Global Warming - who do you believe???

[Allan_L (Allan)]

This is a good read --> From the Australian Today (19 June 2009):

STEVE Fielding recently attended a climate change conference in Washington, DC. Listening to the papers presented, the Family First senator became puzzled that the scientific analyses they provided directly contradicted the reasons the Australian government had been giving as the justification for its emissions trading legislation.

Fielding heard leading atmospheric physicist Dick Lindzen, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, describe evidence that the warming effect of carbon dioxide was much overestimated by computer climate models and remark: ``What we see, then, is that the very foundation of the issue of global warming is wrong.

``In a normal field, these results would pretty much wrap things up, but global warming-climate change has developed so much momentum that it has a life of its own quite removed from science.''

Another scientist, astrophysicist Willie Soon, from the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics, commented: ``A magical CO2 knob for controlling weather and climate simply does not exist.'' Think about that for a moment with respect to our government's climate policy.

On his return to Canberra Fielding asked Climate Change Minister Penny Wong to answer three simple questions about the relationship between human carbon dioxide emissions and alleged dangerous global warming.

Fielding was seeking evidence, as opposed to unvalidated computer model projections, that human carbon dioxide emissions are driving dangerous global warming, to help him, and the public, assess whether cutting emissions would be a cost-effective environmental measure.

After all, the cost to Australian taxpayers of the planned emissions trading bill is about $4000 a family a year for a carbon dioxide tax of $30 a tonne. The estimated benefit of such a large tax increase is that it may perhaps prevent an unmeasurable one-ten-thousandth of a degree of global warming from occurring. Next year? No, by 2100.

The questions posed were:

1* Is it the case that CO2 increased by 5percent since 1998 while global temperature cooled during the same period? If so, why did the temperature not increase, and how can human emissions be to blame for dangerous levels of warming?

2* Is it the case that the rate and magnitude of warming between 1979 and 1998 (the late 20th-century phase of global warming) were not unusual as compared with warmings that have occurred earlier in the Earth's history? If the warming was not unusual, why is it perceived to have been caused by human CO2 emissions and, in any event, why is warming a problem if the Earth has experienced similar warmings in the past?

3* Is it the case that all computer models projected a steady increase in temperature for the period 1990 to 2008, whereas in fact there were only eight years of warming followed by 10years of stasis and cooling? If so, why is it assumed that long-term climate projections by the same models are suitable as a basis for public policy-making?

As independent scientists attending the meeting, we found the minister's advisers unable, indeed in some part unwilling, to answer the questions.

We were told that the first question needed rephrasing because it did not take account of the global thermal balance and the fact much of the heat that drives the climate system is lodged in the ocean.

Que? What is it about ``carbon dioxide has increased and temperature has decreased'' that the minister's science advisers don't understand?

The second question was dismissed with the comment that climatic events that occurred in the distant geological past were not relevant to policy concerned with contemporary climate change. Try telling that to geologist Ian Plimer.

And regarding the accuracy of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's computer models, we were assured that better models were in the pipeline. So the minister's advisers apparently concede that the models that have guided preparation of the emissions trading scheme legislation are inadequate.

These are not adequate responses.

It was reported in the Business Age last July that the ministry of climate change's green paper on climate change, which was issued as a prelude to carbon dioxide taxation legislation, contained scientific errors and over-simplifications. Almost 12 months on, our experience confirms that the scientific advice Wong is receiving is inadequate to justify the exorbitantly costly upheaval of our society's energy usage that will be driven by the government's ETS legislation.

All Australians owe Fielding a vote of thanks for having had the political courage to ask in parliament where the climate empress's clothes have gone. Together with the senator, and the public, we await with interest any further answers to his questions that Wong's advisers may yet provide.

Geologist Bob Carter, carbon modeller David Evans, hydrologist-climatologist Stewart Franks and meteorologist-climatologist Bill Kininmonth attended the meeting between Steve Fielding, Penny Wong, Chief Scientist Penny Sackett and ANU Climate Change Institute executive director Will Steffen. Sackett has so far declined to answer Fielding's questions on this page.

[Peter Ward]

Alan, first up I find the notion "what do you believe" adds a almost religious fervour to the debate. Not helpful.

I might believe in Rastafarianism. Or if I leap off a 40 storey building, I might believe I can fly (even going past the 10th floor, I could say: so far, so good! ....).

As for that crappy piece in the Australian, it never gets around to asking "what does the data really say?" (as opposed to something we already knew: most of our government Pollies are pretty dim, and ill advised)

There is no doubt the data does say 2005 to 2008 were cooling periods.

But this conveniently ignores the previous 50 years of sustained warming, and the fact that all (reasonable) climate change predictions accept there will be natural variability to all weather events.

If the trend continues to cool for the next 50 years, then we are in the happy situation of "I told you so" .

If however El Nino kicks back in along with the next solar maximum, 2010 may well be the hottest (plus many to follow) on record.

I'd personally rather pay a dumb tax than be flying past the 10th floor on spaceship earth.

[Karls48 (Karl)]

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.

[[1ponders] (Paul)]

Rather than do this topic to death again in a new thread there is an existing thread started by Peter Here

[multiweb (Marc)]

Originally Posted by 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.

Yeah, the global warming tax. Big kev's probably got it in the works now he's broke. Oh wait, he's still got super funds to cream

[Peter Ward]

Just so we are clear:

Straight out of meetings at the Heartland Institute, supported by the American Enterprise Institute, which received $1,625,000 from Exxon-Mobil between and 1998 and 2005 Senator Fielding stated: "So far I don't think there's been a real debate about the science" and "Let's actually explore that".

Can it be that Senator Fielding’s “exploration” may in anyway be affected by his view of the Greens, expressed as "The Greens are in the extreme camp and like any fanatical group, they're locked into ideology"
(thanks to Andrew Glikson at ANU)

AND in today's SMH

"Professor Ross Garnaut...took aim at new-found climate change sceptic Senator Steve Fielding saying he had also spoken to respected atmospheric physicist Richard Lindzen, who Senator Fielding met with on a recent trip to the US, and discounted his opinion that the global warming effect of carbon dioxide is overestimated.


"I would have been delighted if there were 10 or 20 or better still 100 of Richard Lindzens around the world but unfortunately he's a one off,"



Professor Garnaut said. "It would be imprudent beyond the normal limits of irrationality to grab one dissenting view among the serious climate scientists and say `I am going to believe that and not to believe the views of all of Australia's credentialed climate scientists'."


You know it's a fact that some people on the Titanic refused to "believe" the ship was about to sink....nicely dramatized in the Movie...when the ship's owner was less than convinced, Thomas Andrews, the designer says



"She is made of iron, sir. I assure you, she can. And she *will*. It is a mathematical certainty"

[PeterM]

A great read Alan, thanks for posting it.
I don't see how "who do you believe" could add any religious fervour to the debate, probably just a word read wrong.
Seems when the evidence from the otherside gets presented by some credible science all of a sudden the shoes on the other foot and the man made CC theorists have to go into overdrive to find reasons to shoot it down. This is not the scientific way.
Seems to often pop up this time of year when we are all huddled around the 42 inch plasma with the fireplace stoked up, heater on full in the bedroom, computer running all night for IIS posts, then all of a sudden a thought...this man made climate change... hmmm... gotta do something about that...tomorrow after I fill the cars up.
PeterM.

[ngcles]

Hi All,

Yes the warnings in the popular media about AGW are becoming more strongly worded and dramatic.

Consider this quote (emphasis added) and how it applies to the Scientific Method:

"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 the 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 climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails 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."

--Stephen H. Schneider author of the book Global Warming (Sierra Club), in an interview in Discover Magazine, October 1989.

He (Schneider) is 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). During the 1980s Schneider emerged as a leading public advocate of sharp reductions of greenhouse gas emissions to combat global warming. In 2007 the IPCC shared the Nobel Peace Prize with former US vice president, Al Gore, "for efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change."

Reproduced from Wikipedia

It would seem that “being honest” is no longer the test of a good scientist. It must be balanced” with “being effective.”

Who do you believe? Good Question!


Best,

Les D

[Rod66 (Rod)]

Les,

that's probably the closest I have seen yet to the underlying truth behind the current man made climate warming paranoia sweeping the media. I'm pleased to see a lot of good arguments above using the term CO2 and carbon dioxide.
Lets take a look a look at some of the marketing going on here. Consider the terms CARBON trading scheme, CARBON emissions. What immediately comes to mind? Big thick black particles clogging our atmosphere? That's what carbon is right? I'd never heard carbon dioxide abbreviated to carbon until the whole climate change paranoia came about. Now think for a moment what the vast majority of people understand about climate change - its whatever the media tells them... and there are some pretty savvy media people out there.
I think there has been a deliberate attempt to obfuscate the general public about this and the wave of paranoia is only going to be halted by educating people that first of all its a colourless, odourless gas we are talking about and there is conflicting evidence as to the reason why our temperature is changing. Rather than have a scientific debate, leading minds are publicly garotting each other - scientific method thrown out the window..
We need people like Steve Fielding to get to the bottom of this and turn the spending of our hard earned dollars to things that have no doubt as to their benefit to our society. They are our hard earned dollars they are spending right..??

How did I come to an astronomy forum and get tangled up in this?

Rod

[Wavytone]

Well... No denying the mean sea level is rising, thepolar caps and glaciers are melting, and it is getting warmer.

Humanity has shown many times before that it can't resist consuming all of a resource and will not change its ways until a finite resource is gone. All of it.

IMHO the carbon trading scheme will just be a very expensive white elephant, a huge burden to taxpayers, and create yet another bureacracy that achieves absolutely nothing beyond justifying its own existence.

[Marclau (Marcel)]

Damn, here we go again..........another post already exists.........

I might just wear a glove on one hand only when I go outside tomorrow cause the weatherman just said that tomorrow will be cold but on the other hand it might be warm !!! - Global Warming at it's best..........

I might have to go back home and build the bigger dykes to surround Holland totally.........just in case.........

[Marclau (Marcel)]

Originally Posted by Wavytone

Well... No denying the mean sea level is rising, thepolar caps and glaciers are melting, and it is getting warmer.

Humanity has shown many times before that it can't resist consuming all of a resource and will not change its ways until a finite resource is gone. All of it.

IMHO the carbon trading scheme will just be a very expensive white elephant, a huge burden to taxpayers, and create yet another bureacracy that achieves absolutely nothing beyond justifying its own existence.

Wavytone, check out the previous thread on Climate Warming..........and some relative information quickly here: 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 !!

[KenGee (Kenith Gee)]

Les that what happens when people get their information about science from the media. The people who write this stuff, for new papers and popular mags are generally full of it. They spin everything. Just look at some of the silly things that get into Astronomy magazines. If you want to understand the science then read the journals. Reading something a journo wrote is a waste of time. Even worse is reading what a opinion editor. The evidence for global warming has been growing for over four decades. Now is your someone like Steve fielding who will take faith over fact every time it's no wonder he has come back from a visit the conservative thinks tanks in the US now a septic. Those think tanks peddle all sort of anti science:- They are generally anti-evolution, anti-aids, anti-government, home schoolers.
Read the science not the junk created by journalist and their like. $4K and year is nothing compared to what we may lose.
Rod the scientific debate was had 10 years ago, it’s only the conservative think tanks and oil companies that will not except it. As for your description of carbon you are aware how carbon dioxide is made aren’t you. A good example is steel making, Iron is made into steel by removing the carbon in pig iron. In the BOS process oxygen is blown into molten pig iron which exothermically combines with the carbon...guess what is made carbon monoxide/dioxide. It’s the carbon which is the problem, If you have a process that removes carbon you get a credit and if you release it you pay for it. It’s simple. The only problem with the Governments scheme is the rest of the world is not doing it.

[GrahamL]

But if you break it down to sustained Life or sustainable lifestytle
It gets easy .. theres many who dont have a choice in
how there world turns.. and many who do.. Whos up for a wrestle at the bowser tommorow to get that last bit of petrol out of the tank ??

[Rod66 (Rod)]

KennyGee,

at the risk of sounding disagreeable, the debate continues to rage on and I'd point out its more than just conservative think tanks and oil companies - which closet have you been hiding in? The opposite opinion to that is like saying the only people that are supporting this global warming is a has-been vice president and the cronies from universities that he gives funding to. Now I don't believe that's true but it makes as much sense as your statement. There are many supporters that WISH the debate was over, but its not over by a long shot.
As for the creation of emissions you've over simplified it, that's just one example of how greenhouse gasses are created, you do understand greenhouse gasses come from more than just carbon don't you? ie farting cows, land fill, waste dumps etc.. My point is, the media have seized on the term carbon and for some reason the world is fixated on the perception of this black substance in our atmosphere that will block out the sun eventually..
Check this page out for more info on what greenhouse gases are:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_Gases

Sorry but until we get rid of the sensationalism and the untruths and take the emotive statements out of it, we're doomed to let governments implement schemes with questionable benefit, using our hard earned tax payer dollars.
You can probably tell what I think about a carbon trading scheme...

Rod

[Marclau (Marcel)]

Originally Posted by Rod66

KennyGee,

at the risk of sounding disagreeable, the debate continues to rage on and I'd point out its more than just conservative think tanks and oil companies - which closet have you been hiding in? The opposite opinion to that is like saying the only people that are supporting this global warming is a has-been vice president and the cronies from universities that he gives funding to. Now I don't believe that's true but it makes as much sense as your statement. There are many supporters that WISH the debate was over, but its not over by a long shot.
As for the creation of emissions you've over simplified it, that's just one example of how greenhouse gasses are created, you do understand greenhouse gasses come from more than just carbon don't you? ie farting cows, land fill, waste dumps etc.. My point is, the media have seized on the term carbon and for some reason the world is fixated on the perception of this black substance in our atmosphere that will block out the sun eventually..
Check this page out for more info on what greenhouse gases are:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_Gases

Sorry but until we get rid of the sensationalism and the untruths and take the emotive statements out of it, we're doomed to let governments implement schemes with questionable benefit, using our hard earned tax payer dollars.
You can probably tell what I think about a carbon trading scheme...

Rod

Hear, Hear............it's almost always about the mighty $$$

[Allan_L (Allan)]

I am not pushing either side, just presenting the alternative argument for a balanced appreciation of (dare I say) "the facts". i am sorry if that is uncomfortable for some.

But from my experience, when a guy (who is entitled to) asks three simple questions, to help him decide how he should vote in a Federal House of Parliament, and instead of answers, he gets personal attacks, then something smells!

If you want my opinion, I laugh when the media scare munger that we are destroyinging the planet. Ha!
You would have to live with your head in a cupboard not to know that the planet has undergone a hell of a lot more than we could hope to do to it --> and survived.

Make no mistake, we are not destroying the planet. It will survive.
It is just the comfortable habitat that humankind has enjoyed for the last few thoudsand years that we may be damaging.

The planet has proven its resilliance.
We are lucky to be here.
My humble opinion!

BTW: I do fully support a reduction in CO2 emmissions and a movement to renewable energy sources.

Thanks for reading
Allan

[Enchilada]

Just a lot of hot air!!

For me, thank goodness I learnt how to swim when I was at school all those years ago. Them teachers and the education department must have known something of the future and the consumption of the planet would come back and bit us on the bum!
As for the doom-sayers, there is one thing about the human race, we can adapt and fix the problem in the end.
If I have my way, the population of the Earth's six billion odd inhabitants would be reduce to below 50 or 100 million over the next generation or two. (Not extermination per se, but by cutting the birth rate to near absolute zero, and just let Nature take its natural course!)
It is the best Greenhouse or Global Warming method - reducing populations, which in turn reduces the emissions and consumption to a far more reasonable level.

One of the things humans have great difficulties with is not modify our behaviour to adapt to the environment. If the environment is under great stress, then the best way to is take the pressure off is to change the population to improve survival using reasoning instead of let Mother Nature ravish life in a mass extinction on the Earth as a reaction to our own stupid actions.

So if we don't change the end, will be certainly deserved extinction, whose last days of an overpopulated Earth will like be food as Solent Green - with a character in the Charlton Heston vein casting the last stone and laughing his tail off!. Zaius was right when he said in the 1970 Beneath the Planet of the Apes movie; "You ask me to help you?! Man is evil, capable of nothing but destruction!"

Also as stated in the very final words in narration of the same movie ;

"In one of the countless billions of galaxies in the universe, lies a medium-sized star, and one of its satellites, a green and insignificant planet, is now dead."

Please!

[Enchilada]

All I see is some future neo-palaeontologist saying to his colleagues;

"How stupid were these creatures. World at their absolute feet and they still blew it!"

Let's just change the species name from Homo Sapiens to the more descriptive
Home Annia. I.e. Stupid Human.

Make a neat T-shirt methinks, and would probably sell a few too!

"Que Sera Sera.
Whatever will be was we.
The future's is no longer ours, you see.
Que Sera Sera!"

Doris Twilight (1963)

[Marclau (Marcel)]

ummmmmmm...........do some research on Cyrus Vance and Jimmy carter and there secret Global 2000 report........no you can actually find it on the web.

Basically, the report shows how to get rid of 70% of the worlds population. It was signed off in 1980 with the final date being 2012........

It also talks about creating reasons for implementing end goals etc etc.........