Western Antarctica Melting

[Renato1]

In a recent thread, there was some discussion about this article relating to western Antarctica melting, which was occurring at the same time as the presence of record sea ice in Antarctica.
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Observing_the_Earth/CryoSat/CryoSat_finds_sharp_increase_in_Ant arctica_s_ice_losses
This study was widely reported in the media.

Here is another study which documents recent swarms of seismic activity in the area, which aren't uncommon and are thought to be related to erupting volcanos - which can't pierce the 1.2km to 2 km ice sheets above them, but do lead to melt water. It turns out that there are quite a large number of volcanos in western Antarctica, which form part of the "Pacific Rim of Fire"
http://www.earth-of-fire.com/page-8824411.html
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n12/full/ngeo1992.html
This study was not widely reported in the media.

Regards,
Renato

[jjjnettie]

Thanks for the links Renato. Make for interesting reading. :)

[pmrid]

So that we do not lose sight of the reality of our contribution to the melting ice sheets and other disastrous changes in our earth, I think those following this debate would find interest in the article by Bill McKibbin in Rolling Stone. Read them both and reflect.
act.350.org/signup/readytomarch (http://act.350.org/signup/readytomarch?t=1&akid=4632.1186377.O5fEz4)

Peter

[FlashDrive]

not another thread on GW please ... here we go again....:shrug:

[Amaranthus]

Record Southern Ocean sea ice extent is (very likely) caused by a combination of changing wind patterns (which acts to spread rather than aggregate the surface ice), and changes in the rate of overturning, which leads to stratification of sea-surface temperature layers. The greater ice extent is NOT a signal that the Southern Ocean is cooling -- it is unequivocally warming, as revealed by ARGO and satellite measurements, and indeed is considered the flywheel of the climate system.

[Larryp]

Ditto, Col!

[TrevorW]

The topography of Antarctica is such that in sections the ice is up to 4km thick- I'd be more concerned about sea level rising if the Eastern Ice field starts to melt

[Renato1]

Thanks. Glad you liked it.

I thought it might be stimulating to mention bits of science that don't get much press.
Regards,
Renato

[Renato1]

No, this is more a thread about recent volcanic activity in the western Antarctic.
Regards,
Renato

[Renato1]

Yes, that would indeed be extremely worrisome.
But fortunately it's not happening (I'm pretty sure the people running that satellite would have let us know about it if it were).
Regards,
Renato

[Baddad]

Hi Renato,:)

A good find and interesting, thanks for sharing.:)

Cheers:)

[supernova1965]

For a Science based community like IIS I would be surprised if there was any doubt about GLOBAL WARMING in this community.:shrug:

[Renato1]

Hi Peter,
No mention about volcanic activity in the western part of Antarctica in that article.
Regards,
Renato

[Renato1]

Thanks Marty,
Renato

[Renato1]

Is it my imagination, or are people very touchy about a scientific article about about seismic activity in the western Antarctic?

Perhaps you should read to the bottom of the study, where it discusses the effects of increasing CO2 by 100ppm in the atmosphere. That might cheer you up.
Regards,
Renato

[el_draco]

Alas mate, you'll always find some people who will say Black is White to keep an argument going. There's usually vested interest involved.

The bottom line is we have ONE planet to live on and we better be damn sure we do something about the state its in.... which we wont. I wouldn't bother wasting your time trying to participate in the waffle that will follow. I sure as hell wont bother contributing further

Boring B.S. :screwy:

[Ric]

Thanks for the link Renato.:thumbsup:

A very interesting read.

Cheers

[moonunit]

2 planets, we have Mars as well don't forget.

[Ric]

Yes, but we have to wait about 10 million years after we work out how to terra-form the planet first.:D

[astroron]

Very strange:rolleyes:

[nebulosity.]

Thanks for the link Renato :thumbsup: Very informative read.

Shame some people don't like science ;)

Cheers
Jo

[Peter Ward]

Oh dear....another random link.

Renato. Make a comprehensive case....

....and...assuming you have letters after your name..publish the results for peer review....not on IIS.

If the case is bullet-proof and...despite the fact that 1000's of Don's and post Don's have been puzzling over the same question for some decades....

YOU have discovered there is a natural mechanism (i.e. ignore the fact humans are pumping mega tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year and there is a clear temperature rise since the start of the industrial revolution)

..then book a flight to Stockholm and collect the nobel prize :rolleyes:

[Steffen]

Sadly, Mars' lack of a magnetosphere means he's never going to hold on to a meaningful atmosphere...

Cheers
Steffen.

[Astro_Bot]

Renato, human nature being what it is, many people will see something that waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, and, rightly or wrongly, draw the conclusion that it is a duck.

To avoid misunderstanding, it might have been advisable to begin the thread with something like, "Whilst I don't dispute the science of anthropogenic global warming ..."

Perhaps it would help if you said that now, lest some people go on believing that to be the case. ;)

[Amaranthus]

Steffen, there is a plausible way to terraform Mars, and then the atmospheric regeneration can be easily exploited to keep pace with loss of H2 to space. If you're interested in this kind of thing, I'd highly recommend Zubrin's 'The Case for Mars' and the collection of essays 'Islands in the Sky'.

[noeyedeer]

hope it warms the pengiuns this winter ...

matt

[noeyedeer]

why is there so much patronising going on .. yeah it's new moon and all, everyone is moody. Renato is getting bashed by how I see it, for posting links to sites that observe Antarctica.

no one bashes your f1 qualifying posts, yet I'm sure someone posted stuff about the state of origin and the same people had to have a ***** about that .. geez grow up, you're old enough!

matt

[Renato1]

My goodness. I knew that Antarctica had a volcano on it, because some decades ago, a jet full of tourists crashed into it killing all on board.

I then find an interesting peer reviewed scientific article describing what appears to be recent volcanic activity in the western Antarctic, and a site showing that the entire area is littered with volcanos that have been active at some time since the last Ice Age, and I think
"That's remarkable, I didn't know any of that!"

So I post the links here, and about half the respondents are appreciative - presumably because like me they have learned something that is both new to them and very interesting.

And about half seem to have some strong issue with the thread, claiming I am anti-science and wanting to debate some pet issue of theirs - but studiously avoiding any mention of the volcanoes and recent volcanic activity, nor of how the mass media chooses to report or to not report some studies.

I'm at a bit of a loss, but anyway, I am happy to accept that people have different perceptions about hard science.
Regards,
Renato

[raymo]

I sympathise with you Renato. Apart from people having different
perceptions about hard science, there is another category of people
that barely know what any science is, let alone the hard variety.
I was conducting a public viewing night a few years ago, and got an amazing variety of questions. Two that stand out vividly in my memory
are "is it true that the earth goes round the sun, and if so, that's amazing?" The other one was actually an opinion rather than a question.
"I can't believe that the earth spins, surely we would feel something."
It takes all sorts I suppose.
raymo

[N1]

I would not have thought that man-made global warming and volcanic activity in Antarctica are mutually exclusive??:shrug:

Learn something new every day I suppose.

[clive milne]

There might actually be a causal link under certain circumstances... (but not in this instance) If a large body of land sheds enough weight of ice it will rebound (rise in elevation) which might cause a dormant volcano to become active... I'm guessing.

[N1]

That's the scary part. Processes set in motion that cannot be reversed. Widespread release of harmful gases from thawing permafrost is another one. Oh well, at least increased sea ice might help keep albedo up a bit for a while :sadeyes:

Edit: I'm not saying there is thawing permafrost in the Antarctic

[clive milne]

Well... you did set yourself up as a bit of a lightning rod with your posts in a couple of other threads.... Also, your choice of wording in the first post of this thread could easily be taken as an attempt to imply that the main stream media are deliberately misrepresenting the issue of Antarctic ice loss for the purpose of validating anthropogenic climate change.

Incidentally, I must give you some degree of credit for the skill you display in arguing the contrarian position. You carry the torch better than anyone else I have ever come across. Whilst I can maintain a respectful attitude towards you and your right to express your opinion (and welcome you doing so) I find myself strongly disagreeing with the politics and world view that you have espoused here and elsewhere. I think the ideology that you have embraced is dangerous... but that's just my opinion and I certainly don't expect you to share it.

Thanks for the link by the way. .. interesting stuff.

[Renato1]

Amazing is it not?

I was taught all about the sun and the earth and the moon way back in the early years of primary school, and since the 1980s (when I got my first telescope) I've been wondering "What are they teaching these kids in school?"

And in the last decade, when I find that shop assistants can't multiply by 10 in their head (i.e. add a zero to the figure), I've been wondering the same thing.

Anyhow, I rarely have a motor drive on my telescopes. So when the moon or planet goes out of the field I say
"See how it moved out of view?"
"Yes"
"It's not moving at all, it is standing still - that's actually us moving on the spinning earth".

It amazes them every time.
Regards,
Renato

[Renato1]

Thanks. Glad you found the article as interesting as I did.

I must correct you though - on that other thread, when I was repeatedly challenged, time and again in response, I only cited the 5th Assessment IPCC report - which is hardly a Contrarian document.
Cheers,
Renato

[Renato1]

Oh - while looking up Google to see how to spell Mt Erebus for a response below, I forgot to mention that the Wikipedia article says that it has been constantly erupting since 1972, with the last one in 2011.

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

I wonder how much heat it puts out down there?
Regards,
Renato

[el_draco]

Actually, a teacher would explain that all planets move, but what you see through a telescope is primarily the effects of the earths rotation magnified by the telescope... If planets stopped moving in their orbits, I suspect they would plunge into the sun under the influences of the suns gravity.... BUT I COULD BE WRONG ;)

Its just amazing what some people believe. :confused2:

[Ric]

Good point Steffen, we can definitely strike Mars off the list.

[raymo]

If, and/or when, we develop the ability to terraform Mars, maybe we will also have the ability to give it a magnetosphere.
raymo

[Amaranthus]

Teraforming Mars would be a lot easier that giving it an artificial magnetic field. All you really need to do is mobilise the subsurface gases, and/or bombard it with diverted Kuiper Belt objects. Read Zubrin!

[el_draco]

or the Liberal party environment policy :rofl:

Didn't say that......, didn't say that :hi::D:P

[noeyedeer]

hahaha .. only if corporate business survive :/

matt

[Renato1]

I remember reading somewhere that in order to terraform Mars properly, one of the things that would have to be done is to build huge factories manufacturing Chloro Fluoro Carbons and pumping them straight into the atmosphere since, unlike the dud CO2 that blankets Mars, CFCs are superb greenhouse gases.

Anyhow, it'll be interesting to see who colonises Mars first. The Project Orion nuclear rocket technology from the 1950s will be employed one day by someone, and that makes the whole exercise feasible. While people fiddle around with chemical rockets, it's just pie in the sky stuff.
Regards,
Renato

[Amaranthus]

Project Orion was for interstellar travel. A fission-powered electric thrust engine would be sufficient for Mars travel.

Not sure what you mean about CO2 being a dud GHG. Venus says otherwise...

[clive milne]

Renato, I would advise caution wrt to the greenhouse efficacy value statements pertaining to CO2 implicit in your sentence above. Whilst it is true that there are gases with far higher opacity to infra red radiation than CO2 (Methane is 20x more effective for example) It does not logically follow that atmospheric CO2 has zero effect on a planet's heat holding capacity. It can actually have a disastrous impact if you intend to live there ... Venus is an example.
As a slight tangent to validate CO2's ability to absorb infra red light, consider this; Once upon a time I was employed as a process analyser technician, one of the process analysers I was responsible for was used to measure the concentration of CO2. The opto-mechanical device used to measure CO2 basically employed an infra red light source and complimentary detector referenced against a sealed chamber (purged of CO2)
Implicit in this is that CO2 has a capacity to absorb infra red radiation that is so well understood that the petrochemical industry trusts it to the extent that they rely upon it as a calibration reference standard.

[casstony]

Regardless of which side of the GW argument one is on, does it hurt to play it safe and adopt renewable technologies, just in case we're wrecking the planet for our kids?

[Renato1]

CO2 absorbs a tiny part of the infra red spectrum, other gases absorb in different and more energetic parts of the spectrum. I don't think I'm saying anything unknown about relative efficiency of greenhouse gasses.

Mars has ridiculously more CO2 on it than earth does. But when illuminated by what is effectively earth twilight light on it - if you want earth like conditions there - you need a much better greenhouse gas there.
Cheers,
Renato

[Renato1]

Hi Barry,
In those more innocent times, when they were mucking around with the nuclear devices - they had plans for making nuclear spaceships to take off from the earth and do a quick trip to Saturn and back - punching right through directly to it, no need for all the mucking around picking up energy from looping around planets.
Regards,
Renato

P.S. - I just remembered, the original intent of Project Orion wasn't to discover a means of space travel off the earth and to the stars, that was just a happy by-product. The original purpose was to develop a launch platform that flew to over the USSR to deliver 5000 nuclear weapons in one hit. One has to admire mankind's ingenuity.

[Renato1]

I think that would be an issue for a separate thread.
Regards,
Renato

[clive milne]

I think terra forming Mars is completely unrealistic within a time frame and technology base that is conceivably relevant.
Taking that as a priori (which is optional) the argument then reduces to how best to manage the life holding capacity of the planet we are on. De-Terra forming it whilst there is no alternative (by significantly altering the atmosphere) would seem to be a somewhat less than ideal use of our remaining collective resources.

But I suppose to accept that argument it would require accepting the premise that we face an unprecedented existential crisis. Clearly, not everyone agrees upon this or even the methodology appropriate to determine whether it is the case or not... The default position (business as usual) will no doubt continue until the natural limits of our environment are reached. In an economy predicated on continuous exponential growth in a finite system, the question reduces to that of 'when' as opposed to 'if' it will happen.

Personally, I am ambivalent about the preservation of modern society... I will not shed a tear for its passing, that is not to say that some elements are not worth preserving. I just don't believe that what (or who) survives the coming conflagration will be determined on merit. ... which is sad.

[Renato1]

Hi Clive,
In a mere 500 million years, some say possibly only 250 million, the sun will make the earth uninhabitable. It will be case of go to Mars or die.

Possibly they won't be as touchy about using nuclear rockets in the future when it's a life or death scenario.
Regards,
Renato

[astroron]

Are you really that certain that the Human Race will be around then:question:
I won't even give it another hundred years.
Cheers:thumbsup:

[andyc]

Whoopee, another Renato vs science thread :(

In this episode, Renato conflates two unrelated research papers in order to cast doubt on the mechanisms within one of them, confusing deep (25-40km) magmatic activity in a small area with no present-day active eruptions, with actual volcanic eruptions. Eruptions apparently large enough to accelerate the flow of a whole ice sheet, not in the area relevant to the paper, only happening recently and somehow completely unobserved! Presumably in Renato's world, volcanoes are accelerating glacier melt everywhere in the world, including Greenland? Though you said it was the Sun last time... Of course in the other paper, it couldn't possibly be the observed ocean warming increasing the flow of ice towards the sea!

Then Renato appears to think that CO2 is an unimportant greenhouse gas, which is a real mystery to all atmospheric physicists since the late 19th Century! As the most important non-condensing greenhouse gas, we fiddle with this temperature control at our peril (what if we remove CO2, Lacis et al 2011 (http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/la09300d.html)) (CO2 control knob, Alley 2009 (http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml))

It is once again, Renato vs every relevant science academy on the planet. The answer's simply ABC... Anything But CO2 :shrug:

[el_draco]

Complete twaddle. If we were around in 250million years, which is HIGHLY IMPROBABLE, the species and, in deed, the planet as a whole, would be so different as to make this statement meaningless.

Lets try just one fact. Humans got airborne about 100 years back. In 250 million years technology would hopefully have progressed far enough to make nuclear rockets unthinkably primitive. Hell, I for one would beam outta here in my TARDIS!

I'd also suggest that moving another couple of dozen million kms further out would be an exercise in Numnut thinking.... Outta the fire and back into the frying pan..... REALLY??????

If Tonys comment:



....needs to be the topic of another thread, according to Rennto, then this load of fiction needs to be on another forum like "Lets talk Scientology" :screwy:

[clive milne]

Come on guys... being inflammatory is the quickest way to get a thread closed and your point not heard.

[Astro_Bot]

It might be useful to share this ...

Some years ago, at some mining promotion/recruitment/PR event, I struck up a conversation with one chap who, through no subterfuge of mine, mistakenly thought I was a mining PR rep. He was in such a role (I don't know which company) and he mentioned how difficult it was to "sell" mining to the public, especially in Sydney. What he then said, obviously after having had a beer or three, was that selling the anti-climate change message was even harder - he'd never been given a harder task, he said. He said it didn't matter how many bloggers you hired, or how many radio jocks you bought, it seemed people were generally going to believe that climate change was real. He asked me how tough I was finding it, at which point, since I couldn't think of anything to say, I made my excuses and mingled.

At another event (nothing to do with mining), I was engaged in conversation by a chap who said he was sometimes an event speaker/presenter - his main job was career transition advice - he wasn't speaking at this event, just advising. Now this chap introduced the subject of climate change early in the discussion and, suspecting something was up, I played dumb. He spent a good five minutes mis-quoting pretty much every major scientific finding and inserting a few outright fabrications - in an offhand manner - finishing off with, "So you see, global warming is just a fad. It'll disappear in a year or two. Why should we sacrifice industry or jobs for some fad?" That's bad enough, but when I asked why he'd gone to the trouble of explaining these "facts" to me, he said it was what he did as part of his event presentations. This happened in the lead up to the 2007 Federal Election.

I've never forgotten these events: there really are people who are paid to spread disinformation about climate change, and they may do so in unexpected places.

[Amaranthus]

That "Islands in the Sky" book has an interesting speculative piece on how far-future 'humanity' (or whatever are distant descendants look are called) might deal with increased insolation from an aging Sun - varying from something as simple as sun shields (actually already proposed as a geoengineering 'solution' to global warming) through to nudging the Earth outward in its orbit. Fun stuff!

[el_draco]

Precisely, The act of pretending that the science is dubious, inconsistent, in dispute or any other thing you might insert is precisely why this kind of twaddle continues to be aired.

THE ONLY Point worth debating here is whether you are prepared to risk the planet YOUR children will inherit, and what are you going to say to them when they asked why YOU didn't look after it? :shrug:

The Science community is in no doubt its happening and anyone who hasn't got their head wedged in a dark place can see it happening NOW

[clive milne]

Including public forums....

[FlashDrive]

Tell you what .... let's all kiss and make up .....:lol:

Col ......:D

[el_draco]

I'm happy to administer a "Manchester" version, repeatedly...:D

[mithrandir]

You don't need to wait for the Sun to blow up that much. It is gradually getting hotter without growing much bigger. Well before Earth gets swallowed it will be too hot to support life as we know it.

[clive milne]

That doesn't mean the information I have posted previously on other topics has necessarily been incorrect. ;)




To my understanding, the positive feedback loops acquire enough momentum to be self reinforcing at somewhere between 2 & 4 degrees above pre 76 average.
Although we have experienced only 1 degree rise there is another degree in the bag already once the ocean temperatures reach equilibrium. (that's at least 2 degrees guaranteed even if we stopped all emissions tomorrow) When you factor in the time it will take (as distinct from the time it could take) to transition to a clean energy economy, we are almost certainly going to blow past the point of no return and climate change will accelerate irrespective of our actions.

To have any chance of averting the consequences of this scenario would require a commitment to action, globally, on a scale that is nowhere in evidence.

[blink138]

i dont know where you are from rom (ha that rhymes) but there is no such thing as a manc(?) kiss, it is a "liverpool kiss"
i cannot even bring myself to spell that city out in full ha ha!
with respect
pat

[el_draco]

A Manchester uses knuckles old boy.... much more dignified :rofl:
Alas, not from either local, but the blood has memory ;)

[Renato1]

Hi Clive,
We are the sole species with the advantage of collective learning, and who know how to unlock reams of energy. Providing we use that energy wisely - like making sure some asteroid doesn't wipe us out, and making sure someone survives underground when that supervolcano in Yellowstone eventually takes out most of the planet, and that we eventually colonise Mars, at least a billion year future isn't improbable.

Regards,
Renato

[Renato1]

The 250 million to 500 million year figure came from an S&T article from years ago, which was saying that most people mistakenly think that the earth will be around for the lifetime of the sun, but that as the sun gets older it will make life too warm on earth much, much earlier than that.
Regards,
Renato

[Renato1]

Hi Clive,
Up until the 5th Assessment Report, in each other report the IPCC had given a best estimate of Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) of 3C - which is what they'd expect to occur from a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere. And they gave ranges from 2C to 4.5C, which pretty much accords with what you've said

But in the IPCC 5th Assessment Report for the first time, they declined to give a best estimate of ECS, citing different results from different studies. You have to go elsewhere to find out what this papering up of a huge difference in ECS figures is all about. It transpires that there have been a very large number of researchers measuring ECS directly, and the observed results give values of ECS between 1.5C and 2C, with some as low as 1.25C.

Meanwhile, the computer models keep giving values of ECS of around 3C and 4.5C.

And hence the IPCC range 1.5C to 4.5C of ECS for a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere.

So if the Observation studies are correct, the perceived problem is nowhere near as bad as the Computer Models predict. If the Hiatus continues, I don't think they will be able paper over the ECS issue in the 6th Assessment Report as they have in the 5th.
Regards,
Renato

[Renato1]

Hi Andy,
You seem to be upset that I posted links to a real scientific paper and a real scientific site, and somehow that makes me "vs science".

Presumably, you are also upset that the real scientific site shows that the only area of Antarctica where climate change is happeneing, is also coincidentally sitting right on top of part of the Pacific Rim of Fire.

You seem to think magma has nothing to do with volvanos, and presumably are also disputing that Mt. Erebus has been erupting since 1972, and last erupted in 2011.

And you seem to also be upset that Mars is an extremely cold place, instead of a nice hot place like Venus.

Well, that's unfortunate.
Regards,
Renato

[Retrograde]

But the Earth doesn't radiate evenly across all parts of the infra-red spectrum. If you look at the Earth's black-body curve you will see that the CO2 absorption lines are near the peak of the curve. Then you also have to take into account such factors as pressure-broadening etc. Much more complex than you've made out.



The abstract of the paper you linked to doesn't say that at all.
It says:
"Numerous volcanoes exist in Marie Byrd Land, a highland region of West Antarctica. High heat flow through the crust in this region may influence the stability of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet"

So it's not conclusive that heat-flow through the crust affects stability of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. It "may" (or it may not) and the paper doesn't discount other factors affecting the stability of the ice sheet that I can see.
Nowhere does it suggest that climate-change is not occuring elsewhere in Antarctica. That's an assumption and very likely an incorrect one.

[clive milne]

Hi Renato,
Irrespective of climate sensitivity to CO2 (which we all agree is not zero) the real concern is avoiding the point at which feedback mechanisms become self reinforcing. Now let us assume that climate sensitivity to CO2 was half what has been accepted to date, let us also make the assumption that our economies remain tied to carbon intensive energy sources (as the lobby groups influencing the debate in the public arena hope to be the case) simple mathematics can be used to predict the amount of additional time this gifts us before the denouement of modern civilization. With 2.8% pa growth in the energy sector, halving climate sensitivity with a magic wand buys us at most an additional 25 years until we face the same problem.

The 'business as usual' policy has only one mathematically possible outcome and it is a train wreck. The only question remaining is how much track we have left and how much momentum we will be carrying when we get there.

I really don't understand why avoiding that outcome by changing the way we collectively structure the energy basis of the global economy is anathema to anyone considering the alternative. The only logical assumption I am left with is that either those people making the decisions are not logical, there is a false premise in my argument (or theirs) or that they have no interest in the long term viability of the operating system of this planet and by extension, have no thought for the living things that depend upon it. The evidence I see with my own eyes suggests that the latter option most likely encapsulates the truth of the matter.

[Renato1]

That guy seemed to have been pretty spot on in his assessment.

Did he perhaps mention that the earth had stopped heating? Your chat was about a year after Bob Carter first wrote it in a newspaper article, where he was subsequently roundly condemned as a nutter the world over by Climate Scientists who were then in their Pause/Hiatus-is-Heresy phase, before they become believers last year.
Regards,
Renato

[Renato1]

Hi Pete,

This is the graph that Wikipedia have,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Atmosfaerisk_spredning.gif
to me - CO2 is absorbing in tiny part of the spectrum.

As for the article and site I linked to - well, they're scientific - nobody is arguing about their content. I just found it interesting the alarmism after the satellite article was released - citing possible 10ft increase in sea level - with California Governor Jerry Brown calling for action on climate change because LA International Airport was going to be flooded (even though it's 125 feet above sea level).

I just thought it odd that no one thought it pertinent to mention that the most likely small part of Antarctica to melt - even in pre-industrial times - appears to be melting.
Regards,
Renato

[el_draco]

Considering the failed priest moron in charge just ripped 100 million from the CSIRO budget and gave that money to chaplaincy in schools is proof, I would suggest, that your assumption is correct. I suspect "he" is praying that some Big daddy figure will pop from the heavens and fix everything....

[Retrograde]

It's a lot more complex than that as I alluded to. A reasonable treatment of the physics surrounding the Greenhouse effect can be found here:
http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2010/02/18/greenhouse-effect-revisited/

[clive milne]

Rom,
I disagree. I think he is actually a very intelligent and shrewd customer, he is a rhodes scholar after all. I have come to the conclusion that the questionable level of intelligence he displays publicly is a finely crafted and choreographed facade employed for the purpose of lending an air of plausible deniability (much like the case of George W)

[Renato1]

Hi Clive,
Someone arbitrarily made the magic point of concern 2C above pre-industrial times. So we are half way there. Using the best estimate ECS of 3C in the previous assessment reports led to predictions of temperature rises of 0.2C per decade. So that's 50 years to achieve that one degree C.

But if ECS is only 1.5C, well that'll be around 100 years - which is good news. Lots of time to formulate mitigation strategies, come up with better renewable energy sources or even to see if the ECS figure of 1.5C is accurate or too high.

Anyhow, it's all irrelevant. China, India, Brazil aren't going to cut their emissions any time soon. Japan couldn't even meet it's Kyoto protocol target. Let's hope the true ECS figure is indeed the low one of the IPCC range.
Regards,
Renato

[Renato1]

Sad to see the current bane of the ABC and left-wing media, anti-Catholicism, entering the discussion here.
Regards,
Renato

[el_draco]

Even sadder to see the reality of what this twit is doing to this country and the scarcely veiled attack on Science by him and those like him. Denying blatantly obvious truths is the first step on a very slippery slope. What next? Astrology as the real Science or flying humans with rings over their heads? :screwy::screwy:

[andyc]

Renato, merely referencing good papers does raise you above people like the anti-vaxxers quoting Andrew Wakefield. Misinterpreting a good paper's results in order to suit your pre-determined views doesn't exactly do you any favours!

One of the underpinnings of science is that you consider evidence that is contrary to your viewpoint, and if that evidence is sufficient, you change your view to one that is consistent with the evidence.

Below you made this comment:
I have pointed out to you more than once that >90% of the extra heat accumulation goes into the oceans, which continue to rapidly gain heat (e.g. Levitus et al 2012, IPCC AR5 WG1chapter 3 and many references therein). Only a few percent goes into surface temperatures. Box 3.1 in the IPCC chapter, page 264, shows the total energy gain by the various components of Earth as a result of the energy imbalance (see attached image). Earth has gained about:
1970-1980: 40 ZJ (zettajoules, 10^21J)
1980-1990: 60 ZJ
1990-2000: 45 ZJ
2000-2011: 130 ZJ

But according to Renato, the Earth stopped warming recently!! :rofl:

Ocean warming observations are consilient with the most rapid sea level rise being since 2000, accelerated melting of tidewater glaciers and marine-terminating ice sheets, and the observed energy imbalance at the influential CO2 bands in the infrared spectrum of Earth.

So Renato, do you now accept that Earth has gained more heat since 2000 than in comparable periods prior to 2000? Are you scientific??

[Retrograde]

Left-wing media is another myth. Our media is largely run by right-wing billionaires Rupert Murdoch, Gina Rinehart and Kerry Stokes.

An independent journalism study showed how the Australian media (particularly the Murdoch media) steadfastly promotes climate-science scepticism: http://theconversation.com/big-australian-media-reject-climate-science-19727 (there is a direct link to the study in the article).

[Renato1]

Andy,
With respect, this is ridiculous.

The four previous IPCC assessments reports cited atmospheric warming rates of 0.15C per decade, and were confidently predicting warming rates of 0.2C per decade.

But the current 5th Assessment Report clearly and unambiguously refers to the "Hiatus" - citing rates of 0.05C and 0.04C per decade, which is within uncertainty of measurement and statistically insignificant from zero.

It's pointless pretending as John Cook does, that this isn't the biggest conundrum facing climate modellers across the planet. To date, I read somewhere that 12 explanations have been offered to try account for this unpredicted occurrence, including the warming oceans - but they all have their critics (e.g. observed temperature/energy increase in the ocean can't account for the Hiatus), and plainly they can't all be right.

If the Hiatus continues, it's a case of back to the drawing boards.
Regards,
Renato

[Astro_Bot]

Bob Carter (http://www.skepticalscience.com/Bob_Carter_arg.htm)? The guy paid by the US Heartland Institute (http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/scientist-denies-he-is-mouthpiece-of-us-climatesceptic-think-tank-20120215-1t6yi.html) (an anti-climate change lobby that receives private funding mostly from resources and manufacturing businesses)? Bob Carter whose main qualifications are in geology and paleontology? Bob Carter (https://www.ipa.org.au/people/bob-carter) who is attached to the Institute of Public Affairs (the well-known right-wing think tank)?

And there you go again: re-stating - as though it were some incontrovertible fact - something already shown to be a gross distortion. Say it enough times and maybe someone will believe it, perhaps? Your strange persistence, and reliance on repetition of common anti-climate-science talking points, speaks volumes. After all, you only need to create doubt, right?


Oh, here's some related news from today:

Barack Obama plans 30 per cent cuts in power carbon emissions, hailed as 'super bowl of climate change' regulation (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-03/us-unveils-plan-to-cut-carbon-emissions/5495560)

[Nikolas]

define left wing

[Renato1]

Unfortunately, I don't think that you are quite right.

Murdoch owns a small number of newspapers, which a huge number of readers want to read - no doubt because he believes in a diversity, and his papers employ both left-wing and conservative columnists. Murdoch is also a minor shareholder Foxtel.

Fairfax owns a small number of newspapers, which used to be huge, but which now make a loss most days of the week, since they seem to cater mainly for inner urban lefties, and will not employ a conservative columnist, relying instead on guest pieces from retired conservative politicians as their contribution to balance. Fairfax also runs quite a number of talk back radio stations, some that do very well, and some slipping. Rhinehart is a shareholder in Fairfax, but they refuse to give her a board seat.

Stokes controls Channel Seven, Rhinehart is a shareholder in but does not run Channel 10, and I've lost track of who runs Channel Nine.

The Guardian is a little read on-line lefty paper owned by some one in Britain, happily replicating the failure of Fairfax by taking many of their journalists.

West Australian News isn't run by any of the above.

The most hilarious section of that piece you linked to says,
"Readers of sceptical papers receive almost no information that would enable them to understand the complexities or likely impacts of climate change domestically or internationally. The research findings of climate scientists are largely rendered invisible for News Corp audiences. Its tabloid publications produce no critique of the sceptic position."

Why it is ridiculous and hilarious is because such readers would have been aware many of those inconvenient citations from the IPCC 5th Assessment report that I posted in my "The Sun is So Boring" thread from reading those newspapers. And they would have been aware of the facts even before the IPCC went and wrote them up in that report.

What is doubly hilarous is that those people from the Australian Centre for Independent Journalism at University of Technology are unaware of is that the 5th Assessment Report is very similar to a financial newsletter - it makes predictions about what to buy, and when they turn out to be dud predictions, they can always point out to some obscure factor somewhere in previous issues which showed why the result was actually foreseeable - didn't you read it?

The same holds true for the 5th Assessment report - plenty of predictions in the headlines, but plenty of possible outs when you read the detail, so that they are always right.

When The Australian reported last year that Dr. Pachauri (Head of IPCC) had admitted there was a pause in global temperatures, it sent shockwaves around the world, but nowhere moreso than to Fairfax readers and ABC listeners. But that fact was ancient news to readers of the so called skeptical newspapers.
Regards,
Renato

[Renato1]

That's right Professor Bob Carter - our very own Aussie, who was the very first man on the planet to see the Pause, and who was game to wear the opprobrium and publish it.

Why do you think he has all those positions you cite?

It was because he called it right, and it only took the IPCC another seven years to be dragged kicking and screaming and have to agree that he was right.

As you plainly disagree with me that an "Hiatus" in world temperature exists, well - go and complain to the IPCC. They are the authoritative body that coined the term to describe the hiatus in world temperature.
Regards,
Renato

[Renato1]

Wikipedia do a good job of describing it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics
Cheers,
Renato

[Retrograde]

Wrong - Murdoch own 142 different mastheads across the country. hardly a small number.



You mean like The Australian which hasn't made a profit for many, many years but is kept on as a political propaganda vehicle?


You've clearly missed Paul Sheehan and Chris Berg for starters.


Lachlan Murdoch runs (or up until recently ran) Channel 10. He is of course Rupert Murdoch's son.



Wrong - it is part of the Seven West Media group run by Kerry Stokes.


You mean a cherry-picked bunch of out-of-context canards deliberately selected to give a one-sided view of the AR5 in order to maintain the company's ongoing misrepresentation of science?

Sorry but your reasoning is both hilarious and convoluted and in no way refutes the report.

As for Bob Carter he's a geologist who shills for the fossil-fuel industry and has perpetrated what amounts to scientific fraud: http://www.climateshifts.org/?p=4968
If you believe him over actual climate-scientists then you really have disappeared down the rabbit hole and no amount of reasoning will convince you of the facts. I see in your response you are steadfastly refusing to accept the peer-reviewed scientific paper cited by Andy despite pretending to be in favour of 'real science'. :lol:

[graham.hobart]

I still don't understand, why, even if there is 10% doubt or 90% doubt about the figures, that we would continue to blindly follow the same path when there is a chance we are wrecking our only planet for our children.
Oh yes!- it's the Dollar isn't it.
Like other posters have said, what are we going to tell our children and our children's children?
You can argue about a hiatus or 2'c rise or 100 years before we feel the global effect of GW (irreversible) but it's like running a (petrol) car until bits start to fall off and the engine blows, then handing it to your offspring- "here kids, here's your car I looked after for you"
Entrenched views seem immoveable and meanwhile a soft violin was heard as Rome burned.
Look your kids in the eye and say " I am willing to take the gamble on your future because this is what I believe NOW."
Only the potent smell of money could make so many vested interests so stubborn.
There is a word I don't often use and it's Procrustean- it means rigidly inflexible and was derived from an ancient Greek (I think) criminal who was put on the rack and refused to spill the beans.
Yep- rigidly inflexible-Procrustean should be the IIS word of the day.:sadeyes:
Graham
with regards to all who have taken part in this illuminating and sometimes funny debate

[el_draco]

Opposite to right wing.....:D

[el_draco]

As I said at the start, Renato has an agenda. He makes no attempt to address the basic fundamental question repeated by me and others in various forms:

If there is a 1% risk of AGW being a reality, we need to be acting, individually locally, nationally and Globally.

So RENATO, answer the damn question:,

"Are you prepared to risk the lives of our children, and their children on the infinitesimal chance that 50% of your engineering mates or the rantings of some wank*er sell out burned out discredited geologist are right?"

WELL???

[el_draco]

News flash:
HRH Abbot has just welcomed the U.S. governments proposed cuts to power station emissions How noble of him. Couldn't give a rats about Aus., but happy to let others do the work.

[andyc]

Dead right. Every time I mention total heat content gain, of which >90% goes into the oceans, you ignore it. You've done that many times now, including on the Sun thread you hijacked. You pretend that ocean heat measurement doesn't exist, so you can push some denier memes about heat within 2% of the Earth system.

I'll ask again. Did Earth gain more energy from 2000-2011 than when compared to similar periods prior to 2000?
In your answer, you can use the copious references in the IPCC chapter I highlighted previously (and the figure), after all you're fond of the IPCC when you think it supports your position :lol:.

Even in the tiny part of the system that is surface temperature, you cherry pick noise over signal. If I played your game, I could look at the 16 year trend between 1992 and 2007. It's almost double the long-term trend, and yet greatly overlaps the period you like to quote. Did warming 'double' up to 2007? If not, why not? Could there be a reason climatologists use 30-year trends?

[Amaranthus]

It's looking increasingly likely that we are moving towards a 'super' El Nino this year and next (http://science1.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2014/19may_elnino/), which, stacked up on top of 16 years of incremental warming since the 1997/1998 event, should set a lot of records.

Most of the 'missing' heat/energy seems to be moving into the deep oceans at a more rapid rate than was previously assumed, as revealed by the ARGO data and other monitoring: http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-missing-heat-1.14525

This is part of my day job.

[graham.hobart]

Very interesting stuff Barry. Thanks for posting.
Graz

[andyc]

Thanks very much Barry! El Nino is also a part of my day job but I hadn't seen much about Jason-2. One to explore tomorrow...

Absent a major equatorial volcanic eruption, there's pretty good odds of an annual global temperature record this year with already high anomalies in the GISS dataset, so surpassing 2010 and 2005 as the previous record holders. If El Nino fully develops, there is a very high chance of a significant record for 2015 (there's approximately a 6-month lag in overall global temperature response to El Nino and so the year afterwards is usually warmer). If we have anything approaching a 1997-98 El Nino, it'll be a huge record in 2015, and the surface temperature 'hiatus' will completely evaporate in a puff of statistical noise...

[clive milne]

Hi Renato,
I think you have missed the significance of a couple of very important points in the discussion.

* There seems to be some confusion around the terms 'heat' and 'temperature' they are related but not the same thing. Heat is a measure of the total energy in a substance. If you imagine a glass full of water and a bathtub full of water and both are at the same temperature, the bathtub has hundreds of times more energy. Similarly if you have a bathtub full of air and a bathtub full of water and you apply 10 joules of energy to both, you will see a huge difference in the change in relative temperature of the air compared to the water. If you have a bathtub half full of air and half full of water and apply 10 joules to the system, nearly all of the heat will end up in the water once the temperature stabilises. Implicitly.. air temperature alone is not a good measure of the total heat in the planet's biosphere, so to use it as a means to infer what is going in to the oceans is specious in the most generous interpretation of things.

*When we talk about the impact of any given step change in atmospheric CO2, it really is important not to get seduced into thinking that global average temperatures respond immediately. The system takes multiple decades before it even approaches equilibrium. If we take a measure of global average temperatures today and they are 1 degree above the pre-industrial average (the average derived over several decades) It is possible to estimate that the Earth will be around 2C warmer once the oceans catch up assuming no additional CO2 is added to the system. Similarly, it may be comforting to select a time period of 10 years or so and point to the trend evident in 'that' particular slice of time, but it really isn't meaningful when the time domain selected preferentially amplifies the noise and suppresses the signal.

*In the example you quoted above you have made the error of extrapolating the impact of our CO2 emissions based on an unrealistic best case scenario using cyclical noise instead of data derived from long term trends and applying a linear function to those misleading numbers instead of the exponential function that accurately describes it.


*You are most likely correct with respect to the BRICS. I think considering the resources we have at our disposal, and the manner in which the example we set influences them, it should actually be a source of shame for us.


Basically the point being; any rational estimate of the risk we face on this issue cannot be derived using an inappropriate mathematical function, it cannot be based on a dataset dominated by noise and it must not ignore the inertia in the system. Anything less is just folly.

[clive milne]

Im not a betting man but if anyone one wants to take even odds,
I've got a thousand bucks on 2014 global average temperatures being above the pre-1976 average....

For the denialistas; If you're not prepared to have a punt on that, why do you expect the rest of humanity to risk its entire future when you lack the strength of your convictions even to that extent?

[el_draco]

I'd be happy to make that up to 2$k. I love a dead certainty, even though we all lose in this case.... Two grand would pay for about 4000 trees. Go ahead, help me cool my world. :hi:

[Nikolas]

No define it as YOU see it and understand it.
Don't obfuscate and bow down to wikipedia.

[blink138]

i think every view and comment here is bowing down to someone!
pat

[blink138]

clive i will bet you that after the the 26,000 year spin axis precession plus the 71,000 year earth orbit precession that the average temperature is going to be exactly the same as it is today
i do not think i can lose this bet, can i?
pat

[Renato1]

Hi Pete,
Ummm - you are counting those freebie local papers that they give away for nothing - that tell you what's happening at the local council and local high school, as fair dinkum newspapers? As part of Murdoch's supposed strangle hold on the media?

The Australian - the newspaper where Murdoch did once try to become a king-maker, when he used it to get Gough Whitlam over the line 1972. But Gough didn't bother with him afterwards, and Rupert learned the error of his ways.

And Rupert Murdoch - the guy who said the planet should be given the benefit of a doubt, and supports action on climate change - is hardly the skeptic that you infer. One of his columnists, Andrew Bolt, has publicly stated that he has had argument's with him about climate change, but that to his credit, Rupert has never interfered with Bolt's columns.

Thanks for pointing out my error about WA News. I sold my shares in WA News and Channel 7 before they joined up in 2011, and hadn't kept abreast of that.

As for your assertion about my supposedly "out of context" citations from AR5, feel free to put any of them into whatever context you feel. It wont change the facts of what I cited.

Bob Carter - when the facts are against you, smear the person. Smear him all that you wish, the fact remains he went to print in 2006 that the world had stopped warming. And in 2013, the IPCC agreed there was an Hiatus.
Regards,
Renato

[Renato1]

Hi Graham,
You are correct - it is the money. If you are going to spend trillions of dollars playing at being planetary engineers, and keep billions of people around the world in poverty, and impoverish you future descendents, you would want to be pretty sure that what you are acting on is correct.

You are probably unaware that there are dissenting warmist scientists and economists who fully accept what the IPCC predict, but who disagree with what to do about it. They point out that the cost of mitigation for climate change is far lower than trying to control it. They suggest that the current course of action is akin to paying yearly insurance premiums for you car that are ten times its value, when it is plainly cheaper just to fix the car if it has an accident.
Regards,
Renato

[Renato1]

Hi Barry,
That's an interesting article in Nature, but I think it is more highly speculative than than the something definitive that the title suggests.

At the end of the day, what is offered is after the fact simulations and explanations that heat must gone into the deep oceans - where there are no measurements - because they don't know where else it could have gone. And as skeptics like to point out, the upper ocean should have gotten a lot hotter in order to bring about that heat transfer to the deep ocean.

Anyhow, as this issue is in its infancy, I suspect it will be a long time before it is sorted out.
Regards,
Renato

[Renato1]

Hi Andy,
Yes all that extra heat content, most of which has gone into the deep oceans, where there are no measurements taken. A huge negative feedback which wasn't predicted in any of the first four assessment reports. I guess I just lack faith.

Oh - and darn that Hiatus that the IPCC (not me) must have cherry picked. I think you had better complain to them.

Regards,
Renato

[Peter Ward]

While this has been an interesting, if not frustrating, discourse, the elephant in the room was the Nature article that clearly states:
"..... there has been no evidence for recent magmatic activity".

In other words the Cryosat data showing significant melting has no currently ( read in the last 8000 or years ) observed magmatic link.

In short, volcanism is clearly not the cause.

doh! :rolleyes:

[Renato1]

Hi Clive,
That Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity figure isn't is just about temperature, it is derived from all the heat flows in and out of the system. It is meant to encompass everything, heat flows from space, heat flows back into space and into the oceans. And it should be a pretty robust figure, because try as we might, it takes quite some time to double the CO2 content in the atmosphere.

The whole point of the ECS figure is to be able to extrapolate using it.

The Observational ECS figure extrapolates to a less troublesome short term scenario than the Computer Model ECS.
Regards,
Renato

[Renato1]

Hi Clive,
That's not a reasonable bet because the more skeptical climate scientists are actually in agreement that if one doubles CO2 content, the black body radiation effect is to increase temperature 1C.

So there are now three schools of thought relating to that 1C.

Computer modellers -
Positive feedback turns that 1C to between 3C or 4.5C

Observational ECS measurers -
Positive feedback turns that 1C to between 1.5C to 2C

Skeptical Climate Scientists -
Negative feedback turns that 1C to 0.5C or less.

So everyone agrees the temperature will go up.

A better bet is to say take a bet on whether in ten years time, the temperature - as measured by a moving average, has or has not increased by 0.2C, as predicted by the modellers.
Regards,
Renato

[Renato1]

I think Wikipedia do a sterling job.
Though I'd add the secular humanists to the mix.
Regards,
Renato

[Renato1]

Hi Peter,

"Two seismic swarms were recorded in January 2010 and March 2011 , near the Executive Committee Range , about fifty km. south of Sidley and Waesche mts . Located 25-40 km . beneath the surface , these earthquakes DPLs - Deep , long-period - are linked to outbreaks of magmatic fluids, or other, fracturing the rocks and opening new avenues to the surface."

I guess it depends on what one defines as the area.
Regards,
Renato

[AndrewJ]

Just gotta hope you are still alive after the accident i guess:D

Andrew

[andyc]

I guess I could have relied on you not to read the references supplied and make unfounded aspersions, so here's a link to Levitus et al (http://data.nodc.noaa.gov/woa/PUBLICATIONS/grlheat12.pdf). You might want to revisit your favourite source, the IPCC AR1 ch3 if you think there are no observations of heat content below 700m depth. But apparently observations don't exist if you say so!! :lol: Maybe you have a peer-reviewed source disputing the IPCC's ocean summary you'd like to share? Or are you parroting some random fool from an Internet blog?

Speaking of sources, what is your source for:

Because it sure as sunrise isn't the broad view of the peer-reviewed literature from a wide range of methods. Go have a read of Knutti and Hegerl 2008 (http://www.image.ucar.edu/idag/Papers/PapersIDAGsubtask1.3/Knutti_nature08.pdf), especially Figure 3, which will give you a good idea of sensitivity ranges (typically 2-4C, in line with IPCC).

And how on Earth would you get Quaternary glacial cycles with a climate sensitivity much less than 2? The forcing from orbital variations is tiny! I'd like multiple references please, after all palaeoclimate is my professional training. A good starter is Richard Alley's fantastic presentation (http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml) a few years ago at AGU.

You don't appear to know what you're talking about. Your only citation is the IPCC, which tends to say the opposite to you ... so what do you rely on for your climate "knowledge"??

[Renato1]

Hi Andy,
Perhaps if you actually read the article, you'd see
"Although observational data are relatively sparse
from depths exceeding 2000 m in the World Ocean, several
recent studies have appeared that estimate the change in
ocean heat content in this layer".

If this issue of the deep oceans supposedly containing all the missing heat from the non-warming of the atmosphere were fully addressed by the 2012 paper which goes down to only 2000m that you cite, well, there wouldn't be an issue would there? They wouldn't have had to scrounge around with the sun and with aerosols.

Also from the Argo site, it's objective
"It will provide a quantitative description of the changing state of the upper ocean"
and goes on to state that the instruments go down to 2000m every few days. If Argo think they are measuring the upper ocean, why do you think they are measuring the deep ocean?

You are welcome to provide a link to some system that measures the temperature/heat of the deep oceans, which you keep asserting exists.

The recent studies with the lower ECS observational estimates are listed in Table 2 and in the references in this paper.
http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2014/03/A-Sensitive-Matter-download.pdf

Curiously, they are all later than your 2008 paper.
Regards,
Renato

[Retrograde]

:rofl: That's not a scientific journal you've linked to (as I expected) but an op-ed from a fossil-fuel industry funded think-tank opposing action on climate-change. (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Global_Warming_Poli cy_Foundation)

Oh dear.

[el_draco]

Sic him Pete.... :D:D

[Renato1]

Well, if I wipe off a $40,000 car without insurance, and am still alive, I'd be annoyed that I lost $40,000.

But if I wiped of a $40,000 car after paying a $400,000 insurance premium, and I am still alive - I'd be out of pocket $360,000, and I'd wish I was dead.

Which reminds me of my old boss, who did the same thing, yet the rules were different then and he found a novel way of making money from insurance. Back in the days before Medicare (late 60s/early 70s), he took out health insurance with 20 companies, and then got his wife pregnant. When the Doctor wanted to discharge her early, after giving birth, my old boss suggested it might be better if she stayed there and rested a few days longer. The Doctor got out of his seat and shook his hand, saying he'd never met such a considerate husband.

Of course, my old supervisor pocketed 19 times the amount of money spent on the hospital stay. And then he claimed the 20 premiums on his tax return. the Tax Office rejected the claim, but he appealed and won.
Cheers,
Renato

[Retrograde]

I don't count any of Murdoch's papers as 'fair-dinkum' "news" papers because they don't print real news on serious topics but 70% of papers sold + channel 10 & Foxtel and you have a large media platform. Add Rinehart/Stokes to that and you have a monopoly.

I see with your single supposed example of bias you've missed out where Murdoch's own journalists went on strike because they couldn't stomach the anti-Gough bias or where only last year the Tele photo shopped the sitting Labor PM as a Nazi on the front page.




Hahaha! He also said that his company in the UK didn't hack phones or pay off police, and that it was just one rogue journalist, and that his appearance at Leveson was the most humble day of his life. Oh the hilarity.


The facts are that Carter & co removed the measured global warming signal from their data by taking the derivative (you know what doing that means right?) and then claimed that they proved there was no global-warming signal! It's not even subtle and it's academically dishonest.



Please provide details so we can have a look (& probably a laugh).

[Renato1]

Perhaps, had you taken the time to read what I wrote, and then to have actually read the bits I pointed to - Table 2 and the References - you would have seen that the papers cited within that paper are indeed from scientific journals.

And that one of the authors has had one of his papers cited several times within the 5th Assessment Report.

And that the range for ECS of 1.5C to 4.5C is in the IPCC 5th Assessment report.

If you don't want to know the story behind that increased range by the IPCC, then don't read the paper. Ignorance is bliss.
Regards,
Renato

[Nikolas]

Not good enough
Define leftist in YOUR eyes not wikipedia.
Come on you claim you are smart enough you can do it.

[Renato1]

Well, much of what you wrote above seems to be unsupported personal opinion and assertions to me. Presumably in your world view, everyone who reads a Murdoch paper is a dill.

But here is the link you requested to Bob Carter's piece which heralded the age of Pause-In-Global-Warming awareness.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3624242/There-IS-a-problem-with-global-warming...-it-stopped-in-1998.html

Regards,
Renato

[Renato1]

Left wing is the radical, reforming or socialist section of a political party or system.

You have me a tad at a loss - you appear to state that somewhere I claimed I was smart enough to define the term "leftist". Where exactly have I ever made such a claim?
Cheers,
Renato

[Astro_Bot]

Ah, that bastion of truth, the Tele, and a personal opinion piece once again.

Why is it that so much of the anti-climate-change argument relies on straight-to-press (and usually Murdoch press) or straight-to-blog publications and far less on peer-reviewed scientific journals (standfast the gross mis-quotations and distortions of which this thread is proving to be a fine example)?

Careful, Renato, your agenda is showing. ;)

[Nikolas]

I never said that, you distorted my words I said you claim to be smart"which seems to be a thing you do often in your so called posts.
I asked you to define left wing in this context.

So I'll ask again, define left wing in that context highlighted for you to make sure you understand what the question is asked of you.
What is this so called left wing media and who is this left wing media?

[andyc]

Good grief Renato, the deep ocean is that below 700m, not 2000m in the IPCC figure I quoted the figures from. Plenty of data from there, which is why we know the oceans are accumulating energy. Much less is known about the ocean below 2km, though some studies do indicate warming in places where 'deep water' like Antarctic Bottom Water (no sniggering at the back) is formed.

Not surprisingly, you chose to ignore the 700-2000m warming, which forms the core of Levitus' study, and provides the great bulk of continued ocean (and thus global) energy gain since 2000, as described by the IPCC.

But do please continue your unsupported allegations that the IPCC make stuff up, while you muster references from the climate denial organisation the GWPF... Can't you actually directly quote any peer- reviewed evidence?

[Renato1]

Again you make the assertion that somewhere I claimed that I am smart.
Please cite where I made any such a claim.

And I am utterly mystified with your question about the term "left wing" - it is a dictionary definition. It's like you are asking me to define what "beautiful" or "eyepiece" or "road" is. It has already been defined as part of the English language. Perhaps you should consult your dictionary on this point.
Regards,
Renato

[el_draco]

Whoops, forgot to reference Renato....

http://www.englishforums.com/English/WhatDoesLeftWingRightWingMean/vzqzl/post.htm

:D

[Renato1]

No, actually when I have to define something I use the Concise Oxford.
Cheers,
Renato

[Nikolas]

Every post you make screams of you claiming you are cleverer than everyone else.



Gonna answer my question in context or not?
No dictionary meanings no wikipedia.
What is this left wing media? Who is the left wing media why are they left wing?
what is left wing according to you and how does it fit into your mindset?
This may explain your mindset (http://pss.sagepub.com/content/23/2/187) considering you show these traits when arguing your case.

[Astro_Bot]

Come on, chaps, settle down. Trying to link anti-catholicism to "left-wing" media and the ABC is a long bow, a bit of a distraction, and not really on the topic of climate change, or indeed of melting west Antarctic ice sheets. Oh, wait a minute, that was Renato making that claim! Whatever next?

I'd be interested to know which particular media outlets Renato considers "left-wing" and why? (My initial guess would be anything to the "left" of Renato, which sounds like a lot! ;) )

[Nikolas]

I never realised most of the world's scientists are "left wing"

[AndrewJ]

Gday Renato


But my question was "what if you are not alive"
This idea of people "hoping" its all going to be alright
is looking less and less likely, the longer it goes.

But its all irrelevant anyway.
The way population is exploding, bird flu ( or something like it ) will balance the ledger for a while.

Andrew

[Renato1]

Hi Andy,
Darn climate scientists are sneaky. When Barry kindly gave me this link to a January 2014 article in Nature entitled "The Case of the Missing Heat", which details all the attempts to account for the missing heat by numerous people,
http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-missing-heat-1.14525
who'd have thought that it was just a lark, probably designed to get more research funding?
Well, that would have to be the case would it not, since you claim that Levitus and the IPCC had the whole thing added up and solved way back in 2008?

As you are plainly unwilling to look at the references to the observed ECS that you asked for, I've done it for you.

Aldrin, M., M. Holden, P. Guttorp, R.B. Skeie, G. Myhre and T.K. Berntsen, 2012.Bayesian estimation of climate sensitivity based on a simple climate model fitted to observations of hemispheric temperatures and global ocean heat content.Environmetrics, 23: 253–271.

Otto, A., F. E. L. Otto, O. Boucher, J. Church, G. Hegerl, P. M. Forster, N. P. Gillett,J. Gregory, G. C. Johnson, R. Knutti, N. Lewis,U. Lohmann, J.Marotzke, G.Myhre,D. Shindell, B Stevens and M. R. Allen, 2013. Energy budget constraints onclimate response. Nature Geosci., 6: 415–416.

Ring, M.J., D. Lindner, E.F. Cross, and M.E. Schlesinger, 2012. Causes of the global warming observed since the 19th century. Atmos. Clim. Sci., 2: 401–415.

Lewis, N., 2013. An objective Bayesian, improved approach for applying optimal fingerprint techniques to estimate climate sensitivity. J. Clim., 26: 7414–7429.

Regards,
Renato

[Nikolas]

http://madmikesamerica.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/climate.2010.134-i1.jpg
http://creativegreenius.files.wordpress.co m/2013/08/climate-change-global-hoax-lol.jpg?w=750

[Renato1]

Interesting article today from the apparently evil Murdoch press,
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/earth-scientists-split-on-climate-change-statement/story-e6frg8y6-1226942126322#

"AUSTRALIA’S peak body of earth scientists has declared itself unable to publish a position statement on climate change due to the deep divisions within its membership on the issue.

After more than five years of debate and two false starts, Geological Society of Australia president Laurie Hutton said a statement on climate change was too difficult to achieve.

Mr Hutton said the issue “had the potential to be too divisive and would not serve the best interests of the society as a whole."…

GSA represents more than 2000 Australian earth scientists from academe, industry, government and research organisations…

The [GSA’s present] statement said: “Geological evidence clearly demonstrates that Earth’s climate system is inherently and naturally variable over timescales from decades to millions of years…

“The GSA makes no predictions or public policy recommendations for action on climate beyond the generally agreed need for prudent preparations in response to potential hazards, including climate change.”

Who'd have thought?
Cheers,
Renato

[el_draco]

... remind me never to pi-ss you off :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[el_draco]

The [GSA’s present] statement said: “Geological evidence clearly demonstrates that Earth’s climate system is inherently and naturally variable over timescales from decades to millions of years…

Ah Dah... I've been teaching that for years. The discussion is not whether the climate changes over time, its whether WE ARE DOING IT NOW of which there is ZERO, ZIPPO, NADDA debate....

Still haven't answered my question Renato, (look for the bit in RED), and my Concise Oxford disagrees with yours..., so there :shrug:

I also note from your post "The GSA makes no predictions or public policy recommendations for action on climate beyond the generally agreed need for prudent preparations in response to potential hazards, including climate change.”

which is them saying, "better not risk it" I should think.

[Renato1]

I see.

You are unable to support your claim, and you have no interest in dictionary definitions.

And you wish to discuss mindset with me?
Regards,
Renato

[Renato1]

I use the computer version of the Concise Oxford Dictionary.
Regards,
Renato

[Nikolas]

It's obvious that when you paint yourself into a corner all sense of intelligent discourse fails you. It's a pity because if you had just been honest in your answers rather than resort to dictionary meanings then it would not have come to this.
I take it all back you are not clever at all.
Pity.

[Astro_Bot]

Ah, the Geological Society of Australia. Not the CSIRO (Australia's peak scientific body on climate change) that has repeatedly published findings in strong support of climate change science? And the rest of the world's peak scientific bodies that agree strongly with climate change science? Did you conveniently forget about them, too?


Who'd have thought it'd be the Murdoch press printing something like that, eh? ;)

HOWEVER: I do encourage everyone to read the linked article in full, as Renato's edit is disingenious to say the least!

[Renato1]

It was not me that twice attacked our Prime Minister in this thread for his religious practice.

But yes, it was me that called it for what it was.
Regards,
Renato

P.S. - I'm still a member of my Association/Trade Union. I was even a Workplace Rep. Part of the fees go to the ALP. I'm a great believer in Unions, though not of those willing to trash their member's jobs for the sake of Green philosophy.

[Nikolas]

hate quoting wikipedia but feeling lazy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_News_Corp

[Renato1]

Plainly you haven't been trained in the Public Service. In order to avoid ambiguity, we are required to take our meanings from the Macquarie Dictionary (though it was the Oxford when I first joined).

A discussion of what I feel a term means, versus it's actual defined Dictionary meaning, is a nugatory exercise which is quite frankly meaningless. But you seem to state that a person's honesty is in question if he uses precise definitions.

Two world views here.
Regards,
Renato

[Nikolas]

Define Green Philosophy
:D

[Nikolas]

So you can't answer the question as put to you.
Edit: maybe dishonest is too harsh, I suggest disingenuous

[N1]

Money just changes hands. It's man made & arbitrary. When it comes to the crunch, it becomes worthless anyway. My future descendants might have a pile of it but nothing to buy for it. The planet's ability to sustain human life, on the other hand, can actually be physically lost or severely compromised. Not one second would I debate which of the two I would risk losing, regardless of the odds.

[el_draco]

Another shot at Tassie mate? Strangely enough, a hell of a lot of trade unionists are in favour of fighting climate change, me, and my union included.

Outdated and backward thinking tries to retain industries and attitudes that are obsolete. Those num-nums who retain the "Chop it down, dig it up and pollute it" exploitation mentality need to evolve. New GREEN technologies are growing around the world but His HolyArse is doing everything possible to destroy them in Australia. So much for the "clever country". :screwy:

What does it say when timber workers, those evil greenies and a hell of a lot of other people stand together to protect our forests and then liberals set out to restart the conflict that WE the people resolved? Ideology driven scumbags :rolleyes:

[Astro_Bot]

As I get the sense that it's not long before this thread is closed, may I suggest one thing (and my apologies if everyone would have done this anyway): Whatever our opinions or view points, or how strongly we hold them, what has happened in this thread, stays in this thread.

[Nikolas]

Agreed, our first love is the stars after all.
Renato no hard feelings mate

[el_draco]

Ultimately, we are naught but star dust.... ;)

[andyc]

Levitus was 2012, not 2008. You're pointing to a Nature news feature, rather than dealing with the substance of 700-2000m ocean heat content measurements either the IPCC AR5 or the measurements referenced in Levitus et al. But I guess they are an inconvenient truth for you! I could equally point to Foster and Rahmstorf 2011 (http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022) or Kosaka and Xie 2013 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v501/n7467/full/nature12534.html) (discussed in the Nature News article), showing that what appears to be a 'hiatus' is dominated by the expected natural variations of ENSO, and not a change in the long-term climate forcing.

That is also supported by the positive trend in El Nino years and La Nina years that extends through to the present day - 2010 was the hottest El Nino, and 2012 was the hottest La Nina. All La Nina events since 1998 are warmer than all El Ninos before 1997, I wonder why?

It's funny how Otto et al deals with transient climate response, not equilibrium sensitivity, and the author states that their work agrees with IPCC ECS estimates of 2-4.5C (http://www.rmets.org/energy-budget-constraints-climate-response-new-paper) [and by extension the review of dozens of studies by Knutti and Hegerl 2008]. But I'm sure you knew that when you tried to convince me that there were soooo many papers that point to low climate sensitivity!

Ring et al, who are one of few studies on the low side for an ECS estimate, state that "Although we believe, given our relatively low values for equilibrium climate sensitivity, that the 2˚C goal is attainable, we emphasize that steep emissions cuts must begin now in order to reach this goal".

I'm sure as you've referenced this paper, you'll heartily agree!

Nic Lewis' paper suffers from the problem that their estimate of climate sensitivity completely changes when you add just six years worth of data! This is pretty damning for a paper proposing to estimate a robust value.

I'll leave the discussion of Aldrin et al to the approving voice of a top class climate modeller Gavin Schmidt at RealClimate (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/01/on-sensitivity-part-i/):


I'll conclude with a note that nothing's personal. If I'm ever at the same star party, you're welcome to come say hi, look through the scope or whatever. Though you're desperately wrong about climate, it's your information that is desperately wrong (goes with trusting a British right-wing lobby group I guess), and nothing more than that.

Genuinely, clear skies!