'In the email to staff on Thursday, Marshall said that since climate change was proven to be real, CSIRO could shift its focus.

“Everybody is laughing at Marshall’s statement,” the scientist told Guardian Australia. “Who is he to declare that climate change is answered? The IPCC says so many problems are not answered yet. And unless you know how the climate is changing, how do you adapt to it?” '

'Haymet said the cuts are “a kick in the guts” to farmers, the fishing industry, the navy and people who live on the coast and is worried about sea level rise.

“We’ve only seen the beginning of climate change. We don’t know what the heck is waiting for us,” he said.'

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/feb/05/senior-csiro-scientist-der...

So much uncertainty within the certainty.

Interesting isn't it that in Paris, politicians of all stripes voted to do nothing concrete.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Feb 9^th, 2016 at 7:39pm:



Prove it

John_Taverner wrote on Feb 9^th, 2016 at 8:28pm:



Yep 30 years is far too short a timeframe for the models to be proved wrong.

lee wrote on Feb 9^th, 2016 at 8:43pm:


found any models that predict static or declining global temperatures as atmospheric CO2 levels rise??

have you looked?

have you apologised to John yet?

Chimp_Logic wrote on Feb 9^th, 2016 at 9:42pm:



It's your claim it is a lie. Man up. prove it.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Feb 9^th, 2016 at 10:01pm:



Your surrender is accepted.

lee wrote on Feb 9^th, 2016 at 1:00pm:

Who said?

lee wrote on Feb 9^th, 2016 at 8:43pm:

30 years?? 

lee wrote on Feb 10^th, 2016 at 11:59am:

cat has tongue: ouch.... may aswell expensively educate my chidlren and start lying my face off to them to watch their expression of hope in the world die just for fun 

The climate may be hanging - but nobody - NOBODY - understands how or why.

The chances of it being due to anthropogenic CO2 is minimal to non-existent.look at the boosters for the AGW case and you will see that it cannot possibly be right. And then you look at the stats and numbers and you are confirmed in your scepticism.

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 11^th, 2016 at 10:56pm:

Are you telling me that you actually believe that humans cause climate change?  Is that what you are saying??  Come on, you can't be THAT stupid and gullible???



Are you?

Soren wrote on Feb 11^th, 2016 at 11:46pm:

Yes: i am telling you that man is altering the climate!

Soren wrote on Feb 11^th, 2016 at 11:46pm:


You think you can get away with a generalised loaded question like that.

In what context do you mean ? Geological time? The past 30 years? Last year? 

Do you mean every single aspect of climate change including natural causes?

Or (unlikely as it would be) do you mean the specific effects due to the emission of Greenhouse Gases? 

Gotta be specific guv, innit?

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 11^th, 2016 at 11:52pm:

Oohhh... all cautious now.  Shifting from change to alter, hoping nobody would notice.

Everybody notices. You guys are full of bluster and nonsense and unbelievable arrogance.

lee wrote on Feb 12^th, 2016 at 10:48am:


have you sieved through the models and data yet lee?

have you been able to find a model that predicts static or declining global temperatures as CO2 levels rise?

Chimp_Logic wrote on Feb 12^th, 2016 at 7:23pm:



But the AGW-ers can.

John_Taverner wrote on Feb 12^th, 2016 at 7:56pm:



The 97%?

I was talking to Soren. He has not yet proven himself to be totally incompetent.

I'll talk to you after you attempt your homework.

Soren wrote on Feb 13^th, 2016 at 1:48pm:


The key word here is CYCLE

I wonder if the Great Soren noticed what the net effect of the CARBON CYCLE is and where the additional 29 GT of human carbon emissions is going?

how does somebody use a figure of 4% in this way and expect to be taken seriously?

Soren must apologise and self ban



I wonder if the Great Soren can also explain why the CO2 level remained relatively constant prior to the industrial era?

the Great Soren pops his head in for one second and self embarrasses.

Soren wrote on Feb 13^th, 2016 at 1:48pm:


Soren,

Your little spiel shows that you are pig ignorant of the current state of the carbon cycle.

750Gt in the atmosphere corresponds to about 1990 levels. How much do you think we have in the atmosphere today? What has it increased to?

I'm sure that you at least are capable of elementary arithmetic. I'll give you a chance to do Lee's homework:

Quote:


That should take you less than a minute.

John_Taverner wrote on Feb 12^th, 2016 at 8:07pm:



So now you are saying I didn't try and fail?

I'll give Soren a chance to answer.

John_Taverner wrote on Feb 13^th, 2016 at 2:41pm:


OK, It looks like I'll have to do the calculation for you two numpties.

608 parts per million by mass. Total atmospheric mass  5.1480 × 10^18  kg

So  608 millionths  of 5.1480 x 10^18 kg
= 3130 x 10^12 kg

or  (3130/3.67) x 10^12 kg carbon dioxide

=  852 Gte of C in the atmosphere as of February 2016

As a rule of thumb, multiply the current ppmv level by 2.13 to give Gigatonnes.

Your figure of 750Gte is equivalent tp 352ppmv, which is approximately 1990 levels.

lee wrote on Feb 14^th, 2016 at 5:05pm:


It's a good job that it it isn't. Taking CO2 alone, you're looking at 1 degree C per doubling of CO2. (but you can't take CO2 alone)

Soren,

I profusely apologise for deleting your post. Being moderator of this forum, I have a Modify button which appears where the Quote button is normally located in other forums.

You were saying something about it being silly to presume that the carbon cycle can't adjust to a small emission in carbon.

This was my reply, which I initially embedded in your original post.
==========================================

What is "silly" is to fail to recognize that if the carbon cycle had accommodated a small annual increase in emissions, there would not be a small annual increase in atmospheric concentration.

852 Gigatonnes of CO2 in the atmosphere in 2016. 750Gigatonnes of CO2 in the atmosphere in 1990.

That's 100 Gigatonnes increase,

100/750 =  a 13% increase in about 25 years or a 38% increase since industrialisation. 

Soren, that's only 0.52%  per annum!

The actual emission is bigger than that, because a significant amount is absorbed by the ocean.   

100/25 =  4 Gigatonnes (C) or roughly a 2ppmv increase per year.

That corresponds to 4 x 3.67 or about 15 Gigatonnes of CO2.

The average emission per annum has been about 25 Gigatonnes of CO2.

The last two years were running about 35Gigatonnes. It is slowly starting to level out despite world GDP increasing by much more than that proportionally.

We can thank the growth in renewable energy for that levelling off. 
==========================================
Of course I will accept a self ban for 2 weeks (since I'll be at sea) , and I'm leaving chimp in charge.

John_Taverner wrote on Feb 14^th, 2016 at 5:33pm:

Have a nice voyage - and god help us with the monkey in charge.

*