Climate change

[Peter Ward]

I'd have to say when a newspaper like the Washington Post runs today with a story highlighting this report.

http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts/key-findings

It's probably time to sit up and take notice....

[dpastern]

Anyone with an essence of common sense will have realised that man has introduced a myriad of issues to our environment. Sadly, we still have a bunch of people who stubbornly refuse to believe that man is damaging his (and other species) environment.

Worse, even though some governments are recognising the issues, none are doing anything about it.

1) The US is doing bugger all, and everyone waits for the US to do things first...

2) changing the way we live in this world means, unfortunately, massive problems with global economies. Countries like the US would rather keep polluting the world in order to make a buck. This is hopefully changing with President Obama. Call me a pessimist, but don't hold your breath.

The real crux of this issue is that we simply have far too many humans on this planet to support. The problem is created by over breeding, tampering with longevity, tampering with diseases that are designed by nature to cull the population.

As Agent Smith said in the Matrix, humans are like viruses - we take without thought. I might sound anti social when I say it, but in reality, and that's what I'm dealing with, it's the truth. Most humans are so enamoured of the current system that they will adamantly refuse to acknowledge any responsibility for our population numbers. And herein lies the problem. Our brains are too large for our own good.

Dave

[troypiggo]

Sadly, mine isn't. Just ask my wife.

[Glenhuon]

My own feelings are the human race will stay true to type and do too little too late and have change forced upon us. Our brains may be too big, but our vision is narrow.

Bill

[Peter Ward]

The heard mentality is really not good for deciding on critical actions.

The system seems flawed to me when technical decisions are being made along populist lines, when this clearly would be an insane way to say, conduct open heart surgery e.g.

"Hands up all those who think we should cut 'ere"

Similarly our home planet now faces stress. The key finding in the linked report was: Global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced

How much more blunt could they be?

Yet our Pollies, media outlets and those who think thermodynamics is just hype (radio 2gb for example) still argue the Titanic could not sink.

[Omaroo]

I agree with this one point you make. I've always believed (rather than known, as you do) that humans are designed with a built-in fragility designed to keep our numbers down naturally. Research into disease is probably going to bite us on the bum in the end.

As for the rest - I'm still utterly unconvinced that either side of this little debate is correct. It will take time to prove it either way - and the science is irrefutable.

[Paddy]

I think we're more like a cancer. We just keep growing regardless of the systems that would normally control us, evading natural limits. putting pressure on other systems and producing toxins that damage our host.

It's all very depressing! A nice telescope and dark skies certainly help to keep a chap sane.

[ngcles]

Hi Peter & All,

Without entering into debate over this subject whch has such a capacity to cause strife, I'd simply suggest that people get a hold of a copy of Professor Ian Plimer's recent book "Heaven & Earth" and have a good read.

You can get it at Border Books.

There is much truth therein.


Best,

Les D

[astronut]

Whilst we may be experiencing "Climate Change" we should be very careful as individuals, as a country and world, that we don't fall into the "religion" that has formed around this phenomena.
We may very well be sealing the economic doom of this planet, if we (governments) listen only to the fringe element or "high priests" concerning C.C.
Unfortunately, all round the world, well meaning people that are trying to be kinder to our planet are being sucked into the claws of the panic merchants.
Should we have a cleaner and more habitable and sustainable planet for current and future generations? YES!!!
Just be sure not to achieve that, by making a deal with the devil.

[astroron]

We may very well be sealing the economic doom of this planet, if we (governments) listen only to the fringe element or "high priests" concerning C.C.



Didn't we nearly just do that even without taking climate change into account.

[astronut]

Touche, Ron.:thumbsup:

[Peter Ward]

The problem I have with Ian's book is that he claims every scientific argument ever used to show that humans change climate is wrong
(some 2000+ of them)

No doubt some are. The early climate change science used some very dodgy data indeed.

But in 2009 when a body representing the US departments of Defence, Commerce, Energy, NASA, National Science Foundation, Smithsonian...well almost all of them...still says "Huston, we have a problem"

I tend to believe them rather than a retired Adeliade Uni Teacher (of mining no less!) or invoke a conspiracy.

Most of Plimer's claims have been rubutted here http://www.frogworth.com/stuart/blog/?p=88

[Bassnut]

Well, its too late now anyway. I was stunned at how little CO2 was contributed by industrial activity, its trivial compared to agriculture and melting permafrost (old decaying plantage under it). The former wont change, and latter is well underway.

[avandonk]

Ian Plimers book is at best a very vague attempt at denigrating climate change caused by US! Most of his references do not back up his assertions derived from them. The man is a total fraud for this work of fiction and I will stand by this statement in a court of law. I honestly do not care at all for myself as I have at best twenty years of life left. It is your/our children and grandchildren .....

The real problem is that all you good folks that do not have degrees in science can be conned by a charletan in the pay of the fossil fuel lobbies.

As for that uniformed senator F. that thinks that he has discovered the Sun may have an influence on weather. He is a twit of the first order.
We can only look at long term trends over many decades to see if the climate is changing. Not by picking the hottest year on record and then trying to devine a trend over a mere ten years that then follows.

Would you fly in an airliner designed by a geologist or an aeronautical engineer. Or worse piloted by some faith dependant person or a fully trained experienced pilot. Because that is exactly the choice you all have right now.

Bert

[AstralTraveller]

Unfortunately Les there isn't much truth therein and what is there is largely irrelevant. I'm sorry to have to say that because I did have a good opinion of him from his past record in debunking other falsehoods. Some of his statements on palaeoclimate leave those who work in the field wondering whether to laugh or cry. An expert on sea level I know pointed out how he had selectively used data which has now been discredited while ignoring well-known robust data sets. There are now web sites (I ldon't have the URL at hand) devoted to exposing his falacies.

But the thing that really takes the cake is his claim that climate change researchers are involved in a massive hoax. That is about as plausible as the moon landing hoax. It is also a massive calumnity that I hope will see him in court. Scientists can be wrong and a few are corrupt but to make such claims about hundreds if not thousands of individuals is beyond the pale. (BTW The reason we know some scientists are corrupt is that they are outed by their peers. There was even a case a couple of years ago where a medical researcher was outed by his own research assistants. You can be sure that if I found anyone massaging or misrepresenting data that I had generated I would shout it from the rooftops.)

I'm not strongly pro or anti climate change but I do very strongly believe in an honest debate.

[chris lewis]

Man made global warming is one of the largest scams invented. This 'myth' is perpetuated by various politically based media and international institutions like the IPCC.
It is not based on science but money, politics, 'green' manipulation and mis-information, social engeneering and control. The current pure science data coming through is only reinforcing this. Some posters here keep on perpetuating this myth. As 'scientists' we need to look at the actual science the current data to date and to use critical thinking skills and some common sense. Sorry if I sound strong re. this issue - I come from a 30 year background of science and teaching.

Chris

[TrevorW]

As a group we can and should support dark sky which I'm sure we all do.

In a way we can be pro-active instead of reactive to an issue that affects us all.

Maybe this forum should create a petition which could be passed on too pollies with the words

"We will not vote for you again unless you do something to address this issue......."

I'm still waiting on a response from the PM (email sent 6 months ago) regarding the amount of greenhouse gases produced by street lights burning all night.

Recently I asked out council to have the street lights turned off after 12 which they can do via the state energy supplier.

this is what I got back

"For community safety and for motorists and pedestrians Council will not alter the operational hours of the streetlight.

Council may, if it is possible consider shading the back of the streetlight but that will have to be further investigated. If it is possible Council may require a letter for your neighbour to shading the light."

[avandonk]

Anyone that says that AGW is a fraud is severely deluded. I have a degree in physics and have worked at the top of all fields I was associated with for the last forty years. It only takes a cursory inspection of all the data to infer what is happening. If you do not understand how our climate can be changed by upsetting the feed back mechanisms that keep it in quasi equilibrium for the current settings. You can just show me what you know that I supposedly do not. I would like all analysis only in words at first. You can show your derivation of the second order or higher partial differential equations later. You must also show how all major driving forces and mitigating feedback mechanisms interact. An attempt to quantify these various factors would get more marks!

I also expect all assumptions to be clearly defined.

Bert

[tlgerdes]

Well Dave, are you going to volunteer to solve your problem by removing your self from existance? I certainly am not, but could you please elaborate as to who you propose volunteers to solve your problem by no longer existing?

[Moon]

Peter,
Looks like you have opened a can of worms here.
Perhaps we need a poll on this topic to settle it the democratic way???

[tlgerdes]

If man is responsible for todays climate change, what has caused the climate change for the last 4 billion years? and why are those causes not at work today?

[Omaroo]

With respect Bert - are you a physicist, or a forensic meteorologist/ecologist? LOL!

I suspect this thread will be locked in record time....

[multiweb]

The climate is changing alright - no doubt about that. Did we do it? Not convinced ... :whistle: Can we do something about it? (meaning coordinating all our efforts world-wide) . Yeah right! :rofl::rofl::rofl:
Enjoy it while it lasts. It's gonna get freaking cold before you know it :thumbsup:

[Peter Ward]

:lol: Do lemmings also get a vote? (mind that first step)

[avandonk]

I am sick and tired of twits who grasp one tiny little 'factoid' to prove their position. I am merely showing how real science does things. Careful analysis of ALL available data. My own humble opinion is that us physicists study everything and derive mathematically predictable and testable systems. Then do more experiments.

My very nasty question is what the IPCC have been doing for years. And the deniers call it mere models when they cannot even differentiate a simple equation let alone think in terms of partial differential equations.

Pearls before swine!

Bert

[leinad]

Another good book is '1984'.

:whistle:

[Omaroo]

Couldn't agree more. Analysis of empirical evidence is what is required, not accepting the word of those that may or may not have an agenda.

[coldspace]

So you do have a pea sized brain :D
So the British press were right :P
Just joking mate.:poke:

Matt.

[PeterM]

When computer models can predict the weather accurately for the next month (or even 10 days) then perhaps the nonsense of man made global warming from computer modelling for the next 10, 20 50 years might carry some weight. Is the climate changing, yes, of course it has been for billions of years as noted by Trevor G.
Thankfully a growing voice of scientists and others are challenging this nonsense that has almost turned into its own religion replacing Y2K (and keeping many in good employment). Until recently anyone who presented evidence or views contradicting man made global warming was cast into a pit, read David Bellamy's Price of Dissent on GW. Tis a sad day when the foundations of science (ie peer review) get thrown out the window. Trevory G you are spot on, we have 4 billion years of history compared with a few years of computer modelling. This whole issue is sadly showing that there is science and questionable science.
PeterM.

[Robh]

In reading this thread, I noticed the old conspiracy theorists at it again.
Most of the scientists who do research on global climate change are probably based at universities and get paid lousy wages like the rest of the scientific community. Like all scientists and science teachers, they do it because they find science interesting.
There is no worldwide conspiracy. Do you really think politicians would introduce unpopular and costly carbon emission schemes if they didn't believe what the scientific community was telling them?
You really have to look at the mounting evidence. If there is so much support for human induced climate change, you've got to ask yourself why so many scientists have got it wrong! The scientific community are the most qualified and most critical judges of there own research.
The problem is the hardline skeptics won't be convinced until the sea is lapping the base of the Blue Mountains.

Regards, Rob

[tlgerdes]

What caused the mini ice age of the late 1600s? Why is Greenland called Greenland? "Over that time sea levels rose and fell, at times exposing Bass Strait and creating a land bridge to Tasmania. Approximately 13,000 years ago rising sea levels drowned the land bridge making Tasmania an island and isolating people, plants and animals."

There are many examples of more extreme climate change than we are seeing now in the earths recent history that are not attributed to "greenhouse gas" emissions. Why are we "mankind" suddenly the culprit?

:windy::windy::windy::windy::windy: :windy::windy::windy:

I am not advocating not looking after our planet. I am a great proponent of take only pictures, leave only footprints. I want to renewable clean energy. I want peace and harmony. I want truth and justice. I want intelligent debate, not one side media sound bytes.

I see the "climate change" religion, just as, if not more, damaging to our way of life as the radical religous terrorism of any other faith.

[tonybarry]

Like Bert, I do hope for some rigor in scientific enquiry.

I also hope that we humans can clean up our act, reduce pollution, and leave a few natural resources for our kids and grandkids.

The scientific questions
- is global warming occurring?
- is there a significant proportion of this warming due to human activity?
- are there methods whereby we may reduce our impact?

to my mind are not answered at all well as yet. The models are not good. They don't offer predictive ability - the acid test of scientific worthiness. This may change (and I hope it does).

But I think that - regardless of the truth or falsity of anthropogenic global warming - we should still clean up our act. That's based on my personal philosophy, not science.

The strange thing for me is that I see many of the global warming adherents behaving like religious people rather than scientific people. That is not a good look, and only weakens their arguments in my view.

For those who are interested,

http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/

spells out the religion better than I can.

Regards
Tony Barry

[PeterM]

If so many people are so concerned about CC being caused by humans (which includes them) then why not make a statement and sell their cars (many have 2 or 3) and move into a tent. A return to the good old days of the Dark Ages, at least we would get darker skies, but the scope, computer and ccd would be a problem to run of static electricity.
PeterM.

[Bassnut]

Oh really :lol:. I thought research funding was directly proportional to the amount of press a scientist got ;). No conspiracy theories there, just survival instincts methinks (according to a few articles Ive read in New Scientist). Both sides are equally motivated by money.

[Omaroo]

Grow citrus Peter. Remember to stash plenty of copper and zinc nails prior to the Dark Ages. :thumbsup:

[avandonk]

Can you folks get this correct.

Weather is not climate! It is short time variabilty.

Climate is long term averages which are far more amenable to some sort of prediction.

Your local weather is chaotic and almost impossible to predict more than about five days in advance.

When you deniers all go away and study what you are all purporting to comment on and get even the terminology correct. Then you just may be able to make some sort of meaningful comment.

To say that we scientists have some sort of faith in what we do is judging us by your own pathetic ignorant standards.

Science by definition can only be evidence based. If there is better evidence then we will take it on board.

Bert

[Robh]

From Wikipedia (Global warming) ...
"The concentrations of CO2 and methane have increased by 36% and 148% respectively since the mid-1700s. These levels are considerably higher than at any time during the last 650,000 years, the period for which reliable data has been extracted from ice cores."

You can't ignore these figures.

Regards, Rob

[Peter Ward]

....perhaps our naysayers should

1) read the report...hey its free!

http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts/full-report

2) read about the authors within the above report.

There are some seriously heavy hitters in there! These guys/girls know their onions, and would have no reason to fabricate the bleeding obvious from the data.

Glib (and uninformed) responses are just, well ,head in the sand silly.

[tlgerdes]

And the earth has been getting warmer since the "little ice age" of the late 1600s, which came first? Temperature or CO2?

Doesn't actually prove a correlation? If your starting point is wrong then the answer is going to be off as well (think polar alignment)

SHOW ME THE SCIENCE
:eyepop::eyepop::eyepop::eyepop:

[Robh]

Temperature is believed to have been fairly stable over the few thousand years before 1850. The Little Ice Age is believed to have been only a regional fluctuation and not global.
We have increased atmospheric CO2 levels from about 315 to 385 ppm since 1960. And more worrying is the projection for the year 2100 as high as 970 ppm. How could this not affect climate?

Regards, Rob

[PeterM]

Ok, Man made Climate Change wins the day. Seems there is little time left, even less than this time last year when virtually the same posts cropped up, thank goodness I/we have done er, um, er....
Seems without a degree you are not to enter the debate... Yet I do not see one post that would make me think geez action is or has been taken to do something about alleged issue. Sorry, there maybe many degreees hanging on walls gathering dust, but actions will convince me of sincerity and concern, if indeed there is a problem.
There is going to be a huge cost to all of this. When it actually has to be paid watch all the supporters run the mob that brings it in out of town. It's just like talking to 100 people who voted a mob in, within months most say "I didn't vote them in".
PeterM.

[marki]

My this has got everyones attention hasn't it:). If scientist on either side of the fence are fraudulant in their predictions and data they will soon be exposed as there are no other critics on Earth as cruel and to the point as the scientific community. You cannot deal in any other currency but hard data sets that back your argument. Thats how science works. There are far more important and pressing reasons to stop burning fossil fuels other than global warming. They are the major source of many chemicals that cannot be replaced easily by other means if at all. Me, I have cut down my bean intake to minimise my CH4 output :D.

Mark

[Glenhuon]

The argument that "There have been climate changes before" does'nt hold a lot of water in our present scenario. Sure, there have been, but the major shifts took out a lot of competing species, witness the fossil record, and allowed mammals to flourish. The only reason we are here is because the climate during this period has been condusive to our development. Those shifts in our historical record have been minor and short lived.
Will the next change be so kind ? Probably not. We are adaptable, but can the planet adapt to 7.5 billion (9.5 billion at the going increase rate in about 30 years) of us, I think not to our advantage. Past time we cleaned up our act and started (perhaps thats returned) to living WITH the planet instead of trying to control and exploit it. We are only top of the heap now because of circumstances, this can change in very short order.

No, I do not advocate going back to living in caves and huts and growing vegies. Just to take what we have and use it with a bit more regard to the only world we inherited.

Bill

[Robh]

Mark,

I agree totally. The scientific community is merciless on the fraudulent.
As for the beans ...:rofl:

Regards, Rob

[tornado33]

man faces some big difficulties in the future. The technology to give us alternatives to burning hydrocarbons for energy just arent producing. For example, photovoltaic cells are little better today then decades ago. The quantum efficiency is still woeful ,<20% isnt it? and they are still expensive to make.
Wind power isnt 100% reliable, and wind farms costly to build and the noise causes problems if people live nearby.
We seem no closer to fusion power now, than the 1970's
Nuclear power costs twice as much as coal, asking everyone to pay 100% more for their electricity is untenable.
Our cities lack a proper integrated public transport system, and the cities themselves poorly designed for mass rapid transit. Remember the Multifunction Polis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multifunction_Polis). It never got off the ground.

Finally, we may have to consider technology may not be open ended. With a finite number of usable elements, and thus a finite number of chemical compounds that can be made from them, we may hit a wall where no great new inventions may be made, kinda like when silicon chip circuitry cannot be made any smaller. This is talked about in the book The Life and Death of Planet Earth (http://www.amazon.com/Life-Death-Planet-Earth-Astrobiology/dp/0805067817#reader), it used an example of the bicycle will not be ridden much faster than it is now, and there may be no great technological breakthroughs that will help us through the future. The book is a very good read. Also, note the name of one of the authors. Coincidently the same name as who started the thread :)

My own opinion of climate change is, well Earth has never had a species intent on burning up a sizable portion of the planets hydrocarbons before. Also, despite the Sun being in one of the deepest solar minimums in modern times and the corresponding drop in irradiance, we had the 2009 southeastern Australia heat wave (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_southeastern_Australia_heat_wa ve), record temps and the resulting worst bushfire deathtoll in Australias recorded history. Yep, we are to blame.

[TrevorW]

Eat less meat

[strongmanmike]

I'm with Peter Ward and Bert (smart men)

My wife is private secretary to the honorable Greg Combet MP :whistle:..... along with part of the defence portfolio he is also the new minister asissting the minister for climate change the Hon Penny Wong MP, boy does Greg have his work cut out for him in his new ministerial portfolio :eyepop:

My wife is suddenly working like a dog (a beautiful dog mind you :love:)

Mike

[dpastern]

We have too many humans, from too long an interference. In the 20th century alone, we went from an average lifespan of high 40s/low 50s (early 20th century) to well into the 80s. Medicines, increased sanitation, larger food stores have all accounted for this increase in longevity. And now we have foolish scientists hunting for the aging gene so they can stop it! WTF!!! As a collective species, we have to stop tampering with nature. It's not an individual problem, and culling individuals here and there won't solve it. We need to simply start thinking before we act. Do we need a Cancer antivenin? No. Do we really need Flu vaccines? No. As nature intended, the stronger will survive, and the weaker will die. The stronger result in a tougher gene pool (albeit smaller). This is how evolution works, albeit over a very long period of time.

As to myself, since I have strong beliefs in this area, I fully intend not to partake of things like chemo etc when it comes to cancer. Research is showing that Cancer is becoming more and more predominant over time, affecting a higher percentage of the population. I don't really want to die, no living thing wants to, it's a natural survival instinct to try and live as long as possible. Humans have taken this far and beyond this though, more so than any other species in the history of this planet. And that's what's worrying. Furthermore, we are currently decimating vast degrees of other species that share this planet with us. Where are their rights to this planet, or don't they get any? Do humans automatically have the right to veto every other species on the planet? Our technology allows us to survive where we shouldn't, and it also allows us to expand in areas that in reality, we weren't meant to inhabit.

You can make snide remarks if you want, but in the end, I suspect history will prove me right.

Dave

[tornado33]

I do my bit to keep a small carbon footprint. I use public transport, (buses) to get to work, and keep electricity use to a minimum at home. my pc box, despite being a quadcore 2.6 ghz with 8 gb ram, uses no more than 90 watts (including the standby UPS), The Asus board has power saving features, lowering the voltage to the cpu and chipset when not under load, the 22inch lcd running on "economy" mode around 30 watts. When asleep I turn it off at the UPS minimizing standby usage. Ive also put in a powerboard with a switch for our 106 cm telly, so we can turn it off at the wall to again save standby power usage.

Um, regarding the survival of the fittest in an above post , easy to say but would you be happy to see a family member, or your child condemmed to death when they could be saved with medical intervention. The problem of overpopulation is easily solved with encouragement for 1 child families. Axe the baby bonus and child welfare payments for only 1 child, have more babies and no xtra government money.

[avandonk]

Hold on Mike we both cannot be smart. PW still thinks the only optic is an RC!
Bert

[Marclau]

Ummmm very interesting but I am very suspicious on any documentation from government findings.
The current issue of Unsensored Magazine has confirmed that last year, some 32,000 scientists and another 7,000 doctors, climantologists etc signed a paper for the world governments to come cleans (no pun intended) on Global warming and Co2 pollutions and its real effects on the planet.

According to many, an dI have contacts and friends who are professionals in this field, global warming is a normal occurance. In fact, over the past 30 years, tempatures have actually dropped approx 1.1 degree and not warmed like everyone is saying............

I have spent the past 30 years personally investigating suppression of factual science advancements and this includes medically, environmentally and technological.

A document signed back in 1980 with Jimmy Carter and Cyrus Vance signed a report titled The Global 2000 report. Do a search as it makes incredible reading.......a lot of whats in the report is actually happening for the past 20 years...........I wont spoil it too much as this could be for another website altogether............:thumbsup:

[Archy]

When a paper like the Washington Post publishes a story like this, its time to wonder what is the agenda of its proprietor.

There are two sides to the human induced climate change debate: the side of those who believe the credulous or Creds for short, and the skeptics. The root of the word skeptic is think, not scoff. I am a skeptic.

[Jen]

:thumbsup::thumbsup: yep my thoughts too :) :screwy::screwy:

[cruiser]

Ah well, I guess the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Time of course will always prove one side right. It might take more than one lifetime to find that out though.

On either side of the arguement we should look after this world and try to keep it healthy for generations to come.

On a lighter note, if global warming does take hold, Mikes going to have a quite few beanies left that he cant get rid of. ;)

[avandonk]

So 32,000 'scientists' are deniers. They mostly are barely published anywhere apart from their own publications.

Give me a couple of dozen of their names and I will show you they do not have any credibility anywhere!


Sorry.

Bert

[Glenhuon]

If man is responsible for todays climate change, what has caused the climate change for the last 4 billion years? and why are those causes not at work today?

They are at work, as they have always been, but we are making it happen faster. Adapting to a change in environment takes a long time, the fittest survive and the weakest die out, as the balance changes. The question is, can the human race adapt fast enough. With our reliance on our present day technology and head in the sand attitude, probably not.

Bill

[ngcles]

Hi All,

Gee what a vigorous discussion -- seem the "time for debate" is not quite over yet! ;)

I respect the views of all who are involved -- we are all entitled to an opinion and to critique others. No problem with that. I will respect your view even if you don't respect mine. But I have to ask, of those who have been critical of Ian Plimer's book, have you actually read the book for yourself, or are you only simply repeating the criticisms of others?

Not for a moment do I suggest the book (I've read about 200 pages and am still going) is flawless, but Ian makes a very good case for their being a vast number factors that have an effect on climate and that it would be wrong to nail it all on CO2 based on what has happened in just the last 4-odd decades.

So, have you actually read it for yourselves or is your critique based on what others have said?

What I'd like to know (if you feel qualified to answer -- please do so) then in terms of climate in the last 1000-odd years, what caused the Medieval warming when global temps were several degrees higher than today and CO2 somewhat lower? What caused the little Ice Age in the 16th and 17th century when temps were lower than today but CO2 emissions by humans were higher than during Medieval times?

I've also read that 97% of the emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere are from natural causes -- about 3% are from Humans. Is this true? Where can I read the actual evidence on this either way?

In the long term, I read that during geologic time, Ice has covered the poles only about 20% of the time -- ie 80% of the time Earth has not had significant ice at the poles. Are we living in an abnormally cold period? If so what are the implications from this?

At this stage I'm inclined to the view that the causes of climate change are dependent on a very large number of factors, many or most of these are out of our control entirely. Is it right just to pin the blame on one trace-gas in our atmosphere?

Bert wrote:

"Give me a couple of dozen of their names and I will show you they do not have any credibility anywhere!"

So what about the other 31,976?

Would you lump Dr David Evans in with this lot? He is a well credentialed scientist who was a leading government advisor on "global warming" and a vigorous anthropogenic global warming advocate who has now changed his mind:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24036736-7583,00.html

and

http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=616122

Is he a crackpot? If so, on what basis?

Bert wrote (of the 32,000): "They mostly are barely published anywhere apart from their own publications."

So of the 2,500 "scientists" in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report that is so heavily relied upon to make the case for anthropogenic climate change, you can assure me they are all, without exception, credible and well credentialed individuals whose opinions cannot reasonably be questioned? They are all "scientists"? How many are actually climatologists? None of them have political affiliations? None of them have an interest to protect? They are all the leading people from their fields?

Don't get me wrong, on both sides of the fence there a people with an interest to protect but does one group have the moral high-ground over the other?

Can we pretend to predict climate in the next 100 years when we have so little hard evidence about what has caused climatic change over the last 300 million years?

I'm all ears and ready to learn! :thumbsup:


Best,

Les D

[dpastern]

I find it amazing that a few scientists disbelieve that man has had an effect on our environment (and a negative one at that), yet 99% believe, given the scientific facts at hand, that we are responsible. And people flock to the vast minority. It'll be interesting in 100 years time when we've scewed up the planet so badly that it's irreversible. We'll still probably have people saying it's not our fault ;-)

Man is not a responsible species. We breed without thought, we consume natural resources, and we indiscriminately destroy other species so that we can continue to expand. Hell, we're having several nations consider mining the North Pole so that they can get some more precious oil! We just don't learn.

This "it can't be us" approach, or "let's wait and see" is what continuously gets us into trouble. We don't learn, and we keep making the same mistakes, only realising them after the event when it's too late.

Dave

[iceman]

Interesting debate, and I'm happy to leave it open to run for longer, so long as:

1) You think before you post
2) You re-read your post before you press submit
3) You make sure post does not personally attack anyone
4) You are not repeating yourself over and over

Problem with threads like this, is that people are so polarised either way, they a) don't read what anyone else posts (or any links to other research either way), and b) they start posting their "opinion" over and over again (maybe with a few words changed here and there).

For my own opinion, I haven't done any significant research or reading into either side of the argument. But from what I've read, and what makes sense to me:

a) Humans are changing our environment. No doubt about it. Is that responsible for global warming? I don't know.
b) Should we be more responsible in our environment? Absolutely!
c) Do both sides have hidden agendas and A LOT of money at stake? I would presume so.
d) If we don't know for sure what caused the global warming/cooling from previous earth history, how can we be sure that our activity is causing this climate change? Previous global warming and cooling effects didn't have a CO2 correlation.
e) I do fear that there is a risk of shutting down opposing points of view just because it's not the popular opinion. Like the doctor in the 1800's who made a link between women dying during/after childbirth, with lack of hygiene and doctors not washing their hands or their instruments between patients. It was ridiculed because it made those other doctors look bad. It was another 50 years of women dying before it was taken seriously.

[tlgerdes]

I believe Mike S is right in his statements on the enviroment and how we should live with it.

I think the hysteria around on the casue of global warnming come with the interpretation and factuation of statistics. These can be made to say anything if you only choose to look at certain correlations.

Take this scenario

The people dying on our roads have dropped significantly over the last 30 years. The power of car engines and the speeds these cars can reach have almost double in that time frame. Following the CO2 model of correlation QED make cars with 500kw plus engines that can all do 300km/h and our road death toll could be 0 in 10 years.:D

We know this will not happen because as intelligent people we understand the other forces that go into the equation.

We understand roadsafety, car design, attitude, skill, training, etc all play a part in the outcome, and this is less complex than our environment and climate, so why is only ONE factor being blamed for the change?

[avandonk]

Yes correlations do not show cause. Past climate changes over geological time happened very slowly over thousands of years. The causes are understood. Below is a graph of CO2 concentration and temperature for the last 400 thousand years. If you cannot see the problem we are all facing then I may as well not bother to comment further.

Bert

[avandonk]

Here is what the average global temperature is doing. Can you see why the deniers choose 1998 as a starting year for their pathetic arguments.

Bert

[Omaroo]

Wasn't there mention of some skullduggery in reference to the use of core sample analyses that Al Gore presented in his ode to self, "An Inconvenient Truth"? I seem to recall someone stating that he rather conveniently omitted samples that contradicted his case. I remember hearing about it all but have been unable to find reference to it on the 'net this morning. I'm not being a very good scientist, I know... LOL! I'll keep looking later this morning.

Presenting us with a sample here as you have Bert, could you give us some background on its source and also comment on what I just stated? I notice that that even though CO2 concentration looks to be rising above previous trends it is, however, rising in unison with previous peaks. What does this indicate? The graph's resolution is 50,000 years per division, and I suspect that this is too low to properly gauge the real rise over the past 1,000 years. I'd like to see it show that there is a distinct correlation between this concentration and human activity starting with the industrial revolution. Can anyone point me to a reliable source to show this? All I can conclude from that graph is that there is currently a high concentration of CO2 where the (average) samples were taken. Antarctic ice and Mauna Loa are just two locations on a very large Earth.

I'm not being purposefully condescending or attempting to challenge your presentation Bert - just the opposite - I'd like more information. One graph is a pretty small sample space you have to admit.

[avandonk]

Yes CO2 concentration does lag temperature rise by about 800 years. This is also well understood as the oceans and ground warm they liberate CO2 this then adds to the warming caused by solar variation. This accounts for about 60% of the then temperature rise not solar variation.

The current situation is that we for the first time in history have by burning fossil fuels have taken CO2 levels way past any historic value.

Solar variation is not the major cause of current temperature rise. The situation is even worse if you take into account that every glacier on Earth is retreating. The high levels of CO2 are also raising the pH of the oceans to the extent that any organism that forms calcium carbonate shells for protection are not doing as well as they were doing it in the past. Where do you think limestone comes from. There are also huge amounts of CO2 fixed in clathrates on the colder parts of the oceans floor. If these clathrates warm up there will be a run away effect. The CO2 and methane now held in the frozen arctic tundra will also be liberated. This will make our puny efforts by burning fossil fuels look like a little blip. Trouble is we have set off this chain reaction.

Once the tipping points have been reached there is no going back. By tipping points I mean the negative feedback systems have been overcome and positive feedback then cuts in.

We ignore it at our peril.

As a small aside if it was not for the 200ppm of CO2 the average temperature of the Earth would be -17C.

Bert

[Omaroo]

Yes, it's the trapped tundra CH4 that will probably present itself as the largest contributing factor to our troubles - given that even if you burn it off all you get is more CO2 and water. Oh fun!

Quantifying all of this is the trouble - both in being able to derive sensible analyses and even more importantly - sensible reaction. If we have (and I haven't stated it in the affirmative) "tipped" it, there's quite frankly bugger-all we're going to be able to do about it now other than apply bandaids in the form of government-controlled sanctions and limits.

[avandonk]

I do not want to scare anyone but about 40% of humanity rely on their water supply from glacier melt. This water will not be available when the glaciers are gone. This will happen in only a few decades even if we did not burn one more gram of fossil fuel.

I could go on for much longer. What I find so depressing is the scientific guns for hire that keep telling us that it is business as usual.

Even if I am wrong to believe the worlds top climate scientists can we really risk the future of our only home, Spaceship Earth.

Do you have house insurance? Will your house burn down?

Thought so.....


Bert

[Omaroo]

I'm going to state that I don't have my own opinion on this because I, like most of the population, are simply ineligible to have one. I am not qualified to be able to analyse any data presented and be able to properly understand and qualify it all such that I could separate emotive hype from fact. Call me a CC "agnostic". I could never join either camp until I know it in my head that I'm listening to something that is intrinsically correct. Given the utter complexity of the situation, I don't think that will happen until after it's all come to pass. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Humans instinctively roam in packs - and it is deeply desirable to have similar patterns of thought to your pack in order to truly be part of the group. I do believe that most humans on this planet who have an "opinion" on this current subject are just forming it to be part of their chosen herd with an almost religous ferver. Dangerous and ill-informed I think. It's more comfortable to be part of the bigger group than stand out on the sideline and say "well... prove it to me". Peer pressure is such a powerful motive.

To form a solid opinion, I require the services of a qualified scientist who is actively participating at the CC coalface and willing to sit down and explain the undeniable mechanics of it to me based on empirical evidence - in my own terms. I refuse to take an opinion based on something I don't fully understand - irrespective of who is giving it unless I can follow their logic. Cause and effect - both are hugely complex and I'm not even confident that any one person or group of people truly have their heads around it. We can measure whatever we like - but quantifying the effect of said measurement, and then translating it into some meaningful reaction is going to occupy a pile of people for a long time to come. We can read reports until they come out our ears, but I'll never be able to trust one unless I really know that there's no secondary agenda behind it. That's going to be difficult...

[Peter Ward]

If my better half was working for the Minister.... I be having a quiet word to her about a national oudoor lighting policy ;)

[tlgerdes]

Thanks Bert,

Your graph demonstrates what we have been talking about, CO2 levels have risen exponentially in recent times, and the temperature rise reached has plateau of between +/- 2 degrees of the 0 mark.

Statistics mean what you want them to mean. Have you demonstrated the link between rising CO2 and temperature?

We are not saying that CO2 hasn't risen, we are asking for the relevance of the statement in regards to global temperature change, and is it Mans fault, or something else not being represented? The conjecture is in the research of the "something else", not enough work has been done on that portion, and that is where the sceptisism comes from.

You asked earlier for a list of people who fall into the sceptics arena - can you please discredit these people for us?
Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics
Dr. Claude Allegre, Geophysicist
Bruno Wiskel, Geologist at the University of Alberta
Dr. Nir Shaviv, Astrophysicist
Dr. Joanna Simpson, Atmospheric scientist
Dr. David Evans, Mathematician and engineer
Dr. Reid Bryson, Meteorologist
Dr. David Bellamy, Botanist
Dr. Tad Murty, Climate researcher Flinders University
Dr. Chris de Freitas, Climate scientist of The University of Auckland, N.Z.
Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher
James A. Peden, Atmospheric physicist
Dr. Richard Courtney, a UN IPCC expert reviewer and a UK-based climate and atmospheric science consultant.

And just to put my "ulterior motives" on the table, I personally benefit from the rising CO2 argument in relation to IT power comsumption. The corporate line and my line diverge significantly as to the relevance.

[tlgerdes]

Is global warming causing the the rise in CO2?

Bert has provided some interesting ammunition that can be used in both sides of the debate.

[Peter Ward]

I'm a little staggered at how discussion on my original post has gone so astray.

Re-stating, the report I linked to was generated by some venerable instutuions. The Simthsonian, NSF,NOAA, NASA..etc.. As Bert stated, you'd be delusional to think these guys are fudging the data. (of I forgot, the moon landings were also faked by them :) )

Their concusions are striking.

Yet, we have side debates akin to re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Of course there will be dissent in the scientific community, that's part of the process.

I would have thought critical analysis of the above report would have been interesting.....but sadly, not forthcoming.

[Omaroo]

I am keenly waiting for you to provide your own analysis Peter...

[tlgerdes]

I am only up to about page 20, when I get through all 196 pages I will be better able to comment on the report. So far though, there have been a lot of statements made, but no substantiation, maybe that will come around page 60 or maybe 160? Here's hoping!

[multiweb]

Downloaded and read the full report last night. Very instructive but a bit alarmist in some parts. Regardless of who or what caused it they all seem to agree in reducing green house gas emissions. The problem is that nobody's going to do anything about it. The lucky people "well off " living in free countries such as us won't cut down on their way of life and the rest of humanity living in oppression or misery are just too busy surviving and feeding themselves on a daily basis.

[TrevorW]

All species of animal and insect are controlled through a process that had existed for eons before man to maintain an equilibrium.

Man comes along put's himself at the top of the food chain, takes control, developes, last 200 years industrial revolution burns fuel, breeds vast herds of methane producing animals, breeds like flies, increases their life span, controls deseases.

I cannot believe that we may be so naive to believe that as a species we have not adversely affected the environment we live in.

[tlgerdes]

Marc, its going to make great reading and discusion this weekend? Are you driving up to Ilford?

[multiweb]

Not sure. I decided to ride my bike up there after reading that report to decrease my carbon footprint. C11's a b**ch to carry. I might bring some binos instead. :whistle:

[Peter Ward]

Touche'

OK I see the correltation with CO2 and the onset of the industrialization as undeniable. Similarly with glacial retreat. It has been shown without doubt the cause is *not* solar flux or volcanic variation. Arctic ecosystems are already being affected.

The GCCI report is *extremely* well referenced and while I've only had time to check a couple of the original source papers, there has been no data fudging and the veracity of their conclusions looks to be valid.

Disturbingly, there is very little mention of deforrestation. The current global and massive reduction in Bio-mass is considered by many (notably James Lovelock) to be a significant buffer against CO2 concentrations.

I for one am concerned, not so much for me, but for generations to come.

[h0ughy]

couldnt agree more:thumbsup:

[dpastern]

Sorry, but couldn't resist being pert and cheeky in my reply:

no, Trevor, it's the cows secret attempt to overun mankind by incessantly farting.

Dave

[dpastern]

hear hear.

Dave

[Karls48]

Regardless who is right or wrong about cause of Global warming. Most of the governments will introduce one scheme or other to reduce CO2 emissions for simple reason that it will allow them to increase tax revenue without appearing to raise general taxes. Once the constituency starts hurting in hip pocket nerves they will kick those governments out in preference of the oppositions parties that will take advantage of it. In about 5 to 8 years whole Global warming issue will slowly disappear and people will take weather for what it is – weather - always changing. It will be replaced yet by some other crusade for or against something.

[multiweb]

:rofl:Let's get'em!

[AstralTraveller]

I hope that last bit is a slip of the keyboard. It's accepted that the driver for the cycles you present is changes in the Earth's orbital parameters. It is called the Milankovich hypothesis and the Wiki for it is pretty good so I won't repeat the argument here.

It is true that the concensus is that CO2 rise lags the onset of warming and the increase in CO2 provides a feed-back mechanism that amplifies the effect of orbital changes. This also is the most logical senario. However we should realise that the dating of air bubbles trapped in ice is very problematic. It's been a decade since I last looked at that issue so things may have improved but at that time the dating methods were imprecise and errors of >>800 years were expected.

[Karls48]

Similar tread has been posted about two years ago. Few dissidents have been shouted down by overwhelming majority of GW supporters. Today it seems that ratio of those that support men made GW and the sceptics is about 50 –50. Yet GW had all advantages of the media affirmation. Why there is a rise in dissidents and critical opinions. Is it that some people started to think by themselfs or is it that they realise that Carbon tax is basically increase in GST tax.

[Peter Ward]

Over geological time spans the balance of atmospheric composition has changed. I stress the change has been over *geological* times, so plants and organism adapt, over extended periods.

Sharp changes, as induced by volcanic, impact or greenhouse crises, lead to mass extinction of species (BTW, happening as we speak)

Agreed estimates put human activities pumping 300 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere during the last 200 or so years and CO2 *has* risen from 260 ppm to close to 380ppm with no seriously accepted "natural" mechanism
for this change.

Not bad for just 200 years.....and given geological time scales are in the *millions* of years one wonders what homo-sapiens can accomplish!

[Marclau]

Ummmmm names, just a second......
Firstly CO2 is the core componant to life itself and is considered harmless by most scientists.......
As a few have already mentioned a lot of scientist are being manipulated by large corporations and government interests...

Now to stats for hard evidence: 2008 saw temperatures globally at its coolest since 2000 as well as the Artic Sea ice returning to its normal 'vast' levels.....not a sign of global warming !!

Now to some of the names you seek Bert....here are just a few of the 32,000+.....

* Professor David Bellamy
* Dr William Kininmonth - Emeritus head of Australia National Climate Centre
* Reid Bryson PhD - by many regarded as the father of Scientific Climatology America
* Dr William Happer - Director U.S Department of Energy's Office
* Dr Delgado Domingos - Founder Numerical Weather Forecast group
* Dr Ivar Giaever - Nobel Prize winner

And a wonderful and funny comment from Dr Martin Hertzberg - "Carbon Dioxide and the so called greenhouse gases are, by comparison (with the sun and the ocean), the equivalent of a few farts in a hurricane"

I have many many more names.........let me know if you need more........

The sad thing is that i agree with most in that we need to look after our planet. What really gets my back up is when our food is spiked with chemicals, spliced with animal, viral, and other genetic materials and dosed with ever greater levels of cancer causing chemicals or harmful industrial waste products like flouride sold to us as health products.

On a personal note, I have first hand experience. I survived after an 18 month battle fighting for my life....... learnt a lot over this time......and read many many books from all over the world. Needless to say, I am also involved with alternative science to which I owe my life.........

On closing, and sorry to making this such a long reply, food was perfectly right up to 50 years ago and sure as hell tasted better. There were also many many less deaths from cancers, super bugs etc etc..........
Next time, perhaps during the day, we should all focus our telescope and binoculars and wonder if they really are clouds and not chemical sprays or pesticides.........but that is for another totally different day and forum.......;)

[Marclau]

Karl, I could not have put it better myself..............:thumbsup:

[Baddad]

Hi All, :)

I'm not entering an opinion! :P

Just a theory that was presented on a science documentary on Foxtell.

Global Warming will cause melt down of the polar ice sheets. The Great Ocean convection Currents (GOCC) are powered by the temperature differences at the poles and equator. If this ratio becomes smaller the GOCC will slow or stop.

It is the GOCC that keeps places like the UK warmer than Canada at similar latitudes. Canada freezes over much more than the UK.
This applies to other areas on the planet as well.

If the GOCC stops, the theory is that Earth will be pushed into an ice age. Permanent ice sheets covering much of the inhabited areas. This is the eventual result of global warming.

So many factors to be considered. Like snow or ice and how much more reflective it is. The snowball effect: If the icesheets retreat climate becomes warmer because of less reflection. More heat absorbed, more melting occurs. The oppositte also occurs. When ice sheets advance cooling effects snowball.

It is an interesting and plausable concept. The article was an hour length and explained a number of other contributing factors which are too lengthy for here.

On mini ice ages; much evidence has been found supporting big volcanic eruptions to be responsible, emissions of gases and ash particles.
Sulpher oxides combine in the atmosphere to form acids. Highly reflective to sunlight, while fine ash attenuates the passage of light. This all combines to cool the earth.
This may be an answer to some of those puzzling iceages in the past.

I simply say again here its not an opinion but an observation.

Cheers Marty:)

[tornado33]

On that subject, I am astounded at how much power people waste particularily people on lower incomes. I often see housing comission houses with dirty great floodlights left on, rather then normal outdoor lower wattage lights. We have a low energy flouro lighting our carport and it is never left on overnight, and a 60 watt bulb sensor light for the front door, its only on for 10 seconds at a time. One housing commission house nearby had TWO 150 watt floodlights bathing its front yard like daytime, all night. I didnt realise some housing comission tennants were so affluent.

The Council is no better. All over Newcastle, its streets are lit by totally unshielded mercury discharge lights that throw more light sideways and up, then down. Equipped with reflective shielding, bulbs 1/3 the wattage could be used to provide the same amount of illumination. Id like the ratepayers to all band together and go on a rate strike, with all of Newcastle refusing to pay rates untill a proper power saving policy is in place!

[Marclau]

What Tornado.........60watts OMG !!! :eyepop:Joking of course

I think mine are 20watts and I have started moving to those new 6watts from Phillips which are equall to around 40 Watts.......oddly enough....I now have 3 light in the Rumpus room to get the same brightness that the original 120Watt lamp use to provide..........

Something doesnt add up and it's cost me suddenly around $15 for those new bulbs.......hahahaha

[theodog]

I see this as a non-sensical term, better "alternative idea". Science is Science.



I agree, food would be better due to the variety but also unreliable in supply. Deaths were perhaps by heart disease earlier in life and many cancer deaths not recorded as such. Super-bugs such as polio, TB and even flu were however, a problem.

Scott, I agree. I object to the waste of energy and money in lighting the skies over our cities.

As for climate change, didn't seem to help or hinder the dinosaures cause. Seems those that yell the loudest have the ear of popular opinion and unfortunately there is to much info for us all to get our heads around the real situation.

Are they arguing concervation or preservation of the earth as we know it?
:D

[Marclau]

Kind of agree Theodog....but who determines what is science.......maybe then it should have read 'alternative medicine'....but.....and there is always a but........when you mention unreliable in supply.......that depends.........my grandfather was a professional market gardner back in Holland........and I mean, he had approx 200 acres and greenhouses of most vegetables and only used cow and horse manure to feed all the vegetables.....non of this other rubbish
And I mean, he grew everything........our vegies tasted better, grew much larger and believe it or not, laster longer both in the fridge or on the shelf....

He always use to tell me (and bless his soul) that it all came down to picking it at the right time..........these days, everything is picked 6 months before it needs to be picked and then thrown in fridges and transported to large freezers for further storage........usually around 6 - 10months later it hits our supermarket freezers..........for this reason we now only buy through the local produce market..........much tastier, cheaper etc etc

On this subject, I ask you to pay special attention to the U.S which is about to introduce a new law. Yes, thats right, a law which will control and outlaw organic farming and home gardens !!! The bill is dreadful......introduced by a chairman on the Mosanto board. Check it out for yourself HR 875.............we will be forced to spray pesticides and use special equipment to comply to the code and a licence costing over $1M US......it will be illegal to grow your own veggies for private consumption............incredible.. ........:screwy::(

[Marclau]

Trevor, we much either read the same books or magazines as well have similar lists..............scary and I have never met you......:thumbsup:

[theodog]

I must agree, my grandfather did the same on a much smaller scale, my partner and I are trying to get a small veg garden going for that reason.:thumbsup:



:eyepop:Surely this would be a violation of a basic human right.
I do have a problem with copyright or patents on biological materials.
I might have to get my family tomato seeds geneticaly mapped and patented.:D

[Marclau]

Hahahahaha yep, I'll pay you that one.........but seriously, the world has gone mad and we are loosing control to these money grabbing corporations.........I still can't believe they are not rioting in the streets of Washington..............and your spot on about it being a basic human right to be able to grow your own food.........understand perhaps not for resell, but for goodness sake, for your own consuption at least..........might have too get those seeds from you too now !!! :rofl:

[KenGee]

Uncensored Magazine... oh dear... I hear the National Enquirer has a great science section as well. Bugga it, it’s only $70 a year I’m going to cancel my subscription to Nature.
David J. Bellamy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bellamy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bellamy) He is a botanist great training for climate research.
Dr William Kininmonth http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=William_Kininmonth (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=William_Kininmonth)
Reid Bryson is dead so not a good source of current data.
Dr William Happer is funded by Exxon funny that.
Dr Delgado Domingos can’t find his bio only find links to conservative websites, seems to be pushing the 650 scientist sign up against GW letter which has as much cred as the similar anti-evolution letter being peddle by the same sites.
DR Ivar Giaever has never publish or actively researched the climate.

But yes lets listen to these people rather then the ones actually doing research.
As for the claims about veggies, Yes farmers only put those evil chemicals in the food to kill people.

[Marclau]

Ken....dont cancel your subscription.......please, believe everything you read in Nature..........better yet, I hear Darwin has a new article out in the Page 3 of Post..........My subscriptions include not just Uncensored but also Earth Sciences amongst others......

You managed to only pick a few names......and did not discredit them.....and as for the Ozzie, he must have done something right as he was head of several National group including Bureau if Meteorology amongst others........and now suddenly, cause the site you mentioned cannot find out too much about him suddenly you discredit him....and Reid Bryson Phd (who only passed away last year), you discredit him??!! Here is his bio: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_Bryson

Let me know as I and a few others can give you many more names.......better yet, you find them as you will only pick out those that suit your agenda. I suppose you still believe aids came from monkeys too cause we have papers written on that??

On a final note, you believe the people doing research or written a paper!!!!! Damn, even my youngest daughter knows better.........and she is only 5.
If I believe some researches, I would not be alive today to write this post. I sort other advice and live to tell the tale.
And just on that note of writing papers, my colleagues are fully aware of my knowledge and experience in I.T and eCommerce. I wont go so far as to say I'm an expert. Just because I have not written public papers suddenly does not discredit me or highlight the fact that I dont know what I am talking about in that topic.....so your arguement is not valid !!

I agree about your last quote about farmers though........but just a quick note, it's not all farmers try to kill us...........just some of the chemicals they use.......you see, they dont get told the full story either and are just sheep too...

This topic could go on and on and like a few posts back, in 10 years, all this would be forgotten and something else will drive the hidden agenda of the large corporations........

[dpastern]

Doesn't surprise me. You do realise that the US has little care for human rights. Indiscrimant bombings in Afghanisation, Iraq, Vietnam, I could go on. The US is nothing more than a bully, both to its constituents and to the rest of the world. Read some Noam Chomsky and you'll see why I say what I say and why I despise the American government. They're half the cause of global warming. GWB deliberately attempted to either hide GW reports, or twist scientists data and reports to suit his neo nazi desires.

Sorry for the political comments, but the US has a LOT to answer for. Yes, China makes more pollution, but they also have 3 times the amount of people. Per capita, China is far less pollutant. Many Americans still believe it's their right to have 6 litre v12 petrol guzzlers that do 10miles per gallon.

Dave

[Peter Ward]

Wow! Has this discussion wandered off! I point to the USGCRP which in very unequivocal terms is saying the planet is under some stress (duh!) and its likely to get worse...and we've had:

presentations of usual list of eminent dissenters
its a conspiracy
its nature
its not happening (said humming with fingers in ears and eyes shut)

but Dave's comments above!!!!???

Dave...Maaate. I've spent a good deal of my working life outside of kindergarten Oz. While I would compare the US to a two year old who throws a tantrum when they can't have what the want, to suggest they are human rights abusers par excellence is lunacy.

Try being a female in, Egypt..well most of North Africa.. Iran any of the Emirates. Spend some time in the shanty towns in Johannesburg, Mexico, Manila, Rio....and thinking of the Philippines ...child abuse. The Military junta in Burma etc.
Then there is China.....sigh.....and you wheel out the USA???

US hegemony is real to be sure. But might is right has been going on since will before the Romans. The USA human rights abusers?
You'd have to be nuts.

[theodog]

This is not a quote from a scientist (in above context), it rings of the church's control of Galileo.
Everbody knows it is happening, the question is 'by what means?'


Yes I agree, they are severe. Yet to stop somebody from doing something that does not harm anything or anyone is low level abuse of human rights, still abuse. On some level one could wheel out any Gov't.
:)

[Peter Ward]

True...but continuing on this tangent....A young lass can walk down any street in in small town USA wearing a low cut top and pair of hot pants. (not sure I'd try this in East LA or Harlem, but for totally different reasons..)

The consequences of trying the same stunt in Tehran are pretty horrible.

Accusing the USA of human rights abuse is akin to abusing someone for smoking a cigarette during a raging bushfire....a total loss of perspective to say the least.

[rat156]

Getting back to the global warming myth/reality debate...

I was following the thread with interest yesterday, and have picked up on it again today.

Firstly I'd like to say that a robust debate is what is needed on this topic, probably at a higher level than a forum of an astronomy website, but anyway a start is a start.

Next I'd like to declare my qualifications, a Science degree in Chemistry and a Masters in Chemistry. I have worked for about 20 years in the analysis of molecules by Mass Spectrometry, so although I understand the chemistry of the GW/CC debate, but could not declare myself an expert on the mechanics of same.

As a scientist I have an intrinsically skeptical mind. I have yet to be convinced that there is a link between the man made CO2 level increase and the temperature rise of the Earth. What I am convinced of is that these two things are happening, just not convinced of the link between the two. Unfortunately the science to prove the link is basically to disprove every other cause, that would take a long time, which we may not have. The core samples merely prove that whenever there's a temperature rise, there's a CO2 rise. Usually the temperature rise precedes the CO2 level, not sure that's the case this time.

The main problem with all of this is that the cost of doing nothing if the global warming is man made is catastrophic. The cost of doing something about it could be economically catastrophic. More significantly for us is that our (Australia's) contributions to GW are minuscule, but our impact can be massive.

The main areas that man contributes to CO2 increase are in fuel and deforestation. Most of the fuel is used for power and transportation. We, as a nation with so much vacant land and solar resources should be investing massively in solar energy conversion. If we can develop a viable solar electricity generation plan we could lead the world and then build the technology or even better licence it. The technology is out there it just needs to be developed and scaled up.

Now for the rant.
What I can't stand is the media sensationalism associated with this. Everytime the temperature gets hot it's global warming, everytime there's a drought/flood etc. it's global warming, no people that's weather. The current drought in Victoria may have something to do with GW, but I doubt it, current temerature records only go back a couple of hundred years at best, so to say the hottest day on record means absolutely nothing. The media have linked it to GW and will continue to do so as it makes good press, bad journalism but good press.

Thanks for opening up the topic Peter.

Cheers
Stuart

[Marclau]

Peter, so creating a law which stops families from growing their own vegetables for their own consumption not an abuse of basic human rights??
And creating man made viruses to spread or infect human populated areas is not an abuse of human basic rights? All done in the U.S

[KenGee]

Marclau I replied to the names that had been posted that's all. My aim was to show that in most cases the names are of people who are not convinced about GW are not climate specialist. Yes some are scientist but they commenting out their field. Now everyone has a right to do so, but more weight should be put to people views who have actually studied the problem, and I mean studied not read a few books and some web sites. If a Medical doctor wrote a book about quantum physics being completely wrong and that all physics are telling lies in order to get research money, everyone would think the person is crazy. Well this is what is happening in this field and a few other s that upset people’s faith based worldviews.
Btw I read the bill you’re talking about it does nothing of the sort you say it does. Also I would love to see your evidence that the US is developing bio weapons.

[theodog]

I agree here (rant & Peter) too. Media drives Govt policy drives funding of research.



Like a butterfly flapping its wings in the Amazon......

[Peter Ward]

Happy to discuss this...but how 'bout you start an appropriate thread ?

[avandonk]

In all honesty folks you are all arguing about something that is incontrovertible. The top 70m of earths oceans temperatures are rising ever more quickly. As PW pointed out no one has read the original article he refered to.

Unless you have at least some tertiary education you can be easily lead by charletans.

I repeat the time for argument is over.

We all have been s_h_t_tting in our nest for a long time. It is time to change our ways.

Bert

[Marclau]

Ken,

You read which part about the bill??? It's some 1700 pages long with further white papers making up the bill !!!! Have you read it fully and understand it's implications fully??

I'm not trying to be smug in any way but imposing all these restrictions and guidelines certainly and most definantly means a family cannot grow any home grown organics or vegetables for fear of fines, penalties, etc etc for breaking the law !!!!! Furthermore, no family could possibly afford the $$$$$$$$$$ needed to implement the law.


O'K I agree that certain scientists may not be experts in the said field but that doesnt prove they are out of their depths............history should have taught you that........just look at aids........scientists and experts told us it was derived from Monkeys in Africa.......these same epxerts lead us to believe this was all true just because they wrote papers etc etc......30 years later we know this was far from the truth......

And dont even get me started on cancers & superbugs.......chemo therapies etc.......:mad2:

[Marclau]

Peter, just created the thread...............:)

[Peter Ward]

At this risk of repetition the USCGRP report, (gathered by some pretty shonky organizations such as the NSF, NASA, Smithsonian, NOAA ;) ) has come up with ten key, but apparently false, findings on climate change because...

1) they are incompetent
2) they are part of a global conspiracy
3) they are part of a CIA conspiracy
4) they have been fooling policy makers for 30 years just for research grants
5) some "scientists" disagree
6) they had nothing better to do
7) mother nature was being incredibly sneaky to the point a Nobel prize went begging for the last 30 years but nobody was interested.

or perhaps, just perhaps...

8) someone noticed a small change, like a glacier or two had gone AWOL when they had blinked (...a geologically timed blink) and policy makers in *every major US Federal Department including defense* wanted to know what plans/infrastructure/agriculture could be put into place to mitigate further changes .....

OK Pick a number....

[sjastro]

You forgot scientists are part of the fiendish plot to invent new taxes.

[dpastern]

Peter - 2 words:

Guantanamo Bay.

Dave

[Peter Ward]

:lol: Doh! But yes, puts it all into perspective.

[Marclau]

feel the need for a group hug.............:)

[Glenhuon]

OK, everyone gather around Marclau, just be careful of the eyes :)

BIll

[AstralTraveller]

Peter,

The idea the natural climate change only occurs over timescales of million of years is quite common and supports the suggestion that the present warming is so rapid that it must be anthropogenic. This a misconception. Firstly, most climate records lack the temporal resolution to resolve rapid change, had it occurred. Secondly, there are many climate events recorded in the relatively recent past (several 100ka) whos transition apparently took only decades.

The best reference I've found in a short search is:

Jonathan Adams, Mark Maslin and Ellen Thomas "Sudden climate transitions during the Quaternary" Progress in Physical Geography 23,1 (1999) pp. 1–36

If you can't access that an early version (minus diagrams and tables) is at

http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/transit.html

I'll quote part of the abstract (my emphasis)

The time span of the past few million years has been punctuated by many rapid climate transitions, most of them on timescales of centuries to decades. The most detailed information is available for the Younger Dryas-to-Holocene stepwise change around 11 500 years ago, which seems to have occurred over a few decades. The speed of this change is probably representative of similar but less well studied climate transitions during the last few hundred thousand years. These include sudden cold events (Heinrich events/stadials), warm events (interstadials) and the beginning and ending of long warm phases, such as the Eemian interglacial. Detailed analysis of terrestrial and marine records of climate change will, however, be necessary before we can say confidently on what timescale these events occurred; they almost certainly did not take longer than a few centuries.

Various mechanisms, involving changes in ocean circulation and biotic productivity, changes in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases and haze particles, and changes in snow and ice cover, have been invoked to explain sudden regional and global transitions. We do not know whether such changes could occur in the near future as a result of human effects on climate.

Phenomena such as the Younger Dryas and Heinrich events might only occur in a ‘glacial’ world with much larger ice sheets and more extensive sea-ice cover. A major sudden cold event, however, did probably occur under global climate conditions similar to those of the present, during the Eemian interglacial around 122 000 years ago. Less intensive, but significant rapid climate changes also occurred during the present (Holocene) interglacial, with cold and dry phases occurring on a 1500-year cycle, and with climate transitions on a decade-to-century timescale. In the past few centuries, smaller transitions (such as the ending of the Little Ice Age' at about AD 1650) probably occurred over only a few decades at most. All evidence indicates
that long-term climate change occurs in sudden jumps rather than incremental changes.

Being 10 years old it's summary of climate change is obviously dated but none of the central tenents have changed. However its treatment of possible AGW is disappointing - but that isn't why you would read it. If I find a better ref I'll pass it on.

I'm not at all saying this shows that the present climate changes are purely natural, only that the speed of the change is not proof of AGW.

cheers,
David

[tonybarry]

Hello David,

A good paper for the likes of me. Many thanks for the reference.

Regards,
Tony Barry

[TrevorW]

Were stuffed I'm leaving when's the next ship out of here

:ship1:

[avandonk]

Yes David the same scientists that gave you that little factoid are most probably alive today.

We are not dealing with an ancient Earth that had no biological negative feedback mechanisms.

We are all in deep trouble. I do not care for myself. I like most of you have children and grandchildren.

I will now turn up the heater as it is cold in Melbourne!


Bert

[KenGee]

It's called a word search I couldn't find anything to support your claim, so I asked if you could point out the relevant part of the bill.

Back on subject, so why should we ingnore what the climate guys and gals are telling us and listen to outsiders.. is simply because we don't like what they are telling us.

[Peter Ward]

Dave, thanks for the link to the paper, which I have just read....and then wondered if you sent me the right link or went beyond the abstract.

Adams et al. constantly refer periods well in excess of a few decades (typically, several thousand years ) and only speculate about changes over periods equivalent to a human lifetime. They candidly admit many, many times the data simply does not have the resolution, is too localized
or both.

But I rather liked this quote:
"If sudden, dramatic climate changes could occur ..... then they could perhaps occur in the future during our present interglacial, especially if we perturb the system by adding greenhouse gases"

Their conclusion (I cut through the waffle):

...sudden shutdowns or intensification (of the gulf stream)..... by the (climate) disturbance caused by rising greenhouse gas levels....is like '...an ill-tempered beast, and we are poking it with sticks"

You have not produced one iota of evidence that current CO2 levels are not man made (its OK, no-one else has) and in light of the above...you've simply made a stronger case we (humans) are in for a rough ride.

[Marclau]

Hahahahaa just dont turn on the fan speed up !!! :rofl:

[theodog]

This question is of genuine interest to me, and I'm not sure if this is the right place to post.
I have 25 acres of which 1 to 1.5 is taken up by our house, gararge, roads etc..
1/4 of our property is cleared and covered by native grass, the rest is mature dry schl woodland with invasive cyprus pine. I run no stock.
Can anybody calculate the amount of carbon this would be locking?

[Marclau]

Ken,

Not at all.........we just should be listening to everyone and not just those involved who always rely on funding $$$$$$ which they receive from the large industrial groups/companies etc etc..........
I also never said we should ignore our planet etc........In fact I think it simply filthy and seems to be getting worse......oil leaks, rubbish etc......

[Marclau]

Jeff, it depends on how many members are in your family .........here is a formulae to assist:

Members in family X Pets X animals X number of farts per person/animal - air intake for breathing X numbers of trees on your block..........arghhhhh forget it.......;)

[leinad]

The report covers the United States, with the reports projected global temp. increase by 2100 of 2 - 11deg Fahrenheit, after doing some googling today I found this of general interest that some might find interesting?;

http://www.spaceandscience.net/id16.html
http://www.spaceandscience.net/id1.html
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12084

http://icecap.us/index.php

[glenc]

http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/journals.html

The bulk of this list below are field-specific journals; some of the most widely cited articles are those that made it into the few, highly prestigious general science journals, listed first here, with their Eigenfactor (EF) ranking among all journals:

(#2) Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (http://www.pnas.org/) (of the U.S.) a.k.a. 'PNAS'
(#3) Nature (http://www.nature.com/) publisher: MacMillan
(#4) Science (http://www.sciencemag.com/) Magazine - the Journal of the A.A.A.S.
Proceedings of the Royal Society (http://publishing.royalsociety.org/) (of London)

[Marclau]

Sorry Glen,

And your point is???

Now we are beginning to rate the sources behind the pros and neg reviews of the fors and againsts???

Doesnt matter which way the cookie crumbies the way I see it........the minute those who believe its not as bad as what others say, and the source or point of view comes from a 'science or climate' related periodical, now these are being judged based on 'popularity'..............only to discredit that GW is not occuring................damn, this is getting picky. Maybe we need to come back to this thread in 10 years time when it's all over and there is something else to argue about.:eyepop:

[AstralTraveller]

Marclau,

I'm not sure what Glen's point is either but I can't see how he is trying to discredit AGW. I imagine he is suggesting one should assess the research published in peer-reviewed journals rather than read some of the fantasy published (on both sides of the debate) by self-appointed gurus with no training in the area. Of course, you won't find a paper which presents definitive proof one way or the other. You still have to sift the data, assess its strength and weakness, understand the issues and generally be across the subject.

The assessment of journals is not quite a popularity contest. They are ranked by the scientific impact of the material they publish. It's a fraught and contencious measurement but the results in the fields I know something about are pretty reasonable.

[Marclau]

O'K, understand..........no problem then if that is the case.........I suppose I've got my back up after some flaming on previous threads....

[Octane]

If you're referring to me, Marclau, I didn't flame you. Flaming would be name-calling and outright mudslinging.

You asked for opinions and I gave one (or two).

Regards,
Humayun

[Marclau]

Lets get one thing straight; some members were making reference to both myself and a personal friend re our credibility. To me, thats 'flaming'..........end of story.
Never, did I say or make reference I believed in the thread topic. I simply asked for thoughts. Few took the topic totally out of context by introducing other dubious subject matter and relating them to my thread. I simply was'nt expecting this to becoming such a hotly and political hotbed. Very similar to the GW threads......

Your understanding of 'flaming' also is incorrect. Refer to the following reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flaming_(Internet) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flaming_%28Internet)

[Octane]

My apologies.

Regards,
Humayun

[Marclau]

No hard feelings Humayun.....I understand some topics are perhaps bordering on the 'fors vs againsts' and hotly argued........all is good.

[Jen]

:lol::lol::lol:

[Peter Ward]

A pity you didn't dig a little deeper. John L Casey of the "space Science Research Centre"...gee.. that sounds cool....looks to be a scammer.

I could not find a *single* paper he has authored (though there is a fellow by the same name who seems good at microbiology....hardly a NASA engineer's forte').

I found this disturbing. How could any "expert" work for 30 years at the very highest levels of government and industry yet be invisible to the journals????

Similarly ICECAP have simply re-hashed many climate change myths into
a legitimate looking bundle and seem to be asking for a little cash for their efforts.

To clear up all doubts on this issue, I've decided to establish the
"Sutherland Centre for Climate and Environmental Research" (so it won't be confused with Suitland Met, we'll call it SUCCER for short)

I put myself in as CEO (UWA graduate with over 30 years of aerospace and high altitude atmospheric research & have acted as advisor to the Federal Government). Might put Bert in as a consultant. We need your support
and will accept cheques, Netbanking, Visa or Mastercard donations to continue our critical climate change work. :)

While climate change is proving to be a *really* vast subject, it only takes a little critical thought or look at the peer reviews to see whether something true, reasonable, requires more investigation or just plain mis-information. ;)

[Gallifreyboy]

SUCCER is an excellent idea but clearly needs financial support. As a UWA graduate too I would like to look after the paypal donations for SUCCER for those folks who don't trust the other transfer methods you mentioned. ;)

[theodog]

Great, for a small annual research grant (umm -teacher salary level) from below mentioned Centre's, I'll be glad to measure the diameter of randomly selected trees about 4' 4 1/8" above the ground.;)
Oh, What do you want my paper to say:shrug:

[leinad]

I did say, it was of 'interest' if anyone wanted a read;
Yes they are a lobby, not climate scientists.
There are papers on that site.

Al Gore has showed his alarmism to millions, No scientist there.
Rajendra Kumar Pachauri of the IPCC(Political Body) is an engineer and economist, no scientist there.
so the common person should ignore the preaching of those two, and really dig into the scientific (peer-reviewed) papers written by 'scientists' to really make up their minds of for or against; it becomes tricky of course when power hungry politicians are talking money; media is one-sided, and the consequences are dire.

I'll continue to read through those peer reviewed papers some more.. there's quite a few. :whistle:

Here's another site that may interest others:
http://www.climatesceptics.com.au/sceptic-scientists.html

[AstralTraveller]

Did you know this measurement is called 'breast-height diameter'? Despite my total lack of qualification I had to perform this measurement as part of the biogeography subject.



Nothing about ..... :D

[Marclau]

leinad,

Too true..........I too will be trying to read some of the papers over time to get a better handle and understanding of this topic.

Peter, further to your 'While climate change is proving to be a *really* vast subject, it only takes a little critical thought or look at the peer reviews to see whether something true, reasonable, requires more investigation or just plain mis-information.' I concur........but remember that this fits both sides of the topic/myth.

I might have to start a research group aply title - ITYM Science and Research Institute (I'll take your money) which is really going to be a money laundering facility to facilitate the next scenario in 10 years time.:rofl:

All in good fun........great to see we are all passionate on this forum......

[DJDD]

pity the general population was not as sceptical of economists/merchant bankers/finalcial advisers/etc. (or whatever you call the people that lost all of our money and put us near recession...)
:screwy:

[ngcles]

Hi Peter & All,



You see this is where I have the problem in trying to sort the wheat from the chaff -- and I really want to know the answer one way or another. A correlation without a link is not enough for me. I'm really trying to keep an open mind on this, but being a former copper, I'm trained to be sceptical.

As I understand it, it's common ground the greenhouse gasses are composed of approx 95% water-vapour, 3.6% CO2 and 0.9% Methane. Is this right?

Proceeding on the assumption that is correct, I have also read of the total CO2emissions (man-made & natural), the human component accounts for 2.91% according to the US Department of Energy or 3.67% according to the IPCC’s AR4 -- the IPCC's own report. That means that of CO2's contribution to greenhouse warming 96% is down to natural emissions. Is this right?

Since 1998, the total atmospheric CO2 levels have risen from 365ppm to 385ppm -- about a 5.5% rise. How can the the quite tiny human contribution of 3.67% of the total CO2 emissions account for a rise of about 5% in the total CO2 level over the 10 years?

Maybe I've been misled, maybe I'm just dumb, but this doesn't on the face of it appear to add up. Can anyone show me how it adds up?

If the governments get together and agree to reduce CO2 emissions by humans by say 30% over the next 20 years, this will bring the total contribution of humans to CO2 levels to about 2.5%. This in turn will reduce total atmospheric CO2 by no more than 1% (assuming the natural imput remains static).

Considering CO2 comprises only 3.6% of the total of Greenhouse gasses, we will therefore reduce total greenhouse gasses by about 0.02%.

How can this possibly make a difference? If there is a natural event (like a small increase in total volcanic activity) that increases total natural emissions of CO2 by say 5% in that time, won't our contribution in cutting Carbon Dioxide emissions by say 30% of that 3.7% amount to 2/3rds of 5/8ths of ... not a lot?

Please I'd like the above figures confirmed or shown wrong and an answer that will let me assess this whole thing.

As I'm one of the millions who will pay through the nose for the extra taxes and costs imposed by the carbon credits scheme I think I'm entitled to an answer before I part with this money willingly.


Best,

Les D

[avandonk]

Les it is simple if you have studied Physics especially Thermodynamics and QuantumTheory.

It is not my job to spend three or four years to get the population up to speed by lecturing at great length on these subjects.

To attempt to answer your question in simple terms, here is a short version.

Water vapour will vary wildly day to day and year by year as it depends on the local temperatures and the availabilty of water.

To even consider water vapour as a greenhouse gas is a totally fallacy.

Again I will say 1998 was a VERY hot year. To use this as a benchmark for the last ten years is misguided at best and fraudulent at worst.

Of the last fifteen years thirteen were the hottest on record.

If it was not for the 200 ppm of CO2 we would have an average temperaturee of -17C. We are currently at 380 ppm the highest for 400,000 years and most probaby 20 million years.

I find it extraordinary that idiots who can barely solve a quadratic equation can pontificate on AGW.

If you do not listen to the accredited scientists. Who will you believe?

Nutters with an agenda?

Bert

[xelasnave]

When the best solution Government can call upon is to introduce a tax one must wonder... On Top Gear I noted we now have a 10 cylinder v10 with twin tubo chargers ..a station wagon that beats a 911... we have planes boats and cars and their manufactures happy to catter for the bigger is better mentality and while all this is let pass we the mugs will pay more for our energy... irrespective of why the Earth is getting hotter I doubt if humans will change their behaviour and pointing to the horror of doing nothing wont change that...
The fact is we now have a new business with many getting their meal ticket from involvement in the issue and it is clear that many lobby using the horror of doing nothing as oil for their band wagon..
I doubt if Al GOre had anything in mind other than the opportunity of exploiting fear to make millions... on last check his house used $36,000 in energy and still no solar panels (so I believe).
The nueclear power lobby certainly are happy to help with their clean efficient remedy..remember when Mr John Howard can out, having never comented upon GW or any related issue he said words to the effect..We must appreciate we have GW so we need to consider NP and a week later some organisation comes out with where all the NP stations would be around the country... politicians only speak when they are lobbied and I suspect someone had their hand up the back of his shirt when he spoke on a matter he never before offerred any input...
Remeber the adds ... by a Marine bioligist lady..the barrier reef is going under so we must go for NP .. who paid for that add I wonder the marine life on the reef or some other bottom feeders.
Still on the possitive it is a new industry and lots of folk feel they are doing something for a better future or as they see it any future at all ... but in all matters if one follows the money one gets an insite... Al Gore certainly followed the money and left big carbon footprints for all to see.
But a tax ..how lame rich folk wont care cause it is the mugs at the bottom who will end up paying.
The science has little to do with it in my view and it seems that many are very eager to grad the science they find supports their addgendah and that is always dangerous as science is then corrupted.

alex

[avandonk]

I had a heater on last night Alex. Does that mean I can no longer comment. I am amazed that anyone can still doubt the science.

I will not bother to comment again as it is a waste of time.

ALL of you get a degree in science at least, and then we can have a logical conversation about the facts. Not some quasi scientific drivel promulgated by vested interests.

Bert

[Bassnut]

Ive read this in reputable publications also, and find it a real puzzle, could someone please specifically answer this question?.

[xelasnave]

Bert I do not doubt the science at all but I dont feel the science has any control on the vested interests and to deny their input I feel may be failing to consider how some folk may well capitalize upon something to their profit.
All I say is this..it matters not why the world is hotting up it matters that we respond realisticaly and to talk about tax and still let the market for big toys rule is stupid.
I did not disagree with anything you said ..although I know I never seem to be agreeing with anybody.
I in fact do what everyone else says should be done..I consum very little , I live very modestly, I use solar power and drink rain water my car is 4 cylinder and I wear my clothes until they wear out to0tally.
Please dont think I disregarded your comment as if anyone here gets my respect for science it is you...
alex

[AstralTraveller]

This will come as a surprise to the IPCC who on page 115 of the FAR Working Group 1 state (referring to the natural greenhouse effect):

'Water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas, and carbon dioxide is the second-most important one.'

I tried to find the relative contribution of each but so far the best have found is on a European Commission web page where it says that water vapour is responsible for 'about two thirds' of the natural greenhouse effect.

While looking that up I noticed that there is concern that water vapour increases caused by the rise in SST could produce a positive feedback and so enhance AGW.

[Peter Ward]

Les, I really haven't the motivation to look at all the points you rasied,
but on this one, the context is wrong.

It is true natural carbon dioxide sources are indeed vast...but so are the natural sinks, and they have been in equilibrium for the last 650,000 years ( where CO2 has sat around 270ppm)

From 1780 the CO2 rise has been well measured, remarkably linear and almost certainly human in origin due:
-CO2 from fossil fuels contains almost no C14,
-a 1-2 year concentration lag from Northern to Southern hemispheres,
-the close parallel in mass of fossil fuels burnt to the increase in the atmosphere
-despite a heck of a lot of effort, no known "new" natural source.

Hope that clears it up for you...

[Marclau]

Bert,

This works both ways.............my father has a science degree and a masters degree in applied mathematics.........and even he casts serious doubts on GW simply because of the misinformation (which he says is spread from both sides fo the camp) and the shear volume of $$$$$$ collected in taxes etc etc.

As for me, I only have a diploma in IT Database Designs, post grad in Marketing and a diploma in Chinese Medicine........so I do not think I am qualified to give any scientific reply. I do however have common sense that, be it as it may, I question. I dont automatically believe everything I read no matter where the source comes from. I remember many a world famous scientists still saying the world was flat.........aids comes from monkeys etc etc

I am still alive today (not necassarily becuase of science or a bunch of degrees) but because a few neutral people with the vision and maturity to look at things from a different angle and try something both different and untested.............untested cause they did not get funding as it went against the norm........in fact, science and degrees told me to have chemo...........yet most oncologists offer this as the only remedy.......yet there is only a 3% survival rate and most oncologists would not even treat their own families and friends with this treatment.

So, if you dont like me questioning GW, and my replies are not scientifically minded, does not mean I'm stupid or I can't question and yes I care very much about the world and the people in it............even more so the last 18 months.

[Archy]

Thanks for the chart.
It shows, inter alia,


temperature over the recent past was not as high as 150 Ky ago.
however, CO2 levels have risen spectacularly.

This is as it should be, and a explained by Fred Hoyle: the relation between Co2 levels and temperature is logarithmic ie. it takes a very large increase in CO2 to induce a small increase in temperature

[Archy]

Bert Can you see that:
"it is simple if you have studied Physics especially Thermodynamics and QuantumTheory" and
"I find it extraordinary that idiots who can barely solve a quadratic equation can pontificate on AGW" might possibly be interpreted as being somewhat arrogant? and
"To even consider water vapour as a greenhouse gas is a totally fallacy" might possibly be wrong?

[Archy]

Hey, Bert, you are in Adelaide why don't you go see Ian Pilmer he has analysed a lot more of data, unlike the IPCC. Are you suggesting that models are more reliable than analyses of real data?

[sjastro]

How did you come up with this conclusion?

[Archy]

Which conclusion: I made statements

[AstralTraveller]

Archy,

The time period to which you refer is at 120ka (ka = kilo annum is the correct unit, also Ma = mega annum) and is refered to as Marine Oxygen Isotope Stage 5 (or just Stage 5) or the Last Interglacial. It is well known to be warmer and have higher sea-levels. This attributed to differences in the Earths orbital parameters, look up the Wiki on Milankovic for more details.

If you also look up Beer-Lamberts Law you will see that the relationship between concentration and absorbance of a spectral peak is indeed logarithmic. The situation however is a bit more complex as regards CO2. The relevant spectral line already has 0% transmission (or infinite absorbance) and so increases in CO2 concentration cannot absorb any more radiation at that wavelength. However, while ideal spectra consist of lines in the real world interactions betwen molecules produce an effect call peak broadening which changes the line to bell-shaped peaks. As the concentration rises the width of the 'shoulders' increases and it is this peak broadening which is responsibe for the increased absobance of heat in the atm by CO2.

While it is true that the amount of radiative forcing caused by CO2 increase is small it is significant because of its duration. For instance the sunspot cycle also changes slightly the energy arriving at the Earth but this does not produce a measurable effect because it rises for 5-6 years then drops again over the next 5-6 years. On the other hand the CO2 forcing has been going on for over a century (and is increasing). The difference is a bit like the difference between tugging your ear-lobe and hanging a weight on it for several years.

[sjastro]

"it takes a very large increase in CO2 to induce a small increase in temperature"


(a) The increase in CO2 as a result of the Industrial Revolution from 1800 onwards is also accompanied by an increase in particulate emissions.
Particulate emissions provide a negative feedback and therefore offsets the greenhouse effect of CO2. ("global dimming").

(b) The interglacial/warm periods (excluding the current phase) have been initiated by an increase in temperature either through an increase in solar radiation, changes in the angle of the Earth's rotational axis, or axial precession of the Earth's orbit. This in turn has increased CO2 levels.

Steven

[ving]

west coast of antartica is growing isnt it? cant be so hot then :P

[AstralTraveller]

Peter,

Sorry I owe you a reply, I should have got to it sooner.

I don't want to get into a quoting war over a decade old paper, so I'll restrict myself to only the following (unedited) exert:

"From present understanding of the record of the last 150,000 years, at least a few large climate changes certainly occurred on the timescale of individual human lifetimes, the most well-studied and well-established of these being the ending of the Younger Dryas, and various Holocene climate shifts. Many other substantial shifts in climate took at most a few centuries, and they too may have occurred over a few decades. The high time resolution in the climate record, however, is either not available, or records have not yet been studied in enough detail."

I think that summaries the conundrum. On this topic the IPCC said on pg. 465

"If warming continues unabated, the resulting climate change within this century would be extremely unusual in geological terms."

I take that to mean that, if it stops warming now, nothing unusual has happened. And further on:

"Hence, although large climate changes have occurred in the past, there is no evidence that these took place at a faster rate than present warming."

But neither is there evidence that they occurred at a slower rate. Perhaps the onus is on the proponents of AGW to show that the present rate of change is unusual/unprecedented.

Regarding duration of the present warming, I think Fig 6.10 (pg 467) of the IPCC (attached) demonstrates that the present warming commenced around 1600, with a brief (2-3 decade) cooling in the early 1800s. In contrast, prior to 1600 temperatures had fallen since about 1400.

In any case the purpose of my original post was to argue against your suggestion that natural climate change only occurs over millions of years (eg. change has been over *geological* times.....and given geological time scales are in the *millions* that natural change occurs only over millions of years). Since you are now talking of change over thousands of years I'll take that as a win (I'll stop short of suggesting that your understanding has increased by three orders of magnitude :P).

I wonder why you introduced the rise in CO2 concentrations? Since it wasn't the topic, I can only assume you wanted to get on to more familiar territory. The reason I didn't mention CO2 is that the facts are not in doubt. Neither is the reason why rising CO2 conc. should warm the planet. I just don't want to fall into the trap that Les described in another thread and think that I have to see everything in black and white and speak in sound-bites. Real science is much more than that. One needs to be able to see the weaknesses in one's own position and see the strengths in the counter-arguments.

For what it's worth, I think that AGW is the most likely scenario. In any case all the measures proposed to stop AGW should be done anyway for other very good reasons. I'm just not willing to paper over shortcomings in our understanding. This forum deserves better.

[sjastro]

The most compelling evidence for AGW ironically is not what is happening in the troposphere but in the lower stratosphere.

The lower stratosphere is ordinarily warmed through heat radiative transfer from the troposphere.

What is actually happening however is that the lower stratosphere is cooling. The mechanism is not as simple as the greenhouse effect blocking heat transfer, it involves some complicated thermodynamics but the greenhouse effect is the catalyst for cooling.

If global warming was initiated by an increase in solar flux the temperature of the lower stratosphere would be increasing.

Venus is a particularly interesting example. The surface temperature is 460C mainly due to the greenhouse effect and hotter than Mercury but the temperature of the lower stratosphere is considerably cooler than the Earths.

Regards

Steven

[Peter Ward]

Dave, I discounted the above as Adams et. al. in the same breath point to a lack of record and resolution in the data.

It is not clear to me what they meant by climate change in the above, as the literature elsewhere shows the younger Dryas and Holocene shifts were likely not global in nature and were localized events, but again there is still that lack of global record and data resolution.

However I do take your point that natural climate change in the past is likely to have occured over several thousand years rather than million and stand corrected.

As for my understanding increasing at three orders of magnitude, is this a bad joke or cheap shot?

That said, if the current change continues unabated, then it will have happened at least one, perhaps 2 orders of magnitude faster than
the most rapid of "natural" events.....which is no doubt to what the IPCC refer and have serious concerns over.

[Peter Ward]

Dave, I discounted the above as Adams et. al. in the same breath point to a lack of record and resolution in the data.

It is not clear to me what they meant by climate change in the above, as the literature elsewhere shows the younger Dryas and Holocene shifts were likely not global in nature and were localized events, but again there is still that lack of global record and data resolution.

However I do take your point that climate change is likely to have occured over several thousand years rather than million and stand corrected.

As for my understanding increasing a three orders of magnitude, is this a bad joke or cheap shot?

That said, if the current change continues unabated, then it will have happened at least one, perhaps 2 orders of magnitude faster than
the most rapid of "natural" events.....which is no doubt to what the IPCC refer and have serious concerns over.

[AstralTraveller]

Joke.

[ving]

dont think this has been posted yet...

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25683682-5019059,00.html

[Allan_L]

perhaps Fielding read this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/science/sciencenews/5599916/Polar-Bears-are-not-dying-out-say-scientists-in-book-on-popular-scare-stories.html


As Obi Wan said:
"Luke, you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view"

[AstralTraveller]

According to this Fielding said ".... it is a fact that the evidence does not support the notion that greenhouse gas emissions are causing dangerous global warming". I wonder what it feels like to be so sure of anything ... especially in a debate like this.

Oh, and what happened to the precautionary principle.

[Peter Ward]

Amongst the gems Feldman and Marks are spruiking:

"Salt is good for you" !!!??

I thought this was sorted a few thousand years ago when Hippocrates said "the dose is the poison".

eg: It would be agreed that apples are good for you, but did you know if you eat an egg-cup full of apple seeds you'll probably end up dead....

I grow weary of this post......will someone adept at ouija boards contact me in 100 years and let me know how the planet fared?

[Marclau]

hahahaha doing a Tarot reading right now !!!! Yep, no GW the cards say !!!! :rofl:

[sjastro]

Quote from Fieldman and Marks article.

"Global warming might be good for us: Warmer climate and an increase in CO2 could be good for farming and agriculture".

Same argument can be made for acid rain....:screwy:

[Argonavis]

How does this constitute "compelling" evidence?

There is simply no evidence that CO2 is anything but a minor climate forcer. In fact, the proposition that a minor trace gas in the atmosphere can influence climate is absurd, if you care to think about it.

That atmospheric CO2 is rising is not in doubt - but historically it has been far higher without any emissions from industrial society. This should tell us that other factors govern the atmospheric concentration of CO2, and that absolutely no-one understands the carbon cycle. In fact, the balance between known sources of emissions and absorptions are way out.

If you bother to look at the evidence, rather than quote the narrative, you will find that average global temperatures are falling whilst atmospheric CO2 is rising - there is clearly much more important factors influencing "climate".

The global circulation models on which AGW is based, and assume CO2 forcing, have failed to predict the temperature decreases over the last 10 years, they have failed to predict the lack of increase in temperatures in the Antarctica (according to the models, the poles should be heating) and the stratospheric hot spot is missing from the data.

AGW is a falsified hypothesis, and does not justify a massive transfer of wealth from the household sector of the economy to carbon traders, governments and investors in marginal technologies like wind and solar power generation.

[Argonavis]

How can the same argument be made for "acid" rain? (I think you mean mildly acidic).

As Ian Pilmer points out in his book "Heaven and Earth", agriculture is far more productive in a warmer climate such as the medieval warm period. Plants respond rather well to warm climates. Do you dispute this?

Even if the nonsense of AGW is even modestly correct, the change in climate to a warmer wetter world is only beneficial to humans.

[cruiser]

I was all open to GW ideas originally until the mention of carbon trading and the billions that could be made of this by certain businesses including the investment banks doing the trades. Also that all a big emitter had to do was buy credits to keep polluting and pass the charges onto us. Not only would we be taxed by the government but also slugged by the big polluters passing the costs onto us. If the governments were serious they would just force the big businesses to reduce emissions. But of course countries like China and India wont have to. And as if they will take notice of what we do when their people are living in poverty and are just happy to work.
I'm not saying that GW isn't happening but come on, big polluters just having to buy credits to pollute is no answer. Someones making a bucket load of money somewhere and it isn't me or you.
How can the general public understand everything about it when there is such a dark cloud hanging over the whole thing. No wonder there are skeptics.

One question I do have which I cant find an accurate answer for. What percentage of the co2 created each year in the world is man made compared to naturally occuring?

There, ive said it.....off to watch the origin.

[Argonavis]

Easy enough to find (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28074879/): "Most carbon dioxide — about 97 percent — comes from natural sources. That's roughly 300 billion metric tons per year of CO2 gas from breathing animals, decaying plants, forest fires, volcanic eruptions and other naturally occurring phenomena.

Human activities, like driving cars, burning coal, farming, industrial production and other practices, account for 3 percent, or about 8 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide production per year."

Of course, what is not disclosed is that these are just estimates based on models, but they are probably broadly accurate.

[Geoff45]

There is a difference between predicting long term trends and short term variations. I cannot tell you what the weather will be like tomorrow, but I'm willing to bet Christmas day will be a lot hotter than tomorrow.

As for the 2YK. People keep saying nothing happened. That's because we took the steps required to avoid it. It's a bit like getting new break pads on your car and then saying "These work fine, so why did the guy tell me I had to replace them?"

[Argonavis]

So that is your argument? That summer is warmer than winter?

Are you suggesting that this validates climate models?

Climate, or any other modelling, is fraught with problems. The real world is far too complex to quantify, and there are always exogenous factors. I really don't believe that anyone can predict the future.

[Marclau]

I know I have to go to work tomorrow and run a seminar........:lol: or I wont get paid next week !!!!

[Geoff45]

I was just using this as one of many possible examples to point out that trends are often easier to predict than short term variations from the trend. The fact that summer is warmer than winter follows from the scientific fact that the earth's axis is tilted with respect to the ecliptic.

And no, it doesn't validate global warming, but nor does your argument that we cannot predict next week's weather invalidate GW

[Argonavis]

It is not my argument that the failure to predict next weeks weather invalidates GW, but I would suggest that it doesn't give any credibility to climate models. Weather forecasting models have modest success, climate models have no predictive value. Weather forecasters at the BOM are, in my experience, the most skeptical of climate models.

As for GW (or global warming), I have no doubt that there are measurements of increases in average global temperatures a few tenths of a degree, most of which were in the last centuary.

Even though the concept of an average global temperature is a bit like averaging the telephone book, these increases seem to be real, as both land based and satellite based measure show up the 0.4 degree C or thereabouts increases. To call this a "trend" is nonsense.

What caused these increases, which now appear to have stopped, I really don't know. I suspect some form of heat island effect, as most of the increases are in the northern populated hemisphere.

I very much doubt that it is due to CO2, as there is not even a correlation between CO2 and temperatures, much less a causual effect.

If you want to talk trends, there aren't any, except maybe a cooling trend. The globe isn't warming, the oceans are cooling, antarctica ice is at its greatest extent since measurements began 30 years ago, arctic ice is at the long term average, and anyone who claims to predict future climate is a charlatan.

None of this justifies a massive transfer of wealth via a carbon tax/CPRS/ETS from the household sector of the economy to governments, carbon traders and uneconomic wind, geothermal and solar power that is a waste of resources to "solve" a non-problem.

[ngcles]

Hi Peter & All,



Apologies in advance to readers and the mods for this mildly off-topic post (just couldn't resist) but Peter's quip prompted it (so I blame him;)):

This is in fact absolutely true: I was one of the Sergeant Prosecutors assisting the Coroner at Glebe Coroner's Court about 1987 when there was an inquest into the curious circumstances of a particular man's death. He especially loved apple-seeds and had been saving them up for months in a finger-bowl as a special treat for himself at Christmas. On Christmas morning he ate the whole bowl in one hit and ... Say Goodnight Gracie.

Apparently it is only really a problem if you crunch and chew them up. Intact, they pass through the tract. It is estimated he ate about 300-400.

Cyanide poisoning is a nasty, nasty way to go.

Bizzare but true ...


Best,

Les D

[sjastro]

GW cannot explain stratospheric cooling, AGW does.
GC doesn't exist as I will explain to you below.



Yes I do think about it. I think in terms of blackbody radiation, thermodynamics and quantum mechanics.

Why is it absurd for a trace gas to effect climate? What is the technical basis behind this remark? Consider the case with Ozone.

Ozone levels are less than 1/10 than CO2 yet this trace gas forms a layer in the stratosphere which has a far greater effect on climate than CO2. Without this trace gas there would be a catastrophic increase in temperature not to mention the end of life due to the sterilizing effects of UV-C.



Ever heard of terms such as signal to noise ratio, temperature anomaly, 5 or 11 yr running averages?

Let me explain. If you were to simply plot average temperature versus year or temperature anomaly (against a baseline) versus year you would obtain a curve that is not very smooth. In other words the signal to noise ratio is low. In this case the signal is climate change, the noise is temperature variation.

The danger when dealing with data with a low signal to noise ratio is that any trends in climate change is lost in the noise.

One way of reducing the noise is to take a 5 yr running average which includes the year in question and 2 years on either side.
The running average is then subtracted from the average temperature for that year.

The result is a much smoother graph (higher signal) which shows global warming trends in much greater clarity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Recor d.png

The 5 yr running average graph clearly an upward trend in climate change.

Steven

[sjastro]

There was some right wing think tank group in the States (the name escapes me) that acid rain was beneficial as it promoted crop growth.

Steven

[Argonavis]

quantum mechanics?

Theory doesn't always translate well into the real world. I would suggest that the radiative transfer mechanisms of CO2 are not well known, and are the subject of controversy (http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all?content=10.1080/15567030701568727). This is why climate models are so poor at predicting climate.





Ozone is created by dissociation, converting UV into IR. CO2 doesn't dissociate. Wrong example.

There is no evidence whatsoever that CO2 is anything but a minor climate forcer. There is no correlation between temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels either in the recent record or in the paleoclimate record. Global circulation models that have assumed CO2 to have any forcing value have failed to predict climate.

[Argonavis]

I would suggest that pulling data out of noise is fraught with problems. For example, you end up with a fraudulent hockey stick.

I prefer this graph (http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/GlobalMeanTemp.pdf), if we are going to start throwing graphs at each other. It puts it into prespective. You will note that the graph ends in early 2000's, since then the global temperature anomalies are down to close to zero. No warming.

The few tenths of a degree increase in "average" global temperatures is noise. To pull a trend out of it, to predict the future with it, and to promote hysteria with it is not science. It is not even very smart.

To damage the economy with it, including making the poorest members of our society pay more for a basic needs like heating and cooling, is criminal.

[Argonavis]

That may well be true. Talking to researchers in this area, soil pH has an impact on plant growth, as do may other factors. Mild stress also may promote growth.

It was to no doubt counter the hysteria surrounding so called "acid" rain. That doesn't mean that simple measure at modest cost to scrub SO2 should not be taken. It just means that the cost and benefits should be fully understood in formulating public policy. It should not be driven by hysteria and misinformation.

With AGW, we have hysteria and misinformation.

[sjastro]

So what? Whether a molecule disassociates or not is immaterial, the keypoint is the molecules ability to absorb radiation. From that aspect ozone is similar to CO2.

UV is absorbed by ozone which disassociates into oxygen molecules and atoms. These can recombine to form ozone.
UV is not converted into IR. The disassociation of ozone is an exothermic reaction and doesn't involve IR.

Steven

[sjastro]

You're not pulling data out of noise. Noise is not data that is excluded.
Noise is treated as the standard deviation of the data.
The use of moving averages smooths out the data.

It is a common procedure used in many disciplines.

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



Yes a very interesting graph which the author has tried to turn into a horizontal line by using an excessive large vertical scale for small variances. The thick lines add to the effect.

If someone handed me any form of information in this format, I'd promptly discard it in the rubbish bin.

Steven

[ving]

another interesting link...

http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/press/press_releases/press_release.php?id=838

[Allan_L]

Anyone seen this interesting article.
Seems to be a slightly different side to this coin

http://aap.newscentre.com.au/macgen/090623/library/energy_industry_-_electricity_market/20810312.html

Cheers
Allan
"you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view"

[Marclau]

Would love to read it Allan but it asks for a User Name & Password......!!!

[KenGee]

Gee I really love how these denialist continue to cherry pick data, and try to tell us that whole fields of physics and chemistry are all wrong, simply because they can’t except reality. Always makes me think of Fred Hoyle, great scientist that spent the last forty years of his working life telling the rest of the astronomy world they were wrong about the big bang. He just continued to come up with sillier and sillier ideas to keep hold of his world view.
Argonavis can you just except that fact that a trace gas (ozone) can affect the climate of the earth, no matter how it does it. Grasp the idea it is present in small amounts and it does effect the climate of the earth. Go on you know you can do it, just take the step, say yes it can. Then we can try to help you with the next step toward reality.
Oh and maybe all those measurement of Venus temp were wrong, seeing as CO2 can cool atmospheres so well.

[Argonavis]

"excessively large" means it doesn't show the few tenths of a degree smoothed "average" temperature variations to a sufficiently scary scale?

If you would like to draw trend lines, they are down (http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/last:100/trend/plot/gistemp/last:100/trend/plot/uah/last:100/trend/plot/rss/last:100/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/last:100/plot/gistemp/last:100/plot/uah/last:100/plot/rss/last:100).

The facts remain that temperatures have not moved in about 10 years whilst atmospheric CO2
increases (http://i40.tinypic.com/2vtv91l.jpg). Hypothesis falsified.

There is no evidence, either in the recent record or in the paleoclimate record, that the levels of atmospheric CO2 has any influence over climate.

[sjastro]

Yes I agree with you.



I gather from the graphs that multiple measurements are taken per year.
Since the graphs provides up to date data and is inherently noisy (mainly due to seasonal variations), a moving average is not being used to calculate the temperature anomalies on the Y axis.

The anomalies are therefore calculated using a baseline value.
The obvious question is how has the baseline value been determined?

Steven

[Allan_L]

Sorry. I didn't realise:

It said something like:

Reason clouded by carbon obsession


Author: Peter Schwerdtfeger
Publication: The Australian (12,Tue 23 Jun 2009)
Edition: 1 - All-round Country
Section: Features
Scientists prone to group-think are ignoring crucial research, warns Peter Schwerdtfeger



ALTHOUGH there are many doubters of man-made climate change, I am not yet one of them. But I remain unconvinced that carbon dioxide is the sole bete noire. Two decades ago, I pored over the spectral properties of the infra-red radiation of this gas, which is essential to plant life, and found that it was almost completely overshadowed by the radiative properties of water vapour, which is vital to all forms of life on earth.

Repeatedly in science we are reminded that happenings in nature can rarely be ascribed to a single phenomenon. For example, sea levels on our coasts are dependent on winds and astronomical forces as well as atmospheric pressure and, on a different time scale, the temperature profile of the ocean. Now, with complete abandon, a vociferous body of claimants is insisting that CO2 alone is the root of climatic evil.

I fear that many supporters of this view have become carried away by the euphoria of mass or dominant group psyche. Scientists are no more immune from being swayed by the pressure of collective enthusiasm than any other member of the human race. I do not believe for one moment that undisciplined burning of fossil fuels is harmless, but the most awful consequence of the burning of carboniferous fuels is not the release of CO2 but the large-scale injection ofminute particulate pollutants into the atmosphere.

Detailed studies led by internationally acclaimed cloud physicist Daniel Rosenfeld of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem have revealed that the minute water vapour droplets that form around some carbon particles are so small as to be almost incapable of being subsequently coalesced into larger precipitable drops. In short, the particulates prevent rainfall.

Rosenfeld's research group has shown that humans are changing the climate in a much more direct way than through the release of CO2. Rather, pollution is seriously inhibiting rain over mountains in semi-arid regions, a phenomenon with dire consequences for water resources in the Middle East and many other parts of the world, including China and Australia.

Rosenfeld is no snake-oil salesman. As an American Meteorological Society medallist, he has an internationally endorsed research record in cloud physics that no living Australian can claim to emulate. It is more than 20 years since Australia was a knowledgeable force in cloud physics and cloud seeding. CSIRO's relevant division has long been disbanded and its cloud-seeding techniques based on the use of expensive silver iodide have been superseded by the Israelis using an inexpensive and far more natural product: sea salt.

Chinese and Israeli researchers have shown that the average precipitation on Mt Hua near Xi'an in central China has decreased by 20per cent amid increasing levels of man-made air pollution during the past 50 years. The precipitation loss was doubled on days that had the poorest visibility because of pollution particles in the air. This explains the widely observed trends of decrease in mountain precipitation relative to the rainfall in nearby densely populated lowlands, which until now had not been directly ascribed to air pollution.

Some of the most chilling evidence was presented by Rosenfeld's Australian-based research associate Aron Gingis in a 2002 submission to the House of Representatives standing committee on agriculture, fisheries and forestry concerning future water supplies for Australia's rural industries and communities.

The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's satellite map of southeast Australia, enhanced by Rosenfeld, shows the frightening persistence and longevity of pollutant trails across vast areas, including the all-important Snowy Mountains catchments. It may well be concluded that the increasing emissions from the phalanx of brown coal-burning power stations at Hazelwood and other locations in Gippsland, Victoria, have substantially wrecked the natural precipitation processes over the once hydrologically rich Australian Alps.

If Rosenfeld's scientific interpretations are correct, then southern Australia would greatly benefit from the application of his discoveries. At the very least, Rosenfeld's conclusions should be accorded appropriate evaluation and testing by an unprejudiced panel of peers.

Yet his work so far has been ignored in Australia because it does not fit in with the dominant paradigm that holds CO2 responsible for reduced rainfall in semi-arid regions.

Scientists, like all other people, need to remain open to competing views and avoid the danger of being locked into tunnel vision through group obsession, which is what global warming seems to have become.



Peter Schwerdtfeger is emeritus professor of meteorology at Flinders University in Adelaide.

[Marclau]

Thanks Allan,

A very good read and one that seems to be unbiased.........:thumbsup:

[Archy]

Thanks, Alan: food for thought isn't it?

[Solanum]

Interesting, it may well be true (seems plausible to me) however not much of an argument against climate change as the IPCC predictions are actually for very little change in rainfall over Australia (not really a "dominant paradigm" then). So actually, this work might explain the droughts that climate change doesn't! Unfortunately, a number of people (some of the government included) are apt to blame 'climate change' for everything climate related.

As a 'bone fide' scientist and one with several years of working in this area (though not on climate itself), I have to say I find threads like this one very annoying (I usually try and fail to resist posting in them). It's no doubt patronising and I certainly do not advocate limiting free speech, but if I went up to a civil engineer and told him I had seen on a website how I could make a bridge with 50% less steel and concrete but double the strength do you think he should listen to me?

I do not have the knowledge or understanding of climatology to effectively argue for or against the predicted results of anthropogenic CO2 (and other IR absorbing compounds), therefore I accept the view of the vast majority (but not all) climatologists. I suspect that close to none of the respondents to this thread have that knowledge or understanding either.

I do have the knowledge to make predictions (but obviously cannot state the future as fact) about how vegetation will respond to those predicted changes, therefore I will argue that humanity (but not life in general) has some significant difficulties ahead.

[Argonavis]

The forces operating on bridges are well known, and generally a 100% contingency factor is used. So you probably could make a bridge with 50% less concrete and steel, but that is not a risk our society is prepared to accept.

Climate is totally different. It cannot be modeled.

So what is the view of the "vast majority" of climatologists?

It is probably recorded in this (http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/DOC062509-004.pdf) leaked document from the US EPA. "Natural forces as opposed to human activity are largely responsible for temperature fluctuations, according to a new study. . New scientific data highlighted in the report shows that ocean cycles and solar cycles are probably the most important factors behind temperature fluctuations. Moreover, satellite information now indicates there is little chance of endangerment from greenhouse gases, according to the report. . . .Some of the major developments overlooked by EPA official include a continued decline in global temperatures, an emerging consensus that hurricanes will not be more frequent or intense and new studies that demonstrate water vapor will have a moderating influence on temperature. "

You don't need to be an expert or a climatologist to see that there is no correlation between atmospheric CO2 and temperatures, and very little science to support causation. As Pilmer says in his book "Heaven and Earth", of the 19 variables that influence climate, CO2 is the least important.

There is a real problem with "climatologists" who are running political agendas. This graph (http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/hammer-graph-5-us-temps.jpg) is a plot of raw GISS data. "The graph does not even remotely correlate to the shape of the CO2 versus time graph. The warming was greatest in the 1930’s before CO2 started to rise rapidly. The rate of rise in 1920, the early 1930’s and the early 1950’s is significantly greater than anything in the last 30 years. Despite the rapid rise in CO2 since 1960, the 1970’s to early 1980’s was the time of the global cooling scare and looking at the graph in Figure 5 one can see why (almost 2F cooling over 50 years). "

[Solanum]

You miss my point, do you consider yourself knowledgeable enough to assess bridge construction? Would you if you read a few texts on the internet that disagreed with current bridge construction guidelines?



Huh? It IS modelled, how do you think weather forecasts are made? The whole point of a model is to simplify a complex system. It's the accuracy of those models you are questioning.



Ah yes, a "leaked" report on the internet, that is convincing. Especially when it is hosted by a right-wing pressure group that aims to "overturn government regulations... such as regulations pertaining to drug safety, rent control, and automobile fuel efficiency" and amongst others is funded by Texaco. See http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Competitive_Enterpr ise_Institute

As oppose to the several thousand original publications, representing the vast majority of climatologists, that come to the opposite conclusion available here: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm

[sjastro]

Now that I understand how the baselines have been derived let me respond to this.

It reinforces the argument about the pitfalls of looking for trends in data that is dominated by noise. The problem is also magnified by using too short a time frame for analysis.

Here is an example using the UAH data.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah/mean:12/plot/uah/trend/plot/uah/from:2003/trend/plot/uah/from:1997.5/trend/plot/uah/from:1992/to:1999/trend (http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/mean:12/plot/uah/trend/plot/uah/from:2003/trend/plot/uah/from:1997.5/trend/plot/uah/from:1992/to:1999/trend)

As illustrated I can select a time frame and come up with any trend I want.

So why select the period 2001-2009 in the first place?

The fact that climate change is a long term effect one should select a longer time frame for analysis.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979/offset:-0.15/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:1979/offset:-0.24/mean:12/plot/uah/mean:12/plot/rss/mean:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979/offset:-0.15/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1979/offset:-0.24/trend/plot/uah/trend/plot/rss/trend (http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979/offset:-0.15/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:1979/offset:-0.24/mean:12/plot/uah/mean:12/plot/rss/mean:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979/offset:-0.15/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1979/offset:-0.24/trend/plot/uah/trend/plot/rss/trend)

The trendlines now show a completely different picture. Even though the graph is dominated by noise the increasing temperature trend is apparent.

Steven

[AstralTraveller]

Weather forecasting around here is really quite easy. It will be cloudy at new moon and fine at full. :P :lol:

OK everyone - back on topic.

[AstralTraveller]

Fair enough, but why then present data from only 1980?

[AstralTraveller]

(sic)

Ah, the good Dr Plimer. Remind me again how many scientists he accuses of being part of a conspiracy to foist the myth of AGW onto us for their own selfish ends. The number certainly makes the moon landing conspiracy look like a school-yard prank.

For our benefit, what are the other 18 variables on his list and what are their relevance to the present debate?

[sjastro]

The information is based on satellite data. Satellite temperature measurements only began in 1978.

Steven

[Wavytone]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327151.300-sea-level-rise-its-worse-than-we-thought.html?full=true

[renormalised]

The Earth's climate is an extremely complicated beast and is affected by many, many variables in those physical and dynamic processes which impinge upon it. Be it more CO2, or less, changes in solar insolation, atm' water content etc etc etc. Just concentrating on one particular variable or process is not how you go about understanding what's happening. Whether there's more or less CO2, or water vapour or any other "greenhouse" gas in the atmosphere is immaterial. What is important is how adding or reducing the amount of those gases effects the processes which drive the changes that occur, and in what direction they occur. We all know that putting any "greenhouse" gas into the atmosphere in concentrations higher than what is statistically normal over the long term measurements, will cause some changes in the overall temperature balance of the planet. CO2 being the least effective of the gases, in comparison with others such as methane or water vapour. However, it's how the increase in CO2 not only changes the heat balance but also how it affects the capacity of those other gases to also effect the climate. Nothing is changed or effected in isolation from everything else. Change one variable and you affect all the others.

Paradoxically, an increase in the amount of CO2, over time and normal levels...given its effect on sea level, water salinity and such...could most likely produce a rapid decrease in global temperatures, and for a rather protracted period, before any overall warming occured. Witness the last Ice Age...the Northern icecaps were already undergoing melting well before any change in global atmospheric CO2 levels. The crazy thing is that when the levels of CO2 began to change rapidly, it actually helped trigger a rapid cooling and return to deep ice age conditions...the Younger Dryas. It lasted for about 1000 or so years, until the atmopshere, oceans and land came back into balance and normal interglacial conditions established themselves.

What annoys me is the vested interests on both sides of the argument. One, on the alarmist scientists and eco' lobby who are pushing the own agendas and two, the global petrochemical and energy producing corporations who have a vested interest in keeping the status quo and have many of the politicians in their pockets. Neither side is right in their assumptions and all this arguing too and fro...and the general misunderstanding of the general public w.r.t. this matter (something encouraged and promulgated by an even more ignorant media) is not helping the situation. Yes, you can't expect the public in general to have a detailed understanding of the science, or even the politics involved. But they are not being given anything better to hang their opinions and concerns upon than what's being fed to them. That's where grave mistakes can be made. We need to take a pragmatic, but measured and well informed approach to the problem. Either way, not doing anything or doing too much would be disasterous, just the same as not moving fast enough or moving too fast would be deletarious.

We know we're affecting the climate, that's a given. We've been causing large scale regional climate changes for thousands of years, and these have been in addition to those that occur naturally. What we should realise is that doing nothing will be just as bad as doing too much and putting ourselves in a position that when change does occur we can't adapt ourselves to those changes...at least in a way that doesn't impact too much on us. Change will occur, that's inevitable. It won't be easy but let's not make things more difficult than what they would otherwise be. Stop all this nonsensical arguing about who's right and who's wrong and just get on with what needs to be done.

[Solanum]

Indeed, but as far as the science is concerned no one is concentrating on one variable, and it is exactly that complexity that makes it difficult for those of us without the relevant background (including me) to argue about what is or isn't driving climate change. It's weird how people will accept all kinds of wacky ideas in astronomy but refuse to accept far better proven ideas in climatology.



Absolutely, but again, as far as science is concerned no one is claiming anything is due to a single factor.



That is a rather gross simplification. Firstly, the evidence that CO2 increased during the Younger Dryas is limited (ice core data only) and there is other data that suggests otherwise (e.g. stomatal counts). One explanation is that there was a very large decrease in CO2 at the start of the Younger Dryas followed by a slower (and more limited) rise. As far as science is concerned this is something that isn't decided. But you should bear in mind that both CO2 and temperature are higher than they have been for at least the last six ice ages. It hasn't been this hot and CO2 hasn't been this high for at least 600,000 years.



I'm not sure what the vested interests of science are, unless you mean more funding? How do we know that the 'assumptions' of anyone are wrong? I'm not sure what 'assumptions' the scientists are making.




The public can't conduct the science, so they can only take what is being fed to them. If you read the summary for policy makers from the IPCC Fourth Assessment, it is easily understandable by most people. But bear in mind that the IPCC represents a compromise view and is necessarily slightly out of date, so is almost certainly an UNDERESTIMATE of the real scientific understanding.




I agree, but we can only base what's being done on the science and the science indicates that we cannot do enough to undo what is done, therefore we have to decide how much climate change we are prepared to put up with which, comes down to politics. I would remind everyone that so far we are tracking the worst case scenario in both CO2 (and other greenhouse gas emissions) and global temperatures and have been ever scince the iPCC was created. So in effect to date we have done nothing and we are pretty much getting what was predicted 20 years ago.

[renormalised]

BUGGER!!!!. You're not going to believe this!!! I was typing out a really good response in reply to you, Everard, and then trust me to hit the wrong key!!!. I lost it all:(

Had a good train of thought going and then threw a spanner in the works!!!.

However, one thing I will say here (that I had already written but lost) in the last 20 or so glacial/interglacial periods in the preceding 1 million or so years BP, our present interglacial was not the warmest, nor the most stable climatically. The last interglacial (125-110Ka BP) was some 6 degrees warmer and the atmospheric CO2 content was about 5-10% higher than normal. Sea levels were 6 metres higher globally than at present. One of the consequences was that most of the Sahara wasn't desert but savannah with scattered woodlands. The planet was wetter overall than now. However, along with the last interglacial and about 2 or so others, ours is one of the warmer ones.

I don't think we need to add to it!!!!.

Let's not see the CO2 level reach late Paleocene-Eocene levels...they were some 3 or so times higher than now. Global temps were 12-15 degrees warmer and there were no deserts or polar icecaps!!!. Antarctica was covered in warm temperate forests!!!.

[GrampianStars]

:lol: :eyepop: not on this planet :rofl:

[renormalised]

Yes we have.....ever since the beginning of the late Neolithic to Bronze Age (depending on where you are...it's different for different regions on the planet) and the beginnings of widespread agriculture and deforestation, we have been effecting the climate. Much of Europe had already been deforested from it's previous biome type by about 4000BC. What you see there now, except in some parts, has been completely altered from what was there when the population was mainly hunter gatherers. And, that alteration occurred a lot earlier than most people know or realise, hence your response. The UK, for example, had been almost completely cleared of it's virgin forests by the last Bronze Age, except for some patches here and there. Along with the natural changes in climate, our own interference has contributed quite markedly to what we see now. You change the local regional microclimate, and any changes globally will impact on them rather differently than what they would normally otherwise have. And, that's precisely what we see.

[Solanum]

It's annoying when that happens. Sometimes, Firefox seems to remember and hitting the back button brings it back - but sometimes it doesn't.



Not sure what "normal" is, but CO2 has certainly not reached the current levels for a few million years. See attached figure.jpg for CO2 over the last 600ky it doesn't get close to now. You might be right on temp (look at the delta-D on the same figure), but temp is much more an estimate than CO2 as we can't measure it directly (CO2 conc in air bubbles in ice is measured). Sea levels look pretty similar to me (see figure 2). However, certainly the further back we go the more sketchy our data is and the more error involved in it's estimates. Both figures from the Fourth Assessment Report by the way.



No argument there!

[Solanum]

Indeed, I was brought up by the Pennines in England and for a long time it was thought that the peat bogs were the climax vegetation there, until peat mining got to a big scale and they found that underneath the peat were preserved tree stumps where you could still see the marks from the bronze age axes....

[renormalised]

Normal is around 250-275 ppm CO2. It was around 300ppm during the last interglacial. The sea level was higher than now. Apart from the usual academic sources, I'm not more than half a mile away from the old, last interglacial beach ridge and foreshore here at home. Most of it has been built over and you can't see it but there are spots where the topography and the soil type betrays it's presence. Not only that, but I've cored through it before and gotten sea shells:D

[Solanum]

You can age climate change researchers by the atmospheric CO2 when they started. So for me when I was at university CO2 was about 365ppm, when I started in research about 370 or so, and now it's more like 380. Some of the older guys started off when it was only 340odd. I see it as a bit like tree rings!

[renormalised]

Well, when I started at uni, it was 345ppm:P:D

[AstralTraveller]

For me it is more appropriate to quote the change in the 13C/12C ratio of atmospheric CO2 since I started working in stable isotopes. The ratio has decreased by 0.24 permil (parts per thousand) in that time. The reason the atmosphere is becoming isotopically lighter is that fossil fuel has a much lower 13C content than CO2 from natural sources - principally the ocean.

[Solanum]

Out of interest, what is the typical delta-C of fossil fuels? Rubisco fractionates by about -28 per mil, is that pretty much what you see? Or is it shifted significantly from that? We can use the fractionation in plants to estimate the long-term stomatal condutance (well the Ci/Ca ratio anyway), it would be fascinating if you could do that on geological timescales!

[renormalised]

Well, right this minute, given the way my back is aching, I have a U/Pb ratio of about 0.05, which makes me (feel) damn old!!!:P:D

[renormalised]

Unfortunately, you're not going to be able to do that, because of the way organic matter gets preserved in the fossil record. You may not even see any stomata on leaves at all, unless the preservation medium is extremely fine grained and the process of fossilisation rather benign. Your best bet is low temp/pressure burial in very fine grain siltstone. Even then, you're going to get C ratios that are out of whack due to low temp metasomatic effects. You may not have any carbon left at all, having been completely replaced by silicates and oxides in the fossilisation process.

The only way you could get the right sort of preservation conditions under normal circumstances would be to have some freak occurrence within a coal bed perfectly preserving the leaves etc. Though, the older the coal, the less chance you'd have of seeing those conditions occur. I do know of some cases where leaves have been so perfectly preserved in coal beds that you could see stomata and even chloroplasts in the leaves (they were still green leaves), but only in coal beds of very recent origin. None of your normal Permo-Carboniferous coal beds have that kind of preservation, as far as I can remember.

[AstralTraveller]

I believe fossil fuel is about -28 permil. For a terrestial C3 plant the bulk carbon has a carbon-isotope composition between about -24 permil for plants in very arid environments down to about -32 permil for plants under a rainforest conopy. C4 plants have a much narrower range arount -11 permil. During decomposition down to the level of peat there is a negative shift of 1-2 permil (from my very faulty memory).



Indeed. See my unfinished thesis.

I'll have to sign off now for the day. I have a job application to write!

[Solanum]

Most of the stuff I've measured has been between -24 & -28. Given that higher plant Rubisco normally has a discrimination close to -28, I'd be interested to know how they get to -32, whether it is indicative of more cellulose/lignin etc.. I suppose I could look it up and it is part of what the lab I used to work in was working on, so I ought to know really! Though they were shifting to looking at 18O more than 13C.

Good luck with the thesis and job application.

[glenc]

"What is clear, though, is that even the lowest, most conservative estimates are now higher than the IPCC's highest estimate. "Most of my community is comfortable expecting at least a metre by the end of this century," says Bindschadler.
Most glaciologists who study Greenland and Antarctica are expecting at least a metre rise by the end of the century.
And it will not stop at a metre. "When we talk of sea level rising by 1 or 2 metres by 2100, remember that it is still going to be rising after 2100," Rignot warns."
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327151.300-sea-level-rise-its-worse-than-we-thought.html?full=true

[rider]

Minister Garrett is now involved with the Uluru park legislation, - he heard the words "climb-it change"

[AstralTraveller]

Just let me be the first to say 'yuk'. YUK YUK YUK :eek:

[leinad]

:lol: :lol:

[Barrykgerdes]

Ah! Ah!

I think the pollies are at last starting to wake up to climate change scam designed to wreck the western worlds economy and make zillions for perpetrators. There is no proof that that the world is getting hotter outside the normal range. Carbon dioxide is not having any effect on climate even if it is 40% higher than it was 50 years ago.

Our family first senator has started something in his trip to the USA to find the proof of climate change that apparently does not exist.

BAZ;)

[beefking]

who are these perpetrators? Please identify them as the people behind this conspiracy need to be exposed.

[pgc hunter]

Dear AL Gore, all mighty "global warming" fear mongering extremist:

Can you please remove all cloud and rain from Melbourne for the next 365 days so I CAN SEE SOME FREAKING STARS ALREADY? :mad2:

[Solanum]

I know, he's a smart guy. Thank goodness we have him in parliament or I don't know where we would be! I propose that we increase his travel budget so that he can attend more 'informative' conferences. That way we can all find out what is really going on in the world. I mean, as if man has really been to the moon, I bet he could find the smoking gun that proves it a hoax! ;)

[renormalised]

Yep, he's going to tackle the problem with "The Power and the Passion" of any good politician:P:P:D:D

[glenc]

Doran and Kendall Zimmerman, 2009

A poll performed by Peter Doran (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Doran) and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at Earth and Environmental Sciences (http://www.uic.edu/depts/geos/), University of Illinois at Chicago (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Illinois_at_Chicago) received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 96.2% of climatologists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatologists) who are active in climate research believe that mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and 97.4% believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 80% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in human involvement. A summary from the survey states that:
"It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes."[82] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_chang e#cite_note-81)

[renormalised]

But that's only 97.4% of climatologists believe in the impact of human activity on the climate. Overall, from this survey, it's only 80%. There are vested interests, both commercial and academic apparent in the survey, with regards to who the respondents were. It's only natural petroleum geologists would be the most skeptical...it's their jobs if we decide to stop looking for or using crude oil!!!. Climatologists would mostly back it to the hilt as it's their academic reputations and funding which is on the line if they prove to be in error. Even though 90% believe there's been a rise in temps cf to pre-1800 levels, that still leaves a large proportion that have doubts. Even more still for the 80% who believe in significant human activity. What makes it even worse is that only about 33% of the polled scientists even bothered to respond. And, I think the main reason why is that those that didn't respond don't want to get caught up in the inevitable slanging match which would ensue from a full on debate over climate change. The problem is, if you don't believe in and tow the "party line", you'll get howled down and labelled a pariah, a charlatan, working for "Big Oil" etc etc. If you go too far the other way, you'll be labelled a scaremonger, reactionary, etc etc, by the more conservative press and the politicians, big business and so forth. No one wants to endure the garbage they'd get served out, and no one wants to risk their academic reputations, funding, and even social standing amongst friends, family, colleagues etc, by going out on a limb and saying something. For most, it's just not worth it, in their eyes. Unfortunately, a seriously level headed and considered debate is needed in order to get to the bottom of the whole climate change question. If it doesn't occur and is acted upon, then we may make terrible mistakes either way and that will cost much money and maybe even lives and livelyhoods of a great many people.

[avandonk]

The Senator is a moron. He can barely have an argument with himself. The 'graph' he is showing to anyone that can be cornered is a carefully selective bit of the total picture. What is even worse he is a creationist! The poor fool says that Al Gore will not meet him because of Al's fear of what the Senator has to say. It is really because the said Senator is a moron and his 'evidence' is a total fabrication.

You can all argue amongst yourselves. I honestly do not care for me. I am worried about my children and grandchildren and so forth.

I wonder if that said Senator argues with the designers of modern airliners and says that all your computer models are doubtful as he happily gets on!

Bert

[glenc]

Carl a 30% response to a poll is very good. Only 2.6% of those active in climate research believe that human activity is NOT a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.

[renormalised]

Normally it would be, but this is something where a 30% response isn't good enough.

[glenc]

Plimer was mentioned in another thread.
Here is an analysis of his book. http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/09/01/spot-the-recycled-denial-iii-%E2%80%93-prof-ian-plimer/

[sjastro]

On the subject of Plimer did anyone watch his farcical debate with The Guardian journalist George Monbiot on ABCs Lateline last night?

Plimer would do any politician proud in how he avoided answering the questions.

Steven

[renormalised]

If you're going to hold a debate on climate change, you'd have been much better served having two scientists debating the subject, not a scientist and a moron. If Plimer had been on the ball (and knew a bit more about the subject), he could've torn Monbiot to pieces. The problem with the way Plimer was arguing is that he looked ingenuous and dodgy. Monbiot was trying to pin Plimer on some controversy and succeeded for the most part. Given that 99% of people would have no clue about what was being talked about, they'd believe Monbiot and the latest "news" rather than Plimer. Monbiot himself has no clue about anything to do with climate. It'd be a safe bet he knows jack about even how the daily weather works.

There's a lot more to the workings of climate change that you're not being told about. For instance, during the medieval climate warming, England and much of Europe were 3-5 degrees warmer than they are now. Greenland has breadfruit trees growing there. The east coast of North America was warmer and wetter. Australia, on the other hand, was dryer and cooler (there was a 35 year long drought here at the time). Then between 1480 and 1850, the place was frozen solid...during the period of the Maunder Minimum. I could go on about this, but I won't.

Yes, it can be said that the planet has heated up, however what they not telling you is the other changes which have contributed to this heating which are just as important, if not more so, than the CO2 output. They've had temperature measurements for the last 150-170 years. But looks what's happened in that time. Forests have been drastically reduced in size, urban areas have swelled in size and there are differences in construction materials, land use practices have changed and vastly more area of the Earth's surface is being cultivated as plant monocultures, there are far more cows now than before, etc. All of these contribute to the changes which have and are occurring. It's not just CO2 which heats up an atmosphere. Everything that I have mentioned previously has changed the heat budget of this planet to such a degree that to compare temperatures taken earlier last century and before, with any trends now, is meaningless. For a start, you have changed the initial conditions to such an extent that any measurement taken now cannot be a reflection of change within one particular variable, CO2 in this instance. This planet, quantitatively and qualitatively, reflects far more mid IR now than it did 100 years ago due to all those changes. It's only natural that any increase in the atmospheric CO2 concentration would trap this extra heat energy and heat it up. The heat budget has changed...you change one side of the equation and you will change the other in order to keep an equilibrium. The measured changes in temperature that have occurred are a result of those changes. They're also a result of where those measurements were, and are, being taken from. The results of the climate modelling are also dependent on just how complex and accurate the GCM algorithms the scientist are using and the quality of the data they use. It's then dependent on how they interpret the results.

Now, I wouldn't advocate seeing a rise in CO2 levels from the present because the CO2 will cause an increase in warming...just as I believe it has contributed to a rise in temperatures. However, it is not the sole cause in this rise. However, if the climate change "evangelists" are to be believed, it's the CO2 and nothing but which has caused it all. That's why there is that controversy over what those scientist's emails are about. You're not being told the whole truth, not even part of it, and in order to keep their pet projects going they will stoop to fraud and lies in order to do so.

In the final analysis of last night's debate, I would sooner trust Plimer's research and referencing, even if his conclusions were wrong and somewhat controversial, than some turkey who's idea of science is a cross between Dr Frankenstein and the movie "Weird Science". If he wants to argue the matter on points of social impact in relation to the worthiness of the news, then fine. That's his job....spin doctor. But when it comes to arguing the reality of the science, he should go find a nice cafe and sip on his latte whilst reading The Times, for all it's worth as far as how much he actually understands the matter.

[avandonk]

Chris Plimers book was reviewed by an astrophycisist and was found to be wanting in both facts and deductive reasoning. The ridiculous amount of references were misquoted when it really mattered. The rest were there as padding to a tome which has no basis in reality.

Here from that august anti Global Warming Journal the Australian!

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth/story-e6frg8no-1225710387147

As a retired physicist I am well aware of the complexity of the variables and the so called driving forces of our climate. Note I said Climate which is a long term global average not local weather.

I am personally sad at the number of commentators and journoes that can barely integrate or differentiate the exponential to the power x. Yes this is a trick question! They then have the nerve to denigrate climate models they cannot even begin to understand.

Even if you think the climate models are wanting can you ignore the many signs that something is terribly wrong. I could write several pages of really obvious signs of change.

The Sun has been totally exonerated as a driving factor so what is the cause?

Bert

[GrampianStars]

An extract from Rudd's Global Warming policy :thanx:
“All propaganda has to be popular and has to accommodate itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach.”
"“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it”
( Adolf Hitler 1889-1945 )
;)

[avandonk]

Thank you for that as it is exactly what method the denialists are using!

Bert

[PeterM]

Can someone explain to me how "Henry's law" fits into all of this.
Thanks
PeterM.

[glenc]

I think that the climate is changing and most of the change is man made.
But I do not agree with Rudd's and Turnbull's ETS (CPRS). I think it mainly benefits the big polluters not the planet or the people.
Here is another way to reduce CO2. http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/11/27/hansen-to-obama-pt-ii-carbon-tax-with-100-dividend/
The hacked emails get a mention here:[/URL] [url]http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18238-why-theres-no-sign-of-a-climate-conspiracy-in-hacked-emails.html?full=true (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18238-why-theres-no-sign-of-a-climate-conspiracy-in-hacked-emails.html)

[leinad]

This thread makes me sad.

How do we deal with world population growth and the climate through to 2020-2050. Why is this not mentioned anywhere!
Isn't this a major contributing factor? China is very aware of this at present, and is one of their arguments for assisting to regulate pollution increases, etc.

[sjastro]

Carl,

I don't assume the viewing audience is quite as dumb and ignorant as you give them credit for.

Plimer is a scientist in his own profession, that doesn't make him a climate scientist. His opinions are as lightweight as those of Monboit.
The fact that neither is capable of arguing climate science at a high technical level would actually make the discussion comprehensible to most people.

Plimer simply refused to answer some very basic questions and lost all credibility in the process.

Steven

[glenc]

Four key reasons why it is important that we use a fee-and-dividend approach to regulating carbon emissions:
1) Fee-and-dividend is, without any doubt, the best way to regulate carbon emissions.
There is near universal agreement among experts including Al Gore, Jim Hansen, the inventors of cap-and-trade, economists, the CBO, EPA regulators, and Sierra Club that fee-and-dividend is the best way to achieve the goal of carbon emission reductions because it puts a predictable price on carbon. Conversely, cap-and-trade, even in the most optimistic scenario, would achieve virtually no reductions and in any practical, real-life scenario, would actually make the problem worse because at best it would lock in today’s emissions for decades.
2) Fee-and-dividend is popular with voters.
Fee-and-dividend is politically viable. In British Columbia where the opposition party made it an election issue, they proved it was political suicide to oppose it (http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/british-columbias-carbon-tax-survives/). The opposition party now supports it. There are now carbon fee laws all over the world, including in the US.
3) Fee-and-dividend helps our economy and our environment: it is a double-dividend.
Fee-and-dividend helps our economy whereas cap-and-trade would hurt our economy. So fee-and-dividend is a great idea even if you don’t believe in global warming; we pass the bill for the economic benefit and we get the environmental benefit for free. Economists call this double benefit (economy and environment) the “double dividend.” Cap-and-trade does not have a double dividend.
4) Cap-and-trade would irreparably harm our environment and hurt our economy.
The cap-and-trade bills would, even under ideal circumstances, insignificantly reduce emissions by 2020 according to the CBO analysis. Under any practical scenario, it would hurt the environment irreparably because it allows business as usual (BAU) for 17 years. This is why Jim Hansen is so against it and why key individuals within the green groups are personally opposed to the cap-and-trade part of the House and Senate bills. Cap-and-trade is a “double whammy,” hurting both our economy and environment.
http://bravenewclimate.com/

[ngcles]

Hi Bert & All,



Perhaps we ought to hear a quote from Dr Stephen Schneider, who was a Coordinating Lead Author in Working Group II IPCC TAR and is currently a co-anchor of the Key Vulnerabilities Cross-Cutting Theme for the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) (biographical material extracted from Wikipedia) who said ...

"On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both."

Emphasis added.

Please explain how this all squares-up with honest, scientific method?

He "hopes" to be both honest and effective? How can we tell when he isn't being "both"?


Best,

Les D

[Bassnut]

Excellent link Glen, leads to wealth of other links that make me more sceptical than ever :thumbsup:.

[Peter Ward]

I should not be amazed that this thread is still going....and have pondered many of the responses here to see if my position has changed (it hasn't)

New Scientist had this interesting stat: a recent poll found that 97.4% of active climatologists agree that human activity is warming the planet.

OK, lets say *you* have cancer.

You visit many specialists, and 97 of them say: Mate, you're gonna die unless we operate.

Three say: You'll get better, just keep doing what you are doing, don't worry, you'll be fine.

Who would you believe? What would *you* do?



P.S. Rudd's ETS is a crock.....and has been expertly pointed out elsewhere...the coal industry pays Labor party coffers well ;)