A hotter sun means a hotter earth

[clive milne]

You do realise that the scientist quoted (at 8:30) is Fred Singer... the same guy who tried to sell us the idea that tobacco isn't responsible for lung cancer... it's the radioactive isotope oxygen15 apparently.

http://tobaccodocuments.org/nysa_ti_s3/TI10841120.html

and here:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010...st_whopper.php

In a world of tens of thousands of scientists, is it unreasonable to expect that one of them will regurgitate utter rubbish or what ever you pay them to?

Here's what the rest of the scientific community has to say on the subject of climate change:


Scientists need to back up their opinions with research and data that survive the peer-review process. A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused (Oreskes 2004). 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way (focused on methods or paleoclimate analysis).

Subsequent research has confirmed this result. A survey of 3146 earth scientists asked the question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009). More than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had master’s degrees. Overall, 82% of the scientists answered yes. However, what are most interesting are responses compared to the level of expertise in climate science. Of scientists who were non-climatologists and didn't publish research, 77% answered yes. In contrast, 97.5% of climatologists who actively publish research on climate change responded yes. As the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement that humans are significantly changing global temperatures.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/imag...scientists.gif

Figure 1: Response to the survey question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009) General public data come from a 2008 Gallup poll.

Most striking is the divide between expert climate scientists (97.4%) and the general public (58%). The paper concludes:

"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. The challenge, rather, appears to be how to effectively communicate this fact to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists."
This overwhelming consensus among climate experts is confirmed by an independent study that surveys all climate scientists who have publicly signed declarations supporting or rejecting the consensus. They find between 97% to 98% of climate experts support the consensus (Anderegg 2010). Moreover, they examine the number of publications by each scientist as a measure of expertise in climate science. They find the average number of publications by unconvinced scientists (eg - skeptics) is around half the number by scientists convinced by the evidence. Not only is there a vast difference in the number of convinced versus unconvinced scientists, there is also a considerable gap in expertise between the two groups.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics...blications.gif

Figure 2: Distribution of the number of researchers convinced by the evidence of anthropogenic climate change and unconvinced by the evidence with a given number of total climate publications (Anderegg 2010).

Scientific organizations endorsing the consensus
The following scientific organizations endorse the consensus position that "most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities":

American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO
British Antarctic Survey
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Environmental Protection Agency
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
Federation of American Scientists
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA)
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
National Center for Atmospheric Research
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Royal Meteorological Society
Royal Society of the UK
The Academies of Science from 19 different countries all endorse the consensus. 11 countries have signed a joint statement endorsing the consensus position:

Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academie des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (USA) (12 Mar 2009 news release)
A letter from 18 scientific organizations to US Congress states:

"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science."
The consensus is also endorsed by a Joint statement by the Network of African Science Academies (NASAC), including the following bodies:

African Academy of Sciences
Cameroon Academy of Sciences
Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
Kenya National Academy of Sciences
Madagascar's National Academy of Arts, Letters and Sciences
Nigerian Academy of Sciences
l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Uganda National Academy of Sciences
Academy of Science of South Africa
Tanzania Academy of Sciences
Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences
Zambia Academy of Sciences
Sudan Academy of Sciences
Two other Academies of Sciences that endorse the consensus:

Royal Society of New Zealand
Polish Academy of Sciences

[clive milne]

But in the mean time...
public opinion is manipulated like so:


http://www.readfearn.com/tag/gina-rinehart/

Speaking engagements for climate change shills, courtesy of Gina Rinehart.



Gosh... which side of the debate is credible I wonder...

[Dave2042 (Dave)]

Can't resist adding a point, since I just said something similar here:
http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/s...ad.php?t=84528

(Hope that works, it's the faster than light thread.)

Briefly, my point is that science is an integrated body of knowledge, so that all the different things known in science support each other and can't be viewed in isolation. Claim one thing is wrong, and you are generally forced to accept a whole bunch of other things must be wrong too. This narrows down what can 'reasonably' be questioned - not because 'scientists say so', but because there are things we really know on the basis that so much stuff works as a result.

In climate science, we know that burning CO2 is warming the globe because the science that tells us this is the same basic science that makes aeroplanes stay up (fluid dynamics), runs refrigerators (thermodynamics), produces materials (chemistry) and makes TV and radio work (electrodynamics).

Of course, the climate is wildly complicated,which is why (a) there are specific behaviours which are not understood, even though the basics are and (b) scientists continue to research it.

If you're going to say the basic proposition of global warming is wrong, you need to explain why you think the planes stay up and the fridges still run, event though the science behind them is wrong.

I've never heard a 'sceptic' (the inverted commas are important) even try to explain this.

[clive milne]

Excellent point Dave.

One further comment I'd like to add is that I believe the media's is actively inculcating doubt in the public mind with respect to the seriousness (and reality) of AGW. The doco referenced earlier in the thread shows an example of this. ie), the statement is made that 50% of people in the US (30% in Britain) don't believe in anthropogenic global warming, the next sentence is something along the lines of that there are scientists who profess to be sceptics too. (Implicitly, you may be invited to think same percentage of scientists hold this view as well)
These are all true statements, but they do not leave you with an accurate picture.
The truth is; sure, a large portion of the public is sceptical, but that is simply because they rely on the Sydney Morning Herald etc) to mold their opinion. The main stream media is constantly peddling the fiction that climate scientists lack any real consensus on the topic. The fact is that 98% of people working in this field are ringing alarm bells. In contrast, there has not been a single peer reviewed paper published in almost 20 years that questions it.

As for the carbon tax ruining the economy....
Again, this is an example of public opinion following media suggestion.
It's going to add 2c per kWh to your electricity bill. Now why is it that WA electricity prices can go up by more than double that in one hit (with the profits going to the coal fired power supplier) and it gets 5 lines of print on page 17? Where is the economic disaster that should have come from that?
Has the media bothered to tell you that Australia could levy a carbon tax 7x greater than the one proposed, and we would still have cheaper fuel and electricity prices than Germany...

Also... does it not seem curious that solar (electricity & hot water) is viable and economic in countries like Britain and Germany, while a country such as Australia which has double the insolation rate can't make it work?

Has anybody actually read in the paper how much climate change is going to cost us in the long run? From memory, a recent British study put the cost of climate change (once it really kicks in) at 20% of GDP. In contrast, the cost of averting that disaster is estimated to be 2% of GDP. 1/10th the cost.

The insanity of inaction beggars belief. I'm stunned that this even warrants a debate.

Incidentally... for those that weren't aware of it, we have maybe 5 years to drastically decarbonise the world's economy, otherwise the positive feedback loops will pretty much take things out of our hands.

http://www.green-blog.org/2011/11/11...sions-soaring/

btw) How is summer working out for you guys in QLD and northern NSW?

[marki]

The climate debate is rubbish and I will tell you why. One side says yay, the other side says nay but the truth is the majority of homo sapiens don't give a rats RS about it. Why? 100 years you say, oh well the kids can sort it out then, nothing to see here. Don't think the powers that be aren't savy to this you only have to observe their reponse.......i.e nothing proactive just lame attempts of revenue raising. I have upset a number of people making such comments over my time here, even been accused by some of being in denial. They are wrong, I am just sick of seeing these threads argued out in the same fashion over and over again. As someone with a solid scientific background the evidence is plain to see. Stop fighting against an ill informed ignorant group of morons and put a rocket up the backsides of those that can really initiate change.....the bean counters and puppets that are supposed to enforce the will of the people. Until then all you do is argue with trolls. This is a classic example, 1 post then dissappear to watch the fight from the sidelines. Your enemy is not the troll but those that continue to do nothing. Why don't they respond? The numbers are not there to support such action, it has nothing to do with random crap posted by fools.

Mark

[clive milne]

Originally Posted by marki

The climate debate is rubbish and I will tell you why. One side says yay, the other side says nay

I'm really struggling to parse what you wrote there.

Is this what you are intimating?

The scientist researching climate change (well 98% of them) are saying one thing, but the world's governments, corporations and media are contradicting them, therefore the whole discussion is invalid and we should just shrug our shoulders and talk about something else other than the imminent (partial) collapse of our biosphere?

[snas (Stuart)]

Been a pretty cool Summer here in SE Qld. What does that mean for GW? Pretty much nothing I reckon.

Stuart

[clive milne]

What happens when you put heat in to a body of water (such as a tropical ocean for example)?

[marki]

Originally Posted by clive milne

I'm really struggling to parse what you wrote there.

Is this what you are intimating?

The scientist researching climate change (well 98% of them) are saying one thing, but the world's governments, corporations and media are contradicting them, therefore the whole discussion is invalid and we should just shrug our shoulders and talk about something else other than the imminent (partial) collapse of our biosphere?

Nothing so deep and meaningful. I am saying get off your RS and lobby your local MP and encourage everyone you know to do the same rather then wasting time rebuking the ramblings of a troll (in this case the OP). Unless there is a substantial movement to force change then all the rest of it is pointless. Global warming threads have been a no no around here for some time as they usually just start fights.

Mark

[NereidT]

Originally Posted by Dave2042

Briefly, my point is that science is an integrated body of knowledge, so that all the different things known in science support each other and can't be viewed in isolation. Claim one thing is wrong, and you are generally forced to accept a whole bunch of other things must be wrong too. This narrows down what can 'reasonably' be questioned - not because 'scientists say so', but because there are things we really know on the basis that so much stuff works as a result.

Well said.

If I may, I'd like to use this short para of yours, appropriately, in discussions on topics that are (largely based on) pseudo-science (or, sometimes, anti-science).

Is that OK with you?

[Dave2042 (Dave)]

Originally Posted by NereidT

Well said.

If I may, I'd like to use this short para of yours, appropriately, in discussions on topics that are (largely based on) pseudo-science (or, sometimes, anti-science).

Is that OK with you?

No probs. Absolutely delighted at the thought I may assist in the furthering of scientific understanding in some small way.

[space oddity]

Reckon we need a separate forum section on the climate issue. It IS a topic that people have passionate ideas one way or the other and an outlet for discussion is appropriate.
I am passionate on the climate change issue-so passionate I am attending a climate related talk tonight with several dozen like minded people. The 'warmists" treat the issue as though it were a RELIGION - "the science is settled" is taken on FAITH. The only "evidence" out there IS the claim "the science is settled" statement from the IPCC. The IPCC itself is very over represented by the environmental movement. Several of the key points that underpin their argument have been shown to be untrue. The "hockey stick" on which the whole fry-and-die scenario is based has been thoroughly debunked, but continues to be the basis for carbon taxes and other crazy measures. The Himalayan glaciers have not been retreating . The earth has not warmed since 1998. Solar activity(the main driver of climate change) does not feature much if at all in the climate models. Other important variables are missing altogether!
These guys are supposed to be the pinnacle of science, yet their key points are BUNK. Could there be a hidden agenda operating behind the IPCC ? I will post my view on this in a later post- too disturbing for now.

[clive milne]

^^^ Could you point me in the direction of a single peer reviewed scientific paper published in the last 20 years that lends any substance to just one of the suppositions you have stated as fact.

N.B. (David Icke & Greg Sheridan don't count)

[marki]

Here we go again

[clive milne]

Actually.. the side of the debate denying the veracity of the science hasn't gone there at all (as in, hasn't gone to the trouble of supplying any hard data that lends some credibility to the rhetoric they subscribe to)

[andyc (Andy)]

I almost promised I would not coment on this, but... Too many climate myths there to go on, space oddity (I count at least six), so why not take yourself over to www.skepticalscience.com, a great Aussie site, and perhaps the best resource in the world to find out the actual scientific evidence that relates to your claims.

The hockey stick ... has been thoroughly verified by science (see for example NAS, 2006), and appears in a range of records, not just tree rings, e.g.:
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11676

Notwithstanding that, the hockey stick does not underpin climate science, it's the physics of the atmosphere that does that, key observations being that less energy is escaping to space at wavelengths specific to greenhouse gases (e.g. Harries 2001), and more radiation is returning to Earth at those same specific wavelengths (e.g. Philipona 2004), a property of CO2 understood since Tyndall and a consequence predicted all the way since Arrhenius (he forecast back around the start of the 20th Century a 2-5C warming per doubling of atmospheric CO2).

And it's not just the physics of the atmosphere that leads us to the inescapable conclusions, as part of a huge consilience of consistent evidence ranging from palaeoclimate, physics, observations and models, there are particular fingerprints that lead us there in the pattern of warming:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/10-I...te-Change.html

As astronomers, we should all be extremely aware of the capability for certain elements and molecules to emit and absorb radiation at particular wavelengths. It's what makes most of astrophysics and our understanding of the Universe possible! It's why our UHC and OIII filters work so well on nebulae. Unfortunately for us, we are vastly increasing the concentration of one of the key scatterers of longwave radiation in our atmosphere. To pretend that either it is not happening or it won't be a major change means, like the great quote below by Dave2042, you have to pretend a vast amount of other, related, science does not work either.

[clive milne]

Hey Andy,

If you like John Cook's work, he does the odd cameo on 'the climate show'

http://www.theclimateshow.com/

Click on any of the youtube feeds if you have an hour to kill.

best,
~c

[clive milne]

Originally Posted by space oddity

I am passionate on the climate change issue-so passionate I am attending a climate related talk tonight with several dozen like minded people

If you would like an opportunity to test your ideas, you will not want to miss the following opportunity:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Clim...ey-Feb-28.html

John Cook will be giving a presentation Climate Change: Busting the Myths at Lane Cove, Sydney on Feb 28, organised by Sustain Me Consulting. The evening will feature climate mythbusting followed by examples of local climate action. The mythbusting will take an interesting, interactive approach. The audience will break into groups and select 3 climate myths they'd most like to hear about. He'll then attempt to debunk the myths. Next, the audience will rate his effort, deciding whether the myths have been busted or not. Given that he has no idea what myths will get thrown at him, the evening could be an engaging, illuminating experience for all... or it could be a train wreck. Either way, bring popcorn! You can register for the event here (there are around 20 spots still available).

http://sustainme.wufoo.eu/forms/climate-change-q-and-a/

[avandonk]

Check out this expose

http://www.skepticalscience.com/deni...heartland.html


Bert

[clive milne]

Originally Posted by avandonk

Check out this expose

http://www.skepticalscience.com/deni...heartland.html


Bert

I'm not surprised in the slightest.

I suppose Gina Reinhardt deserves credit for having the guts to not hide her willingness to fund climate shills.