"Fifteen of Australia's top climate experts explain how we know humans are altering the atmosphere and why we must act now.

Around the world, thousands of scientists have devoted their professional lives to studying the climate. Not centrally organised, they sometimes build temporary affiliations but they remain scientists throughout – that is, they are independent, constantly challenge each other and are committed to searching for truth through objective, independently verifiable evidence.

Overwhelmingly, this evidence has led to four conclusions. The first is that the world is warming. The global average temperature has increased by about 0.8 degrees since 1850, with most of the increase occurring since 1950. The warming varies among decades because of natural fluctuations but the overall trend has been inexorably upward.

Warming is evident in other indicators, such as rising sea levels and reduced sea-ice and snow cover. Of these, the most important measure is the extra heat in the oceans, which is steadily rising. Claims that climate change has reversed since 1998 are misrepresentations of the full data.

The second conclusion is that the dominant cause of the warming since about 1950 is the increase in the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases released by human activities, of which carbon dioxide (CO2) is the most important.

This critical conclusion is based on several independent lines of evidence, including basic physics, studies of climate changes in both in the geological past and in the industrial era, and finally – but far from solely – from the predictions of climate models. Together, these provide an overwhelming case that increasing greenhouse gas concentrations cause warming, and that CO2 is the largest contributor to the current warming trend.

Other contributors include changes in the sun’s output associated with sunspots and solar flares, and volcanic dust. However, if these were solely responsible for temperature changes since 1850, the world should have cooled over the past half-century rather than warming at an increasing rate.

The third conclusion is that warming will increase in future, if emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases maintain their present paths. "Business as usual" scenarios for future emissions lead to likely global temperature increases of up to six degrees above present temperatures by 2100.

These are dramatic temperature increases, which would be accompanied by major disruptions to food supplies, river flows and water availability, significant and ongoing rises in sea level (of up to about a metre by 2100 and potentially metres over longer times), disease threats, disruptions to ecosystems including the extinction of many species, and social and geopolitical destabilisation.

The fourth conclusion is that climate change cannot be reversed for many centuries, because of the massive heat stores in the world’s oceans. Even if CO2 and other greenhouse gas concentrations were stabilised today at their present levels, a further warming of at least 0.6 degrees would inevitably follow (on top of the 0.8 degrees observed since 1850) and sea-level rise would continue for centuries to millenniums.

These four conclusions have been known and agreed among thousands of independent climate scientists for more than a decade. However, new findings suggest that the situation is, if anything, more serious than the assessment of just a few years ago.

The heightened concern among climate scientists arises from a growing realisation that climate change can be accelerated beyond current predictions by reinforcing "climate feedbacks", which contribute to climate change and are accelerated as it occurs, thus causing climate change to feed on itself. When these feedbacks are sufficiently strong they become "climate tipping points" which can flip the climate into a new state with essentially no way to recover.

Several feedbacks are of immediate concern. Interactions between climate and the earth’s carbon cycle (the exchange of carbon between the atmosphere, the land and the oceans) will act to accelerate climate change if sinks do not keep pace with emissions (as is already happening) and/or if previously stable carbon stores are released to the atmosphere under climate change, for example by the thawing of carbon-rich frozen soils.

Accelerated polar warming will cause loss of ice and a consequent darkening of the surface, leading to more heat absorption and faster warming. Atmospheric concentrations of aerosols (tiny particulates) are likely to decrease in future as nations improve air quality, leading to accelerated warming as the cooling effect of aerosols is reduced.

Oceans are becoming more acidic as a consequence of increased CO2 in the atmosphere. When CO2 concentrations exceed levels to be reached by 2035 under business-as-usual emissions scenarios, there will be severe disruptions to marine ecosystems (including the Great Barrier Reef and ocean food chains), which will endanger fisheries and weaken the uptake of CO2 by oceans.

Temperature rises of two to three degrees (or higher) carry a high risk of irreversible decay of the Greenland ice sheet from surface warming alone, leading to a sea level rise of up to about seven metres. Destabilisation of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet would cause a further few metres of sea-level rise."

Unfortunately other EXPERTs beg to differ.

1.  they too agree there has been warming and yes its a whole huge not even 1 degree in over 159 years.
2.  they dispute the fact that man-made CO2 emissions are the dominant cause of the warming.
3.  they dispute the fact that warming will continue on its present?/past path.
4.  they understand that warming and cooling will occur and that climate is by its very nature "hard" if not impossible for man to control.

They are experts in their field as qualified or more than the persons you just quoted.

And they come from all over the world and from many different organisations.

Quote:


REALLY like who? names and numbers.


Quote:


Yes and there in lies the problem, they do come from many different organisations, most of which know sweet fa about climate change, but have ulterior motives for pushing their lies.

Quote:

Quote:

No, I stared this thread because 15 of Australia's top experts in the field decided it was necessary to try and explain what is occurring in plain English and to show Australians just how REAL this is.
It seems one or two people have a problem understanding plain English tho.

It shouldn't be a surprise a thread on climate change is on the environment board, at least this one has the names of the experts and shows that they are not just people with a science degree but people with expertise in this area,, unlike most of the confusionalist "experts"

A chemical reaction
Thursday, 30th July 2009

When the worm finally turns, it really gets itself into a flat-out spin. More and more scientists have just about had it up to here with the rubbish being put out as the ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming. Marc Morano reports how members of the American Chemical Society (ACS) have risen in revolt against the group’s editor-in-chief -- with demands for his removal -- after an editorial appeared claiming ‘the science of anthropogenic climate change is becoming increasingly well established.’

The editorial claimed the ‘consensus’ view was growing ‘increasingly difficult to challenge, despite the efforts of diehard climate-change deniers.’ The editor now admits he is ‘startled’ by the negative reaction from the group’s scientific members.

Poor bewildered soul. He really thought he had written what was undeniably the case. Here are some examples of that ‘negative reaction’ he produced:

ACS member scientist Dr. Howard Hayden, a Physics Professor Emeritus from the University of Connecticut: ‘Baum's remarks are particularly disquieting because of his hostility toward skepticism, which is part of every scientist's soul. Let's cut to the chase with some questions for Baum: Which of the 20-odd major climate models has settled the science, such that all of the rest are now discarded? [...] Do you refer to ‘climate change’ instead of 'global warming' because the claim of anthropogenic global warming has become increasingly contrary to fact?’

William E. Keller wrote: ‘However bitter you (Baum) personally may feel about CCDs (climate change deniers), it is not your place as editor to accuse them—falsely—of nonscientific behavior by using insultingly inappropriate language. [...] The growing body of scientists, whom you abuse as sowing doubt, making up statistics, and claiming to be ignored by the media, are, in the main, highly competent professionals, experts in their fields, completely honorable, and highly versed in the scientific method—characteristics that apparently do not apply to you.’

Morano points out that this revolt is but the latest in a series of recent eruptions against the so-called ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming:

On May 1 2009, the American Physical Society (APS) Council decided to review its current climate statement via a high-level subcommittee of respected senior scientists. The decision was prompted after a group of 54 prominent physicists petitioned the APS revise its global warming position. The 54 physicists wrote to APS governing board: ‘Measured or reconstructed temperature records indicate that 20th - 21st century changes are neither exceptional nor persistent, and the historical and geological records show many periods warmer than today.’

The petition signed by the prominent physicists, led by Princeton University's Dr. Will Happer, who has conducted 200 peer-reviewed scientific studies. The peer-reviewed journal Nature published a July 22, 2009 letter by the physicists persuading the APS to review its statement. In 2008, an American Physical Society editor conceded that a ‘considerable presence’ of scientific skeptics exists.

In addition, in April 2009, the Polish National Academy of Science reportedly ‘published a document that expresses skepticism over the concept of man-made global warming.’ An abundance of new peer-reviewed scientific studies continue to be published challenging the UN IPCC climate views. (See: Climate Fears RIP...for 30 years!? - Global Warming could stop 'for up to 30 years! Warming 'On Hold?...'Could go into hiding for decades,' peer-reviewed study finds – sp@m – March 2, 2009 & Peer-Reviewed Study Rocks Climate Debate! 'Nature not man responsible for recent global warming...little or none of late 20th century warming and cooling can be attributed to humans' – July 23, 2009 )

A March 2009 a 255-page U. S. Senate Report detailed ‘More Than 700 International Scientists Dissenting Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims.’ 2009's continued lack of warming, further frustrated the promoters of man-made climate fears. See: Earth's 'Fever' Breaks! Global temperatures 'have plunged .74°F since Gore released An Inconvenient Truth' – July 5, 2009

And so on, and on.

I suggest you read the article again and maybe do some extra research too eh...  
Or maybe it's just you cant count?

You know as well as I do that many credible accredited published etc climate experts with degrees etc, disagree with your preferred opinion.

Stop lying to yourself and everyone else..

DWMT.  

Quote:


No I dont, what I know is that the great majority of climate experts keep telling a different story to the one you believe.

mozzaok wrote on Aug 1^st, 2009 at 4:13pm:

The sad thing is some people really believe that.

BTW I think it's pretty clear who the loons are...

LOL...

SO THEY ARE FACELESS BECAUSE YOU CANT BE BOTHERED LOOKING THEM UP.   

More useless figures, give me names,oh thats right ,you cant.
Anybody can troll through the net collecting lies and bulls hit, you do it all the time, but how bout some facts mmmmmmmmmmm, go on ,for once in your life find something that isn't written by an inbred retard who has very questionable qualifications.

The IPCC is tied in with the World Order. They've just thrown climate change in as a sideline to their spiel. Yes we do need to take action, but all they're doing is continuing to make western countries pay for the ravages caused by the oil and mining giants in the poorer countries. They are not holding the companies responsible for the devastation they have caused, nor are they taking any real "green" action to repair the planet. These blokes like to sound serious about changing the temperature - but what they're doing is just pretending they know what they're talking about. They know they're lying. This from their PERSPECTIVE.


Quote:


Their official summary is similar. They are not about changing the climate - it's about giving greater access to the multinationals and getting those countries which can afford to - to prop up their destruction.

They use phrases ie. "very high confidence", very likely - it's a con and I can't believe we are falling for it.

Now if they offered some genuine alternatives to clean up this planet and gradually reduce oil and fossil fuel consumption - fine - we'd all be happy, but they admit themselves they aren't offering any viable alternatives apart from massive taxes.

It's all about maintaining consumption (profits) as the world population increases - of course many of us will have to tighten our belts even further, but the customer base is quickly increasing so this will make up for it.

It's all about ensuring western countries become third world countries - so we're all equal. It's about sustaining the "giants", not sustaining a healthy population into the future.

Quote:

You should tell that to the people living in countries that wont exist in twenty years because they'll be under water. Don't think that wont affect you, many of the climate change refugees will end up coming here as their pacific island nations flood.

Mozzaok - at the last G20 (or one of those meetings) a few months ago - those attending all agreed that the free market did not have the desired affect as they had predicted a decade or so ago. They came to the conclusion that the poor, if anything, were worse off as now thanks to a world government telling nations what they should export, they were limited in what they could produce.

No-one is denying that we need to clean up the planet and look for alternative energy resources - but those involved in the World Bank, IMF, UN etc. are looking for other ways to redistribute wealth - as long as it doesn't affect them. They are using this "global warming" spiel & selectively quoting certain scientists as a way to meet another agenda.

Grendel wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2009 at 12:24pm:


Thats your best work yet, boofy thinks all these pacific islands under threat of going under water were somehow towed to their current position,and as boof puts it "they decided to live  in a flood prone area"
I'd blame their parents for having them on the island that has been their home for who knows how many years.

Quote:

As a matter of fact I can show you how its already happening , here is a story from just last week.


First climate refugees start move to new island home
The Carteret Islands.

Adam Morton
July 29, 2009
IMAGINE that your home, water and a fair whack of your food are under threat. Imagine it is only going to get worse.

Imagine that you live on the Carteret Islands, seven tiny coral atolls in the Pacific that have been described as the home of the world’s first climate change refugees.

Six months ago, the 2700 islanders began what will eventually become a big evacuation to Bougainville, about 80 kilometres to the south.

The decision to relocate followed years of worsening storm surges and king tides that infected the fresh water supply and ruined the islanders’ staple banana and taro crops.

Fearing worse is to come — more frequent floods are expected to be the most visible signs of rising sea levels due to global warming — the islanders secured three blocks of coastal land. Five men moved earlier this year to build houses and plant crops, the first step in the relocation of 1700 people in the next five years.

The relocation is being headed by Ursula Rakova, an islander who quit a job with Oxfam in Bougainville three years ago to set up Tulele Peisa, an organisation that raises money and campaigns for social justice on behalf of her people. ‘‘We have a feeling of anxiety, a feeling of uncertainty because we know that we will be losing our homes. It is our identity. It is our whole culture at stake,’’ she said in Melbourne yesterday.

The move has been helped by the Catholic Church, which provided the land for relocation, but not the Bougainville Government.

Ms Rakova said the $1 million provided by the Papua New Guinea Government in Port Moresby had been swallowed by provincial bureaucrats.

The purpose of her trip to Australia this week is two-fold — to secure a market for the organic cocoa the islanders plan to grow at their new home and to call on the Australian Government, through its AusAID program, to pressure the Bougainville Government to deliver the promised money.

Just as urgently, she wants to see Western leaders take on much deeper cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.

The Australian Government’s most ambitious emissions proposal of stabilising atmospheric carbon dioxide at 450 parts per million was not enough to give the Pacific a safe future, she said.

‘‘We are angry. Some people do not understand the science, but they know they are losing their homes and they are angry they are having to pay for what other people [in industrialised nations] have done,’’ she said.

While climate scientists warn that the future for atolls like the Carterets is bleak, the extent to which climate change is responsible for their current predicament is unclear.

Campaigners believe the impact of rising sea levels may have been amplified by the gradual sinking of an extinct volcano that supports the atolls.

One of the world’s leading sea level experts yesterday called for caution. John Hunter, from the University of Tasmania, said sea level rises would eventually cause ‘‘huge problems’’, and called for the building of sea walls to protect the islands’ culture and ‘‘buy a few more decades’’

Boofeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee, where are you son? I've gone and got all this info for you and you scatoodle, feeling a bit silly hey?

how disappointing bofeee, two days and that's the best you could come up with. I suppose seeing as tho I've shown you up as being wrong grates at you, but hey, I'm used to it.

Grendel wrote on Aug 5^th, 2009 at 1:45pm:


Boofeeee boofee boofeee, you're looking silly mate, you asked me for proof pacific islands were in danger of flooding , see below-

Quote:


I've actually provided a list and in fact went even further and showed you an article from just last week showing that these people are already being moved to other places.
There are plenty of articles on the net about low laying islands at threat of going under because of seas rising due to ice caps melting due to the climate warming, you should try and google a few of those and get yourself better educated son.

You go on believing that booofeee, the only person you're fooling is yourself.

Grendel wrote on Aug 5^th, 2009 at 2:57pm:


Well you might be able to try and squirm out of what you said but dont make up lies about what I said and when. I brought up the pacific islands and their refugees a few posts before your post about getting back to you in twenty years. If ya gunna lie ol fella cover your tracks.

Quote:


I was clearly discussing pacific islands, nice try.

And then you of course also said this ,didn't YOU?

Quote:

I hope you're finished trying to hijack my topic with your usual bile and lies boooffeeeeeeeeee.
So fifteen of Australia's most experienced climate change experts have put it into black and white for the confusionalists yet we still get confusionalists boo hooing these experts, the question needs to be asked, why do they do this? I suspect many of them have  motives that are far from genuine, many work in the industries that will suffer when clean power is introduced so they are thinking of themselves not their children's future.
we shouldn't let these confusionalists damage our children's future with their lies and attempts to hijack the very real threat that climate warming is.

Grendel wrote on Aug 6^th, 2009 at 12:41pm:

Unlike you I don't need to resort to lies to explain the pending problems we are facing with climate change.
As I said a couple of days ago the effects of climate change on pacific islands is going to cost Australia.


Quote:

Quote:


Oh please enlighten me.

Grendel wrote on Aug 6^th, 2009 at 2:57pm:


Oh all my info is mainstream easy to access, I, unlike you, don't need to look for conspironut stuff.You should try it some time.

It wont be just pacific island nation that are affected by the rising sea levels many places in Australia, even in Sydney's northern beaches and tourist destinations like Byron could well be abandoned.

Quote:

Quote:


So, as the experts warn many people living "on the beach" might have to move inland, sooner rather than later.
I know of houses in Byron that could well be swallowed up within the year the erosion is so bad.

Quote:


My point is we need to reduce gas emissions, natural causes mixed with man made emissions is destroying the planet as we know it.

As usual  grendal thinks he knows more than the experts,what an arrogant individual you are boooooofeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.

Grendel wrote on Aug 9^th, 2009 at 10:19am:


How can I be an ignorant alarmist when all I post are facts released by the expert mainstream scientific community?

Are you saying the mainstream science community are ignorant alarmists now?

No you don't Skippeeee..   however it's now apparent you don't know what a FACT is.

Hello Bozo...  can't say you've been missed.  Starting off with a bit of irrelevant character assassination are we?  How unusual.

I haven't lied about anything so far Skippeeee...
Does that upset you?

Oh dear, sinking to religious abuse now...  flame away Troll... 
You have no credibility.

I'm sorry...  you are talking historically and accurately about the alarmist camp.

You left out dimming though.

You are sounding awfully shrill again Mozz.
try a valium.

I think you'll find many people in your camp have been wrong before and will be wrong again.

Your point is ridiculous.

My reply at the beginning states my position and your irrelevance to the debate.

Flame away ratbag...  it s not worrying me.

Climate change wont just wipe out islands in the pacific it will also inflict billions of dollars worth of damage to the Great Barrier Reef.

Quote:

Quote:
.

No lies here, all my posts are from the mainstream climate change experts, you're wrong again.

Quote:


No spurious arguments here booofffeeeeeee, you just hate the truth, it doesn't fit your confusionalist agenda.
Those 15 people that you boo hoo are considered 15 of the top experts in climate change in Australia, but you know better than them.

Quote:

They are ,in fact some people have already had to start leaving their homes.(see story I posted on Pacific nations flooding).

Quote:



Liar, I'm an atheist.i

Grendel wrote on Aug 10^th, 2009 at 4:17pm:


Your problem is that you throw a little hissy fit every time someone disagrees with your crazy beliefs.
Now if you cant add anything to this debate other than trolling and name calling, DWMT.

So, back on topic-

The first conclusion of these experts dealt with the oceans rising and warming and the ice caps melting. This second conclusion deals with the subject of MAN MADE global warming and these experts beliefs.

Quote:

You'd best ask the experts Happy, I unlike some people here do not pretend to be an expert, I merely read what the mainstream experts on the subject produce and relay that information to the readers of this forum.
There are plenty of people here posting the confusionalist lines, I leave that to them.

Quote:


Its very hard to question something that is so obvious.

Soren wrote on Aug 16^th, 2009 at 9:23pm:

Really? so all the mainstream climate scientists are part of a left wing conspiracy? thats your best work yet,ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha , you're cracking me up ha ha ha ha ha ha , all the experts are lefty plants, ha ha ha ha ha ha oh stop it, ha ha ha ha ha , I'll have to get back to you, thats the biggest retard statement I've ever heard, ha ha ha ha ha

Quote:



I knew it would be too complex for you. In a way that was my point. Whatever you suck up as true is, therefore, false.

I am not saying that scientists who believe in man made climate change are lefties.

What I am saying is that anything that so many lefties like you believe in must be, on past form, be false just on the grounds that you believe it. What this means - lemme spell it for ya - is that whatever fits into your mental scheme ofthe world is thereby false.

I know it's still going to give you a headache but never mind. The fact that you don't undertstand it makes it true.

oh dear...

Climate change is a natural phenomenon.
Man-made emissions causing catastrophic climate change is a at best debateable.
There is no proof that the current world climate conditions are outside the natural range of variability or that man is causing it.
The politics comes into it when people like Gore and other Progs...  ie progressive Left people use it as a method of pushing an agenda.
Gore's belief is based on the opinions of one of his old  school teachers. 
The Inconvenient Truth was a propaganda piece pushing his beliefs.
The UN now largely controlled by the Progs...  and other unsavoury representatives...  have an agenda that has very little to do with the environment.  This is again where the politics come into it.
The handful... sorry 10 handfuls of people on the IPCC  panel are not all climate experts some in fact in the original group that were left in disgust.

Actually there is not one lie there Skippeeeee...
You base your absolute belief on the opinions and conclusions drawn by certain people, yet they are not absolutes nor facts.

No..  what you've actually done is based your opinion on IFS and conclusions based on those IFS and if you read the bloody article you posted you'd have seen that.

No trolling involved... at least on my part.

Once more...  the view of other well qualified experts.

Unfortunately other EXPERTs beg to differ.

1.  they too agree there has been warming and yes its a whole huge not even 1 degree in over 159 years.
2.  they dispute the fact that man-made CO2 emissions are the dominant cause of the warming.
3.  they dispute the fact that warming will continue on its present?/past path.
4.  they understand that warming and cooling will occur and that climate is by its very nature "hard" if not impossible for man to control.

LOL 

muso wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2009 at 10:06am:


How true.
Good to see you back muso, I'm sure boofy has missed you.