Emissions not making rivers run dry
Stewart Franks | September 12, 2008
Article from:  The Australian

IS the ongoing drought in the Murray-Darling Basin affected by climate change? The simple answer is that there is no evidence that CO2 has had any significant role. Like it or not, that is the science.

In fact, the drought was caused by an entirely natural phenomenon: the 2002 El Nino event. This led to particularly low rainfalls across eastern Australia. The subsequent years were either neutral or weak El Nino conditions. Significantly, neutral conditions are not sufficient to break a drought. In 2006, we had a return to El Nino conditions which further exacerbated the drought. What we didn't have was a strong La Nina.

Last year finally brought a La Nina event but it was relatively weak. It produced a number of major storm events in coastal areas and some useful rainfall in the Murray-Darling basin and elsewhere. Approximately half of NSW drought-declared areas were lifted out of drought (albeit into "marginal" status) and Sydney's water supply doubled in the space of a few months.

This was the first rain-bearing La Nina since 1999 but proved insufficient to break the drought. In short, the drought was initiated by El Nino, protracted by further El Nino events and perhaps more importantly, the absence of substantial La Nina events.

Despite the known causes of the drought, many have claimed that CO2 emissions are to blame. There have been arguments put forward to justify this claim, all eagerly adopted by various groups, but none of which have serious merit.

A key claim is that the multiple occurrence of El Nino is a sign of climate change. This is speculative at best. Recent analysis showed the nine-year absence of La Nina was not unusual. In fact long-term records demonstrate alternating periods of 20-40 years where El Nino is dominant, followed by similarly extended periods where La Nina dominates. Ominously, the data demonstrates that it is possible to go 14-15 years without any La Nina events. The consequent drought would be devastating but entirely natural.

The observation that El Nino and La Nina events cluster on 20-40 year, multi-decadal timescales is an important one. It demonstrates that Australia should always expect major changes in climate as a function of natural variability. When viewed in this light, the drought is most likely a recurring feature of the Australian climate.

A more recent claim is that higher temperatures are leading to increased evaporation of moisture. The weather bureau acknowledges that rainfall from September 2001 until now has not been the lowest recorded, however much has been made of the fact that consequent inflows have been the lowest. It has been claimed increased evaporation, driven by climate change, can make up this discrepancy. Indeed, Wendy Craik, the chief executive of the Murray Darling Basin Commission has stated that temperatures were warmer, leading to more evaporation and drier catchments.

This is disturbing to hear from the head of the MDBC, as it is completely at odds with the known physics of evaporation. While it sounds intuitively correct, it is wrong.

When soil contains high moisture content, much of the sun's energy is used in evaporation. Consequently, there is limited heating of the surface. When soil moisture content is low (as occurs during drought) nearly all of that energy is converted into heating the surface, and air temperatures rise significantly. Consequently, higher temperatures are due to the lack of evaporation, not a cause of significantly higher evaporation.

Cloud cover also provides a major control on air temperatures. El Nino delivers less rainfall but also less cloud cover. This has a major impact on the amount of the sun's energy reaching land; far greater than the trivial increase in radiant energy caused by increased CO2. Again, in the absence of soil moisture, air temperatures increase.

These are known and accepted processes of environmental physics and are not contentious. They are ignored because they detract from the simple message that we should sign up to the concept of "dangerous climate change" and an emissions trading scheme. After all, who would pay for carbon emissions if they were not proven to be detrimental? Who would provide extra funds for climate change science if it wasn't a proven significant factor compared to natural climatic variability?

None of the above is to say that CO2 is not having some effect; the atmospheric CO2 concentration has risen and this is largely attributable to anthropogenic emissions. CO2 is a radiatively-active gas and leads to a minor increase in downward radiation. However, there is no evidence that this is in any way significant, especially when compared to the naturally varying processes that dominate rainfall variability and evaporation.

We do know why inflows are so low and why various ecosystems of the Murray-Darling are in crisis: the system is over-allocated and has experienced a growth in groundwater extraction and in the number of farm dams preventing rainfall from becoming run-off. This is due to a failure of planning, management and leadership from the relevant authorities. Under these conditions, when a prolonged drought strikes, the system collapses.

This is a man-made problem but not one that is attributable to CO2.

pt1

pt 2

Craik is not alone in her desire to view CO2-induced climate change as proven and affecting the drought. Numerous politicians, environmentalists and especially scientists have made spectacular leaps of faith in their adherence to the doctrine of climate change over recent years, too many to document here. However, the most literally fantastic claim on climate change must go to Kevin Rudd, who has guaranteed that rainfall will decline over coming decades; one can only assume he's based his view on deficient climate models and bad advice.

Perhaps our leading climate authorities who have played such a prominent role in fomenting speculation about climate change, and who apparently adhere to the notion that climate is amenable to prediction, should also point out that these models cannot reproduce the observed multi-decadal variability of El Nino and La Nina in anything like a realistic manner.

Given the uncertainty of El Nino and La Nina behaviour, one clearly cannot predict the future.

There is no direct evidence of CO2 impacts on the drought, nor is there any rational basis for predicting rainfall in 30 years time. One just hopes that sensible and sustainable management from our leaders will enable struggling rural communities to weather the vagaries of climatic and political extremes.

Stewart Franks is a hydroclimatologist and an associate professor at the University of Newcastle School of Engineering. He is president-elect of the International Commission on the Coupled Land - Atmosphere System.

Grendel wrote on Nov 21^st, 2008 at 9:01am:

IS the ongoing drought in the Murray-Darling Basin affected by climate change? The simple answer is that there is no evidence that CO2 has had any significant role. Like it or not, that is the science.

Yeah - Probably correct. It's more a function of greed and the El Nino/ La Nina cycles. Here's a good rundown:

http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/climate/drought/20070903.shtml



It's a pity that journos take things out of context. What should we talk about now?

Who said that it was anyway? - some resource manager? I doubt if Wendy Craik would be qualified to make such a connection based on her qualifications. Maybe it was an off the cuff comment based on something she'd seen on TV:

http://www.asap.unimelb.edu.au/bsparcs/biogs/P004204b.htm

Oh I've heard many a Greenie talk about it in terms of global warming and "climate change".

Grendel wrote on Nov 21^st, 2008 at 10:30am:

Oh I've heard many a Greenie talk about it in terms of global warming and "climate change".

I've heard many a Greenie talk about all sorts of emotive nonsense too. 'Greenies' do all sorts of feel-good things.

The fact is that no credible source has ever come up with any study that shows that the Murray Darling drought is specifically due to rising CO2 levels.

I challenge you to find something in the IPCC Synthesis report. The link is here:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf

Of course journalists, politicians and other laymen say the darndest things. Constructing an argument on the basis of an off the cuff remark by someone not trained in climatology is a tired basis for an argument.

Challenge all you like...  I challenge you to find "Jack the Giant Killer" in "Little Red Riding Hood."

Yes some people say and believe the darndest things...   ;D

It's called a strawman. You concoct an argument and attribute it to the 'other side', even if the other side doesn't take it seriously anyway, then you shoot your own concocted argument down in a blaze of glory. It helps create the impression you are winning an argument, even though you are only arguing with yourself and ignoring the real debate.

I didn't concoct or construct...  I simply posted an article that points to the truth as I see it.

You misunderstand Grendel. I was using the generic/indeifinite 'you'. I was not referring to you specifically.

ah...  well be clearer in future save wear and tear on my keyboard  :)

Does that mean you are still shooting the messenger and denying the fact that many people see the drought and the effects on our major riversystem as part of man made global warming?

Seems to me it does.

OK I'll try.

Grendel wrote on Nov 21^st, 2008 at 11:49am:

ah...  well be clearer in future save wear and tear on my keyboard  :) Does that mean you are still shooting the messenger and denying the fact that many people see the drought and the effects on our major riversystem as part of man made global warming? Seems to me it does.

I'll congratulate the messenger if you like, Grendell.

In raising the point here you enabled me to clarify the current scientific position on the issue at point and correct the misconception of 'many people'.

Thanks to you, at least the people who read this thread will be better informed.  

What do you want - a medal ? -  get out of here  ;D

Grendel wrote on Nov 21^st, 2008 at 11:30am:

I didn't concoct or construct...  I simply posted an article that points to the truth as I see it.

I'll back Grendel up on that 100%. I've never seen anything constructive from him so far.

Oh dear...  I'm used to the personal abuse...  it seems no matter what i say or where i go sooner or later it all becomes personal...  get a grip muso if I showed you up or proved you wrong just accept it gracefully.

The crap does get awfully tiresome.

Whatsup no one joined in on your "lets get Grendel" post this morning?  hmmm...  

In a word...  pathetic.

Grendel - stop flogging a dead horse. Quit while you're ahead. The original argument was based on a straw man. It's probably futile to try to shame you into understanding that you were wrong, because you apparently have no shame.  ;D

OK - That's my last personal remark. I'll try to be constructive from now on. All I can say is when you read an article, take a more cynical approach. Do some research on the author and try to work out why he's making the point he is.  Approach these media articles with an open and enquiring mind and you might get somewhere.

You've got quite a lot of potential. If you didn't, I wouldn't waste my time replying to you.

you post i reply...  that's how it works muso...

I don't care much about who writes things because I check the facts of what they write...  otherwise I'd be braindead like most of the Progressive Left and not read anything except that from the Comrades.

I have opinions and knowledge and I do my research...  I also post articles that back up my opinions and occassionally ones just for the heck of it whether they do or not... just to start the debate.

I thought you agreed that bad water management and usage as well as drought (which is a natural occurance in Australia) were the main factors in the problem.  Well that is my assessment of the situation and has been for years.

We have water management problems in Australia.  We have usage issues that should be regulated by government properly.  We have growing salinity problems also associated with these issues.  We have very little to no technological and infrastructure intervention in dealing with these problems.

We don't... because all levels of government are bereft of ideas and look only to the next election and keeping the political status quo.

If you check the facts, why didn't you realise it was a strawman? Did you only check the 'facts' that the author implied were the important ones?

You denying bad water management and drought are the causes of the problem?

Of course not. How could I deny that drought is the cause of lack of water? Why do you ask?

Grendel wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2008 at 8:52am:

I thought you agreed that bad water management and usage as well as drought (which is a natural occurance in Australia) were the main factors in the problem.  Well that is my assessment of the situation and has been for years. We have water management problems in Australia.  We have usage issues that should be regulated by government properly.  We have growing salinity problems also associated with these issues.  We have very little to no technological and infrastructure intervention in dealing with these problems. We don't... because all levels of government are bereft of ideas and look only to the next election and keeping the political status quo.

Put it this way. Australia is the driest continent on Earth, but  we could easily reduce water consumption. We proved that in Brisbane in the last 18 months by reducing water consumption by half. For one thing we could save an enormous amount if we didn't flush our poo down the toilet with 7- 15 litres of the best potable water in the world every single time.

Water resources issues are mainly due to mismanagement and the pressures of increasing population, although the latest round of regional predictions show that in the future, things are not going to get any better as a result of climate change.  I'll let you read the IPCC regional predictions (which are worth reading), but generally the wet climates will become wetter and the dry climates will become drier.

As far as climate change is concerned, the main global consequences are yet to occur. India right now is self sufficient in food - so is China, but if the global temperatures increase by 2 degrees, that translates to about a 25- 35% drop in rice production alone. The water from the melting glaciers in the Himalayas feeds 5 major rivers in Asia, and right now, China is installing dams and pipelines. As the glaciers continue to melt, you can bet your bottom dollar that military conflicts will arise as a result of dwindling water resources. China with a population of 1.5 billion will look to the increasingly viable and unpopulated agricultural lands of Siberia (which they don't own) as temperatures increase.

- but that's for the future. Let's not confuse that with the mess we've gotten into due to lack of planning and management. Maybe if we can start to use water resources better now, it will help us in the future.

We should just charge more for water rather than trying to tell people what they can and cannot do with it, or how they have to carry it in buckets. If you just charged more, people would stop wasting it.

Ah actually muso that's not quite true...
Australia is the driest (permanently) inhabited continent on the Earth.

there have only been 3 political parties who advocated population policy and a "moritorium" on immigration.  the Greens, The Democrats and One Nation....  Your opening point (corrected) was in fact the opening to the ON population and water policies.

The Greens changed their tune as did the dems and ON is defunked.  Oh and The Dems are pretty well defunked also.

Since you are also talking scenarios...  we could just as easily have an Ice Age 'round the corner too.  Remember it wasn't that long ago thats some of the same scientists were making just that prediction.

Grendel wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2008 at 3:34pm:

Since you are also talking scenarios...  we could just as easily have an Ice Age 'round the corner too.  Remember it wasn't that long ago thats some of the same scientists were making just that prediction.

Didn't I just talk about that misconception? or was that on another forum.

Let me check.

Reply 140:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224033295/135

In Columbus' days there was widespread scientific concensus that the world was flat.  (And they weren't getting big grants to support it)

Grendel wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2008 at 4:59pm:

In Columbus' days there was widespread scientific concensus that the world was flat.  (And they weren't getting big grants to support it)

Grendel, I put you on my buddy's list. It's an olive branch. Now will you actually listen if I try to explain it? I just want a chance to explain it in detail. I started previously, but got caught up with work matters.

Quote:

In Columbus' days there was widespread scientific concensus that the world was flat.

Even the ancient Greeks knew the world was round. In any case, this is an absurd argument. The fact that scientists were wrong about something a few centuries ago is not a sound reason for rejecting science and relying instead on the advice of uninformed cranks.

Oh wait...  so no scientists or climatologists etc, etc, etc.. disagree with the man-made emissions theory...  lol...  now whom is biased ans whom is telling fibs

Fine by me muso...  but we might have to find an alternative way for you to put your case...  I think you've already done it here a few times in bits and pieces.

No guarantee I'll change my mind...  it's been informed by over 20 years of looking at it.

It may just be a case of agreeing to disagree...  and in 50 years if I'm still alive you can apologise for giving grief to others and being misled.   :)

So tell me Grendel, why did you bring up Columbus then? Sorry for assuming you had some kind of point and were not just posting random drivel.

I'm sorry that like so many things fd...  you just don't get it.
Were you flaming me again?
Was that a personal attack?
Are you going to give yourself an upper-cut for it?  ;D

Grendel wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2008 at 2:32pm:

Oh wait...  so no scientists or climatologists etc, etc, etc.. disagree with the man-made emissions theory...  lol...  now whom is biased ans whom is telling fibs

The fact that the increasing atmospheric CO2 is due to Fossil fuel burning plus Cement production etc (Anthropogenic sources) is the easiest bit to explain. I almost got there last time when we were talking about Isotopic signatures.

It's good that you've been looking at it for 20 years. You're older than I thought/ So you understand Newton's First Law, The Ideal Gas Law and the First and Second laws of thermodynamics, or should I go over them in brief?

I might start next weekend, and I'll open a new thread for it.  We might start by examining the Earth's Carbon balance, the Energy balance and the basics of Atmospheric Physics including the concept of a packet of atmosphere.

Well if you're gonna talk about climate/weather...  

You'll need to address the Earth's rotation and orbit and the Sun and various types of radiation reaching the Earth and cloud cover and particulates, current and past events and urban heat islands and the earth's oceans and currents, water vapour and atmospheric gases and atmospheric layering and the carbon cycle and natural catastrophic events and, and, and.....

had to stop... fd has a puny character limit for posts.

Robert Carter interviewed by Steve Austin on ABC Radio

blogs.abc.net.au/queensland/2008/11/professor-bob-c.html

Soren wrote on Nov 24^th, 2008 at 11:06am:

Robert Carter interviewed by Steve Austin on ABC Radio blogs.abc.net.au/queensland/2008/11/professor-bob-c.html

Bob Carter, the retired Geologist? I'll have fun picking that apart later.

Al Gore...  a retired politician...  oh wait he's already been picked apart.
Oh and has huuuuuuuuuuuge vested interests.

I agree with Grendel. This 'geologist' should be put in the same basket as Al Gore.

No you got it wrong...  Al Gore IS a basket case.

I'm agreeing with you Grendel. Thanks for keeping this in perspective by bringing up Gore in response to Carter.

The price of dissent on global warming
David Bellamy | November 25, 2008
Article from:  The Australian

WHEN I first stuck my head above the parapet to say I didn't believe what we were being told about global warming, I had no idea what the consequences would be. I am a scientist and I have to follow the directions of science, but when I see that the truth is being covered up I have to voice my opinions.

According to official data, in every year since 1998, world temperatures have been getting colder, and in 2002 Arctic ice actually increased. Why, then, do we not hear about that? The sad fact is that since I said I didn't believe human beings caused global warming, I've not been allowed to make a television program.

My absence has been noticed, because wherever I go I meet people who say: "I grew up with you on the television, where are you now?"

It was in 1996 that I criticised wind farms while appearing on children's program Blue Peter, and I also had an article published in which I described global warming as poppycock. The truth is, I didn't think wind farms were an effective means of alternative energy, so I said so. Back then, at the BBC you had to toe the line, and I wasn't doing that.

At that point, I was still making loads of TV programs and I was enjoying it greatly. Then I suddenly found I was sending in ideas for TV shows and they weren't getting taken up. I've asked around about why I've been ignored, but I found that people didn't get back to me. At the beginning of this year there was a BBC show with four experts saying: "This is going to be the end of all the ice in the Arctic," and hypothesising that it was going to be the hottest summer ever. Was it hell! It was very cold and very wet and now we've seen evidence that the glaciers in Alaska have started growing rapidly, and they have not grown for a long time.

I've seen evidence, which I believe, that says there has not been a rise in global temperature since 1998, despite the increase in carbon dioxide being pumped into the atmosphere. This makes me think the global warmers are telling lies: CO2 is not the driver. The idiot fringe has accused me of being like a Holocaust denier, which is ludicrous. Climate change is all about cycles. It's a natural thing and has always happened. When the Romans lived in Britain they were growing very good red grapes and making wine on the borders of Scotland. It was evidently a lot warmer.

If you were sitting next to me 10,000 years ago, we'd be under ice. So thank God for global warming for ending that ice age; we wouldn't be here otherwise.

People such as former American vice-president Al Gore say that millions of us will die because of global warming, which I think is a pretty stupid thing to say if you've got no proof. And my opinion is that there is absolutely no proof that CO2 has anything to do with any impending catastrophe. The science has, quite simply, gone awry.

In fact, it's not even science any more; it's anti-science.

There's no proof, it's just projections, and if you look at the models people such as Gore use, you can see they cherry-pick the ones that support their beliefs. To date, the way the so-called Greens and the BBC, the Royal Society and even political parties have handled this smacks of McCarthyism at its worst.

Global warming is part of a natural cycle and there's nothing we can actually do to stop these cycles. The world is now facing spending a vast amount of money in tax to try to solve a problem that doesn't actually exist.

And how were we convinced that this problem exists, even though all the evidence from measurements goes against the fact? God knows. Yes, the lakes in Africa are drying up. But that's not global warming. They're drying up for the very simple reason that most of them have dams around them.

So the water once used by local people is now used in the production of cut flowers and vegetables for the supermarkets of Europe. One of Gore's biggest clangers was saying that the Aral Sea in Uzbekistan was drying up because of global warming.

Well, everyone knows, because it was all over the news 20 years ago, that the Russians were growing cotton there at the time and that for every tonne of cotton you produce you use a vast amount of water. The thing that annoys me most is that there are genuine environmental problems that desperately require attention. I'm still an environmentalist, I'm still a Green and I'm still campaigning to stop the destruction of the biodiversity of the world. But money will be wasted on trying to solve this global warming "problem" that I would much rather was used for looking after the people of the world. Being ignored by the likes of the BBC does not really bother me, not when there are bigger problems at stake.

I might not be on TV any more but I still go around the world campaigning about these important issues. For example, we must stop the destruction of tropical rainforests, something I've been saying for 35 years.

Mother nature will balance things out, but not if we interfere by destroying rainforests and overfishing the seas. That is where the real environmental catastrophe could occur.

David Bellamy is a botanist, author of 35 books, and has presented 400 television programs.

muso wrote on Nov 24^th, 2008 at 12:09pm:

Soren wrote on Nov 24th, 2008 at 11:06am: Robert Carter interviewed by Steve Austin on ABC Radio blogs.abc.net.au/queensland/2008/11/professor-bob-c.html Bob Carter, the retired Geologist? I'll have fun picking that apart later.

What? Muso, internet forum moderator, can have opinions and veiws but a retired geologist can't? "Legitimate" investigation confirms your beliefs. "Biased" research comes up with other conclusions.

Soren wrote on Nov 25^th, 2008 at 8:19am:

muso wrote on Nov 24th, 2008 at 12:09pm: Soren wrote on Nov 24th, 2008 at 11:06am: Robert Carter interviewed by Steve Austin on ABC Radio blogs.abc.net.au/queensland/2008/11/professor-bob-c.html Bob Carter, the retired Geologist? I'll have fun picking that apart later. What? Muso, internet forum moderator, can have opinions and veiws but a retired geologist can't? "Legitimate" investigation confirms your beliefs. "Biased" research comes up with other conclusions.

There is only one valid side to this issue. I've heard Bob Carter talk before. When you've heard the noise a duck makes, you recognise it next time around.

Ephesian 4:29
"Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying."

Actually Real Climate puts it better than me:

While giving equal coverage to two opposing sides may seem appropriate in political discourse, it is manifestly inappropriate in discussions of science, where objective truths exist. In the case of climate change, a clear consensus exists among mainstream researchers that human influences on climate are already detectable, and that potentially far more substantial changes are likely to take place in the future if we continue to burn fossil fuels at current rates. There are only a handful of "contrarian" climate scientists who continue to dispute that consensus. To give these contrarians equal time or space in public discourse on climate change out of a sense of need for journalistic "balance" is as indefensible as, say, granting the Flat Earth Society an equal say with NASA in the design of a new space satellite. It's plainly inappropriate. But it stubbornly persists nonetheless.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/11/the-false-objectivity-of-balance/

Quote:

According to official data, in every year since 1998, world temperatures have been getting colder, and in 2002 Arctic ice actually increased.

Crap. Again another deliberately misleading generalisation. Why is it the the global warming deniers never actually plot the temperature to show what is going on? Why do they always rely on misleading 'descriptions' of what you really need to see to understand. If you want to inform someone, you give them the plot, and there will be no need to explain it. This is no more intelligent than "frost this morning, therefor no global warming".


Quote:

It was in 1996 that I criticised wind farms while appearing on children's program Blue Peter

;D ;D and he wonders why he lost his job.

Here is a good site that explains exactly how much consensus there is for AGW.  It's worthwhile to scroll down that long list.

http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensusD1.htm

I think it covers just about every scientific organisation on the planet. (except for certain privately owned ones that don't actually do any science ;D )


Quote:

Dr. James Baker - NOAA "There's a better scientific consensus on this [climate change] than on any issue I know - except maybe Newton's second law of dynamics".  -Deltoid, ECOS Letter

But wait! Even a historian has a view! Inconceivable!

The Nonsense of Global Warming
Paul Johnson 09.11.08, 6:00 PM ET
Forbes Magazine dated October 06, 2008
August was one of the nastiest months I can remember: torrential rain; a hailstorm or two; cold, bitter winds; and mists. But we are accustomed to such weather in England. Lord Byron used to say that an English summer begins on July 31 and ends on Aug. 1. He called 1816 "the year without a summer." He spent it gazing across Lake Geneva, watching the storms, with 18-year-old Mary Shelley. The lightening flickering across the lake inspired her Frankenstein, the tale of the man-made monster galvanized into life by electricity.
This summer's atrocious weather tempted me to tease a Green whom I know. "Well, what about your weather theory now?" (One of the characteristics of Greens is that they know no history.) He replied: "Yes, this weather is unprecedented. England has never had such an August before. It's global warming, of course." That's the Greens' stock response to anything weather-related. Too much sun? "Global warming." Too little sun? "Global warming." Drought? "Global warming." Floods? "Global warming." Freezing cold? "Global warming."
I wish the great philosopher Sir Karl Popper were alive to denounce the unscientific nature of global warming. He was a student when Albert Einstein's General Theory of Relativity was first published and then successfully tested. Einstein said that for his theory to be valid it would have to pass three tests. "If," Einstein wrote to British scientist Sir Arthur Eddington, "it were proved that this effect does not exist in nature, then the whole theory would have to be abandoned."

To Popper, this was a true scientific approach. "What impressed me most," he wrote, "was Einstein's own clear statement that he would regard his theory as untenable if it should fail in certain tests." In contrast, Popper pointed out, there were pseudo-scientists, such as Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud. Marx claimed to be constructing a theory of scientific materialism based on scientific history and economic science. "Science" and "scientific" were words Marx used constantly. Far from formulating his theory with a high degree of scientific content and encouraging empirical testing and refutation, Marx made it vague and general. When evidence turned up that appeared to refute his theory, the theory was modified to accommodate the new evidence. It's no wonder that when communist regimes applied Marxism it proved a costly failure.

Freud's theories were also nonspecific, and he, too, was willing to adjust them to take in new science. We now know that many of Freud's central ideas have no basis in biology. They were formulated before Mendel's Laws were widely known and accepted and before the chromosomal theory of inheritance, the recognition of inborn metabolic errors, the existence of hormones and the mechanism of nervous impulse were known. As the scientist Sir Peter Medawar put it, Freud's psychoanalysis is akin to mesmerism and phrenology; it contains isolated nuggets of truth, but the general theory as a whole is false.

The idea that human beings have changed and are changing the basic climate system of the Earth through their industrial activities and burning of fossil fuels--the essence of the Greens' theory of global warming--has about as much basis in science as Marxism and Freudianism. Global warming, like Marxism, is a political theory of actions, demanding compliance with its rules.

Those who buy in to global warming wish to drastically curb human economic and industrial activities, regardless of the consequences for people, especially the poor. If the theory's conclusions are accepted and agreed upon, the destructive results will be felt most severely in those states that adhere to the rule of law and will observe restrictions most faithfully. The global warming activists' target is the U.S. If America is driven to accept crippling restraints on its economy it will rapidly become unable to shoulder its burdens as the world's sole superpower and ultimate defender of human freedoms. We shall all suffer, however, as progress falters and then ceases and living standards decline.

Continued...



Out of Balance
When I'm driving to my country home in Somerset, I pass two examples of the damage Greens can cause when their views are accepted and applied. Thanks to heavy government subsidies, many farmers switched from growing food to biofuel crops--perhaps the most expensive form of energy ever devised. The result has been a world shortage of food, with near starvation in some places, and a rise in the cost of food for everyone. We're now getting wise to this ridiculous experiment; shares in biofuels have fallen, and farmers are switching back to their proper work. But the cost has been enormous.

The other thing I pass is a new windmill, spinning slowly around. Windmills were the great invention of the early Middle Ages--man harnessing nature and using it to replace muscle power. When I was a boy more than 70 years ago there were still a few windmills, but nobody doubted they were on their way out. The thought of going back to wind power would have seemed preposterous. Nevertheless, under pressure from Greens this has happened. Wind power is a grotesquely expensive and inefficient form of energy, and the new windmills are hideous things, ruining the landscape and making an infernal noise.

Marxism, Freudianism, global warming. These are proof--of which history offers so many examples--that people can be suckers on a grand scale. To their fanatical followers they are a substitute for religion. Global warming, in particular, is a creed, a faith, a dogma that has little to do with science. If people are in need of religion, why don't they just turn to the genuine article?



Paul Johnson, eminent British historian and author; Lee Kuan Yew, minister mentor of Singapore; Ernesto Zedillo, director, Yale Center for the Study of Globalization, former president of Mexico; and David Malpass, chief economist for Bear Stearns Co., Inc., rotate in writing this column. To see past Current Events columns, visit our Web site at www.forbes.com/currentevents.

Quote:

the essence of the Greens' theory of global warming--has about as much basis in science as Marxism and Freudianism

Fortunately it is not 'the Greens' theories that are guiding policy, but scientific consensus.

But wait! Even an actual president of country has an opinion. 'Biased' of course.

I agree with Professor Richard Lindzen from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who said: “future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age”.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/9deb730a-19ca-11dc-99c5-000b5df10621.html

Did he get that from his crystal ball? These days when we look at past societies, we often wonder how they managed to be so oblivious to their impending, self inflicted collapse.

Richard Lindzen is a very interesting case. He is actually qualified. I'll talk more about him later on.

freediver wrote on Nov 25^th, 2008 at 11:34am:

Did he get that from his crystal ball? These days when we look at past societies, we often wonder how they managed to be so oblivious to their impending, self inflicted collapse.

We'll all be rooned.

From The Sunday Times
February 11, 2007
An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change
Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist, says the orthodoxy must be challenged

When politicians and journalists declare that the science of global warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science works. We were treated to another dose of it recently when the experts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued the Summary for Policymakers that puts the political spin on an unfinished scientific dossier on climate change due for publication in a few months’ time. They declared that most of the rise in temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to man-made greenhouse gases.

The small print explains “very likely” as meaning that the experts who made the judgment felt 90% sure about it. Older readers may recall a press conference at Harwell in 1958 when Sir John Cockcroft, Britain’s top nuclear physicist, said he was 90% certain that his lads had achieved controlled nuclear fusion. It turned out that he was wrong. More positively, a 10% uncertainty in any theory is a wide open breach for any latterday Galileo or Einstein to storm through with a better idea. That is how science really works.

Twenty years ago, climate research became politicised in favour of one particular hypothesis, which redefined the subject as the study of the effect of greenhouse gases. As a result, the rebellious spirits essential for innovative and trustworthy science are greeted with impediments to their research careers. And while the media usually find mavericks at least entertaining, in this case they often imagine that anyone who doubts the hypothesis of man-made global warming must be in the pay of the oil companies. As a result, some key discoveries in climate research go almost unreported.

Enthusiasm for the global-warming scare also ensures that heatwaves make headlines, while contrary symptoms, such as this winter’s billion-dollar loss of Californian crops to unusual frost, are relegated to the business pages. The early arrival of migrant birds in spring provides colourful evidence for a recent warming of the northern lands. But did anyone tell you that in east Antarctica the Adélie penguins and Cape petrels are turning up at their spring nesting sites around nine days later than they did 50 years ago? While sea-ice has diminished in the Arctic since 1978, it has grown by 8% in the Southern Ocean.
Background

   * ‘Blame cosmic rays for warming up the planet’

   * No excuse for soft climate change laws

   * Jeremy Clarkson: Cornered by the green lynch mob

So one awkward question you can ask, when you’re forking out those extra taxes for climate change, is “Why is east Antarctica getting colder?” It makes no sense at all if carbon dioxide is driving global warming. While you’re at it, you might inquire whether Gordon Brown will give you a refund if it’s confirmed that global warming has stopped. The best measurements of global air temperatures come from American weather satellites, and they show wobbles but no overall change since 1999.

That levelling off is just what is expected by the chief rival hypothesis, which says that the sun drives climate changes more emphatically than greenhouse gases do. After becoming much more active during the 20th century, the sun now stands at a high but roughly level state of activity. Solar physicists warn of possible global cooling, should the sun revert to the lazier mood it was in during the Little Ice Age 300 years ago.

Climate history and related archeology give solid support to the solar hypothesis. The 20th-century episode, or Modern Warming, was just the latest in a long string of similar events produced by a hyperactive sun, of which the last was the Medieval Warming.

The Chinese population doubled then, while in Europe the Vikings and cathedral-builders prospered. Fascinating relics of earlier episodes come from the Swiss Alps, with the rediscovery in 2003 of a long-forgotten pass used intermittently whenever the world was warm.

What does the Intergovernmental Panel do with such emphatic evidence for an alternation of warm and cold periods, linked to solar activity and going on long before human industry was a possible factor? Less than nothing. The 2007 Summary for Policymakers boasts of cutting in half a very small contribution by the sun to climate change conceded in a 2001 report.

Disdain for the sun goes with a failure by the self-appointed greenhouse experts to keep up with inconvenient discoveries about how the solar variations control the climate. The sun’s brightness may change too little to account for the big swings in the climate. But more than 10 years have passed since Henrik Svensmark in Copenhagen first pointed out a much more powerful mechanism.

He saw from compilations of weather satellite data that cloudiness varies according to how many atomic particles are coming in from exploded stars. More cosmic rays, more clouds. The sun’s magnetic field bats away many of the cosmic rays, and its intensification during the 20th century meant fewer cosmic rays, fewer clouds, and a warmer world. On the other hand the Little Ice Age was chilly because the lazy sun let in more cosmic rays, leaving the world cloudier and gloomier.

pt2

The only trouble with Svensmark’s idea — apart from its being politically incorrect — was that meteorologists denied that cosmic rays could be involved in cloud formation. After long delays in scraping together the funds for an experiment, Svensmark and his small team at the Danish National Space Center hit the jackpot in the summer of 2005.

In a box of air in the basement, they were able to show that electrons set free by cosmic rays coming through the ceiling stitched together droplets of sulphuric acid and water. These are the building blocks for cloud condensation. But journal after journal declined to publish their report; the discovery finally appeared in the Proceedings of the Royal Society late last year.

Thanks to having written The Manic Sun, a book about Svensmark’s initial discovery published in 1997, I have been privileged to be on the inside track for reporting his struggles and successes since then. The outcome is a second book, The Chilling Stars, co-authored by the two of us and published next week by Icon books. We are not exaggerating, we believe, when we subtitle it “A new theory of climate change”.

Where does all that leave the impact of greenhouse gases? Their effects are likely to be a good deal less than advertised, but nobody can really say until the implications of the new theory of climate change are more fully worked out.

The reappraisal starts with Antarctica, where those contradictory temperature trends are directly predicted by Svensmark’s scenario, because the snow there is whiter than the cloud-tops. Meanwhile humility in face of Nature’s marvels seems more appropriate than arrogant assertions that we can forecast and even control a climate ruled by the sun and the stars.

The Chilling Stars is published by Icon. It is available for £9.89 including postage from The Sunday Times Books First on 0870 165 8585

Government policy does not depend on scientific certainty. It depends on risk management. It is not reasonable to equate a statement of liklihood from the scientific community to one from the past proclamation of an individual scientist. If it was one scientist alone claiming 90% certainty you would have a point, but in this case your quthor doesn't.


Quote:

while contrary symptoms, such as this winter’s billion-dollar loss of Californian crops to unusual frost

;D ;D There it is again. Frost this morning, therefor no global warming. Some people never learn.

You're sounding more rabid on this than usual fd...  
you who claim to not believe necessarily but decided to support as a matter of risk management...  or "what if"

Oh almost forgot...

SCIENTIFIC PROOF AND FALSIFIABILITY By Dr Timothy Ball

Risk management is the rational approach to managing uncertainty. Demanding certainty is the irrational approach. We know this intuitively, but some people throw common sense out the window when they really don't want to believe bad news.

Svenmark's Cosmic Rays paper was discredited about a year or so later. That's old news. In fact I think Grendel or Soren posted something about that before. Let me see if I can find it.

Here (also New Scientist):

http://www.newscientist.com/blog/environment/2008/04/sunset-on-cosmic-rays-theory.html

As for the "It's the sun" gambit, we know what the Solar irradiance level has been since we started satellite measurements in '78, and it has been extrapolated back at least as far as the beginning of the 20th century (if not more)

It varies between about 1368 and 1366Wm-2 between 11 year solar cycles. You can find the graph here:

http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant

No, it's not the sun and it's not Cosmic rays. Please remember that and don't bring it up again.  

My mistake, it was another paper that confirmed that the current trend cannot be explained by solar activity. Posted by Skippy.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224033295/150

Sorry but nothing you have posted disproves anything re the Sun.  The Sun and our orbit are the primary drivers of climate change.  Always have been.

Now you need to show how this has suddenly changed and give some proof that man made emissions are causing that change.

oh and this is for you fd, since all you seem to do is shoot messengers...  here's a whole flock of 'em for you to take aim at.

From the Publisher
Al Gore says any scientist who disagrees with him on Global Warming is a kook, or a crook.
Guess he never met these guys

Dr. Edward Wegman--former chairman of the Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics of the National Academy of Sciences--demolishes the famous "hockey stick" graph that launched the global warming panic.

Dr. David Bromwich--president of the International Commission on Polar Meteorology--says "it's hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now."

Prof. Paul Reiter--Chief of Insects and Infectious Diseases at the famed Pasteur Institute--says "no major scientist with any long record in this field" accepts Al Gore's claim that global warming spreads mosquito-borne diseases.

Prof. Hendrik Tennekes--director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute--states "there exists no sound theoretical framework for climate predictability studies" used for global warming forecasts.

Dr. Christopher Landsea--past chairman of the American Meteorological Society's Committee on Tropical Meteorology and Tropical Cyclones--says "there are no known scientific studies that show a conclusive physical link between global warming and observed hurricane frequency and intensity."

Dr. Antonino Zichichi--one of the world's foremost physicists, former president of the European Physical Society, who discovered nuclear antimatter--calls global warming models "incoherent and invalid."

Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski--world-renowned expert on the ancient ice cores used in climate research--says the U.N. "based its global-warming hypothesis on arbitrary assumptions and these assumptions, it is now clear, are false."

Prof. Tom V. Segalstad--head of the Geological Museum, University of Oslo--says "most leading geologists" know the U.N.'s views "of Earth processes are implausible."

Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu--founding director of the International Arctic Research Center, twice named one of the "1,000 Most Cited Scientists," says much "Arctic warming during the last half of the last century is due to natural change."

Dr. Claude Allegre--member, U.S. National Academy of Sciences and French Academy of Science, he was among the first to sound the alarm on the dangers of global warming. His view now: "The cause of this climate change is unknown."

Dr. Richard Lindzen--Professor of Meteorology at M.I.T., member, the National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, says global warming alarmists "are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right."

Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov--head of the space research laboratory of the Russian Academy of Science's Pulkovo Observatory and of the International Space Station's Astrometria project says "the common view that man's industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations."

Dr. Richard Tol--Principal researcher at the Institute for Environmental Studies at Vrije Universiteit, and Adjunct Professor at the Center for Integrated Study of the Human Dimensions of Global Change, at Carnegie Mellon University, calls the most influential global warming report of all time "preposterous . . . alarmist and incompetent."

Dr. Sami Solanki--director and scientific member at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany, who argues that changes in the Sun's state, not human activity, may be the principal cause of global warming: "The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures."

Prof. Freeman Dyson--one of the world's most eminent physicists says the models used to justify global warming alarmism are "full of fudge factors" and "do not begin to describe the real world."

Dr. Eigils Friis-Christensen--director of the Danish National Space Centre, vice-president of the International Association of Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, who argues that changes in the Sun's behavior could account for most of the warming attributed by the UN to man-made CO2.

And many more, all in Lawrence Solomon's devastating new book, The Deniers

Grendel wrote on Nov 25^th, 2008 at 7:30pm:

Sorry but nothing you have posted disproves anything re the Sun.  The Sun and our orbit are the primary drivers of climate change.  Always have been. Now you need to show how this has suddenly changed and give some proof that man made emissions are causing that change.

Did you even look at the graphs? The sun is not stronger now than it has ever been. That's instrumental readings of Solar irradiance from 1978 that shows a gentle change between solar maxima. The readings from three independent sources (different satellites etc) agree.

As far as Milankovich cycles and the period between Ice Ages, that's incontrovertable. Those cycles have existed since time immemorial. Some slow changes in climate are due to the changes in the Earth's orbit.

It's about time you tell us your position Grendel. You choose:

1. There is no Global Warming. The Earth is cooling.
2. There is Global warming, but it is due to the sun.
 

Grendel wrote on Nov 25^th, 2008 at 8:34pm:

oh and this is for you fd, since all you seem to do is shoot messengers...  here's a whole flock of 'em for you to take aim at. From the Publisher Al Gore says any scientist who disagrees with him on Global Warming is a kook, or a crook. Guess he never met these guys

Big deal. My list (did you even bother to scroll through it?) is bigger than your list by several magnitudes, and with maybe one or two exceptions, none of the people on your list are climatologists.

Apart from that, these individuals obviously don't have much weight within their national academies. Every national academy of every developed country on the planet confirms that human activity has caused recent climate change. Maybe that's because not a single  paper on climate finds otherwise.

Did you read that quote that mentioned the Laws of themodynamics?


By the way, Al Gore is not a climatologist. He's a politician. It's not a political issue, it's a scientific one.

I just had a cursory look through the list. This one looked suspicious, and it proved to be.  I wonder how many others are the same. All I can say is  - Have they no shame?



Grendel wrote on Nov 25^th, 2008 at 8:34pm:

Dr. Sami Solanki--director and scientific member at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany, who argues that changes in the Sun's state, not human activity, may be the principal cause of global warming: "The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures."

http://www.desmogblog.com/irresponsible-solomon-at-it-again



Quote:

Still, even as he acknowledges Solanki's true position in the fine print, Solomon's headline remains: "The Heat is in the Sun. " Solomon also argues the case for solar forcing with this: "Dr. Solanki shows an almost perfect correlation between solar cycles and air temperatures over the land masses in the Northern hemisphere, going back to the mid 19th century." Well, in addition to being almost perfect, the correlation ended with a resounding crash in 1980 as solar cycles went down and warming went up. In the meantime, we have passed more than a quarter century during which we have recorded 19 of the hottest years in recorded history.

muso wrote on Nov 26^th, 2008 at 9:31am:

It's not a political issue, it's a scientific one.

I think you got that exactly back to front. Or at least as far as 'deniers' are concerned. They see it as a political issue, the boosters see it as a scientific issue - yet want political action as a matter of 'risk management'. In fact both sides speak politically much more than scientifically.

I think it would be clearer and a lot less. ahem, heated if people could stick to scientific matters. But for most peple that is just too hard, not to mention uncertain and full of 'on the other hands'.

So most people treat this whole issue as a political argument, only using science to disguise their political impulses. Climate change debate is about social organisation and social and economic action and responsibility - that is, politics.

As far as 'risk management' is concerned, climate change is one of many possible priorities for maximising future wellbeing. Only making scientifically unsupported predictions of catasptrophy can climate change be propelled to the position of top priority. ANd that only if human culpability is established to the degree that the desired political directions of the boosters are accepted.
To date, neither the forecasts of catasptrophy nor human culpability are established to a reasonable enough degree for people to hand over political control to the boosters.

Soren wrote on Nov 26^th, 2008 at 10:07am:

To date, neither the forecasts of catasptrophy nor human culpability are established to a reasonable enough degree for people to hand over political control to the boosters.

Total Horsefeathers. I think it's obvious that virtually every professional climatologist and every national academy in the world disagrees with that statement.

Do you still think it's the sun/ orbital changes or volcanoes?

Please provide evidence. Put your money where your mouth is.

I can supply evidence that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is due to fossil fuel burning and other anthropogenic sources. The evidence is there from the isotope ratios. There is a well establshed science of tracking  δ 13C plumes throughout the world. Are you saying there is a problem with this measurement? If so, please explain.  ::)

These parameters are being monitored, and it's a pretty basic measurement.

So if it's not the sun, it's not volcanoes, what else could be causing this increase in fossil fuel derived CO2?  The tellytubbies?

Soren wrote on Nov 26^th, 2008 at 10:07am:

muso wrote on Nov 26th, 2008 at 9:31am: It's not a political issue, it's a scientific one. I think you got that exactly back to front. Or at least as far as 'deniers' are concerned. They see it as a political issue,

Well that makes some sense. Climate Science denial is obviously not science.

Quote:

The Sun and our orbit are the primary drivers of climate change.  Always have been.

Not true. A 'normal' planet in our orbit would actually be frigid. It is the atmosphere that gives us a livable planet. Changes in the atmosphere can have just as storng an impact. Obviously the sun and our orbit also have an impact, but that is not mutally exclusive with atmospherically driven changes. It is absurd to suggest that it is. It is like you are suggesting that the brakes in a car do not have any impact because the accelerator is the main driver.


Quote:

The Sun and our orbit are the primary drivers of climate change.  Always have been.

Strawman. Why do you keep going back to Al Gore? Al Gore is not AGW theory. If you can only put together a criticism of a failed politican, but not the scientists involved, then you have already lost.

MY take on it has been widely mentioned..

Climate change is a natural phenomenon and has many more factors involved than just CO2.  Climate change is largely cyclical.  There will always be warming and cooling.

As for your list being bigger than mine...  honestly...  ::)  you honestly think mine was exhaustive?   ;D ;D ;D

Good grief...  the Sun and our Orbit ARE the primary drivers of climate change FD.  Ever hear of Spring, Summer, Autumn and Winter?

Do go away.

Oh and I brought up Gore because of his impact on the issue and Muso's dismisssiveness.  It was a one off point.  You might believe "The Inconvenient Truth" is factual...  but it is flawed propaganda.

Quote:

Oh and I brought up Gore because of his impact on the issue and Muso's dismisssiveness.  It was a one off point.

Crap. You binrg him up about every third post. He is the only climate change 'scientist' you seema ble to refute.


Quote:

Good grief...  the Sun and our Orbit ARE the primary drivers of climate change FD.  Ever hear of Spring, Summer, Autumn and Winter?

Sorry, I assumed we were talking longer term climate change - the sort people are actually concerned about. That is, changes in the average global termperature, not relative or intra-global changes.

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

Climate encompasses the temperatures, humidity, rainfall, atmospheric particle count and numerous other meteorogical factors in a given region over long periods of time, as opposed to the term weather, which refers to current activity.

Grendel wrote on Nov 26^th, 2008 at 12:38pm:

Good grief...  the Sun and our Orbit ARE the primary drivers of climate change FD.  Ever hear of Spring, Summer, Autumn and Winter?

ROTFLMAO
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


Is this latest tactic known as "argument by deliberate stupidity"?  

I mean...... mate ?

rotflmao...

The only absurdium happening here was fd... but now your inability to prove anything and denial of one of the most obvious truths, is making me think otherwise.

Are you trying to say the seasons aren't changes in climate?  ;D ;D ;D ;D
That we have never had warming and cooling cycles before?  ;D ;D ;D ;D

The Sun has no influence on climate?
The Earth's orbit has no influence on climate?
:D  Well I never thought you were deluded to the point of absolute denial till now.

All the laughing and bravado and off-hand dismissals in the world won't make you right.

Please if that's the best you can do DON"T WASTE MY TIME.

Oh and Maaaaaaaaate...  if you and fd cant see the relationship between the seasons and longer tern climate change then there's no hope for either of you.

Quote:

Are you trying to say the seasons aren't changes in climate?

That's right Grendel. That is pretty much the definition of climate vs weather. I'm surprised we have been discussing climate change for so long but you still don't know this. Is that why you keep reposting, in various forms, that silly argument "frost this morning, therefor no global warming"? Did you honestly think that global warming meant 'summer is coming'?

Oh so weather has nothing to do with climate also...  hmmmm... :D

Seasonal changes are climate changes fd...  didn't anyone ever tell you that,
BTW I only mentioned it because of your nonsensical post anyway.

You are such a goose.

Oh and b4 you mention it I understand about regional and geographic climes which lo and behold are also affected by the Sun and the seasons and various other influences too numerous to mention in your piddly 5000 word limit.

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

Climate encompasses the temperatures, humidity, rainfall, atmospheric particle count and numerous other meteorogical factors in a given region over long periods of time, as opposed to the term weather, which refers to current activity.

Well gee thanks for telling me something I already know.

Woosh...  watch out another point flew right over your head.

Oh almost forgot...

sea·son      (sē'zən)  Pronunciation Key
n.  

  1.
        1. One of the four natural divisions of the year, spring, summer, fall, and winter, in the North and South Temperate zones. Each season, beginning astronomically at an equinox or solstice, is characterized by specific meteorological or climatic conditions.

:D

muso wrote on Nov 26^th, 2008 at 11:16am:

Soren wrote on Nov 26th, 2008 at 10:07am: To date, neither the forecasts of catasptrophy nor human culpability are established to a reasonable enough degree for people to hand over political control to the boosters. Total Horsefeathers. I think it's obvious that virtually every professional climatologist and every national academy in the world disagrees with that statement. Do you still think it's the sun/ orbital changes or volcanoes? Please provide evidence. Put your money where your mouth is. I can supply evidence that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is due to fossil fuel burning and other anthropogenic sources. The evidence is there from the isotope ratios. There is a well establshed science of tracking  δ 13C plumes throughout the world. Are you saying there is a problem with this measurement? If so, please explain.  ::) These parameters are being monitored, and it's a pretty basic measurement. So if it's not the sun, it's not volcanoes, what else could be causing this increase in fossil fuel derived CO2?  The tellytubbies?

Tellytubbies? Cute.

You tell me what caused all previous, pre-indusrial age climate changes.
Then tell me how CO2 overrides all these previous causes.
Then we'll be on the same page.

Quote:

Then tell me how CO2 overrides all these previous causes.

Who says it overrides other causes?

freediver wrote on Nov 26^th, 2008 at 8:29pm:

Quote: Then tell me how CO2 overrides all these previous causes. Who says it overrides other causes?

Well, if it doesn't  - what the hell is it doing in here??

AGW causes and additional change, on top of the natural variability in climate.

freediver wrote on Nov 26^th, 2008 at 9:45pm:

AGW causes and additional change, on top of the natural variability in climate.

that's too breeze to justify handover of political control.

Yes it is Soren. Fortunately the scientists put together more than one sentence on the issue. I was just responding to your query.

Soren wrote on Nov 26^th, 2008 at 6:55pm:

You tell me what caused all previous, pre-indusrial age climate changes. Then tell me how CO2 overrides all these previous causes. Then we'll be on the same page.

Good. You're starting to think.  Remember how I said before that there is an equlibrium between atmospheric CO2 and temperature?

An equilibrium is not a cause and effect situation. Increase temperature ('turn up' the sun) and you increase CO2. Increase CO2 (from burning fossil fuels etc) and you increase temperatures.

The relationship between temperature and CO2 is well established. I'm sure you've see the ice cores from Vostok, the Deuterium proxy temperature curve and the corresponding CO2 levels. They follow each other pretty well. In the pre-industrial era that was due to changes in Solar irradiance, mainly due to orbital changes (see Milankovich cycle)

The increase in CO2 and temperature that we have experienced in the last roughly 50 years can not be explained by changes in solar irradiance, which is your primary natural input. We know that because we can measure solar irradiation (see my previous link to PMOD a few posts back). We can therefore eliminate solar irradiance effects - not entirely - we still have slight changes in intensity on approximately 11 and 22 year cycles, but we can account for all that.

Please let me know if you understand what I'm saying. If you are actually trying to understand with an open mind, it will all suddenly click.  I find it very frustrating explaining these things, but I have had a few people suddenly understand, which makes it all worthwhile.

The natural cycles exist, but what we have seen in the last 50 years or so is much more dramatic and has a much higher rate of change. It cannot be explained by the measurements we have on solar irradiance.  

Incidentally, the reason that I singled out Dr. Sami Solanki--director and scientific member at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany, was because he is actually a highly respected  lead researcher involved in solar irradiance series. The Max Planck Institute is at the forefront of extrapolating Solar irradiance figures back at least until the beginning of the 19th century.

It's quite a complex task to do that. It involves many proxies, orbital calculations and also takes into account solar activity.

Here is his Home Page:

http://www.mps.mpg.de/homes/solanki/nonsci.html

A misleading account of my views was published in the Toronto National Post in March, 2007 (and is to be found at different places on the web). In contrast to what is written there I am not a denier of global warming produced by an increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases. Already at present the overwhelming source of global warming is due to manmade greenhouse gases and their influence will continue to grow in the future as their concentration increases. The same newspaper already misquoted other scientists on this topic. See, for example, the home page of Nigel Weiss of Cambridge University http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/now/

Grendel - doesn't that even bother you that he was included on that list you quoted? Just stop and think about it. Are you concerned that your post repeated a lie?

Yet the claim is that CO2 is released over time after a warming period.  In fact that there is a substantial lag time between the 2.

So isn't it possible that this warming event  just happens to coincide with the CO2 from the last warming event.

Some alternate opinions.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-440049/Greenhouse-effect-myth-say-scientists.html

But Professor Ian Clark, an expert in palaeoclimatology from the University of Ottawa, claims that warmer periods of the Earth's history came around 800 years before rises in carbon dioxide levels.

http://www.curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=1204144


Abdusamatov claimed that the upper layers of the world's oceans are - much to climatologists' surprise - becoming cooler, which is a clear indication that the Earth has hit its temperature ceiling already, and that solar radiation levels are falling and will eventually lead to a worldwide cold spell.

http://www.green-agenda.com/greenland.html

“At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations... The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data. The 4200 years of warming make up about 5/6 of the total warming. So CO2 could have caused the last 5/6 of the warming, but could not have caused the first 1/6 of the warming.“

http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2007/12/global_warming_10.html

After further research, new high-resolution ice core results (data points only a few hundred years apart) in 2000–2003 allowed us to distinguish which came first, the temperature rises or the CO2 rises. We found that temperature changes preceded CO2 changes by an average of 800 years. So temperature caused the CO2 levels, and not the other way around as previously assumed. The world should have started backpedaling away from blaming carbon emissions in 2003.

Ah muso the only concern I have is your obsessive belief in something unproven.  And the lengths you go to to belittle and shoot the messenger.

Oh and I almost forgot..

Don't you suppose that during warming periods that all Greenhouse gasses increase?

Oh dear.  :D

Grendel wrote on Nov 27^th, 2008 at 9:48am:

Yet the claim is that CO2 is released over time after a warming period.  In fact that there is a substantial lag time between the 2.

Grendel. Think about what you write. Yes there is. There are all sorts of lag times involved depending on the thermal inertia of the oceans and other factors.

CO2 and temperature are in a metastable equilibrium.

Grendel wrote on Nov 27^th, 2008 at 9:52am:

Oh and I almost forgot.. Don't you suppose that during warming periods that all Greenhouse gasses increase? Oh dear.  :D

Yes. That's what I said in my previous post. What point are you trying to make here?

Grendel wrote on Nov 27^th, 2008 at 9:48am:

Ah muso the only concern I have is your obsessive belief in something unproven.  And the lengths you go to to belittle and shoot the messenger.

You're obviously not reading my posts. It's yet another strawman.

Doesn't it even concern you that some of the sources you quote are deliberately lying? Do you have any personal integrity?


Grendel wrote on Nov 27^th, 2008 at 9:48am:

Yet the claim is that CO2 is released over time after a warming period.  In fact that there is a substantial lag time between the 2. So isn't it possible that this warming event  just happens to coincide with the CO2 from the last warming event. Some alternate opinions. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-440049/Greenhouse-effect-myth-say-scientists.html But Professor Ian Clark, an expert in palaeoclimatology from the University of Ottawa, claims that warmer periods of the Earth's history came around 800 years before rises in carbon dioxide levels.

This part is undiluted male bovine excreta. Professor Ian Clark has not published anything on Antarctic ice cores, or on the lag between carbon dioxide and temperature.

A little bit of information on Richard Lindzen:

Professor Richard Lindzen
Lindzen is Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He is a well-regarded meteorologist with a distinguished publication record (see http://tinyurl.com/28wszg); however, his research is mostly in meteorology (the weather) rather than on climatology.

His last original research in climatology was published in 2001 (ISI WoS) and hypothesized an adaptive “Iris Effect” of clouds in the tropics that reduces the temperature change due to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations. However, this hypothesis has since been strongly disputed by other climate scientists (see http://tinyurl.com/23gwno).

Lindzen co-authored a 2001 report of the National Academy of Sciences http://tinyurl.com/yuswbu, which concluded that:

Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability.”

He has since claimed that the summary did not accurately reflect the main report, and has made similar criticisms of the IPCC Summary for Policy Makers from its 2001 Third Assessment Report (see http://tinyurl.com/2ay5vj)  – although he has yet to demonstrate the basis of these claims.

Despite reportedly saying that he is “willing to take bets that global average temperatures in 20 years will in fact be lower than they are now”, he has refused to accept a bet with climatologist James Annan on this, unless the payout was 50:1 or better in his favour (see http://tinyurl.com/39e5ne).

Lindzen has also been accused by distinguished scientists of having said things in public testimony, in order to win an argument, that he knew were not supported by the scientific evidence – see: http://tinyurl.com/yo5and, http://tinyurl.com/ytb2g9, http://tinyurl.com/2a35a6and http://tinyurl.com/yrbcju.

C.17.1 Direct Corporate Funding
In a 1995 article in Harper’s Magazine, Ross Gelbspan asserted that Lindzen “charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels; and a speech he wrote, entitled Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus, was underwritten by OPEC” (see http://tinyurl.com/2rpr7k, subscription required).

C.17.2 Links to Corporate-funded Lobby Groups
(For information about the following organisations and the funding they receive, see Appendix D: Corporate-funded Organisations Linked to Contributors to the Programme).

1.
He is a Member of the Science and Economic Advisory Council of The Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy (see http://tinyurl.com/26rdf5).

2.
He is a Contributing Expert to the Cato Institute , and has also written reports for them. See, for example, Lindzen, R., 1992, Global warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus, Regulation Magazine, Vol.15, No. 2, Spring 1992: published by the Cato Institute, http://tinyurl.com/y9gk3j.

3.
He is a Contributing Expert to the George C. Marshall Institute (see http://tinyurl.com/2sq4pf).

4.
He has been a contributor to TCS Daily, the web-based magazine of the Tech Central Science Foundation (see http://tinyurl.com/2lbqad).

5.
He is a global warming expert with the Heartland Institute (see: http://tinyurl.com/33txc4).

This graph illustrates what is so ridiculaous about the claims that "Global warming stopped in 1998" or the last few years have showed a cooling trend.

To make sense of the slight increase in Global temperature we need to take 5 year means (averages). It's only when we do that that a clear pattern emerges that shows a gradual increase.

It also shows how bizarrely naive that previous article about a single month's data was.

---

That's why the people who claim the cooling trend never actually give the temperature plot. They hope enough people will simply take their word for it. Then they quickly move on to the latest report of a frost somewhere in the world.

I have lots of integrity...  you have none it appears muso...  you keep proving my point.

DWMT

When you start proving your belief apart from the personal abuse I might start to listen.  The fact you claim to be oblivious to it doesn't bode well I'm afraid.

Again no one said the Sun has a thermostat, it pumps out more than just one form of radiation.

People do post links to graphs that show different things to ones you believe fd...  maybe you could google one or follow a link one day.

Why is their such a certainty that CO2 is the problem if other Greenhouse gasses also increase during warming periods?

If CO2 rises after the warming event what is the warming event caused by?

I note no answers...

No Science..
Models based on assumptions  GIGO

I have followed links. All I see are claims of a cooling trend, with no data to back it up, or a data sample that deliberatly omits 95% of the relevant info.

Why do you keep posting DWMT? Does it mean anything?

Grendel wrote on Nov 27^th, 2008 at 2:33pm:

I have lots of integrity...  you have none it appears muso...  you keep proving my point.

Well I demonstrated that at least one of the scientists on your list was deliberately misquoted. This is absolutely conclusive since he explained it on his personal website.

I find it difficult to understand how you can continue to accept any data from a site that resorts to that kind of tactic, without smelling a rat.

Do you think it's acceptable behaviour to just lie about an eminent scientist like that?

By the way, you're the one who said I had no integrity, in the statement above. That was a personal attack. I was merely asking the question whether you had any, and I gave you an opportunity to respond to my question.

Grendel wrote on Nov 27^th, 2008 at 2:33pm:

Why is their such a certainty that CO2 is the problem if other Greenhouse gasses also increase during warming periods? If CO2 rises after the warming event what is the warming event caused by? I note no answers... No Science.. Models based on assumptions  GIGO

Earth to Grendel - please come in Grendel

Didn't you even read my reply that talked about the equilibrium between CO2 and temperature?

How many times do I have to explain about the Milankovitch cycles?

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

freediver wrote on Nov 26^th, 2008 at 9:45pm:

AGW causes and additional change, on top of the natural variability in climate.

'additional change, on top of natural variability in climate.'

Where does the natural end and the 'additional' start? I am reading the above to mean that earth would be warming at present anyway, and so not all the change is due to human cases. How is the line of demarcation drawn?

As far as I know, there was a gradual cooling trend over the last few centuries until CO2 concentrations started rising due to human activity. This caused an increase in average global temperature that is far more rapid than the gradual cooling. It is mainly the rate of change that distinguishes it. If it weren't for industrial emissions, the earth would still be cooling very slowly.

As for how to separate them, that would get into complex science and statistics that is beyond this forum. Given the (only) 90% certainty, there would not be a definite breakdown into various causes. However it would be a reasonable simplification to attribute all of the recent increase in temperature to AGW. That is, the upwards trend, but not the minor year to year variation about that trend.

Quote:

If it weren't for industrial emissions, the earth would still be cooling very slowly.

Well lets see you post some proof of that and win a Nobel prize.

Grendel to Muso....  until you take everything into consideration at once and come out with some sense or proof.

You are all over the shop.

Perhaps you should try applying the same standards to your own claims Grendel. Remember, the politics is all about risk management, not proof. It is irrational to demand proof in the face of risk.

Soren wrote on Nov 27^th, 2008 at 4:28pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 26th, 2008 at 9:45pm: AGW causes and additional change, on top of the natural variability in climate. 'additional change, on top of natural variability in climate.' Where does the natural end and the 'additional' start? I am reading the above to mean that earth would be warming at present anyway, and so not all the change is due to human cases. How is the line of demarcation drawn?

Soren/ Grendel,

Let's take some time out from being adversarial. What I thought was obvious is apparently not so obvious. My wife tells me that I'm the world's worst 'teacher'.

It just occurred to me that even FD missed the point I made about solar irradiance. I obviously did not explain myself well enough. When you look at the solar irradiance measurements and compare against global temperature increase and global CO2 increase,  there is a significant mismatch for the last 50 years or so.

What started off as a reasonably good correlation between solar irradiance and global temperature started to become adrift in a major way from (around) 50 years ago onwards.

The major driver of global temperature for the last 50 years has obviously not been the sun. The secondary natural driver is major volcanic activity, which actually works in reverse. Again, we can show that it isn't due to volcanoes. (I can explain in detail if you like)

It really is as simple as that. (isn't it?)

FD - do you understand that now?

Maybe I should explain that the measurement of Solar Irradiance in Low Earth Orbit includes such factors as solar activity and orbital distance from the sun. You could say that it's an empirical parameter.

The actual distance of the Earth from the sun has a very significant effect on irradiance. That's why we get a slight peak in irradiance in January and a slight dip around July. The actual irradiance level varies as the cube of the distance.

Currently the Earth is closest to the sun in January (Perihelion) and furthest away in July (aphelion).

If you look at the CO2 graph from Mauna Loa, you'll also see seasonal  
variations, largely due to the same effect. Temperature affects global CO2 on a seasonal basis. Every year we get a confirmation of this 'equilibrium'* between temperature and CO2.

Grendel - remember when I asked you that question previously and you didn't answer?  Here's your answer.  

* It's not a true equilibrium by the way. For CO2 concentration there is a lag of about 3-4 months in the annual cycle. The annual peak for CO2 appears around April each year.

Grendel wrote on Nov 27^th, 2008 at 5:01pm:

Quote: If it weren't for industrial emissions, the earth would still be cooling very slowly. Well lets see you post some proof of that and win a Nobel prize.

Can't you see the irony of that statement? Obviously not.

Grendel wrote on Nov 27^th, 2008 at 5:02pm:

Grendel to Muso....  until you take everything into consideration at once and come out with some sense or proof. You are all over the shop.

It's more useful if you think of it as a whodunnit. The crime is increasing atmospheric CO2 levels and increasing global mean temperatures.

The standard should be 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Let me try to find a graph that illustrates the contributions to Global Warming.

I wish I could find the post where somebody asked the question "Isn't this increase in temperature just a continuation of the natural trend?

This graph illustrates it quite nicely. It shows the pre-industrial past, the industrial period and projected temperature increases by different IPCC scenarios.

As you can see, the latest episode is quite dramatic. It's definitely not a subtle effect and it can not be explained by natural variability.  

---

Quote:

Perhaps you should try applying the same standards to your own claims Grendel. Remember, the politics is all about risk management, not proof. It is irrational to demand proof in the face of risk.

ROTFLMAO>>

If you stop something due to RISK...  but it's something that will have no effect on the outcome... then you aren't mitigating the RISK  :D

That's why you need some sort of real proof first fd.

Oh dear at least we got one post without ad hom in it today muso...  well done.  Any improvement is welcome.

Now how about proving that CO2 increases... increase temperature.  How about proving that all the other "Greenhouse" gases don't have the same effect or more of an effect on temperature.

So far all you've managed to do is point out that green house gases..  sorry CO2... increases marginally within the overall atmospheric makeup as a reaction to increased temperature.

Grendel wrote on Nov 28^th, 2008 at 8:57am:

Now how about proving that CO2 increases... increase temperature.  How about proving that all the other "Greenhouse" gases don't have the same effect or more of an effect on temperature. So far all you've managed to do is point out that green house gases..  sorry CO2... increases marginally within the overall atmospheric makeup as a reaction to increased temperature.

Your question is - how does increasing atmospheric CO2 result in an increase in mean global temperatures?

I should note that CO2 accounts for approximately 93-95% of the radiative forcings at this point in time. Other greenhouse gases such as methane, N2O and CFC's have a relatively low contribution, even though methane has approximately 8 times the Greenhouse Warming potential of CO2 taken over a 50 year period. (That's off the top of my head - feel free to look it up)

The heating effect is a very well understood relationship, although the CO2 forcing part of the equation has a few feedbacks attached to it. The greatest effect on global temperature is due to the water vapour feedback, which hopefully as you can appreciate is a function of temperature. Arrhenius understood this relationship way back when, and the forcing equation is based on a derivative of the Stefan Boltzmann equation - some very basic physics.

Increase temperature by increasing CO2 and you increase atmospheric water vapour concentration, which in turn drives the temperature up further.

Imagine the infrared radiation coming from space (ie from the sun). It hits the earth, and a proportion of the radiation escapes into space - it is reflected. Some surfaces reflect somewhat better than others.

For example, pine forest has a very low albedo, and this absorbs IR radiation very effectively whereas ice tends to reflect to a much greater extent.

On the balance, the earth reflects about 51% of the total incident radiation it receives.  OK?

When IR radiation of specific frequencies come in contact with CO2 in the atmosphere, they are absorbed and re-emitted at different (lower) angles. The overall effect is that 1. The layer of atmosphere closer to the earth (the troposphere) heats up more and 2. the layer above that (the stratosphere) experiences a net cooling effect. Do you understand that part? Both effects have been observed.

One question - What happens to air density as the mole fraction of water vapour increases?  (In other words as air gets more humid, does it get denser or less dense?)

That's not a trick. I'm just trying to get you to follow the logic.

So - I think you understand, (more or less) that heat drives the weather. How much radiation we receive, and it's retained. That heat is transported around the globe by various mechanisms. That air masses move according to differentials in heat. How various pressure regimes occur. How these determine winds, directions, velocities. All that comes into play when we consider atmospheric general circulation models, but in the meantime, let's stick to radiation balance.

Using the Radiation Balance Equation, we can determine what the average received solar insolation is:

[(K + k)(1 - a)]

K = Shortwave Direct Radiation
k = Shortwave Indirect Radiation
a = Reflectivity of the Surface or Surface Albedo

That's only a partial answer though. To gain a better picture of what's happening, we look at the Global Shortwave Energy Cascade, which takes into account all insolation that ultimately reaches the surface and is absorbed, reemitted, or reflected:

The Global Shortwave Radiation Cascade describes the relative amounts (based on 100 units available at the top of the atmosphere) of shortwave radiation partitioned out to various atmospheric processes as it passes through the atmosphere. 19 units of insolation are absorbed (and therefore transferred into heat energy and longwave radiation) in the atmosphere by the following two processes:

- Stratospheric Absorption of the Ultraviolet Radiation by Ozone 2 units; and

- Tropospheric Absorption of Insolation by Clouds and Aerosols 17 units.

23 units of solar radiation are scattered in the atmosphere subsequently absorbed at the surface as diffused insolation. 28 units of the incoming solar radiation are absorbed at the surface as direct insolation. Total amount of solar insolation absorbed at the surface equals 51 units. The total amount of shortwave radiation absorbed at the surface and in the atmosphere is 70 units.

Three main losses of solar radiation back to space occur in the Earth's shortwave radiation cascade. 4 units of sunlight are returned to space from surface reflection. Cloud reflection returns another 20 units of solar radiation. Back scattering of sunlight returns 6 units to space. The total loss of shortwave radiation from these processes is 30 units. The term used to describe the combined effect of all of these shortwave losses is Earth albedo.

Global Shortwave Energy Cascade:

K' = (K + k)(1 - a)

L' = (LD - LU)

Q' = (K + k)(1 - a) -LU + LD

Q' is surface net radiation (global annual values of Q' = 0 , because input equals output, local values can be positive or negative),

K' is surface net shortwave radiation,

K is surface direct shortwave radiation,

k is diffused shortwave radiation (scattered insolation) at the surface,

a is the albedo of surface,

L' is net longwave radiation at the surface,

LD is atmospheric counter-radiation (see Greenhouse Effect) directed to the Earth's surface, and

LU is longwave radiation lost from the Earth's surface.

Having seen where and in what percentages we receive our daily incoming solar energy, then the question arises, "what does it do once it's been absorbed?"

Well, obviously, once received, it is re-emitted as longer wavelengths, or held as latent energy in the atmosphere, oceans, or ice.

Quote:

That's why you need some sort of real proof first fd.

There is sufficient evidence to warrant taking the risk seriously. Demanding absolute proof before avoiding risk is irrational.

Let's forget the semantics around the word proof just for a moment.

Do you honestly think that the highly conservative and vaulted echelons of the Nobel Foundation would have awarded the 2007 Nobel Prize to the IPCC (and some American Politician with a mouth) for for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change if there was any doubt about the matter?

It's cut and dried guys. It's far more certain than decisions that are taken on a day to day basis by large businesses.

Even Oil Companies and Coal Miners have issued public statements that acknowledge the certainty of AGW.

Now there might be a few flies left in the ointment, but they are very scary guys and girls.

I think giving Al Gore a NPP is a joke...  and did more to harm the credibility of the awards than anything I can remember in recent history.

oh and once more....  I'm not denying that GW happens nore are most of the so called skeptics or deniers...  which makes you a bigger denier.  The argument is about what is causing it.  What the driver of climate change is...  and so far it ain't coming up CO2.

Grendel wrote on Nov 28^th, 2008 at 11:13am:

I think giving Al Gore a NPP is a joke...  and did more to harm the credibility of the awards than anything I can remember in recent history.

FD - can we get Al Gore added to the list of bad words? Substitute anything you like. The blue Tellietubby might be appropriate given his political affiliation.



Quote:

The argument is about what is causing it.  What the driver of climate change is...  and so far it ain't coming up CO2.

The question is - what is the cause of the temperature increases of the last (say) 50 years? We know pretty well what factors determine atmospheric temperature. There is a close relationship between temperature and CO2, although I think you're saying that it only goes one way ? Is that correct, or do you have to nip over to Climate Audit to check what you think?

What do you think it could be, given the data we've seen for solar irradiance? Do you reject the fundamental basis of atmospheric physics? Do you think it's Satan (alias the red tellietubby) ?

Do you think that my last couple of posts were just BS?

Well thanks for the tip...  more ad hom...  cant help yourself... it;s that ego and superiority complex you have trouble dealing with.  ;D

I haven't been to that site in particular, but be sure I'll look at it now.

muso wrote on Nov 28^th, 2008 at 10:18am:

Let's forget the semantics around the word proof just for a moment. Do you honestly think that the highly conservative and vaulted echelons of the Nobel Foundation would have awarded the 2007 Nobel Prize to the IPCC (and some American Politician with a mouth) for for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change if there was any doubt about the matter? It's cut and dried guys. It's far more certain than decisions that are taken on a day to day basis by large businesses. Even Oil Companies and Coal Miners have issued public statements that acknowledge the certainty of AGW. Now there might be a few flies left in the ointment, but they are very scary guys and girls.

Didn't the Nobel mob give Mandela an award? And Al Gore?

Mandela was a communist terrorist. Al Gore is just a wanker who lies and deceives.

As far as I am concerned, they're a bunch of tossers.

Grendel wrote on Nov 28^th, 2008 at 5:23pm:

Well thanks for the tip...  more ad hom...  cant help yourself... it;s that ego and superiority complex you have trouble dealing with.  ;D I haven't been to that site in particular, but be sure I'll look at it now.

Grendel - a prime characteristic of an huge inflated ego is not even bothering to reply  or read something  that somebody has taken a lot of trouble to compile.

Quite frankly, I give up trying to explain it to you. You are a lost cause.  Maybe somebody else is not so scared to read my posts that they could find out that I might actually be telling the truth.  

You, and others like you would prefer to read nonsense from various contrarian sites even if they deliberately lie. It doesn't matter to you that they don't even agree with each other. You're happy to quote all sorts of nonsense, including that from sites that defame respected researchers who subsequently find it necessary to publish disclaimers on their personal websites.

In point of fact, you have no interest in hearing the facts - have you?
I suspect that your real intention is to troll.

ROTFLMAO....

More ad hom...
 more lack of proof...

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/01/06/br_r_r_where_did_global_warming_go/

There are scientifically valid arguments for both sides of the fence in this debate.

Environmentology is just another religion. 8-)

Easel,

I can tell you as a practising Environmental Scientist that there is only one side to this as far as the science is concerned. You just need a very basic grounding in general science to understand that fact.

I've already explained that if you go through my posts. I'm just telling the truth here.

Hopefully there is somebody else on this board who understands enough to confirm what I'm saying.  

Some of the few scientists who take a contrarian stance actually know the truth, and they know that perfectly well. I suspect that some of the people who post on internet forums know the truth of the matter too. To deliberately hide the truth is dishonest.

Richard Lindzen is one of the very few climatologists who take that stance. His Iris theory was disproven and discredited a long time ago, and he hasn't published anything in scientific journals since then. He has an axe to grind.

Even Al Gore, although not a professional climatologist, is actually right on the money most of the time. The fact that he's a politician is not very helpful, although there is now broad support from both sides of politics.

I used to want to be an environmental scientist!

Anyway, I am not denying that global warming is a fact, but whether or not the reasons we are given for it are true, and humans have such a large impact on the climate.

Isn't Mars experiencing global warming at the same time/rate as Earth? Aren't sunspots disappearing and scientists are now worried we are headed for an ice age?

easel wrote on Nov 28^th, 2008 at 10:44pm:

I used to want to be an environmental scientist! Anyway, I am not denying that global warming is a fact, but whether or not the reasons we are given for it are true, and humans have such a large impact on the climate. Isn't Mars experiencing global warming at the same time/rate as Earth? Aren't sunspots disappearing and scientists are now worried we are headed for an ice age?

Do you really want me to talk about these things? Maybe I'll do that tomorrow. Goodnight. Take it easy mate.

muso wrote on Nov 28^th, 2008 at 10:34pm:

Easel, I can tell you as a practising Environmental Scientist that there is only one side to this as far as the science is concerned. You just need a very basic grounding in general science to understand that fact. I've already explained that if you go through my posts. I'm just telling the truth here. Hopefully there is somebody else on this board who understands enough to confirm what I'm saying.   Some of the few scientists who take a contrarian stance actually know the truth, and they know that perfectly well. I suspect that some of the people who post on internet forums know the truth of the matter too. To deliberately hide the truth is dishonest. Richard Lindzen is one of the very few climatologists who take that stance. His Iris theory was disproven and discredited a long time ago, and he hasn't published anything in scientific journals since then. He has an axe to grind. Even Al Gore, although not a professional climatologist, is actually right on the money most of the time. The fact that he's a politician is not very helpful, although there is now broad support from both sides of politics.

Muso, with respect, re-read your post with my substitutions.




Easel,

I can tell you as a practising Muslim that there is only one side to this as far as Islam is concerned. You just need a very basic grounding in Islam to understand that fact.

I've already explained that if you go through my posts. I'm just telling the truth here.

Hopefully there is somebody else on this board who understands enough to confirm what I'm saying.  

Some of the few Christians/Jews who take a contrarian stance actually know the truth, and they know that perfectly well. I suspect that some of the people who post on internet forums know the truth of the matter too. To deliberately hide the truth is dishonest.

Ibn Warraq is one of the very few Muslims who take that stance. His koranic theory was disproven and discredited a long time ago, and he hasn't published anything in acadeic journals since then. He has an axe to grind.

Even Sheik Hilali, although not a professional academic, is actually right on the money most of the time. The fact that he's a mufti is not very helpful, although there is now broad support from both sides of the shia/sunni divide.

Gee given that CO2 emissions are still increasing just why isn't every year hotter than the last if that is the cause of global warming?????


Quote:

Given the number of worldwide cold events, it is no surprise that 2007 didn't turn out to be the warmest ever. In fact, 2007's global temperature was essentially the same as that in 2006 - and 2005, and 2004, and every year back to 2001. The record set in 1998 has not been surpassed. For nearly a decade now, there has been no global warming. Even though atmospheric carbon dioxide continues to accumulate - it's up about 4 percent since 1998 - the global mean temperature has remained flat. That raises some obvious questions about the theory that CO2 is the cause of climate change. Yet so relentlessly has the alarmist scenario been hyped, and so disdainfully have dissenting views been dismissed, that millions of people assume Gore must be right when he insists: "The debate in the scientific community is over." But it isn't. Just last month, more than 100 scientists signed a strongly worded open letter pointing out that climate change is a well-known natural phenomenon, and that adapting to it is far more sensible than attempting to prevent it. Because slashing carbon dioxide emissions means retarding economic development, they warned, "the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it." Climate science isn't a religion, and those who dispute its leading theory are not heretics. Much remains to be learned about how and why climate changes, and there is neither virtue nor wisdom in an emotional rush to counter global warming - especially if what's coming is a global Big Chill.

http://www.nationalpost.com/most_popular/story.html?id=164002

Quote:

It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation.

Quote:

z Recent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability. z The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years. z Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today's computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling.

Funnily enough this letter is in line with my thoughts on the subject and the need to concentrate on adaptation...  and has been for many years.  Since the first cooling scare campaign in fact.  but hey...  i'm not an Environmental Scientist...  what would I know right...   ;D

Many deniers state that temperatures are still going up...


Quote:

Duffy asked Marohasy: "Is the Earth stillwarming?" She replied: "No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years." Duffy: "Is this a matter of any controversy?" Marohasy: "Actually, no. The head of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has actually acknowledged it.

Well muso...  are they going up or is everyone else lying?  Including the IPCC.

Soren,

THe last thing I want to do is argue from a point of view of faith, and I'm not trying to get anybody to take it on faith that something is true.

The scientific approach is totally different from religious faith.

I'm just trying to explain that I do know what I'm talking about here, and if you take time to stop and actually read my posts, it will become apparent that I am telling the truth. What I am not asking anyone to do is to take it on faith.

Now the real intent of the likes of Jennifer Marohasy and Bob Carter is to create confusion in the public arena. They are not climate scientists and they have never conducted any climate research. You don't see them participating in scientific discourse with scientists to try and convince them otherwise, because they know that it's a lost cause. Their audience is the voting public.

For one reason or another they have decided to take that stance. Maybe some of them truly believe what they are saying, but I doubt it.

It is possible to demonstrate using basic science that 1. the increases in CO2 and other GHG's in the last 50 years or so are largely anthropogenic and that increasing GHG's lead to increased temperature.

You can even look up Global Warming Potentials for different Greenhouse gases over different timescales, and you can look up radiative forcing equations for various Greenhouse gases in scientific reference texts. How do you suppose these equations were derived? faith?

Grendel wrote on Nov 29^th, 2008 at 1:20am:

Many deniers state that temperatures are still going up... Quote: Duffy asked Marohasy: "Is the Earth stillwarming?" She replied: "No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years." Duffy: "Is this a matter of any controversy?" Marohasy: "Actually, no. The head of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has actually acknowledged it. Well muso...  are they going up or is everyone else lying?  Including the IPCC.

Read my post about the need to plot 5 year means because monthly or annual data is too short term. Can't you appreciate that this is cherry picking or are you being deliberately obtuse?

Look at the graph of annual data (black dots) then look at the red line (5 year means). Can't you see that you can tell very little from the annual data because it varies too much.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1227222079/90

What can I say? If I say that Marohasy is being deliberately simplistic (which she is) it's not going to achieve anything.

Maybe I am wasting my time trying to explain.  

Grendel wrote on Nov 29^th, 2008 at 1:04am:

Gee given that CO2 emissions are still increasing just why isn't every year hotter than the last if that is the cause of global warming?????

It's called natural variability. To see the trend you have to smooth out the natural variability by taking 5 year means.

There is variation in just about every process.

Let's do a mental experiment. Take a bucket with 1000 white beads in it. Add ten red beads. Mix them around and take a scoop of beads. Record the number of red beads you get in the scoop. Replace the beads. Add another 10 beads, mix them around and take another random scoop. Repeat the process.

OK, would you expect that the number would go up neatly every time? I don't think so.

That's a very simple example that illustrates variability. With the natural climate there are all kinds of effects that might affect global temperatures in the short term. These contribute to natural variability.

However if you keep adding  greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, we can easily predict that the temperature is gradually going to increase, and most probably the energy in storm systems is going to increase. Energy is conserved. If you increase the inputs, it has to go somewhere. The heat from the sun drives our weather. If you increase the proportion of that heat that is absorbed by the Earth's troposphere, or change the Earth's energy balance, there will be consequences.  

Check the global CO2 figures. This time last year it was around 385 µmoles per mole of air. This year it has increased to 387. We're adding about 2 every year. Back in the 70's we were increasing by about 1 per year. If we increase even at the current rate, then by 2030, the level of atmospheric CO2 will have increased to about 430ppm.

The eight years of the 21st century have seen a doubling of the rate at which we are adding CO2 to the atmosphere compared to the first 8 years of the 90's. That has been mostly attributed to increased fossil fuel burning, cement production and burning of tropical forest (eg Indonesia)

For those of you who think  that the current increase in CO2 is just part of a natural cycle, this graph helps to put it in perspective. Scroll down to the bottom, and you see the natural variation part. The 2100 projections are based on the 2007 IPCC annual report 4 predictions.

The consensus among most climatologists today is that even these predictions were understated.  

---

muso, fd, men and women of Australia,


Falsifiability - what would make you think that the idea of human-caused global warming is incorrect?

Considering that we do not understand all the elements and variables that make up the climate and do not even know what roles each of the vaguely understood elements play in the whole. How many things make up and affect the climate? What is the comparative weight of each? After billions spent in climate tresearch, does anyone know?

Also, how do we know that merely reducing CO2 emissions will halt or reverse warming? Isn't that too simplistic considering the large number of known unknowns and unknown number of unknowns that shape the climate?

At the leveel of detail - is it important where the measurements indicating warming are taken? A weather station, establlished 50 years ago at the edge of a town then may well be an inner city location by now. Urban areas are warmer by a couple of degrees. Could at least some of the data measure urbanisation rather tthan global climate change?


Clean air, energy effciency - I am all for those. But I am against making human society turn on the central command of a single imperative no more definitive than, say, the final triumph of the working class (ie marxism) or that Allah wants an Ummah.
Yes, it's good to treat employees well, both as employees and as human beings. This does not mean that they should be in charge. Yes, it's good to have freedom of concience and religion but again, you don't want them to be in charge. So it is good to be mindful of the envirionment, to keep it clean and humming along but it takes a kook to want Bob Brown, Tim Flannery and Clive hamilton (or Al Gore) to be in charge. (I say this assuming that you have not crossed that particular line already*)i



* Wink if you are still on this side of that line.

look, here is another graph

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png

Soren wrote on Nov 29^th, 2008 at 8:39am:

muso, fd, men and women of Australia, Falsifiability - what would make you think that the idea of human-caused global warming is incorrect?

If you could somehow attribute the recent dramatic increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases to some other factor, then we could demonstrate that it is false.



Quote:

Considering that we do not understand all the elements and variables that make up the climate and do not even know what roles each of the vaguely understood elements play in the whole. How many things make up and affect the climate? What is the comparative weight of each? After billions spent in climate tresearch, does anyone know?

We're talking about very broad effects here. The analogy is that of  needing to understand the complex workings of the human brain to predict whether we'll get drunk or not if we drink a bottle of Scotch.


Quote:

Also, how do we know that merely reducing CO2 emissions will halt or reverse warming? Isn't that too simplistic considering the large number of known unknowns and unknown number of unknowns that shape the climate?

The relationship between atmospheric CO2 concentration and radiative forcing is basic and well established. The temperature varies as the natural log of the CO2 concentration. It's not linear (a good job too or we'd be fried by now). Energy is conserved. It's not a question of halting or reducing warming. The best we can hope for now is to avoid the more catastrophic effects of Global Warming. Can we save the GBR? Probably not. Can we save billions of people from starving to death by the end of the century? - Probably.


Quote:

At the leveel of detail - is it important where the measurements indicating warming are taken? A weather station, establlished 50 years ago at the edge of a town then may well be an inner city location by now. Urban areas are warmer by a couple of degrees. Could at least some of the data measure urbanisation rather tthan global climate change?

The Urban Heat Island effect is well known and accounted for. Do you really think it was somehow unknown?  

Here's an article from Real Climate that explains this better than I could:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/07/no-man-is-an-urban-heat-island/

tallowood wrote on Nov 29^th, 2008 at 8:56am:

look, here is another graph http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png

- and your point?

muso wrote on Nov 29^th, 2008 at 9:00am:

tallowood wrote on Nov 29th, 2008 at 8:56am: look, here is another graph http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png - and your point?

The picture, muso, the picture .....

tallowood wrote on Nov 29^th, 2008 at 9:02am:

muso wrote on Nov 29th, 2008 at 9:00am: tallowood wrote on Nov 29th, 2008 at 8:56am: look, here is another graph http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png - and your point? The picture, muso, the picture .....

Don't be lazy. What are you trying to say?

muso wrote on Nov 29^th, 2008 at 9:03am:

tallowood wrote on Nov 29th, 2008 at 9:02am: muso wrote on Nov 29th, 2008 at 9:00am: tallowood wrote on Nov 29th, 2008 at 8:56am: look, here is another graph http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png - and your point? The picture, muso, the picture ..... Don't be lazy. What are you trying to say?

Don't be lazy, look at picture.

OK. Here's my reply to your 'well articulated' point.

---

muso wrote on Nov 29^th, 2008 at 9:11am:

OK. Here's my reply to your 'well articulated' point.

Lots of meat  :)

tallowood wrote on Nov 29^th, 2008 at 9:16am:

muso wrote on Nov 29th, 2008 at 9:11am: OK. Here's my reply to your 'well articulated' point. Lots of meat  :)

Likewise. Now imagine another graph showing the area occupied by forest over time. What point do you think I'm trying to make?

muso wrote on Nov 29^th, 2008 at 9:19am:

tallowood wrote on Nov 29th, 2008 at 9:16am: muso wrote on Nov 29th, 2008 at 9:11am: OK. Here's my reply to your 'well articulated' point. Lots of meat  :) Likewise. Now imagine another graph showing the area occupied by forest over time. What point do you think I'm trying to make?

Lots of wood. :)

What do you think these cliffs are made of, and why is it significant?

---

tallowood wrote on Nov 29^th, 2008 at 9:22am:

muso wrote on Nov 29th, 2008 at 9:19am: tallowood wrote on Nov 29th, 2008 at 9:16am: muso wrote on Nov 29th, 2008 at 9:11am: OK. Here's my reply to your 'well articulated' point. Lots of meat  :) Likewise. Now imagine another graph showing the area occupied by forest over time. What point do you think I'm trying to make? Lots of wood. :)

that's right  - Lots of growing wood. Now lots of growing wood collects lots of carbon from where?

muso wrote on Nov 29^th, 2008 at 9:22am:

What do you think these cliffs are made of, and why is it significant?

They made of white trash. :D

Another nice picture
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/Vostok-ice-core-petit.png

They are made of calcium carbonate.

If you extend your graph back into the Pre Cambrian - in fact prior to 2.4 billion years ago, the Earth's atmosphere had no oxygen and lots of CO2 - in fact around about 500,000 ppm.

Why is that relevant to this discussion? You tell me.

We now have 6.8 billion people on Earth for one thing. The buffering capacity of the Earth has dramatically dropped. Even the species of marine organisms that could survive lower ocean pH are long dead and gone and replaced with modern species that don't have enough time to evolve.  

We're not in Kansas any more.

tallowood wrote on Nov 29^th, 2008 at 9:28am:

Another nice picture http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/Vostok-ice-core-petit.png

You'll find a very similar one to that in an earlier post of mine (reply 129). You have to scroll down to see that part.

muso wrote on Nov 29^th, 2008 at 9:33am:

They are made of calcium carbonate. If you extend your graph back into the Pre Cambrian - in fact prior to 2.4 billion years ago, the Earth's atmosphere had no oxygen and lots of CO2 - in fact around about 500,000 ppm. Why is that relevant to this discussion? You tell me. We now have 6.8 billion people on Earth for one thing. The buffering capacity of the Earth has dramatically dropped. Even the species of marine organisms that could survive lower ocean pH are long dead and gone and replaced with modern species that don't have enough time to evolve.   We're not in Kansas any more.

So how do you propose to reduce human population?

tallowood wrote on Nov 29^th, 2008 at 9:37am:

So how do you propose to reduce human population?

A good question. Any suggestions?

One way would be to just ignore everything we know and carry on burning coal as if it's not important. That would do it. It's a bit drastic and inhumane though  - don't you think?

I don't suppose muso it has crossed your mind that REAL CLIMATE is a propaganda site for this new wave of climate hysteria?

BTW I am quite ok with fixing all kinds of pollution...  including that of CO2 emissions.

Wanna graph?





"...the Earth was evidently coming out of a relatively cold period in the 1800s so that warming in the past century may be part of this natural recovery."

       Dr. John R. Christy
       (leading climate and atmospheric science expert- U. of Alabama in Huntsville) (5)

---

Grendel wrote on Nov 29^th, 2008 at 9:47am:

I don't suppose muso it has crossed your mind that REAL CLIMATE is a propaganda site for this new wave of climate hysteria? BTW I am quite ok with fixing all kinds of pollution...  including that of CO2 emissions.

Maybe NOAA is the same, and every single National Academy and every single government too.

Maybe basic atmospheric physics is wrong.

Maybe nothing exists, and maybe everybody in this world is mad, except thee and me, and I'm having my doubts about thou.  ;)

Grendel - Do you believe they actually landed men on the moon?
Be honest now.

muso wrote on Nov 29^th, 2008 at 9:47am:

tallowood wrote on Nov 29th, 2008 at 9:37am: So how do you propose to reduce human population? A good question. Any suggestions? One way would be to just ignore everything we know and carry on burning coal as if it's not important. That would do it. It's a bit drastic and inhumane though  - don't you think?

Is war more or less drastic and inhumane?

All other methods fall short in the face of exponential ppl numbers grow depicted in "meat" graph.

tallowood wrote on Nov 29^th, 2008 at 9:55am:

muso wrote on Nov 29th, 2008 at 9:47am: tallowood wrote on Nov 29th, 2008 at 9:37am: So how do you propose to reduce human population? A good question. Any suggestions? One way would be to just ignore everything we know and carry on burning coal as if it's not important. That would do it. It's a bit drastic and inhumane though  - don't you think? Is war more or less drastic and inhumane? All other methods fall short in the face of exponential ppl numbers grow depicted in "meat" graph.

Are you suggesting that we nuke densely populated parts of the world?

muso wrote on Nov 29^th, 2008 at 10:03am:

tallowood wrote on Nov 29th, 2008 at 9:55am: muso wrote on Nov 29th, 2008 at 9:47am: tallowood wrote on Nov 29th, 2008 at 9:37am: So how do you propose to reduce human population? A good question. Any suggestions? One way would be to just ignore everything we know and carry on burning coal as if it's not important. That would do it. It's a bit drastic and inhumane though  - don't you think? Is war more or less drastic and inhumane? All other methods fall short in the face of exponential ppl numbers grow depicted in "meat" graph. Are you suggesting that we nuke densely populated parts of the world?

No. I suggest to let Nature take its natural course.

tallowood wrote on Nov 29^th, 2008 at 10:12am:

No. I suggest to let Nature take its natural course.

I agree, but burning 7,100,000,000 tonnes of coal, oil and gas every year is not letting nature take its natural course.

By the way I agree that World population is a major issue - just not as imminent an issue as the numerous effects caused by increasing atmospheric CO2 levels.

muso wrote on Nov 29^th, 2008 at 10:21am:

tallowood wrote on Nov 29th, 2008 at 10:12am: No. I suggest to let Nature take its natural course. I agree, but burning 7,100,000,000 tonnes of coal, oil and gas every year is not letting nature take its natural course. By the way I agree that World population is a major issue - just not as imminent an issue as the numerous effects caused by increasing atmospheric CO2 levels.

Nature will take care of burning coal by drastically and remorselessly reducing the polluter's numbers.

There is approximately  4 years and 23 days left to the Time Reset(13.0.0.0.0). It is 12.19.15.15.16 now.

Grendel - Is this the site you cut and pasted your comments from?

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

Or should I ask if you agree with the article there? It's probably easier to talk through that bit by bit if you agree with it.

It is actually quite skillfully constructed. Many of the links are quite valid, but there are also a huge number of half truths, and the overall conclusion is off the wall.

No I don't rely on one source of information muso.
I don't recall being on that site.

You're sounding a bit feral in your responses to Tallowood BTW...  not a tad, alarmist are you?

OH and BTW, the culling of the population is the old "deep green" solution for everything.  ;D

Oh almost forgot...  MOTM? Yes.

Lets look at some of your half-truths...

That the words "very likely" mean definite.

The IPCC Summary for Policymakers is not exactly a document I dote on. The probability corresponding to 'very likely' was downgraded to that, largely as a result of political lobbying.

I base my conclusions on scientific evidence only.

Do you agree with the information provided on that site I linked to? It's quite typical of some of the things you are saying.

Grendel wrote on Nov 29^th, 2008 at 4:49pm:

No I don't rely on one source of information muso. I don't recall being on that site. You're sounding a bit feral in your responses to Tallowood BTW...  not a tad, alarmist are you? OH and BTW, the culling of the population is the old "deep green" solution for everything.  ;D

Tallowood was the one suggesting that we do nothing and just allow a sizeable proportion of the population to die off.

I was asking him if he was advocating nuclear war. I'm pretty sure that some of the things he says are tongue in cheek.

- but I'm beginning to think you actually might believe what you're saying.

Grendel wrote on Nov 29^th, 2008 at 9:47am:

Wanna graph? "...the Earth was evidently coming out of a relatively cold period in the 1800s so that warming in the past century may be part of this natural recovery."        Dr. John R. Christy        (leading climate and atmospheric science expert- U. of Alabama in Huntsville) (5)

What's the relevance of a regional graph of US temperatures in the context of "the Earth"?

Grendel wrote on Nov 29^th, 2008 at 4:55pm:

Oh almost forgot...  MOTM? Yes.

So it's just the AGW contrarian conspiracy theory you adhere to.

That's basically the one that says that every National Academy, and tens of thousands of research scientists are obediently falsifying data just to make Al Gore rich. Or something equally ridiculous and paranoid.

Do I have that right?

Let me know when you want to rejoin us in the real world.

Oh and Grendel - Do you think that it's all due to Cosmic Rays?

muso wrote on Nov 29^th, 2008 at 5:32pm:

Grendel wrote on Nov 29th, 2008 at 4:55pm: Oh almost forgot...  MOTM? Yes. So it's just the AGW contrarian conspiracy theory you adhere to. That's basically the one that says that every National Academy, and tens of thousands of research scientists are obediently falsifying data just to make Al Gore rich. Or something equally ridiculous and paranoid. Do I have that right? Let me know when you want to rejoin us in the real world. Oh and Grendel - Do you think that it's all due to Cosmic Rays?

Did someone say cosmic rays??  Goodie! Time for the tin foil hats:


http://eclectech.co.uk/mindcontrol.php

There is only CO2 Soren...  and the man-made CO2 is the bad CO2.. :o

It is indeed when you consider that an extra 7.1 Gigatonnes of the stuff enters the Earth's Carbon cycle every year. Back in the 70's approximately 50% of the annual CO2 emissions were taken up in the Ocean. Nowadays only 30% of the emission ends up in the ocean due to the reduction in ocean pH and to a lesser extent, the slight increase in ocean temperatures.


Volcanoes contribute only about 130 million tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere each year. Emissions of CO2 by human activities are currently more than 50 times greater than the quantity emitted by volcanoes.

Source: http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php

Back in the early 90's, it was just a question of halving our carbon emissions to restore balance. Now in 2008, we need to reduce it to about 30% to get to the same point. Reducing emissions to 60% worldwide will just buy us time.

Eventually all fossil fuel burning will have to be replaced by clean alternatives.

muso wrote on Nov 30^th, 2008 at 12:52am:

Back in the early 90's, it was just a question of halving our carbon emissions to restore balance. Now in 2008, we need to reduce it to about 30% to get to the same point. Reducing emissions to 60% worldwide will just buy us time. Eventually all fossil fuel burning will have to be replaced by clean alternatives.

There isn't enough time to stop environment from changing. Humans breed much faster and therefore produce more emissions then is possible to cut. That's the graph you youself supplied
http://www.ozpolitic.com/yabbfiles/Attachments/257317_2.jpg

besides the graph supplied by me and apparently earlier by you as well shows that ecological changes of this kind are quiet regular for the planet earth. Humans like other animals are only part of Nature not the rulers of it and every time they think they are clever they only staff up for the worse.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/Vostok-ice-core-petit.png

The Novelty Theory says that the Time Wave amplitude is coming to Zero in approximately  4 years and 22 days. The fourth Time Reset is at (13.0.0.0.0). Now it is 12.19.15.15.16, which the Vostok-ice-core data of the above  graph independently confirms.

tallowood wrote on Nov 30^th, 2008 at 8:48am:

[quote author=muso link=1227222079/165#167 date=1227970369] besides the graph supplied by me and apparently earlier by you as well shows that ecological changes of this kind are quiet regular for the planet earth.

If you look at the graph I provided, it also shows the industrial period. Your graph obviously does not judging by the CO2 concentration.

It would pay you to revisit that graph which makes it abundantly clear that where we are today is outside the natural systems which account for the slow variations on that graph of yours. Stretch the scale out and it's more obvious that the natural changes are slow by comparison.

muso wrote on Nov 30^th, 2008 at 9:08am:

tallowood wrote on Nov 30th, 2008 at 8:48am: [quote author=muso link=1227222079/165#167 date=1227970369] besides the graph supplied by me and apparently earlier by you as well shows that ecological changes of this kind are quiet regular for the planet earth. If you look at the graph I provided, it also shows the industrial period. Your graph obviously does not judging by the CO2 concentration. It would pay you to revisit that graph which makes it abundantly clear that where we are today is outside the natural systems which account for the slow variations on that graph of yours. Stretch the scale out and it's more obvious that the natural changes are slow by comparison.

Where about is it?

tallowood wrote on Nov 30^th, 2008 at 9:17am:

Where about is it?

Here it is again.

---

Now your graph with the CO2 fixed to include today's data. I have left the temperature and dust trends unedited.

---

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23411799-7583,00.html

tallowood wrote on Nov 30^th, 2008 at 8:48am:

Humans breed much faster and therefore produce more emissions then is possible to cut.

That's the heart of your logical fallacy. Some of us don't emit as much as others. In fact the section of the population that is growing is largely in the undeveloped world where emissions per capita are low.

Emissions per capita are high in Australia and the USA, but to quote the film Australia which we watched last night -

"That's how it is, but it doesn't have to be like that"  
(or something like that)

More muso half-truths...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/a_tale_of_two_thermometers/

---

muso wrote on Nov 30^th, 2008 at 9:21am:

tallowood wrote on Nov 30th, 2008 at 9:17am: Where about is it? Here it is again.

As you can see the frequency of curves did not change so as far as the Time Wave is concerned the fourth Time Reset is still on target.

Grendel wrote on Nov 30^th, 2008 at 9:38am:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23411799-7583,00.html

"She replied: "No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued."

How many times do we have to flog this dead horse? Didn't you get my point about taking long term averages?

Then we have the extremely short term Aqua data and Dickie Lindzen's tired old discredited Iris effect. Oh dear.

I've also demonstrated previously that Jen has told quite a few furfies. Once a liar, always a liar.

Again, quoting Jen is scraping the barrel.

Grendel wrote on Nov 30^th, 2008 at 9:46am:

More muso half-truths... http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/a_tale_of_two_thermometers/

LOL. Did you look at the original reference? (The Hadcrut link - spot the difference) Some naughty person has ever so slightly photoshopped an error bar to make it look like a downward trend. (whoops my finger slipped er accidentally)

Not subtle! ;D ;D  That's hilarious!

The two graphs (NASA and Hadley)are otherwise almost identical, except for the scales.

Both show a 0.7 deg C increasing trend.

tallowood wrote on Nov 30^th, 2008 at 9:47am:

As you can see the frequency of curves did not change so as far as the Time Wave is concerned the fourth Time Reset is still on target.

(Translation: I don't understand.)

- What don't you understand?

muso wrote on Nov 30^th, 2008 at 9:40am:

tallowood wrote on Nov 30th, 2008 at 8:48am: Humans breed much faster and therefore produce more emissions then is possible to cut. That's the heart of your logical fallacy. Some of us don't emit as much as others. In fact the section of the population that is growing is largely in the undeveloped world where emissions per capita are low. Emissions per capita are high in Australia and the USA, but to quote the film Australia which we watched last night - "That's how it is, but it doesn't have to be like that"   (or something like that)

There is no fallacy in my logic. Let's have some quantitative analyses.

Since population grow in Australia and America does not make that much difference to total population grow of the world we can assume that it is not the factor of exponential nature of the PG curve.

Now suppose that an Australian produce 5 units of emissions whil 3rd worlder produces 1 unit.
Approximately just to show logical trend \|/
Emission from Australia is 5x20x10^6=10^8
Emission from the rest of world 1x6x10^9=6x10^9

6x10^9 is larger then 10^8

That is for current population but as we know population explosion still going on unchecked so it is going to get worse so even if Australians stop produce any emissions the world is screwed due to exponential nature of population growth.

According to UN the world's population is expected to rise by 40% to 9.1 billion by 2050.

muso wrote on Nov 30^th, 2008 at 10:02am:

tallowood wrote on Nov 30th, 2008 at 9:47am: As you can see the frequency of curves did not change so as far as the Time Wave is concerned the fourth Time Reset is still on target. (Translation: I don't understand.) - What don't you understand?

Yes, what don't you understand? Be honest please.

tallowood wrote on Nov 30^th, 2008 at 10:29am:

Approximately just to show logical trend \|/

Good try but no cigar.  I'll save you the calculation. Developed countries produce 70% of the total global anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions but have less than 25% of the world's population.

Let's redo that calculation. Current World population: 6.8 Billion. By 2050, we'll say 9.1 billion with roughly 80% of that growth in developing countries. Caution - Approximation only, but not as approximate as yours  ;D



Current Situation:
Developed World 1.7 billion produce 4.97 Gigatonnes of Carbon annually

Third World (5.1 billion produce 2.13 Gigatonnes of Carbon.

Using current emission rates:

2050:

Developed World: (2.1 billion people) produce 6.43 Gigatonnes of Carbon
Third World  (7 Billion) produce 2.93 Gigatonnes of Carbon.

So you can see that it's nothing like a magnitude of 10 as you suggest.

Even factoring in China and India doesn't appreciably change the picture.

If we have a major world famine, do you think that will affect the developed countries' population or the third world countries most, and what effect will that have on the emissions scenario?

muso wrote on Nov 30^th, 2008 at 11:31am:

tallowood wrote on Nov 30th, 2008 at 10:29am: Approximately just to show logical trend \|/ Good try but no cigar.  I'll save you the calculation. Developed countries produce 70% of the total global anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions but have less than 25% of the world's population. Let's redo that calculation. Current World population: 6.8 Billion. By 2050, we'll say 9.1 billion with roughly 80% of that growth in developing countries. Caution - Approximation only, but not as approximate as yours  ;D Current Situation: Developed World 1.7 billion produce 4.97 Gigatonnes of Carbon annually Third World (5.1 billion produce 2.13 Gigatonnes of Carbon. Using current emission rates: 2050: Developed World: (2.1 billion people) produce 6.43 Gigatonnes of Carbon Third World  (7 Billion) produce 2.93 Gigatonnes of Carbon. So you can see that it's nothing like a magnitude of 10 as you suggest. Even factoring in China and India doesn't appreciably change the picture. If we have a major world famine, do you think that will affect the developed countries' population or the third world countries most, and what effect will that have on the emissions scenario?

Muso, using your numbers and calculations  :) and assuming that DW will drop rates to 3W rates by 2050  ::) there will be 142 Gigatonnes of Carbon in total produced.

Don't you think the environment will be crack even before that?

That is why all you proposed measures are only a tiny spit in the ocean and will not suffice in the face of the real problem, the overpopulation.  :o

That is not even considering the deforestation in 3rdW. ::)

tallowood wrote on Nov 30^th, 2008 at 12:17pm:

Muso, using your numbers and calculations  :) and assuming that DW will drop rates to 3W rates by 2050  ::) there will be 142 Gigatonnes of Carbon in total produced. Don't you think the environment will be crack even before that? That is why all you proposed measures are only a tiny spit in the ocean and will not suffice in the face of the real problem, the overpopulation.  :o That is not even considering the deforestation in 3rdW. ::)

Good. You obviously now appreciate the true magnitude of the problem. Now can you please help me convince the "fingers in the ears" crowd?

It's better to be informed than not. Do you agree or not?

The Earth still has some buffering capacity, but that's rapidly disappearing.

Long before we have significant sea level change, other consequences will have hit the globe, such as effects on coral and other organisms depending on calcification.

I think it's possible to avoid the more drastic effects of anthropogenic GHG emissions and the various consequences of this.

"That's how it is, but it doesn't have to be like that"

muso wrote on Nov 30^th, 2008 at 12:32pm:

tallowood wrote on Nov 30th, 2008 at 12:17pm: Muso, using your numbers and calculations  :) and assuming that DW will drop rates to 3W rates by 2050  ::) there will be 142 Gigatonnes of Carbon in total produced. Don't you think the environment will be crack even before that? That is why all you proposed measures are only a tiny spit in the ocean and will not suffice in the face of the real problem, the overpopulation.  :o That is not even considering the deforestation in 3rdW. ::) Good. You obviously now appreciate the true magnitude of the problem. Now can you please help me convince the "fingers in the ears" crowd? It's better to be informed than not. Do you agree or not? The Earth still has some buffering capacity, but that's rapidly disappearing. Long before we have significant sea level change, other consequences will have hit the globe, such as effects on coral and other organisms depending on calcification. I think it's possible to avoid the more drastic effects of anthropogenic GHG emissions and the various consequences of this. "That's how it is, but it doesn't have to be like that"

The resistance is futile ..."So relax and enjoy life" (c) - Atheist bus

I'm sorry...  a peak is a peak and a downwards slope a downwards slope in my book muso...  oh and if you wait another 50 years you may see a long term trend.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  half-truths and hypocrisy.

So you didn't notice that the original graph had been doctored? The graph on the official Hadley site is different. Go check if you don't believe me.

I posted a graph...  it's on a downwards trend ...  you want to post another...  feel free.

Good grief...  polly want another?

Oh look...  peaked in 1998

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/02/19/another-global-temp-index-dives-in-jan08-this-time-hadcrut/

---

1. You can't demonstrate anything meaningful with monthly trends. (How many times do I have to say this?)
2. The Hadley data shows less increase in Global Temperatures than any of the other data sets. The team at Hadley are aware of this discrepancy with the GIS data set, and the reasons for it.

3. I don't trust graphs that are not from the original sources after the last example.

The differences in the two products (HadCRUT3v and GISTEMP) are mostly a function of coverage and extrapolation procedures where there is an absence of data. Since one of those areas with no station coverage is the Arctic Ocean, and, as we know, there have been some large temperature increases in the Arctic, the overall reults are lower than GIS.

The recent dip is due to the fact that the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) was in a strong La Nina at the beginning of the year. It was actually expected that 2008 would be colder than it turned out to be.

Researchers have recently managed to extract the ENSO data and apply a correction for the 11 year cycle to show the underlying temperature increase.

The picture shows the difference in data coverage of HadCRUT3v versus GISSTEMP data sets.

If you want a more comprehensive dataset, it's obvious that GISS is superior. At the same time, it's good to see other researchers come up with extremely similar results independently.

---

So no one can dismiss stuff off-hand except you.

No one can use "short" term data except you.

You are the only one permitted to cherry-pick information.

People who disagree with you are to be ridiculed and belittled without addressing the actual issue.

Any points addressed are quickly complicated and run off at tangents and onto ever more complex paths.

No point is to be addressed simply and on its own merit.

But then all other factors are to be ignored if inconvenient.

You can misquote and reinterpret information as a way of ridicule.

Anyone who disagrees with you and is quoted in the media etc is dismissed off-hand or shot yet anyone in agreement is a paragon of virtue and has no vested inte5rests etc, etc, etc...

Oh and anything that doesn't follow your belief is wrong and of course can be dismissed...  OFF-HAND.

Quite funny actually.

Grendel wrote on Dec 1^st, 2008 at 10:46am:

So no one can dismiss stuff off-hand except you. No one can use "short" term data except you. You are the only one permitted to cherry-pick information. People who disagree with you are to be ridiculed and belittled without addressing the actual issue. Any points addressed are quickly complicated and run off at tangents and onto ever more complex paths. No point is to be addressed simply and on its own merit. But then all other factors are to be ignored if inconvenient. You can misquote and reinterpret information as a way of ridicule. Anyone who disagrees with you and is quoted in the media etc is dismissed off-hand or shot yet anyone in agreement is a paragon of virtue and has no vested inte5rests etc, etc, etc... Oh and anything that doesn't follow your belief is wrong and of course can be dismissed...  OFF-HAND. Quite funny actually.

No hard feelings. I recognise it when you can't come up with any valid points and have to resort to shooting the messenger.

It's sometimes better to say nothing when you lose an argument, then come back and regurgitate the same old nonsense in another thread a few months later. It's a tactic that has served you well in the past. Why change now?

Cherry picking? You obviously don't understand the term. Give me an example of where you think I was 'cherry picking'

I might have provided you with the other 50% of your half truths.

Seems you just don't get it muso... there are none so blind...

Arguing with you and winning or losing is irrelevent... mind you...   you can never win against some people and I gather you are one of them.

No skin off my nose.
See you in 50 years if I'm still around...  bet you'll still be in denial and still doing the same old things.

Thanks for posting the graph Grendel. Do you realise that graph still shows an upwards trend in temperature, and that the temperature anomaly is still positive at the last data point? The last year appears to be far more significant than it actually is because the graph deliberately leaves off all the data from before 1988 - just like I said earlier.

Would you consider it rational for everyone to panic if the temperature went up a little bit in one year, but relax the next when it went down, then panic the next year when it went up again, while ignoraing the larger trend? You would rightly criticise an environmentalist who only considered the last 12 months of data and ignored the trend, if it was convenient to them. Would you apply the same standard to yourself?

I'm going to be a bit busy for the next few days, so Grendel will probably be busy cutting and pasting from the usual sites.

The contrarian arguments are actually quite predictable and when you examine them any more than superficially, it becomes quite obvious that they don't hold ground.

The Urban Heat Island nonsense is an example of that. It takes the premise that a motley group of contrarians can somehow identify the urban heat island effect as being a problem whereas professional climatologists have somehow missed this rather obvious fact, or are deliberately failing to compensate for the effect (take your pick).

The truth is that the effect has been known about for many years, and for a similar length of time, it has been compensated for.

Dig slightly below the surface of these claims and they fall over like cardboard cutouts because they simply lack substance.

The people who are actually drawn by these claims range from being totally naive to being criminally aware of the true state of affairs.

To be skeptical in science is a good thing. It's important to question everything. That's all part and parcel of the scientific technique.

I draw the line at deliberate lies.  We have so far demonstrated three examples of deliberate lies.

In the first case, a highly respected research scientist was characterised as being a contrarian, to the extent that he felt it necessary to post a disclaimer on his personal website.

In the second case, short term data was deliberately used to try to demonstrate that in fact the trend was cooling, not warming.

In the third case, a graph was deliberately photoshopped to make a trend appear bigger than it actually was.

These techniques would have been instantly noted if they were part of a scientific paper. The paper would never have got past peer review, and the researcher would very quickly have found himself without a job for deliberately falsifying data.

The people who put out these reports in the public media are basically crooks - professional con artists. They have prostituted whatever scientific qualifications they have for short term gain.

I don't believe in hell personally, but it would be poetic justice for the likes of Jennifer Marohasy, Bob Carter, Tim Ball, Steve Mcittrick et al to be condemned to a hell where the temperature was gradually turned up with minor fluctuations on an hourly scale, and when they complain about the heat, a guy with a trident and red suit would announce:

"I don't know what you're talking about. The temperature for the last 20 minutes shows an obvious cooling trend. I have the graph to prove it"

yawn...  to busy with tha ad hom and pitiful attemps at ridicule...  ho hum

DWMT

Seems constant correction of your opinions about individuals hasn't sunk in or keeps getting ignored much like the other information.

I understand your pov muso..  I don't share it 100%  I told you that b4.  You don't seem to be able to cope with people having a different opinion.  I'm not egotistical enough to believe that I'm 100% right, and I hope when the time comes you will be mature enough to admit it yourself.

FD, good manners prevents me from commenting on you and your opinion.

Grendel wrote on Dec 1^st, 2008 at 3:32pm:

I understand your pov muso..  I don't share it 100%

I really don't think you do understand my POV, Grendel. You see I deal with data every day. If I had a fixed POV, then I wouldn't be able to function. I always base my working hypothesis on all the data that's available to me.

Theories are by their nature fierce and feral.

I don't recommend keeping a theory as a pet, because one of these days, it will not only bite you where the sun don't shine, but you will be totally consumed by it.  You'll be like Richard Lindzen - a broken man - still trying to peddle his Iris Effect years after it was falsified.  

Open your mind and read both sides of the story. Do some research - scratch below the surface and never take anything at face value.

I've been wrong plenty of times way back when I was a research assistant. Pride gets in the way of learning. It's a question of attitude. Next time you're wrong, take the attitude that it was a good learning, and that next time you will be better informed.

- but Grendel,  never lose your passion.

Well that's one of your problems you don't think anyone dissenting from your position can be right.  Or more to the point that you could possibly be wrong.

Like I said I've been doing my homework for about 35 years on it.

Keep up the ad hom... one day it too will bite you on the bum...  pity your ego gets in the way of you seeing your more obvious flaws.

BTW, I'm not the least bit passionate about this subject...  unlike yourself...  and so I'm not blinded to one side of the argument.  In fact even those things I am passionate about I'm not blinded to seeing only one side. I guess for you we'll have to wait till age kicks in with a bit more humility and reason.

Grendel wrote on Dec 1^st, 2008 at 3:50pm:

Like I said I've been doing my homework for about 35 years on it.

Yeah, that figures.  The spoiled opinionated stubborn bit would probably place you as a baby boomer, the same as me. I've already stated my age elsewhere. It's probably not much different to yours.

Well if age aint gonna fix it then probably nothing will   ;D

Quote:

FD, good manners prevents me from commenting on you and your opinion.

Thanks Grendel, I appreciate self control. No need to comment on me specifically, but I welcome criticism of my opinion. Please let me know when you find yourself capable of responding to my comments about the graph, while maintaining your manners. I suspect that was the first time someone on this forum supplied a plot of temperature to try to discredit AGW theories.

Hint....  for fd.  what happens with your slope when you choose different points on the graph?   ::)

My point... and it is valid... is that for 12 months temps (just 1 example) have been going down and if you give it enough time you might see it continuing down...  in which case you have to start asking if temps are going down...  and CO2 is still going up where did I get it soooooo  wrong.

Quote:

and if you give it enough time you might see it continuing down...

What makes you think that? Your crystal ball? Your rejection of science as inconvenient?

Oh excellent refutation...  ::)

So if the temp does go down and the CO2 is still going up you and the alarmists would be right?

The temp has gone down a hundred times since global warming came onto the radar. It's just gone up slightly more. I'm not sure why you latched onto this one. It seems like nothing more than wishful thinking. Like the poor fool who tries to make money of the minute ups and downs on the stock market. If you had a sound argument I would make more of an effort to refute it, but I'm not going to bother guessing at your reasoning in order to do so.

::) ::) ::) ::) ::)

Ah the peak so far fd was in 1998...  10 years ago... if you take that as your start point the temps are trending down.

Don't you understand anything anyone says? Or are you too busy calling other people fools so they won't notice?

Quote:

if you take that as your start point the temps are trending down

And why would you do that? You might as well take the last month and pretend that is your trend. Do you always only consider the data that supports your argument and ignore the rest? This is taking that approach to it's most absurd extreme. It's stupid. You will never grasp the science behind global warming if you keep stumbling on the simple stuff like this.

Good grief....

DWMT

toodles

Grendel wrote on Dec 1^st, 2008 at 10:19pm:

Good grief.... DWMT

No Grendel, not DWMT - ENSO! Why do you think 1998 was a peak?


The onset years for the 12 strongest "classic" or "canonical" La Niña events are 1910, 1916, 1917, 1938, 1950, 1955, 1956, 1971, 1973, 1975, 1988 and 1998

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/ninacomp.shtml



New GW denialists’ deceptive lie on global temperatures

John Mitchell of the Hadley Centre has more about this myth that global warming stopped in 1998 that deniers like to spout.

1998 saw an exceptional El Niño event which contributed strongly to that record-breaking year. Research shows that an exceptional El Niño can warm global temperatures by about 0.2°C in a single year, affecting both the ocean surface and the land air temperatures. It is therefore not surprising that 1998 appears as a warm outlier. Had any recent years experienced such an El Niño, it is very likely that this record would have been broken.

http://energysmart.wordpress.com/2008/03/20/new-gw-denialists-deceptive-lie-on-global-temperatures/

DWMT if you can't understand simple points.

I'm not gonna waste my breathe explaining and refuting every strawman and misinterpretation you guys keep coming up with.

Oh and BTW it is well known that greenies have used that event to push the Global Warming scare campaign anyway...  ::)

oh and...

http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/08/cnn-money-against-newsweek.html

Poor old Jim Hansen god of global warming (also monetary and kudos beneficiary)...  1998 was such a favourite year of his too.

OK. So the Australian Bureau of Meteorology is now known as  "The Greenies"?  ::)

Are you also into pseudo Egyptology by any chance. (Previous Age estimate now revised upwards due to evidence of cerebral necrosis)

Cant refute the facts just try misrepresentation and ridicule...  oh dear muso...  sorry but it wore thin on me last time 'round.

Grendel,

I was actually making a valid point. Are you saying that the ENSO cycle doesn't exist?

- or are you saying that 1998 was not one of the strongest El Nino events ever recorded?

I apologise for the slight ridicule. I didn't realise you were so sensitive.

I have no desire to go off on another pointless tangent.

I made my point.

Either it is right or wrong...  your ridicule proves it was right.

As are many other points made that have received the same treatment from you by many people.. you can only fool some of the people some of the time muso.

Another point... scientists and climatologists who once believed now don't.  

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=c5e16731-3c64-481c-9a36-d702baea2a42

oh and an interesting read...

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2007/290507Warming.htm

at least for me and other people undecided or skeptical.

Grendel wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2008 at 9:16am:

I have no desire to go off on another pointless tangent. I made my point. Either it is right or wrong...  your ridicule proves it was right. As are many other points made that have received the same treatment from you by many people.. you can only fool some of the people some of the time muso. Another point... scientists and climatologists who once believed now don't.   http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=c5e16731-3c64-481c-9a36-d702baea2a42

Appeal to authority is a typical last ditch debating ploy when all else fails.

It will be interesting to see if  The Heartland Institute and the Institute of Public Affairs actually survive when Obama takes office next year. Maybe when we have some return to rationality and the US gets a president who is actually computer literate and knows how to send text messages, we might start to restore intellectual honesty and integrity in US government.

I'm not going to go through the list, but it's pretty obvious that you have the usual tired list -a capricious mix of non climatologists - the odd Geologist, a sad old botanist with chronic root rot and a few meteorologists.

David Bellamy has only just recently 'converted' eh?  Well blow me down  ;D

liar liar , pants on fire.  

Don't make me laugh.  (DMML)

Unless one is an extremely well versed, senior scientific mind, then we all are in the same boat, of having to make value judgements on the information supplied to us on the basis of trust.

We choose which arguments and information we trust, based on the record, and credentials, of their proponents, and the relative consensus of peer, professional support that their arguments receive.

This seems like a reasonable way to filter what is believable and what is not.

So why do we see the hard core denialists going against this trend and choosing to side with those, whose arguments do not receive validation, or even respect, from the vast majority of the scientific world?

Is it just "contrariness"?

When the vast majority of scientists, can cite reams of information, which all point towards one logical conclusion, is it reasonable to take the side of the very few dissenting voices who claim to have unverified proof that a different, in fact, opposite, conclusion is really true?

Whilst we see serious scientists, being open to all information, and openly sharing their conclusions for peer review and critical analysis, we then see the denialists continually rehashing their tired, previously refuted claims, as their proof, then proffering misinformation as debate, then we must question either their motives, or abilities, and in many cases, both.

An issue of such importance, with such far reaching implications, was always likely to struggle to gain acceptance from people who divide themselves over minor political and ideological differences, yet the consensus has been such, that even this hurdle has been cleared, with governments, of all persuasions, accepting the science that has been explained to them, and agreeing that it is a real and critical issue which they must address.

So we have the scientific world, the political world, and the general population, all choosing to listen to, and accept, the consensus of opinion on Global Warming.

On the other side we have the denialists, who choose to summarise the consensus as some kind of trick that is being manipulated by an unnamed cabal of evil scientists, for some unknown reason.

Why would anyone seriously entertain such a ludicrous, unsubstantiated notion ?

Why would normally rational, intelligent people, latch onto this contrary opinion and irreconcilably wed themselves to it?

I suspect that it is an intransigence for many, who chose a side early in the debate, and are unwilling to admit their mistake in backing the wrong horse.
That is understandable, in the context of false pride and pigheadedness, I just hope that their vain promotion of misinformation does not add to further delay the taking of appropriate action.

I gather "recently" may be open to interpretation taken in the context it was mentioned in.

Oh ho ho ho...  bit early for xmas muso...  I don't see me using the word "recently" with Bellamy anywhere.

Don't then call me a liar...  liar.

Oh BTW I've heard all that crap b4...  yawn.

Oh and Mozz... you should lay off... you know my position.
As for CONcensus...

They call this a consensus?

Lawrence Solomon
Financial Post
Monday June 4, 2007

"Only an insignificant fraction of scientists deny the global warming crisis. The time for debate is over. The science is settled."

S o said Al Gore ... in 1992. Amazingly, he made his claims despite much evidence of their falsity. A Gallup poll at the time reported that 53% of scientists actively involved in global climate research did not believe global warming had occurred; 30% weren't sure; and only 17% believed global warming had begun. Even a Greenpeace poll showed 47% of climatologists didn't think a runaway greenhouse effect was imminent; only 36% thought it possible and a mere 13% thought it probable.

Today, Al Gore is making the same claims of a scientific consensus, as do the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and hundreds of government agencies and environmental groups around the world. But the claims of a scientific consensus remain unsubstantiated. They have only become louder and more frequent.

More than six months ago, I began writing this series, The Deniers. When I began, I accepted the prevailing view that scientists overwhelmingly believe that climate change threatens the planet. I doubted only claims that the dissenters were either kooks on the margins of science or sell-outs in the pockets of the oil companies.

My series set out to profile the dissenters -- those who deny that the science is settled on climate change -- and to have their views heard. To demonstrate that dissent is credible, I chose high-ranking scientists at the world's premier scientific establishments. I considered stopping after writing six profiles, thinking I had made my point, but continued the series due to feedback from readers. I next planned to stop writing after 10 profiles, then 12, but the feedback increased. Now, after profiling more than 20 deniers, I do not know when I will stop -- the list of distinguished scientists who question the IPCC grows daily, as does the number of emails I receive, many from scientists who express gratitude for my series.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2007/040607consensus.htm

Mozz,

You seem like a fairly clear thinker. Did you follow the argument I made about the Solar irradiance results and the fact that the recent warming and CO2 figures in  the past 50 years show a lack of correspondance to the relative lack of change in the irradiance figures?

That, together with the data that shows that we're dumping 7.1 gigatonnes of CO2 per annum into the atmosphere, cinches the deal.  

That together with the Greenhouse effect makes it virtually conclusive, especially since we can measure the effects of different greenhouse gases.  

I just can't understand how people fail to understand that point.

I have a theory that people other than scientists 'switch off' as soon as anything vaguely scientific is discussed.

Grendel wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2008 at 10:30am:

I gather "recently" may be open to interpretation taken in the context it was mentioned in. Oh ho ho ho...  bit early for xmas muso...  I don't see me using the word "recently" with Bellamy anywhere. Don't then call me a liar...  liar.

You're getting way too sensitive, Grendell. It was the author of the Right Wing article you linked to that claimed that these people had only recently converted to the religion of 'climate science denial'.  

He's the one who's the liar liar. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Liar - no - but sucker ? Well I have no way of knowing that for sure.

;D

Point 1 for beginners...  name people if you post after someone and you aren't referring to them or their post.

Point 2...  recent is relative...

Grendel wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2008 at 10:48am:

Point 2...  recent is relative...

In that case I was born recently.

- but I wasn't born yesterday. David Bellamy's denialist career began in 1996.

Grendel don't you think it's a bit ironic that you keep telling people not to waste your time, while at the same time pulling out absurdly childish arguments, like the one where you choose the points on the graph to get the trend you want from? How is that any more intelligent than saying "frost this morning, therefor no global warming"?

I can't help it if you cant follow things fd.
I'm way past caring enough to spoon feed you.

muso...  well you think it did.
BTW the term used was official "skeptic"...  and there are other qualifiers but hey...  it don't matter to you, as long as you think you scored some huge point.  ;D ;D ;D

just foolin yourself there...

Grendel wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2008 at 11:31am:

muso...  well you think it did. BTW the term used was official "skeptic"...  and there are other qualifiers but hey...  it don't matter to you, as long as you think you scored some huge point.  ;D ;D ;D just foolin yourself there...

Well last year, he was whingeing about the fact that the BBC has shunned him for the last 10 years because of his denialist stance, so that's (let me see now )

2007-10 = Recently according to my best Grendelian mathematics.

Grendel, am I right that your so-called 'cooling trend' is just a slightly more complicated, but no less childish version of "frost this morning, therefor no global warming"?

hey both of you...  DWMT

as a final note re "recent" muso...  the claim refers to 2005 when his tenure to certain groups was ended.  He was also still working in TV until 1999 on environmental programs.  tsk, tsk, tsk...

You're starting to sound like a broken record now Grendel.

Unfortunatley I have a courteous habit of replying to things no matter how often or how boring or how wrong.

You still haven't explained how choosing a one year period from a temperature plot that is extremly variable over such a short time period, while ignoring the real trends, is 'right'. How is it any better than saying "frost this morning, therefor no global warming"?

you really are clueless aren't you, you can't even get the premise of a point right.

yawn...

ABC-TV Meteorologist: I Don't Know A Single Weatherman Who Believes 'Man-Made Global Warming Hype'

James Spann
Friday, January 19, 2007

Well, well. Some “climate expert” on “The Weather Channel” wants to take away AMS certification from those of us who believe the recent “global warming” is a natural process. So much for “tolerance”, huh?

I have been in operational meteorology since 1978, and I know dozens and dozens of broadcast meteorologists all over the country. Our big job: look at a large volume of raw data and come up with a public weather forecast for the next seven days. I do not know of a single TV meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype. I know there must be a few out there, but I can’t find them. Here are the basic facts you need to know:

*Billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon. No man-made global warming, the money dries up. This is big money, make no mistake about it. Always follow the money trail and it tells a story. Even the lady at “The Weather Channel” probably gets paid good money for a prime time show on climate change. No man-made global warming, no show, and no salary. Nothing wrong with making money at all, but when money becomes the motivation for a scientific conclusion, then we have a problem. For many, global warming is a big cash grab.

*The climate of this planet has been changing since God put the planet here. It will always change, and the warming in the last 10 years is not much difference than the warming we saw in the 1930s and other decades. And, lets not forget we are at the end of the ice age in which ice covered most of North America and Northern Europe.

If you don’t like to listen to me, find another meteorologist with no tie to grant money for research on the subject. I would not listen to anyone that is a politician, a journalist, or someone in science who is generating revenue from this issue.

In fact, I encourage you to listen to WeatherBrains episode number 12, featuring Alabama State Climatologist John Christy, and WeatherBrains episode number 17, featuring Dr. William Gray of Colorado State University, one of the most brilliant minds in our science.

WeatherBrains, by the way, is our weekly 30 minute netcast.

I have nothing against “The Weather Channel”, but they have crossed the line into a political and cultural region where I simply won’t go.

I ask you for a simple explanation for your highly selective use of data, and you come up with a conpiracy theory from a whether man who can't even get his basic english right? Why is it that you can only copy and paste irrelevant, low quality crap like that in response to the difficult questions?

You still haven't explained how choosing a one year period from a temperature plot that is extremly variable over such a short time period, while ignoring the real trends, is 'right'. How is it any better than saying "frost this morning, therefor no global warming"?

Oh and...

Scientists threatened for 'climate denial'

Tom Harper
London Telegraph
Sunday, March 11, 2007

Scientists who questioned mankind's impact on climate change have received death threats and claim to have been shunned by the scientific community.

They say the debate on global warming has been "hijacked" by a powerful alliance of politicians, scientists and environmentalists who have stifled all questioning about the true environmental impact of carbon dioxide emissions.

Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada, has received five deaths threats by email since raising concerns about the degree to which man was affecting climate change.

One of the emails warned that, if he continued to speak out, he would not live to see further global warming.

"Western governments have pumped billions of dollars into careers and institutes and they feel threatened," said the professor.

"I can tolerate being called a sceptic because all scientists should be sceptics, but then they started calling us deniers, with all the connotations of the Holocaust. That is an obscenity. It has got really nasty and personal."

Last week, Professor Ball appeared in The Great Global Warming Swindle, a Channel 4 documentary in which several scientists claimed the theory of man-made global warming had become a "religion", forcing alternative explanations to be ignored.

Richard Lindzen, the professor of Atmospheric Science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology - who also appeared on the documentary - recently claimed: "Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labelled as industry stooges.

"Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science."

Dr Myles Allen, from Oxford University, agreed. He said: "The Green movement has hijacked the issue of climate change. It is ludicrous to suggest the only way to deal with the problem is to start micro managing everyone, which is what environmentalists seem to want to do."

Nigel Calder, a former editor of New Scientist, said: "Governments are trying to achieve unanimity by stifling any scientist who disagrees. Einstein could not have got funding under the present system."  

ah yes...  only the righteous shall prevail   ::)

Sooner or later you are going to have to come up with some sort of coherent argument Grendel, rather than copying and pasting a different tangent with each response. Do you realise your weather man conspiracy article directly contradicts your 'global cooling' theory based on highly selective use of data?

Everything I paste makes a point fd...  get an adult to explain them to you.

Even the ad hom crap I have to repsond to makes a point.

Sure, but they are irrelevant or contradict each other. They certainly don't build any kind of coherent argument. The only common theme is that you will accept any claim against AGW, no matter how bogus, but cannot follow through on any of them.

Pointing out all the flaws in your copy and paste bombs is not an ad hominem.

Well like muso said, when it gets too scientific, my eyes start to glaze over, but I do try and follow the basic arguments to the best of my ability, I did get the gist of your points about solar radiation being accounted for in the modelling, and the sheer volume of CO2 being emitted is staggering, but I will not pretend to understand what I do not, and much of the science is over my head.

That said, I can spot ridiculous propaganda when I see it, and the dross dished up by the denialists is nothing short of propaganda, usually, if not exclusively, emanating from the extreme right wing think tanks we have come to know and hate.

Men of the ilk of 'Dr Timothy Ball', who seems incapable of opening his mouth without further diminishing whatever credibility he may have imagined that he had, now seeks self importance with claims of death threats, fair dinkum, what a joke.

The fact that they vacillate between what to deny on a daily basis does little for their credibility either.

We are warming, but it is because of the sun, natural cycles, earth's rotation, bounce back from previous cooling period,etc., BUT, definitely nothing to do with us, and definitely nothing to do with CO2, and definitely nothing to do with burning fossil fuels.

OR

We aren't warming, we are cooling, which means that if there was warming, it definitely had nothing to do with us burning fossil fuels.

That the people who latch onto these denialist propaganda arguments should come from such diverse backgrounds as conspiracy theorists who still think George Bush blew up the twin towers, and are just happy to have another conspiracy that they are the only ones smart enough to figure out, to the extremist right wing journos, who maintain their profile by challenging anything considered vaguely liberal or ecologically sound, is an indication of how great is the ability of some to believe things in spite of the evidence, and they will always be around, but they are more than just a petty annoyance, they are speed humps on the highway to real change, and should be avoided at all cost.

I appreciate your efforts in outlining some of the more salient scientific facts muso, and I challenge anyone to read this thread from start to finish, and not see the clear pattern of verifiable information from one side, and a contradictory mish mash of waffle and deceit from the other, and that seems indicative of the whole argument.

Thanks mozz,

I use some of these forcing equations and GWP indices on a day to day basis, much like a civil engineer would look up a tensile strength or an elasticity modulus for a particular building project.

So when lay persons who know absolutely nothing about Environmental Engineering or Environmental Science start spouting what is obviously nonsense, it gets more than a little bit personal.

To others it might be seen as just one insult trading another. You might not believe that these people like Tim Ball and Sherwood Idso are actually being financially backed to spread confusion in the general public, but for me it is very real and person. I can tell you that the going rate is something like $10,000 a month now. That's second hand information, but obviously the "Business as Usual' lobby now has to pay a lot more for a scientist to prostitute himself than 5 years ago, when it was a measly $2,500 - and that's first hand information. (Nothing in writing of course.)  

So when Tim Ball cries crocodile tears of poverty and complains that he's not receiving grants, I have absolutely no sympathy. He's doing just fine thank you very much.    

You got receipts to back that up of course...  
Mind you Al is doing just fine so is James Hansen etc, etc, etc, etc....

Do give it up.  'bout time you all recognised your own sides propaganda instead of labelling everyone else.

I have no proof of which side is right, because there is NONE...  just claims and counter claims.  I have my opinion of course as do you.  Like I said at the beginning in thye sanest thing that probably has been said on it all...  we'll just have to agree to disagree.

In 50-100 years when there is more data, more knowledge and more proof, (something you don't have yet) perhaps then we'll have a REAL handle on it.  I can post any number of counter quotes, graphs, articles, etc, etc, etc...  you'll keep doing what you do... shoot the messenger and dismiss OUT-OF-HAND everything that dissents from your opinion.

Unlike you muso it ain't personal to me...

Grendel while you continue to focus on the battle between Al Gore and his counterparts from the opposite extreme, while ignoring the actual science and the scientists involved, you will only ever involve yourself with strawman arguments, and you will never get to the heart of the matter.

Nothing is being dismissed 'out of hand'. The arguments you copy and paste so fervently have clear and obvious logical flaws, which is why you simply go on to the next copy and paste rather than following through on any argument long enough to realise how silly they are.

For example, you still haven't explained how choosing a one year period from a temperature plot that is extremly variable over such a short time period, while ignoring the real trends, is 'right'. How is it any better than saying "frost this morning, therefor no global warming"?

Denialist Logic - Illustrated by example.

VILLAGER #1:
We have found a witch. May we burn her?
CROWD:
Burn her! Burn! Burn her! Burn her!
BEDEVERE:
How do you know she is a witch?
VILLAGER #2:
She looks like one.
CROWD:
Right! Yeah! Yeah!
BEDEVERE:
Bring her forward.
WITCH:
I'm not a witch. I'm not a witch.
BEDEVERE:
Uh, but you are dressed as one.
WITCH:
They dressed me up like this.
CROWD:
Augh, we didn't! We didn't...
WITCH:
And this isn't my nose. It's a false one.
BEDEVERE:
Well?
VILLAGER #1:
Well, we did do the nose.
BEDEVERE:
The nose?
VILLAGER #1:
And the hat, but she is a witch!
VILLAGER #2:
Yeah!
CROWD:
We burn her! Right! Yeaaah! Yeaah!
BEDEVERE:
Did you dress her up like this?
VILLAGER #1 :
No!
VILLAGER #2 and 3:
No. No.
VILLAGER #2:
No.
VILLAGER #1:
No.
VILLAGERS #2 and #3:
No.
VILLAGER #1:
Yes.
VILLAGER #2:
Yes.
VILLAGER #1:
Yes. Yeah, a bit.
VILLAGER #3:
A bit.
VILLAGERS #1 and #2:
A bit.
VILLAGER #3:
A bit.
VILLAGER #1:
She has got a wart.
RANDOM:
[cough]
BEDEVERE:
What makes you think she is a witch?
VILLAGER #3:
Well, she turned me into a newt.
BEDEVERE:
A newt?
VILLAGER #3:
I got better.
VILLAGER #2:
Burn her anyway!
VILLAGER #1:
Burn!
CROWD:
Burn her! Burn! Burn her!...
BEDEVERE:
Quiet! Quiet! Quiet! Quiet! There are ways of telling whether she is a witch.
VILLAGER #1:
Are there?
VILLAGER #2:
Ah?
VILLAGER #1:
What are they?
CROWD:
Tell us! Tell us!...
BEDEVERE:
Tell me. What do you do with witches?
VILLAGER #2:
Burn!
VILLAGER #1:
Burn!
CROWD:
Burn! Burn them up! Burn!...
BEDEVERE:
And what do you burn apart from witches?
VILLAGER #1:
More witches!
VILLAGER #3:
Shh!
VILLAGER #2:
Wood!
BEDEVERE:
So, why do witches burn?
[pause]
VILLAGER #3:
B--... 'cause they're made of... wood?
BEDEVERE:
Good! Heh heh.
CROWD:
Oh, yeah. Oh.
BEDEVERE:
So, how do we tell whether she is made of wood?
VILLAGER #1:
Build a bridge out of her.
BEDEVERE:
Ah, but can you not also make bridges out of stone?
VILLAGER #1:
Oh, yeah.
RANDOM:
Oh, yeah. True. Uhh...
BEDEVERE:
Does wood sink in water?
VILLAGER #1:
No. No.
VILLAGER #2:
No, it floats! It floats!
VILLAGER #1:
Throw her into the pond!
CROWD:
The pond! Throw her into the pond!
BEDEVERE:
What also floats in water?
VILLAGER #1:
Bread!
VILLAGER #2:
Apples!
VILLAGER #3:
Uh, very small rocks!
VILLAGER #1:
Cider!
VILLAGER #2:
Uh, gra-- gravy!
VILLAGER #1:
Cherries!
VILLAGER #2:
Mud!
VILLAGER #3:
Uh, churches! Churches!
VILLAGER #2:
Lead! Lead!
ARTHUR:
A duck!
CROWD:
Oooh.
BEDEVERE:
Exactly. So, logically...
VILLAGER #1:
If... she... weighs... the same as a duck,... she's made of wood.
BEDEVERE:
And therefore?
VILLAGER #2:
A witch!
VILLAGER #1:
A witch!
CROWD:
A witch! A witch!...
VILLAGER #4:
Here is a duck. Use this duck. [quack quack quack]
BEDEVERE:
Very good. We shall use my largest scales.
CROWD:
Ohh! Ohh! Burn the witch! Burn the witch! Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Ahh! Ahh...
BEDEVERE:
Right. Remove the supports!
[whop]
[clunk]
[creak]

yawn

DWMT  and everyone elses...  there is NO PROOF of what you believe in.  Even the modelling on which your belief is based is flawed and has not as yet predicted anything accurately.

Scientists have been wrong before and I have no doubt will be wrong again.  Your belief is premised on the word "likely".  So much for your credibility etc.  I need more than just "likely"...  don't you?

Now do give it a rest.

Funny muso...  but I'd have thought it was more relevant to your side of the argument.  There are none so blind muso...  ;D

Quote:

there is NO PROOF of what you believe in

That's a rather absurd statement to make Grendel. I believe we should take a rational risk management approach. This is a normative statement, not a positive one. It has nothing to do with proof. It is impossible to prove or disprove. The only positive claim I have made is that your arguments are illogical, and I have demonstrated that.


Quote:

I need more than just "likely"...  don't you?

Risk management is all about dealing rationally with uncertainty. Refusing to act without certainty is irrational.

Grendel wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2008 at 3:03pm:

yawn DWMT  and everyone elses...  there is NO PROOF of what you believe in.  Even the modelling on which your belief is based is flawed and has not as yet predicted anything accurately. Scientists have been wrong before and I have no doubt will be wrong again.  Your belief is premised on the word "likely".  So much for your credibility etc.  I need more than just "likely"...  don't you? Now do give it a rest. Funny muso...  but I'd have thought it was more relevant to your side of the argument.  There are none so blind muso...  ;D

Guess what? I don't need a f%^&^ general circulation model to confirm that CO2 produced from the burning of fossil fuels and other anthropogenic activities is getting us into trouble.

My conclusion is not based on the word 'likely'. It's based on solid scientific principles, data and observations.

That part is easy. The difficult part comes in determining exactly how much of an effect there will be. The biggest uncertainties are in the areas of albedo effects, clouds and aerosols.

You haven't even touched on the major uncertainties. You're still talking about temperature trends.

There are huge uncertainties for the the period between now and the end of the century, because so much depends on what course of action we take. That alone can make a difference of double the atmospheric CO2 concentration.

We know there are lags -  in the past with natural systems, the main driver has always been the sun, because there hasn't been anything natural in recent times that has released huge quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere. The sun drives global temperature which increases CO2 and we get a metastable equilibrium between CO2 and temperature.

Drive it with increasing CO2 and you still get a lag. Temperature lags behind increasing CO2. It's like taking up the slack on a car towed by a rope. Eventually the rope will tighten and the global temperature will catch up. The sea temperatures have even more of a lag than atmospheric temperatures.  

A fact is hypothesis that is so firmly supported by evidence that we assume it is true, and act as if it were true. Douglas Futyuma

So what is the date of the end if nothing is done?

Well I for one am looking forward to your; definitive,  ground-breaking, Nobel award winning, paper...  muso.

It appears you have never read much of what I've written on the topic at all muso...  tsk, tsk, tsk...  that'll teach you to skim and dismiss OOH stuff people tell you.   ;D ;D ;D

tallowood wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2008 at 3:52pm:

So what is the date of the end if nothing is done?

Tallow - Take your eschatology to the Spirituality thread. The end of the world is not nigh. The following is just my opinion, but I think that the human race will probably go on regardless of what happens, albeit at a lower population level but with a terrible legacy of widespread famines and horrific natural disasters in the 21st and 22nd centuries. Hopefully we'll still have a high level of technologies in our cities in 26th century Antarctica.

Grendel - Nothing you have posted here has been original. I've seen exactly the same unmitigated garbage in other internet forums.

35 years? Study?



However, I would like to talk to you about this bridge in Sydney that's going for a song.  

You sound like Thomas Kuhn Muso, only less diplomatic.

freediver wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2008 at 10:04pm:

You sound like Thomas Kuhn Muso, only less diplomatic.

You're right. Sometimes we see things differently in the clear light of morning.  :-[

ROTFLMAO
At yet another typical muso response...
Not gonna win anyone over that way. ;D ;D ;D

Grendel wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2008 at 9:25am:

ROTFLMAO At yet another typical muso response... Not gonna win anyone over that way. ;D ;D ;D

Good job you didn't see my original response.

Nothing you say could surprise me oh egotistical one...  8-)

mostly your responses are just ad hom after all.

What we do not like in ourselves usually manifests itself as our criticism of others. Think about it.

EGOTISM= A case of mistaken Nonentity ;) ;)

yawn...  see what I mean  ;D

Grendel,

Let's get back on track. Did you see "The Great Global Warming Swindle", and do you broadly agree with what it says?

muso wrote on Nov 30^th, 2008 at 9:40am:

tallowood wrote on Nov 30th, 2008 at 8:48am: Humans breed much faster and therefore produce more emissions then is possible to cut. That's the heart of your logical fallacy. Some of us don't emit as much as others. In fact the section of the population that is growing is largely in the undeveloped world where emissions per capita are low. Emissions per capita are high in Australia and the USA, but to quote the film Australia which we watched last night - "That's how it is, but it doesn't have to be like that"   (or something like that)

Quote:

CLIMATE change adviser Ross Garnaut has warned that developed nations will be unable to avert global warming by simply setting exemplary emissions targets in the hope that developing nations will follow, saying China and India must join a global action plan from the start if there is to be any hope of success. ... "In the absence of early constraints that hold developing-country emissions well below business as usual, no degree of constraint from developed countries will avoid high risks of dangerous climate change." ...

"That's how it is..."

tallowood wrote on Dec 8^th, 2008 at 5:50am:

muso wrote on Nov 30th, 2008 at 9:40am: tallowood wrote on Nov 30th, 2008 at 8:48am: Humans breed much faster and therefore produce more emissions then is possible to cut. That's the heart of your logical fallacy. Some of us don't emit as much as others. In fact the section of the population that is growing is largely in the undeveloped world where emissions per capita are low. Emissions per capita are high in Australia and the USA, but to quote the film Australia which we watched last night - "That's how it is, but it doesn't have to be like that"   (or something like that) Quote: CLIMATE change adviser Ross Garnaut has warned that developed nations will be unable to avert global warming by simply setting exemplary emissions targets in the hope that developing nations will follow, saying China and India must join a global action plan from the start if there is to be any hope of success. ... "In the absence of early constraints that hold developing-country emissions well below business as usual, no degree of constraint from developed countries will avoid high risks of dangerous climate change." ... "That's how it is..."

The point I was making is that it's not just a simple issue of population. You seemed to be under the impression that third world emissions would be much more significant in the scheme of things than they are simply because of population.

I agree with Prof Garnaud in that everybody, including India and China must start looking at ways to reduce emissions. Unless we all achieve this, we're only going to slow down the inevitable.

China has already passed the US as the world's largest CO2 emitter, but in terms of per capita emissions, they are still well down on the US.

Like it or not, rising temperatures will result in dramatic reductions in yield for major food crops. There is no other conclusion possible other than major world famines. Crops have failed in the past, but when you're talking about many crops failing at the same time, the impacts will be global.

The segment of the world's population that will suffer most will be the poorer countries. Many people will die as a result, but if we continue with a business as usual approach, even that tragedy will have negligible effect on carbon dioxide emissions.

It's a pretty horrible scenario, but all the numbers stack up.

muso wrote on Dec 4^th, 2008 at 11:45am:

Grendel, Let's get back on track. Did you see "The Great Global Warming Swindle", and do you broadly agree with what it says?

Muso, just what is your problem man?

Don't you know that you presenting intelligent information in a lucid and patient manner only makes you suspicious. Don't you know that the surplus of unemployed " Smoking is good for you " scientits are now working for the "global warming is a fantasy" fat cats. There won't be a change until their profits from regearing industry goes 180.
But some just can't see the obvious. Sorry to say that the Blind Bleeding the Blind is alive and well.

You don't have a beard do you?

Grendal, most of what you post is just pure rubbish. So much so that I have to assume that you are simply playing the Devil's Advocate. I wish I could argue this topic better than muso or FD but I can't.

locutius wrote on Dec 8^th, 2008 at 6:08pm:

muso wrote on Dec 4th, 2008 at 11:45am: Grendel, Let's get back on track. Did you see "The Great Global Warming Swindle", and do you broadly agree with what it says? Muso, just what is your problem man? Don't you know that you presenting intelligent information in a lucid and patient manner only makes you suspicious. Don't you know that the surplus of unemployed " Smoking is good for you " scientits are now working for the "global warming is a fantasy" fat cats. There won't be a change until their profits from regearing industry goes 180. But some just can't see the obvious. Sorry to say that the Blind Bleeding the Blind is alive and well. You don't have a beard do you? Grendal, most of what you post is just pure rubbish. So much so that I have to assume that you are simply playing the Devil's Advocate. I wish I could argue this topic better than muso or FD but I can't.

Yeah, he never seems to stick around long enough and make deep enough arguments. He reminds me of my dog. When somebody comes to the door, he barks, sneaking his head around the corner, but when they actually come in, he runs away and hides.

Grendel you sook, come back here and let me get my teeth into you properly.  

He's out buying land at the 25 feet above high tide level, maybe. :-X

locutius wrote on Dec 8^th, 2008 at 6:08pm:

muso wrote on Dec 4th, 2008 at 11:45am: Grendel, Let's get back on track. Did you see "The Great Global Warming Swindle", and do you broadly agree with what it says? Muso, just what is your problem man? Don't you know that you presenting intelligent information in a lucid and patient manner only makes you suspicious. Don't you know that the surplus of unemployed " Smoking is good for you " scientits are now working for the "global warming is a fantasy" fat cats. There won't be a change until their profits from regearing industry goes 180. But some just can't see the obvious. Sorry to say that the Blind Bleeding the Blind is alive and well. You don't have a beard do you? Grendal, most of what you post is just pure rubbish. So much so that I have to assume that you are simply playing the Devil's Advocate. I wish I could argue this topic better than muso or FD but I can't.

Pollution is bad, but how do we know we are creating global warming via this CO2 stuff? We don't.

If the fat cats were behind it, you would never have politicians running on it as a platform. Why would groups like the UN, who crave world domination, be so anti-global warming? Seems like more of a thirst for power and domination than anything else.

Quote:

If the fat cats were behind it, you would never have politicians running on it as a platform.

That's a pretty cynical view easel. Like it or not, we are not all slaves to the fat cats. We can think and vote for ourselves.

easel wrote on Dec 9^th, 2008 at 6:02pm:

Pollution is bad, but how do we know we are creating global warming via this CO2 stuff? We don't. If the fat cats were behind it, you would never have politicians running on it as a platform. Why would groups like the UN, who crave world domination, be so anti-global warming? Seems like more of a thirst for power and domination than anything else.

Easel,

I've been trying to explain why we know we are creating global warming via the 'CO2 stuff'.

Let's take an analogy. You have a gas burner and you keep it on exactly the same flame. You have a pot of water that's being stirred on top of it. If you plot the temperature against time on a graph and you should get a straight line.

If the temperature suddenly starts going up at a much higher rate than normal, one of two things must have happened. You've either turned up the heat or you've changed something that affects how quickly the heat is transferred to the water. (Actually three - you could have remoned some of the water.  

Energy is conserved. You don't get something for nothing.

The sun provides a fairly constant source of heat for the Earth. There are some slight variations - for example the Earth is slightly closer to the sun once a year and the energy received from the sun varies a bit on an annual basis. The sun itself varies a little bit over 11 and 22 year cycles. It's not much variation, and we can account for it.

We can actually measure the radiant heat coming from the sun using a satellite outside the Earth's atmosphere. This is a very accurate measurement that includes changes in orbit and changes in heat output of the sun.

In the past 50 years there have been one or two blips in the temperature record. Major explosive volcanoes can cause these. Generally they cool the planet slightly because of the gases they give out. They are nothing to worry about because they are short -term - about a year's worth of influence.

Remember I said we can measure how much heat we're getting from the sun? Well that has been very constant. During the middle of the 20th century, that 'irradiance' actually went up slightly, causing a slight increase in global temperatures, but between about 1950 and today,  the temperature increase has not been explainable by the output of the sun.

It's like hey, we're not in Kansas any more.

The only explanation is what's known as the Greenhouse Effect. That has nothing to do with Greenhouses by the way.

If you increase the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, we can work out how much of an effect it will have on retaining the heat in the lower atmosphere. It's actually very easy to predict this, especially since the cloud cover in the atmosphere has not changed all that much from the 1950's - and that's something we have records of.

So - the only thing that could have caused the increase has been the Greenhouse gases building up in the atmosphere.

That's as good a job as I can do of explaining the situation. I've tried to keep it as non technical as possible.

That's certainly not the whole picture - there is a lot more evidence of  Global Warming from other sources, but the one I explained is probably the easiest to understand.

It's important to realise that Business and Industry operate on fairly short term objectives. If you were to say that 20 or 30 years from now that your business would go down the tube because of global warming trends, most economists and business managers wouldn't really care, because it's too far down the track.  

So they are going to fight tooth and nail against any changes to the laws that forces them to reduce fossil fuel burning. The problem is that it's all too convenient to use petrol and diesel, and they are quite cheap at the moment.

They fight by basically spreading lies by any way they can. The lobby groups employ scientists who are prepared to spread more lies and confuse the issue - but only in the public eye.

There is no actual debate among climate scientists. Scientists generally 'debate' by publishing papers. There are no papers that state that anthropogenic global warming is not occurring.

All that you have is a few very corrupt individuals selling stories to newspapers and spreading confusion within the public, who don't have the technical knowledge to understand the issues.

So the only place there is a debate is in the public eye - and that's a problem, because people elect politicians and determine policy to a greater extent. If there was a real debate, you would expect to see a balanced number of scientific papers on both sides. That just isn't happening.

I've read quite a lot of rubbish lately about running away and other crap...  not someting I've ever done my record stands against all that personal vitriol and crap.

As for debating the point here... why bother.  As I pointed out from the very start there is no debate.  just I'm right, you are wrong.

All dissent from the current fashion is dismissed.  There is no debate.

Since this is the case and all you lot seem to want is someone to harangue, I don't see the point in commenting at all.  Hence my lack of comment.

So I will drop the occassional link in for people who want to see the dissenting pov or information.

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm

Feel free to shoot-the-messenger as usual.

Oh I also remember reading somewhere that global climate changes happen rapidly, which kinda puts a whole in the linear/gradual natural argument doesn't it.

Quote:

Conclusion Even if temperature had risen above natural variability, the recent solar Grand Maximum may have been chiefly responsible. Even if the sun were not chiefly to blame for the past half-century’s warming, the IPCC has not demonstrated that, since CO2 occupies only one-ten-thousandth part more of the atmosphere that it did in 1750, it has contributed more than a small fraction of the warming. Even if carbon dioxide were chiefly responsible for the warming that ceased in 1998 and may not resume until 2015, the distinctive, projected fingerprint of anthropogenic “greenhouse-gas” warming is entirely absent from the observed record. Even if the fingerprint were present, computer models are long proven to be inherently incapable of providing projections of the future state of the climate that are sound enough for policymaking. Even if per impossibilethe models could ever become reliable, the present paper demonstrates that it is not at all likely that the world will warm as much as the IPCC imagines. Even if the world were to warm that much, the overwhelming majority of the scientific, peer-reviewed literature does not predict that catastrophe would ensue. Even if catastrophe might ensue, even the most drastic proposals to mitigate future climate change by reducing emissions of carbon dioxide would make very little difference to the climate. Even if mitigation were likely to be effective, it would do more harm than good: already millions face starvation as the dash for biofuels takes agricultural land out of essential food production: a warning that taking precautions, “just in case”, can do untold harm unless there is a sound, scientific basis for them. Finally, even if mitigation might do more good than harm, adaptation as (and if) necessary would be far more cost-effective and less likely to be harmful. In short, we must get the science right, or we shall get the policy wrong. If the concluding equation in this analysis (Eqn. 30) is correct, the IPCC’s estimates of climate sensitivity must have been very much exaggerated. There may, therefore, be a good reason why, contrary to the projections of the models on which the IPCC relies, temperatures have not risen for a decade and have been falling since the phase-transition in global temperature trends that occurred in late 2001. Perhaps real-world climate sensitivity is very much below the IPCC’s estimates. Perhaps, therefore, there is no “climate crisis” at all. At present, then, in policy terms there is no case for doing anything. The correct policy approach to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing.

Quote:

As for debating the point here... why bother.

Because you might learn something if you debated a point and followed through on it rather than changing the topic with another copy and paste everytime someone asks you a difficult question or points out the flaws in what you post. If you can't even put your argument in your own words then chances are you don't understand it.

yawn fd...  there is no debate.
Nor is your last post factual.
Just more ad hom...  I have no interest in that.

http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/107533.pdf


Quote:

I anticipate global temperature conditions will change as they have in the past. I expect to live to see the start of a global cooling pattern and the discrediting of most of the anthropogenic warming arguments. The world has more serious problems to worry about.

Quote:

yawn fd...  there is no debate.

Because the one member here who disagrees with AGW cannot hold up the other end of one.

no fd...  there is no debate because one side is in total denial.... and all they are capable of is reciting mantras and ad hom.

The argument also goes like this...  If I say something on my own...  it has to be backed up by scientific opinion...  if I back it up...  then it is denied because it is a dissenting opinion...  then I'm criticised for citing someone elses opinion and not my own...  which leads us back to... where we started.

hence there is no debate...  there is no point in trying to have one.

No Grendel, your arguments are criticised for their complete lack of logic.

For example, you still haven't explained how choosing a one year period from a temperature plot that is extremly variable over such a short time period, while ignoring the real trends, is 'right'. How is it any better than saying "frost this morning, therefor no global warming"?

I'll respond to your cut and pasted argument in the course of time. It contains a sleight of hand technique  which tries to show that CO2 is only a miniscule proportion of the atmosphere etc...

Grendel - what it comes down to is that none of these comments are backed up by technical papers. You see scientists are quite jealous of their own discipline in science. To publish a paper, you need to be able to demonstrate quite rigorously that you know what you're talking about. Few of the public commentators, if any, could withstand that kind of critical attack.

If you want to publish in any branch of science, you need to go through a process of peer review. If you think I can be cutting at times, just think bigger - much bigger.

Think of the papal inquisition complete with thumbscrews, and maybe a few whips and a rack or two. In the peer review process, everything written in the paper is first assumed to be total BS.  The author is then called on to defend to questions raised during peer review. The point is, that if the author has something new, he can expect a journey to hell and back, but if he actually succeeds in backing up each of his points rigorously and all the numbers stack up, he will very quickly go from being an object of scorn to everybody's hero. It has nothing to do with personality, but everything to do with making a valid case that is bulletproof.

I coauthored a few research papers in my early years. I decided early on that research was too emotionally draining for me.  

These guys couldn't publish in reputable journals. They'd be knocked down after the first paragraph.

I'm sorry you still don't get it fd....  the misunderstanding is all yours... nothing new about that.

Nor the current posts heading my way...  hence...  no further comment just links.

In fact the vast majority of your 'evidence' against AGW theory is nothing more than slightly more convoluted, but no less childish versions of "frost this morning, therefor no global warming".