The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > A climate change text book for our peers > Comments

A climate change text book for our peers : Comments

By Graham Young, published 15/10/2013

Accepting expert opinion at face value is a failure of due diligence and dereliction of duty, constituting negligence in a public official.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 9
  7. 10
  8. 11
  9. All
Graham Young,

You have allowed your own opinion about carbon pricing to enter and detract from your otherwise excellent article.

While carbon pricing seemed like a good idea in the euphoria leading up to the Copenhagen Conference, it could never have succeeded. This explains why: http://jennifermarohasy.com/2013/08/why-the-ets-will-not-succeed-peter-lang/

In short, unless there is near full participation of all countries and all GHG emissions sources within all countries, the cost penalty to the participants is so high as to be prohibitive. So it cannot succeed - as is being shown by the failing EU ETS, the failed Chicago Carbon Exchange and the soon to be repealed Australian carbon tax and ETS.

The EU carbon ETS included only 45% of the EU's GHG emissions. If the most developed countries in the world can only manage 45% participation, there is clearly next to no chance of rolling out a carbon pricing system across all 195 countries with 80% participation or more. Even if it could be started it would have to be maintained for many decades or centuries. It has to be uniform and tightened frequently and across all countries and all emissions sources in unison. It is impracticable. It is the wrong approach. It won't succeed. The sooner the carbon pricing idea is dropped the better

Furthermore, the assumptions that underpin the economic analyses used to justify carbon pricing are suitable for an academic exercise but totally unrealistic for as real world application.

Please see the link for details.
Posted by Peter Lang, Tuesday, 15 October 2013 8:25:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I really like the title you have given this article. And yes the book suggests we each have a responsibility to become a bit educated on this subject and not just parrot the so-called experts.
Posted by Jennifer, Tuesday, 15 October 2013 8:26:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We're told "so many "experts" say we shouldn't apply the same due diligence to their expertise ..."

Funny, I've never heard an expert say that. Most experts - myself included, would love people to take an interest in their work. Sadly, to take an interest in mine, you'd need a maths degree, and a bit of postgraduate study as well, so I'm not really optimistic.

But for those who don't want to, or don't have the relevant background, or don't have the time, to take an interest in my work, I'd seriously object if you just were to say that I'm wrong, or I haven't proved my case, or whatever. And, allowing for the difference between the fields (that is, in maths, something is either certainly right or certainly wrong, and if its in a published paper it should be provable with absolute certainty), this seems to be pretty much what climate scientists are saying.

And to answer another piece on OLO recently - it's much better that you should read and understand the science. But for those who don't or can't - isn't the fact that it's consistent with an overwhelming consensus is relevant, even if that's only a second-best way of coming to a conclusion?
Posted by jeremy, Tuesday, 15 October 2013 8:40:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jeremy,

The science is contested (especially about the 'catastrophic' bit). And it is not providing the information needed for policy decisions. For example, there is little understanding of the damage function - the costs and benefits of AGW. The case for catastrophic or dangerous AGW is particularly weak.

Furthermore, scientists have become advocates for policies - such as carbon pricing and renewable energy - which they know next to nothing about. So they have seriously damaged their credibility.

We need proper due diligence before we implement policies that would do great economic damage to the world. Climate scientists want their beliefs and the polices they advocate to be accepted, but they have no expertise in fields like due diligence.

Climate change is politically partisan and suffers from massive directed funding, especially by 'progressive' governments. As a result there is a massive amount of group think and herd mentality amongst climate scientists. There is no way I want to see us implement high cost useless policies like those that have been advocated by the activist climate scientists over the past 25 years.
Posted by Peter Lang, Tuesday, 15 October 2013 9:00:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I get the impression that this book, along with most commentaries on the vexed subject of climate change, misses a key issue.

The issue is that reducing greenhouse gases and switching to renewables is very expensive and costs more than most countries are prepared to pay on a large scale. As a result we see lots of token schemes (like our carbon tax or direct action proposals) that are only likely to slow the rate of emissions growth instead of resulting in an actual reduction.

To have sufficient effect to reduce emissions, such taxes would need to be set at levels unacceptable to most people. We also see collateral damage in that energy intensive industries in countries with emissions taxes get driven away to countries with low taxes on such emissions.

In my opinion much of what is said (with a lot of passion) in this debate is academic. In the absence of further technical breakthroughs that might serve to drastically reduce the cost of renewable energy, we better get used to climate change if the consensus of scientists is correct.
Posted by Bren, Tuesday, 15 October 2013 9:18:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'While scientists may have expertise in determining scientific facts they generally have none running economies."

And who does have expertise in running economies? Certainly not the politicians who are following the "advice" of the expert economists.
Since the days of Friedman and the Chicago school, we have been led up a blind alley towards globalisation which is now obviously only a pretext for bigger profits for multinationals.
It is quite obvious that this is a blind alley and will eventually lead to disaster as population increase, a necessary requirement for the so called level playing field with steady growth, brings shortage of everything.
There is also a lot of talk about "the science".
It does not take science to see satellite pictures of the Arctic and see the amount of sea ice that has disappeared, just common sense.
It does not take science to see the extreme weather now being experienced around the world.
It will not take science to experience the diminishing food available to a large part of the population due to climate change , peak cheap oil and population pressure from climate refugees.

The climate denial machine run by "think tanks" set up and paid for by big business is the only reason that there is confusion among the population about global warming.
They are perpetuating the efforts that they put into denying the ill effects of tobacco.
And they are using the same methods.
Posted by Robert LePage, Tuesday, 15 October 2013 9:28:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Public opinion better than expert opinion? I'll remember that next time I'm in for surgery or getting my car fixed!
And surely this sentence "Carter, as a geologist, is a climate scientist" contradicts itself. Carter is a geologist, NOT a climate scientist, or is the author claiming that all geologists are climate scientists?
Posted by John for Justice, Tuesday, 15 October 2013 9:34:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The usual denier obfuscation and distraction tricks here.

Peers means real scientists not shills for the fossil fuel industry like geologists.
Carter, as a geologist, is NOT a climate scientist.

All good science is open to testing, refining and input of new discoveries. Deniers use this to say it is all rubbish because it keeps changing and painting this as a negative. All science needs to be ready to accept that it was wrong if and when new evidence is produced.
So far the deniers have fallen way short of producing anything credible in the way of evidence.
Indeed all the things the scientists warned of are starting to happen. More/longer heatwaves, more destructive storms, more variability and more records broken in day to day weather. More melting everywhere, unusual weather patterns, changing seasons, ocean acidification.

It is not the "warmists" who are ideologues it is the deniers who refuse point blank to see the evidence with their closed minded, macho, man is king attitude.
Posted by mikk, Tuesday, 15 October 2013 9:40:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
jeremy - look, the response to this point about consensus has been made many times, so if you want to repeat the consensus argument you should at least acknowledge it.

A consensus in and of itself on a scientific issue is meaningless. The key question is, can the scientists concerned point to a useful tracking record using the theory? So a consensus about a forecast of a position of a plant at a certain time, for which scientists can point to an established track record over centuries, is vastly different to a consensus about climate forecasting where the models have made no useful forecasts, over the short term at least.

Mathematical proofs are quite different again, as I understand it. You construct a logical proof and, assuming no one can find a flaw, its proved.. Much easier..
Posted by Curmudgeon, Tuesday, 15 October 2013 9:57:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>this is a book which rests on the thesis that the court of public opinion is actually better placed to ultimately tell who is right and who is wrong.<<

In 2009, a poll held by the United Kingdom's Engineering & Technology magazine found that 25% of those surveyed did not believe that men landed on the Moon.

In 2012, a Gallup poll in the U.S. found that 46% of those surveyed believed that God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years.

In 2013, a survey by the Australian Academy of Science found that just 59% of those surveyed knew that the Earth's orbit of the Sun takes a year. 27% of respondents thought that humans inhabited the Earth at the same time as dinosaurs.

When 2 in 5 people struggle with really, really simple astronomy then I have my doubts about the court of public opinion to properly evaluate complex scientific arguments.

Cheers,

Tony
Posted by Tony Lavis, Tuesday, 15 October 2013 10:13:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
< For those who say "peer review" in a learned journal is all that is required to make a paper true, this is a book which rests on the thesis that the court of public opinion is actually better placed to ultimately tell who is right and who is wrong. >

Well, what an amazing basic foundation on which to base the book!

I would say that as a result, it is fundamentally flawed right from the start!

Of course we shouldn’t take peer-reviewed studies as gospel, but they are a whole lot better founded than public opinion!

Public opinion is made up largely (almost entirely) of people who don’t have anywhere near the level of understanding as academics, scientists or other experts.

And as it concerns AGW, public opinion is highly swayed by the vested interests of big business, who talk down climate change and desperately want to continue with business as usual.

But ultimately, we shouldn’t be concentrating on climate change at all. We should be looking at peak oil, supply-demand balance for our energy resources, and how to achieve a sustainable future without suffering a huge crash event first.

This means implementing renewable energy to the best of our ability and addressing population growth, amongst other things.

If we concentrated on this ‘biggest picture’ outlook, we would be doing more to address climate change we would if we were to continue concentrating just on it alone.

The scale and significance of AGW should be moot. We should be doing just about exactly the same sorts of things regardless of whether the outlook is catastrophic, or the world is actually cooling, or anywhere in between.

Think sustainability, not AGW!
Posted by Ludwig, Tuesday, 15 October 2013 10:22:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"For those who say "peer review" in a learned journal is all that is required to make a paper true, this is a book which rests on the thesis that the court of public opinion is actually better placed to ultimately tell who is right and who is wrong.

In fact we know that at least half that is published in peer reviewed journals is wrong, so for any public official to take them at face value without applying their own intellect to probing them is an act of complete negligence."

Wow!

I's akin to the anti-vaccination mob releasing a book amidst the plethora of material to the contrary.

I note the Murdoch press is having second thoughts about climate change.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/climate-change-moves-nemo-current-to-south/story-fnii5s3y-1226739924122

Ocean acidification...

http://apps.seattletimes.com/reports/sea-change/2013/sep/11/pacific-ocean-perilous-turn-overview/
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 15 October 2013 10:26:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So; “Professor Bob Carter wants to know why, then, when it comes to climate change, so many "experts" say we shouldn't apply the same due diligence to their expertise as our legal system applies to any expertise? What's the difference?”

Scientists do apply due diligence in their work, the difference (and the ‘good professor’ knows this) is that science is not 'judged' as in a court of law.

Only one scientifically robust alternative explanation to AGW is required to debunk the overwhelming weight of evidence supporting it. This has not been done (Bob knows this as well).

For what it’s worth, alarmists from both sides should stop playing the “catastrophic” dog-whistle – it’s not catastrophic, yet.
Posted by ozdoc, Tuesday, 15 October 2013 10:34:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My dilemma is to understand how such supposedly highly educated scientists claim to be expert on things climate & evolution etc. yet they haven't got what I would call enough sense that change is on-going, be it climate or otherwise & no tax can stop it. Surely, as a climatologist one would realise that climates change ? Does it really matter if it's man-made change ? we can condemn ourselves until the cows come home but it will do zilch so far as preventing climate change is concerned. Managing to exist with this change is what we need to focus on & for that we don not require expensive experts.
Posted by individual, Tuesday, 15 October 2013 10:39:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks, individual,

As far as the subject of AGW is concerned, your post ably demonstrates why Graham's comment ".... the court of public opinion is actually better placed to ultimately tell who is right and who is wrong...." is utter nonsense.
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 15 October 2013 10:45:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
don't u luv the way the likes of Poirot demonise the Murdoch press. No doubt she forgets luvvies like Phillip Adams (no doubt a true believer) has written heaps of stuff (usually crap) in the Australian newspaper.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 15 October 2013 10:46:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
when it comes to beginnings evolutionist make it up. They dishonestly call it science so it becomes clear that much of what they report as fact with a straight face is nothing short of garbage. Anyone interested in true science knows this.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 15 October 2013 10:57:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Only one scientifically robust alternative explanation to AGW is required to debunk the overwhelming weight of evidence supporting it. This has not been done (Bob knows this as well)."

It has been done; many times:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14179&page=0

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/10/man-made-global-warming-disproved/

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2013/06/man-made-global-warming-wrong-ten.html

AGW is supported by ideology, belief and a lot of money; it has been scientifically invalidated but it has left a legacy of corrupt peer review in climate science as has been admitted to in the emails, huge waste of money, misdirected research, particularly in respect of alternate energy, and a growing mistrust of science.

I'm genuinely intrigued by the pathology which compels seemingly intelligent people to support it. I think the best explanation is that belief in AGW is akin to religious belief with all the attendant hostility, arrogance and aggression that belief generates in believers towards those who question the tenets of the religion they believe in.

I don't get any money from fossil fuels or indeed any corporation. To say otherwise is stupid and defamatory.
Posted by cohenite, Tuesday, 15 October 2013 11:38:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"when it comes to beginnings evolutionist make it up. They dishonestly call it science so it becomes clear that much of what they report as fact with a straight face is nothing short of garbage. Anyone interested in true science knows this."

The value of inexpert and untrained "public opinion" on this complex subject is ably displayed in runner's comment above.

And so it goes.....
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 15 October 2013 11:39:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cohenite,

""Only one scientifically robust alternative explanation to AGW is required to debunk the overwhelming weight of evidence supporting it. This has not been done (Bob knows this as well)."

It has been done; many times:"

Then he puts up links to OLO, Jo Nova, and the Climate Skeptics Party.

Double Lol!

And so it goes.....
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 15 October 2013 11:44:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Due diligence is a two way street, and needs to be applied with equal vigor to those who's quite massive fossil fuel funding/vested interests, are running counter claims, or obfuscating the issues.
One has to agree that an ETS as evidenced in Europe is just one big money churning ponzi scheme, which has yet to reduce one gram of carbon; which could conceivably become the most traded most valuable commodity in the world!
We'd be better served by a cap and tax scheme.
The current levels could be the cap, with only that above the cap creating a tax penalty and that below, a credit. Too simple?
The cap could be progressively lowered, and the penalties/credits gradually increased.
Arguably, this is all we need do to moderate behavior?
Oceans absorb both carbon and heat, which is reaching new depths, and ocean acidification has doubled in just the last 16 years.
Yes, our oceans are still essentially alkaline, but the PH balance has moved significantly away from the base!
In just the last thirty years, half the Great Barrier Reef has died. And recently we have seen evidence of cool water bleaching!
And no, changing over to non carbon energy doesn't have to be expensive
Gas fired ceramic cells produce little or no carbon, just free hot water and on demand 24/7 electrical energy, with a world's best energy coefficient of 72%!
Which should mean the world's lowest energy costs.
We also have the option of converting all our biological waste into FREE endlessly sustainable bladder stored biogas, which when scrubbed works as well or better than NG in ceramic fuel cells.
Most families make enough of that to completely power their homes, and even create a salable surplus by adding food scraps.
Making viable electric vehicles is a simple as replacing the engine in hybrids, with a gas powered ceramic fuel cell.
Meaning, electric vehicles could be given virtually unlimited range.
They already outperform conventional vehicles!
A non carbon economy, for those who really do do their due diligence, can be our economic Eldorado!
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Tuesday, 15 October 2013 12:15:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Obviously, some people here don't understand what "scientifically robust" means.
Posted by ozdoc, Tuesday, 15 October 2013 12:34:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Runner's done it, remember the rule everyone, if runner agrees with you then your arguement becomes invalid automatically.

Back to the article, BoB's going to disapear in a logic bubble... We shouldn't listen to experts becuase "experts" like him tell us not to.
Posted by Cobber the hound, Tuesday, 15 October 2013 12:38:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot; every link is to peer reviewed paper or data which has been analysed.

My expertise is dealing with evidence, analysing and evaluating it as it applies to a particular supposition. My interest in applying my skills to AGW occurred during the Gore trial which resulted in a finding that all alleged consequences of AGW were either false or exaggerated in his film, "An Inconvenient Truth".

This finding by a High Court Judge was extraordinary. It means even if AGW theory is right it has no effect on climate. This is why there are NO AGW 'fingerprints'. So, both legally and scientifically AGW has been disproved.

That won't change your mind Poirot because you do not use your mind to support AGW.
Posted by cohenite, Tuesday, 15 October 2013 12:40:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't believe we can live in a world that doesn't include oil. Nor will we be able to grow broad acre crops/feed the world, without it.
And we are running out of it.
Fortunately its not too hard to make as much as we will ever need.
We can grow oil rich algae, which only needs 1-2% of the water of conventional crops; and that water can be effluent, which produces optimal growth outcomes, or a doubled body-weight every twenty four hours!
Algae are up to 60% oil, and absorb 2,5 times their own body-weight in carbon, both of which can double every twenty four hours! Some types produce a naturally occurring diesel, others, jet fuel. I've seen estimates, that with economies of scale, would see this retailed, even with a fuel excise imposed, for just 44 cents a litre!
Climate change is not a problem, but rather, endless opportunity!
Rhrosty
Posted by Rhrosty, Tuesday, 15 October 2013 1:06:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"If AGW theory is right it has no effect on climate."

Words of a lawyer, not a scientist.

You still do not understand what "scientifically robust" means. Just because it has been 'peer reviewed' or 'analysed', does not mean it is robust.

Either you are deliberately trying to deceive, or you don't know what you're talking about, cohenite.

"legally and scientifically AGW has been disproved".

Again, you are confusing (deliberately) law with science.
Posted by ozdoc, Tuesday, 15 October 2013 1:08:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ozdoc, argument by declaration such as what you are doing presumes some sort of superiority or official keeping of the standards; what gives you the right to talk down to the rest of us?

Anyway impress us with your thesis as to why the papers I link to aren't "robust" disproof of AGW?
Posted by cohenite, Tuesday, 15 October 2013 1:39:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cohenite, linking to ‘anti-global warming’ or politically motivated blog sites does not make for rational or respectful discourse.

As to the papers ‘cited’ in your linked blog sites? Carl Sagan once said; “not all scientific statements have equal weight”.

I agree, some are tested, replicated and cited more often, for obvious reasons.

Yours, on the other hand aren’t, for the same reasons. Nevertheless, they should keep trying.

Oh, and please don't infer that I was talking down to you or anyone else. It's just that some people have more relevant experience and credentials than others.

Put another way, just because you or I have an opinion on a topic that may interest us doesn't make our opinion right.
Posted by ozdoc, Tuesday, 15 October 2013 4:03:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You're a good example of was I was talking about in my review OzDoc. Someone who refuses to debate the issues on the basis that we have to use your version of peer review. Spit your arguments out so the public can adjudicate, don't hide behind authority - that's the preserve of the elitist, the authoritarian, and frequently the fascist.

If you want "rational or respectful discourse" you have to be rational and respectful yourself, and condemning resources because you don't like the sites they come from is neither.
Posted by GrahamY, Tuesday, 15 October 2013 5:11:58 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>Spit your arguments out so the public can adjudicate<<

Can they? 40% of them don't know the Earth's orbital period. Do you really think that every member of the public is equally able to understand and evaluate scientific arguments?

If we're going to have people adjudicating on subjects they're woefully ignorant about, why don't we let the IPCC judge rhythmic gymnastics, rhythmic gymnastics judges choose the Academy Awards, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences replace the bench of the High Court, the former High Court Justices judge the Country Women's League sponge-making competition and the CWL release the first Country Women's League report on climate change?

Seems about as reasonable as letting the forty-percenters adjudicate scientific arguments.

Cheers,

Tony
Posted by Tony Lavis, Tuesday, 15 October 2013 5:42:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What a condescending snob you are. Sadie the cleaning lady would have as much chance of predicting the weather as the frauds who masquerade as climate scientists.

The most dangerous people on the planet are those who think they know better than others about how those others should live.

AGW is NOT about the science; it is an ideology about nature and how much humanity should be permitted to interfere with it.

The climate scientists cannot predict with any accuracy the weather from month to month yet we, the public, are expected to take as gospel these charlatan's predictions about the climate in a 100 years time.

Weather and climate are stochastic which means there is a time-declining probability of ability to predict what is going to happen.

The climate scientists, that is the IPCC, who pretend 95% certainty as in AR5 are nothing more than witch-doctors.

The comparisons between mechanics, engineers and doctors and their expertise is grotesque. You don't go into the doctor with a complaint where the risk and prognosis are non-deterministic and defined by time so that any remedy the doctor says has a probability of success is vitiated by time.

And to think billions have been given to these people who have consistently failed to produce any evidence or make any valid predictions.

As I said, people who believe in AGW are expressing a religious belief.
Posted by cohenite, Tuesday, 15 October 2013 6:22:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
GrahamY: " Spit your arguments out so the public can adjudicate, don't hide behind authority..."

I focus on the basic hypothesis that CO2 concentration underlies global warming.

The long-term coupling between CO2/CH4 levels and global average surface air temperature is incontrovertible. That there is not perfect coherence over short intervals is explained sufficiently, for me, by ocean and land involvement in carbon cycling, as well as exiting ice ages, but it does not avert us from self-correction in the maintenance of coupling.

Air temperature has wavered naturally and slowly enough between 2 degrees above and 5 degrees below today's for life to cope. The variation in CO2 concentration has never been as sharply upwards as now. Even if we have observed a current slowing in the temperature uptrend it will not decouple from the CO2/CH4 concentration for long. We can expect the correction anytime, and it may well be as sharp as the uptick in CO2 concentration has been over the last few decades.

Regarding the issue of catastrophe, if air temperature rises beyond 2 degrees to say 4 degrees (and we're headed higher without action, we will enter uncharted territory. When the temperature was 4 degrees below today's the now highly populated parts of the northern hemisphere were under massive ice. Skeptics do not acknowledge GW let alone what a 4 degree rise means.

In coming to my own decision from a skeptical position. In view of fundamental evidence, including that existing for AGW, acceptance of skeptical alternatives could only be on faith.

I do not wish to go into detailed rebuttals of the skeptical position as they are already all over the internet, such as http://www.skepticalscience.com/A-Scientific-Guide-to-the-Skeptics-Handbook.html and associated links therein.
Posted by Luciferase, Wednesday, 16 October 2013 12:32:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Luciferase, your argument fails at the first hurdle. You contention that "the long-term coupling between CO2/CH4 levels and global average surface air temperature is incontrovertible," is shown to be completely wrong by the graph on this page at figure 4 http://www.pnas.org/content/99/7/4167.full as is your contention that we are seeing changes at the moment which are unprecedented. In fact it is still cooler than it was earlier in the Holocene, as demonstrated by the discovery of forests under glaciers that are currently retreating due to warming.

The difference between people like Carter and me, and people like you, is that we are happy to put up hard evidence instead of just airily gesturing out to the internet and saying "I do not wish to go into detailed rebuttals of the skeptical position as they are already all over the internet, such as http://www.skepticalscience.com/A-Scientific-Guide-to-the-Skeptics-Handbook.html and associated links therein."

Runner refers us to the Bible, you to skepticalscience. There is little difference.
Posted by GrahamY, Wednesday, 16 October 2013 7:23:55 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I put more faith in what the ice cores tell us, but it only goes back 800,000 years.

Here is going back 150000 years as was the extent of coring in 2002 http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/icecore.html

Ice coring now goes back further:

http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/press/journalists/resources/science/ice_cores_and_climate_change_briefing-sep10.pdf

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5314592.stm
"Ice cores reveal the Earth's natural climate rhythm over the last 800,000 years. When carbon dioxide changed there was always an accompanying climate change. Over the last 200 years human activity has increased carbon dioxide to well outside the natural range," explained Dr Wolff (of the British Antarctic Survey (BAS)sic)."

For a more layman's perspective:

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/index.php?id=40&tx_naksciinterview_pi1%5BshowUid%5D=643&cHash=7faa6cce3f&table=tx_naksciinterview_interviews , or, http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2013/10/08/3864474.htm

Going to the credibility of Eric Wolff:
http://www.esf.org/media-centre/ext-single-news/article/ten-questions-with-descartes-prize-laureate-dr-eric-wolff-british-antarctic-survey-member-of-the.html
http://www.zoominfo.com/p/Eric-Wolff/148342670

From your link: "A wealth of evidence, however, suggests that pCO2 exerts at least some control [see Crowley and Berner (30) for a recent review]. Fig. 4 cannot by itself refute this assumption. Instead, it simply shows that the “null hypothesis” that pCO2 and climate are unrelated cannot be rejected on the basis of this evidence alone."

Stacking the proxy geological data, with its tepid conclusion such as this, up against ice cores is a no-contest, IMO. The BAS link states "However, they provide no direct analogue for the future because the ice core era contains no periods with concentrations of CO2 comparable to those of the next century." In other words, we're entering uncharted territory if we do nothing.

My "...airily gesturing out to the internet.." applies because all the other arguments, other than the one we're having and whether or not man is responsible for the extraordinary recent rise in CO2 concentration, are sideshows others can argue about as far as I'm concerned for now.

It comes down to data and reliability, not faith. You can attack the data or the man and his organization (Wolff, BAS) or explain why the research you cite is superior to the point it allays concern.

GY, how can we have a discussion if I try to meet your challenge in the spirit you ask then you insult my intelligence for doing so by putting me in the same category as runner!?
Posted by Luciferase, Wednesday, 16 October 2013 9:11:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That's a little better Luciferase, but not much. You can't refute data over 500m years by data that doesn't even go back 1m.

What's more you neglect to mention that in the ice core data CO2 increases are a result of temperature rise, not the cause of them. CO2 increases after the temperature starts to increase, not before, and even more tellingly, it continues to increase at the same time as temperature turns down before it starts to turn down itself. The lag is somewhere around 500 years.

So what you have posted can't prove causation because in the correlation CO2 depends on temperature, not the other way around.

That the author of the article where the graph is found says it doesn't disprove the relationship is neither here nor there. His opinion doesn't change the data.

No-one is arguing CO2 has no relationship, the argument is the extent to which it is a driver or a passenger, and what other drivers exist. The graph conclusively shows that other factors are stronger. The data you refer to also shows the same thing.
Posted by GrahamY, Wednesday, 16 October 2013 10:01:10 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Taking the word of any religious expert in the understandings of climate change is quite pointless to all and even to themselfs:)

Runner:) your a gem:)

Planet3
Posted by PLANET3, Wednesday, 16 October 2013 11:39:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“My version of peer review” is that of my peers, GrahamY – not religious nutters, politically motivated ideologues or close minded bloggers.

Scientific “issues are debated” in scientific fora, not on ‘opinion’ sites like yours. Besides, there’s just too much technical nuance to appreciate and it gets deliberately distorted in places like this, as your and cohenite’s last post typify.

As far as “spitting arguments out” to the public so they can adjudicate; they are “spat out” in AR5. Just because you don’t feel the inclination to go there or prefer to ‘debate science’ on your opinion site is not my problem – it is yours. Indeed, why would I or any other real scientist want to “debate” you when you and your cohorts impugn the very integrity that all scientists stand by.

I’ve seen how you ‘moderate’ and I’ve seen how cohenite bullies and abuses those (you and) he disagrees with - here and elsewhere. Pathetic.

You raise the ‘elitism, authoritarian and fascism’ canard. What is becoming more and more demonstrable is that ‘conservative’ governments are becoming more fascist – censoring and gagging scientific discourse, cutting back funds and closing departments that are critical to the advancement of society and the dissemination of scientific research. Harper’s Canada does it, George W’s USA did it, and most recently Abbott’s ‘Tea Partyesque’ government is doing it.

“Condemning resources because I don't like the sites they come from…”
You have made it abundantly clear you condemn sites you don’t like, Graham Young. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. If not then again you show your true colours: close mindedness and rank hypocrisy.
Posted by ozdoc, Wednesday, 16 October 2013 11:49:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lucifer, you say: ”The long-term coupling between CO2/CH4 levels and global average surface air temperature is incontrovertible. That there is not perfect coherence over short intervals is explained sufficiently, for me, by ocean and land involvement in carbon cycling, as well as exiting ice ages, but it does not avert us from self-correction in the maintenance of coupling.”

This is problematic. At BEST, CO2 follows temp movements but at any time scale there is often NO correlation between CO2 and temp. Geologic times over 600 million years as Berner and Scotese’s famous graph shows:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1644060/posts

Over 20thC:

http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Bastardi-CO2Temp.gif

Last 23 years:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.33/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2001.33/trend/plot/rss/from:1997/trend/plot/wti/from:2000.9/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.1/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000.8/trend/plot/uah/from:2008.5/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997/normalise:0.5/scale:0.5/offset:0.34
But what about this, over the period of maximum AGW, since 1960:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1959/mean:12/offset:300

The so-called connection between CO2 and temp was first raised by Gore with his ‘famous’ graph; Lansner deconstructs this graph and shows that most times during the period Gore used CO2 and temp are going in opposite directions! Gore’s graph is the first one:

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2,Temperaturesandiceages-f.pdf

2 You say: “Air temperature has wavered naturally and slowly enough between 2 degrees above and 5 degrees below today's for life to cope."

That is wrong. The GMT during the last ice age, 25000 years ago, was much colder than today, over 10C colder as Gore’s graph shows. Over geologic history the temp range on the planet has varied by 12C:

http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/8615/allpaleotemp.png

The most active periods in terms of variety of species and life on the planet have always been warmer and arguably the best was the Eocene Optimum where temps were as high as the PETM, about 7C warmer than today.

Even if AGW is right, and the weight of evidence is AGAINST it alarmists ignore the fact that life thrives in warmth not cold.

3 You say: “The variation in CO2 concentration has never been as sharply upwards as now”. That is highly problematic given the manifest problems with historical measurement of CO2 and the defects in using ice-cores. A comparison between ice core measurements and stomata records is here:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/03/why-william-d-nordhaus-is-wrong-about-global-warming-skeptics-being-wrong
Posted by cohenite, Wednesday, 16 October 2013 12:07:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
WOW!..ozdoc - says it all - parfaitement!

.........

Couple with Tony Lavis's excellent observation:

"If we're going to have people adjudicating on subjects they're woefully ignorant about, why don't we let the IPCC judge rhythmic gymnastics, rhythmic gymnastics judges choose the Academy Awards, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences replace the bench of the High Court, the former High Court Justices judge the Country Women's League sponge-making competition and the CWL release the first Country Women's League report on climate change?"

Covers it well.....
Posted by Poirot, Wednesday, 16 October 2013 12:07:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Re: "What's more you neglect to mention that in the ice core data CO2 increases are a result of temperature rise, not the cause of them. CO2 increases after the temperature starts to increase, not before, and even more tellingly, it continues to increase at the same time as temperature turns down before it starts to turn down itself. The lag is somewhere around 500 years....So what you have posted can't prove causation because in the correlation CO2 depends on temperature, not the other way around."

The reason I neglect to mention a half-truth is because it obscures the correct science at http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html
or further analysis of it at http://www.skepticalscience.com/skakun-co2-temp-lag.html

Yes, CO2 has lagged temperature for extremely small periods (1000 years is small) in comparison to the whole ice-core record, and for good reasons, especially in the kick-start to deglaciations.

The unequivocal covariation in temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is related to Earth’s carbon cycle yet its explanation remains the great unsolved problem of earth science. Do we move before this is entirely solved or do we act on what's before us on behalf of our descendants?

Ice core data is the empirical data and while it may not go back a hundred million years like like the proxy data in your link, I'll hang my hat on it until its message is upturned and act accordingly.
Posted by Luciferase, Wednesday, 16 October 2013 12:27:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Given the pointless argument that is proceeding on this thread it may be helpful to post this excerpt from a comment by Rud Istvan on an other web site:

"Absent some mutually agreed fact basis upon which to proceed, all discourse is futile.

The problem was summed up by Stephen Cobert when he introduced the idea of truthiness: you are entitled to your own conclusions, but not to your own facts.

Hockey sticks, missing heat, pause doesn’t exist/matter, 95% certain, 97% consensus, … Are all truthiness. Of course discourse is difficult at lunch when the sun is overhead but your discussion partner swears it is night and that orb is the moon–while continuing to eat lunch.
Wrote a book about the way ‘true’ facts are distorted. Long chapter using climate change as the penultimate illustration."
Posted by Peter Lang, Wednesday, 16 October 2013 12:47:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What I think about man-made climate change.

1. Climate research and policies are highly politicised and biased (due to $100 billion of funding so far for climate research and policies).

2. The negative consequences of warming are probably exaggerated, and the positive consequences probably underrated and under researched.

3. The prescribed cure is worse than the disease; the mitigation policies proposed to date would deliver no measurable change to the climate or sea levels but would cost the world dearly.

4. We have a very poor understanding of ECS [e.g. AR5 WG1 SPM “Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C (high confidence), extremely unlikely less than 1°C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than 6°C (medium confidence)”]. That is, our understanding of ECS is that it is somewhere in the range 1C - 6C. The large range is an indication of our lack of understanding of what it actually is. If we could actually determine it accurately, the range would be small at any given starting conditions; e.g. +/- 0.1C.

5. We have even less understanding of the damage function (the amount of damages and benefits per degree of global warming).

6. The world can reduce global GHG emissions over the next half century if it wants to. I expect it will do so without economically crippling policies; therefore, the consequences will not be as bad as the alarmists want us to believe.

7. The probability is low that the mitigation policies advocated by the alarmists for past 20+ years would succeed.

8. It is very likely that the climate scientists’ confidence in their projections is optimistic and overstated
Posted by Peter Lang, Wednesday, 16 October 2013 12:50:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well OzDoc, if you were a real scientist you would have no trouble addressing the issues that I raise. Spitting the dummy rather than spitting out facts is not science in any way, shape or form. Your comments about conservative governments allegedly closing down science that they don't like indicates that you come from an ideological position, and given your position on discussing the science, is probably an example of projection.

You're a good example of the problem, not the solution.

Luciferase, if I quoted a rogue paper, as you've done, you'd be entitled to criticise me. It is well-accepted and in multiple papers, that CO2 behaves over the length of the ice cores as I say it does. Here's a report from last year confirming it http://news.ku.dk/all_news/2012/2012.7/rise_in_temperatures_and_co2/ There's a decades' worth of such papers.

The problem with Lavis' argument Poirot is that he couldn't provide an example where public opinion was on the wrong side of the science, so that was an own goal. And he misrepresents my argument. The analogy is with a jury choosing between expert opinion, not pretending to be experts themselves. So his is a straw man argument, typical of the sort of rhetorical tricks you get in this area. People who use such tricks as he (and you by requoting) does generally do so because they can't win the real argument. Or alternatively, don't understand it.
Posted by GrahamY, Wednesday, 16 October 2013 1:11:45 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Graham,

"...Your comments about conservative governments allegedly closing down science that they don't like indicates that you come from an ideological position, and given your position on discussing the science, is probably an example of projection."

It's been well known for a while now that the Harper govt is in the business of muzzling scientists. The US is having a go as well.

http://www.academicmatters.ca/2013/05/harpers-attack-on-science-no-science-no-evidence-no-truth-no-democracy/

No doubt, the Abbott govt is some way down the path on this type of venture as well...."Repent" and all that.

You comparing Skeptical Science with runner's literal Bible is really an insult to anyone with real scientific qualifications.

In fact, it appears that luring scientists with real qualifications and experience to this forum is the last thing you want.

Why would they wish to come here to discuss "science" when they are peppered with taunts the minute they enter the fray?
Posted by Poirot, Wednesday, 16 October 2013 1:35:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
All I want to do is talk about the science, or lack of it.

Lucifer has referred to Shakum et al as evidence of the alleged consanguinity between CO2 and temp.

A couple of things before I explain why I think Shakum et al is a bad paper. Firstly his co-author is Marcott who wrote a paper verifying the Hockeystick. Marcott's paper is why I think AGW science is fraudulent. Marcott used deceptive statistic analysis to achieve his results which I would be glad to discuss.

Secondly, the consequent Parrenin et al paper has taken Shakum's thesis of a reduced lag between temp rise and CO2 movement to its AGW consistent conclusion, which is no asynchrony between temp and CO2 movements at all:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6123/1060

This is ludicrous and contradicts basic physical principles such as Henrys Law. It also throws out standards of ice core interpretation which have underpinned the AGW based conclusions that the current climate situation is exceptional. But that is typical of AGW science where the goal-posts are continually moved to accommodate the narrative.

And so to Shakum et al. Shakum cherry-picked his data by discontinuing his CO2 proxies about 6000 years ago when they showed an increase at the time temperature began its decline to the present. When the latter proxies are included with Shakum’s data there is nothing in the data to justify Shakum’s conclusion that CO2 preceded temperature when in fact most of the proxies show temperature and CO2 going in opposite directions. This is confirmed by Lansner’s analysis which I link to again; unlike Shakum and most climate scientists Lansner is an engineer and is proficient in Fourier analysis which distinguishes noise from real trends:

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2,Temperaturesandiceages-f.pdf

I don't need climate scientists and other poseurs telling me what the data means; I can analyse it myself and I'm prepared to discuss it in an open, transparent way.

But all of AGW science is based on authoritative declarations. So, here is Lucifer's opportunity; address the complaint I have made about Shakaum et al; did the paper discontinue its analysis 6000 years ago; and if so why?
Posted by cohenite, Wednesday, 16 October 2013 2:10:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What real scientist has been "peppered with taunts" on this forum Poirot? Bob Carter? Well, I'm not guilty. Or do you have someone else in mind?

Skeptical Science is not a place for real scientists, it is a propaganda outfit. Of course I didn't compare it to the Bible, I compared the unsophisticated use of its materials as though they represented truth and were therefore unable to be questioned to the way Runner uses the Bible. The issue is inerrancy.

I'm not surprised that the Canadian government requires bureaucrats to go through the proper channels when talking to the media. Just because a bureaucrat has a BSc doesn't mean they should be exempted from normal protocols. Subjecting a scientist to managerial oversight doesn't mean you're anti-science.

Have you been following the Australian case where a public servant was fired for tweeting under an anonymous name? It's the same deal and in this case the government in question is social democrat. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-23/canberra-public-servant-loses-court-bid-to-keep-working/4976022
Posted by GrahamY, Wednesday, 16 October 2013 10:23:12 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Graham,

If you can't work out when you're engaging a real scientist...well...what can I say.

I mean in general they usually don't come here, just like they don't go to Jo Nova's or Anthony Watts' sites....because they know they'll be verbally abused and howled down as frauds, etc.

When your starting position is one of accusing people of being frauds and purveying propaganda, what hope is there for dialogue on blogs like this...blogs full of people who have an amateur interest, some knowledge, but no particular training, expertise or experience working in the various fields associated with climate.

And why is it only "climate" scientists are held up to be frauds?

And you appear to think muzzling scientists is a good thing.

I find that freaky in our so-called "enlightened" age.

Btw, "normal protocols" used to mean freedom for scientists to speak (on "science" for Pete's sake) without being subject to government control.

Not much more to say really.....
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 17 October 2013 12:43:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot, like all advocates from the left, about AGW, or any of their pet issues, you are a hypocrite.

The censorship and attempts to suppress free discussion about AGW has always come from the left and those supporters of AGW, on this site and others.

It began at OLO when Hamilton took his ball and left because sceptics were permitted to put their opinion forward:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7580

Hamilton tried the same stunt at The Drum:

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/29732.html

And it worked; the ABC, a taxpayer funded organisation with a charter prescribing no bias is the most biased media outlet in the country where no sceptic can now get a voice:

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2013/10/can-australia-afford-abc.html

There are numerous examples of left suppression ranging from Finkelstein, to Wikipedia suppression of sceptic viewpoints, numerous instances of scientists working within such government funded bodies as CSIRO and its international equivalent, being harassed and fired for holding and expressing sceptical viewpoints, admissions made within the emails about concerted and deliberate plans to prevent sceptical scientists from being published and all progressive commentators from Manne to regular contributor at OLO, Kellie Trantor supporting suppression of sceptical views:

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/35484.html

Not to mention that the money poured into Green coffers to spread the scam of AGW is VAST, billions in Australia alone, with most main media outlets supporting it vociferously in the case of ABC and Fairfax and the rest to a lessor degree.

And you have the gall to complain when sometimes on this site the outrageous scaremongering and unscientific, appeals to authority declarations made by alarmists is taken to task.

Well done Poirot!
Posted by cohenite, Thursday, 17 October 2013 8:02:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cohenite,

It's very simple.

People like you who have little scientific expertise actually back yourself on your knowledge against real scientists.

When your demonstration of your prowess is blown out of the water by real scientists, you adopt your fall-back position of calling them shonks and frauds.

Actually I do know why it's only "climate' scientists who are singled out for this treatment.

It's because their conclusions threaten the status quo regarding big oil and big business.

So you and all the other junk science purveyors are happy to do their bidding, resting on little more than mud-slinging and name-calling.

As I said, simple really.
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 17 October 2013 8:45:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Typical slur by the resident princess about the connection with big oil.

The thought that any citizen would want their science, particularly about the weather, untainted by green ideology and the vanity invested in AGW, not to mention any citizen being concerned about the huge money pro-AGW scientists and the AGW get, and the obscene distortion of investment in the failed technology of 'green' energy at the expense of viable energy alternatives, never enters your little head does it? You have to assume I and other sceptics are in the pay of big oil; talk about a rigidity of mind.

As for being blown out the water princess, that's impossible, sea level is rising so fast no matter how far above the water you are blown the sea level always rises faster.

Anyway I'm still waiting for your mate Lucifer to defend Shakum et al against the clear, well explained complaint I made against it, just as I do with every bit of hokus pokus masquerading as science by the AGW crew.

Perhaps you'd like to have a shot at defending Shakum et al; have you even read it; have you read any paper? This reverence towards AGW science is bizarre; what makes so-called experts of AGW so special? As I have said the predictions of AGW have been a dismal failure; any normal, reasonable area of science would have packed its bags long ago but AGW science isn't normal or reasonable.

Anyway this paper says it better than me about the failure of AGW 'forecasting':

http://www.kestencgreen.com/gas-2009-validity.pdf
Posted by cohenite, Thursday, 17 October 2013 9:08:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cohenite,

"Anyway this paper says it better than me about the failure of AGW 'forecasting':"

Forecasting like this:

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2012/20120803_DicePopSci.pdf

Yes, I know you have a problem with the burny pic at the top.

But.....

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-17/live-blog3a-nsw-bushfire-emergency/5028762

It's mid October as well, early for the season to erupt - as opposed to mid Dec/Jan.
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 17 October 2013 6:01:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As it sits, the planet as you know, with the understanding that change is a constant, while cause and effect is the 101 of our time, the third equation is just to ride it out, which you have NO choice in my small and tiny blue-collar brain/world:). (keeping in mind we are dealing with a planetary organism) This planet is universal (which most think there’s only one of) keeps within a structure of balance far beyond our current understandings. (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1113#19789

See, the great thing about the all, is that we have no clue of it, and yet it surrounds you.

Just go to the Lord……its easier.

Humour and satire…don’t live without it:)

All the best.

Planet3
Posted by PLANET3, Thursday, 17 October 2013 6:52:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You do this repeatedly Poirot; link to stuff and do not explain it; figures 2 and 3 from Hansen's article purport to show shifts in temperature to hotter means during the current decades.

Do you have the wit to understand why these graphs are statistical sleight of hands, no more than con jobs to scare the children and child-like?

Of course not.

Hansen uses a base period of 1951-1981. This temperature period was dominated by a cooling period from 1945 -1976. From 1976-1978 there was an abrupt jump in global temp; this is well documented. Because the majority of the period is cooler than average but with an end point step up in temperature using this base period to compare other time periods will create a distorted warming effect for 2 reasons.

The first is a result of simple averaging which will make anomalous temps in other periods higher.

The second is due to the step in temps happening at the end of the period. After 1978 temps were at a higher plateau which gives the illusion of higher anomalies even if there is no warming trend through the post 1978 period, which there has not been.

Australia scientist Dr Bill Johnson has shown this step effect on temp:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/clip_image012.png

As you can see the step in 1978 meant the succeeding period was warmer than the preceding base period even there was no further temp increase. A distribution curve like the one used by Hansen will shift to the right on the basis of the step and show a skewing even though there is no sustained temp increase effect. Johnson shows that temp moves in steps up and down and this simple fact completely contradicts AGW which supposes an incremental and sustained temp increase due to CO2 increase.

Your support of AGW is emotional and ideological; your brain is not engaged; accept that.
Posted by cohenite, Thursday, 17 October 2013 9:19:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
After scrolling through the posts, I read http://www.pnas.org/content/99/7/4167. It's not an easy read, even though I have a background in statistics, and in one of the proxy data sciences (I'm not a climatologist).

First a general comment: one paper cannot prove or disprove global warming. Each paper is just a contribution on some facet, and understanding by scientists comes by two steps forward, one step back, a couple sideways, and a lot of serious debate.

Comment on this paper: As has been pointed out, the author is cautious about the significance of the results: "Fig. 4 ... simply shows that the “null hypothesis” that pCO2 and climate are unrelated cannot be rejected on the basis of this evidence alone." In other words it does not prove that CO2 and climate are unrelated. The author restricts himself to a very narrow analysis (which is fine in itself) and makes minimal interpretation. A couple of key points are alluded to but not elaborated on: eg diversification of land plants, continental collisions.

A pity, because to my mind some of the implications leap off the graph in Fig 4. The earlier, high C02 period straddles the time when land plants evolved and spread in a very high C02 atmosphere which they converted to a low C02/ high 02 atmosphere. Why are there extreme swings in the graph here? I don't know, but I would suggest looking for correlations with the geological/fossil record. Then, the decline in C02 after 175my more or less coincides with the breaking up of Gondwana, the mountain building as the continents collide, and ocean deepening (and the entombment of much C02 in biomass which turned into oil and gas).

While this is a very simplistic summary, the basic point is that the earth was a very different place in the earlier part of Fig 4 and the difference in C02 between the earlier and later periods must have a complex multi-factorial explanation. Can either section of the graph, or the graph as a whole be used to predict future trends? I doubt it.
Posted by Cossomby, Thursday, 17 October 2013 9:43:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Crossomby,

Thanks you for this excellent comment. There has been a dearth of good comments on this thread for a while.

You said:
"While this is a very simplistic summary, the basic point is that the earth was a very different place in the earlier part of Fig 4 and the difference in C02 between the earlier and later periods must have a complex multi-factorial explanation. Can either section of the graph, or the graph as a whole be used to predict future trends? I doubt it."

I suggest there is an even more important point that jumps out from Figure 4. CO2 concentration has been much higher in the past, and life survived. In fact, it thrived in warmer times. Therefore, neither higher CO2 concentration nor higher temperatures are catastrophic. They weren't in the past so there is no reason to suggest they would be in the future.
Posted by Peter Lang, Thursday, 17 October 2013 10:04:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(cont.)

Understanding the geological, atmospheric and oceanic systems of the world today, what they were like in the past and how they changed over time, and predicting what might happen in the future is probably the most complex scientific challenge we have. It's not surprising the current models don't work very well, but you have to start somewhere.

However I think that predictive models based on the past (especially when there are many different 'pasts' to consider, as described above) have another inherent problem. It is that the current situation is unprecedented.

Much of the coal, oil and gas we are burning comes from biomass buried over the last 450my or so, since the evolution of the land plants (even if oil, gas etc is endogenous from magma etc., this just means that it's been building up even longer). We will have burnt all of this within just a few hundred years, a mere blink in 500my. Nothing like this has happened before.

The nearest we can get to it is the interpretation of massive continent wide fires following past asteroid strikes. Such an event would happen in a matter of days, an minuter time scale by comparison, but only the standing biomass would burn.

While our burning is slightly more controlled - we're sticking tens of thousands of pinpricks or bucket holes into the earth, sucking up the old biomass and burning it a bit more slowly - within a couple of hundred years, hundreds of millions of years worth of biomass will have been burnt. No past data is adequate to model this.

Given this, the apparent plateau in global warming over the last decade or so is probably trivial in the long-term. I don't think we can really have any idea what is going to happen.
Posted by Cossomby, Thursday, 17 October 2013 10:21:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Peter Lang. Yes, life will survive and evolve. The world will be different (but probably not like it was in the Devonian etc.) Catastrophic? Well, that depends on your perspective - whether you are among the survivors or not!
Posted by Cossomby, Thursday, 17 October 2013 10:29:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well, this second part of your comment is more about emotion and belief than rational argument. I find it unpersuasive.

- Climate sensitivity is coming down [1];
- we have next to no understanding of the damage function;
- warming is probably net beneficial up to ~2C;
- we will likely not burn as much fossil fuel as available because we will probably move to largely replace fossil fuels with nuclear over the next 50 years or so;
- the projected fossil fuel use and the resulting projected CO2 concentrations

[1] Recent studies on 2xCO2 ECS:
Lewis (2013): 1.0-3.0
Berntsen (2013): 0.9-3.2
Lindzen (2011): 0.6-1.0
Schmittner (2011):1.4-2.8
van Hateren (2012): 1.5-2.5
Schlesinger (2012): 1.45-2.01
Masters (2013): 1.5-2.9
average: 1.2-2.5

The average range of these recent studies is 1.2°C to 2.5°C, with a mean value of 1.8°C, or well below the earlier model-based predictions you cite.
Posted by Peter Lang, Thursday, 17 October 2013 10:34:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peter Lang,

Humans and, particularly, human "civilisation" have thrived in a particular environment.

"Life" may be a Trilobite, a microbe or a giant tree fern - and "life" may thrive with higher CO2 and higher temperatures - that doesn't mean that humanity can carry on regardless, certainly not in the way we've become accustomed.
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 17 October 2013 10:36:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry, our comments are crossing. I didn't realise you were going to post a second part to your first comment.

>"Yes, life will survive and evolve. The world will be different (but probably not like it was in the Devonian etc.) Catastrophic? Well, that depends on your perspective - whether you are among the survivors or not!"

I don't find that sort of talk helpful or persuasive.

We need to define what time periods we are discussing. Talking about Devonian is not helpful, IMO. Even returning to Pliocene climates would take millenia. Things will be unrecognisably different in 2050 from from what they are now, so projecting beyond that is nonsensical (e.g. by 2050 they will have technologies that address the issues of CO2 concentrations and who knows what else). But even if we allow ourselves to project to 2100, CAGW is not a realistic scenario - even IPCC AR5 WG1 admits it.
Posted by Peter Lang, Thursday, 17 October 2013 10:52:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peter: All your items are valid, and time will demonstrate whether we do stop burning fossil fuel etc.

But my post was not about emotion and belief.

It is a fact that there has been no previous episode where 100's millions of years of buried biomass has been burnt at all, let alone at the current rate (even if that slows down or stops before it is all burnt).

Therefore we don't have a comparable past event to compare or base our models on.

However our current knowledge of the way the earth works would suggest that this fast burning of stored biomass will have some effect. We just don't know enough to know what it is yet. (This is cold comfort both for those who argue for AGW and those who argue against it.)

Certainly we should continue research and refine existing models, but given we are dealing with an unprecedented event, it is to be expected that the models will be problematical. As time passes and events play out we will get a better handle on what is happening. I suspect that there will eventually be a paradigm shift when it becomes obvious. (I am old enough to remember when continental drift was a weirdo theory - then it became the fundamental basis of geology.
Posted by Cossomby, Thursday, 17 October 2013 11:08:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cossomby, “However our current knowledge of the way the earth works would suggest that this fast burning of stored biomass will have some effect. We just don't know enough to know what it is yet. (This is cold comfort both for those who argue for AGW and those who argue against it.)

Now it’s the best post on the thread Peter Lang.

Planet3
Posted by PLANET3, Friday, 18 October 2013 12:07:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peter Lang,

"(e.g. by 2050 they will have technologies that address the issues of CO2 concentrations and who knows what else)"

Ozymandias

I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: "Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown
And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear:
`My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!'
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away".

Percy Bysshe Shelley
Posted by Poirot, Friday, 18 October 2013 1:21:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot quotes Shelley's indictment of nihilistic hubris and hasn't the wit to realise that complaint is ideally laid against the alarmists who assume that mankind's puny offerings of CO2 can dominate nature.

I guess we can be grateful she has spared us Hardy and his stirring advocacy of the natural life and the misery of those who seek to exceed their station and standing as prescribed by Nature/God.

I've always thought AGW was a manifestation of misoneism with lashings of Ludditism thrown in for good measure. Poirot's commentary shows that.

Cossomby needs to take a Bex and have a good lie down. Or at least do a bit more research, starting with this:

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-7-3.html

This is from IPCC and gives the combined totals of annual fluxes of CO2 from the ocean to the atmosphere and vice-versa from both natural [CO2] and human sources [ACO2].

Then look at Table 3 on page 22 of this Pdf. Again DOE’s quantities, not mine.

ftp://ftp.eia.doe.gov/pub/oiaf/1605/cdrom/pdf/ggrpt/057303.pdf

ACO2 annual flux is 8Gt out of 218.2 Gt CO2 flux or 3.67%; do the additions yourself; these are the IPCC's figures, not mine. From DOE we get information that 98.5% of ALL annual emissions of CO2/ACO2 are reabsorbed.

Now, given that this information is from official sources how can there be any other conclusion that the % of ACO2 in the remaining 1.5% accumulating CO2 is calculated by 3.67/100 x 1.5/100 = 0.000552? You can bend and twist 0.000552 anyway you like but that is the % of ACO2 remaining in the atmosphere from the annual flux figures from the IPCC and the DOE.

Yet Cossomby is in a lather about HUGE amounts of fossil fuels hereto buried and now revealed by unwise humans.
Posted by cohenite, Friday, 18 October 2013 7:37:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cossomby,

>” It is a fact that there has been no previous episode where 100's millions of years of buried biomass has been burnt at all, let alone at the current rate (even if that slows down or stops before it is all burnt).

Therefore we don't have a comparable past event to compare or base our models on.“

We have 500 million years of evidence to show there is nothing catastrophic about high CO2 concentrations. We’ve also had rapid warming an cooling events in the past – e.g. Younger Dryas. Cooling was very bad for life. During the rapid warming periods, life thrived. Life loves warmer and warming by struggles with colder and cooling.

Step 1 is to recognise there is negligible threat of catastrophic consequences - such as as James Hansen (‘oceans boiling off’) and Al Gore (6 m of sea level rise in a century).
- AR5, WG1, Table 12.4 seems to have taken the ‘dangerous’ out of AGW http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter12.pdf

Step 2 is to recognise there are costs and benefits of GHG emissions. It is a cost vs benefit analysis. Global cooling would be very damaging, but warming is not so much and probably net beneficial up to ~2C. AGW will reduce the likelihood of cooling, which might occur without the AGW; given that we have been in a long term cooling trend for 50 million years, 10 million years, 1 million years and 8,000 years.
Posted by Peter Lang, Friday, 18 October 2013 7:58:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 9
  7. 10
  8. 11
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy