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 > Carbon rationing or freedom > Comments

Carbon rationing or freedom : Comments

By Jennifer Marohasy, published 14/3/2008

Should governments let climate alarmists impose policies that limit an individual’s access to energy?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 15
  7. 16
  8. 17
  9. All
I agree that people want 'something done' about climate change it's just they are not yet ready to make large sacrifices. The recent upsurge in climate change denial seems to be a way of coping with that dilemma; at least the present author refrains from invective. However there is another two edged sword, namely that all fossil fuels are running out. Much of the better natural gas reserves are under deep water way offshore. Crude oil (excluding ethanol, gas liquids and tar sands) has already peaked. In future the remaining coal seams will be deeper and thinner, hence less rewarding to mine. Some say this will limit warming to 2C.

Either way doing nothing doesn't seem to be an option. Whether this means the end of economic growth is hard to say. I think leaving something for the future may justify some sacrifice.
Posted by Taswegian, Friday, 14 March 2008 10:09:15 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
Now would be the time for world governments to force everyone back onto bicycles. But I think they are too snivelling to do the work.
Posted by Gibo, Friday, 14 March 2008 11:38:12 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 read this article twice but came away unsure of the author's position on the issue.

So are we supposed to believe that somehow the *ooooh... scary* possibility of not turning a profit is more important than leaving our children and grandchildren an inhabitable world?

I am sick of the foot-dragging on this issue.

We will be forced by resource depletion to make the right choice anyway, let's get off our bums and start proactively preparing for a lower energy future.
Posted by Mash, Friday, 14 March 2008 12:56:29 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
Remember this is the same Roy Spencer who said 'I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism' - so, that's not a ringing endorsement of his credentials right there. Anyone who sees an equivalency of scientific between ID and evolution is suspect. ID is by definition not falsifiable, so it fails right there to even fit the paradigm of all science.

Now, existing climate models are by no means perfect, and we are right to continuously look at new data with an open mind, but the furphy here is that, by mere name dropping, this article has somehow demonstrated that there is significant uncertainty about anthropogenic climate change. I think conceding that this is an IPA member, the tone is not as bad as it could be, but it still repeats the fallacy that anyone with an opinion who works in science must be respected as an authority. But this is simply bunk. Anyone who's done significant research work in any critical enterprise can tell you, you go to the specialist journals to find out what relevant consensus is, you don't ask just any interested party with a good degree.

That's problem with these so-called expert sceptics. Basically every single significant dissenter in the climate change debate is either a representative of an astroturf organisation secretly funded by big oil, or a tangential-expert, who may be able to contribute intelligently in scientific or economic terms, but really has no business as a authority of what consensus in climate change might exist; they are several steps removed from the core scientific process. The fact is, almost none of these great sounding experts have ever published anything substantive in the relevant climate change journals, or best generalist scientific publications. To this end, we can see line by line refutations of their claims at blogs such as www.realclimate.org where real experts time and again have deconstructed these type of claims with a real understanding of the primary specialist literature.
Posted by BBoy, Friday, 14 March 2008 1:08:00 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
Guys, author is a researcher at The Institue of Public Affairs-right wing neo con think tank apologist for oil industry,cigarette industry & Johnny Howard ra ra squad. Guess what conclusion she is going to come up with?
Posted by pdev, Friday, 14 March 2008 2:46:14 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
Jennifer is of course talking about, and being an apologist for, the "freedom" of the merchant and ruling classes to be "free" to make a profit and enrich themselves by whatever means available.

And via Shock Doctrine tactics if necessary. The necessary "therapy" to get things moving so as to benefit international capital.

The golden rule always rules---profit first.

As in the case when huge amounts of grain were being shipped to "mother" England during the Irish famine.
And during the various famines in Indian history while the British ruled and huge amounts of grain were being shipped to "mother" England. The mother of all mothers!

This sort of thing has of course occurred all over the world including of course communist countries.
WFor instance while the Biafrans were starving in the late 60's food was being exported from Nigeria.
Last weekend's article about how the communist henchman delberatley created Ukraine famine and the stavation of 10 million human beings. China was even worse of course.
Posted by Ho Hum, Friday, 14 March 2008 4:21:57 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
“It is not just about climatology; it is also about freedom.”

Exactly, government is there to reflect the will of the electorate,

Unlike Gibo’s offering “world governments to force everyone back onto bicycles. But I think they are too snivelling to do the work.”

A government which has the power to force its electorate onto bicycles will never get elected and any one which tries can be removed at the next election. You might wish to embrace the lifestyle of a Maoist Chinese peasant but it offers little allure for me.

That is not “sniveling”. it is democracy at work.
Posted by Col Rouge, Friday, 14 March 2008 4:31:42 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
Jennifer is course a full paid up propaganda hack for G-M so called foods and the "freedom" of farmers to use G-M seeds etc and so on.

All hyped and sold via the lies that we need G-M grains/seeds etc to feed the burgeoning population on this planet.

Anyone who thinks that the billion people who now live in slums as described by Mike Davis in Planet of Slums are going to be fed courtesy of the G-M "revolution" is seriously deluded.

Meanwhile please Google "The World According To Monsanto" for a thorough-going deconstruction of Jennifers G-M friends.
Posted by Ho Hum, Friday, 14 March 2008 4:44:54 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
Guess what chaps, according to “pdev and Ho Hum” any writer with a known background and association with a Green or Environmental organisation is inevitable correct (LOL).

I congratulate Jennifer on bringing to our attention that there are many scientific voices critical of Greenhouse theory. It seems to me that the story of global warming is by no means complete.

We know from the historical evidence and contemporary accounts as well as surrogate evidence from dendrochronology (tree ring data) and ice core data that the earth has previously had several warming and cooling episodes. This must imply that there other forcing factors at work apart from greenhouses gases.

It is well understood that the relationship between incremental changes in atmospheric CO2 and temperature is NOT linear. A logarithmic relationship would provide a closer description of the relationship. Thus Professor Richard Lindzen writes to the Mayor of Newton .Mass

"It is important to understand that the impact of CO2 on the Earth's heat budget is nonlinear. What this means is that although CO2 has only increased about 30 percent over its pre-industrial level, the impact on the heat budget of the Earth due to the increases in CO2 and other man-influenced greenhouse substances has already reached about 75 percent of what one expects from a doubling of CO2. "Assuming that all of the very irregular change in temperature over the past 120 years or so-about 1 degree F-is due to added greenhouse gases-a very implausible assumption-the temperature rise seen so far is much less (by a factor of 2-to-3) than models predict.”
[http://www.globalwarming.org/node/85].

Assuming that the earth is a black body and ignoring any heat contribution from the earth’s core. The surface temperature must be a balance between radiative energy arising from the sun and the earth’s energy radiating out to space. Unfortunately the physical laws governing black body radiation [Planck, Wien, and Stefan Boltzmann] require specialist mathematical understanding.

The scientific debate on Greenhouse is not over. Any proposed government response to limit carbon dioxide emission is premature and unwarranted on the evidence presented to date.
Posted by anti-green, Friday, 14 March 2008 4:53:05 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
Watched that pseudo-scientific show Catalyst last night with programmes dealing with anthropogenic global warming that should be preceded by a disclaimer that it is propaganda, not a documentary.

If anyone is concerned about an education revolution then it certainly isn't our National Broadcaster the ABC which shamefully promotes a belief in climate superstition. The programs were about creating alarm through sea levels and melting ice caps which is quite misleading. As an example to show up the deceit, the actual facts of the matter are quite different. i.e. Last September, NASA satellites showed the Antarctic Ice Field to be the largest it has ever been in the 30 years it has been observed by satellite.

Question ..... Would any parent encourage their children to watch this deceitful theology posing as science?
Posted by Keiran, Friday, 14 March 2008 8:40:36 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
Keiran, I had a search on the NASA website for Antarctic ice-sheet data.

I found this: http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/ice_sheets.html ,

and this: http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2007/may/HQ_07115_Antarctica_Snow_Melt.html ,

and this: http://www.nasa.gov/lb/vision/earth/environment/sea_ice.html

Try as I might, I can find nothing that remotely resembles your claims. Perhaps you'd be good enough to post a link?
Posted by Johnj, Saturday, 15 March 2008 11:57:29 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
JohnL unfortunately I've lost that actual link but these are better and go to the IPCC itself. Make sure you check the last link.

Try here ...

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/02/27/antarctica-ain%e2%80%99t-cooperating/#more-312

and here ....

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/01/21/antarctica-snowfall-increase/

where you read ....

"IPCC in their 2007 report clearly states “Antarctic sea ice extent continues to show inter-annual variability and localized changes but no statistically significant average trends, consistent with the lack of warming reflected in atmospheric temperatures averaged across the region” (in fact, Antarctic sea ice extent has recently set record highs for both total areal extent as well as total extent anomaly (see here* and here)). Furthermore, IPCC tells the world (and we wonder if anyone is listening) “Current global model studies project that the Antarctic ice sheet will remain too cold for widespread surface melting and is expected to gain in mass due to increased snowfall.”"

then see here*
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.area.south.jpg
Posted by Keiran, Saturday, 15 March 2008 5:53:41 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
Thanks for the World Climate link Keiran. I note all the editors are among the global warming "experts" who have received personal or research funding from the fossil fuel industry - not forgetting Exxon, of course!

Naturally, author Jennifer and her buddies at the IPA were included in the international list of recipients who benefit from the fossil fuel industries' piggy bank of bribes!

http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/inhofe-global-warming-deniers-scientists-46011008-3

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=5
Posted by dickie, Saturday, 15 March 2008 7:46:18 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
When you add or release energy into the atmosphere, the atmosphere warms ... if there is water around, it will evaporate.

This extra moisture precipitates out as rain or snow and as we have seen, more in some places and less in others ... depending on regional pressure and temperature differentials.

The Antarctic is still below freezing so increased snow is not unusual.

What would be of concern is ice-shelf break up due to thermal expansion of the ocean or increased ice-sheet/glacial slip.

We are experiencing a warmer and 'wetter' world.
Posted by Q&A, Saturday, 15 March 2008 11:13:07 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
I hope it's true that current climate modeling is a bit too gloomy - that would mean that if we start right now and do everything we can we just might mitigate the worst of the consequences of our "endless growth for growth's sake" reckless consumption binge.

Reduction in GDP is not the end of the world, unlike the potential consequences of continued unsustainable GDP growth.

Anyway, the reduction in availability and increased cost of fossil fuels will force some significant slowing of economies, so either way even the "climate change skeptics" have some adjusting ahead of them, along with the rest of us.
Posted by Yashouldabinthere, Saturday, 15 March 2008 11:23:17 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
First of all GDP is a measure of economic activity not a measure of economic well being. It is economic orthodoxy to suggest that well being is connected with increasing purchasing ability, but this rings false to anyone with two brain cells to run together.

Secondly, the freedom to pollute and that is what we are talking about here is hardly one that anyone would support. Much more laudable freedoms would be freedom from exhaust emissions, freedom from chlorine in drinking water, freedom from the increasing number of strange chemicals in body fat.

Thirdly, systems design to reduce pollution and increase resource use efficiency almost always cost less to implement than it does to continue using wasteful systems. This is so much the case that Walmart works hand in hand with The Rocky Mountain Institute, a resource efficiency think tank.

Finally, warmer or cooler is hardly the point, it is the danger of falling over environmental tipping points with rapid changes in our local support systems that is most worrying. The fact that pollution is simultaneously changing our atmosphere while at the same time undermining the resilience of natural systems to adapt to those changes should be enough to sway even the the most dyed in the wool capitalist of the need for limits. If India's and China's grain belts dry hundreds of billions of dollars in investments will melt away like the ice of greenland
Posted by Ian in Tokyo, Sunday, 16 March 2008 5:10:12 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
I sometimes wonder whether anyone bothers reading these articles before posting. The really interesting thing for me is the research suggesting that the negative water vapor feedback will cancel much of the greenhouse warming out. If that is the case then CO2 emissions aren't a problem.

But instead of addressing the article 75% of those who post start off on their hobby horse. From which we can deduce that it wouldn't matter what the facts are, they'd still want people to stop burning fossil fuels, or not, as the case may be!
Posted by GrahamY, Sunday, 16 March 2008 10:15:15 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
Yashouldabinthere “Reduction in GDP is not the end of the world, unlike the potential consequences of continued unsustainable GDP growth.”

Well that is true, unless you happen to be one of those folk who end up with a serious loss of “personal domestic product”, due to being out of work.

“Anyway, the reduction in availability and increased cost of fossil fuels will force some significant slowing of economies, so either way even the "climate change skeptics" have some adjusting ahead of them, along with the rest of us”

But at least that is fair, we all suffer together

Or to jump on what GY might describe as my “hobby horse”, if we address global population growth and focus on reducing it, whilst there will be a reduction in world-wide GDP, the quality of life is bound to improve, with fewer people people being dependent upon the same resources and we fix many oif the other environmental blights which challenge people around the world:

acid rain, deforestation, over-farming and over-fishing, fertiliser run off etc.

Like dear Margaret Thatcher said “Economics are the method; the object is to change the soul.”
Posted by Col Rouge, Sunday, 16 March 2008 10:40:24 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
Graham, “I sometimes wonder whether anyone bothers reading these articles before posting.” You are right and I apologise not just to you but to all posters on OLO, for I am guilty of such things (but not always).

You yourself are self-incriminating – so what is the difference? I imagine you roll your eyes sometimes seeing the posts on your forum, we posters on your site are no different.

“The really interesting thing for me is the research suggesting that the negative water vapor feedback will cancel much of the greenhouse warming out. If that is the case then CO2 emissions aren't a problem.” This is not enough Graham, whether it is interesting for you or not.

Why is it so interesting to you? You should give us the reasons – at least the links to the published research papers or sources that make it so interesting for you, so we can make up our own minds … to either agree or disagree.

Graham, one could suspect the ‘subject’ of the article could be your ‘quiet’ hobby horse as well ... why do you post here when there are so many other articles (to your credit)?

“From which we can deduce that it wouldn't matter what the facts are, they'd still want people to stop burning fossil fuels, or not, as the case may be!” Why the exclamation Graham, are you angry?

Who are the “we” Graham? Is OLO, under your management, in the business of indoctrinating people to your way of thinking – right or wrong? Are you the expert on global warming, in all its nuances? I don’t think so ... fossil fuel burning will be around for a while yet, "as the case may be".

I’m no expert and I for one am going to defer to those that are … some call it insurance or risk management.
Posted by Q&A, Sunday, 16 March 2008 11:46:26 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
Graham,
I thought Roy Spencer's presentation was most interesting - and yes, he does suggest that negative feedback will mean more carbon dioxide will not necessarily result in more warming. But water vapour = positive feedback.
Spencer leads the team that is analysing data from NASA's Aqua Satellite. This satellite launched in 2002 enables the collection of detailed data for the first time on cloud formation, water vapour and temperture anomalies and it has shown that weather processes (including low level cloud formation and then rainfall as opposed to more water vapour and high level cloud)limit the total greenhouse effect in proporation to available sunlight.

These findings have been published and are not being disputed by mainstream meteorologists - but they are having trouble digesting the findings
Posted by Jennifer, Monday, 17 March 2008 12:02:12 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 more information on water vapour and how it responds to troposhere warming you can read Roy Spencer here:
http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm

Also, this is some of what Dr Spencer has to say about accusations of bias:

It has become commonplace for scientists like me who are skeptical of mankind's role in global warming to be branded as shills for "Big Oil". As a result of misinformation posted at ExxonSecrets.org (and other web sites that spread that misinformation), I would like to set the record straight concerning my financial interests.

ExxonSecrets.org notes that I have given talks on global warming at conservative think tanks like the Marshall Institute, implying that I have some sort of financial relationship with them. In truth, I received no speaking fee for these talks -- but I HAVE been paid for giving talks for environmental organizations in several states. I wonder why ExxonSecrets.org doesn't mention this connection to "Big Environmentalism"? After all, they are the ones who have paid me speaking fees -- not the Marshall Institute....

As long as the global warming pessimists can convince the public that we skeptics are simply shills for Big Oil, they do not have to address our scientific arguments. The claims that there are no peer-reviewed scientific articles that oppose a manmade source of global warming are, quite simply, wrong. Fortunately, the tide is slowly turning, and increasing numbers of scientists are now speaking out about their doubts concerning mankind's role in recent global warmth.
Posted by Jennifer, Monday, 17 March 2008 8:24:05 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
Hi Jennifer. I simply made the point that the vast majority of wholesale critics of anthropogenic climate change invariably are either not publishing work in the critical specialist journals, and so are not involved in the peer-reviewed science proper of climate change, or are part of astroturf organisations - which certainly exist - such as the Heartland Institute - which funded the conference and selected and paid for the speakers you are attempting to pass off in the article as a gathering of independent and disinterested scientists.

I raised this issue in general terms, because we see a remarkably consistent pattern with those who are taking the strongest sceptic position. Every time it is the same: an argument is made that there is no real consensus, we have another self-proclaimed expert trotted out who often happens to misrepresent their qualifications (either through positive representations, or by simply staying silent as to their particular expertise), does not publish any peer-reviewed work in modern journals, only op-eds, claims to be a victim of vast conspiracy, and happens to hold a large number of heterodox views either about climate science, or just general science - such as Mr Spencer's view that long-term increases in observed carbon dioxide concentration at Mauna Loa since 1958 are driven by the ocean, or his claim that ID is 'scientifically' equivalent to evolution.

Now, I'm not saying their is no room for disagreement. Obviously we depend on scepticism as part of the natural scientific process. But, you'll forgive me for not accepting that name dropping the speaker lists from a conference funded by industry specifically to promote a counterpoint view which suits industry, demonstrates a real plurality of views in the scientific community. It doesn't. The individual claims that come from any putative testable science done by any of the participating scientists will have its voice in the scientific enterprise, but it needs to be weighed in the proper peer-reviewed process, not bypassing that process through a PR exercise.

FYI - Detailed responses to most climate change scepticism can be found at the following blogs:
http://www.realclimate.org
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/
Posted by BBoy, Monday, 17 March 2008 9:57:01 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
Dickie, when i posted a web address it was to show the graph with SH sea ice at .... i.e. http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.area.south.jpg

Even with basic primary school understanding of the melting point of ice and some knowledge of Anarctica you wouldn't even need to consult someone nor look at graphs. I suggest you start using plain old commonsense. However, the real issue in my post here is the manner in which our national broadcaster, the ABC, handles science particularly with climate because it points to weak people, a weak media and an outcome where science faces a diminishing role in public policy. There is no moral purpose nor education revolution to be found at the ABC.

Then some people simply see earth’s climate politically with all the alarmist warmers on the left. But the big misconception here is that our largest plasma discharge formation the sun and our galactic environment don’t go to the ballotbox and vote on anything. Politics or who someone thinks they are has little relevance. When it comes to earth’s climate we are just a petite faaart but Fruitloop Flannery, Shonky Algorithms, Hansen and co, just naturally assume they are the hurricane. It is no coincidence that we have Flannery wanting to be one of the “Weather Makers” which proves the point that a person with a frothing delusion like this is absolutely convinced that the delusion is real. Also, these jokers all assume now is the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that our sun is somehow perfect, constant and regular. This is all part of this AGW fraud.
Posted by Keiran, Monday, 17 March 2008 5:45:04 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
Czech President Klaus, who holds an economics degree, is no more qualified to assert his opinion on the science of climate change than an ordinary lay person. Nevertheless, as prime minister from 1992 to 1997, he was credited with successfully transforming the Czech economy though hardly relevant to global warming. He was also forced to leave office after his party was implicated in a financial scandal.

Michael J. Economides is a professor at the Cullen College of Engineering, University of Houston; chairman of the board of Paleon Oil and Gas; and managing partner of a petroleum engineering and petroleum strategy consulting firm. He is editor-in-chief of the Energy Tribune.

Roy Spencer may be on to something with his latest research on CO2 but typically fails to address anthropogenic, environmental toxicity. The religious Spencer has been proven wrong in the past which makes me wonder, when one scientist comes up with a hypothesis which suits the ideologies of the sceptics, why everyone on the right falls over themselves trying to pile it on?

I'm again compelled to reiterate unanswered questions raised in the past with the author and request that she addresses here, the relevant, scientifically proven and dire state of this planet's eco-systems - predominantly a result of fossil fuel emissions (= CO2):

1. Unprecedented mass bird deaths
2. Unprecedented mass fish deaths
3. Unprecedented (in modern history) numbers of threatened native species in Australia
4. Unprededented worldwide community objections to industrial pollution affecting human health and community amenities
5. Unprecedented ocean dead zones
6. Unprecedented number of nations advising pregnant women and young children not to eat fish - a result of mercury contamination
7. Unprecedented, conservative estimate of 3 million deaths per year from fossil fuel pollution (WHO)
8. Unprecedented government bans on fishing to prevent collapses of fish stocks
9. Unprecedented land and water toxicity and degradation

What are the author's recommendations for preventing humans from populating themselves out of existence or the continued clearing of hectare after hectare for housing, business, mining, farming etc whilst she continues to advocate exclusively for the "freedom" to pollute?
Posted by dickie, Monday, 17 March 2008 6:21:52 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
"Even with basic primary school understanding of the melting point of ice and some knowledge of Anarctica you wouldn't even need to consult someone nor look at graphs. I suggest you start using plain old commonsense." Keiran

Errr....commonsense about what Keiran? I've not commented on Anarctica - not here or anywhere else! Delusions?

Nevertheless Keiran let's have your "expert" opinion on the glacier ice melts in other parts of the planet and your hypothesis on the cause of the ice melts please.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/mar/16/glaciers.climatechange

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/glacier-ice-loss-at-record-levels-796623.html
Posted by dickie, Monday, 17 March 2008 7:19:41 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
Yes Q&A, Greenhouse is one of my hobby horses, because it is where the shonks are in a feeding frenzy. I'm a typical journalist - interested in the cover-ups and the deceptions. I'm appalled at the way science is being prostituted, generally, but not always, in the alarmist direction.

But I like to think that I look at the arguments and deal with them on their own terms. And I think I understand the arguments and the underlying science well-enough not to get caught up in the mindless and spurious arguments that "my peer review is better than yours".

In fact, the last argument is a pretty sure marker of someone who is just cheer leading, and who is therefore by definition, not motivated by a deep or genuine interest in the truth of the matter. The climate argument is full of such people who have a religious conviction that they are right and just want us to fall in line with their sacred texts.

We wouldn't accept these types of arguments from politicians, and we shouldn't accept them from scientists. But you're free to think what you want. Me expressing a particular point of view doesn't change that. And the fact that I run this site where you have freedom to post pretty well makes a nonsense out of your insinuation that I'm trying to manipulate things.
Posted by GrahamY, Monday, 17 March 2008 10:18:22 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
Fair enough Graham. I am also very disturbed at the way the GW ‘alarmists’ jump on their ‘hobby-horse’ … just as much as I am disturbed by ‘denialists’ of GW and their ‘hobby-horse’.

I don’t have issue with genuine sceptics (in the scientific sense). Indeed, scepticism is healthy for debate and contributes to the process of scientific enquiry; it is the antithesis of science to do or think otherwise.

Unfortunately, most people adopt a stance not based on genuine science, but on the political or social ideology of some affected ‘interest’ group that distort or misrepresent the science for their own ends. This is why it is disingenuous to denounce the peer review process as “spurious”. Following that logic to its conclusion, anyone could say anything about the theory of climate science, but because one says so does not make it so.

I agree; “the climate argument is full of such people who have a religious conviction that they are right and just want us to fall in line with their sacred texts” … but surely you must agree it goes both ways. There are extremists on both sides of the fence.

It is somewhat disturbing that you (as a journalist) are quite prepared to ‘jump and thump’ (quite rightly I believe) the ‘alarmists’ when they make outrageous claims, but don’t do the same thing when the ‘denialists’ (used in the vernacular) make their outrageous claims.
Your silence is conspicuous and speaks volumes Graham ... “a pretty sure marker of someone who is just cheer leading, and who is therefore by definition, not motivated by a deep or genuine interest in the truth of the matter” … it cuts both ways.

Water vapour is by far the most abundant GHG, and it has both negative and positive feedbacks associated with it.

So, I would like to ask again, “You should give us the reasons – at least the links to the published research papers or sources that make it so interesting for you.” I am genuinely interested in what you have to say – believe it or not.
Posted by Q&A, Tuesday, 18 March 2008 8:44:27 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
Dickie,

Speaking of the cold south, try the British Antarctic Survey home page, or:

http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/bas_research/our_research/topics/climate_change.php

http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/bas_research/current_programmes/grades/qwad/index.php

http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/bas_research/current_programmes/index.php

As to Roy Spencer, he is a genuine sceptic and I will look at what he says with reason. However, it is easy to see why some would question his motives:

http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1397

The Heartland Institute’s recent gathering was interesting, a pity it wasn’t covered as widely as they had anticipated it would – given that 19 climate scientists and the Czech President Klaus were their for the photo-shoot.

Keiran

Following up from another thread, I will point beginners to Wikipedia,

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

It’s a good place for people to get a general overview. Notwithstanding, I typically look at more technical stuff that would be complicated or confusing for the layperson.

You may find an interest here:

http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/bas_research/current_programmes/sec.php

Two weeks ago I met an astrophysicist that has been working with the Australian Antarctic Division, his speciality; your ‘sunny-boy’ and galactic cosmic rays. What he has to say would disappoint you, but hey … what would he know?

Jennifer

No matter how you try to spin it, there is optimism in tackling the challenges of global warming (climate change as Bush prefers). As I said to Graham, there are extremists on both sides that need to pull their collective heads in – it’s not about the science, it’s more to do with political or social ideology.
Posted by Q&A, Tuesday, 18 March 2008 11:51:47 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
Q&A the research is reported in the article. Maybe Jennifer can give us a link to the paper where he publishes his findings. I'm not asserting that his position is correct, I'm stating that I'm interested in this fact, and that it is the major point of the article. I don't need to give a reference for it, the article is the reference.

If you go to Jennifer's blog you will find a long discussion thread on the issue, and there seems to have been some significant shifting by AGW alarmists there in the light of it.

If Spencer's research is robust then all the current modelling is nonsense, and that makes a huge difference to the issue. I don't need references to say this, just the ability to apply logic to a number of propositions.

Why am I more interested in alarmists than skeptics. Well, the alarmists are running the show, and if you're running the show you cop more attention that if you're not. And no, I don't have a citation for that either, but just do a content anlaysis of today's news and tell me who gets more coverage, government or opposition. Plus the real skeptical drivel wouldn't make it through to OLO.

Oh, and I never argue on the basis of authority, so I'mn not sure what you mean by quoting me on cheerleading. It doesn't apply to me.
Posted by GrahamY, Tuesday, 18 March 2008 1:01:13 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
Dickie, i don't put myself up as an "expert" and am just a common old nobody. Even with a common basic primary school understanding of climate and weather events you would expect some glacial melts in the natural warming of the twentieth century. Just seems that the issue of glacial retreat is being sensationalised by a few "experts" ......i.e. Alarmist AGW "experts" using wrong assumptions.

As an example, on-the-spot research and with nearly 200 years of data indicates that nothing abnormal has been found in any of the Himalyan glaciers. In New Zealand all 48 glaciers in the Southern Alps have grown during the past year and in Norway many glaciers are growing at record pace. You can go elsewhere and see similar. Most people it seems, know very little about the natural world and how it works. This just points to how a lack of knowledge is easily exploited and of course with the Dickies of this world, when coupled with fear, it makes for an ever more powerful manipulative instrument. i.e. Sucker bait

The point here is that glacial melts do not prove AGW at all. In addition, annual melts of Arctic sea ice will not change sea level because it is in the water anyway and incidentally this winter all the ice is back with expansion.
Posted by Keiran, Tuesday, 18 March 2008 1:12:13 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
My OLO article is based in part on a lecture given by Roy Spencer in New York a couple of weeks ago which I attended. The lecture was based on findings from data from the NASA Aqua satellite - Dr Spencer leads the team analysing data from this satellite which was launched in 2002. Some of these findings have been published in GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 34, L15707, doi:10.1029/2007GL029698, 2007 which you can access here
http://www.weatherquestions.com/Spencer_07GRL.pdf
and there is another technical paper in press
Posted by Jennifer, Tuesday, 18 March 2008 1:57:19 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
To re-explain:

The currently accepted theory is:

1. The most prevalent greenhouse gas is water vapour
2. As temperatures rise, the oceans warm up and release extra water vapour
3. This water vapour then absorbs energy and radiates some of it to the ground, thus helping global temperatures to rise even more

So the idea is that the warming effects of carbon dioxide will be amplified by increasing water vapour i.e. positive feedback.

But this is NOT what the latest data from the latest satellite shows.

Data from NASA’s Aqua Satellite, which was only launched in 2002, shows that water vapour and high altitude cloud cover don’t necessarily increase when there is warming. Rather weather processes limit the total greenhouse effect in proportion to available sunlight. This can happen in a variety of ways through the hydrological cycle, for example low level clouds release water vapour from the atmosphere when it rains.

All the UN IPCC models have water vapour as a positive feedback with warming, but in fact in the real world there is negative feedback with warming.
Posted by Jennifer, Tuesday, 18 March 2008 2:03:46 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
Jennifer “All the UN IPCC models have water vapour as a positive feedback with warming, but in fact in the real world there is negative feedback with warming.”

As one of the “healthy skeptics”, I appreciate your confirmation to the dangers of relying on uncertain assumptions based on underdeveloped and obviously erroneous models.

Climatology, a very young (= immature) “science”, I suspect has a fair component of subjective assumption (like that on water vapour) and should really be called an “Art”, needs to be held accountable for the accuracy of these models.

Anyone supporting an agenda which relies on the accuracy of models is obviously too gullible to be safe around national or state or local council policy discussions.

Using subjective and barely tested models, computer or otherwise, is a dangerous basis for playing God with the worlds economic system, which again, even after 200 years, no one can produce a definitive model of, although Harold Wilson (ex UK PM) did some interesting stuff with pipes, buckets and coloured water (but I would not trust him to fix a leaky toilet).

Signing up for emotionally driven Carbon emissions reduction Objectives, funded by artificial carbon taxes, expropriated from tax payers on an unfounded proposition and erroneous models, is an abuse of government power. It is nothing more than “Socialism by Stealth”.
Posted by Col Rouge, Tuesday, 18 March 2008 5:08:54 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
Jennifer, if that is the whole hypothesis and the basis of the UN IPCC models, then if true, earth would have overheated long ago just on water vapour. If you have a basic primary school understanding of positive feedbacks then you would know how they make for an unstable situation ...... something like continually pushing someone up on a swing. Crikey, in such an event who would need any CO2? What ridiculous stuff. LOL
Posted by Keiran, Tuesday, 18 March 2008 7:18:00 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
Jennifer

Thanks for the link to the Spencer et al paper. Yes, it is very interesting and I understand why Graham would say “If Spencer's research is robust then all the current modelling is nonsense and that makes a huge difference to the issue.”

The qualifying term is IF, but I would not have gone as far as to suggest the current modelling is nonsense, no matter how robust.

The point is; the theory of AGW does not rest alone on computer modeling (contrary to what many people would have us believe) … isotope analysis and attribution studies for example. This is ‘lost’ or not understood by the majority of people.

While water vapour has a relatively short residence time in the atmosphere compared to other more ‘potent’ GHG’s, it is still not entirely understood in terms of its feedback (positive and negative) effects on the planet’s climate system – no genuine scientist would dispute this.

However, the difficulty for the so called sceptics of AGW is to prove that there is a more vigorous driver of the current global warming than CO2 … they have not been able to do this, yet.

We can only encourage Spencer and others to continue to research their hypotheses, studying solar irradiance or cosmic rays or whatever – and publish.

Who knows, maybe one day they will get a Nobel for disproving the theory of AGW?
Posted by Q&A, Wednesday, 19 March 2008 1:34:26 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
Q&A Just look at this piccie.
http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/data/anomnight.3.13.2008.gif

Just seems the sun is implicated as the driver of this change. Why is the surface cooling across the tropics and mainly on the equator like the Indian and Pacific cooling forming a particularly noticeable band? Why does it appear clearly that the warmer surface is being pushed to the higher latitudes with its leading edge showing as the warmest? Pretty easy to explain Adelaide's hot spell one would think, too.

Plenty of questions and this link offers pretty good thoughts on the matter with Cloud_temp_tropo.pdf at the quite remarkable Erland Happ's place …
http://www.happs.com.au/pages/research.html#anchor

However, my thoughts are the cosmic-ray and cloud-forcing hypothesis. Note i say hypothesis and there may be other ones to explain this cloudy and cooler period across the tropics as we experience an extended solar minimum. Any comment?

One feels that there are always plenty of cosmic rays high in the air, but they and the ions that they liberate are in short supply at low altitudes, so that increases or decreases due to changes in solar magnetism have more noticeable consequences lower down and I suspect at lower latitudes too.
Posted by Keiran, Wednesday, 19 March 2008 5:25:14 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
Kieran and others who have recently commented at this thread may be interested in cosmic rays, the sun and whatever else ...

But Spencer's expertise and interest is in accurately measuring global temperatures. He is the recipient of NASA's Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement and the American Meterorological Society's Special Award for his satellite-based temperature monitoring work.

Since the launch of the Aqua Satellite detailed data has also been gathered on the hydrological cycle (including water vapour and cloud evolution) and how it responses to temperature anomalies. Given water vapour is a principle greenhouse gas - this is very relevant work in the context of testing current theories of global warming.
Posted by Jennifer, Wednesday, 19 March 2008 9:20:21 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
And this is relevant: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025

Why aren't the ocean's warming?

And from the link:
"But if the aquatic robots are actually telling the right story, that raises a new question: Where is the extra heat all going?

"Kevin Trenberth at the National Center for Atmospheric Research says it's probably going back out into space. The Earth has a number of natural thermostats, including clouds, which can either trap heat and turn up the temperature, or reflect sunlight and help cool the planet.

[it can also rain and release water vapour back to earth]

"That can't be directly measured at the moment, however.

"Unfortunately, we don't have adequate tracking of clouds to determine exactly what role they've been playing during this period," Trenberth says.

[of course with the NASA Aqua Satellite we are starting to get a handle on this - on the hydrological cycle and what role it plays]
Posted by Jennifer, Thursday, 20 March 2008 9:28:03 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
Kieren,

You lift and image from NOAA and want me to explain it to you? Why don’t you just check out their site more fully? Heck, what’s stopping you from emailing your questions to NOAA itself (their website can be tricky to navigate if you’re new)?

Jenifer,

Now I really think you and the rest of us have lost site of your article; “Carbon Rationing or Freedom” … what was the point you were trying to make anyhow?

To really know where I’m coming from, maybe you should have a peek at this thread (I enter the fray about half way in):

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6885&page=0#104400

You point to a media link about what Kevin Trenberth says. He has also said this;

http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_8563859

So Jennifer, just to get back on topic; Trenberth’s article seems to be at odds with what you are suggesting in your article… of which I am still trying to figure out.

At the end of the day, whether you believe in AGW or not … it seems the real problem facing the world is ‘unsustainable development’, particularly as it directly relates to burgeoning economic and population growth and the way we use energy.
Posted by Q&A, Thursday, 20 March 2008 3:53:35 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
Q&A you seem in particularly arrogant / patronizing mood .

“Now I really think you and the rest of us have lost site of your article;”

Being one of the “rest of us”, you do not speak for me.

“To really know where I’m coming from, maybe you should have a peek at this thread (I enter the fray about half way in):”

Maybe you should go back to the beginning.

My first post is quite clear and a suited reference for you to catch up with the beginning of the article

Quoting myself

“(from the article) “It is not just about climatology; it is also about freedom.”

Exactly, government is there to reflect the will of the electorate,

Unlike Gibo’s offering “world governments to force everyone back onto bicycles. But I think they are too snivelling to do the work.”

A government which has the power to force its electorate onto bicycles will never get elected and any one which tries can be removed at the next election. You might wish to embrace the lifestyle of a Maoist Chinese peasant but it offers little allure for me.

That is not “sniveling”. it is democracy at work.”

To your final paragraph

“At the end of the day, whether you believe in AGW or not … it seems the real problem facing the world is ‘unsustainable development’, particularly as it directly relates to burgeoning economic and population growth and the way we use energy.”

When small minds grab things, they fail to distinguish between causes and effects.

This thread and article is not to do with “unsustainable development” or how it differs to “sustainable development” (effects).

It is not about global warming (effect), as such.

“Economic growth” is not the issue (measure of effect).

You mention population growth, that’s the “cause” of the effects you listed above but I figure its inclusion was more by accident than reason.

finally how we “use energy” (unrelated cause) was not considered in the article either.

You post is well below acceptable standard. Lift your game if you expect to retain anything resembling credibility.
Posted by Col Rouge, Thursday, 20 March 2008 5:01:52 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
Big mistake to go after Q&A, a poster of modest persona with an immodest wealth of knowledge on this subject.

The personas of Jennifer, Col Rouge and Graham Young are as fragile as Humpty Dumpty and they remain out of Q&A's league on environmental issues.

Therefore, I too will request an answer to the puzzle here where the title of this thread: "Carbon rationing or freedom" requires clarifying. Why does the author avoid debating the subject of this thread?

Should the author be alluding to the capping of carbon emissions in her title, then I advise that responsible companies are already doing that whilst operating at a profit. However, the cartel which Jennifer is representing is resisting all attempts to act responsibly.

Furthermore, rationing carbon, as proven, will not return society to the bicycle era, but provide an opportunity for our ecosystems, trashed by industrial pollution, to remediate themselves.

Governments are now reclaiming and buying out pastoral and agricultural properties, desecrated by industry. Hectares of land will now be off-limits for remediation purposes. Should a referendum have occurred for such decisions Col Rouge? Are these actions undemocratic? I think not!

I welcome Roy Spencer's research on global warming though it will not solve the dire situation of the fossil fuel emissions which have contaminated human health and our ecosystems.

Perhaps now the skeptics' cartel will cease peddling misinformation about those they regard as obstacles to their grand plans?

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/now/
Posted by dickie, Thursday, 20 March 2008 8:09:58 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
Jennifer, this prawn, Trenberth says it'll .... "send people back to the drawing board". What a laugh. Notice there is no mention of good old sunnyboy out there and what he's up to because that would be blasphemous and that other joker Josh says "it may be that we are in a period of less rapid warming" (lol) and it is all in the oceans with some reference to the "weather" phenomenon known as El Nino. Just shows when you have the lame media in your pocket AGWers can say anything and magically it commands "respect". e.g. like on the ABC 7.30 report tonight with this propagandist, deadhead Garnaut.

Q&A, i'm sorry, i thought you were a question and answer fellow, however for me this isn't just lifting an image and going to some "expert" to explain it. It is quite self-explanatory. I tend to like going to the raw data or primary sources ... Also, when you say elsewhere " that CO2 has a comparative life span of 100 years", i say prove it.

Just look at this piccie once again and notice the obvious latitudinal bands and what is happening globally. We are not looking at simply a localised La Nina at all and it isn't some minor weather event of unknown cause. Heck how do you explain Baghdad seeing its first snow in all recorded history? Does it occur to anyone that poor old sunnyboy is, to use the current parlance, guilty and the sinner but hasn't been put on trial yet?
http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/data/anomnight.3.17.2008.gif

ps I can sense a class action if the government wants to impose a carbon tax based on faulty data and superstitious climate alarm.
Posted by Keiran, Thursday, 20 March 2008 8:51:58 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
Who profits from global warming?

Governments who sell carbon emission permits.
Existing big business with the ability to profit in trading these permits.
Misanthropes.
Those who know what's best for us all.ie the cowardly.

What if the negative effect is real and does invalidate existing models?

The science is obviously not settled. (not to mention the infant understanding of the role of the sun in all this).

After Carbon Trading comes Carbon Trading Futures(irony intended) and then Derivatives.

PS the haste with which Keveryman signed the KP was just me-tooism on a larger stage.

PPS $2 spent on green energy to use the equivalent of $1 of fossil fuel energy will add to GDP, not subtract from it; regardless of the effect on our standard of living.
Posted by palimpsest, Thursday, 20 March 2008 10:26:38 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
Dickie, “Big mistake to go after Q&A, a poster of modest persona with an immodest wealth of knowledge on this subject.”

I can live with my mistakes (although I am not fearful in this context)

“The personas of Jennifer, Col Rouge and Graham Young are as fragile as Humpty Dumpty”

Speaking for myself (I hate to act as someone else’s orifice, something dickie should remember) you have no idea of the resilience of my persona but let me assure you it has not broken, despite the “great falls” I have experienced.

As for Q&A, I would rather address him direct.

Dickie, you can think what you like of me but my lack of a scientific qualification does not limit by ability to reason, analyse and deduce.

The fact is the majority of the work done on climate change is still up for review and revision.

My posts contain a question which I am entitled to challenge any “scientist” with.

That question is how truthful and well tested is your hypothesis ?

Physics is defined by physical laws.
Chemistry is annotated by the periodic table.
Biology is now being defined by reference to DNA and other discernable biological facts and observations.

Lawyers work to a set of prescribed laws
Even humble Accountants live within the limits of truth being to “reflect a true and fair view”, subject to specific rules and standards.

All these laws of have evolved through centuries of repeated test, observation and scrutiny.

But for “climatology” and and theories to green house gases, the rules are still being written, the assumptions being refined.

The predictions and outcomes are thus, materially less reliable and the error factors significantly greater.

I consider it a more than folly, I consider it criminal negligence to place long term economic and social planning under the authority of the unproven and error prone speculations of climatologists and their egos.

If you think I am wrong, feel free to argue the point but never, ever try to shut me down by challenging my persona or right to be heard, it only fuels my tenacity.
Posted by Col Rouge, Thursday, 20 March 2008 11:03:47 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
Col

There are the observations, like earlier springs, melting glaciers, rising sea level and warming temperatures. Then there is the interpretation of these observations. Now if Spencer's research proves his hypothesis, then this could dramatically change the scientific interpretation of the significance of these events. But if Spencer's hypothesis is incorrect, will your opinion change, Col, or will you just tag along with the next barrow carrying your agenda?
Posted by Fester, Friday, 21 March 2008 10:15:29 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
Col Rouge,

“Your post is well below acceptable standard. Lift your game if you expect to retain anything resembling credibility.”

Thanks Col, but I have difficulty accepting this advice from you.

Whenever I see your name now I’m reminded of your reply to another poster who crossed your bow waves … these were your words;

"I am happy to present a polemic to whatever you care to elect and then swap roles and argue in reverse." This says a lot about your own credibility, Col.

You just want to argue for the sake of argument … you compromise, distort and misrepresent the truth for you own politico-ideological agenda.

You a “healthy sceptic”, LOL. You can’t argue the science (you haven’t got a clue) … your aim is to exacerbate the divisions between the so called ‘Right’ and ‘Left’ with your personal mantra of “socialism by stealth”.

What humanity could be doing (and they are trying) is working together to solve a global problem, clearly you don’t want this.

Oh yeah, however you try to spin it, no one will be asking us to “embrace the lifestyle of a Maoist Chinese peasant” – this is just fear mongering, typical of your ilk.

Dickie,

Don’t be too harsh on Graham; he is a journo after all. He tries to look at both sides in an unbiased way, tough. The media in general have a huge responsibility and they are creating just as much fear as the alarmists and the outright deniers.

As for Jennifer; well the IPA, Heartland and Cato Institute, Lavoisier Group, Tech Central Station, etc, etc. These are all ‘think tanks’ (IMO) that promote an ideological perspective to maintain the status quo and will use whatever scientific critique to ‘validate’ their inaction.

Roy Spencer may be onto something and maybe one day will be recognised as a latter-day Galileo, Newton or Einstein, and be forgiven by the Pope – but he is not there yet. Jennifer thinks he is the ‘ants-pants’ – that’s ok, no one is perfect.
Posted by Q&A, Friday, 21 March 2008 10:28:35 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
This is not about personalities, this is about a simply theory which has been articulated, incorporated into models and has now been proven wrong.

To recap, this time from a new article by Roy Spencer:

"By analyzing six years of data from a variety of satellites and satellite sensors, we found that when the tropical atmosphere heats up due to enhanced rainfall activity, the rain systems there produce less cirrus cloudiness, allowing more infrared energy to escape to space. The combination of enhanced solar reflection and infrared cooling by the rain systems was so strong that, if such a mechanism is acting upon the warming tendency from increasing carbon dioxide, it will reduce manmade global warming by the end of this century to a small fraction of a degree. Our results suggest a “low sensitivity” for the climate system."

Read more here: http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=82
Posted by Jennifer, Friday, 21 March 2008 10:44:17 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
sorry the above link is missing an '8' from the end, it should be:

http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=828

Posted on Mar. 20, 2008
By Roy W. Spencer
The Sloppy Science of Global Warming
Posted by Jennifer, Friday, 21 March 2008 10:54:35 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
"That question is how truthful and well tested is your hypothesis?"

Col Rouge. I do not offer any hypotheses. I am merely the messenger and I derive much of my long-term officially documented information from those who are employed by this nation as experts to manage the Australian environment.

In addition, I regularly peruse industrial emissions' reports where the analytical contents have been provided by NATA accredited laboratories. Alas, those types of mathematical equations would simply be too complex for you to ingest.

"The fact is the majority of the work done on climate change is still up for review and revision."

Ah yes and thank you for that revelation Col Rouge. If you ever ceased being right up yourself, you would realise that I have not debated climate change or global warming.

Certainly my criticisms have been directed at the "deniers." Not because, they, like you, deny that GW is anthropogenic but because, they, like you, purposely fail to publicly acknowledge that fossil fuels and other hazardous industrial emissions are destroying our fragile ecosystems and human health.

Additionally, I will continue to alert readers to those deniers who are recipients of funding from pollutant industries, and who distort the facts and misquote those scientists who warn of the environmental consequences from man-made hazardous emissions.

Industrial pollution cares not whether there is global warming or an ice-age. These hazards remain destructive either way. Jennifer et al are well aware of this dilemma, however, an honest acknowledgement certainly would not suit their immoral agenda for fiscal domination.

One finds most tedious, your unrelated and shonky trial balance estimates, your inaccurate profit and loss rants, third rate creative accounting and your hysterics over the totally irrelevant references to Mao's Chinese peasants.

Is there the slightest possibility that we may, in the near future, derive from your tirades, something that is remotely environmentally scientific?
Posted by dickie, Friday, 21 March 2008 11:28:27 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
Jennifer (on topic?)

Spencer says, “I am not claiming that all of our recent warming is natural. But the extreme reluctance for most scientists to even entertain the possibility that some of it might be natural suggests to me that climate research has become corrupted.”

Bollocks. Find a scientist that says natural variability doesn't impact on climate change. He is the one being sloppy by this nefarious distortion.

____________________________

Keiran (off topic?)

I ask questions, I seek answers.

So, you like raw data and going to the primary source?

Try the 40/50 year data set (Centre for Ocean-Land-Atmosphere Studies) of monthly upper ocean heat content (HC) used to study the inter-annual variability in the tropical Indian Ocean.

The data is produced by an ocean assimilation system using a comprehensive set of in-situ measurements of SST to vertically profile upper ocean temperatures.

Col, you’re a “healthy sceptic” in the scientific sense, what do you think?

You can see an inter-annual oscillation with short time scales in the tropical Indian Ocean. It is associated with equatorial HC anomalies propagating from the eastern-central Indian Ocean and maintained in the western Indian Ocean south of the equator in response to wind anomalies along the equator and in the southern ocean.

The Equatorial Indian Ocean Oscillation (EQUINOO) is connected to the Pacific El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) through global shifts of the Walker Circulation cells.

However, there is a long-term modulation to the EQUINOO. The period of the oscillation was relatively short in the 60s and 70s, demonstrating stronger biennial features. However, it has grown longer recently. Why?

Using NCEP data, analyse the atmospheric circulation patterns associated with different regions of the EQUINOO. You might note, although the leading modes of surface-wind and precipitation are consistent with that of the HC, the SST pattern is different. Why?

The change of thermocline depth mainly affects SST fluctuations near the equator. The SST variations in the subtropics are mainly driven by coupled surface/atmosphere heat flux differentials.

Ruminate over Easter and open another thread.

Col (and Keiran) – yes, I am being arrogant and patronising, can you understand why?
Posted by Q&A, Friday, 21 March 2008 4:19:19 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
This thread was a discussion of Jennifer's article but it now appears to have veered off onto off-topic discussion of circulation patterns and ad hominem attacks.

Dickie, if you don't understand the science and just want to cherry pick scientists who agree with you and then quote them without understanding them, then why are you posting on this thread rather than sitting back and trying to understand the arguments? We won't progress the argument if participants are going to just argue from authority and smear others because they may have received funding from organisations with a financial stake in an issue.

Both the sceptics and the alarmists receive funding from organisations with a financial interest in them being right, not to mention the fact that they earn salaries and gain promotions for being right. That's the way the world works.

Q&A, what do you mean "Walker Circulation cells"? There's only one that I'm aware of. Can you explain in clear terms what it is you are trying to say and what bearing it has on Spencer's work?
Posted by GrahamY, Friday, 21 March 2008 5:35:56 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
GrahamY

My guess is that Q&A is alluding to the fact that evidence for agw has come independently from a broad range of scientific disciplines. Spencer's hypothesis would not be in agreement with this evidence if correct. And I hope it is correct, given that climatic inertia means that the full effect of today's CO2 emissions wont be apparent for another thirty years or so.

There is one climatic effect that is strongly attributable to human activity. It is the contraction of the Antarctic vortex, which has resulted in a significant change to the Southern Australian climate. It has resulted both from the effect of ozone depleting gases and global warming. So even if you were to deny a human contribution to global warming, would you agree that humans are at least partly responsible for this climatic effect?
Posted by Fester, Friday, 21 March 2008 9:48:23 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
"Dickie, if you don't understand the science and just want to cherry pick scientists who agree with you and then quote them without understanding them, then why are you posting ..........?

Nice try Graham Young

Answer a question with a question and display a pitiful attempt to distort truth. Who are these "scientists who agree with me" Graham? I'd like to meet them. Who are the "scientists I am quoting?"

When you and Jennifer avoid answering a question in a debate , you are not only evincing flawed reasoning, but also violating basic principles of discussion. If you prefer to take a whack at me, you need to be willing to also address my comments, concerns, and queries. If you don’t, then it’s no longer a two-way exchange of information and views.

Instead, on 17/3, you made an unprovoked attack on my contribution:

"In fact, the last argument is a pretty sure marker of someone who is just cheer leading, and who is therefore by definition, not motivated by a deep or genuine interest in the truth of the matter."

Very feeble Graham. If I were to call you a fascist, I would need to support that accusation with something substantial. You have failed the first rule of debate by going after me with obfuscation and avoidance.

It is obvious that all the articles you have placed on your forum are predominantly political and have nothing to do with environmental matters - or have they?

Q&A kindly excused you claiming you are a journalist on a fact-finding mission. That I don't accept and I believe you are a sceptic.

If one was to advise that you were once a property developer, I would be more inclined to accept that.

My contribution here is on the chemical reactions of carbon dioxide, which is entirely appropriate for the topic. Do you understand the science of CO2 Graham?

If you and Jennifer are unwilling or unable to respond to my questions of 17/3, then I can only assume that the kitchen must be growing a bit hot for both of you.
Posted by dickie, Friday, 21 March 2008 11:42:40 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
Q&A “You just want to argue for the sake of argument “

Yes Q&A I can argue, it exercises my ability to reason, analyse and deduce.

Regarding “You can’t argue the science (you haven’t got a clue)”

We live in a country where freedom of speech is valued. I will not be silent simply to pacify or pander to your self-proclaimed and overbearing sense of authority and bullying.

I will quote what others have observed of you,


Of Q&A -
“you who claim to be scientists, but who fail to abide by scientific methods, are doing a lot of damage to the discipline, and ultimately to our faith in science.”

And

“I acknowledge that there are two sides. Some, like you, don't want to. I'd like to see your science qualifications. I bet they don't exist.”


I am not arguing “science”.

I am arguing reason, common sense, reliability and an expectation of “truth” being a significant component in any scientific submission.

I have never claimed to hold any “scientific” credentials.

From the above quotations, regardless of your opinion of yourself, others believe you not only lack the ability to argue science but are no better equipped with “scientific credentials” than the ones I admit not to having.

Past examples of “science” which despite the credentials, lacked “veracity”

thalidomide disaster,
lead in petrol
the reason for Rachel Carson’s book “Silent Spring”
William McBride
MMR vaccines

The list goes on

In opposing my argument, you are supporting the lie.
In bullying to silence me, you display you true character.

Jennifer “This is not about personalities, this is about a simply theory which has been articulated, incorporated into models and has now been proven wrong.”

I agree,

it is an act of criminal negligence for any government or UN authority to put credence in opinions drawn from a process with lacks fundamental reliability, accuracy and “truth”, especially when matters of individual liberty are being curtailed to fund carbon taxes, to no discernable benefit.

That is “Socialism by Stealth”

And it is as stupid as it is an arrogant abuse of power.
Posted by Col Rouge, Saturday, 22 March 2008 7:22:55 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
Dickie, what you now appear to be saying is that scientists don't agree with you. I can't cite the scientists you cherry-pick because you just claim broad scientific agreement with your propositions. Now it appears you are disowning that agreement.

I've looked at your 9 questions and I don't think any of the things that you allege are happening - mass deaths of species, demonstrations, mercury contaminattion (full list here http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7124#108833) - can be specifically tied to CO2 emissions. CO2 on its own is a beneficial chemical without which none of us would be here and it promotes plant growth, so it's direct effects are good. Indirectly, what temperature rise it may have created over the last 100 years is well within natural variability to date so again shouldn't cause anything we haven't seen before.

So what's your hypothesis?

BTW, Jennifer is quoted at length in the Australian today. I think she is wrong to suggest that there has been cooling since 1998. Temperatures have plateaued, not retreated, and I think the time period is too short to establish a trend. But compared to the exxagerations of the other side of the argument I also think this is a minor transgression, with the Hockey Stick graph being the new poster child of scientific fraud, more egregious than Piltdown Man.
Posted by GrahamY, Saturday, 22 March 2008 10:22:22 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
All i can say is if we open our eyes and mind a bit we would understand that the universe is just full of material constituents that PUSH each other ..... it's a universe full of pushers. The over-riding question relates to what drives changes creating derivatives so just what are the biggest pushers and what becomes a derivative or product of the process? Most people that have been mentioned in this thread (Roy included) cannot see outside the troposphere and hence see only the product.

The biggest pusher in our part of the world is good old sunnyboy. Whilst we can study sun spot numbers I find that it is the aa index of geomagnetic activity that gives the best indication of what has happened since 1884.

When attempting to understand solar influences on earth's climate, remember that sunnyboy interacts with our planet in a wide variety of complex ways and almost certainly that all these factors are influencing our lovely planet, even though we don't fully understand how. e.g. It is not only the cyclic warming and cooling of the sun, but others that we have little understanding of like changes with cosmic rays, changes in the solar spectrum towards greater ultra-violet radiation when compared with visible or infra-red light ... also there would be other unknown possibilities.

As I've said previously, CO2 in the atmosphere brings with it a healthy greening (an abundance of weeds too) with no convincing scientific evidence of catastrophic heating of the earth's atmosphere. Our production of CO2 is puny in the scheme of things but this means little to try-hards who believe they are the weather maker or opportunist bankers wanting to make big money out of thin air.
Posted by Keiran, Saturday, 22 March 2008 11:06:59 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
Allow me to return to the topic of the”Great Climate Change Swindle.” Ray Evans- Yes, he is secretary to the Lavoisier Group- offers some useful data in the current edition of “Quadrant” magazine.

Australian electric generating capacity is 45 GW of which over 90% is coal based. To replace coal with nuclear would cost $90-120b. Plus compensation to owners of existing stations estimated at $60b.

[My own view is that nuclear should be slowly phased in, especially for reasons of health and safety].

Victoria’s brown coal costs about $25-30 MWh. NSW black coal $30-40 MWh.
Dr. Switkowski estimates cost for nuclear at 20-50% greater. Evans suggests a higher figure of $70-80 MWh.

Wind turbines is more then $80 MWh, but is essentially worthless since it can not be relied upon when required.

Regarding solar Evans referred to the economic failure of experimental CSIRO unite at White Cliffs, NSW or the financial bankruptcy of the Mojave Desert company in California.

Evans refers to the presentations at the Bali conference from China and India that economic development not greenhouse was their priority.

I doubt if it is the policy or intention of the Rudd Government to destroy the Australian economy. I predict that they will do everything in their power to delay the application of Garnault’s recommendation. Fortunately, they can read the scientific publications of the climate sceptics of which there are several hundred to get them selves off the hook.

Expect a paradigm shift from the Ruddites
Posted by anti-green, Saturday, 22 March 2008 1:45:40 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
Allow me to return to the topic of the”Great Climate Change Swindle.”

Ray Evans- Yes, he is secretary to the Lavoisier Group- offers some useful data in the current edition of “Quadrant” magazine.

Australian electric generating capacity is 45 GW of which over 90% is coal based. To replace coal with nuclear would cost $90-120b. Plus compensation to owners of existing stations estimated at $60b.

[My own view is that nuclear should be slowly phased in, especially for reasons of health and safety].

Victoria’s brown coal costs about $25-30 MWh. NSW black coal $30-40 MWh.
Dr. Switkowski estimates cost for nuclear at 20-50% greater. Evans suggests a higher figure of $70-80 MWh.

Wind turbines is more then $80 MWh, but is essentially worthless since it can not be relied upon when required.

Regarding solar Evans referred to the economic failure of experimental CSIRO unite at White Cliffs, NSW or the financial bankruptcy of the Mojave Desert company in California.

Evans refers to the presentations at the Bali conference from China and India that economic development not greenhouse was their priority.

I doubt if it is the policy or intention of the Rudd Government to destroy the Australian economy. I predict that they will do everything in their power to delay the application of Garnault’s recommendation. Fortunately, they can read the scientific publications of the climate sceptics of which there are several hundred to get them selves off the hook.

Expect a paradigm shift from the Ruddites
Posted by anti-green, Saturday, 22 March 2008 1:46:21 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
Graham

Please desist from calling others "cherry pickers."

"How can you tell your brother about the speck in his own eye when you do not see the plank in your own." (Boazy)

From whence do YOU cherry pick your information? Scientist Roy Spencer et al?

1-2:
http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:BTx7EF9lcoQJ:home.att.net/~thehessians/birds.html+dead+birds+western+australian+coastline+discovered+2007&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=au&lr=lang_en

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2004/03/23/1071910.htm

http://filebox.vt.edu/artsci/geology/mclean/Dinosaur_Volcano_Extinction/pages/studentv.html

3:
http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicthreatenedlist.pl?wanted=fauna

WA has 8 of 12 Australian biodiversity hotspots. At a global level, the South West is recognised as one of the world's 34 biodiversity hotspots. WA has 362 threatened plants, 199 threatened animals and 69 threatened ecological communities. (WA SOE EPA)

4:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/business/activists-tip-a-bucket-on-big-companies/2007/08/15/1186857593122.html?page=fullpage

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:GNrHpEd1UAgJ:councillorrooney.wordpress.com/2006/06/04/homebush-bay-dioxin-cleanup-needed/+homebush+dioxins&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=au&lr=lang_en

http://www.abc.net.au/stateline/qld/content/2004/s1089030.htm

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:RRe9rnNjuYcJ:www.sprol.com/%3Fp%3D323+kwinana+pollution&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=au&lr=lang_en

http://www.savingiceland.org/node/929

http://www.theage.com.au/news/business/villagers-sue-bhp-billiton-for-5bn/2007/01/19/1169095978975.html

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=3861

http://www.savingiceland.org/camp2007

http://protestbarrick.net/downloads/barrick_report.pdf

5:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15329993/

6:
http://www.mercurypoisoningnews.com/elevated.html

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=cb0AHTBBE7UC&pg=PA97&lpg=PA97&dq=incidents+mercury+contamination&source=web&ots=B8B-UtzRz8&sig=6E2ZsTXaJU7aXgN0ezpsvrMJeY8&hl=en#PPA118,M1

http://media.www.ntdaily.com/media/storage/paper877/news/2003/09/30/StudentLife/Dangerous.Traces.Of.Mercury.Found.In.Some.Fish-1888754.shtml

http://www.peopleandplanet.net/doc.php?id=2145

7:
http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/Update17.htm

8:
http://financialrealtime.com/stocks/otc-stock-news/smallcap527501.html

9:
http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,19328439-2761,00.html

Graham. You state: "CO2 on its own is a beneficial chemical without which none of us would be here and it promotes plant growth, so it's direct effects are good." This reveals that you are not familiar with the chemical reactions which form carbon dioxide - particularly industrial pollution from stack emissions.

The conception for the life of one unit of CO2 can begin with any of the following hydrocarbons and hundreds more when burnt:

http://www.aeat.co.uk/netcen/airqual/kinetics/#hc

Many of these hydrocarbons are carcinogenic, mutagenic and teratogenic. There are many credible scientific papers written on the toxicity of hydrocarbons to the environment and human health.

As an example, benzene is a Category One carcinogen. When benzene is burnt, it converts to CO2 as do all the others.

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons cause mutations by direct coavalent bonding with DNA etc etc. Chlorinated hydrocarbons are extremely destructive of human health and the ecosystems.

CO elevates methane and ozone before conversion to CO2.

Whilst nature spews these chemicals also, scientists estimate that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 are 150 times in excess of volcanic emissions. Quite impressive, wouldn't you agree?

This is why I have an interest in paleontology and why I have resurrected from my archives, Dewey McLean's hypothesis on mammal extinctions.

This is a lengthy thread but you asked for my hypothesis!

And you think current levels of A/C02 and industrial pollutants are beneficial? Very funny, Graham!
Posted by dickie, Saturday, 22 March 2008 2:27:23 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
One logical problem with Spencer's hypothesis is that it leaves the observed warming of the Earth largely unexplained. So if it isn't CO2, then what is it and how can either future warming or cooling be stated with confidence? One thing that can be known with confidence is that sea levels are rising, and that the rate of rising is increasing. The causes are thermal expansion and glacial melt, and both indicate continued warming, which is consistent with the effect of increased atmospheric CO2 postulated by AGW. I think this evidence a little more robust than the data from 3000 robots.

"what temperature rise it may have created over the last 100 years is well within natural variability to date so again shouldn't cause anything we haven't seen before"

Given that there have been frozen oceans and polar croc attacks as part of the natural variability, isn't the statement a little trite? The warming of Southern Australia as a consequence of ozone depletion and global warming is also within natural variability. Yet it is at least in part anthropogenic and economically damaging.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/enviro/EnviroRepublish_946924.htm

Anti-green points out that there is no alternative to coal that is closely economic. This again is a trite observation as there has been no incentive to find an alternative until recently. It is the same with oil, where you had the IEA (USA) in 2000 releasing forecasts of an oil price staying below 25 USD till 2020.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/ieoarchive.html

So it hardly comes as a surprise that coal and oil have had little competition. Nor is it a surprise that early renewable projects have failed. The research and development of renewable alternatives like solar thermal and photovoltaics is currently intense. Whether it proves to be competitive with coal is not yet known, but I have every reason to remain optimistic.
Posted by Fester, Saturday, 22 March 2008 5:18:43 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
Garnaut's climateering scam proposes an emissions trading scheme that will become a huge money maker for the federal government ($7 billion and $20 billion by 2010) but he says his climateering will not be accepted politically, unless much of that money is given to households as compensation, for higher electricity and petrol prices. Remember this Garnaut is a banker and we need to be very concerned about what may happen when this global warming bubble he is re-creating bursts like the subprime bubble.

You know, back in the 1980's this joker well and good helped put up the level playing field removing protections/tarrifs to promote competition in the name of economic rationalism but here with his climateering he is doing a complete backflip based on superstition not rationalism. There is no due diligence with climateering here but there will be profiteering and the possibilities for corruption are immense.

I feel all Australians have an important fiduciary responsibility to manage our economy on sound economic principles without regard for risky superstitious climate schemes that will make the subprime bubble look tame by comparison.

ps If we take the aa index of geomagnetic activity which is essentially external to earth and place it with earth's global mean temperature since 1884 we will see sunnyboy as the perpetrator........ However, trying to find causality with CO2 and Temps produced on earth is anthropocentric.
Posted by Keiran, Saturday, 22 March 2008 6:48:51 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
Dickie, do you think you could explain what your hypothesis is? I am not going to try and deduce it from looking at a myriad of links.

Fester, you are putting the cart before the horse. Your claims boil down to that because something - wind patterns or temperature - has changed, man must be implicated and man made global warming is therefore proven.

The fact that Spencer might not have a hypothesis to explain warming (I have no idea whether he does or not) does not negate the validity of his observations.
Posted by GrahamY, Saturday, 22 March 2008 7:07:11 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
"Fester, you are putting the cart before the horse."

Not at all, Graham. The change in Southern Australia's climate (ie warming and drying) is a consequence of an interaction of global warming and ozone depletion. A human cause for global warming might be in question, but the cases for humans causing an increase in atmospheric CO2 and halocarbons (man made gases) causing ozone depletion are quite clear. A predicted and measured effect of increased atmospheric CO2 is the cooling of the stratosphere. In the stratosphere over Antarctica in winter, conditions are cool enough to allow the halocarbons to form ice clouds. When winter ends, the clouds react with ultraviolet light to produce chemicals which catalyse the destruction of ozone. Witho less ozone, the stratosphere stays at a cooler temperature. Consequently the pressure is lower. This leads to the contraction of the polar vortex, which moves the frontal systems further south. The pressure difference consequent from global warming further contracts the vortex. With fewer frontal systems moving through Southern Australia, the climate is consequently warmer and dryer.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/Tango/tango.html

It will be interesting to see whether the polar vortex expands as Antarctic ozone gas concentrations are restored.
Posted by Fester, Sunday, 23 March 2008 8:37:50 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
Fester, I don't have a problem with attributing some destruction of ozone to man and HFC emissions, but you keep conflating this with global warming when they are two separate issues.

There's a few errors in what you say too. How do you demonstrate that there has been a change in South Australia's climate? Why do you say that Halocarbons are "manmade" when they occur naturally as well? How does colder air give rise to lower pressure?

Might be worth reading the article that you link to. It doesn't support most of what you say. It's an explanation as to why restoration of Antarctic ozone levels may take longer than predicted.
Posted by GrahamY, Sunday, 23 March 2008 10:40:29 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
Graham

You advised:

“I've looked at your 9 questions and I don't think any of the things that you allege are happening - mass deaths of species, demonstrations (or) mercury contamination can be specifically tied to CO2 emissions”

Then:

“Dickie, do you think you could explain what your hypothesis is? I am not going to try and deduce it from looking at a myriad of links.”

As a comedian Graham, you’re second rate so may I suggest you hold on to your day job?

So why not read one or two links Graham? Has it occurred to you, there are none as blind as those who don’t want to see -- the denier -- the ostrich?

Hypothesis:

A/CO2 is affecting climate
A/Chlorine's long-term persistence continues to impact global ozone
A/C02 has polluted the planet’s ecosystems
A/C02 is acidifying oceans
A/C02 concentrations will continue to rapidly acidify oceans independent of climate change or global warming
Agricultural pollution is creating marine algal blooms and eutrophication
A/C02 and synthetic endocrine disruptor chemicals are predominantly responsible for air pollution, soil and water contamination and hazardous underground plumes
A/C02 is responsible for increased morbidity and mortality rates in all species

Additional areas of concern necessitating public debate:

The censoring of scientific information on the long term effects on the ionosphere from:

Military's atmospheric modification experiments
Chemical experimentation with Earth’s atmosphere
Missile defence systems
“Civilian” space programmes
Nuclear and atomic radiation effects on the ionosphere - civilian and military.
Posted by dickie, Sunday, 23 March 2008 11:14:18 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
Fester “One logical problem with Spencer's hypothesis is that it leaves the observed warming of the Earth largely unexplained.”

It is better to understand that one does not know the answer and seek to discover the truth

Than to ignore the truth by pursuing a lie.

“how can either future warming or cooling be stated with confidence”

I am not a scientist but I can still reason,

It may just be the same things which produced similar events, before industrialization.

“Yet it is at least in part anthropogenic and economically damaging”

You might be right. Can you irrefutably quantify how much of the totality is attributable to anthropogenic activity?

“This again is a trite observation as there has been no incentive to find an alternative until recently.”

That is the same as suggesting no incentive for finding deep mine gold deposits whilst the market demand could be met from surface and alluvial supplies or
The exploration of offshore oil supplies whilst sufficient and politically stable land accessible wells were being discovered.

“Whether it proves to be competitive with coal is not yet known, but I have every reason to remain optimistic.”

I am pleased to read that, I too am optimistic, that whilst people remain free to pursue their passions and interests, one of those rare gems among us will discover something fundamental, presently hidden, which will alleviate the economic dominance of fossil fuels. His or her quest will only be enhanced by the an increase in market prices as supply if fossil fuels diminishes. It is called market competition and should not be underestimated as a genuine driver of change.

Dickie, “The censoring of scientific information on the long term effects on the ionosphere”

You are one of those who seek to censor debate by attempting to bully opposition into silence with comments like

“Big mistake to go after Q&A, a poster of modest persona with an immodest wealth of knowledge on this subject.”

“The personas of Jennifer, Col Rouge and Graham Young are as fragile as Humpty Dumpty and they remain out of Q&A's league on environmental issues.”
Posted by Col Rouge, Sunday, 23 March 2008 12:26:22 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
Col Rouge

Since you lack any intellectual ability to debate the science of the topic of this thread, I shall take the plunge and infuriate you further by hypothesizing on your beloved “free” market and its role in the evolutionary process of a threatened planet.

Enter the Industrial Revolution and this was good. Then came the eminent scientists who warned that industrial pollution was bad therefore departments of environment and health were established in the West to protect the environment and human health.

The establishment of these million dollar departments in Australia resulted in this nation becoming the largest polluters per capita on the planet. And this was good -- at least for the industrial barons!

Environmental degradation has resulted from these industry aligned departments making environmental concerns secondary to economic concerns, and having decisions made by people who see environmental resources merely as an adjunct to production, which has perpetuated the problem and subverted any potential for political or value-based change.

Change which is obnoxious only to the Jennifers and the IPA et al.

Advocates, like you Col, see promotion of market-based instruments as a way of resurrecting the role of the market in the face of the market's environmental failures. You would claim that economic instruments provide a way that the power of the market can be harnessed to environmental goals.

History says otherwise!

However, since it is the free autonomous market which has contributed greatly to placing this planet and its inhabitants in the most dire of circumstances, it is clear, even to Blind Fred, that the “free” market approach cannot extend to pollutant industries.

It is also clear that allowing polluters to self-regulate and departments to use “persuasive” rather than enforcement tactics has merely increased hazardous emissions to a level of no return.

Your heroes Col Rouge, those despots who insist that the polluters in the "free" market cartel must continue unfettered and unregulated, have not and will not begin to understand that they've already pushed us to the edge of an abyss.
Posted by dickie, Sunday, 23 March 2008 5:09:51 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

“How do you demonstrate that there has been a change in South Australia's climate?”

Southern Australia, not only South Australia. Observation.

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli_chg/timeseries.cgi

Generate a graph of mean temperature trends in Southern Australia in winter or spring.

“Why do you say that Halocarbons are "manmade" when they occur naturally as well?”

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v399/n6738/abs/399749a0.html

“Measurements of trace gases in air trapped in polar firn (unconsolidated snow) demonstrate that natural sources of chlorofluorocarbons, halons, persistent chlorocarbon solvents and sulphur hexafluoride to the atmosphere are minimal or non-existent.”

“How does colder air give rise to lower pressure?”

Pressure is proportional to temperature. Gay Lussac’s Law(Other Law:1802).

“Might be worth reading the article that you link to. It doesn't support most of what you say.”

Yes, I have read it, but did I claim that it did? I have posted relevant links earlier. Surely you dont want want a myriad of links, do you? Anyway, here is a more technical link on ozone chemistry.

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/ozone-depletion/antarctic

Col

I’m glad you share my optimism. It would have been economic madness to replace the horse and buggy with the motor car c1900, but technology evolves. I agree with you that market forces are a major driver of change, but I dont see them as sufficient. The discovery of the potential danger of halocarbons and their replacement is an example where market forces alone are unlikely to have been as timely or effective.
Posted by Fester, Sunday, 23 March 2008 7:06:18 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
Dickie “Since you lack any intellectual ability to debate the science of the topic of this thread,”

I never suggested that.

I said I have no scientific credentials.

The title of the thread is “Carbon rationing or freedom “ it refers to the possible curtailment of individual rights and the article ends with the sentence

“It is not just about climatology; it is also about freedom.”

I am not sure what discipline of science you hold credentials in and I don’t really care but I would observe, any “scientist” who presumes this is a “scientific debate” is completely deluded.

I would claim in making your derogatory statements, Dickie, you have clearly indicated your delusions. One wonders what other of your fantasies you have been foisting upon us.

Credibility is like virginity, once lost it is gone forever, from your posts, far from being a pristine virgin, your credibility is in a place commonly reserved for old trollops.

“Advocates, like you Col,”

I refer you to my earlier post “I am arguing reason, common sense, reliability and an expectation of “truth” being a significant component in any scientific submission.”

Reason, common sense, reliability and “Truth” are words which are obviously, beyond you feeble comprehension.

Regarding “Your heroes Col Rouge, those despots who insist that the polluters in the "free" market cartel must continue unfettered and unregulated”

I do not insist on much but now I do.

For you to retain any veneer of decency and what might, in a reasonable person but not in you, have once been considered “credibility”, you will quote where I have ever penned heroic support for any cartel of any shape or form.

It is your “intellectual ability” which is now on the line Dickie,

Show everyone else what you are made of.

For myself I already know and when I smell it, I immediately wipe if off the sole of my shoe.

Fester “market forces alone are unlikely to have been as timely or effective.”

Nice, “speculating” on the effectiveness of market forces.

This is an ironic moment.
Posted by Col Rouge, Sunday, 23 March 2008 10:17:21 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
Fester, those links don't prove anything. The BOM graph goes back only 100 years which is not long enough to document a climate change; it appears to show rising rainfall (although this is an effect of just two very wet recent periods) and is not of southern Australia. What does that prove?

Halocarbons are also produced by wood fire and volcanic action, neither of which are manmade. The colder an atmospheric system the higher the pressure under it, that's consistent with Guy-Lussac's law.

When you post a link in an argument others expect you to post one that supports your argument, not one that is irrelevant. You've done that again. This final link doesn't support your contention about the South Australian climate, it is just an explanation of ozone depletion over the South Pole, which is not in contention.

And we're way off the original topic which is the discovery that cloud formation appears to be a negative rather than a positive feedback, although we need a longer time set and some more theories to be sure.
Posted by GrahamY, Sunday, 23 March 2008 11:17:57 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
“Fester, those links don't prove anything.”

They do, Graham. You need to set the variables manually. With variables “Mean Temperature” and “Southern Australia”, there is a jump to higher temperatures coincident with increasing atmospheric halocarbons and a contracting vortex. A link to the NOAA halocarbon monitoring site:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/odgi/

“Halocarbons are also produced by wood fire and volcanic action, neither of which are manmade.”

True, but not all halocarbons occur naturally in any quantity. From the above link:

“Methyl bromide and methyl chloride (CH3Br, CH3Cl) are unique among ozone-depleting gases because they have substantial natural components.”

“The colder an atmospheric system the higher the pressure under it, that's consistent with Guy-Lussac's law.”

Consistent with the knowledge you are demonstrating to me, Graham, but meaningless scientifically. The development of the polar vortex, an intense low pressure system, is associated with the cooling. The low pressure systems that bring rain to Southern Australia are known as cold fronts. High pressure systems are associated with warmer weather. This why a contracting vortex can cause elevated average temperatures in Southern Australia during winter and spring.

“When you post a link in an argument others expect you to post one that supports your argument, not one that is irrelevant. You've done that again.”

Not so. The link did support my argument in part, and I have provided other supporting links previously in the thread.

“And we're way off the original topic”

Not really. The credibility of a scientific idea comes a diversity of observations leading to a similar conclusion. Spencer's hypothesis would seem to contradict many observations. Anyway, it has demonstrated to the forum your profound ignorance of some basic science. Now what does this suggest of your competence to discuss things scientifically?

Col

Can you explain to me how market forces might have lead to the discovery of ozone or the effect of atmospheric cfcs? It is all part our civilisation. Are you suggesting that civilisation would function better if part of it were cut off?

Now that is speculating.
Posted by Fester, Monday, 24 March 2008 11:22:03 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
Fester, a rule on this forum appears to be that the more abusive the poster the less they are likely to know, and you're demonstrating this law at the moment.

The BOM link still doesn't prove anything. It's got hotter all over Australia (and in fact got hotter in northern Australia first) unless you're blaming global warming on ozone depletion you'll need to find some other indicator.

High pressure systems are formed from colder air, and low pressure systems from warmer air. Both systems can be associated with cold fronts, but you shouldn't confuse the front with the system. I asked you why a colder system would lead to lower pressure, but you haven't done that.

I see you're correcting your error on halocarbons.

And all of this is really a red-herring and off-topic, because none of these effects have any bearing on Spencer's observations which have nothing to do with ozone depletion. You're the one interested in ozone, he's interested in cloud formation.
Posted by GrahamY, Monday, 24 March 2008 2:54:40 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
“I see you're correcting your error on halocarbons.”

Try this analogy, Graham. A man in cement shoes stands on the bottom of a tank. The water is up to his ankles (naturally occurring halocarbons). Water is then added (man made halocarbons). The man drowns. What killed him? Some might consider what water drowned him. I would say that the cause was the addition of water. Halocarbons were subjected to a similar “scepticism” that AGW enjoys today. A link:

http://info-pollution.com/ozone.htm

“It's got hotter all over Australia (and in fact got hotter in northern Australia first)”

Glad that you acknowledge this, Graham. This fact tends to contradict Spencer's hypothesis. You might remember that the contracting vortex is also the result of global warming. The distinction was to show partial attribution of climatic change to an anthropogenic cause.

“Fester, a rule on this forum appears to be that the more abusive the poster the less they are likely to know, and you're demonstrating this law at the moment.”

“with the Hockey Stick graph being the new poster child of scientific fraud, more egregious than Piltdown Man.”

Graham, I learn from my participation on the forum. I learn from finding answers to your questions. Sadly, your interest seems to be the protection of your ignorance. And especially sad when you demonstrate such ignorance of some very basic science of a subject you have considered to be your hobby horse for some years. There is no shame in ignorance, but there is shame in denial.

“High pressure systems are formed from colder air, and low pressure systems from warmer air.”

Is this always true? Maybe it's time for you to grow.
Posted by Fester, Monday, 24 March 2008 11:08:00 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 conclusions can we draw from this article and are we any further enlightened? I don't believe we are.

Why is Graham alluding to comparatively short-lived “natural” halocarbons when it is well known that these halocarbons are insignificant in comparison to the multitude of carcinogenic halogenated chemicals manufactured, a result of man’s “ingenuity?”

Atmospheric Lifetime - Manmade:

CFC-11...............................45 years
CFC-12............................100 years
CFC-113............................85 years
Halon-1211.........................16 years
Tetrachloroethene..................0.3 years
Chloroform............................0.5 years
Methyl Chloroform..................5 years
Carbon Tetrachloride...............26 years
HCFC-141b..............................9.2 years (Replacement CFC)
Halon-1301................................67 years
HCFC-22..................................10 - 12 years (Replacement CFC)

Atmospheric Lifetime - Natural:

Bromoform .................................100 days Oceanic algae
Methyl Bromide..................................0.7 years Biomass burn, macroalgae,fumigant
Methyl Chloride..............................1.1-1.5 years Biomass burning,macroalgae
Methyl Iodide.................................4 days Solvent, biomass burning

What can we deduce from the ambiguous statements by those cited in this article?:

“To the public, we all might seem like experts, but the vast majority of us work on only a small portion of the problem.

“Humanity's need for energy is so vast that, until a new energy technology is developed, fossil fuels will continue to dominate our energy mix.

The only way to substantially reduce the risk of catastrophic manmade warming in the near-term (the next 20-30 years) would be to bring the daily activities of mankind to a virtual standstill.” (Spencer)

"Catastrophic manmade warming" eh Mr Spencer? So is that a "Yes" or a "No?"

“The freedom to have children without regulation and control is one of the undisputable human rights.” (President Klaus)

What the....?? Please..... Mr Santa Klaus...seek help....shrinks are available!
Posted by dickie, Tuesday, 25 March 2008 11:44:23 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
Returning from an Easter interlude and I notice Roy Spencer has been resurrected like a modern day messiah … forgive me for connecting the irony in this observation.

Graham

“Q&A, what do you mean ‘Walker Circulation cells’? There's only one that I'm aware of.”

You misunderstand Graham, there is a ‘Walker Circulation’ but it comprises three distinct and dynamic cells (over equatorial Africa, Indonesia and South America). These are not to be confused with the Hadley cells.

“Can you explain in clear terms what it is you are trying to say and what bearing it has on Spencer's work?”

And Marohasy’s article? I will try.

Fester was half right, I am “alluding to the fact that evidence for AGW has come independently from a broad range of scientific disciplines.”

The science is complex and it is both aggravating and comical to see people like accountants ‘dumb-down’ science and the scientists … unless of course the science/scientists promote a hypothesis that is ‘favourable’ to their own ideological perspective.

I had difficulty finding Spencer’s paper in the Geophysical Research Letters of the American Geophysical Union website here:

http://www.agu.org/contents/journals/ViewJournalContents.do?journalCode=GL&days=7&viewBy=date&year=2007&month=all&sortBy=pubDate

When I first tried a ‘Google’ for Spencer and his paper, all I came up with was links to so called ‘denier’ web sites like:

Science & Public Policy Institute
Junkscience
Climate Audit
Heartland Institute
Institute of Public Affairs

Even your OLO got a wrap!

This was only demonstrating to me that disciples of Spencer (including Marohasy) were evangelising very well, on a mission poste the cabal in New York.

The point is, there are 1000’s of papers that add to our knowledge, and Spencer’s is but one … and from one journal. There is a preponderance of good research, from such places and journals as;

Journal of Climatology
Science
Nature
Proceedings of the Royal Society B
National Academies (various)
AGU
APS
ACS
Astronomy & Geophysics
Science abstracts
Etc.

Spencer’s research is important, and IF shown to be robust, will contribute in the fine-tuning of GCMs … only time will tell. However, his work must be ‘weighed-up’ against all other research.

Cont’d
Posted by Q&A, Tuesday, 25 March 2008 12:50:26 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’d

You understand the difference between a theory and a hypothesis, many don’t. AGW is a theory and we are living in a period that has been described as the Anthrocene, a geological era influenced by human activity.

We have a situation where the vast body of research ‘backs-up’ the theory of AGW, the theory becomes harder to refute. This is not to say it can’t be.

Understanding the mechanisms of natural climate variability is important for improving climate predictability and properly attributing ongoing climate changes to both human-induced and natural forcings. This is the importance of Spencer’s work.

Everybody

Jennifer says “We do need to relearn the lessons from the collapse of communism nearly 20 years ago. It is not just about climatology; it is also about freedom.”

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/editorial/story.html?id=d489ec1a-36d4-41fb-b692-6c90faa0dcaa

Is this the type of freedom she alludes to?

Facetious, yes … but this type of behaviour from a democratic conservative government is worrying.

_____________________

Some posters may be interested in these links (others obviously won’t be)

http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2008/320/5

http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-32624720080322

http://journals.royalsociety.org/content/102023/

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/117922546/issue

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/106562719/toc

http://www.pages-igbp.org/

http://www.pages-igbp.org/products/newsletters/NL2005_3low_res.pdf

_____________________________

Humanity is confronted with disparities between and within nations (misguided comments by Col exemplify the issues).

We have a worsening of poverty, hunger, ill health and illiteracy, a projected 50% increase in population by mid-century and an increase and continuing deterioration of the ecosystems and resources on which we depend for our well-being.

Unless we change our ways, humanity would be complicit in the loss of up to 30 percent of the Earth’s species, the collapse of large areas of terrestrial and oceanographic food sources, and the creation of millions of ‘climate change refugees’ – all of which threaten national and international security. This is a consequence of AGW theory.

Please, try and disprove it.

At the same time, it is important we integrate environment and development concerns (including how we source and use our energy). If we can focus on overcoming our differences and pay greater attention to living in a more sustainable way, we can have improved living standards for all, better protected and managed ecosystems and a safer, more prosperous future.
Posted by Q&A, Tuesday, 25 March 2008 12:51:39 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
Q&A nice to see you back,

Re “Jennifer says “We do need to relearn the lessons from the collapse of communism nearly 20 years ago. It is not just about climatology; it is also about freedom.”

I note the article you posted alluded to some government policy statement and failed to quote from it.

Hardly the rigorous quality of reporting we would expect to come from a serious newspaper.

I am afraid, lacking any textual references to the “policy” reduces it to what is commonly called a “Rant”.

Typically, you rely on it.

“misguided comments by Col exemplify the issues”

Maybe you could identify how any of my statements are supposedly “misguided”, so I can at least place myself back on the path to truth or possibly challenge your lowgrade sledge.

“Please, try and disprove it.”

Yet again Q&A, fresh from prostrating himself before the high alter of science, demonstrates he does not understand basic statistics, he must be too far off from the norm, precariously balanced somewhere which is multiple deviations from the mean.

It is like this Q&A, to disprove anything is the attempt impossible.

All we can rely on is what can be proved and that requires you to prove your contentions are valid,

So it is up to you to prove your assertions, not for me or anyone else to disprove them.

Your response to my post of Saturday, 22 March 2008 7:22:55 AM remain outstanding.

That is where I reviewed what others had said “I'd like to see your science qualifications. I bet they don't exist.”

And I said “In opposing my argument, you are supporting the lie.
In bullying to silence me, you display you true character.”

Dickie I see you seem to be avoiding the challenge I put to you

quote “where I have ever penned heroic support for any cartel of any shape or form.

It is your “intellectual ability” which is now on the line Dickie, “

Defend your statement or be proved a fool whose scientific activity is limited to cleaning the test-tubes in an STD clinic.
Posted by Col Rouge, Tuesday, 25 March 2008 3:16:47 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
Q&A there's only one Walker circulation. Check Wikipedia first http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_circulation#Walker_circulation but there's lots of other Google links that show exactly the same thing. Why don't you just say "Whoops, I got it wrong" and move on? You don't have to be a science guru to be involved in these conversations, just to have an ability to interact with scientific information honestly.

"Honestly" doesn't include smearing a scientist because people and organisations that you don't like have picked up on his work. The alarmist sites are hardly going to pick-up on something which challenges their case, especially as so many of them like RealClimate have put so much time into championing mistakes like the Hockey Stick.

And science doesn't rest on weight of publication. One good theory trumps 100 bad ones. Spencer has access to data that others don't and he's published. I'm happy to wait and see what criticisms there are before jumping to conclusions, unfortunately the alarmists don't do the same thing.

Given the climate of public opinion that has been created it is inevitable that those who are not alarmists will be drawn into the antagonistic behaviour, and they may overstate their case too. You worry about the Canadian government wanting to see press releases before they are sent out by scientists, I worry about the scientists who are ostracised because they question aspects of the global warming theories.

I think that the IPCC is a more coercive organisation than the Conservatives in Canada.
Posted by GrahamY, Tuesday, 25 March 2008 8:36:11 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
"Honestly" doesn't include smearing a scientist...

You’re reading selectively here to get on a high horse. The objection was to Jennifer’s characterisation of the conference as being a group of independent minded scientists,
rather than disclosing the industry funding – it wasn’t to the smear scientists. Separately, I also sought to highlight some heterodox belief of Mr Spencer which some people would not be aware of and which Jennifer studiously failed to mention. Nowhere did anyone suggest even those two taken together means the data and arguments put by Mr Spencer were discredited or do not have to even be considered. In fact, several of us deliberately and consciously expressed endorsement for an unfettered scientific process.

“especially as so many of them like RealClimate have put so much time into championing mistakes like the Hockey Stick.”
Be nice if you read those alarmist sites because you’re showing your ignorance about the so-called Hockey Stick.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/1934-and-all-that/
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/08/12/before-and-after/

”And science doesn't rest on weight of publication. One good theory trumps 100 bad ones. Spencer has access to data that others don't and he's published. I'm happy to wait and see what criticisms there are before jumping to conclusions, unfortunately the alarmists don't do the same thing.”

That’s a wilfully brash interpretation of what has been said. Nobody doing real research would be so blaze about the central role played by specialist peer review in scientific research. In this regard, the specialist climate change journals are completely relevant as to what might constitute consensus science on climate change at the moment. So, naturally that means failure to contribute to those journals, be versed in their content, is fatal to the notion of speaking on behalf of scientific consensus. That doesn’t mean that everything is internal to the journals cohort, of course not. But the point is the process of peer review cannot be substituted for PR releases and think tanks without gutting everything that makes science science. The correct attitude is to await proper commentary and reconciliation within the peer-review system, not to point the public to PR releases as Jennifer has done.
Posted by BBoy, Wednesday, 26 March 2008 11:32:35 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
GrahamY

Some climate-science 101 text books are better than Wikipedia. Wiki is an ok site for beginners (surely you know its limitations); I just prefer the sites or journals I pointed to in the prior post. Alternatively, try ‘Google-scholar’ … IMO more exacting.

There is a ‘Walker Circulation,’ it comprises three distinct and dynamic cells – Indian, Pacific and Atlantic.

Before you turn into a rabid banshee, read this (look at the pretty pictures if it makes more sense) as it relates to Spencer’s work (and my response to Keiran):

http://www.geosc.psu.edu/Courses/Geosc320/Lau.pdf

Please don’t ‘wack’ me if you have difficulty understanding … take your bludgeon to NASA, NOAA, Lau or Yang.

GrahamY, I am not smearing as you insinuate. I said;

“Spencer’s research is important, and if shown to be robust, will contribute in the fine-tuning of GCMs” and,

“Understanding the mechanisms of natural climate variability is important for improving climate predictability and properly attributing ongoing climate changes … This is the importance of Spencer’s work.” Note last sentence.

As to your glib remark “And science doesn't rest on weight of publication. One good theory trumps 100 bad ones.” Oh Duhh …

“We have a situation where the vast body of research ‘backs-up’ the theory of AGW, the theory becomes harder to refute. This is not to say it can’t be.”

Let me help you … read last sentence again.

You go on to cast doubt, abuse or besmirch my honesty.

I find it appalling that as OLO guru, you tarnish your own rules. IMHO, you would be better off posting under a different tag to express your invective and vitriol.

BTW, the scientific community is not ostracising Spencer … he does some good work. I look forward to seeing if his hypothesis stands up to the rigors of time and scientific critique.

GrahamY, you could retract or say “whoops, sorry Q&A”.
Or you could find another cherry-orchard or change the goal posts; you’re good at these. You decide.

I tried to post 5mins before my ‘allotted 24hrs’ and was ‘penalised’ an extra hour … very rigorous rules.
Posted by Q&A, Wednesday, 26 March 2008 1:33:18 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
Col

Thanks … not sure if it’s good to be back, LOL.

“I note the article you posted alluded to some government policy statement and failed to quote from it. Hardly the rigorous quality of reporting we would expect to come from a serious newspaper.” Yep, it’s probably another journo/media ‘alarmist’ lie.

“Maybe you could identify how any of my statements are supposedly “misguided”, so I can at least place myself back on the path to truth or possibly challenge your lowgrade sledge.” Sorry Col, lost count when it comes to GW stuff.

However, I do respect your views on other stuff … economics somewhat and definitely things business and accountancy. I watch your comments on other threads and am impressed (not always) with what you have to say e.g. cap n’ trade, Garnault’s interim report, budgets, etc. I don’t agree with your ‘socialism by stealth’ guff but that is only my opinion. I certainly do not want to silence you

As to “It is like this Q&A, to disprove anything is the attempt impossible. All we can rely on is what can be proved and that requires you to prove your contentions are valid.” Not quite, but I can see where your coming from. Spencer has a hypothesis (contention if you like) and it will be tested time and time again. If his hypothesis is robust, it will affect the various GCMs – see previous posts. What I was trying to say (it obviously did not come out this way) was that Spencer et al (any scientist for that matter) should continually critique existing AGW theory. If they knock holes in it they will become famous.

As to my personal details, I refer a third time (in as many threads) that I will not leave myself open to public disclosure on a forum such as this. In the past, I have had a barrage of spam and emails that have ‘violated’ my freedom and my space.
Posted by Q&A, Wednesday, 26 March 2008 1:34:38 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
Dickie

Thanks for the info on halocarbons. I enjoyed this story on how increasing halocarbon concentrations were erroneously attributed to volcanic activity, the final quote especially.

http://www.sustainer.org/dhm_archive/search.php?display_article=vn504ozoneed

I'm surprised that no mention has been made of Spencer's other hypothesis, that CO2 increases are more due to El Nino/La Nina than human activity. It is about the only reference I can find about him on RealClimate, in a list of the "usual suspects".

http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2008/01/spencer_is_totally_off_his_roc.php

I would also take exception to the claim that global warming has either ceased or plateaued. It might be true of the atmosphere, but ignores the heating oceans and melting ice. Has global warming ceased when these factors are also considered?
Posted by Fester, Wednesday, 26 March 2008 7:15:23 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
Thanks for those interesting links Fester. I found Roy Spencer's statement curious where he is reported as saying:

"Most, if not all, experts in the global carbon cycle will at this point think I am totally off my rocker. Not being an expert in the global carbon cycle, I am admittedly sticking my neck out here."

I was particularly interested in the ozone hypothesis where atmospheric chemist, Sherwood Rowland advised that hydrogen chloride emitted by volcanic eruptions fails to reach the stratosphere where the ozone layer is. Note hydrogen "chloride."

Chloride is what man continues to chemically manipulate to form organochlorines, despite its initial extensive use in making the heinous WW1 poisonous gas followed by chemical herbicides and defoliants, CFCs and other equally persistent and eco-destructive chlorinated compounds which have seriously compromised the biosphere.

In addition, it has been scientifically estimated that man's CO2 emissions are 150 times greater than volcanic CO2 emissions.

Is not man the largest transgressor of all the species? Has he not over-stepped the laws of nature?

Perhaps you will be interested in the latest media report on Antarctic's ice shelf:

http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,23433566-5005361,00.html

Yours infectiously

Old Trollop
Test tube cleaner (as well!)
Multi-skilled division
Col Rouge's STD clinic
The Old Dart
Posted by dickie, Wednesday, 26 March 2008 8:59:53 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

It seems your silence is the best I can hope for in an apology.

Apology accepted.

[Edit by me]
Aagghhhhh … I just tried to post this AFTER the 24 hr time limit had past and guess what?

Yep, “Sorry, you may post again in 1 hour blah, blah.”

Apology NOT accepted.

There are 3 Walker Circulation cells, not 1

Now moving on and regaining my composure.
Posted by Q&A, Thursday, 27 March 2008 2:10:28 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
Fester, Dickie

Be careful, even mentioning RealClimate on OLO can get you whacked.

I visit the sceptic websites as well, to get their ‘perspective’ on things.

Here’s one of Roy Spencer’s sermons from the Watts’ site. Check out the comments and contribution from “loquor’, an ecologist that really does know what he's talking about.

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/01/28/spencer-pt2-more-co2-peculiarities-the-c13c12-isotope-ratio/

Another thing, Spencer and his disciples have said the Argo system of 3000 swimmie/floatie/robotie/thingies are showing no global warming in the oceans. Now, I’m no expert on these little blighters, but studying ocean heat content, ENSO and coupled atmospheric-ocean systems interest me.

What bothers me, and please comment or correct me if I’m wrong (anyone) is that errors have been found in Argo that biased the results to ‘cooling’. See:

http://www-argo.ucsd.edu/Acpres_offset.html

http://www-argo.ucsd.edu/Acpres_offset2.html

So it’s no surprise Spencer & Co are saying the oceans are not warming.
If this is the case, Spencer’s (Marohasy’s) claims are full of you know what.

For a good overview of Argo, see this site:

http://www.coriolis.eu.org/cdc/argo_rfc.htm

Of course, the Argo system is independent of what the researchers do to the data-set provided … but the data-set is freely available and at least the team that runs Argo have a QA/QC system in place.

BTW Dickie,

While the Wilkins Ice Shelf collapse may be stunning, more so is the spin going around the denialist blogo-sphere. This from Salon:

http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2008/03/26/antarctic_ice_shelf/

Ever wonder where a lot of the world’s heat is going? Nah … couldn’t be the oceans.
The disciples say Spencer can’t be wrong (now this is being dishonest).
Posted by Q&A, Thursday, 27 March 2008 2:14:08 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
Q&A regarding ““misguided comments by Col exemplify the issues”

Maybe you could identify how any of my statements are supposedly “misguided”, so I can at least place myself back on the path to truth or possibly challenge your lowgrade sledge."

Q&A response “Sorry Col, lost count when it comes to GW stuff.”

My “misguided comments” must hold some prominence in your short term memory for you to have commented on them in the first place. Yet you cannot quote them now

That is a feeble excuse

Or maybe you are having problems with short term memory, a scientist might suggest you have been boiling water in aluminum utensils.

So surely, among all those misguided comments, you could find a couple to quote

I guess sledging is as scientific as you can get.

To echo the words of others…

“I acknowledge that there are two sides. Some, like you, don't want to. I'd like to see your science qualifications. I bet they don't exist.”

I feel justified in suggesting, since you seem incapable of discovering the supposedly already written “misguided comment” penned by myself, that you are even less likely to make discoveries or revelations in the matter of science, a profession whose exacting standards are surely more testing than simply parroting what I may have said, in some misguided moment or otherwise.

Dickie I see you are still avoiding the challenge I put to you too

quote “where I have ever penned heroic support for any cartel of any shape or form.

It is your “intellectual ability” which is now on the line Dickie, “

Am I to assume you lack the scientific rigor to defend your statement and identify where I have given support to cartels

Are we common reading folk of OLO to assume you are simply trying to be vexatious in attempting to censor those who have the temerity to challenge you omnipotence?

Q&A and Dickie are, in their support of science, supposedly valiant pursuers of fact and truth.

It seems to me their support of such is subordinate to the expediency which comes with unbridled hubris.
Posted by Col Rouge, Thursday, 27 March 2008 2:59:58 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
Thanks GrahamY for making your climate change 'sceptic' bias clear in your last post: the alarmist label used 3 times against Gavin Schmidt and the many respected climate scientists who maintain Realclimate.org (with an antagonistic’ thrown in for good measure), while Spencer gets called a scientist two or is it three times. Nothing like a bit of repetition eh mate?
Posted by Liam, Friday, 28 March 2008 5:44:58 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
Q&A you will not get an apology because you are wrong. The document that you link to does not support your claims about the Walker Circulation. Anyone who clicks on the link can find that for themselves, but just one quote "The term Walker Circulation was first introduced in 1969 by Professor Jacob Bjerknes, referring to the large-scale atmospheric circulation along the longitude–height plane over the equatorial Pacific Ocean."

It's the first sentence. You couldn't have missed it. It shouldn't matter that you made a mistake. Everyone makes them. But it does matter not only that you refuse to acknowledge it, but that you dishonestly keep asserting that you haven't. I say "dishonestly" because I make the assumption that you are smart enough to read and understand enough of the information to know that you are wrong. That leaves as the only alternative that you are intentionally saying something that is not correct. That is the definition of dishonesty.

I note you say that you tried to post 5 minutes before the 24 hours and were then "penalised an extra hour". There is an algorithm that polices the posting rules. This appears to be another incorrect statement, unless I hear from others that this is what is happening, in which case I have a problem with a software engineer. I know my software engineers well, and I think the onus is on you.
Posted by GrahamY, Friday, 28 March 2008 9:04:18 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 Y

Unlike Q&A, I couldn't care less if you apologise about anything. But I would like to think that you are learning something, as many do on this forum. For example, you said this earlier:

"There's a few errors in what you say too......How does colder air give rise to lower pressure?"

Now have you learned something or do you still think this an error?
Posted by Fester, Friday, 28 March 2008 9:43:28 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
Recapping, (I’m really trying to understand Graham Young’s attack).

Keiran asks,

“Why is the surface cooling across the tropics and mainly on the equator like the Indian and Pacific cooling forming a particularly noticeable band?”

Q&A responds,

“The Equatorial Indian Ocean Oscillation (EQUINOO) is connected to the Pacific El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) through global shifts of the Walker Circulation cells.”

GrahamY retorts,

“What do you mean "Walker Circulation cells"? There's only one that I'm aware of.”

Q&A answers,

“You misunderstand Graham, there is a ‘Walker Circulation’ but it comprises three distinct and dynamic cells (over equatorial Africa, Indonesia and South America).”

GrahamY repeats,

“There's only one Walker circulation. Check Wikipedia first,” and continues the attack:

“Why don't you just say "Whoops I got it wrong" and move on? You don't have to be a science guru to be involved in these conversations, just to have an ability to interact with scientific information honestly.”

Q&A is flabbergasted and repeats,

“There is a ‘Walker Circulation,’ it comprises three distinct and dynamic cells – Indian, Pacific and Atlantic.”

And to clarify, points to

http://www.geosc.psu.edu/Courses/Geosc320/Lau.pdf

and again repeats,

“There are 3 Walker Circulation cells, not 1.”

GrahamY comes back vehemently,

“Q&A … you are wrong. The document that you link to does not support your claims about the Walker Circulation. Anyone who clicks on the link can find that for themselves …

_____________

If anyone cares to look they would read these words in the 1st paragraph, or just look at the diagrams:

“Today, the Walker Circulation generally refers to the totality of the circulation cells as shown in Figure 1” and goes on;

“As is evident in Figure 2A, the Walker Circulation also includes secondary circulation cells whose rising motions appear over the land regions of South America and Africa, with compensating subsidence over the Atlantic and the Indian Ocean …”

Now, is there anyone else reading this thread that can honestly say there isn’t three Walker Circulation cells?

Liam

You think GrahamY’s has a sceptic bias? That would have been ok, but given the above … well, he’s just a *denier*.
Posted by Q&A, Saturday, 29 March 2008 12:57:29 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
Q&A

I think you are on the wrong tack. Perhaps instead of asking for an apology, you should seek some spiritual guidance from Father Graham, or even from Sister Jennifer. Perhaps he or she can recommend a sermon or two from the Church of Skeptology. Archbishop Bob or Cardinal Roy might just have the spiritual tonic you need to cure your doubt.
Posted by Fester, Saturday, 29 March 2008 8:41:44 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
Yes, you're right Q&A, the second paragraph is as you say, but if you read further down you'll see that according to how the Walker Circulation is defined by other meteorologists there are some additional circulations (I assume that by cell you mean circulation). All of which demonstrates that some meteorologists call things by names that the majority don't. The Walker circulation, according to the preponderance of the documents I can turn up on Google, refers to the circulation named by Walker in the Pacific Ocean, which is the definition that this document uses under Figure 1!

I wasn't trying to buy an argument about the Walker Circulation in my first post, I asked you for clarification: "Q&A, what do you mean "Walker Circulation cells"? There's only one that I'm aware of. Can you explain in clear terms what it is you are trying to say and what bearing it has on Spencer's work?"

I'm still waiting for that.

And I see Fester is still asserting that making air colder leads to lower pressure. I'm waiting for his explanation of how this can be so too. Not that this has anything to do with Spencer's work either. I'm also waiting for his explanation as to why, when South Australia shows a similar warming pattern to the rest of the continent its warming alone comes uniquely from polar influences. It might, I just want to understand how he thinks it does.
Posted by GrahamY, Saturday, 29 March 2008 9:42:27 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
GrahamY

The Walker Circulation cells?

They are interlinked and coupled to both land and ocean systems.

If you had not interceded with your diatribe and vitriol we could have learned more about them and how they influence climate and more specifically, how they impact on Spencer’s work.

If you had read (understood) the paper by Lau and Yang rather than attack me and cherry-pick over semantics and descriptors (typical denier defence mechanisms) you would have seen the connection to Spencer’s work (and Keiran’s question) … then we could have progressed.

Yet, you have the audacity, the gall … to say YOU are still waiting for clarification?
That’s a joke, right?

I doubt very much Roy Spencer would have denied the existence of the 3 cells in the Walker Circulation. Yet you insisted I was wrong and accused me of being dishonest (you have not retracted your accusations) … why in hell should I bother with you?

You are the one that has delayed, obfuscated and no doubt killed any further discussion about this article.
Posted by Q&A, Sunday, 30 March 2008 2:12:43 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
Col,

I am sorry for the delay in reply.

The following link best explains and delineates the views/comments shared by me and the disparity of those (misguided as they may be) by you; whether it be science/art, risk management, “socialism by stealth”, opportunity, profit/loss, sustainability, political ideology, climate change, etc.

Bye for now
______________

Everybody (that is still watching)

This links to a talk given by Stephen Schneider. It is about 80 mins in length and requires some bandwidth.

http://www.cctvsalem.org/dempsey.php

It is the “Sixth Annual Dempsey Lecture”
Global Warming: Is the Science Settled Enough for Policy?

BTW, Spencer’s paper was published in August last year and the errors and corrections in the Argo system weren’t notified till October. I have not been able to find any corrections to Spencer’s paper yet.
Posted by Q&A, Sunday, 30 March 2008 2:13:53 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
Q&A I think your last but one post bears out a charge of dishonesty, as well as your claims about the our posting system penalising you. If you can explain the link between the Walker and other circulations to Spencer's work, explain it, don't expect me to work it out for you.

On the issue of corrections to ARGO, I'm not clear why it has a bearing on Spencer's work. He's dealing with the Aqua satellite. You might like to explain that too.
Posted by GrahamY, Sunday, 30 March 2008 4:26:40 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
"Col,

I am sorry for the delay in reply.

The following link best explains and delineates the views/comments shared by me and the disparity of those (misguided as they may be) by you; whether it be science/art, risk management, “socialism by stealth”, opportunity, profit/loss, sustainability, political ideology, climate change, etc.

Bye for now"

Your posting of a web link to someone making a speech has nothing to do with the question asked, for you to illustrate from the text of this thread where I had made a single "misguided Statement".

Similarly, Dickie has been notably silent on substantiating his claim that I made statements in support of Cartels.

So Q&A and Dickie, your failures to address these simple requests, to substantiate your statements in the simplist form, stand as testament to your lack of professionalism.

These failings will hang around you like the dead albatross hung around the neck of the ancient mariner.
Posted by Col Rouge, Monday, 31 March 2008 8:37:08 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
Awesome thread, boys. Q&A, Fester: Thanks for taking the obviously large effort in you put into your replies.

GarahamY: Your prodding is what kept the debate so vigorous. I find being forced to defend your position on-line is one of the best drivers for exploring a topic, ands its obvious that is doing the same for Q&A and Fester. The end result is possibly the best thread I have seen on OLO. I am hoping your disingenuous replies were designed to have that effect.

I guess I am a "climate change hysteria skeptic". Which is to say its its impossible for me to evaluate the scientific arguments myself. So I just believe the consensus - that it is real. But I can't quite understand why everyone is getting so worked up about it. Yes, perhaps islands and deltas will be flooded, and people will die in the millions. But I just read in Time that food prices have risen by 50% or so in some developing nations as we move land usage over to fuel production. Its hard to get worked up by the thought rising sea levels in 100 years when underground water supplier in the most populous countries will run dry in 10's of years.

So it looks to me like resource depletion will hit harder and faster than climate change is ever likely to. Unlink climate change these things stand out like dogs balls, as in $1.50/litre balls. No even bothers arguing the point. Is this wrong? If not, why is everyone getting so worked up about climate change?
Posted by rstuart, Monday, 31 March 2008 2:50:15 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
Q&A, i wasn't labelling GY a 'sceptic' in a purist scientific sense, more in the common usage of one who leaves no stone unturned to avoid admitting need to act on anthropogenic climate change. Good luck with getting that politician out of prevarication.

Rstuart, why should we worry about ACC when resource depletion is going to crash our civilisation anyway?
Because
a) it is morally, ethically, and legally required that adults take responsibility both for consequences of own actions And those they endorse/d & directly benefit from. There are plenty of modern day exceptions (eg. terra nullius) but the principal is a precondition for public order.

b) climate change will only get worse faster if we continue to add millions of tonnes of GHG’s each year. Theres maybe 300Gigaton of C in oil, 3000 in coal – lack of oil may slow coal burning, but may not, vis my local member & Federal Minister for Energy & Resources Martin Fergusen’s determination to turn our lotsa-coal into bit-of-oil (and never mind the emissions).

Resource depletion wont solve ACC, unless you’re a real die-off believer, in which case yes we’re all just whistling on our way to oldavai gorge. But even that will go better without permanent drought across southern Australia & an 11month fire season. You want your roo-skin clad offspring to have some chance don’t you? You wont in any case get any public figure to even breath that possibility, so it’s a dead point as far as public policy and debate goes.
Posted by Liamj, Monday, 31 March 2008 5:26:38 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
The claims by Marohasy about global temperature leveling off or dropping are unfounded. A simple email to her source, Roy Spencer at NASA, can clear it up. Which is what I did. Roy says that Marohasy is confused. He states that the data is not from the much vaunted Aqua satellite project as Marohasy claimed, and is not global average but a much smaller sample of 20 degrees either side of the equator.

Paper published by Roy Spencer can be found here:
http://www.weatherquestions.com/Spencer_07GRL.pdf

Now for some clearly needed Ad hominem. Marohasy, the scientist who has misrepresented the information in the interview. She has had a long association with banking, industry and anti-conservation environmental groups that advocate actions like whale hunting. Not the person I would be quoting on climate change.

Check out Marohasy's web site:
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/about.php

Finally, the author of the article, Pearson, complains about The Age leaving out some phrases that soften the claims of one of their climate change articles. Pearson has done the exact same thing in this article. See the quoted paragraph from the readily available transcript of the interview from the unashamedly right wing Counterpoint program.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/stories/2008/2191714.htm

"Jennifer Marohasy: It is extraordinary, though I perhaps should pick you up on 'global warming has stopped'. It has stopped for the last ten years, but that's a very short timeframe. If you look over the last 100 years, it's mostly been warming over the last 100 years but there was some cooling from 1940 through to 1975 and now there appears to be some cooling since 1998. But if you look at the longer timeframe, say, since the last glacial maximum, well, that's going back, say, 16,000 years, then there actually has been significant warming, and sea levels of course have risen over 100 metres over this period. So the last eight to ten-year dip may just be a dip, and there may be continued warming into the future, or it could be the end of this interglacial warm period and we could go into another ice age. We don't know what the future holds."
Posted by porcupine, Thursday, 17 April 2008 11:23:45 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. 15
  7. 16
  8. 17
  9. All

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