now.  At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate, although
   many lives could be saved through dramatic programs to "stretch" the carrying capacity of the earth
   by increasing food production.  But these programs will only provide a stay of execution unless they
   are accompanied by determined and successful efforts at population control.  Population control is
   the conscious regulation of the numbers of human beings to meet the needs, not just of individual
   families, but of society as a whole.

   Nothing could be more misleading to our children than our present affluent society.  They will
   inherit a totally different world, a world in which the standards, politics, and economics of the
   1960's are dead.  As the most powerful nation in the world today, and its largest consumer, the
   United States cannot stand isolated.  We are today involved in the events leading to famine;
   tomorrow we may be destroyed by its consequences.

   Our position requires that we take immediate action at home and promote effective action
   worldwide.  We must have population control at home, hopefully through a system of incentives and
   penalties, but by compulsion if voluntary methods fail.  We must use our political power to push
   other countries into programs which combine agricultural development and population control.  And
   while this is being done we must take action to reverse the deterioration of our environment before
   population pressure permanently ruins our planet.  The birth rate must be brought into balance with
   the death rate or mankind will breed itself into oblivion.  We can no longer afford merely to treat
   the symptoms of the cancer of population growth; the cancer itself must be cut out.  Population
   control is the only answer.
          -Dr. Paul R. Ehrlich, The Population Bomb (1968)


Never happened, yet there was fervour.
The Europeans actually were stupid enough to listen and all of them are now in significant demographic decline, some catastrophically so: Ukraine, Belorus, Italy. Spain.  China's one child policy and its prejudice against girl children, has resulted in a serious imbalance in favour of young chinese men. As Steyn said somewhere, China will be the first gay superpower since Sparta.


I know that the parallels are inexact. The fervour and sense of mission, however, are repeated as if 40 years was beyond remembering.

Sounds like a strawman to me Soren. You disagree with something someone wrote 40 years ago, there AGW is wrong?

Soren, I think what you're saying is "don't try to fix anything major, because if you don't understand it properly and you mess with it, you'll just screw things up"

In the case of climate change, it's a question of reducing fossil fuel derived greenhouse gas emissions, preferably to zero.

In terms of the climate, we're already doing something with goes totally against the natural state of affairs. What we need to do is to stop messing with it, because we're almost certainly going to screw things up in a major way if we don't. Believe it or not, spewing huge volumes of CO2 into the atmosphere is not the natural state of affairs.

However, part of what you say is true. There is one major unwanted effect that will occur when we start to cut back on fossil fuel, and that relates to aerosols.

Aerosols are actually slowing down the heating effect caused by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. If we were to cut all fossil fuel burning now, the global temperature would rise temporarily as the aerosols start to disperse.

muso wrote on Oct 28^th, 2008 at 7:18pm:

Soren, I think what you're saying is "don't try to fix anything major, because if you don't understand it properly and you mess with it, you'll just screw things up" In the case of climate change, it's a question of reducing fossil fuel derived greenhouse gas emissions, preferably to zero. In terms of the climate, we're already doing something with goes totally against the natural state of affairs. What we need to do is to stop messing with it, because we're almost certainly going to screw things up in a major way if we don't. Believe it or not, spewing huge volumes of CO2 into the atmosphere is not the natural state of affairs. However, part of what you say is true. There is one major unwanted effect that will occur when we start to cut back on fossil fuel, and that relates to aerosols. Aerosols are actually slowing down the heating effect caused by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. If we were to cut all fossil fuel burning now, the global temperature would rise temporarily as the aerosols start to disperse.

Actually, what I am trying to sayis more along the lines of:

Looking after the environment is essential. Knowing how it it best done is hard because the matter is complex beyond our ken.
Gloom and doom and reigious-sounding rhetoric invariably cause scepticism and hostility because we are dealing with matters of  probabilities and predictionss of various reliability.

People shouldd not be badgered. It must be made worthwwhile for them to do their bit, ethicall, economically, generationally and so forth. Gloom and doom has never worked when sheer economic survival is placed on the other side of the balance. People can't feed their children with predictions.

There is an odd mix of religious zeal and Stalinist intolerance in much of the environmentalist advocacy. There has never been a prediction about the future on this sort of scale and longitude that has actually been fulfilled. This is what my Ehrlich reference points to.
Will this be he first prediction that turns out correct? This too has been said many times before.

Ausralia, for example, could do worse than attract all the smart of the world by offering complete tax free status on any R&D on climate, energy and environmental isssues. And I mean complete tax exeemption - no payroll tax, no income tax at company or personal level, etc. People can understand and relate to that.

Garnaud and the like is a statist dead end.

People shouldd not be badgered. It must be made worthwwhile for them to do their bit, ethicall, economically, generationally and so forth. Gloom and doom has never worked when sheer economic survival is placed on the other side of the balance. People can't feed their children with predictions.

That's a totally inappropriate generalisation. Gloom and doom only fail when it is false. If it is 'true', people should be badgered. Take asbestos for example. Was it wrong for activists to badger companies and put their profits at risk merely because they were killing people? Or CFC's - was it wrong to coerce the global economy into ceasing their use so that the Ozone hole stopped growing? If there is a major problem, it should be shoved in people's faces so that action can be taken. It's a bit like war. It's silly to keep ranting that the Russians are coming to get us when you have no evidence. But when the Russian really are coming to get us we should act. And we shouldn;t wait until we are 100% certain. Or even 90% certain.

There is an odd mix of religious zeal and Stalinist intolerance in much of the environmentalist advocacy.

But not in the science or the economics. This is a strawman argument. The environmental activists are not the drivers of this issue.

There has never been a prediction about the future on this sort of scale and longitude that has actually been fulfilled.

So what? Actually, CFCs come pretty close. Asbestos was a major issue too.

This is what my Ehrlich reference points to.

That was a strawman. Nothing more.

Garnaud and the like is a statist dead end.

Garnaut has a far better grasp of the economics than you do.

If the Russiaans are comning - that is right. That is a good one.  All that's is needed is to make the ordinary guy see that the Russians are actually coming this time. The last time someone shouted that (or 'wolf') they did not come.

Garnaud is an economist. I am not. But it is nlot enough to be an economist. Russia and China had economists in the mids of famines. Bangladesh has economists, Chad, Uppeer Volta, Zimbabwe all have 'em.   Alan Greenspan is one. Credentialism is not enough. Kevinista ukase is not enough.

Asbestos, smoking, CFC - these are all issues with ONE single variable. They do not need modelling, they need experiments, which were dduely cconducted and were shown as concclusive.
Climate is too complex to speak as if it was a single-variable issue. Treating it as the same is not convincing anyone.

It cannot be a shake-down racket, a wealth transsfer from the rich to the poor either. It cannot be made into a royal road for lazy, oppressive, slum regimes - which is the kind of argument that says Australiahaas to do something before China does.
What will it take to convince the Chinses that climate change is real and that it is in their insterest to do something about it?


I think the money should go into finding affordable alternatives. until then, it's all (ahem) hot air.

Soren wrote on Oct 28^th, 2008 at 8:14pm:

Actually, what I am trying to sayis more along the lines of: Looking after the environment is essential. Knowing how it it best done is hard because the matter is complex beyond our ken. Gloom and doom and reigious-sounding rhetoric invariably cause scepticism and hostility because we are dealing with matters of  probabilities and predictionss of various reliability. People shouldd not be badgered. It must be made worthwwhile for them to do their bit, ethicall, economically, generationally and so forth. Gloom and doom has never worked when sheer economic survival is placed on the other side of the balance. People can't feed their children with predictions. There is an odd mix of religious zeal and Stalinist intolerance in much of the environmentalist advocacy. There has never been a prediction about the future on this sort of scale and longitude that has actually been fulfilled. This is what my Ehrlich reference points to. Will this be he first prediction that turns out correct? This too has been said many times before. Ausralia, for example, could do worse than attract all the smart of the world by offering complete tax free status on any R&D on climate, energy and environmental isssues. And I mean complete tax exeemption - no payroll tax, no income tax at company or personal level, etc. People can understand and relate to that.

I agree with part of what you're saying, especially that the carrot approach is better than the stick. Basically the way ahead is crystal clear - we need to substitute polluting industry, energy generation etc with sustainable options.

As far as economic consequences are concerned, they are pretty grim. Apart from the Climate change scenario, we have superimposed on that, the fact that we're going to run out of fossil fuels in the not too distant future, or initially demand will outstrip supply.

It's abundantly clear that what we need to do on both accounts is to replace fossil fuels with sustainable alternatives. You don't need to be a brain surgeon or a climatologist to see that.  

I also understand what you're saying about the evangelistic side of environmentalism. Maybe that does something for those of a religious leaning, but it leaves me stone cold.  As I said before, I don't really care if the general public take it on faith that we need to act, as long as governments are heading in the right direction. It's probably an impossible dream to think that everybody will suddenly understand the science. The danger is that dumb people vote, and there are a lot of them out there. Maybe we have to put up with the crusaders.

Of course in the end, it's not the belief that's really important, it's the action.

Another problem is that we have a new breed of Scientists. A few of them found it was very lucrative to criticise the science of Ozone depletion, and succeeded in buying the likes of Dupont an extra two years of production before they had to shut down Freon and CFC production. (I wonder how many billions of dollars that equated to.) They did this by deliberately obfuscating - muddying the waters with opaque technical details.  About the same time, some of them went to work for the tobacco industry, in many cases the same individuals. Nowadays these unscrupulous individuals and their protégés have a new cause - that of slowing down action on renewable energy production. Ask yourself why they would do that.

Asbestos, smoking, CFC - these are all issues with ONE single variable.

Crap. The CFC debate is alomst identical to the AGW one in terms of the scientific, economic and social complexity, just a bigger problem and a more expensive solution. It had an almost identical sounding bunch of deniers demanding proof, saying it will destroy the economy, trying to confuse people on the science etc.

You really should look into the science Soren, rather than just insisting it is lacking from a position of ignorance.

freediver wrote on Oct 29^th, 2008 at 6:14pm:

Asbestos, smoking, CFC - these are all issues with ONE single variable. Crap. The CFC debate is alomst identical to the AGW one in terms of the scientific, economic and social complexity, just a bigger problem and a more expensive solution. It had an almost identical sounding bunch of deniers demanding proof, saying it will destroy the economy, trying to confuse people on the science etc. You really should look into the science Soren, rather than just insisting it is lacking from a position of ignorance.

If anything, the link between CFC's and ozone depletion was much more tenuous. With CO2 and other greenhouse gases, the physics was pretty well wrapped up by the turn of the 19th century. Arrhenius was right on the money.

It's scary to me how such basic things as this can be made to sound so much more complicated that they actually are.

It's like - "Don't throw that banana skin down there, somebody might slip on it."

- Ah! but recent research shows that there is a natural anti-slip chemical in the mitochondria of banana cells. How can you prove that it will be less slippery without the banana skin?

- apart from that, banana skins are beneficial to the environment - they provide mulch.

- we don't want all these bureacrats telling us what to do with our banana skins. What do they want to do - have us bankrupt? It's no skin off my banana if we have to move offshore to Indonesia.

- we're currently working on an anti-slip matting fabricated from banana skins. We have our best marine biologists working on it right now. What I'm doing right now is in the nature of a pilot study.

- maybe we could have an annual quota of 10,000 banana skins, and we could strive towards improvement by only dropping 9,999 next year.

Study confirms human impact on climate
October 31, 2008 - 8:24AM


A new study confirms the human impact on climate change in the Arctic and Antarctic regions for the first time, scientists say.

The study, from the Canadian Centre for Climate Analysis and published in the journal Nature Geoscience, looked at the most up-to-date temperature data from across both regions at the north and south poles and compared them with temperatures simulated by four computer models.

"We found that we could only explain the warming that's been observed if we included human-climate influences, particularly greenhouse gases," the study's author, Nathan Gillett, told ABC Radio.

"And we couldn't explain those changes were just natural influences on climate like volcanoes and changes in the brightness of the sun."

The scientists used simulations that already existed and combined results of four separate models which helped to reduce the uncertainty, he said.

"The method that we used to compare those models with observations is something that previously hasn't been applied to polar temperatures."

Dr Gillett said the last assessment of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) found human influence could be detected on all continents except Antarctica.

"In the Arctic, we have the Greenland ice sheet, in the Antarctic, the Antarctic ice sheet.

"If those all melted, that would contribute 70 metres to sea level.

"Now that's not going to happen in the next century or even several centuries but if even some of that ice starts to melt then that could make a large contribution to sea level rise."

wrote on Oct 31^st, 2008 at 11:54am:

"And we couldn't explain those changes were just natural influences on climate like volcanoes and changes in the brightness of the sun."

Of course no climate scientist ever seriously suggested that the changes were caused by anything else other than anthropogenic effects. That line is for the press because there is so much disinformation out there in the public domain that needs to be corrected.

muso wrote on Oct 31^st, 2008 at 2:03pm:

wrote on Oct 31st, 2008 at 11:54am: "And we couldn't explain those changes were just natural influences on climate like volcanoes and changes in the brightness of the sun." Of course no climate scientist ever seriously suggested that the changes were caused by anything else other than anthropogenic effects. That line is for the press because there is so much disinformation out there in the public domain that needs to be corrected.

Really?



Is There a Sound Case for Carbon Emissions Reduction?

Australians are now being bombarded by an intense government-funded propaganda campaign to encourage people to accept the reality of dangerous human-caused climate change and support early action for “carbon pollution” reduction. The scaremongering about dangerous climate change is based on the erroneous computer model projections and the unsubstantiated extrapolations of a range of climate impacts that are only realistic if no adaptive or mitigating measures are taken.

In the absence of computer models there would be little credence given to the view that the relatively small warming of the second half of the twentieth century was due to carbon dioxide emissions; there would certainly be no credence given to the possibility of irreversible runaway global warming over the coming century. Cool heads would note that most of the earth’s surface is either ocean or freely transpiring vegetation and that surface evaporation will continue to constrain surface temperature rise, as it always has done.
The likely magnitude of human-caused global warming is so low that it will not be discernible against the background of natural variability in the climate record. Thus national or internationally co-ordinated efforts to impose carbon dioxide emission reduction for the purpose of preventing climate change will be a tremendous waste of resources. The real danger is that government-instigated measures to drastically downsize a wide range of fossil-fuel-dependent industries in order to achieve emission reduction targets will actually be effective. Such success will destroy jobs and will limit future development opportunities, with no discernible impact on climate. Then the government will realise that it is much easier to change the economy than to change the climate, and it will also find that the direction and impacts of change will be equally unpredictable.

:-*William Kininmonth is the former head of Australia’s National Climate Centre. He was an Australian representative and consultant to the World Meteorological Organization on climate issues and is the author of Climate Change: A Natural Hazard (Multi-science Publishing Co., 2004). He will be among the speakers at the Australian Environment Foundation’s annual conference, “A Climate for Change”, in Canberra this month.

You should at least include a link when you cut and paste.

Google can be useful sometimes:

The Australian Environment Foundation is a front group founded by the Institute of Public Affairs** (IPA), a conservative Melbourne-based think tank.

The director of the environment unit of the IPA, Jennifer Marohasy was the founding Chairwoman and is listed as a Director in the organisation's documents with the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC). Mahorasy is also the listed registrant of the group's website, although the address and phone number for the website registration are identical to the address and phone number for the Victorian office of the logging industry front group, Timber Communities Australia. [1] [2]

In July 2005, the month after AEF's official launch, it was announced that former television celebrity Don Burke had been appointed chairman.


William Kininmonth is a known Australian climate change skeptic. His only listed qualification is "Director of the Australasian Climate Research Institute" [1], but the Institute is listed as simply a trading name for "Kininmonth, William Robert", and is based at his private residence in Kew, Australia. [2]. It has no website, phone number or existence separate from Kininmonth, and has never actually had any involvement with climate research.

** The Institute of Public Affairs has close links to the Liberal Party, with it's Executive Director John Roskam having run for Liberal preselection for a number of elections. Its key policy positions include advocacy for privatisation, deregulation, reduction in the power of unions and denial of most significant environmental problems, including climate change.

muso wrote on Nov 4^th, 2008 at 4:14pm:

Google can be useful sometimes: William Kininmonth is a known Australian climate change skeptic. His only listed qualification is "Director of the Australasian Climate Research Institute" [1], but the Institute is listed as simply a trading name for "Kininmonth, William Robert", and is based at his private residence in Kew, Australia. [2]. It has no website, phone number or existence separate from Kininmonth, and has never actually had any involvement with climate research.

Thats rather misleading Muso:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Kininmonth_%28meteorologist%29

William Kininmonth (meteorologist)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

William Kininmonth is an Australian climate scientist noted for his views as an opponent of global warming theory and frequently writes on the topic of climate change. He believes that the warming trend of the recent century is not unusual, and he is critical of the simple model of climate systems represented by the IPCC. While Kininmonth believes that anthropogenic sources may make a small contribution to global warming, he believes the natural variability far exceeds that contribution, and this poses serious hazards for human kind.

Kininmonth suggests that it would be unwise to commit scarce resources to reduce carbon dioxide emissions when there is insufficient evidence to support the proposition that global warming is caused primarily by the burning of fossil fuels. Like other global warming skeptics, such as Bjørn Lomborg, he believes that the diversion of resources from infrastructure projects, particularly in developing countries, would be counterproductive.

Kininmonth headed Australia's National Climate Centre from 1986 to 1998, with responsibilities for monitoring Australia's changing climate and advising the Australian government on the extent and severity of climate extremes. He was Australia's delegate to the WMO Commission for Climatology, was a member of Australia's delegations to the Second World Climate Conference (1990) and the subsequent intergovernmental negotiations for the Framework Convention on Climate Change (1991-1992).

Kininmouth is a science adviser to the Science and Public Policy Institute, formerly the Center for Science and Public Policy.

pjb05 wrote on Nov 4^th, 2008 at 5:56pm:

muso wrote on Nov 4th, 2008 at 4:14pm: Google can be useful sometimes: William Kininmonth is a known Australian climate change skeptic. His only listed qualification is "Director of the Australasian Climate Research Institute" [1], but the Institute is listed as simply a trading name for "Kininmonth, William Robert", and is based at his private residence in Kew, Australia. [2]. It has no website, phone number or existence separate from Kininmonth, and has never actually had any involvement with climate research. Thats rather misleading Muso: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Kininmonth_%28meteorologist%29 William Kininmonth (meteorologist) From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia William Kininmonth is an Australian climate scientist noted for his views as an opponent of global warming theory and frequently writes on the topic of climate change. He believes that the warming trend of the recent century is not unusual, and he is critical of the simple model of climate systems represented by the IPCC. While Kininmonth believes that anthropogenic sources may make a small contribution to global warming, he believes the natural variability far exceeds that contribution, and this poses serious hazards for human kind. Kininmonth suggests that it would be unwise to commit scarce resources to reduce carbon dioxide emissions when there is insufficient evidence to support the proposition that global warming is caused primarily by the burning of fossil fuels. Like other global warming skeptics, such as Bjørn Lomborg, he believes that the diversion of resources from infrastructure projects, particularly in developing countries, would be counterproductive. Kininmonth headed Australia's National Climate Centre from 1986 to 1998, with responsibilities for monitoring Australia's changing climate and advising the Australian government on the extent and severity of climate extremes. He was Australia's delegate to the WMO Commission for Climatology, was a member of Australia's delegations to the Second World Climate Conference (1990) and the subsequent intergovernmental negotiations for the Framework Convention on Climate Change (1991-1992). Kininmouth is a science adviser to the Science and Public Policy Institute, formerly the Center for Science and Public Policy.

Oh dear. Well, who to believe? Sourcewatch, from which Muso cut and pasted;
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=William_Kininmonth

or Wiki. Or the Uni of melbourne's Australian Science and Technology Heritage Centre.

http://www.austehc.unimelb.edu.au/fam/1442.html
Interestingly, this link is from Source watch but their summation studiously avoids the facts in their own links. Very credible.

Sourcewatch knows about yet omits Kinninmonth's activities beetween 1986 and 1998. Credible? Not to me.

Quote:

While William Kininmonth is respected by his former colleagues at the Bureau of Meteorology and they agree about the climate's natural variability, they disagree that recent warming is natural. In a review to be published in March in the Australian Meteorological Magazine, University of Melbourne associate professor of meteorology Kevin Walsh will argue that Kininmonth has failed to present the case for natural warming. "Some of his detailed arguments are a little bit curious," Dr Walsh told The Age. "Some of his statements actually contradict well-accepted work." But strangely enough, the Lavoisier Group heard that message on Monday night. In what seemed like a coup, Hugh Morgan had secured the respected John Zillman, former head of the Bureau of Meteorology, to launch the book. Dr Zillman agreed, but made it clear that there were significant parts of the book that he disagreed with. Dr Zillman, who is known to be quite conservative about climate science, said he was concerned about appearing at a Lavoisier Group book launch, but did so in the interests of debate. He says he is not aware of any sceptic argument that has invalidated the mainstream science, and is now convinced - although would not have been 10 years ago - that it is mostly humans changing the world's climate. "I won't be expecting to be invited back as a regular," he said.

Does this man Kininmonth have the confidence to publish his studies for peer review?

I find it paradoxical that the denialist camp would site galileo's example of one man fighting the common belief of the flat earth, yet their behaviour is like that of the diehards who refused to accept that the earth was not flat, even after nearly all the other scientists had examined galileo's work and agreed with him.

I do not pretend to understand the science, but I do believe that those that do, agree on all the important principles and findings which attest to global warming.

Now, the odd voice, with the emphasis decidedly on the word 'odd', that choose to swim against the tide, for whatever reason, have the right, if they have the ability and the data to back themselves,  to publish studies for peer review, by the scientific community, which always maintains a healthy skepticism.
Now if they choose not to do that, but instead seek funding from industries whose focus is on maintaining the staus quo, to spread disinformation through media events, then they deserve to be ridiculed as the charlatans that they appear to be.

It seems that only internet nutters try to compare themselves with people like Galileo to grasp some kind of credibility. What made Galileo special was that he was right, not the everyone thought he was wrong. For every Galilieo there are a million fools who just don't get it.

BTW, the ancient greeks knew that the earth was round.

mozzaok wrote on Nov 5^th, 2008 at 4:53am:

Does this man Kininmonth have the confidence to publish his studies for peer review?

He obviously has the confidence to parade his "studies" in the national press. He should actually have a press conference and introduce his Research Director, chief administrator and a few of the Research staff from the Australasian Climate Research Institute, which rumours have it will soon be named the Southern Hemisphere Climate Research Institute, or perhaps the Galactic Climate Research Institute. Maybe in the same parade, they could have some guest researchers from the US based Science and Public Policy Institute, since he is an advisor.

Another good idea is that they could all wear clothes made from their many volumes of research papers and parade down Flinders Street. What's the Victorian Government's take on imaginary clothing?


At which University did he actually qualify as a climatologist, anyway? - and who are the Universities registered to?  ;D

People keep offering me degrees via email. I was thinking of graduating with a dozen or so degrees and appointing myself grand mufti of the Intergalactic Institute for Immensly Intelligent Individuals. That way I could also get a letter to the editor printed in the Australian.

Slight correction - Kininmonth did actually participate in one or two joint research papers. One of them was titled "A water balance model for rain grown lowland rice in Northern Australia". Agric. Meteorol., and it was published in 1972.

I once tried to show this youtube clip to Grendel (AKA - Once was Geek warrior, "Beowulf") to prove a logical stance to take regarding climate change.
At that time he refused to look at it because he said that he couldn't look at youtube clips.
Well even though Grendel is supposed to be an enemy of Beowulf, they are the same beast, and Grendel doesn't seem to have the same youtube issues.

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ

So maybe you'd like to comment on it Grendel?
Probably not, because you know it's been my argument all along.


The only reason to not take any action would be that the climate change theory is so bizarre and outrageous that it could not possibly be true - say, 1 in a million chance.
Unfortunately, atm, we can't even hope beyond our wildest imagination that the GW hoax theorists have even a 99% chance of being correct.
So isn't the argument moot?


http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=mF_anaVcCXg

I've spilt the posts on renewable energy to a new topic.

Off-Topic replies have been moved to this Topic.

Computer modelling, eh?

..........
The world has never seen such freezing heat
By Christopher Booker
16/11/2008

A surreal scientific blunder last week raised a huge question mark about the temperature records that underpin the worldwide alarm over global warming. On Monday, Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which is run by Al Gore's chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, and is one of four bodies responsible for monitoring global temperatures, announced that last month was the hottest October on record.

This was startling. Across the world there were reports of unseasonal snow and plummeting temperatures last month, from the American Great Plains to China, and from the Alps to New Zealand. China's official news agency reported that Tibet had suffered its "worst snowstorm ever". In the US, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years.

So what explained the anomaly?


Find out at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/11/16/do1610.xml

Soren wrote on Nov 18^th, 2008 at 11:17am:

Computer modelling, eh? .......... The world has never seen such freezing heat By Christopher Booker 16/11/2008 A surreal scientific blunder last week raised a huge question mark about the temperature records that underpin the worldwide alarm over global warming. On Monday, Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which is run by Al Gore's chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, and is one of four bodies responsible for monitoring global temperatures, announced that last month was the hottest October on record. This was startling. Across the world there were reports of unseasonal snow and plummeting temperatures last month, from the American Great Plains to China, and from the Alps to New Zealand. China's official news agency reported that Tibet had suffered its "worst snowstorm ever". In the US, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years. So what explained the anomaly? Find out at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/11/16/do1610.xml

A whole month's 'potential' anomaly eh? That must be of world shattering importance for Olympic Class straw-clutching champions such as Stephen McIntyre, who obviously has nothing better to do than agonise over one month's data.

Don't you think it's actually quite likely to have a short term cooling trend in any data set that shows an overall warming trend? I wonder what the statistical probability of every month showing seasonally corrected increases? Pretty slim I imagine.

Anyway, lets allow the data assimilation process to settle down before we declare any assertions to be bogus. It's just preliminary data that they are jumping up and down about after all.

Good one. Are you consulting Lestat?

If it's preliminary data, why did GISS announce that October was the hottest month? Why not "allow the data assimilation process to settle down before we declare any assertions".

What methodology of data collection was used? Was it the same in both cases or different?

Soren wrote on Nov 18^th, 2008 at 9:48pm:

Good one. Are you consulting Lestat? If it's preliminary data, why did GISS announce that October was the hottest month? Why not "allow the data assimilation process to settle down before we declare any assertions".

Er - GISS didn't announce anything. GISS only puts out press releases on the temperature analysis at the end of the year. That's why it's preliminary. The data is available real time. The process is completely transparent. Scientists are human. They make errors sometimes. That's why the data is strenuously checked before being reported in final form.

That part of the media report was a furfie - a lie, a total fabrication  ;D ;D

But hey, why let a good lie get in the way of a good story?

In this case, someone's programming error will be fixed and nothing will change except for the reporting of one single month's anomaly. No heads will roll, no investigations will be launched, no politicians will ask questions in parliament. This will undoubtedly be disappointing to many, but they should comfort themselves with the thought that the chances of this error happening again has now been diminished. Which is good, right?

It's very ho hum I'm afraid.

I think scraping the bottom of the barrel is a better description than ho-hum. It captures the desperation a bit better.

The Polar Ice Caps melted about 125,000 years ago too.

Must have been all those Flintstone mobiles the cavemen were driving.

Oh, and the sun's heliosphere has degraded by 20% in the last 50 years. That must be caused by global warming too. Amazing how much affect the burning of fossil fuels on earth has on an enormous sun 146 million kilometres away.

Well the denialists have done such a great job with their scientific research, they are now ready to bust the longest ongoing hoax that the poindexters have inflicted on mankind, join them now, before everyone else does, and it won't seem so revolutionary a way to "stick it to the man".

http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm

GISS Surface Temperature Analysis

Global Temperature Trends: 2008 Meteorological Year Summation

The meteorological year, December 2007 through November 2008, was the coolest year since 2000, according to the Goddard Institute for Space Studies analysis of surface air temperature measurements. It was the ninth warmest year in the period of instrumental measurements, which extends back to 1880. The nine warmest years all occur within the eleven-year period 1998-2008.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/

Oh no, the Greenhouse effect has gotten so bad it has turned into the Global Cooling Phenomenon. Yes, that is part of Global Warming, near the end stage, where it goes into Global Cooling first before it gets really really warm and everyone melts.

Or actually, this decline in temperature demonstrates the very real gains Kyoto has made by getting 5% of the worlds population to adhere to it while China, India and everywhere else ignore it.

Did you actually read the bit you quoted Calanen? The denialists seem to think that only a monotonic increase would support AGW theory. Do you think we should change our mind about global warming every year in response to annual variations in temperature - aka frost this morning, therefor no global warming?

freediver wrote on Jan 1^st, 2009 at 12:08pm:

Did you actually read the bit you quoted Calanen? The denialists seem to think that only a monotonic increase would support AGW theory. Do you think we should change our mind about global warming every year in response to annual variations in temperature - aka frost this morning, therefor no global warming?

Hey, I'm warming myself over a fire of recyclable PET bottles and aerosol cans as we speak in anticipation of the big chill.

Also, the heliosphere has degraded by 20 % - did cars on earth do that too?

Quote:

Or actually, this decline in temperature demonstrates the very real gains Kyoto has made by getting 5% of the worlds population to adhere to it while China, India and everywhere else ignore it.

Maybe, but has pollution decreased or increased? If it has increased, then the 5% joining up havn't reduced global emissions, have they?

Yep. We are all doomed. Let's jump in to a hole and hide there. If you are so worried, why did you research all those facts which takes more emissions to research in the first place?

The Earth is warming up, I admit that. I do not believe it is completely due to human intervention. I believe it is a natural cycle.

Sure the world would be a better place if we reduce carbon emissions, I'm all for it. But stop panicking, please! The Earth goes crazy all the time. Didn't we just come out of a cold snap in the 1800s? And the mini Ice Age in the 1600s?

Think of how much the world has changed in a few 100 years. Of course it will change dramaticly over the next hundred! And the hundred after that! And after that!

Again, I don't deny that we might have some small part in global warming. But take a chill pill. The world wont end.

Unfortunately we see people like Ant, (BTW, welcome to OzPolitics Ant, I hope to see more opinions from you here) who react to the ridiculously overblown alarmist statements, that we see expressed in the media all too often, then taking a position which promotes the opposite end of the reality scale, ie; it is not going to be that big a deal, and even if it is, what can we do about it, so just keep on keeping on.

While I agree to some extent, that we must retain a positive outlook, I also think that diluting the importance of the issue, is more a case of sticking your head in the sand, than actually trying to maintain a fair, and balanced, opinion.

As most people now agree, it is a case of risk management, and harm minimisation, upon which we need to focus, and if we keep an open mind to all the, 'respect worthy', scientific opinions, then we will be best equipped to take the right decisions, as and when we need to.

I don't think Ant is taking the opposite extreme.

While I think that it is almost certainly the biggest crisis to hit humanity ever, I think we should beware of knee-jerk reactions.

We've seen the effects of inappropriate choices of biofuels. Some things may appear to be green, but they are actually quite harmful practices.

I agree that we need to take a global approach using the best data possible. We don't have too much time to learn from our mistakes, so each decision needs to be balanced and considered. We need to get it right first time, but at the same time, we don't have time to wait for all the data.

The current economic downturn has its positive and negative aspects. From the positive side, we are no longer using fossil fuels at quite the same elevated rates. From the negative sides, as fossil fuel prices are depressed, sustainable alternatives become relatively more costly economically, and if the economy gets hit really badly, GHG emissions will have a lower priority.

At the same time, there is a real danger that we'll concentrate too much on a single issue and miss some other higher risks, such as soil degradation, loss of biodiversity, world scale epidemics and the increasing salinity of coastal aquifers.

The increasing emphasis on GHG mitigation and abatement is a bit like a bright headlight on a highway at night. If we stare into it too much like frightened rabbits, sooner or later something else will catch us out (like a predator in the analogy). We need to be totally aware of all risks that could catch us out unexpectedly.

Quote:

While I think that it is almost certainly the biggest crisis to hit humanity ever, I think we should beware of knee-jerk reactions

Baloney. The ice caps melted 125,000 years ago. You werent here, none of us were - did the whole earth cease to exist? Were cars to blame?

Are cars to blame for the Heliosphere's degradation?

It can only make sense to conserve resources. But all of this the sky is falling bs, is just that bs.

As usual, we see the denialists struggling with concepts of time.

It is not that we have not had the earth's climate change before, it is just that we have never seen it change like it is now.

The "RATE" of change, is unprecedented, by a huge factor, so that fact just does not mesh with your argument that it is all just another natural cycle.

Say after me, "rate of change, rate of change, rate of change"

Got that?

Now go back to your denialist blogosphere and find a corresponding rate of change which has occurred through natural cycles, and get back to us when you find it.

Calanen wrote on Jan 6^th, 2009 at 4:39pm:

Quote: While I think that it is almost certainly the biggest crisis to hit humanity ever, I think we should beware of knee-jerk reactions Baloney. The ice caps melted 125,000 years ago. You werent here, none of us were - did the whole earth cease to exist? Were cars to blame?

No.  That was part of a natural (orbital) cycle. What is happening today is clearly not. The rate of change of temperature is around 10,000 times greater for one thing. You're grossly simplifying what is a complex issue.


Quote:

Are cars to blame for the Heliosphere's degradation? It can only make sense to conserve resources. But all of this the sky is falling bs, is just that bs.

Cars ? - well, fossil fuel burning in general can account for most if not all of the current warming trend. Cars make up a small proportion of the total. What you're calling BS is mainstream nowadays.

The heliosphere's degradation? What rot have you been reading?

NASA rot....

Sun's protective 'bubble' is shrinking

The protective bubble around the sun that helps to shield the Earth from harmful interstellar radiation is shrinking and getting weaker, Nasa scientists have warned.

By Richard Gray, Science Correspondent
Last Updated: 9:23AM BST 19 Oct 2008

Data has shown that the sun's heliosphere is shrinking Photo: AP
New data has revealed that the heliosphere, the protective shield of energy that surrounds our solar system, has weakened by 25 per cent over the past decade and is now at it lowest level since the space race began 50 years ago.

Scientists are baffled at what could be causing the barrier to shrink in this way and are to launch mission to study the heliosphere.

The Interstellar Boundary Explorer, or IBEX, will be launched from an aircraft on Sunday on a Pegasus rocket into an orbit 150,000 miles above the Earth where it will "listen" for the shock wave that forms as our solar system meets the interstellar radiation.

Dr Nathan Schwadron, co-investigator on the IBEX mission at Boston University, said: "The interstellar medium, which is part of the galaxy as a whole, is actually quite a harsh environment. There is a very high energy galactic radiation that is dangerous to living things.

"Around 90 per cent of the galactic cosmic radiation is deflected by our heliosphere, so the boundary protects us from this harsh galactic environment."

The heliosphere is created by the solar wind, a combination of electrically charged particles and magnetic fields that emanate a more than a million miles an hour from the sun, meet the intergalactic gas that fills the gaps in space between solar systems.

At the boundary where they meet a shock wave is formed that deflects interstellar radiation around the solar system as it travels through the galaxy.

The scientists hope the IBEX mission will allow them to gain a better understanding of what happens at this boundary and help them predict what protection it will offer in the future.

Without the heliosphere the harmful intergalactic cosmic radiation would make life on Earth almost impossible by destroying DNA and making the climate uninhabitable.

Measurements made by the Ulysses deep space probe, which was launched in 1990 to orbit the sun, have shown that the pressure created inside the heliosphere by the solar wind has been decreasing.

Dr David McComas, principal investigator on the IBEX mission, said: "It is a fascinating interaction that our sun has with the galaxy surrounding us. This million mile an hour wind inflates this protective bubble that keeps us safe from intergalactic cosmic rays.

"With less pressure on the inside, the interaction at the boundaries becomes weaker and the heliosphere as a whole gets smaller."

If the heliosphere continues to weaken, scientists fear that the amount of cosmic radiation reaching the inner parts of our solar system, including Earth, will increase.

This could result in growing levels of disruption to electrical equipment, damage satellites and potentially even harm life on Earth.

But Dr McComas added that it was still unclear exactly what would happen if the heliosphere continued to weaken or what even what the timescale for changes in the heliosphere are.

He said: “There is no imminent danger, but it is hard to know what the future holds. Certainly if the solar wind pressure was to continue to go down and the heliosphere were to almost evaporate then we would be in this sea of galactic cosmic rays. That could have some large effects.

“It is likely that there are natural variations in solar wind pressure and over time it will either stabilise or start going back up.”


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/3222476/Suns-protective-bubble-is-shrinking.html

I know about the study, but what conceivable connection is there between the weakening of the solar wind (ionised particles) and Global Warming?  There is none.

The important parameter is Solar irradiance, specifically measured in the infrared, because that's where the heat transfer effects take place.