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 > Heaven, Earth and science fiction > Comments

Heaven, Earth and science fiction : Comments

By Mike Pope, published 11/6/2009

To avoid following the polar bear to extinction, 'homo sapiens' would do well to reject the science fiction espoused by Professor Ian Plimer.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 43
  7. 44
  8. 45
  9. All
Mike Pope is wrong about the lack of citation about Polar Bears in Prof Plimer's Heaven+Earth.
Page 198/199 describe the polar bears range with footnotes 959, 960, 961
The polar bears that die in Gore's film, it is fairly clear that on page 443 the citation was the judgment of the UK court that condemned An Inconvenient Truth for its errors in fact.
Mr Pope is also wrong about the 5000 copies of Heaven and Earth sold.
Last I heard was that it was in its 5th reprint with each run getting larger. And that is just in Australia, with the UK and USA to follow.
Anyhow Mr Pope,considering the alarmist community is ridiculing Prof Plimer as a geologist writing on climate, what is an economist doing commentating on climate change?
What hypocrisy allows alarmists of any discipline to comment on climate change and condemn denialists who take up the same right.
I have found Heaven+Earth a good read it that it has widened my knowledge on the possible causes of climate changing over the millennia and through his footnotes the many thousand of scientists that are doing work on climate change who are never quoted by the alarmists.
Perhaps Mr Pope would explain his theory on what caused the previous ice ages to develop and recede.
I have come to the conclusion that the current popular science says that any above average temp is climate change and any below average temp is just the weather.
It seems the world is suffering a whole lot of weather at the moment.
Posted by Little Brother, Thursday, 11 June 2009 10:33:58 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
Ian Plimer is one of many who do not believe that CO2 is the villain claimed by ‘human cause’ global warming fanatics.

Many of us, indeed, actually believe that the world is round.

As more common sense and truth about the unavoidable nature of climate change comes out, the likes of Mike Pope will need to desperately ‘deny what the “deniers” ‘say in a bid to maintain their fiction that man can control nature.

It is to be hoped that politicians wake up to the doomsday fictions before they afflict us with expensive, job-costing measures to ‘cure’ climate change. Senator Steve Fielding is the latest convert to common sense and clear thinking. Hopefully he, the Opposition and cross benches in the Senate will knock the Government’s lunatic scheme in the head
Posted by Leigh, Thursday, 11 June 2009 11:17:56 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
<Said elsewhere>

One of the claims that Ian Plimer likes to make is that as a geologist he takes time into account in a way that the IPCC does not, so it is worthwhile looking at what another geologist thinks of Plimer's “Heaven and Earth”

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2009/2586947.htm

Professor Malcolm Walter, Fellow of the Australian Academy of Science, concludes:

“There is fallacious reasoning. Take this statement (by Plimer): 'If it is acknowledged that there have been rapid large climate changes before industrialisation, then human production of carbon dioxide cannot be the major driver for climate change.' This would only be true if carbon dioxide concentrations were the only driver of climate change, something that no-one proposes, as far as I know.

This level of naiveté, if that's what it is, is hard to comprehend.

I think Plimer is entirely sincere in his efforts to argue against anthropogenic climate change. But he is misguided, and his interpretation of the literature is confused. Why do I have any credibility on this issue? Like Plimer I am a geologist, with a very long experience in basic fieldwork. I have particular experience in working on the evidence for severe glaciations in the past, and on understanding the early history of the Earth. I am also a planetary scientist with an interest in other planets in the solar system, including their climates.

Reviewing this book has been an unpleasant experience for me. I have been a friendly colleague of Plimer's for 25 years or more. I admired his support for innovative geological research during his early career as a mineral explorer in industry. I cheered him on when he took on the so-called creation scientists and their bogus nonsense, a crusade that cost him dearly in the end. I have enjoyed his always lively and entertaining lectures. But this time, in my opinion, he has done a disservice to science and to the community at large.”
Posted by Q&A, Thursday, 11 June 2009 11:21:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ian - as someone who has read Plimer's book (and spoken to the author), and followed the debate for the past 20 years or so I can say that little in the book that was suprising as such. Plimer summarised the bulk of the objections to the science behind the climate forecasting models and, although the text can be repetitious, he does a credible job.
The problem is that, as he notes, climate has frequently changed sharply on both large and small scales (we are arguing about a small scale change) before industrial times and is always changing. Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have also changed - both increasing and falling - but research shows those changes can in no way be said to drive the temperature changes. If anything it is the other way round. Further, no one is really arguing those points. Instead, the argument is that the recent, artifical increase is somehow different.
Well is it, and how do we know this? The models used to "prove" warming are useless in modelling any of those past changes.
For me the interesting point Plimer makes is that the medieval warm period was warmer than present temepratures, although scientists have managed to link modern temperature records with temperature proxies (tree ring measurements) to "prove" that modern temperatues are higher.
I was sufficiently intriged to follow up his references. Certainly there is archeological evidence (cultivation at higher altitudes, vineyards in England) to suggest the MWP was warmer, and perhaps the Roman warm period warmer again.
The fact that there has been adverse critical reaction to a book that covers ground familiar to anyone who has followed the debat ewith both eyes open reflects on the critics, not the authors.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Thursday, 11 June 2009 11:33:41 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'm noting a significant shift in the number of AGW articles, the tone and the content. I smell panic and desperation as the scrambled egg approaches face.

This link is a serious scientific peer review of the IPCC conclusions. I doubt it will open any minds but it might, just might, open up the debate.

www.nipccreport.org/index.html
Posted by spindoc, Thursday, 11 June 2009 11:34:29 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
Everyone is entitled to an opinion however the condemnation of Prof. Pilmer by a Money Man seems somewhat askew , I mean what was he doing when our money was being lent out to people who didn't care or didn't understand what they were doing ; had he been on the ball and commenting on their fiscal irresponsibility our position might well have been somewhat less bankrupt than we are today .
Fiscal adventures can be calculated to the last cent unlike atmospherics , rainfall , emissions , droughts etc .
Money Men who fail were simply Gambling with our money or the weather
which ever way the Law apparently doesn't ascribe any remedies upon their ignorance .

I have not yet read Pilmers book so for me the Juries still considering climate change , none of the hype gets much traction with me , unfortunately I am too old to be sucked in by panic and hype ie; the Terrible Flu every year thousands get the flu whats so special about the current one perhaps Our OLO Money Man could run his mercurial eye over the Medical listings on the stock market might reveal the Crocodile responsible .
Posted by ShazBaz001, Thursday, 11 June 2009 11:40:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If leftist Governments around the world had not been so gullible in swallowing the gw fantasy then this article would be hilarous. Fancy an economist whose computer models failed to predict the boom or more importantly the bust trying to defend 'environmentalist' computer models. Please come up with some true science or give us a break from this crap.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 11 June 2009 11:44:50 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
Am in the process of reading Plimer's book, and whilst I am frustrated with some of the gaps in his references, his article is way better referenced that Mike Pope's critique. It seems to me Mike Pope is misrepresenting much of what Plimer asserts to make his opinions seem far fetched - e.g. apparently parraphrasing Plimer (without reference):

1) "the more CO2 we add to the atmosphere, the better off we are..."

2) "if the atmosphere were being polluted we would all be in the dark because “carbon is black”"

Other Misleading criticisms:

1) Tim Lambert's detailed, destructive demolition, upon a brief review, makes a number of criticisms which are hardly relevant - eg) Plimer's use of a graph which shows a 20 year cooling period corresponding with the post war boom (when presumably CO2 emissions rapidly increased), asserting that this graph had been debunked. However, when you follow the links to the debunking, you find that it was debunked as misleading because it originally included data only up until 1980, not because there was no significant cooling period in the post war 'boom' period. It follows that Plimer's use of the graph, however unfortunate, does not detract from the validity of his argument. Whilst I'm sure that some of the 60 plus criticisms may be valid, in a book of 500 pages with something in the order of 2000 citations, 60 criticisms is hardly a "demolition".

2) The "devastating critique" in the Australian was written by an Astrophysicist critical of Plimer's lack of qualifications of climate science, amongst other things. Pity the critic was also lacking qualifications in 'climate science' (whatever that is - could someone please define it for me?).

Whilst I have no doubt that Plimer's work is imperfect (arn't all human works?), to dismiss it as the work of a looney because it contains errors whilst studiously ignoring some of the valid points only serves to deprive the author of credibility. He doth protest too much.
Posted by Kalin1, Thursday, 11 June 2009 11:48:43 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 have yet to read Plimer's book, so I can't speak specifically on it - although I must say I would be sadly disappointed if Plimer has indeed performed so badly as is being made out. Then again, having seen the flurry of hysterical over-reaction to Anthropogenic Global Warming heretics before, I'm definitely reserving judgement here.

What I can say, is that if Plimer's book is full of inaccuracies, then this article certainly fares no better. It's so full of bu11sh!t, I needed my highest pair of gumboots to wade through it.

I can't believe the author is peddling that tired furphy about polar bears, with a straight face.

And then there's the false and misleading ads this site is *still* running from those lying eco-fascists Greenpeace.

Two wrongs, as my mother always told me, don't make a right.
Posted by Clownfish, Thursday, 11 June 2009 12:03:38 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
Plimer's point about previous warm periods should be simple and obvious to anyone but a diehard AGW proponent:

If global temperatures have gone up during periods of no increase in anthropogenic CO2 then some other factor or combination of factors must have made that happen -- call it/them Factor X.

So in order to prove that increasing CO2 caused the warming which stopped in 1998, it is necessary to a) identify Factor X and b) demonstrate that it is NOT responsible for that particular result; neither of which the AGW lobby have succeeded in doing.

Similar results usually have similar causes. If my shed has fallen down from termites four times, I'd be crazy to blame little green men with disintegrator rays when it goes down for the fifth time.
Posted by Jon J, Thursday, 11 June 2009 12:12:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I, like most people, have not read Pilmers book. But I have read extensive arguements by big hitters on both sides. The thing that strikes me is that they all have an agender of their own.

The Coal lobby says there is no problem with CO2 but to appease the mouth minority we'll make "clean coal?" The Free Energy mob espouse Solar,or wind or Hydrogen. (Nobody want that machinery on their patch. Solar soaks up sunlight & the flower won't grow. Windmills hurt birds & make noise & hydrogen is a fantasy). The Greenies... well they can't seem to make up their mind what they want. (What ever it is we're against it). Continued

I subscribe to groups like this one, Get Up (I'm going to my first meeting tonight), & some others. I received some litrature from a PLAC TV. They're against Free Energy & for Nuclear Generators as made by General Electrics Corporation. Other groups support are supported by other similar organizations.

So you see, every player has their own agender to make money out of scareing gullable people & the terrible thing is that there are lots of gullable people out there. They know that.

The history of this Planet goes back for about 15 billion years (unless you belong to some christian teleban group, then only 6000 years) The ice cap, comes & goes. The sea, goes up & down. That's nature. So what if the sea engulfs Manhattan Island & a few Pacific Islands. That what it does. That's nature. Oh!... the Money Men will lose a lot of money. Now there's an, Ah Ha!, moment.
Posted by Jayb, Thursday, 11 June 2009 1:34:18 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
continued.
What are we going to do about the Continents shifting? If I believe the Geologists, eventually Australia is destined to become part of Japan in a few million years. Should'nt we start to do something about stopping the Continental drift now?

Mind you. Yes I would like to see a reduction in the amount of pollution. That would be a good thing, so I'd support that. Take a trip to Hanoi or Saigon to see why. I support the use of alternate energy systems & the investigation into new forms of energy. We should utilize them all. Even nuclear. Eventually some one will find a way to use the waste product for the good of mankind. They found a use for the poisonous waste product of making Aluminium, flouride, didn't they. Feed it to humans. There an agender for everything if it involves making money.

So, the whole arguement is really just one big scam by big business & gullable sensitive people take the bait every time.
Posted by Jayb, Thursday, 11 June 2009 1:35:54 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
The key point to get from Plimer's book, which most people seen unaware of, is the way that climate change is a natural and regular phenomenon.
http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/temperature-and-co2-concentration-in-the-atmosphere-over-the-past-400-000-years

The above link is to graphs plotting temperature and CO2 levels as measured by the Vostok Ice Core samples, relied upon by blogger John D in another thread, to show a corelation between CO2 levels and temperature over a period of around 400,000 years.

Whilst it undoubtedly shows there is a strong relationship (though not necessarily causal) what is also apparent is that the spike in temperatures we have experienced over the last 20,000 years is typical of a roughly 100,000 year cycle.

Can someone, Q&A perhaps as you seem quite well informed, explain why a temperature and CO2 trend that has been going on for about 20,000 years, which accords with an apparently regular 100,000 year cycle, is suddenly being attributed predominantly to human activity? Also, by what mechanism were the previous spikes in temperature and CO2 levels reversed, and why should we not expect that same reversal to occur in the present case? I'm genuinely interested.
Posted by Kalin1, Thursday, 11 June 2009 1:47:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I didn't find Pilmer's book a gripping read but neither did I throw it in the fire in disgust. I tend to side with those who say climate change may be man made and that whatever the case, lowering carbon emissions is a good idea.

What I haven't found in the debate is old fashioned falsification. Aren't scientists trying to prove their theories incorrect? Maybe I'm way out there with Karl Popper on this one.

It seems a battle of 'my opinion leaders/scientists' versus 'yours'.

The pictures of ice shelfs falling in to the sea are graphic, so you'd reckon that the sea level must rise. Not a millimetre. Does anyone else find that odd?
Posted by Cheryl, Thursday, 11 June 2009 3:13:56 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
Another of the increasingly hysterical and alarmist articles by the author.

Clearly panic is setting.

If you're all so sure of yourselves why do you bother with all the personal attacks, surely the "science" stands in its own?

It will be interesting in years to come to see what is thought of this current age of panic and science bullying. Each age believes they know everything and this one is no different, our own arrogance will be our downfall, not the climate which changes whether we like it or not. Shouting at each other will not turn things around.

Mike, go write your own book on climate change, see if you can do better than Dr Plimer. (See how many say, motor mechanics diss you.)
Posted by odo, Thursday, 11 June 2009 3:23:36 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
Q&A states that no-one he knows thinks CO2 concentrations are the only driver of climate change. Yet Pope refers to a supposedly "strong" and "close" correlation between atmospheric CO2 and temperature over the last 600,000 years to refute Plimer. If there is such a strong correlation between two variables, but there are other driving factors, isn't it normal in such scenarios, whether one is looking at climate or the mating habits of lima beans, to suspect a third factor driving both variables?

Even if there is a causal influence - an enhancement - as the story goes, this would seem to me little more than just that. It's like closing the doors on a hot day and saying the doors are causing the warming. The threat is of a spiralling feedback loop, exponentially, tipping pointingly, heating the world to hell. But CO2 concentrations have been higher before. What prehistoric ETS fixed the problem? From whence the return to Ice Ages? Seems obvious to me that the primary driver is something else, probably the sun, the source of all earth's energy. Perhaps we should be looking into a Solar Heat Irradiation Trading Scheme (or SH...never mind)

I add that the whole tone of this article and the jibe about royalties makes me doubt Pope's motivations more than Plimer's. Anyone who thinks books of reassurance sell better than alarmism is simply wrong, and desperately looking for any angle to discredit the author.
Posted by fungochumley, Thursday, 11 June 2009 6:22:57 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
One need only read the transcript between Tony Jones and Ian Plimer to realise that Plimer is a duplicitous toad. He set out to fool Jones that global temperatures had cooled and that the 30s had the hottest temperatures. Then it was hot in the 20s and the 40s.

When Jones persisted that Plimer support his assertions, Plimer, dragged, kicking and screaming, admitted he was referring to temperatures in the United States. What a sneaky piece of work he is:

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2554129.htm

And those who perpetuate the same myth (like Curmudgeon,) may like to refer me to one scientist trained in any of the appropriate disciplines - anywhere on the planet will do, who has favourably critiqued Plimer's Heaven and Mirth. What self-respecting scientist would risk his credibility (or his career) by supporting such a fraud?
Posted by Protagoras, Thursday, 11 June 2009 10:36:22 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
I find it interesting that it's the economists that fall most heavily for tha AGW myth. Could it be that when you have devoted your life to voodoo, in the form of economics, it's easy to believe this other voodoo of AGW?

Perhaps, when you pretend to be able to predict the future, in one area, you have to believe others who claim to be able to predict it in other areas.

How can you expect others to accept your bull sh1t, if you won't accept theirs?
Posted by Hasbeen, Thursday, 11 June 2009 11:08:43 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
"Admitting" the context of his data is commendable, Protoadoras, the kind of honesty you appear quite incapable of.
Posted by fungochumley, Thursday, 11 June 2009 11:23:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Protagoras, Tony Jones, in that interview, came across as the small minded, smug dummy he is. How is it that the ABC are able to get so many dumb people, who think they are smart, together in the same place?

Someone had tried to coach his small mind in one area, where they thought they could put Plimer down. His refusal to discuss anything else showed him, & the "B" grade ABC up as the now worthless corpus of a once worthwile organisation.

It's the worst 8 cents a day I have to spend, & that's saying something, when I live in Queensland, & pay a small fortune to the totally incompetent lot in George St.
Posted by Hasbeen, Thursday, 11 June 2009 11:30:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hasbeen

It is not important to anyone what you think of Tony Jones. The point being that Plimer manipulated the science and tried to dupe the interviewer.

And the usual suspects continue to make fools of themselves by using one year only (El Nino 1998) the hottest year on record, to "prove" that the globe is cooling when the majority of the hottest years on record have occurred in the 21st century.

1. Global anomalies 1880 - 2008:

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/annual.land_and_ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat

2. “Combined land and sea global temperatures for April 2009 was the fifth warmest since records began in 1880.

3. “Combined land and sea global temperatures for January – April 2009 (year to date) tied with 2003 as the sixth warmest since records began in 1880.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2009/apr/global.html#temp

4. “The ten warmest years all occur within the 12-year period 1997-2008. The two-standard-deviation (95% confidence) uncertainty in comparing recent years is estimated as 0.05°C [ref. 2], so we can only conclude with confidence that 2008 was somewhere within the range from 7th to 10th warmest year in the record.”

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/

"NASA climate scientist James E. Hansen has been chosen by his peers to receive the 2009 Carl-Gustaf Rossby Research Medal, the highest honor bestowed by the American Meteorological Society (AMS).

"Founded in 1919, AMS is the nation's leading professional society for more than 12,000 research scientists, professors, students, and weather enthusiasts interested in the atmospheric and related sciences.

"In a separate announcement on Dec. 30, Hansen was also named by EarthSky Communications and a panel of 600 scientist-advisors as the Scientist Communicator of the Year. Peers cited Hansen as an "outspoken authority on climate change" who had "best communicated with the public about vital science issues or concepts during 2008."

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20090114/
Posted by Protagoras, Friday, 12 June 2009 12:31:35 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
I can’t do this anymore. I can’t maintain this panic and fear that has made environmentalism irresponsibly go down the wrong road. I can’t tell my kids that the planet is going to be dead from CO2 in their day. All of you, wake up like I did and stop the “denier” dogma used instead of honestly looking at what the other side of this issue says. This theory calls for the end of our civilization so why on earth would you not look into it. My God this is insane now. Climate Change and Global Warming are just wrong. The failed theory is 23 years old and it’s about time we started protecting instead of saving our planet.
It’s getting embarrassing and I don’t see history being kind to the environmentalists of today.
Call it a quarter of a century of scaring our kids if you like because that is exactly what we have done. I’m ashamed of myself and the entire movement.
Count me out. Stop this needless fear.
Posted by mememine69, Friday, 12 June 2009 6:38:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So, Protagoras, the wicked skeptics are fools, because they use just one decade to claim a cooling trend, while wiser heads like yours have used two or three decades to claim the opposite: My trend's bigger than your trend, nyer.

It's a pity that if you look back over, say hundred of thousands or even, golly gosh, millions of years, neither appear to be particularly exceptional (as best as can be made out).

Oh and don't come at me with that palaver about climate change never having occurred in such a short time frame before: ever heard of, say, the Younger Dryas?

Oh, and while you're eagerly canonising James Hansen, you might like to list that evil scientist Plimer's medals and prizes. Oh, wait, I already did that, and you ignored it then, too, as you do anything that conflicts with your childish "good guys/bad guys" worldview.
Posted by Clownfish, Friday, 12 June 2009 9:30:34 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
Articles like this make me wonder how Universities work. I naively think of them as academic meritocracies, but obviously this isn't always true.

First we have Clive Hamilton, and a professor in ethics whose primary mission in life seems to be ensuring all Australian's live his version of an ethical life. Maybe the irony of this escapes him?

Now we have Ian Plimer, a Professor of Mining Geology, who apparently places more weight on popular conspiracy theories than he does on peer reviewed data. The Australian article was damming.

Maybe they are stellar teachers. Certainly clear thinking isn't their strong point.
Posted by rstuart, Friday, 12 June 2009 10:14:01 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
Here's a piece from ABC Science.

Ancient Arctic beasts ate rotting matter. Friday, 12 June 2009. Michael Reilly Discovery News

Canada's Ellesmere Island is a frigid tundra. But 53 million years ago it resembled a swamp, teeming with plants and crowded with alligators, turtles and tapirs. Even lemur-like creatures swung from the trees. The early Eocone climate of Ellesmere was drastically warmer than present day, averaging temperatures 25 to 17C or more back then.

So I take it Global warming is a normal phenomenon. The Hoo Haa is all money making scaremongering.
Posted by Jayb, Friday, 12 June 2009 9:21:09 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
Fear is the best motivator for us, the ignorante sheep. Greenzis will lead civilization into the next Dark Age. Fear the unknown and call it science -circa 2009
Posted by mememine69, Friday, 12 June 2009 9:35:13 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
If Plimer had real contributions to make to understanding climate and the human induced portion of climate change he would have published in a real science journal. He hasn't. He hasn't changed our current best understanding of climate any more than the opinions expressed in this forum. What he can do is write a book that keeps alive the notion that there is still significant cause to doubt AGW. There's not. The considered views of full time and dedicated professionals who study climate at the CSIRO or at our leading Universities are not agenda driven; as best it's understood there is rational cause to be alarmed because climate is quite sensitive to some widespread human activities. Plimer's wrong and can't prove anything as a scientist.
Posted by Ken Fabos, Friday, 12 June 2009 9:41:27 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
“So, Protagoras, the wicked skeptics are fools, because they use just one decade to claim a cooling trend….

Um.... not quite Clownfish. The skeptic fools have used just one hot year (1998) to claim a cooling trend while the climate scientists have used 130 years to claim a warming trend. You really should get out and about more.

“Oh and don't come at me with that palaver about climate change never having occurred in such a short time frame before: ever heard of, say, the Younger Dryas?”

Um……not quite again. Clownfish. It’s the rapid rise in greenhouse gases over the past century which is unprecedented in at least 800,000 years, according to a study of the oldest Antarctic ice core by scientists (from the British Antarctic Survey) who advise that existing levels of carbon dioxide and methane are far higher than anything seen during the earlier warm periods.

Younger Dryas? You’re not suggesting that there is some obscure reason to suppose that all climate change events have the same cause or even similar causes, are you?

Why not consider the unprecedented actions of man’s fossil fuels emissions into every ecosystem on the planet where once these gases were released only in catastrophic events of significance like volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, extraterrestial impacts etc.

But man has continued to dig everything up and dump carcinogenic hydrocarbons, mercury, lead, aerosols, man-made dioxins etc into rivers, soils, oceans, atmosphere - the earth’s lungs, while the plants and animals we eat uptake these hazards thus contaminating the entire food chain. And let’s not forget the massive and ongoing oil spills which are killing marine life and subsequently other animals which depend on fish for survival. I’d say Planet Earth is p**ed off.

And this debate should not be about whether all the evidence is “real,” Clownfish but about which evidence is most important and should be emphasized.

This is in contrast to your pseudo-debate about climate change where the presence of all the evidence on one side of the debate leaves the denialist side with no strategy but to…, well, deny the evidence.

Cheerio
Posted by Protagoras, Friday, 12 June 2009 11:08:15 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
It's interesting that some, such as Ozandy, liken climate "denialists" to creationists, while Protag uses Plimer's legal action AGAINST creation scientists as an example of his shakey credibility.

Now, I'm not expecting all those of the alarmist persuasion to be of exactly the same mind set, and to have their stories straight, but I do believe when someone is pilloried from diametrically opposite directions, it's a strong hint that both are baseless ad hominem, and makes me more likely to conclude there is some substance to the work.

As for Tony Jones, if Al Gore had turned up to the studio in a sack cloth, Jones would ask Plimer why he had a hair out of place.

Kalin1 and I have both sought information on what drove previously high CO2 concentrations down in the past. Anyone? Perhaps I'll find the answer in Plimer's book. I'm off to the shop.
Posted by fungochumley, Saturday, 13 June 2009 1:37:53 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
TO all the sceptics!

Yes there are natural forcings at work and climate "has always changed".

Yes climate is a BIG, bold, complex story with lots of geological history involving the rise and fall of ice ages, changes in solar intensity, "global dimming" and all sorts of other climate forcings.

However, the problem is that Plimer acts like HE is the only one who really understands all these factors, when the reality is that ALL of Plimer’s silly objections have been addressed by literally thousands of peer-reviewed papers.

Reading him you’d get the impression that only he understood the 100 thousand year ice-age sequence. To break it down quickly, Al Gore got it wrong when "An Inconvenient Truth" suggested that Co2 caused the ice-ages to retreat. Co2 was not the "trigger", but the "gunpowder" igniting off the trigger. The initial trigger was the Milankovitch cycles (100 thousand year wobbles in earth's orbit) which affects how much sunlight hits the earth at what angle. This triggers temperature changes, which triggers Co2 release in warming phase, which INCREASES warming phase, or Co2 cover in cooling phase (trapped under ice), which INCREASES cooling phase. Co2 is still doing its thing, refracting longwave length energy back into the atmosphere instead of letting it leak off into space. (This is testable and repeatable in a spectrometer! Does Plimer disprove that?)

Even James Hansen made that clear... Earth's "wobble" triggers temperature => Co2 changes => feedback. But just because climate science is complex and surprising does not mean that it is WRONG! Despite Al Gore's clumsiness in "Inconvenient Truth" climate change WAS NEVER BASED on the ice ages. Sorry Plimer, that's a straw-man. It always was based on physics as demonstrated by spectrometer readings, and the "Radiative Forcing Equation".

But we are to believe that ONLY PLIMER understands Milankovitch cycles? And make sure you buy his next dozen books on the subject! ;-)

The Newsflash about Plimer should actually read… "Geologist who made money debunking Noah’s ark turns to debunking climate change for a few quid".
Posted by Eclipse Now, Saturday, 13 June 2009 11:00:58 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To all you glowbull whiner warm mongering doomsdayers:
STOP SCARING MY KIDS YOU FREAKS!
The theory is dead because:
It's 23 years old so time's up.
La Nina is stronger than all the magical forces of glowbullwarming.
It's cooling.
And when consultants in white lab coats you obedient greenzis call "scientists", PR firms, pandering politicians and corporate media all agree on ANYTHING, be suspect, very suspect.
This cultural fad of modern day witch burning will be viewed in history as another WMD scam from hell.
You evil misery loving lefties who naturally cling to fear and victimizing are being childishly selfish in you hopes for the END OF THE WORLD.
History will laugh and curse you all warmies.
If you pathetic cry babies love the planet so much, at least be happy that the climate crisis never arrived after a quarter of a century of warnings and celebrate Rachel Carson's accomplishments and work to PRESERVE, not SAVE and RESCUE our poor little helpless 5 billion year old planet froma a non existent crisis with needless fear and ignorance.
Lead environmentalism down the RESPONSIBLE road, not your cave man like road of fear back into a the dark age of thinking.
Get ahead of the curve because the tide is turning quickly.
Posted by mememine69, Saturday, 13 June 2009 11:09:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fascinating rant mememine69

La Nina is a strong forcing, certainly. Increases in Co2 just increases the global temperature of all the other naturally occuring phenomena, but does not replace them. Normal forcings still occur, it's just Co2 is often stronger.

It is warming, not cooling. Cite data or retract. 1998 was an exceptionally hot La Nina year, so only picking one year for your data set is cherrypicking. EG: It's as if you just said the GFC has gone away because Australia avoided a "technical recession". ;-)

Have you met any climate scientists? Have you read how many independent climate organisations have studied this separately from all the others? Have you got any idea how much money a GENUINE scientific book that ACTUALLY finally disproves global warming would make? Have you any idea how COMPETETIVE scientists can be, like any other profession, out to make their own mark on the world by disproving the dominant paradigms and make their name and careers?

I personally do not hope for the END OF THE WORLD but do see the potential for the end of this civilisation's prosperity and "business as usual".

"History will laugh and curse you all" **sceptics**... is what I think you meant to say. ;-)

Your cave man accusations are just ridiculous: most greenies I know are arguing for more rail, renewable energy, some rezoning of our cities, recycling, and maybe a little redesigning. The average European uses half the oil of the average American (or Australian for that matter) but are they "cave men?" It's about living smarter, not retreating to the cave.

But go ahead, have a good rant. Just don't try submitting this visual chewing-gum to the scientific review process, you don't really have any ammo in your clip there pal.
Posted by Eclipse Now, Saturday, 13 June 2009 11:23:43 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
"The theory is dead because:
It's 23 years old so time's up."

Shouldn't that be over a 100 years?

"La Nina is stronger than all the magical forces of glowbullwarming.
It's cooling."

Hey mememine - I'm trying not to giggle insanely but thanks for the humour anyway. Psst...poor little Nina died last year:

3 June 2009 - BOM:

"All international climate modes predict further warming of the Pacific Ocean SST, with the majority of the models forecasting the development of El Nińo conditions later in 2009.

"The probability of the development of an El Nińo event in 2009 is now much higher than one month ago and it is significantly higher than the climatological probability of about 20-25%. Recent forecasts from the POAMA model, run daily at the Bureau of Meteorology, show a steady warming with El Nińo conditions developing by mid-winter. Pacific conditions and model predictions will continue to be monitored closely for any further indications of an event."

Sad little chap aren't you mememine! Is it merely ignorance, or is truth irrelevant to you?
Posted by Protagoras, Sunday, 14 June 2009 2:04:39 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
You warmies wish for this misery despite waiting through 23 years of the UN"s theory and 19 IPCC reports. Oh look, no climate crisis. Now who is crazy?
History will not be kind to you pathetic Doomsdayers. You modern day witch burners and climate pussies expect our climate to be like the inside of an indoor shopping mall?
Climate Change IS real indeed yes!!
It's also known as weather. Get over it and stop scaring my kids you cowardly freaks.
Protect our world, not save it with needless fear from a false crisis that has distracted us from real pollution.
Glowbull Warming, the new WMD scam.
Posted by mememine69, Sunday, 14 June 2009 8:43:21 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
Mememine69 is expressing significant frustration that appears to be on the increase in the public domain. Rather than attempting to understand this feeling, Protagoras describes this as a “fascinating rant”. To quote Q&A, “pot meet kettle”.

There is no doubt that the debate has reached an acrimonious stand off, we have Al gore, hooray! We have Ian Plimer, boo! There is the IPCC, hooray! We have the NIPCC, boo!

Even Q&A agrees that the public debate is not about science, logically that has to be true because we are not qualified scientists. Some are of course, like Ian Plimer and Q&A who are geologists, but because they are qualified scientists, they cannot be public domain. So do we “believe” Plimer or do we believe Q&A? Since they, like the rest of the scientific community, cannot agree, we can self evidently conclude that the science is not settled.

So where does that leave the unqualified public? Even within scientific academia the rivalry is evident as they publicly attack each others’ credibility. Q&A starts off as an equal with Ian Plimer; Q&A then presents his credentials as better than those of Plimer and finishes with the suggestion that Plimer has << done a disservice to science and to the community at large >>. How on earth can the public get past this contrary scientific opinion and the academic rivalry?

It would be great if we could nominate these two as our “champions” for the opposing opinions. Since we are not qualified to “fight” this contest, why can’t Plimer vs. Q&A be on the Billboard?

Each could nominate say 20 issues for debate and formally respond to each other. There are plenty of fans on OLO to support our nominees and we might learn much. How about it? Put the money where the mouth is.
Posted by spindoc, Sunday, 14 June 2009 10:19:58 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
mememine69

The world isn't going to end - it will do very well with or without homo sapiens. Just that we are going to run out of fossil fuels and we are polluting everything and we can't continue this indefinitely. We need to change our M.O.

Please listen to following talk:

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/backgroundbriefing/stories/2009/2592909.htm
Posted by Fractelle, Sunday, 14 June 2009 11:13:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The only certainty in this whole debate is that no-one knows in spite of the certainty expressed by both side. Some time in the future we will know and if ONO is still around (if the human race is still around) I am certain the argument will switch to whose fault it was with everyone saying 'it wasn't me'.
It has been that way for 6500 years and I see no sign of change.
Posted by Daviy, Sunday, 14 June 2009 11:58:05 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
“Some are of course, like Ian Plimer and Q&A who are geologists”

Spindoc

If you wish to practise your contemptible trickery, go some place else but before you do, please provide evidence to support your slippery claim that Q&A is a geologist.

“Q&A then presents his credentials as better than those of Plimer and finishes with the suggestion that Plimer has << done a disservice to science and to the community at large >>”

Such underhanded and unprincipled behaviour on your part Spindoc ( manipulating information and misquoting another poster to benefit your slimy agenda) will earn you a place in the hall of infamy at the NIPCC and the Heartland Institute. That’s what they thrive on - sycophantic parasites like you to spread lies and skulduggery .

“Mememine69 is expressing significant frustration that appears to be on the increase in the public domain.”

Yes true Spindoc and he’s also also spreading lies but the ethical members in the public domain are becoming frustrated by the deceit spread by whackos like Mememine and yourself. Sadly, you both underestimate the public’s intelligence. Scaring the kids, says the whacko? I certainly wouldn’t want mememine anywhere near my kids – what a freak!

“Put the money where the mouth is.”

We’re waiting Spindoc but what about first offering an apology to the poster, Q&A?
Posted by Protagoras, Sunday, 14 June 2009 12:38:52 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
The first I remember was, "Reds under the bed," then I missed a couple. Then it was the "Ozone Layer." Now it's Global warming." Untill that wears out it's welcome or people get bored with it, because it didn't happen "NOW." There will always be something to scare gullible people with, and by people who will make money out of the scare tactics.

I got a mate who is afraid of the 2 o'clock vapor trails everyday. He thinks that the Yanks are dropping poisonous gas on us. I can't convince him otherwise.
Posted by Jayb, Sunday, 14 June 2009 1:01:29 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
I wonder how you warmests happened to miss the evidence that the hotest year was 1932, & 3 of the hottest years of the 20Th cent were in the 30s.

However if you want concenses, try the Global Warming Petition Project.

31478 American scientists signed this petition, including
9029 PhDs. This states that they can see no evidence that any greenhouse gas, [including CO2] is likely to cause any catastrophic global warmingn. They also state that there is much evidence that increases in atmospheric CO2 has many benefits for the natural plant, & animal environment.

As you can see my consensus is bigger than yours na na.
Posted by Hasbeen, Sunday, 14 June 2009 3:56:22 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
Kalin1

Over the timescales you are looking at we can say the planet is in a cooling phase, it will experience another ice age (in about 30k). If you increase the resolution, you will see many spikes and troughs caused by the natural drivers of climate change. However, if you remove GHG’s as a significant (but not only) forcing, no other mechanism can explain the warming that the planet has experienced over the last 200 yrs. Not Milankovitch Cycles, not solar irradiance, not magnetic flux, not cosmic rays, not clouds, not volcanoes or big meteors – combined. I think many people misinterpret what the vast majority of scientists think – the planet is not about to undergo a ‘catastrophic’ (tipping point) climate change any time soon due to AGW.

fungochumley

I am very interested in a stronger case for ‘negative’ feedbacks, I have not been able to exact it myself nor have I been able to discern any strong, credible or robust research from others. We keep trying though.

Hasbeen

I don’t know of any economist who has been able to ‘hindcast’ the Great Depression, or who was able to predict the severity of this latest global financial crisis. However, scientists have been able to hindcast climate trends very well. While not perfect (we can’t predict volcanic eruptions with any great certainty), the GCM’s are getting better all the time. I would agree that economists could do a better job insofar as the SRES goes, hopefully by AR5 they will. Btw, 1934 tied with 2005 as the hottest year on record in the contiguous states of the US ... if you factor in Alaska, then 1934 is blown out of the water, especially when you consider the USA is only 2% of the planet. Oh yeah, my name was also added to that petition.
Posted by Q&A, Sunday, 14 June 2009 6:10:08 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
mememine69

Please don’t “tell (your) kids that the planet is going to be dead from CO2 in their day.” No reasonable or rational person is, why should you? Climate is not weather. You don’t have to believe in AGW, that’s ok ... however, we (humanity) need to adapt to a changing climate and at the same time live in a more sustainable way.

Clownfish

There will be some seriously embarrassed people around if the GW we have been experiencing doesn’t kick-start with a vengeance by 2015, including me.


Ken Fabos

Very true, writing opinions in books cannot be equated to publishing the latest in scientific journals.

spindoc

My field of expertise lies in land/ocean/atmosphere dynamics (I am not a geologist). I have read the Heartland Institute’s report, thanks. They certainly go out to trash the IPCC. It will only take one very rigorous and robust counter claim to AGW to throw it out with the bathwater. This has not been done. If any of the reviewers could do so, they would have presented their findings at the International Climate Science Convention in March. They didn’t. In fact these same people were attending their own climate change convention in New York, again run by the Heartland Institute. Even you have said it before, it is not about the science, it’s about political and economic ideology.

Daviy
6,500 years?

Protagoras

While I’ll not always agree with you (as I’m sure the reverse is also true), I most definitely agree with your stance on pollution issues. I for one appreciate your links (and opinion) to the various sites you have catalogued – a wealth of information one way or the other that serves OLO’ers (and observers) well, whether they believe that or not. Thanks
Posted by Q&A, Sunday, 14 June 2009 6:12:47 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,

I didn't think you were talking to me anymore, but in what seems to be a conciliatory spirit, I will try not to reignite old conflicts.

If I understand you correctly, you seem to be saying that no one yet knows what drove CO2 concentrations down in the past, as you don't appear to be disputing that this has happened. I'm probably showing my ignorance, but I am, of course, assuming that equal effort has been put into running these super-dooper models with temperature as an independent variable. In which case, good luck with your continued search.
Posted by fungochumley, Sunday, 14 June 2009 9:36:29 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
Conundrum: If Protagoras talked in a forest and no one was there to hear, would she still be a pillock?
Posted by fungochumley, Sunday, 14 June 2009 9:59:24 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
The Global Warming Theory, circa 1986 has left us now with close to a quarter of a century of predicting the end of the world as we know it, as defined by it’s authors at the home of world politics, the United Nations. How many people will keep following this warning of doomsday for another 25 years?
The NOAA while not yet declaring the theory dead yet, has gladly provided us with 11 straight years of North American cooling and frankly, that is reasonable enough for reasonable people deniers or not. The climate crisis did not arrive, it’s getting cooler, the natural forces of La Nina kicked global warming’s ass and there is now wide spread debate among free and unrestrained observation for obvious reasons, the world did not come to a screeching halt as predicted. Consultants in lab coats, pandering politicians, PR firms and corporate media cling to this aging theory for understandable reasons.
As the coming years of warnings and silly predictions unfold, history will leave global warming along side the neocon’s WMD scam, Y2K, Killer Bees, BigFoot, UFO’s, witch burning, sacrificing goats... All I’m asking is that we not abandon our efforts to promote responsible environmentalism by abandoning this dead theory. Our planet is not as sensitive, fragile, tender and at risk as it would appear. CO2 certainly is not a pollutant as predicted and the theory should not represent all of what environmentalism is or should be.
We can all work together to preserve our planet instead of trying to save it with needless fear and panic from a crisis that has been clearly proven wrong. We can face the future of environmentalism and energy and sustainability with bravery instead of constantly being motivated with the gun of fear at our heads as the only motivation for responsible environmentalism.
As global warmers are cast to the side as ignorant fear mongers, the future of responsible environmentalism is a positive one as we get our efforts back on track.
Stop scaring my children by denying them futures, please.
"What would have to happen to prove me right?"
Posted by mememine69, Monday, 15 June 2009 2:06:30 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, now, children. Play nicely or I'll have to send you to your room.
Posted by Jayb, Monday, 15 June 2009 6:38:08 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
Q&A, I have a couple of problems with your suggestion that the models can hindcast the past climate closely.

What happened to the little ice age, & the medieval warm period? Didn't they come up with the hockey stick, denying that either had occured?

How much has the "reporting" of current temperature been raised by the loss of a hundred or more Siberian weather stations, which no longer report?

Even as I died of heat stroke, I would have to reject the IPCC reports. There has been just too much barefaced lying by that body, & it's fellow travellers, for many of us to ever take its stuff seriously.

In fact, the IPCC has confirmed to many people, the growing feeling that even one dollar, given to the UN, is money tatally wasted.
Posted by Hasbeen, Monday, 15 June 2009 10:13:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Q&A,

Thanks for your comments on the earlier question. You said "I think many people misinterpret what the vast majority of scientists think – the planet is not about to undergo a ‘catastrophic’ (tipping point) climate change any time soon due to AGW."

That left me a little confused. Are you saying most scientists do not believe the planet is about to undergo a 'catastrophic' tipping point?

Also, three other burning questions which my reading has led me to:

1) During previous interglacials, CO2 levels declined after peaking at higher/equivalent levels than our present level? Clearly there has been some strong and sustained mechanism which has prevented runaway global warming, but my reading and wiki searching has been unable to identify any mechanism strong enough to explain why in previous ages runaway global warming did not occur. Can you shed any light on why?

2) Have read that there appears to be some 'mystery' CO2 sink based on the observation that all measured sources of CO2, less all known CO2 absorbers ought to leave us much higher C02 levels that are currently observed (MUCH higher): http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/oco/news/oco-20090123.html. Isn't this a clear indication of how poorly understood the CO2 cycle is, particularly in a quantitative sense? Surely in the face of such significant holes in our understanding the environmental movement is jumping the gun in asserting their is no room for debate anymore?

3) I have read, and others have posted, that the effectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas declines 'exponentially' with its concentration and that current CO2 levels already trap most of this radiation and further CO2 will have very little effect - like further coats of black paint on a window (as another poster described it). To what extent is this true?

4) Do you concede there is a real opportunity cost attached discontinuing/reducing the use of fossil fuels and shouldn't the opportunity cost be a fully investigated part of assessing 'what to do' about GW?

Sorry if this is 'too much' but I am generally interested in what the 'smarter' environmental supporters think about these issues.
Posted by Kalin1, Monday, 15 June 2009 10:40:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
RE; mememine69 ;

God I hope your right , I sure am sick of feeling like a leper , I am a dedicated AGW Denier ; now I can go back and concentrate on being a closet Green conservationist .

The Green movement has crashed ; too many fanatics and cranks .

What is needed now is a new movement based on the Greens pre AGW curriculum so all the rational people can get on with the job ahead .
Posted by ShazBaz001, Monday, 15 June 2009 12:22:40 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
Me me,
you're acting like the IPCC has predicted the end of the world 25 times over the last 25 years. As far as I know, apart from the Vic bushfires and maybe cyclone Katrina and WHO saying 200 thousand people die annually from global warming, the REAL economic impact hasn't been predicted to hit for another 40 to 60 years yet?

This is about risk mitigation and spelling out scenarios based on actions taken now. It's about drawing up the possibilities, and weighing out various options. It's NOT about crystal ball gazing.

Anyway, we have to get off the coal, oil, and gas sometime soon because they are starting to run out. (There's still enough coal to cook the planet 4 times over.) But our children will live in a post-oil world, and we are currently living at the peak of production. The slippery decline starts soon. We have to live more locally and sustainably soon because oil, the lifeblood of the modern world, is about to go into decline. Less and less each year.

As it is, you've said nothing to disprove the REAL physics behind global warming. Be careful, because if you DO disprove the physics behind global warming, you might just "disprove" our microwave ovens and the internet as well (and then they'll disappear in a puff of logic). You'd basically have to disprove everything we know about Spectrometry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrometer
Or try this:
Co2 = "Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas as it transmits visible light but absorbs strongly in the infrared and near-infrared."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide

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

and the Radiative Forcing Equation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing

James Hansen of NASA has concluded that we need to get down to 350 ppm CO2E and we are currently at 385ppm). See http://www.350.org for more.
Posted by Eclipse Now, Monday, 15 June 2009 12:50:55 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
Protagoras, if I owe Q&A an apology It will be offered. I quoted directly from the following Q&A post as follows:

“Like Plimer I am a geologist,”
Posted by Q&A, Thursday, 11 June 2009 11:21:38 AM

In a later post Q&A had this to say:

“My field of expertise lies in land/ocean/atmosphere dynamics (I am not a geologist).”
Posted by Q&A, Sunday, 14 June 2009 6:12:47 PM

Perhaps Q&A can offer some clarification and indicate whether or not I have misquoted or misinterpreted?

In the meantime Protagoras, since I have now provided the evidence to support my “slippery claim” as you demanded, and indicated where it is in this thread; perhaps you could read it for yourself and then apologize to everyone on this thread for failing to read the posts before you wrongly accuse other of misrepresentation.

Your emotional outbursts fascinate me. If, as you believe, the science in relation to global warming is settled, one would imagine the science would speak for itself. Therefore there would be no need for rude, offensive, aggressive and emotional “hissy fits”. Your disposition is a good example of desperation being experienced by those whose case is rapidly becoming unraveled.
Posted by spindoc, Monday, 15 June 2009 4:44:47 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
Actually spindoc, I think you had better reread that post by Q&A.

The first quote you are refering to seems to be coming from Professor Malcolm Walter. The quotation marks gave it away.
Posted by Bugsy, Monday, 15 June 2009 5:08:52 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
Hey Spindoc,

any comment on the following (pretty much as I posted above)?

You've said nothing to disprove the REAL physics behind global warming. Be careful, because if you DO disprove the physics behind global warming, you might just "disprove" our microwave ovens and the internet as well (and then they'll disappear in a puff of logic). You'd basically have to disprove everything we know about Spectrometry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrometer

Or try this:
Co2 = "Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas as it transmits visible light but absorbs strongly in the infrared and near-infrared."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide

That is it lets sunlight in, but not out (after it has hit the earth's surface and changed energy form).

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

You'll also need to disprove the Radiative Forcing Equation, which is the 'accounting' side of Global warming. Co2 before Industrial Revolution, Co2 after, count the energy difference = degree of warming. Easy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing

James Hansen of NASA has concluded that we need to get down to 350 ppm CO2E and we are currently at 385ppm). See http://www.350.org for more.
Posted by Eclipse Now, Monday, 15 June 2009 5:14:40 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
Spindoc

Protagoras is right. You have taken Professor Malcolm Walter’s concluding remarks (which I block quoted and linked to) and wrongly ascribed them to me.

Having realised your mistake, I clarified by indeed saying;

“My field of expertise lies in land/ocean/atmosphere dynamics (I am not a geologist).”

I would have thought this would be all the clarification you required. It seems not.

So, please be assured ... I am not Malcolm Walter (geologist), I am not a geologist. I don’t do rocks.

My field of expertise lies in things like; ENSO, PDO, NAO, ocean currents, the Walker Circulation and Hadley cells, blah blah blah and all that as applies to; temperatures, evaporation rates, clouds, rain, snow, blah blah blah ... predominantly with respect to the hydro-geological cycle and its relevance to climate change. Nothing that Plimer appears to understand.

I am somewhat disappointed (but not surprised) that you have followed up by accusing the person (who brought your mistake to your attention) of the very thing you have done yourself;

<< failing to read the posts before you wrongly accuse other of misrepresentation. >>

One could be excused for thinking you have thrown a “hissy fit”

<< Your disposition is a good example of desperation being experienced by those whose case is rapidly becoming unraveled. >>

Please, read Professor Malcolm Walter’s remarks again, here (it would help if you read the transcript):

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2009/2586947.htm

That should be clarification enough.

If not (and to get a better idea from where I am coming from), try this link (again, read the transcript):

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2009/2593166.htm

Both of these links are on topic.

Professor David Karoly and I have things in common. Go figure.

I don’t expect an apology spindoc; a simple “I made a boo boo Q&A” would have sufficed and we could have moved on.
Posted by Q&A, Monday, 15 June 2009 6:49:50 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
Hasbeen and Kalin1,

You have both posed questions to me that deserve a response. I am sorry that I have had to waste a post in explaining something to spindoc that I thought did not need explaining. I was wrong.

If you don’t mind, I will engage with your questions later in the week (I am busy with more pressing matters at the moment).

I am sure other OLO'ers would have things to say with regards though.

However, let me say this:

Hasbeen
The MWP and LIA are there. There are quite a few proxy reconstructions and they all don’t just rely on pine cone data, and they all show the so called ‘hockey sticks’.

The scientists are not as stupid as you imply, they are aware of missing data and compensate for this. No, they don't make stuff up - it would destroy their careers.

Kalin1
<< Are you saying most scientists do not believe the planet is about to undergo a 'catastrophic' tipping point? >>

Yes, but I have to qualify.
Your other questions and this will have to be left till later.
Thanks
Posted by Q&A, Monday, 15 June 2009 6:54:41 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
Some warmie said:
"This is about risk mitigation and spelling out scenarios based on actions taken now. It's about drawing up the possibilities, and weighing out various options. It's NOT about crystal ball gazing."

Ah "precaution" and "just in case". Now that is real science. Let's assume that after 5 billion years our world may be coming to an end because of SUV gas and plant food. How is that an exact science you goofs?
You Greenzis are terrorizing our civilized culture and sending us all back to a new Dark Age of ignorance fearing the unknown.
Posted by mememine69, Monday, 15 June 2009 7:26:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Please explain.
What is the problem with Global warming?
Is it that the Ice cap will melt?
Is it that the seas will rise?
What is the problem with that?
Is it that there will be more storms in the Tropics?
Won't that mean more rain, more fresh water?
Won't the extra rain extend the lush growth in the tropics?
If the ice cap retreats won't that open up more arable land in Nth. America & Siberia, etc?
Posted by Jayb, Monday, 15 June 2009 7:40:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
On the fascinating Q&A geologist or not geologist issue, I have to confess I too misread the original post, and I believe it is an understandable mistake. I have noticed many such misunderstandings in the exchanges that happen here. Communication is easier to get wrong than right in my experience. Let me be clear: I am not accusing Q&A of any negligence or error, and agree that “acknowledge and move on” is appropriate. However, as there are obviously no stringent publication guidelines in an Op Shop like OLO, it is easy for such miscommunication to occur. A longer quote, such as that posted by Q&A would customarily be indented, and in some cases - usually more in the case of quoting dialogue - quotation marks might be used at the beginning of each paragraph. I can clearly see the closing "s, but on initial reading I confess I "read" only the first para as the quote. I don’t think anyone here always has the time to write (or to read) to academic standards.

The bigger issue is this: this understandable misreading led to the following, and I quote, from Protagoras:

"Such underhanded and unprincipled behaviour on your part Spindoc ( manipulating information and misquoting another poster to benefit your slimy agenda) will earn you a place in the hall of infamy at the NIPCC and the Heartland Institute. That’s what they thrive on - sycophantic parasites like you to spread lies and skulduggery ."

Getting the picture? It speaks so much for the broader conduct of debate on these issues. The slightest human mistake by the 'evil' side is blown into conspiratorial proportions and moral judgments, while the "good" side remain blind to their own errors and, particularly in Protag's case, hypocrisy. Thus, if I acted like Porthog (shiver!), I could accuse Q&A's citation of being grossly deceptive and draw whatever wild conclusion about him I wished, etc, etc...(I am not). I am amazed, Q&A, however, that you feel comfortable defending her response.
Posted by fungochumley, Monday, 15 June 2009 11:43:30 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 shame is that people like Porthog only do more damage to the cause they are supposedly fighting for. She has just alienated mememine (whose frustration I sympathise with and commend her for having the courage to express), a person who evidently places value on the environment and conservation, but has, I believe, correctly identified the transmutation of environmental care into something altogether different – it’s dark superego antihuman underbelly. Research by an eco marketing company (?) recently arrived at the same conclusion and advised the enviro movement that its communications were off-message and driving people away. I have sensed this myself. But it's up to you guys to think about that.

More importantly, I think the issues that might be realistically and rationally addressed through careful policy get lost against the noise and hissy-steria of such rubbish. I imagine that Protag was the kind of kid who if Daddy poured too much milk on her rice bubbles, would scream at his evilness, and proceed to smear the walls with poop (and probably then deny it). I use the word "poop" advisedly as I believe her posts on the white space of OLO are little more than a sublimated form of same. Her anti-everything, and simplistic breakdown into good and evil, amounts to little more than a tyrannical judgment on all that has come before her, on the forefathers (and mothers) who gave her the world she so moralistically and hypocritically takes for granted. I'll smear my poop everywhere, but I'm innocent - I never poured too much milk on anyone's rice bubbles. End result: Daddy doesn’t hear the request for less milk, and heaps of poop on the walls! I apologise for my momentary lapse of patience and tolerance - if I was her father, I might have a little more, indeed would need volumes. But keep going Protag, you have taken over dickie’s role and are doing a better job at driving people away than we “evil” side could do ourselves.
Posted by fungochumley, Monday, 15 June 2009 11:45:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The planet hater’s diatribe is worthy of a response if only to address the errors peddled by a phony who bears a fanatical grievance against those who object to his defilement of the environment.

Errors:

Error 1: Fungo, to perpetuate mischief, has conveniently ignored Q&A’s opening to the quotation:

“Professor Malcolm Walter, Fellow of the Australian Academy of Science, concludes:” (note the colon)

Error 2: Fungo states: “A longer quote, such as that posted by Q&A would customarily be indented,”

Since the advent of the computer, paragraph indentations have not been used, therefore it is no longer customary. Indents are redundant and obsolete - just like Fungo.

Error 3: “and in some cases - usually more in the case of quoting dialogue - quotation marks might be used at the beginning of each paragraph. I can clearly see the closing "s, but on initial reading I confess I "read" only the first para as the quote.”

“On initial readings?” Give us a break. It is correct about the quotation marks being used at paragraph beginnings, however, Professor Walter’s transcript was provided by Q&A to support the quote. Neither Spindoc or Fungo read it but then truth is the enemy of ammo-seeking eco-terrorists, is it not?

Fungo’s “initial reading” commenced only after Spindoc’s blunder and he now uses Q&A’s informed post to further his and Spindoc's malevolent and rancorous attack on those who post only for the common good.

And what were his closing remarks about? Some four hundred and forty five words to tell us about Daddy pouring too much milk on the rice bubbles and Protag smearing poop everywhere? Noise and hissy-steria of such rubbish? Heaps of poop on the walls?

Such psychopathic catatonics are common from our resident troll who continues to produce reams of vile, insipid, stupefying swill. A hate-filled sink of irrelevance, desperately clinging to a medieval status quo to protect the vested interests of the greed merchants and their gratuitous carnage of the Earth’s fragile ecosystems.
Posted by Protagoras, Tuesday, 16 June 2009 2:45:05 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
Q&A and Protagoras. Sincere apologies to both, I was wrong, you were right. I read only the first paragraph as a quote. I should have picked that up on the second reading so thanks for the requested clarification.

Fungochumley, thanks for your support.

Eclipse Now, sorry I can’t help with your questions and I certainly cannot prove or disprove anything to do with climate change as I’m not qualified. I take it from your post that you are qualified. Q&A has stated his qualifications, might we know yours?
Posted by spindoc, Tuesday, 16 June 2009 4:19:58 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
Why do I have to be qualified? What I'm asking is whether or not your climate scepticism comes from having seen these questions addressed. Because I can *read* I happen to know that these basic matters of physics are what the whole system of thought is based on. I'm not even a scientist! (But topped my social science studies if that counts. ;-)

I was born with a "humanities brain", it's just the way I'm wired.

But here's the thing. I can read, and after reading stacks of executive summaries understand the climate sceptics to be arguing at cross purposes to the actual data they need to confront in the basic theory.

EG: Even in my non-scientific mind I can "get" that when Tim Ball gets up and raves about what a tiny little % of the atmosphere Co2 really is, he hasn't disproved what a tiny little % of Co2 might DO.

The climate physicists repeatedly explain that these basic sciences are the foundations for global warming. NOT the history of climate (although there are some VERY interesting and important lessons there). The climate physicists *demonstrate* the math behind the amount of energy they say is trapped by Co2.

No sceptics attack at that basic level of calculation! They say "But it's only 385 parts per MILLION of the atmosphere" as if you and I are able to evaluate what the heck that means? Do YOU know? Do I? NO! But sceptics selling books run that way, flattering you and I as if we are trained in these things.

The REAL climatologists can tell you EXACTLY what that means, and what 450 ppm means, and what preindustrial 280ppm means. It's all there in the Radiative Forcing Equation (RFE). I'm not asking you to run the figures yourself, but whether or not you thought to look for papers that disprove these BASIC FOUNDATIONAL arguments to the whole of climate science.
Posted by Eclipse Now, Tuesday, 16 June 2009 5:09:18 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
Listen you argumentive as#@($. Stop your bickering & answer my F'n questions.
What? Not got an answer?
Posted by Jayb, Tuesday, 16 June 2009 8:23:43 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
“What is the problem with Global warming?
Is it that the Ice cap will melt?
Is it that the seas will rise?

“What? Not got an answer?” (Jayb)

http://www.amnh.org/sciencebulletins/

1. Go to “Earth” (left hand column.) 2. Click on “Features.” 3. Click on “Melting Ice Rising Seas.”
Posted by Protagoras, Tuesday, 16 June 2009 10:12:06 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? Not got an answer?” (Jayb)

http://www.amnh.org/sciencebulletins/

1. Go to “Earth” (left hand column.) 2. Click on “Features.” 3. Click on “Melting Ice Rising Seas.”

Yes, fine. That's not telling me something I didn't already know. It's just saying what's going to happen. Not, does it really matter.
The question is, "So What?" People will just have to adapt. Just like life had to every other every other time it happened, both warming & cooling. It's the natural way of things on earth. life migrated & or addjusted to its new surrondings. I don't see it as a bad thing or a good thing it just natural change in the cycle of life on earth. We have to accept that. The only ones that are really worried about it are the Real Estate people. All the High priced land is by the sea & that will go down in value. So what? It's unrealistically priced anyway.
Posted by Jayb, Tuesday, 16 June 2009 10:52:17 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
Jayb,
Real estate... is that all you can imagine?

How many climate refugees do you want flooding the Australian economy when Bangladeshi agriculture fails? What about INDIA and CHINA's agriculture massively failing?

Just how much international turmoil do you think we can "adapt" to? We're talking about massively rising food prices, failed states, possibly even war, or at least massive refugee problems unlike anything we have EVER witnessed.

Try this:
http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/2008/Update71.htm

"On top of this already grim shrinkage of underground water resources, losing the river water used for irrigation could lead to politically unmanageable food shortages. The Ganges River, for example, which is the largest source of surface water irrigation in India, is a leading source of water for the 407 million people living in the Gangetic Basin.

In China, both the Yellow and Yangtze rivers depend heavily on ice melt for their dry-season flow. The Yellow River basin is home to 147 million people whose fate is closely tied to the river because of low rainfall in the basin. The Yangtze is China’s leading source of surface irrigation water, helping to produce half or more of China’s 130-million-ton rice harvest. It also meets many of the other water needs of the watershed’s 368 million people. (See data.)

The population in either the Yangtze or Gangetic river basin is larger than that of any country other than China or India. And the ongoing shrinkage of underground water supplies and the prospective shrinkage of river water supplies are occurring against a startling demographic backdrop: by 2050 India is projected to add 490 million people and China 80 million."
Posted by Eclipse Now, Tuesday, 16 June 2009 11:28:23 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
Ah, “What mighty contests rise from trivial things.” (Alexander Pope)

My apologies JayB, but as some of us are accused of being, let’s see, “A hate-filled sink of irrelevance, desperately clinging to a medieval status quo to protect the vested interests of the greed merchants and their gratuitous carnage of the Earth’s fragile ecosystems”, on the basis of a missed quotation mark (“), one feels some need to respond. I agreed with Q&A that ‘acknowledge and move on’ was all that was required, but as Portaloo has turned it into a poop-throwing fit, I think I’ll press on, and give her all the rope she needs.

“Error 1: “Fungo, to perpetuate mischief, has conveniently ignored Q&A’s opening to the quotation:”

Wrong. And I can’t even work out how you believe you could prove such a stupid claim. As I clearly said, I understood the first paragraph to be the words of Walter, as introduced by Q&A. You seem very confused about the trivial issue in question.

“Error 2: “Since the advent of the computer, paragraph indentations have not been used, therefore it is no longer customary. Indents are redundant and obsolete...”

Wrong again. As just one example, I have in front of me a simple essay writing guide from La Trobe University from 2007 – a short while after the advent of the computer:

“Quotations of more than 40 words are displayed in a freestanding block of typewritten lines. The block is indented to the position of the indent for a new paragraph. They are not enclosed by quotation marks”

A quick jump to the webpage of formatting guidelines for RMIT’s Centre for Applied Social Research gave me this:

“11. Quotations of more than three lines should be indented without quotation marks”

Would you like me to go on? As far as I understand, this is universal practice, but I have already shown you to be wrong.

(I reiterate, I am not suggesting Q&A should have written in this format here, or accusing him of anything, as I naturally would be by Proctosis, …

Cont..
Posted by fungochumley, Tuesday, 16 June 2009 11:50:05 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
…but when one is used to customary formats, I feel it is an easy slip to make in the reading, and Spindoc, who has so graciously given an unqualified apology, clearly did so too.)

“Error 3: “On initial readings?” Give us a break. It is correct about the quotation marks being used at paragraph beginnings, however, Professor Walter’s transcript was provided by Q&A to support the quote. Neither Spindoc or Fungo read it but then truth is the enemy of ammo-seeking eco-terrorists, is it not?

I confess I have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about here. I thought the transcript was the quote! I read it, and I now see I originally misread it. What crap are you going on with?

You then add: “Fungo’s “initial reading” commenced only after Spindoc’s blunder…”

Wrong again. And, of course, you have absolutely no way of knowing this, but that hasn’t stopped you making any old accusations in the past. I did read the post prior to Spindoc’s response, and can only say that I’m glad I didn’t refer to it in my next post, as I would have made the same slip as Spindoc.

“…and he now uses Q&A’s informed post to further his and Spindoc's malevolent and rancorous attack on those who post only for the common good.”

No I haven’t Portipot. I have made it quite clear what I made of the mistake. It is you who has revealed yourself by turning it into a mountain of poop, which, as I have said, is the bigger issue here about this debate. No mischief, no slimy agenda, no conspiracy. Just your own paranoid delusions. So why should anyone trust you? Now, you could learn from spindoc and apologize for the errors above, which, if I behaved like you, I could turn into mugging old ladies, taking bribes, strangling kittens, or whatever I liked, or you can confirm my point, and continue to drive people away from your strange agenda better than I ever could.

Posted by fungochumley, Tuesday, 16 June 2009 11:52:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Read your IPCC reports, all 19 of them. The scientists don't even know what shape or form the effects (if any) of this Human CO2 will be exactly. Its possibilities they predicted starting 23 years ago. Now tell me, that is science? And tell me how a policy of precaution is science. It's a silly popular political media bull$hit science and I'm sure Nature herself is laughing right now. Unfortunately it takes a more sophisticated level of insight to recognize this so called science as the social phenomenon that it really is. And unfortunately this mass insanity of what looks like a coming doomsday is manifested in so many ways, social, physiological, political, financial and cultural, so that every believer has carved out their own personal belief system and definition of global warming. You warmies are such evil propagandists that you equate Carbon and CO2 as pollution itself. This sick belief system you warmies have is one that we deniers equipped with real insight can shoot holes through with its Greenzi-like irrationality.
It seems so right though doesn’t it? We are here. We affect here. We must be doing something. We burn. Too much. Too much. BINGO Instant Belief.
It other words if it isn’t right it aught to be?
Global Warming is happening as it has been for millions of years through the little understood process of climate change. Climate change is weather. Pollution is another matter that we should all work to manage so we can PRESERVE, not RESCUE AND SAVE our planet.
History will laugh at the very thought that humans can dictate temperatures of planets with SUV gas and plant food after almost half a century of progressive environmentalism and 23 years of waiting for doomsday with a dead CO2 theory.
Get ahead of the curve because this scam will not go unpunished like the neocon’s Weapons of Mass Destruction scam.
Posted by mememine69, Wednesday, 17 June 2009 7:09:57 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 listened to Kurt Lambeck on ABC the other day.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/ockhamsrazor/stories/2009/2589206.htm

Kurt Lambeck is, like Plimer, a geological scientist. He is also the current president of the Australian Academy of Science. He comments on ABC were unusual in that I don't recall seeing one scientist deliver a full broadside to another scientist in the public arena before.

After listening Lambeck's criticisms of Heaven and Earth, I came away with the impression that Plimer deliberately set out to deceive in his book. Had the book been written by someone else, that would not be the case. Selective quoting, twisting words, ignoring later corrections - these are standard tools of the trade for most of us. But for Plimer there is no excuse. A University Professor knows how science is done, and he must of know he was at best distorting the truth.

For example, from Lambeck's comments:

"the book is replete with references. But the choice is very selective."

"Plimer quotes a paper that appears to support his argument, but then he does not mention that the conclusions therein have been completely refuted in subsequent papers."

"he simply misquotes the work or takes it out of context."

"a reference to my own in the Mediterranean where he gives quite a misleading twist to what we actually concluded."
Posted by rstuart, Wednesday, 17 June 2009 10:12:29 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
Eclipse Now, I’ve no idea why you’ve challenged me to prove or disprove scientific matters related to climatology, I have no professional qualifications in this subject. Many do have qualifications on both sides of the debate and should be listened to.

Curiously, the most vocal in the public domain seem to have no formal qualifications. More curious still is that having no qualifications in the science does not prevent many from abusing others for not sharing their opinion.

I have no problem with experts debating with non experts in any forum, I do however feel that those with qualifications should not trivialize or abuse those of us who are well meaning, interested or even dedicated amateurs. I think we just need to get more balance and less vilification into the debate. Those who are qualified are privileged and should not abuse that advantage.

Many feel the debate has not been open an honest or that we have even had any meaningful debate. Unfortunately those not yet convinced don’t get much of a hearing.

So when I asked if you had and formal qualifications in climatology or related sciences, I was trying to determine if you were qualified to take a strong stance on the subject.

So in answer to your follow up question, “why do I have to be qualified”, the answer is you don’t. If however, you wish to promote yourself as understanding matters as a qualified scientist, you are going to be very short on credibility.

Like most of those with an opinion on this subject, we have borrowed it from some other person. We chose the opinion of one scientist over that of another. We do this because we are not equipped to make a scientific judgment of our own. Welcome to W.M.I.D.A. Club. (Well Meaning, Interested, Dedicated Amateurs).
Posted by spindoc, Wednesday, 17 June 2009 12:08:36 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
“Quotations of more than 40 words are displayed in a freestanding block of typewritten lines. The block is indented to the position of the indent for a new paragraph. They are not enclosed by quotation marks”

Tut tut silly me. OK - indented quotations for OLO's informal letter writers from now on. Throw in the Italics as well eh?

But first fungus-face, since you raised the issue of indented quotations for OLO users, could you give we plebs a lesson on how to indent quotations on the OLO computer system? If not, why not?
Posted by Protagoras, Wednesday, 17 June 2009 6:52:06 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
Spindoc, I apologise if I seemed to put on airs and come across as someone 'qualified' in this area, that was not my intention. All I was asking is if someone disagrees with global warming, what do they do about the REAL foundations for the science? The ACTUAL rationale is totally different to the straw-men created by Exxon funded sceptics.

Indeed, "Me me" provides a perfect example. Mememine insists on repeating that their "prophecies of doom" have failed repeatedly over the last 25 years, as if the events were predicted then! (Grow up Me me!)

Rather than failed "prophecies" we see actual warming events unfolding faster than predicted!

Witness the record Arctic melting in 2007. There are now projections that the North Pole could be ice-free by summer 2013! This was formerly projected for mid-century or 2100! That summer water will no retain more heat in "albedo flip" (from reflecting 90% to absorbing 90%!)

Witness the pine-bark beetle's plague destroying Canada's pine forests because Canada cannot seem to get a low enough winter freeze!

Witness ever higher average temperatures, heatwaves, forest fires, and a demonstrable increase in the number of climate related natural disasters. WHO estimate 200 thousand people a year die from climate change!

However, Me Me will no doubt say temperatures have not increased since 1998. These are the sorts of nonsense straw-men that deceitful fossil fuel interests circulate, and the gullible swallow hook line and sinker. They'll leave out El Nino effects or decadal trends, and just cherry-pick whatever data they want. At one stage I was nearly taken in by this rubbish, but after reading around found the climate guys knew what they were talking about and the SCEPTICS just sounded like used-car salesmen, dodging all pertinent questions.

So again Spindoc, are you aware that the basic climate science is based on the physics of spectrometry and the Radiative Forcing Equation? (This from one layman to another :-)

Also, if the whole thing IS wrong, how do you account for so many independent and reputable scientific organizations getting it wrong, together, after so much study?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change#Statements_by_dissenting_organizations
Posted by Eclipse Now, Wednesday, 17 June 2009 10:42:15 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
A predictably defensive and juvenile response, Progort, from someone clearly incapable of admitting when they are WRONG.

It seems I need to remind you that it was you who accused me of error, so don’t give me “tut tut – silly me”, implying some sort of pedantry on my part for simply showing that your criticism was WRONG. What was required was an acknowledgment, or, heaven forbid, an apology for being WRONG. I note the absence of both.

After evading that you were WRONG, you throw up some smoke bomb about the limitations of formatting on OLO. Don’t worry, I know exactly how your bull*&%ing works – confuse the whole picture and you might be able to hide the fact you dropped a stinker.

Unfortunately, in order to do so, you “conveniently”, “mischievously”, and “deceitfully” (sound familiar?) ignore that I explicitly stated not once, but twice, that I expected such formatting neither from Q&A in his post or anyone else’s here. So I've already answered your strange "if not, why not?" diversion.

In fact, your mention of the formatting limitations only emphasizes the point I was originally trying to make - the point, as usual, being the part you miss. There is a reason such guidelines exist in formal publishing, and a reason their absence here can easily lead to misunderstanding.

In all seriousness, I am not sure if you are consciously dishonest or just not very smart.
Posted by fungochumley, Thursday, 18 June 2009 12:10:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I suggest anyone who thinks that the global warming theory (not to be confused with responsible environmentalism or pollution) at least have the honesty to make a sign that says "THE END IS NEAR" and march down your street with it held high and proud if you really want to scare the kids by denying them futures. Look a kid in the eyes and tell them they are not going to have kids because global warming and climate change are real. And climate change IS real by the way, it used to be called weather, before you politically correct climate pu$$ie$ came on the scene 23 years ago with this silly theory.
History will not be kind to you warmies, OR this 23 year old dead theory. Politics has always dictated science all through history.
What’s really is sad is how you warmies cling to what their “scientists” say and anyone who questions with an opposing view is childishly demonized. This global warming scam is your WMD scam warmies and I dare you to prove that there is a climate crisis happening now. If I can’t experience a climate crisis but believe there is one because of polar bear pictures at Google says there is, we are then entering a new dark age of ignorance and needless fear.
Life is good and getting better.
Answer this:
“What would have to happen to prove me right?” (and telling us to wait another 23 years proves the theory to be just a self fulfilling prophecy.)
AND STOP SCARING MY KIDS YOU FREAKS!
Posted by mememine69, Thursday, 18 June 2009 6:49:43 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
Mememine, Wow, what a fact filled reply! So eloquent, so full of data, such a devastating counter-argument! Gosh, points A-D were explicitly addressed, with numbered articulate subpoints i — iv, and all so referenced by peer reviewed scientific literature!

Whoops, sarcasm meter just broke. I actually give your response 5% for effort, I've met scarier trolls in other forums, and 0% for content.

(You trolls are all so predictable and, quite frankly, boring!!)

"In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response[1] or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.[2]"

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

If you have anything substantive to say I'll gladly respond. Right now, the actual "advanced common sense" of science is telling me that maybe your kids DO need to be scared because us adults are stuffing up their world! Perhaps, if you TRULY loved your kids, you'd look into this subject and, if true, get on board and do something to help!?

But I really don't think you love your kids, you're just here for some negative attention. (Negative attention is better than no attention to the mindset of a troll). If you want to demonstrate that you are not a troll, please respond with some data! Just calling names is easy, as this post demonstrates.
Posted by Eclipse Now, Thursday, 18 June 2009 9:00:33 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
Eclipse Now:
Our air is cleaner than the smoggy 70’s, we are living longer than at any time in history as a species, 40 years of environmentalism has made our planet better, pollution does not stay in the air for ever, our planet is resilient NOT delicate and fragile, the theory is 23 years old, Newest data from NOAA shows 11 years of cooling for the USA, so 10 years of cooling for my Canada and the USA is reasonable enough to not needlessly instill fear and anxiety on an entire generation of children.
La Nina “delayed” global warming according to your high priests of pop science and politics so even it is more powerful than the magical forces of your self fulfilling prophecy of global warming.
If you did you would see what history will say and that is when paid consultants in lab coats, PR firms, pandering politicians and the hysterical corporate media all agree on the very same single issue, be skeptical, not obedient. Can you even think for yourself? Any denier is more knowledgeable on the theory for obvious reasons, we are all former believers.
It’s like you wish for this misery to happen by the way you cling to the failing evidence and not only scaring our kids with it but teaching them to be the politically correct and obedient and un-inquisitive non-questioning pushovers that you glowbull whiners are.
You can’t see this issue of the CO2 theory being so outdated that in the realms of responsible environmentalism, it is taking us down the wrong road. CO2 obviously is not what as dangerous as the impression was in this non science issue of political science and pop culture forming a media and cultural nightmare from hell.
At the very least all I’m asking is that you warmies put down your skirts and abandon this theory and join us deniers in responsibly preserving our environment and making it even better.
Life is good and let’s face the future with the motivation of intelligence and bravery. Fear is an uncivilized motivator, if not “unscientific”
Posted by mememine69, Thursday, 18 June 2009 9:35:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Eclipse Now, <<I apologise if I seemed to put on airs and come across as someone 'qualified' in this area, that was not my intention.>> In that respect, no apology needed, as members of WMIDA that’s what we do. As I’ve said before, OLO’ers have demonstrated enormous tenacity in trying to come to grips with the concept of GW. In the end this scientific debate should not be in the public domain, it is divisive, bitter and has reached a stand off.

You asked about the rationale behind disagreement with GW. I’ll answer from my personal perspective and you can determine what traction, if any, it has with you.

First I define a skeptic as someone who has not yet been convinced that there is “hard” supporting science, as evidenced by the lack of agreement between scientists on the interpretation of the available measurements. I define GW supporters as those who have made up their minds; they are convinced that some scientists have correctly interpreted available measurements. Simply put, the undecided and the decided. No labels or abuse necessary.

Beyond that I can only speak to my need for “harder science”, whilst fully accepting that some who believe in the science have also been convinced of a sense of urgency. To me this is a mechanism for promoting a “soft science” solution against an artificially inflated problem. This is a direct consequence of forcing a scientific debate into the public (unqualified) domain and is an entirely predictable outcome.

I have been convinced that total human carbon emissions are working our biosphere very hard however, I am equally of the view that it is coping very well. I also believe that we should all protect our planet from other forms of pollution and human excesses and that the GW movement is a serious distraction from more important reforms and developing a greater understanding of our biosphere.

(Continued)
Posted by spindoc, Thursday, 18 June 2009 4:50:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(Continued)

You again ask me a scientific question after my clear statement that I’m not qualified to answer. You ask if I’m aware << that the basic climate science is based on the physics of spectrometry and the Radiative Forcing Equation?>> No idea what you’re talking about. My questions to you would be, should I? and isn’t that why we have scientists?

Those of us who are not convinced on GW seem willing to consider opinion from both sides and seek “harder science”. Those already decided, seem to accept “softer science” and have to defend that position, often done on OLO by denigrating the undecided. This has left little room for open debate, just a forum for name calling and abuse. Each side trots out endless books, articles and web sites with various contradictory opinions, each quoting only those that support their own views. This is not a debate, it’s jousting with opinions.

I was involved in the “Millennium Bug” phenomenon in the 1990’s. We investigated this from the point of public reaction. Distressing as this may be for many, the creation of “belief” about the Millennium Bug in the public domain is indistinguishable from that of the GW scenario. It is also indistinguishable from the many doomsday phenomena that have repeatedly been foisted upon the public in the past 100 years, none of which eventuated.

The public also didn’t have a clue what Millennium Bugs were, but there were other alarming commonalities. Trust was a key feature, there were those who trusted the scientists to work it out, didn’t believe there was a significant problem. Others did not trust anyone except those who supported their doom perspective. Interestingly, it has been said often on OLO that it boils down to which scientists you believe. For the undecided we seem to “trust” that all scientists will eventually agree and “harden up” the science. GW supporters on the other hand are only willing to trust the science of those with whom they already agree, mostly driven by the inflated and unsubstantiated sense of urgency or impending doom.

Anyone for jousting?
Posted by spindoc, Thursday, 18 June 2009 4:52:14 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
“You warmies are such evil propagandists that you equate Carbon and CO2 as pollution itself. This sick belief system you warmies have is one that we deniers equipped with real insight can shoot holes through with its Greenzi-like irrationality.”

Meme is clearly destitute of knowledge - uninstructed, untaught and unenlightened:

Pollutants:

1. Benzene burns to carbon dioxide. Benzene is a Category 1 human carcinogen. Benzene has a high acute toxic effect on aquatic life. Long- term effects on marine life have seen shortened lifespan, reproductive problems, lower fertility and changes in appearance or behaviour. Benzene can cause death in plants and roots and damage to the leaves of many agricultural crops.

2. Carbon monoxide elevates methane and ozone in the atmosphere then oxidises to carbon dioxide.

3. Researchers discovered that the industrial pollution at Wilson Park in Sydney consisted of contamination of groundwater, estuarine sediments, sands and clays:

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, ranging in concentrations up to 16,000 mg/kg in soils and up to 3 mg/L in groundwater.

Benzene, Toluene, Ethyl-benzene and Xylene, ranging in concentrations up to 1000 mg/kg in soils and sediments and up to 50 mg/L in groundwater.

The Polluter Pays principle is a myth and remediation (if any) costs are extracted from the public purse while industry pollutes with impunity.

4. This year the Swan River Trust advised that the Swan and Canning rivers in WA are polluted with toxic levels of cancer-causing heavy metals, pesticides and hydrocarbons.

The unburnt hydrocarbons, from poor combustion and rampant industrial pollution are being stored in our underground drinking water tables.

5. Acid rain is a mix of atmospheric sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides from fossil fuel combustion. Researchers discovered Atlantic salmon populations have been extirpated from a number of rivers in Nova Scotia, Canada, as a result of acid rain and that base cations will not recover to pre-industrial levels within the next 100 years.

The swarm of evil propagandists mememine speaks of resides in the ethics-free deniers' domain.

Industrial carbon dioxide is a pollutant - officially deemed hazardous by the USEPA!
Posted by Protagoras, Thursday, 18 June 2009 7:04:40 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
Wow, nice last post!

Hi Spindoc,

So you've got an opinion that global warming is "soft" science but sceptics have "hard" science on their side. Where did this opinion come from exactly?

You've ignored the basic science of spectrometry which finds out exactly WHAT Co2 and methane do, and the RFE which counts HOW MUCH they do it. If you don't have papers attacking these, then you don't have an argument because everything else you argue with is peripheral. Far more than "jousting with opinions" the HARD science is always won by the climatologists, hands down, because the sceptics are jousting with onions!

(When the real climatologists peel their arguments back layer by layer they've got nothing of substance in the middle and the sceptics are in tears).

These are the 26 top myths pushed by big oil. See if you can find Meme's "it's been cooling since 1998" on there.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462

(It's "onion" number 21.)

You might recognise some of these myths as being pushed as so called "arguments" by sceptics on OLO previously. They are NOT informed arguments, but silly sideshows devised for the DENIALISTS, not sceptics.

I'm sceptical. I HOPE that climatologists find a new naturally occuring feedback mechanism that's going to save us from the worst case scenarios. But to go against basic physics and chemistry is to go against the HARD FACTS OF HARD SCIENCE and not be sceptical, but a DENIALIST.

Meme, if you love your kids please read the New Scientist round up of myths above. It's BECAUSE I love my kids I'm going to support the precautionary principle and vote Green, debate the likes of you, and support reason and science where-ever I can. And maybe your kids wouldn't have to "be scared" if us adults GOT the science and built a new world, free of oil wars, with home grown energy security, cleaner cities and solar engineers enjoying the fresh air not coal miners dying underground!
Posted by Eclipse Now, Thursday, 18 June 2009 11:04:46 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
Hiya Prottog,

Running away, ey? Dropping another big poop screen behind you. I believe you had the nerve to write:

"We’re waiting Spindoc but what about first offering an apology to the poster, Q&A?"

I haven't read yours yet.

Oh but I see you've popped up out of your weasel hole elsewhere. I'll see you there.

----

Can someone else tell me the chemical formula for industrial CO2, as distinct from other forms?
Posted by fungochumley, Thursday, 18 June 2009 11:06:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A Simple, Simple Global Warmer’s Prayer:
Some day if we sacrifice enough, our climate will be like it used to be. Like the inside of an indoor shopping mall, safe, predictable and CONTROLLED!
I believe as foreigners on this fragile and sick planet, we should leave as little a footprint as possible. I for one am going to lessen my impact on our mother planet earth by putting myself in a drip fed intravenous coma. Who is with me?
Attention All Children, please be warned: Let be known that your future is doomed. You will not have children and if you do, they will most certainly die an unimaginable death on a toxic wasteland of a planet that has been ravaged by evil human SUV gas and plant food.
But wait, there is more to worry about and feel concerned about and feel so self righteous about and get together with other freaks and make myself feel useful and accepted. Now the scientists are saying, (I don’t know them personally but we must do as they say) that wind turbines are disrupting the natural air flow patterns of this fragile and delicate 5 billion year old planet.
We have waited 23 years with this global warming theory and we will wait another 23 years or as long as it takes for us humans to be punished for our evil doings.
The solution?: SUSTAINABILITY (otherwise known as poverty.)
God help us.
Suffering Shall Set Us Free: We are the Greenzis.

Ok enough of making fun of you warmies because we should just let do history its job. As a former believer myself and one who has read all 19 IPCC reports and have bothered to research both sides of this “science”, I demand one you hysterical bed-wetters of global warming to answer this one question and it better be a scientific answer:

“Does over all unpredicted cooling, disprove a predicted warming?”
Posted by mememine69, Friday, 19 June 2009 7:11:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fungochumley,

The key chemical difference between Industrial CO2 and the CO2 exhaled by animals is that that Industrial CO2 is industrial. As you may be aware, Industrial CO2, along with that other demonstrably greenhouse contributing substance Industrial H20, makes up the main waste products of humanities endless consumption of fossil fuels. The industrial versions of both CO2 and H2O, being man made, are patently unnatural with the predictable consequence that they are harmful to nature because they upset the natural order of things.

Both CO2 and H2O contribute to the greenhouse effect, one as a gas and the other in the form of vapour (Although little appreciated, H2O is a much greater contributor to the Greenhoue Effect that CO2). The Industrial forms of both these chemicals represent additional amounts of these chemicals being added to the 'natural system' and logically, must therefore increase the effects of Mother Earth's natural greenhouse effect.

As everyone knows, and no credible person with a proper regard for Mother earth would deny, the constant deposition of unnatural chemicals in our environment is the underlying cause of virtually all the environmental calamaties with which we are faced today. Mother Nature will punish those who do not heed her warnings.

However, rather than an ETS, which will only invoke corruption and the shifting of fossil fuel consuption into the third world, I propose the following solution: everyone hold their breath (which is CO2 and H2O rich).

If all 6 billion or so of us humans did this little thing, how wonderfully natural our environment would be.
Posted by Kalin1, Friday, 19 June 2009 1:10:40 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
Thanks Spindoc,
I think I understand where you are coming from better, but just think you are rather uninformed.

There is no scientific debate about the basics. Is “Area 51” a scientific debate? Is “The moon landing was forged” a scientific debate? Because the sceptic, including Plimer, argues on that conspiracy theory level of disjointed facts not properly argued from a real world framework. Plimer’s book is not peer reviewed and so sidesteps the REAL arguments.

So if you want to know what the real science on global warming starts with check the links I’ve provided on spectroscopy, greenhouse gases, and Co2.

Now, Y2K?

It did not happen — because governments and big business:-

* listened to the warnings...
* about a virtual problem that was easily fixed...
* by spending a little money fixing code
* just in time.

By the time Y2K ticked over the "geeks" were quite content with the situation. (My dad worked for IBM). Of course the "nutters" stored up tinned food and ammo for the Y2K apocalypse that never came.

Global Warming is the opposite.

* We have not listened to warnings...
* about an energy and climate crisis in the real world...
* of energy supply and vast energy systems that involve the laws of physics — not some computer codes
* requiring an enormous "war-time" emergency economy rebuilding and retrofitting entire cities and energy systems for the clean energy era
* and we have already missed the deadline which was 10 to 20 years ago! (See the DOE sponsored Hirsch report on peak oil) and our climate crisis seems to be accelerating out of control, faster than all predictions
* This time the climate “geeks” are anything but content!

And the "nutters"? Well, there will always be nutters. But we need to recognize the sheer difference between fixing a bit of code for Y2K, and changing the energy systems of our entire civilization and dealing with the consequences of pushing Co2 from 280 ppm up to 385 ppm, higher than at any time in the last million years.
Posted by Eclipse Now, Friday, 19 June 2009 3:40:24 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
“…..everyone hold their breath (which is CO2 and H2O rich). If all 6 billion or so of us humans did this little thing, how wonderfully natural our environment would be.”

Hi Kalin1. The suggestion above would make little difference to the natural environment since the CO2 humans exhale is carbon that was originally taken out of the air by recent plants through photosynthesis – whether you eat the plants directly or animals that eat the plants – thus a closed loop with no net addition to the atmosphere.

The reason why burning fossil fuels is a concern is because it is not a closed loop over human time scales. Extracting coal, gas and oil and burning them puts carbon back into the atmosphere that plants removed millions of years ago.

Just think about it. If Mother Nature intended for fossil fuels to be used by humans, surely she would have left them on the surface for easy access? And surely she would have rendered them benign? Instead smart Mother Nature chose to bury the most hazardous chemicals known to man (to protect her ecosystems) but man, in his wisdom, chose to dig them up and pollute the entire planet. To add insult to her injuries, lunatics like Plimer et al insist that pollution is good for the planet so Mother Nature can drop dead (literally) while the greed merchants continue on rampage.

In addition, those who say volcanoes emit more carbon dioxide than humans are incorrect. Scientists estimate that humans emit nearly 150 times more CO2 than volcanoes.

Industrial carbon dioxide, from the burning of fossil fuels is easily identified by its different isotopes - there is no confusion there though Plimer et al like to manufacture some.

I’m in agreement about the ETS, however, we need to devise a system to take fossil fuel derived carbon from the atmosphere and it needs to be done quickly. The “Polluter Pays” principle (without the ETS rewards) already legislated through the EPA legislation, though abused and corrupted, comes to mind. It should be enforced pronto! If not, why not?
Posted by Protagoras, Friday, 19 June 2009 4:53:41 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
Eclipse Now, thank you and congratulations. You responded with two posts and no resorting to abuse.

Whilst I might be as you suggest, “rather uninformed”, could I just point a couple of things you might wish to consider?

Firstly, I did not suggest in any way that <<global warming is "soft" science but skeptics have "hard" science on their side.>> If that were the case there would be no debate, yes? What I said was that a skeptic has not yet been convinced that there is “hard” supporting science and that this is what we skeptics seek.

You also persist with scientific mumbo jumbo when we are both agreed you are not qualified to deal with it. I still don’t know what you’re talking about and I don’t wish to.

Thank you also for your dissertation on the technicalities of the millennium bug however, apart from it being unmitigated rubbish, I specifically said that this phenomenon was examined in relation to “public reaction” to a matter, like GW, about which the public knows nothing.

If your Dad really did work for IBM I will know him. So why don’t you take the comments you wrote about the millennium bug and show them to him? If he worked for IBM you will get one of two possible responses, firstly a right good kick up the anus and/or break your fingers so you can’t embarrass him or his company again.

Having dispensed with the distractions you have thrown up, can you please now address the main issues in my posts, as they relate to you of course? You asked me specific questions and I’ve given you my open and honest answers. Your turn. No more web links with other peoples’ opinions, just yours will do fine. Oh! And no more science thanks.
Posted by spindoc, Friday, 19 June 2009 5:20:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Progas,

Correct me if I'm wrong, and I'm sure you will, and quickly (as opposed to the speed at which acknowledgements come when you are WRONG, ie. indetectable), but;

didn't you say you drive a 95 Volvo? If so, I'm intersted in the materials that were used to construct this particular model, the fuel you use to propel the contraption, and where it is available?

Eclipse,

Thank you for defining and exemplifying the meaning of internet troll. An alternative definition could be: a poster who disagrees with me.

What sort of morally superior ponce believes themselves to be in a position to deny the love of another person for their children! I didn't realise the 'Eclipse' in your name referred to the orbiting pea that eclipses your brain.
Posted by fungochumley, Friday, 19 June 2009 6:28:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The leaders of this glowbull warming scam hopefully will be brought to justice unlike the neocons who got away with the Weapons of Mass Destruction scam.
Killer Bees, Nazism, Acid Rain, Oat bran, Y2k, UFO's, Bigfoot, cold fusion, Global Cooling Ice Age, Oprha, disco...............
History will not be kind to you warmies. Get ahead of the curve.
We can work together to preserve our world, not save it from a myth. Let’s set an example for our kids and show them what being brave and hard working can do instead crying wolf with needless fear and ignorance.
There is a growing movement in a generation of children now who are growing and rebelling already at being motivated by your self-serving fear.
Posted by mememine69, Friday, 19 June 2009 7:16:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Eclipse Now it's evident that we’ve been left trying to debate the topic with a few simian styled loonies. Must we continue enduring the many alter egos of the psychotic and irrelevant meme, the despicable fungus who detests being left out of the loop – “didn't you say you drive a 95 Volvo?” totally irrelevant to the topic though I’ve never driven a Volvo in my life and Spindoc, imbued with an embodiment of arrogance: “ Oh! And no more science thanks.” Naturally, since scientific facts get in the way of foul play eh? I leave you now to peruse a few more reviews of Plimer's book:

“His views remain ‘his views’ and have not been considered for their veracity by anyone else.. Plimer’s book has many errors in it.” (Prof. Woodruffe)

“Ian Plimer’s affectionate recollections of past warm and fertile times are dangerous. We can go on and warm the planet to levels of those past eras, but there will be profound payback, via sea level rise, ocean acidification, and climate change that is of an unprecedented scale since civilisation began." ( Prof. England)

“This publication clearly represents an extraordinary personal effort on the part of Ian Plimer, and undoubtedly he has much to offer the climate-science community, as other geologists have done. It would be better that he joins that community rather than presupposes that the rest are somehow misled, inferior scientists or perhaps just stupid.” ( Dr Graeme Pearman)

"...This book repeats many of the common mistakes that are frequently made by climate scientists who haven’t read the peer reviewed literature or the peer reviewed science reports undertaken by the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).” (Prof. Bindoff)

"I have also twice debated climate change in public with Ian Plimer. His position is a combination of sound geological knowledge which is irrelevant to the debate about climate change, and a wilful misunderstanding of recent climate science…. The harsh reality is that the probability of dangerous human interference to the Earth's climate system is now alarmingly high and the survival of civilisation demands urgent concerted action." (Prof. Lowe)
Posted by Protagoras, Friday, 19 June 2009 10:41:58 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
Thank you for actually answering a question Protig, which was quite relevant to the topic of the use of fossil fuels. My apologies. I thought I'd read something such embedded somewhere in the torrent of ranting poop you smear this space with, but it must have been another poster. But I only asked, and will accept your answer as true - you may be unfamiliar with this kind of process. (If even a knuckle-dragging simian like myself can acknowledge being mistaken, at what level of evolution does that place you? Some sort of single braincell amoeba I'm guessing.)
--

"Read Plimer's book? I haven't even reviewed it yet!"

I don't give a rat's tossbag about the reviews you supplied. Who would have expected anything else? It's a sad person who spends their time ploughing for negative book review quotes, instead of showing any evidence of a mind of their own.
--
As you are evidently someone incapable of acknowledging when they are WRONG, quite characteristic of the alarmist prediction industry, I realise it is quite pointless debating with you. You provide a perfect example of the self-denial of climate fanatics that is projected onto the world as climate denial. I don't think I'll waste any more time in the featherweight division with you, but mix with worthier foes, who have some honesty. I'll leave you down in your weasel hole to continue excreting your self-loathing on any space you can find.

Talk about pollution.
Posted by fungochumley, Saturday, 20 June 2009 1:22:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mysteries about globull whining are easy questions to answer. And speaking of easy, that is the route you warmies are taking; the comfortable route of believing what is easy and safe to understand. Playing “my google search is better than your google search” leads to what ever your predisposed conclusion was. The fact is, there is plenty of debate. I know that. You don’t. So stop demonizing an opposing view and read up on the denial side before you assume I don't know what I'm talking about. I'm a member of the union of Concerned Scientists and a former believer for almost two decades. And all the “Union” “scientists” wanted was my $ so, so much for consensus among so-called “scientists”. Think for yourselves for a change and recognize that all the research on climate changes is just on effects. The effects that are predicted to happen. Nothing proves the theory deader than the 23 years of predictions.
You hinge your belief on "they say, they say".
I live in Canada so don't tell me about what I experience with my own eyes. Our Inuit are issued hunting permits for Polar Bears and we are spending more on new icebreakers for our "melting" arctic than CO2 reductions. Up here we just had the coldest winter in 15 years, a summer that was as comfortable and like living in an indoor shopping mall and Canada has gone a long way in forest management (and that has absolutely nothing to do with global warming by the way), environmental awareness is at an all time high and our air quality has improved immensely since the smoggy 70's when a river caught fire just south of us in Ohio.
If following what hysterical media, politicians, PR firms and paid consulting leave the laughing at you to history. Meanwhile history will be laughing at the very idea of human monkeys destroying planets with SUV gas and plant food.
We are living longer than at any time in human history so I suggest you get your finger off the panic button and appreciate what we have.
Posted by mememine69, Saturday, 20 June 2009 7:14:00 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
Fungo, I’m just replying to Meme’s emotive “Stop scaring my kids!” routine as if climatologists were irresponsibly frightening our children on purpose. I’m trying to point out that it’s because we LOVE our kids that we are trying to “SCARE” the adults into action (because common sense hasn’t worked so far)! Besides, that’s MILD compared to the insults Meme vomits out. Am I a troll? No. I’m prepared to talk if you have a REAL question. But I am human and lost my temper. Sorry.

Spindoc,
I thought we were having a conversation but now you’re just ignoring anything you don’t like and accusing me unfairly. Y2K had some possible risks but I never thought it was really serious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y2k#Resulting_bugs_from_date_programming
A nervous friend bought tinned food. I just laughed.

“And no more science thanks.”

You don’t have to do the math to read the EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ARGUMENTS put forward by both sides. If you won’t do this, then you don’t have ANYTHING sensible to say about this whole subject! You may as well say “I don’t like global warming, but I don’t want to read anything about it.” Sorry, but that’s game over.

The sun shines. The earth reflects heat back into space. But, LUCKILY for us naturally occurring greenhouse gases bounce some of that heat back to earth, warming it, otherwise we’d be about the same temperature as the moon.

We KNOW this by Spectrometry, the same science that enables the internet with which you’re reading this sentence. It WORKS for other scientific enterprises and has enabled all sorts of modern wonders. &#8232;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrometry

Here’s another preddie picture for you to look at.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

If we increase those gases the heat also increases. This equation spells out by how much.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing

Count the other forcings, and you get a picture.

It is not that hard, and I'm keen to know if Plimer even addresses these foundations, or if he just says "But Co2's too small a percentage to do anything!" WRONG — we CAN measure this, see common myth 8!
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462
Posted by Eclipse Now, Saturday, 20 June 2009 9:34:53 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
Protagoras,

Thanks for your kind response, but my previous post was a parody.

I stand by my statement: “…..everyone hold their breath (which is CO2 and H2O rich). If all 6 billion or so of us humans did this little thing, how wonderfully natural our environment would be.”

As you observed, the CO2 and H2O we breath fall within a closed loop however, however if we all stop breathing we would die, mankind extinct, and the world "wonderfully natural" without us.

Similarly my reference to Mother Nature was a tongue in cheek dig at the irrational and almost religious belief that there is some benevelant Mother of the Earth that wants the world to be a certain way. There is no such thing as Mother Earth 'she' is a figure of speech not a deity. We are simply blessed to live on a rock with just the right combination of water, atmosphere, orbit, tilt and most importantly - in built feedback loops which allow competing forces to stay in balance. No one knows how rare such planets are, but for practical purposes this is the only one we have.

Obviously, we do need to be careful not to upset the mechanisms which have allowed it to sustain life, I totally agree with that concept, but we also need to live, and civilisation, with all its evils, is part of that living.

At present, CO2 levels are not higher than they have ever been before, not even in a human time scale.

If CO2 levels and temperature are now high and rising, this is not cause for alarm because that's what happens at this point in the glacial/interglacial cycle). Surely you don't get scared when the days get warmer as summer approaches? There is no evidence of a runnaway CO2 tipping point and a great deal of historical evidence against such an effect.

The obvious lack of quantitiative understanding as to the effects of CO2 does not allow us to meaningfully conduct any cost benefit analysis to the steps now proposed.

In those circumstances, rational people must be skeptical.
Posted by Kalin1, Saturday, 20 June 2009 10:22:42 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
spindoc

Thanks for acknowledging taking Professor Walter’s comments out of context.

Some posters here are "anti-science" (look it up). There is no point in discussing the science with them.
Posted by Q&A, Saturday, 20 June 2009 11:26:52 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
Kalin1

Catastrophic or runaway climate change is not about to happen anytime soon.

The qualified conclusions of the vast majority of scientists working in specific and related fields agree that the projected impacts of the current climate change are, however, serious enough to take urgent action.

Examples of which can be found within the below links.

From the USA

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

From Australia

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/ClimateChange/effects/effects.htm

http://lowyinstitute.richmedia-server.com/docs/AD_GP_ClimateChange.pdf

The last of which is a PDF file.
Posted by Q&A, Saturday, 20 June 2009 11:36:33 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
Fungo, I’m just replying to Meme’s emotive “Stop scaring my kids!” routine as if climatologists were out to hurt our kids. It’s because they LOVE their kids that they are trying to “SCARE” the adults into action (because common sense hasn’t worked so far!)

Besides, that’s MILD compared to the insults Meme vomits out. Am I a troll? No. I’m prepared to talk if you have a REAL question. But I'm only human and lost my temper. Sorry.

Spindoc,
I thought we were having a conversation but now you’re just ignoring anything you don’t like and accusing me unfairly. Y2K had some possible risks but I never thought it was *that* serious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y2k#Resulting_bugs_from_date_programming
A nervous friend bought tinned food but I just laughed.

“And no more science thanks.”

You don’t have to do the math to read the EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ARGUMENTS put forward by both sides. If you won’t do this, then you don’t have ANYTHING sensible to say about this whole subject! You may as well say “I don’t like global warming, but I don’t want to read anything about it.” Game over.

The sun shines. The earth reflects heat back into space. But, LUCKILY for us naturally occurring greenhouse gases bounce some of that heat back to earth, warming it, otherwise we’d be about the same temperature as the moon.

We KNOW this by Spectrometry, the same science that enables the internet with which you’re reading this sentence. It WORKS for other scientific enterprises and has enabled all sorts of modern wonders.

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

Here’s another preddie picture for you to look at.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

If we increase those gases the heat also increases. This equation spells out by how much.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing

Then they count other forcings, and BINGO! Co2 is changing climate.

It is not that hard, and I'm keen to know if Plimer even addresses these foundations, or if he just says "But Co2's too small a percentage to do anything!" WRONG — we CAN measure this, see common myth 8!
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462
Posted by Eclipse Now, Saturday, 20 June 2009 5:20:36 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
Points to keep in mind when suggesting that SUV gas and plant food from evil human monkeys are going to dictate the temperature and health of an entire planet:
-Rachel Carson
-23 years of CO2 doomsday predictions
-The smoggy 70's when a river caught fire in Ohio USA
-Volcanoes
-Hysterical if it bleeds it reads corporate media
-Opportunistic independent agenda driven media
-Pandering politicians
-PR firms
-Paid consultants posing in white lab coats being called scientists
-Lazy teachers
-My goggle search is better than your goggle search mentality
-Y2K
-Carl Sagan predicting a nuclear winter from the first gulf war oil field fires
-4.5 billion years of planetary evolution
-Commet hits
-Primal fear
-Denying our children a safe and healthy future with the global warming THREAT
-Ignorance
-Guilt
-Sacrificing virgins
-Ethnic cleansing
-Cold fusion
-CO2 is not Carbon Monoxide don’t forget but many believe it.
-Many believe that all pollution stays in the air for ever
-Plant life needs CO2
-CO2 is a building block of life
-48 years of environmental struggles that have increased awareness, given us environmental laws and protections and standards, scrubbers, catalytic converters, fuel-efficient cars,
-The sky is still blue
-The grass is still green
-Global warming is another WMD lie.
-Why is environMENTALism so mean?
-We are living longer than at any time in human history
-In 1900 they wondered what to do with all of the horses needed by the year 2000
Oil does cause war so let’s work together to protect, preserve and respect our planet, not save and rescue it with guilt, fear, hate and misery from a non existent crisis.
Posted by mememine69, Saturday, 20 June 2009 9:50:07 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
An interesting article I read today. So, here's the solution to Global Warming. ;-)

"A Norwegian scientist says he has shown how much aerosols influence climate.

"Global models of the emission of these aerosols suggest the cooling effect they have cancels out approximately 10% of the global warming caused by greenhouse gases," explained Jim Haywood, an aerosol researcher from the UK Met Office, who was not involved in this study.

"But satellite methods that detect the amount of aerosols in the atmosphere suggest a cooling effect that cancels out about 20%."

By identifying the source of this discrepancy, Dr Myhre was able to reconcile the two approaches and come up with a more precise estimate - closer to 10%.

Dr Haywood said.

"This will have an impact on future climate predictions."

The research team, led by fellow Met Office scientist Dr Andy Jones, found that global warming could be slowed by up to 25 years."
Posted by Jayb, Sunday, 21 June 2009 3:49:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Meme
Yes, people live longer (at present) and I saw a cool movie the other night, but, um, relevance? The grass IS still green, have you been smoking some?

In the meantime... here are the top 26 MYTHS you’re likely to try and circulate on these forums.

MYTHS that are NOT TRUE

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462

Chaotic systems are not predictable

We can't trust computer models of climate

Many leading scientists question climate change

It's all a conspiracy

They predicted global cooling in the 1970s

Global warming is down to the Sun, not humans

It's all down to cosmic rays

Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter

CO2 isn't the most important greenhouse gas

Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming

Ice cores show CO2 rising as temperatures fell

The cooling after 1940 shows CO2 does not cause warmingMovie Camera

The 'hockey stick' graph has been proven wrong

It's been far warmer in the past, what's the big deal?

It was warmer during the Medieval period, with vineyards in England

We are simply recovering from the Little Ice Age

Mars and Pluto are warming too

UPDATED: Antarctica is getting cooler, not warmer, disproving global warming

Polar bear numbers are increasing

The lower atmosphere is cooling, not warming
The oceans are cooling

Global warming stopped in 1998
What is going to happen?
Warming will cause an ice age in Europe

Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production

Hurricane Katrina was caused by global warming
Why should I worry?

It's too cold where I live - warming will be great

We can't do anything about climate change
Posted by Eclipse Now, Sunday, 21 June 2009 4:06:39 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
The solution to Global Warming Jayb?

You mean this article?:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8108100.stm

Which also includes this gem:
"This suggests the [cooling] effect is weaker than the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has estimated."
Oh yeah, the cooling effect of aerosols is less than estimated, no wonder Dr Haywood said "This will have an impact on future climate predictions." Because it's worse than they estimated.

Dr Andy Jones of course said hat his team "found that global warming could be slowed by up to 25 years", but there's no full stop there's a comma and the sentence continues.... " but they also found the approach [brightening clouds by adding salt particles] could also have some very detrimental effects."

One of which includes killing a lot of the Amazon by causing a sharp decrease in rainfall over South America.

Sounds like an ideal solution to me. I don't know what the Brazilians think of it though.
Posted by Bugsy, Sunday, 21 June 2009 4:28:00 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
Hi Bugsy, Yes, selective cut'n'paste, there is a lot of it around here. eh!
Posted by Jayb, Sunday, 21 June 2009 5:52:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Eclipse Now,

Thanks for providing the link to "the 26 top myths pushed by big oil" - http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462.

Although you and the linked article describe them as myths, and some of them certainly are, if you look at what is actually said about these 'myths' science has obviously not disposed of these issues as neatly as you suggest. Examples:

1. Under "Climate myths: CO2 isn't the most important greenhouse gas" were these quotes:

"It is not surprising that there is a lot of confusion about this - the answer is far from simple."

"Water vapour is by far the most important contributor to the greenhouse effect. Pinning down its precise contribution is tricky..."

"Changes in clouds could lead to even greater amplification of the warming or reduce it - there is great uncertainty about this."

Clearly then, H2O, not CO2 is the main greenhouse contributor but its effects are not well understood. Hardly a debunked or 'myth'ical issue. The lack of understanding as to the water cycle will respond to warming is a HUGE issue which makes meaningful predictions of climate change completely unreliable.

2. Under :Climate myths: Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming" were the following quotes:

"... it appears the lags might sometimes have been 800 years or more." (so why are modern CO2 emmissions said to have an immediate effect?)

"This proves that rising CO2 was not the trigger that caused the initial warming..."

"Finally, if higher temperatures lead to more CO2 and more CO2 leads to higher temperatures, why doesn't this positive feedback lead to a runaway greenhouse effect?" Why indeed - the explanation offered is not satisfactory IMO, but in any event, the issue is hardly a myth.

There's more of course, but the fact that these so called 'myths' have not been catagorically 'busted' ought to give everyone pause for thought. Calling them all myths is misleading and intellectually dishonest. In the face of such doubts everyone should be skeptical.
Posted by Kalin1, Sunday, 21 June 2009 6:05:07 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'd say that would be right Jayb.

In your opinion, does your little exercise add or reduce the level of BS that passes for "informed comment" around here?

For myself, I wouldn't any of it has been reduced by any of yours.
Posted by Bugsy, Sunday, 21 June 2009 6:27:05 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
Kalin,
the "myth" in the assertion that Co2 "isn't the most important greenhouse gas" is that therefore, Co2 is NOT important at all. It's all in the presentation. Instead, it is in a finely balanced system and introducing imbalance can quickly reach critical proportions. A small pebble can start a large avalanche. This question of "importance" is like playing semantic games about whether the pebble or the snow made up most of the avalanche.

The best lies are mixed with half truths. Here's another one: Human emissions of Co2 are dwarfed by natural emissions, so why worry about what we do? Again it is in the presentation. Human emissions ARE dwarfed by natural emissions of Co2, but in a finely balanced cycle that we are messing up. (280 ppm to today's 385 ppm). This is Co2 that is extra to the natural system and it is accumulating. Nature cannot process the extra portion fast enough.

Ice core samples? True again. So is the fact that the Milankovitch cycle "wobbles" first and then Co2 changes 800 years later. The MYTH is that global warming was based on what we've learnt about ice ages. This is a misunderstanding that comes from a clumsy moment of "An Inconvenient Truth". In debunking this clumsy moment, sceptics often incorrectly extrapolate that other forcings ALWAYS drive climate and Co2 ALWAYS follows. They ignore the fact that WE are pumping out heaps of Co2, and that it is a TESTABLE, REPEATABLE, QUANTIFIABLE FORCING!

The point is that WE are the ones driving the Co2 imbalance here, and our Co2 emissions are FAR HIGHER than any in the ice-core record for the last million years.

So if you REALLY want to disprove global warming, disprove Co2's spectrometry readings and we'll take it from there.
Posted by Eclipse Now, Sunday, 21 June 2009 7:48:36 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
Eclipse Now,

I understand your point, but the real deceit in the whole.. "these are the top 26 myths list" implies that all the arguments against AGW are myths and these are the top ones. As it stands.. the so called 'myths' cited in the list are only explained by acknowledging very real issues. To that extent the whole use of the word 'myth' in this was is irresponsible and deliberately misleading.

You say that "Human emissions ARE dwarfed by natural emissions of CO2, but in a finely balanced cycle that we are messing up." The flaw with this is that there really is no evidence that the system in question is "finely balanced." All the evidence as to how the atmosphere coped in previous periods when temperature and CO2 levels rose indicate quite the opposite.. that our atmosphere is quite a robust and self correcting system, otherwise the up and down pattern previously observed in ice core records, etc, would have demonstrated a tipping point. No one has yet pointed to any significant factor to say why things will be different this time around.

You say:

"They ignore the fact that WE are pumping out heaps of Co2, and that it is a TESTABLE, REPEATABLE, QUANTIFIABLE FORCING!"

"The point is that WE are the ones driving the Co2 imbalance here, and our Co2 emissions are FAR HIGHER than any in the ice-core record for the last million years."

Whilst CO2 levels are within the range of previous highs, and absent any other significant factor, there is no reason to believe the atmospheric systems of the earth won't cope. The mere fact we are producing more CO2 than ever before does not change that. Emission rates are not the big issue, total CO2 levels are, but even they are not as important for GW as is being suggested, because each increment of increased CO2 levels contributes dramatically less and less to the greenhouse effect.
Posted by Kalin1, Sunday, 21 June 2009 8:22:29 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
A question you climate pu$$ie$ of globull whining can't answer:

What do you want the climate to do to prove the theory wrong?

SHOW ME THE CLIMATE CRISIS !
You fear mongering cowards expect the climate to be like the inside of an indoor shopping mall? Too funny.

What do you want the climate to do to prove the theory wrong?
Answer it fear mongers!
Posted by mememine69, Sunday, 21 June 2009 9:49:59 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
Elimination of stratospheric cooling.
Posted by Q&A, Sunday, 21 June 2009 10:06:59 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
Thank you, mememine69. Now wait outside and the receptionist will bring you some biscuits and a glass of orange juice while the grown-ups finish talking.
Posted by Sancho, Sunday, 21 June 2009 10:15:57 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
What would the climate have to do now to prove that the theory of Global Warming was wrong after all?
I dare any warmie to answer this. You can't.
Posted by mememine69, Sunday, 21 June 2009 11:38:15 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
Yes, the myth list has a lot to do with language and straw men, and I dispute most of it. New Scientist clearly isn't immuned to Old Politics.

Myth 1: "Chaotic systems are not predictable."

In Kantian terms, the statement is an analytic judgment whose predicate (unpredictability) is already contained in its subject (chaotic systems), and thus denial can only mean self-contradiction. Far from a myth, the statement above is a truism.

Myth 13. "The 'hockey stick' graph has been proven wrong"

Of course it hasn't. It was never a theory to be proven wrong, but a reconstruction based on dubious proxy data and spurious manipulation, that was shown to be unfalsifiable and therefore invalid. It was discredited and fell just short of fraudulence. The IPCC promptly relegated it to the backpages. Oh, there may be other hockey sticks, but none I'd want to play hockey with!

I won't go through them all, but I mainly challenge the language used.

And your own language is alive with myth, Eclipse. Eg. Why 280ppm in your comparison with 385ppm of today? Where is the other time referent? Why not 1400ppm, as it has been in the past? Cause that would throw your “finely balanced cycle” into the realm of pure myth?

Any historical account of climate, such as Plimer’s, shatters this myth. Big cycles, smalls cycles, small cycles in big cycles, overlapping cycles - and even then, just when you thought you could still make a nice geometrical picture of cycles, a bloody volcanic eruption or meteor comes along and turns the whole thing into a right Kandinsky.
Posted by fungochumley, Monday, 22 June 2009 7:07:55 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
mememine69, if the science was wrong the climate wouldn't be changing, so you're asking how we'll know if the science is wrong when the climate keeps proving the science right, thus demonstrating that you should take the juice and biscuits while they're still on offer and stop wasting valuable forum space.

And fungochumley, what's your opinion on the credibility of “The Great Global Warming Swindle”?
Posted by Sancho, Monday, 22 June 2009 7:44:52 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
Sancho

Plimer's 'Heaven & Earth' will be considered a bible for the church of 'deny-n-delay' and he himself the new messiah. The congregation of anti-scientists and pseudo-sceptics will mine-quote (as we have already seen), wave the book, thump the lectern, admonish and attempt to quiet the masses.

Onlookers are not surprisingly confused or pee'd off.

Plimer has written a book and other OLO'ers have linked to what the science community think of it. Plimer's congregation don't want to know this, they close their eyes and cover their ears.

Plimer has not devoted the effort into writing a scientific paper to argue his opinions, for 3 reasons:

They would not stand up to peer review.
There is no money in that.
Vested interest in delay.
Posted by Q&A, Monday, 22 June 2009 9:54:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
so funny to see one lot of pseudo scientist debating another pseudo scientist (Plimer). Keep it up kids.
Posted by runner, Monday, 22 June 2009 10:06:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Interesting post Jayb, more on the CFC/HFC impact on climate change. In addition to Jim Haywood, Dr. Andy Jones and Dr. Myhre, we now have Dutch scientist Guus Velders of the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency on the HFC trail, as published in the The Sunday Times and reproduced in today’s The Australian by Jonathan Leake.

The green movements greatest triumph was the banning of CFC, chlorofluorocarbon, under the 1987 Montreal Protocol, to be replaced with HFC, hydrofluorocarbon. According to this research, one tonne of HFC 23 (domestic air cons.) is so powerful as a greenhouse gas, it has the same effect as14,800 tonnes of CO2. One tonne of HFC134a (car air conditioners) is equivalent to 1,430 tonnes of CO2.

Research suggests that HFC could account for between 9% and 19% of total CO2 contributions by 2050. Well done the green movement. What is it we say about humans “What we seek to avoid, we create”

We have two choices with research such as this; we could trash all four scientists, (because these heretics dared to agree), then trash their institutions, their research and most of all, their motives, followed of course, by a long list of web sites that present counter claims. (Whoops, I’m too late with my prediction; some of you have already started)

On the other hand we could say that this research is yet another example of why we should let the scientists work it out and not jump to the conclusion that atmospheric carbon is the sole culprit.

These pesky scientists keep popping up with even more science that throws into question the science they gave us last week. How on earth do they expect the unqualified public to make life changing decisions on a solution, when we can’t even keep up with the questions?

Mememine69, you have to wonder what goes on in a head like Sancho’s. “the climate keeps proving science right” ?

“Today’s” BOM weather projection for “yesterday” looks impressive. Stick to your biscuits, Sancho needs something much stronger.
Posted by spindoc, Monday, 22 June 2009 10:31:29 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
Hi Q&A. As you are back on deck any chance of you replying to Kalin1’s thoughtful questions posted last Monday, 15 June 2009 10:40:13 AM, as you said you would in your post of Monday, 15 June 2009 6:54:41 PM. These questions were (I hope you do not mind Kalin1):

1) During previous interglacials, CO2 levels declined after peaking at higher/equivalent levels than our present level? Clearly there has been some strong and sustained mechanism which has prevented runaway global warming, but my reading and wiki searching has been unable to identify any mechanism strong enough to explain why in previous ages runaway global warming did not occur. Can you shed any light on why?

2) Have read that there appears to be some 'mystery' CO2 sink based on the observation that all measured sources of CO2, less all known CO2 absorbers ought to leave us much higher C02 levels that are currently observed (MUCH higher): http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/oco/news/oco-20090123.html. Isn't this a clear indication of how poorly understood the CO2 cycle is, particularly in a quantitative sense? Surely in the face of such significant holes in our understanding the environmental movement is jumping the gun in asserting their is no room for debate anymore?

3) I have read, and others have posted, that the effectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas declines 'exponentially' with its concentration and that current CO2 levels already trap most of this radiation and further CO2 will have very little effect - like further coats of black paint on a window (as another poster described it). To what extent is this true?

4) Do you concede there is a real opportunity cost attached discontinuing/reducing the use of fossil fuels and shouldn't the opportunity cost be a fully investigated part of assessing 'what to do' about GW?
Posted by Raredog, Monday, 22 June 2009 2:29:21 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
*Q&A* Yes, Plimer's on a mining board!

*Runner* I don’t have to be a scientist to link to peer-reviewed scientists, or to recognize conspiracy theory crap.

*MeMe's* tantrum sounds particularly uninformed. Please show us an official IPCC prophecy of doom that has "failed" to materialise over the last 25 years? The reality is alarming climate scenarios are only just STARTING now, ahead of schedule, and will continue to unfold over the next 30 years or so.

*Kalina* asked about the difference this time to the normal pattern over the last million years of Milankovitch cycles.

*Fungo* and *Raredog* could also learn from 1 & 2 below

1. In the past million years of Milankovitch cycles Co2 has not gone above 300ppm. We are now at 385 (despite “mystery sink”). So that is way above norms in a *comparable geological era*. Previous eras HAVE been higher (and hotter), but we're talking about the worlds of saber-tooth tigers and dinosaurs, not a world trying to support 6.5 billion people.

2. Past Co2 variations were natural and slowly adapting with Milankovitch cycles. This change is unnatural and fast, going way ABOVE the highest levels the Milankovitch cycle allowed.

3. Ecosystems could slowly migrate in previous climate transitions. Now we've divided nature with urban sprawl, agriculture, and highways... and ecosystems can't migrate toward the poles as easily. Modern ecosystems are tiny islands stranded in a sea of human landscape, and will not be able to survive by migration. We risk massive biodiversity loss.

4. "there is no reason to believe the atmospheric systems of the earth won't cope. "
What, you're trying to create another straw-man where us greenies are arguing that the atmosphere is going to "break" or vanish or something? First, we DO have evidence that the world's temperatures are going to change in the Physics, Physics, Physics! See the Radiative Forcing Equation and the history of temperature measurements! Second, I’m not sure we’re saying the “atmosphere” won’t cope, but our modern prosperity might not if agriculture takes a severe hit from increased droughts and floods and sea-level rise.
Posted by Eclipse Now, Monday, 22 June 2009 4:36:01 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
Here's something that's worth a look at. It shows at time line. It's from Monash University.

http://sahultime.monash.edu.au/explore.html
Posted by Jayb, Monday, 22 June 2009 8:41:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David Karoly has one of the better reviews. One professor defies the world's peer review process and dozens of scientific bodies that are all in agreement, quotes everything out of context, does not source his graphs, is INTERNALLY inconsistent, and sells a conspiracy theory to make a best-seller for the gullible and recalcitrant.

David Karoly (my paraphrase from memory).
"If a library wastes money on this book they should at least file it under Science Fiction next to Michael Krighton's "State of Fear". The only difference between "Heaven and Earth" and "State of Fear" is that "State of Fear" contains less scientific errors in it."

Podcast
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2009/2593166.htm
Posted by Eclipse Now, Monday, 22 June 2009 11:04:46 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
Many scientists believe that global warming is caused by the combination of many factors, such as greater heat produced by the sun or natural climate change of the Earth.
Furthermore, many scientists claim that global warming may not exist at all. We have only collected valid data of the world's climate for the last few decades. This is a completely insignificant length of time in comparison with the age of the planet which is billions of years old. It is because of this that many individuals, including myself, who fall into this category, believe there is no way we can know undisputedly what is happening or if it is indeed unnatural.
In conclusion, you are left to make up your own mind and take your own actions, but please don't claim that every scientist and scientific study agrees. It simply is not true.
Life is good. Its too bad negative pansies like you glowbull whiner cowards don't have the sense to respect our planet instead of using as a tool of needles panic and fear and ignorance. You miserable freaks pray and hope for this misery. Why?
You warmies will be both mocked and cursed soon, so get ahead of the curve and preserve our world, not save it with pointless fear.
Posted by mememine69, Tuesday, 23 June 2009 5:50:05 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
Some other factors that have to be taken into account that affect climate on this planet.

1) The rotation of the Earth is slowing down. Increases the amount of time the Sun shines on a given area. Produces warming.

2) The Earths inclination is increasing. 22 to 24.5 degrees. We are currently at 23.4 degrees. Tilts the earths Poles more towards the Sun.

3) The Magnetic Poles are moving further away from the North & South Poles. This effects the amount of solar radiation reaching Earth.

4) There are 3 large Volcanos under the Artic ice cap that have recently become active. This would account for the greater Artic ice melt.

I find it rather strange, given the amount of armchair experts we have on this post, that nobody has mentioned these natural factors.
Posted by Jayb, Tuesday, 23 June 2009 9:20:56 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
Meme,
“in conclusion” are 2 big words grown ups use after developing an “argument”. You’re not old enough yet to know what an “argument” is, but let me just say it uses things called facts and data. Strong arguments also have things called rebuttals which disprove earlier arguments and data put forward by the other team. Rebuttals make an argument strong, but just ignoring solid data and facts submitted by the other team make it weak.

Anyway, that’s all too hard for you right now.

It doesn’t matter because I just heard the bell for “little lunch” which means there are milk and cookies out in the play ground! Hooray, milk and cookies hey? Your favourite! Listen, they’ve got the Wiggles playing as well. Out you go now, have a *nice* play.

(Get back to us when you have found peer-reviewed papers that disprove the science of spectrometry and how wavelengths of energy react to Co2 molecules, and disproves that spectrometry tells us *what* Co2 does, and disproves the Radiative Forcing Equation which tells us by *how much* they do it. I’m not interested in whining petulant sneering from the likes of Plimer quoting material out of context and publishing books because the peer review process would not publish such crap.)

*Jayb*
1. Not significant enough to account for the speed of recent warming.

2. Link please? Increasing by how much, over what time period?

3. Link to peer reviewed paper calculating by how much this would affect climate please?

4. Volcanoes don’t turn off with the seasons. Why is the ice melting with the normal seasonal variations, only increased by the extra energy of global warming (that we count with the Radiative Forcing Equation). Are you asking us to believe that the volcanoes “turn off” during winter? Why did the IPCC and other groups ignore this? How far away from the affected region? What about GLOBAL increases in temperature?

I find it strange, given the quality of the “armchair expert” posts, that you have not bothered linking to any peer-reviewed sources that demonstrate your points for you.
Posted by Eclipse Now, Tuesday, 23 June 2009 5:53:52 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
Eclipse Now,
Can you debate this issue beyond being a petty, childish and argrumentative troll? This is the end of the world we are talking about. We are talking about you going around clutching this 23 year old cultural trend called glowbull warming and yelling "fire" in the movie theatre and crying "wolf" promising a doomsday soon for everyone on this planet.
Do you expect us to wait through another 23 years of IPCC threats? Of course not and soon you silly global doomers will evaporate from the scene and make way for responsible environmentalism.
WHAT WOULD THE CLIMATE HAVE TO DO TO PROVE THE THEORY WRONG!
Posted by mememine69, Tuesday, 23 June 2009 7:29:38 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
1) The rotation of the Earth is slowing down. Increases the amount of time the Sun shines on a given area. Produces warming

1. Not significant enough to account for the speed of recent warming.

You are probably right here but it is still a factor in as much that over a long period of time (see millions of years) it will have a warming effect.

2) The Earths inclination is increasing. 22 to 24.5 degrees. We are currently at 23.4 degrees. Tilts the earths Poles more towards the Sun.

Sorry I meant decreasing. Tilting the poles AWAY from the sun. This will have a cooling effect.

2. Link please? Increasing by how much, over what time period?

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

3) The Magnetic Poles are moving further away from the North & South Poles. This effects the amount of solar radiation reaching Earth.

3. Link to peer reviewed paper calculating by how much this would affect climate please?

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

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

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

Well it doesn't really say here but I have seen articles that have indicated that the stripping away of our atmosphere would have a heating effect by allowing more solar radiation to hit the earths surface. Therefore an increase in warming. to be continued...
Posted by Jayb, Tuesday, 23 June 2009 10:07:09 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
Meme, I'm not promising doomsday for EVERYONE on the planet (unless we actually end up nuking ourselves back to the stone age over the remaining oil, water, or other resource disputes). I'm just accepting that "advanced common sense", this crazy little thing I like to call SCIENCE, tells us that we need to change our ways... or else.

If I have my way, we'd design such oil-free, low carbon, localised economies that we'd have a more resilient civilisation, cleaner cities, and less social fragmentation and isolation (which are the ironic side effects of highways through every suburb). We'd be thoroughly prepared for the imminence of peak oil, peak gas, and peak coal, have energy security, and never rush into an oil-war again.

We'd have more friendly neighbourhoods, a "sense of place" and community, and run everything on the ample, clean green electrons from renewable energy.

We'd spread some of our military budget around the world because just 5% of the world's military budget could meet all the vital needs of the poor (adequate fresh water, nutrition, housing, education, medical, family planning) and thereby SOLVE population growth.

If you had your way, we'd just ignore global warming and peak oil and drive straight off the cliff into complete climate disaster and oil-crisis.

How would we prove climate-change wrong? D'uh! Burn all the coal and watch global temperatures drop *continually* (not just for a few years of La Nina like your 1998 claim!) back to preindustrial levels. Temperatures would have to STOP rising as they have the last 10 years! I KNOW 1998 was super-hot, but the FACT is that was an El Nino year. The last 10 years were meant to be "colder" with La Nina, BUT it was still the hottest decade on record. Have you got that bit? We are talking about decade long averages, not just picking ONE super-hot fluctuation and putting up a big sign, "Colder from here!" while ignoring the TREND of the whole decade!

I've answered you repeatedly, now you answer me. Spectrometry & RFE rebuttal please. Do your homework or go away.
Posted by Eclipse Now, Tuesday, 23 June 2009 11:10:59 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
You have your very own special and personal definition of the CO2 theory. Good for you. Its’ ok, because I’ve never come across a warmie that didn’t have there own special self serving definition of this self fulfilling prophecy called global warming.
I really don’t care what you say personally Eclipse, not in the least. What I do care about is what you are supposed to be representing, the IPCC’s theory. I’ve learned more about theory as a denier than you as a believer are willing to do.
I’ve read all 19 IPCC reports and I suggest you do the same. If you did, you can then put your worrisome and tension filled life to rest and not be so hysterical with this nonsense of climate crisis.
The doomsday prediction of the IPCC’s global warming theory clearly defines outcomes of “life as we know it” to “catastrophe” and of course the good old crisis. But if one believes in global warming, crisis is just a meaningless word in a foggy world of self denial.
Here is your homework Global Doomer:
http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/international-economy/41719-ipcc-fraud.html
Posted by mememine69, Wednesday, 24 June 2009 6:00:03 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
continued...

4) There are 3 large Volcanos under the Artic ice cap that have recently become active. This would account for the greater Artic ice melt.

Here's something that's worth a look at. It shows at time line. It's from Monash University.

4. Volcanoes don’t turn off with the seasons. Are you asking us to believe that the volcanoes “turn off” during winter?

No. But the Ice has been thinner over the last fer winters. I would say that the heating from the volcanic activity would have some effect on the thickness of the winter ice & a greater effect in summer. Seem logical to me.

Why did the IPCC and other groups ignore this?

Convienience. I don't know. Ask them. Some scientists only look at their own field of expertise. I had an enviromentalist one living next to me for years & he was as dumb as s#!T.

How far away from the affected region?

As far as I know there in the aritc sea.

What about GLOBAL increases in temperature?

What about GLOBAL increase in Temperature. So what? So people have to change & adapt. That is what life on earth does.

Increased warmth means more rain, more arabal land. Better climate. As I say, "if it doesn't start with a 2 it's too cold." More jungle to absorb CO2 & produce O2. There will be some changes. Some people will lose some will win. Some people will have to move & some won't like people moving. There will be wars. There will always be wars. Fact of life. But Climate Change is like the Government, change happens very, very slowly. So don't panic. He who panics dies.
Posted by Jayb, Wednesday, 24 June 2009 12:10:22 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
Meme you failed to answer the question. I yawned at "You warmies bla bla bla..." and, due to sheer repetitive stress, fell into a short coma when I again encountered "for 23 years you've bla bla bla".

Meme, IF you are in debate with adults AND want that debate to continue there comes a point where you can't hog it any more and selfishly insist "this conversation addresses ONLY MY POINTS" like some 2 year olds tantrum. I've answered your questions, now you answer mine. HOW do they know what Co2 does with certain wavelengths of energy, and HOW do they calculate what % of Co2 adds what heat to the atmosphere? If you've read all IPCC reports, that should be easy!

Jayb,
You sound like you've fallen for the "It's too cold around here, warmer would be great thanks" myth!

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11657-climate-myths-its-too-cold-where-i-live--warming-will-be-great.html

According to the experts the reality will be very different to your rosy picture of a warmer world. In climate terms for our civilisation, "cold" is bad, "warm is good" but HOT is also very bad. Yes we'd adapt, but how many of us?

We are talking about sea level rises, agricultural collapse, MORE drought and famine (due to increased evaporation), MORE floods from extra rainfall in the wrong places, and the spectre of sea-level rises. And it is all totally preventable if we take strong enough action now.

I suppose you might not have house insurance, or have taken up smoking, and maybe don't try to keep in shape. All risk mitigation exercises.

I suppose you don't care about war, but I do. I'll tell you what, can you volunteer instead of me and my family please? I'd rather prevent various "bad climate" scenarios playing out by sensible energy, town planning and infrastructure policy. After all, why have we developed modern science, and rationality for that mater, if we are just going to blunder into every risk blindly reacting like dumb beasts? Your cavalier attitude astounds me.
Posted by Eclipse Now, Wednesday, 24 June 2009 7:10:28 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
Dear hysterical Full Moon, er Eclipse,
Wave lengths? Now you are trolling doomer. You may as well debate the finer points of what firewood is best for burning witches. Sticking your head in the sand and playing with silly details is a coward’s way of avoiding real debate and scientific investigation.

The theory:
-is 23 years old, so time’s up.
-is weaker than La Nina as it was “delayed” by La Nina.
-is not providing the climate crisis as promised and if you "choose" to believe there IS a climate crisis happening on our poor little helpless planet, well you then have another problem. Get help.
We deniers believe that resulting cooling disproves predicted warming.
Those points alone are good enough for us deniers. Now you go back to being the good childish doomer that you are.
Posted by mememine69, Wednesday, 24 June 2009 7:49:52 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
Here we go again! One last time, for the dummies... (or is that trolls?)

"-is 23 years old, so time’s up."
FAIL! I’ve asked you before to demonstrate which IPCC predictions have failed to materialize. We are right on target. If anything, we are ahead of schedule!

"-is weaker than La Nina as it was “delayed” by La Nina."
FAIL! Show me where the IPCC says that global warming will completely DO AWAY with various natural systems? (Not that you ever answer questions... grunt grunt.)

Instead those natural cooling events cannot "cool" as they used to. Temperatures are up!

"-is not providing the climate crisis as promised"
FAIL! The historical FACT is that:
La Nina was TOO HOT for a normal event.
Arctic ice melt in 2007 was the worst on record
Pine beetles are ravaging Canada's forests
Permafrost is melting, releasing methane
droughts are drying Aussie bush faster than ever so that we now have to watch for MEGA-fires. (It took 6 months to dry the bush for Black Friday, it took only 2 weeks to dry the bush for this year’s disaster!)
Climatologists have INCREASED the level of alarm because global warming is running ahead of schedule!

We have to get below the safety levels of 350 ppm by using renewable energy. Only that will save us from the worst effects of global warming. That, or maybe a global pandemic that practically wipes out modern civilisation, but that's not something to wish for hey?

Now click your ruby slippers together 3 times, close your eyes, and say "There's no place like home" repeatedly and maybe the good fairy of the North will rescue you from your fears.

But for the rest of us, we'll stick with the REAL science and the REAL risk mitigation options we have to take.

(This is the last time I respond to you because your selfish trolling has bored everyone else off this thread and forced me to repeat the last few points again and again. You never actually answer questions put to you, and are just getting boring and predictable. Goodbye.)
Posted by Eclipse Now, Thursday, 25 June 2009 9:29:53 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
Volcanos that produced Global Cooling. The nuclear effect.

1) Mt Warning, Australia. About 120 million years ago. The crator is about 200 klms across.
2) One in Alaska. about 20 million years ago. Collapsed dome is about 20 Klms across.
3) One in Samatra about 4300 years ago, Thought to be responsible for the migration of the Samaritian (hourse) people from Chinas western boarder. It created a dominoe effect of people movement that lasted for 2000 years.

That's just 3 mega volcanos that I know off, off hand.

I will state again. I do believe that alternate energy sources should be vigirously persued. Carbon energy sources should be phased out. But it can't be done over night.It has to be done gradually to minimize the economic effect. The Earth will recover. Such is the resilience of nature.

I have seen a graphic, which I can't seem to find again, that shows the possible effect of Global Warming. It showed that the tropical wet belt around the equator will extent out by 200 klms. The Artic ice will srink, but more arable land will be available for a longer period. The temperate drier area will shrink & move south & north, depending on which hemisphere you live in.

Therefore there will be more water in the Tropical and Artic areas to grow crops & harvest water to irrigate the drier Temperate areas. Therefore more crops to feed an increasing population.

Now theres something to worry about. Unsustainable population increase.

Remember, If you panic you die.
Posted by Jayb, Thursday, 25 June 2009 9:55:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Teacher: Now little Johnny, you help us plant this tree se we can save the planet and stop climate change.
Johnny: You mean the IPCC’s; CO2 Climate Crisis Miss Liberalsatch?
Teacher: Cri..crisis? Yes, crisis?
Johnny: Ya, you know, crisis with more tropical diseases, sea level rise,
more storms and severe weather events, and species extinction, food shortages, chaos and most likely a violent death on a planet that is no longer sustainable. That crisis!
Teacher: Ya, I guess so?

Don't expect the next generation to wait another 23 years for these events to happen. Get ahead of the curve warmies. History will laugh.
Posted by mememine69, Thursday, 25 June 2009 11:10:12 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
History hardly ever laughs.

It ususally weeps.
Posted by Bugsy, Thursday, 25 June 2009 11:13:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So JayB, I take it you've been reading Plimer and been convinced by the line that it'll basically be GOOD for us to have runaway global warming?

According to the peer-reviewed reports I've listened to on podcast etc there will be "some" winners out of global warming, but the vast majority of effects will be dangerous, uncomfortable, and geopolitically VERY dangerous. EG: Imagine America's bread basket drying up and North American agriculture moving *partially* up into Canada? The USA is a truly vast producer of cereal crops, but will Canadian soils be able to produce the same quantity of food if temperatures "move north"? What happens to the USA economy? How much land can Canada set aside for agriculture?

That's just the geopolitics between 2 friendly countries as a result of "agriculture moving".

However, I do agree with you that population growth is the primary concern. According to UN statistical studies and world analysis, we're talking about 9 billion by 2050, another 50% of humanity in just 40 years. They'll all aspire to our lifestyle but only 1 in 5 can live that way today!

But I have to disagree with your stance on renewables. If I ran Australia I'd throw us into the "Beyond Zero Emissions" plan for being off ALL fossil fuels within 10 years with a gusto, and then we'd be lucky to achieve it within maybe 15 years. Then we'd be ready for peak oil and global warming, ready to claim carbon credits from the rest of the world and ready to export our solar thermal storage technology TO the rest of the world. We'd be world leaders in the new green economy that is coming, and if we want to remain relevant we've got to get there first. The technology is there, it will be cost effective if we scale it, and we'll be ready for peak coal when it hits around 2025-2030.

Even if you don't believe in global warming then you've GOT to agree that we are going to run out of oil, gas, and coal at some stage... and what then?

http://www.beyondzeroemissions.org/zerocarbonplan
Posted by Eclipse Now, Thursday, 25 June 2009 11:04:57 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
What a bunch of skirted climate cowards you glowbull whiners and fear mongers like "Eclipse" are.
Back in 1900 worry warts like you wondered what to do with all of the horses needed by the year 2000. Just call yourself a caveman now why don't you?
Face the future with optimism and bravery at least and stop scaring our children.
I suppose you are going to deny that the IPCC predictions do not include more tropical diseases, sea level rise, more storms and severe weather events, and species extinction too?
If you think we should bow to politicians who promise to take taxes and use them to lower the temperature of the planet earth, then you have real personal problems. Get a life.
Life is good and getting better.
Posted by mememine69, Friday, 26 June 2009 6:21:01 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
Here is how your kids will make fun of you global warmers:

Paid consultants in lab coats calling themselves scientists declared Al Gore our 9th planet and his girth is still expanding.
Why did the global warmer cross the road? To get away form a swarm of Killer Bees and BigFoot.
Al Gore is happy because MJ dead. Now kids all over the planet can finally sleep with the lights off.
What’s another term for a glowbull whiner? A climate pu$$ie.
What’s the difference between sacrificing virgins and glowbull warming? Witch burning.
Climate Change IS real. It is also known as weather.
Happy Birthday Glowbull Warming, a quarter of a century old and can’t even crawl, walk or even have a pulse.
What’s another word for sustainability? Poverty.
Nice, cheerful and happy sunny days are now instead: “warnings of dangerously high UV rays and to be avoided at all costs”.
EnvironMENTAL ism causes global warming.
Global warming is real. Elvis says so.
Posted by mememine69, Saturday, 27 June 2009 5:34:58 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
Really, really, really boring and predictable.

Be as savage and trolling as you wish, you've got nothing. You posts are impotent blanks, the 3 year old with the pop-gun going "POW POW" as loud as possible but after playing that silly little game for *days* in an annoying *obsession*, is now being ignored.

(Yawns)

JayB's posts were at least mildly interesting in that they posited another theory. However, the data in that theory (volcanoes) has already been accounted for as climatologists have already measured the worldwide influence of volcanoes.

The peer reviewed science has accounted for all the issues Plimer and ilk raise. The REAL science has answered them time and again. There's nothing new here. The incoherent rantings of the long-time sceptics that we see in forums like this are just the last desperate gasps of the die-hards. Why they are committed to anti-science propaganda on behalf of big oil we'll never know or understand? Who cares? It's a kind of mental illness. They are not here for a discussion, or to learn, but to vent their frustration that the "other side" is winning. But as us "warmies" are actually fighting for our own skins and the survival of modern society, the sceptics don't realise that we are actually fighting for them and their kids as well.

So back to the subject, Plimer.

As the cops say:

"Nothing to see here, move along, move along."
Posted by Eclipse Now, Saturday, 27 June 2009 9:40:37 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
So JayB, I take it you've been reading Plimer

I'd never heard of him, & no I've not read him either.

and been convinced by the line that it'll basically be GOOD for us to have runaway global warming?

No. What I'm saying is that warming is just different & WE have to adapt TO nature.

However, the data in that theory (volcanoes) has already been accounted for as climatologists.

Those were super volcanoes, not your ordinary run of the mill type. There are 3 super volcanoes predicted for Nth America with the possibility of changing the tilt dramaticly.

the IPCC predictions include more;
tropical diseases, I have lived in the tropics all my life & never had a problem. We have the tech to deal with that.
sea level rise? Continental drift? Nature at work.
storms, severe weather events, We have the tech to deal with that & to harvest that power. Nature.
species extinction. Now that's been going on since life first emerged from the slime. Survival of the fittest. That's nature.

If you think we should bow to politicians who promise to take taxes and use them to lower the temperature of the planet earth.

You are right here. Carbon tax is a scam.

It has taken 100 years of carbon based energy to reach this level. It can't be switched off over night. Nice thought but a pipe dream. A swich to alternate energy IS desirable but it will take 20 years of refining to get to the level of efficiency of where carbon energy is now.

Having a healthy fear if fine. BUT. "If you panic you die."
Posted by Jayb, Saturday, 27 June 2009 11:23:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Jayb,
Continental drift occurs over MILLIONS of years, I think we’ll have time to adapt. Super-volcanoes cannot be controlled. Where we get our source of energy can!

You understand the power of exponential growth? 1% annual growth over one human lifetime of 70 years = a doubling of resource use. 2% growth is 4 times, 3% growth is 8 times the resource being used. Basically, when reading reports that claim coal reserves will last 132 years “At current rates” you should scream at the report “THERE HAS NEVER BEEN SUCH A THING AS 'CURRENT RATES' SINCE THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION YOU MORONS!”

Coal is running out!

As the wiki says:

“However, the rate of coal consumption is annually increasing at 2-3% per year and, setting the growth rate to 2.5% yields an exponential depletion time of 56 years (in 2065).[46]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal#World_coal_reserves

But that ignores the concept of a resource “peaking”. Resource extraction does not follow a clear increasing line of resource and then suddenly STOP! Mineral resources follow a bell curve of extraction, where all the good, easy to use stuff is used first and all the hard, less economical stuff to extract occurs later. We move from a world of cheap coal to expensive coal only a year or 2 after it peaks, and prices will skyrocket! This will damage any economy addicted to coal.

I’m convinced peak coal is around 2025 to 2030 ish.
Check this SMH article claiming NSW coal will RUN OUT by 2042, let alone it peaking beforehand.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/reserves-to-dry-up-as-clean-coal-becomes-viable/2007/04/09/1175971023057.html
&#8232;More on peak coal.

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

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/052504_coal_peak.html

http://globalpublicmedia.com/heinberg_coals_future_in_doubt

http://www.energywatchgroup.org/files/Coal_English.pdf

You’re big on adapting? So let’s adapt! Panic will only happen in the unprepared denialist regimes. Adaptation means cleaner, trendier, more beautiful cities, energy security, “enough” resources for all and more community spirit. It’s all good.
Posted by Eclipse Now, Saturday, 27 June 2009 4:40:50 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
You’re big on adapting? So let’s adapt! Panic will only happen in the unprepared denialist regimes.

It matters not that a person is a Denialist or Panic merchant. We have to & will adapt regardless. Or, we will go the same way as all the other forms of life that didn't make it.

Adaptation means cleaner, trendier, more beautiful cities, energy security, “enough” resources for all and more community spirit. It’s all good.

I can't fault you there. But like the motor car. The world didn't go from the Model T to the Masserati in 10 years, it took 100 years. Environmentally friendly energy is in the pre Model T phase at the moment. At the rate of improvement of modern technology the world will close the gap in about 20 years & increase exponentially from there.

Don't panic. He who panics dies.

Be patient
Posted by Jayb, Saturday, 27 June 2009 5:19:43 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
1-Does resulting cooling, diprove predicted warming? Yes or no.
2-What would have to happen to prove the theory wrong?
3-Will you warmies obey the IPCC when they denounce their own theory soon?
4-How is La Nina "NOT" stronger than all of the magical forces of glowbull warming when it "delayed" glowbull warming?
5-Why is there not a resulting shortage of Oxygen from all of this combustion producing so much CO2?
Posted by mememine69, Saturday, 27 June 2009 9:14:54 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
MeMe,
If you were actually interested in answers to these questions you’d have engaged my answers days ago. I've already answered everything except question 5 which is MORONIC. How does 0.0385% atmospheric Co2 mean we’re running out of oxygen, which is 21% of our atmosphere?

Jaybe:
The renewable technology IS there now, we CAN do this over the next 10 to 15 years, and we HAVE TO before Peak oil and climate change get serious! YOU’RE the one who said it takes a long time to wean off fossil fuels and it cannot be done over night, and now you’re asking us to put it off for 20 years in the vague hope of "something better"? That’s inconsistent.

You have not proved a thing about climate change and are just dancing around the subject. THE CORE science is the solid, practical, mechanical science of spectrometry which measures Co2’s wavelengths of energy refraction back into the atmosphere. Co2 has one level of strength, methane has 21 times this strength and some CFC’s have 9000 times the strength, last 50 thousand years and might one day be used to terraform Mars! (But fortunately these PFC’s are EXTREMELY tiny percentages of the atmosphere or we might have cooked the earth by now!)

This is the same atmospheric science that might one day help us terraform Mars. Have you thought about that?

“He who panics, dies!” You remind me of this busker in a straightjacket on a monocycle, and telling a story about how we should not panic:

“My dad always used to say, “Don’t Panic, Don’t Panic” and one day we had a house fire. He was there saying “Don’t panic, Don’t panic” while we all ran around and got out of the house and he BURNT TO DEATH didn’t he?”

You’d burn this world if you were in control. Don’t panic, for sure, but don’t procrastinate when a REAL crisis hits and it’s time to actually do domething!

Spectrometry and the RFE and our leading climatologists are telling us to bring Co2 down below 350. It’s time to act!
Posted by Eclipse Now, Sunday, 28 June 2009 12:12:00 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
What would have to happen to prove the theory correct at this late stage of the game, here on the proving grounds of TIME? 23 years in fact.
This fake CO2 (as opposed to real pollution) panic, can't possibly go on for another quarter of a century. Now come on! At some point we have to start suffering the so-called consequences of your little proposed climate crisis. Elivs will come back sooner you freaks.
Give it up!
Seriously, to speak your language of following consensus, I’ll suggest you follow the tide of popular opinion in this non-science issue of global warming and see how quickly the perception is changing. Don’t be afraid because all of us deniers are former believers and so we know both sides of the issue. You don’t. You all seem bright enough and we look forward to you helping us rid ourselves of this modern day superstition of Armageddon.
History will mock anyone who ever thought global warming was real and I dare you to march with a sign that says THE END IS NEAR so we can all make fun of you.
Get ahead of the curve and be responsible environmentalists.
Posted by mememine69, Sunday, 28 June 2009 1:16:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well that's interesting, meme69. Eclipse Now answered most of your questions before you even asked them, then had the good grace to try again.

And what did you do? Consider those answers on their scientific and factual merits and give a like response? No, you turned around and had an information-free spray at "freaks" in the RANDOMLY CAPITALISED style of a UFO CONSPIRACy newsletter.

And I'll bet you wonder why no-one takes you seriously!
Posted by Sancho, Sunday, 28 June 2009 1:24:59 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
Hi Sancho, thanks for that. I also use CAPS for emphasis because this forum doesn't seem to allow italics? I wish this forum had just a few formatting buttons for nicer presentation?

Anyway, thanks again for your comment. I actually suspect that MeMe is a greenie doing some reverse psychology "thang" to portray skeptics as trolling fools that can't comprehend simple arguments. I'm no scientist, but at least I can read the executive summaries and understand when someone like Plimer is even remotely addressing the arguments with counter-arguments, or just missing altogether.&#8232;&#8232;EG: MeMe’s “23 year” argument is so off target that it just illustrates how little comprehension "MeMe" has. Denial isn’t skepticism. There are plenty of “skeptical scientists” publishing questions on smallish “grey areas” in peer reviewed climate journals, but they all agree on CO2’s spectrometry-proven basic role, and at least comprehend the questions involved and give answers when questioned!

*MeMe* Perfect response. That is, if you wanted to portray yourself as either dishonest or dense! I'll break it down real easy like.

"The End of The World As We Know It" (TEOTWAWKI) by climate change was never projected for any time soon. Real trouble starts later this century IF we continue on the current course. Asserting that the climate community has prophesied doom around now just shows how retarded or dishonest you are, but an accurate handling of the truth is not something sly, nasty, deceitful, attention seeking internet trolls ever really bother with: they just love the attention! And here I am feeding your addiction by even replying to you?

(I guess I'm always shocked that people can go so low, and honestly want to see them at least TRY to engage the subject they are trolling in!)

Whatever you do MeMe, don’t address how we know what Co2 does (spectrometry) or by how much (the Radiative Forcing Equation). By all means, do continue to rant and babble incoherently about conspiracy theories in your own imagination! You’re just saving me any real work.

Come on, here boy! Here boy! RANT! Goooood boooooy, gooooood booooy, want a biscuit
Posted by Eclipse Now, Sunday, 28 June 2009 9:46:08 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
After 23 years of predictions and cooling and no climate crisis, we are left with a self fulfilling prophecy that none of you can prove, only hope for. Why? Why do you warmies hope and pray for this misery by stretching logic to childish extreams?
We deniers reason, we don't "feel" and "believe" and hope for my kids to die on a dead planet.
You warmies will be both cursed and laughed at very soon.
Your cave man fear mongering will be remembered.
Posted by mememine69, Sunday, 28 June 2009 11:11:13 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
Hi everyone,
sorry for "feeding the troll" and trying to engage MeMe... I am honestly both fascinated, frustrated, and disgusted by the mentality of someone just repeating the same disproved illogical rant again and again and again.... without ever being polite enough to maturely discuss their bizarre assertions. What on earth could possibly motivate them? But, again, my fault, and I apologise to the list for trying.

It would probably be a much more polite thread if we had some MODERATORS coming in here now and then to MOD the trolls, and I might not resort to cranky anti-troll posts like my post above, which I would gladly encourage moderators to delete certain offensive phrases from. But there it is. Never wrestle a troll, you just get filth all over you and the troll likes it!

Is Online Opinion going to recruit more moderators to help out with this? I've been in science forums run by volunteers where trolls like MEME and cranky old men like myself are pulled up for their behaviour long ago. Is the character of Australia's political discourse going to be allowed to degenerate to this school-yard brawl?

Again I apologise to the list for trying with MEME, and wish you all well, even the THINKING sceptics because there's hope for you (but not for hardened trolls like MEME).

MeMe, if having the last word helps you think you've somehow "won" then by all means, repeat "23 years blah blah blah you warmies blah". Go for it. Be my guest. But no one else here is fooled.

Over and out.
Posted by Eclipse Now, Monday, 29 June 2009 12:50:57 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
Sure, call me a troll. It's otherwise known as an opposing view so chill and open your mind to the world of global warming denial.
We deniers are all former believers don't forget. I for one am a long time enviro and a responsible one at that. I’m a former member of the Union of Concerned Scientists, only because I qualified with having $18.00 for membership. They take anyone. So much for “science” in this what’s hot and what’s not cultural issue of media, not science.
You warmies moralize so called "science" when all along the only science involved here is opportunism, politics and corporate media hype. There is wide spread scientific debate out there and in the end it’s the majority that you warmies will follow so try and get ahead of the curve. A new generation is going to provide a backlash to your decaying fear mongering.
How is “precaution” science?
How is 23 years of failed predictions proof of a climate crisis?
How is La Nina stronger than GWing?
How is warming proof of SUV’s causing anything?
How is the NOAA’s admission of 10 years of North American cooling not reasonable enough for you faithful warmies?
Stop moralizing your self fulfilling prophecy and detracting us from real environmentalism by calling the GWing issue “pollution” and “energy” and “saving the planet” just long enough to see how this dead theory is leading environmentalism down the wrong road.
Shame on all of you for perpetuating this cave man mentality for so long and needlessly scaring our children.
Doubt, question and challenge. That is real science.
Posted by mememine69, Monday, 29 June 2009 7:53:42 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
FACT: Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures. Average ground station readings do show a mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8C over the last 100 years, which is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium. The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas ("heat islands"), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas ("land use effects").

There has been no catastrophic warming recorded.
FACT: Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased. The RATE of growth during this period has also increased from about 0.2% per year to the present rate of about 0.4% per year,which growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years. However, there is no proof that CO2 is the main driver of global warming. As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. Geological field work in recent sediments confirms this causal relationship. There is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally and cyclically through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming surface layers of the earth's oceans expel more CO2 as a result.
FACT: In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft. Here they are:
1) “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.”
2) “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes”

To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 causes significant global warming.
Posted by mememine69, Wednesday, 1 July 2009 1:08:18 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
Can you link to those data, so we know you're not making it up?

In my experience, the sources skeptics get their information from usually have as much credibility as Tom Cruise on psychiatry.
Posted by Sancho, Wednesday, 1 July 2009 2:43:00 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
So there's no moderation on trolls? Great, that excuses whatever I say here.

I can't believe you've just trotted out the ice-core "temperature CAUSES Co2 change" issue when I'm the one that has already raised it dozens of times on this list! D'uh! What kind of pig-headed troll are you? Do you even READ anyone else's posts here?

1. Instead of viewing this thread page by page, Click on "All"
2. Search (in your browser) for MILANKOVITCH CYCLES
3. Read the links and weep. Your precious little theory is TRUE, but totally IRRELEVANT! See New Scientist
http://tinyurl.com/lpgk2q

Temperatures ARE rising according to satellite measurements you idiot.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/20ctrend.htm

"Global temperature 1880-2007 Annual surface temperature relative to the1951-1980 mean, based on surface air measurements at meteorological stations and ship and satellite measurements for sea surface temperature. Green bars show 95% confidence level."

Thanks for not including any *evidence* for your assertions about the IPCC statements, I can just sit here and laugh. What do the RECENT IPCC reports say? ;-) Some ancient lines emitted from some ancient report, totally laughed out of the peer-review system, is relevant to today's unanimous consensus on global warming.... how exactly?

"To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 causes significant global warming."
No, none at all, just every official climate think tank on the planet.
As I've told you a MILLION times, look up "Spectrometer" and "Radiative Forcing Equation" for the basis of this whole enterprise or GO AWAY!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing

Meme, intelligent people have discussions where ideas are exchanged. Trolls just repeat themselves over and again without EVER considering what other people write and are just here for their own SICK negative attention. Turn your computer off, go outside, meet a human being somewhere and say hello. It will help, believe me.
Posted by Eclipse Now, Wednesday, 1 July 2009 4:09:51 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
My site is better than your site. Na na nana naaaa na!
There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. There is plenty of evidence that global warming has occurred, and theory suggests that carbon emissions should raise temperatures (though by how much is hotly disputed) but there are no observations by anyone that implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause of the recent global warming.
The satellites that measure the world's temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980). Land-based temperature readings are corrupted by the "urban heat island" effect: urban areas encroaching on thermometer stations warm the micro-climate around the thermometer, due to vegetation changes, concrete, cars, houses. Satellite data is the only temperature data we can trust, but it only goes back to 1979. NASA reports only land-based data, and reports a modest warming trend and recent cooling. The other three global temperature records use a mix of satellite and land measurements, or satellite only, and they all show no warming since 2001 and a recent cooling.
The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect.
None of these points are controversial. The alarmist scientists agree with them, though they would dispute their relevance.
The last point was known and past dispute by 2003, yet Al Gore made his movie in 2005 and presented the ice cores as the sole reason for believing that carbon emissions cause global warming. In any other political context our cynical and experienced press corps would surely have called this dishonest and widely questioned the politician's assertion
Posted by mememine69, Wednesday, 1 July 2009 11:14:17 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
Fact 1: The pernicious meme is a decoy for the discredited “Friends of Science” a Canadian geriatric revolt of cranks, people gone “emeritus” and oil industry shills.

Fact 2: The meme has cut and pasted his tidbits of idiocy from an article written by the “Friends of Science.” Ahh.......with the exception of separating the paragraphs though when there there’s no filling in the sandwich, formatting becomes an obstacle:

http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=3

“A University of Calgary audit into its relationship with the climate lobby group, “Friends of Science” (FOS), reveals that in setting up two trust funds on behalf of FOS, U of C Professor Barry Cooper may have contravened Revenue Canada and Elections Canada laws - and, in diverting money to his wife and daughter, he most certainly broke rules at the University itself.

“Prof. Cooper vastly overstepped his authority in authorizing payments on behalf of FOS to public relations companies and political lobbyists - in one case dispersing more than $100,000 to the PR firm APCO Worldwide”:

http://www.desmogblog.com/university-of-calgary-audit-exposes-friends-of-science-wrongdoing

Fact 3: One should never cut and paste articles from the well known denier sites and then claim them as your own, since they are mostly voodoo science. The catatonic meme believes no one will smell a rat - his kind of rat, that moves money out of the public’s pockets, into the pockets of a chosen few.

Not content on plagiarising the “Friends of Science” article, he has now presented a “superb” piece of bulldust from no other than the Australian newspaper. Oafish, dishonest, mendacious, simply worthy of dismissal, he has now claimed David Evan’s press release as his own:

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

Evans (who claims to be a “rocket scientist”) is known on OLO but “according to his resume, Evans has not published any peer-reviewed research papers on the subject of climate change. Evans published one paper, in 1987, but it was unrelated to climate change.”

Ladies and gentlemen - Despite his failed objectives, to find fresh blood for the fossil fool vampires, I regretfully advise it will take several tonnes of explosives to remove the lobotomized meme from this thread.
Posted by Protagoras, Thursday, 2 July 2009 1:22:56 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
Google “mememine69” and one is presented with 2,730 hits.

Aw….but look at this….so cute…mememine69 hugging a polar bear – albeit a dead one methinks!

http://www.topix.net/member/profile/mememine69

And Jennifer Marohasy's website is his favourite.

So generous is meme that he's also provided us with a NOAA graph, “proving” that global temperatures have cooled:

http://74.125.153.132/search?q=cache:K0dhQnDLw0EJ:network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/01/31/lawrence-solomon-climate-change-s-antarctic-ruffle.aspx+mememine69+sarah+palin&cd=10&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au

Well done meme. Thanks for setting us straight. Problem is (and just like the dishonest Plimer) the graph you provided relates exclusively to temperatures in the United States! Could you now provide us with a NOAA graph showing global temperatures cooling or have you scurried off to your subterranean hidey hole?

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html
Posted by Protagoras, Thursday, 2 July 2009 4:08:20 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
Preserve, protect and respect our planet.

We are debating the existence of what we can’t see, the climate crisis. The lack of this climate crisis proves the theory dead to a denier.
To a warmie, the lack of any observational climate crisis only transforms this impulsive belief to a prophecy of faith. And you warmies have the nerve to call that science? You witch burners are the new flat-earthers of science and I promise history will not be kind to you misguided and irresponsible environMENTALists.
-A policy of precaution is not science, its superstition.
-Just shy of a quarter of a century of failed IPCC predictions certainly disproves the theory.
-La Nina is stronger than all of Global Warming’s magical powers.
-Melting ice does not prove CO2 is at fault?
-Our cooling clear blue sky disproves the theory.
-10 years of NOAA cooling disproves the theory.
-Resulting cooling disproves predicted warming.
Posted by mememine69, Thursday, 2 July 2009 7:13:37 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
Hmm, just more evidence that debating MeMe is dealing with a conspiracy theory mindset so addicted to their pet theory that it is elevated past the level of religious belief into a kind of pathology and delusion.

Let me illustrate in another genre.

THERE WAS NO MOON LANDING, STOP FREAKING OUT MY KIDS ABOUT MEN ON THE MOON because there’s no evidence there ever was a moon landing!

We are debating the existence of what we can’t see, the moon landing. The lack of return visits to the moon in over 23 years of so called “space flight” proves that we cannot get to the moon. This proves the theory dead.

To a “moonie”, the lack of any observational moon data transforms this impulsive belief to a prophecy of faith. And you moonies have the nerve to call that science? You witch burners are the new flat-earthers of science and I promise history will not be kind to you misguided and irresponsible MOONists.
-A policy of precaution about the moon is not science, its superstition.
-Just shy of a quarter of a century of failed moon landings certainly disproves the theory.
-Gravity seems stronger than rocket’s magical powers.
-Melting rockets on the launch pad proves the theory is at fault.
-10 years of NO MORE LAUNCHES proves that it is fault.
-THERE, IT IS ALL PERFECTLY PROVEN FAULTY YOU MOONIES, THERE’S NO MOON LANDING BECAUSE I SAID SO 20 DIFFERENT WAYS AND ALL YOUR LINKS TO “SCIENCE” AND “HISTORY” AND YOUR SO CALLED “WEBSITES” ARE JUST MOONIES YOU MOONIE MORONS!

PS: MeMe, if you want to SEE global warming then watch this video. Half way SHOWS what Co2 can do to the heat energy from a candle! This is a repeatable, demonstrable test that can be run in a lab again and again and again....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6Un69RMNSw&feature=sdig&et=1246419220.11
Posted by Eclipse Now, Friday, 3 July 2009 9:27:45 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
-The Glowbull whining theory is essentially like debating the existence of God. We can’t see it or experience it but you say it’s there, this climate crisis. Warming and melting does not prove what the cause was.
-You warmies get so hysterical sometimes as if warming and melting has never happened on the little old helpless planet earth.
-Research into globull warming is almost 100% spent on proposed effects, not causes.
-You warmies can’t sustain this low brow level of debate that is sliding globull warming into pure superstition. How long can you try and tell people that what they see, is not what they think they see?
-There isn’t a climate crisis nor was there a climate crisis and therefore there won’t be a climate crisis from harmless CO2, a building block of life.
-You do however cling to one single totally out of perspective thin thread of truth. Yes, CO2 “IS”, yes “IS” a greenhouse gas, technically and argumentatively.
-Do you really think we can stop the planet from warming? The theory predicts a climate crisis. Like what could be more important? It’s the equivalent to a coming comet hit. It’s so flippant of you warmies to drop a load of crisis and not take it seriously yourself.
-And you want to give tax money to a politician who promises to lower the earth’s temperature? I’ve heard of election promises but come on now! You would have to be a pure Greenzi to gooses-step to that level of intellect.

So here is the score and I will leave you with the last word and invite you to join us at http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warming the world’s largest open forum on glowbull warming.
I’m willing to chance it that you and your global warming theory are totally 100% wrong and pose no threat in the least.
I’m sure when the tide fully does turn in the denier’s side, you will then follow us. That too I will bet on.
Posted by mememine69, Friday, 3 July 2009 10:54:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hey troll boy, you didn't reply to my link!

Physical evidence that Co2 blocks heat from escaping the earth!

Here you are troll boy... watch this! Watch it, waaaaaatch it, ready set.... GO!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6Un69RMNSw&feature=sdig&et=1246419220.11

Woof woof grunt grunt, good troll, gooooooood troooooooolllllll.

In the mean time the world's most prestigious scientific organizations all agree.
European Academy of Sciences and Arts,
InterAcademy Council,
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
Joint science academies' statements
Network of African Science Academies
Royal Society of New Zealand
Polish Academy of Sciences
American Association for the Advancement of Science
European Science Foundation
National Research Council (US)
American Society for Microbiology
Australian Coral Reef Society
Institute of Biology (UK)
Society of American Foresters
The Wildlife Society (international)
American Geophysical Union
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
Geological Society of America
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
American Medical Association
Australian Medical Association
European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control
World Federation of Public Health Associations
World Health Organization
American Meteorological Society
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
World Meteorological Organization
American Quaternary Association
International Union for Quaternary Research
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American Institute of Physics
American Physical Society
American Statistical Association
Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)

Let me translate this in words you can understand. Ummm, let’s see, how to put this delicately. In other words, you’re an idiot.
Posted by Eclipse Now, Friday, 3 July 2009 1:26:51 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
“Preserve, protect and respect our planet” says meme who hails from Canada.

So let’s see how the Fatherland is contributing to mitigating carbon dioxide.

1. Yesterday, July 2, a new study was published which says Canada has fallen to last place among G8 nations on the climate scorecard.

Canada now stands dead last in protecting a country from dangerous climate change.

The study shows that Canada's greenhouse gas emissions are steadily increasing, and its per capita emissions are among the highest in the world.

2. Canadian miners are the largest environmental vandals on the planet. Their worldwide operations have destroyed livelihoods and the environment in many countries. Communities from Argentina to Papua New Guinea have organized to demand their basic human rights.

As a consequence of this negligence, Canada has drawn criticism from around the world, first by environmental, religious and human rights organizations, and now increasingly from international institutions, such as the United Nations.

The harsh reality accompanying the presence of their mining industry abroad, is characterized by environmental destruction, political corruption, community struggles, human rights abuses, and massive amounts of water consumption.

3. Last year Canadian miner, Mega Uranium threatened legal action against Western Australia’s State Government if it proceeded with plans to ban uranium mining.

4. Canadian miner, Barrick Gold are the largest emitter of mercury in Australia and last year, were fined for spilling 4.5 million litres of toxic waste - the second time in a year they've been fined for this type of offence.

5. Back home in the Fatherland, toxic pollution from mining tar sands have found fish and game animals covered with tumours and mutations. Fish frying in a pan smells like burning plastic. One study concluded that arsenic could be as much as 453 times the acceptable levels in moose meat from the region:

http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/TarSands_TheReport%20final.pdf

Naturally there’s a Canadian denialist front group conspiring to propagate this environmental carnage - the “Natural Resources Stewardship Project” whose members refuse to disclose funding sources.

Is it surprising that discredited mining executive, Ian Plimer, is listed as an “Allied Expert” for the planet's grim reapers?
Posted by Protagoras, Friday, 3 July 2009 3:50:36 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
You should be ashamed of such language, Eclipse Now.
The first stage of tyranny is to dehumanize the enemy.

http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/dehumanization/
Posted by gilliana, Saturday, 4 July 2009 3:45:20 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
Do share with us Gilliana, the reason you see only the splinter in Eclipse's eye and not the plank in meme's?
Posted by Protagoras, Saturday, 4 July 2009 4:21:38 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
Interesting post gilliana. I went there & read the article.

The problem is that each side views the other as inferior & both sides of the conflict have tried to dehumanize the other. Each feeling that they have the superior stand. So does that make them both in violation or have they cancelled each other out? ;-)
Posted by Jayb, Saturday, 4 July 2009 4:21:52 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
meme by his language and content, what there is that makes sense (not much), does not do the skeptics course any good.
Then he may be funded by big oil so a little biased because he appears to have no credentials that can contribute to a proper debate.
If we do not manage our world and improve our environment (reducing co2 is a start), then we are stuffed.
Posted by PeterA, Saturday, 4 July 2009 4:35:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Gilliana, I respect the democratic right of people to hold opinions others than my own. I respect that not everyone wants to agree with the rational scientific findings about climate change. I respect a good argument.

The problem is, I link to valid, peer reviewed, scientific journals and climate experts and all I get back is sneering. There's no debunking of my sources, no demonstration of further reading, no engagement with the arguments, and indeed... the sneering and INSULTING PATRONIZING RUBBISH just continues unabated.

So when Jayb says I'm dehumanising a whole "side" that's not correct. I know environmental skeptics that make me cranky and sad, but at least I can have a decent, polite conversation with them. If they are really honest they might even admit a point in my direction now and then.

MeMe shows no evidence of EVER reading one of the sources I've painstakingly researched and linked to.

I repeatedly asked MeMe to respond ON TOPIC, but to no avail.

I apologize if I've offended you by my actions towards MeMe, but if you read through my posts I was not just trying to provoke a reaction from MeMe to help him gain some insight into his own behaviour, but also "testing the waters" here at OLO to see if this site actually moderates?

I was deliberately provocative, because I was hoping a moderator would step in and see what the fuss was about. By now in other forums I would have earned an "infraction point" but usually by now the troll has been KICKED OFF THE BOARD!

I can easily forgive and forget and retract my caricature of Meme if Meme actually engages the topic and demonstrates that he's actually not an “internet troll” (which is a term with very specific meaning and is not just me trying to “dehumanize” Meme. Look it up).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

We’ll see what happens hey, especially whether or not OLO is a forum worth belonging to. Will it moderate infuriating trolls? We'll see.

Your go MeMe.

See the candle video yet?
Posted by Eclipse Now, Saturday, 4 July 2009 7:25:11 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
Hi all,the following comment also applies to the last decade. Just think how fast things will accelerate once the ice is gone!
.......
"There will be no rise in temperature in any area undergoing a phase change, until the change is complete. The heat is entirely taken up by the phase change itself.

Since the world's glaciers and ice sheets are demonstrably melting, we have a phase change. None of the regions in which the phase change is taking place will be rising in temperature for the same reason that water with melting ice will not rise in temperature.

BUT THEY ARE ALL WARMING!

You are confusing temperature with heat. The two are NOT the same! The two are proportional IF AND ONLY IF no phase change is taking place.

In order to create the kinds of phase change being observed, an enormous amount of heat is involved, but without any corresponding rise in temperature. This is very basic stuff.

Ok, so what about the fall in temperature? What about it? Temperature is only proportional to heat for a specific material, including a specific mix of gasses. As water evaporation increases, you are altering the composition of the atmosphere. Ergo, an absolute temperature means bugger all. You must calculate the heat present (based on the gasses/vapour) and then talk about the change in heat.

This is really basic stuff and I shouldn't have to be telling you this. You learned it in school and the laws of physics haven't changed since. Not even Scotty could change the laws of physics, so don't think that believers or skeptics could do so.

And as I've said before, the only person I regard as a credible voice in all of this is James Lovelock. Since he believes that Global Warming is real, man-made and far too advanced to be stopped (merely limited in impact), and as he's been entirely correct on all prior predictions, his conclusion is the one I will be going with."
Posted by Eclipse Now, Saturday, 4 July 2009 8:29:35 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
Come on over to: http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warming
the world's largest open forum on global warming where you can debate all day without limits to people on both sides of the fence.

And just so you warmies know:
http://www.whatdoestheinternetthink.net/index.php?s=global+warming&st=all
-the tide is turning fast in the deniers's favor to "preserve our planet", not save and rescue it with outdated science and childish media fear. Get ahead of the curve warm mongers and climate pu$$ies and stop scaring our children.
Mememine69, your petrosexual denier.
Posted by mememine69, Sunday, 5 July 2009 6:05:34 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
Why would we debate global warming with you over there on your site when you don't "debate" global warming here? You just call people "warmie pussies". Nice.

See what we're dealing with Gilliana? He STILL hasn't answered the question about why the candle warmth couldn't get through the tube full of Co2. I highly recommend watching this youtube clip. The demonstration of Co2’s effects is at 1:30 which is a scene from the documentary, “Carbon Wars”. MeMe simply WILL NOT engage this subject because it would reveal that global warming is based on repeatable, demonstrable physics in a lab. He will not attempt to disprove the basic spectrometry that tells us what CO2 does, nor bothered to find a paper that debunks the Radiative Forcing Equation.
http://tinyurl.com/mvv325

If a small tube of Co2 can deflect a candle’s thermal energy, how much more energy does the Co2 prevent leaving the earth’s surface and atmosphere when heated by the sun?

MeMe hasn't replied about what the real forcing was in the Milancovitch cycle, and what Co2's role might have been in exaggerating and magnifying the “wobble” of the earth on the climate.

He's not here to actually debate this like an adult, and just posts constant snide and rude comments that are designed to taunt and sneer. That lack of engagement with the discussion and pathological need for negative attention is what we call an "internet troll". (Not my term.)
Posted by Eclipse Now, Sunday, 5 July 2009 8:28:16 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
Ian Plimer in his Heaven and Mirth book, constantly claimed that warming ceased in 1998 and that it has been cooling ever since.

During an interview with Brian Carlton of ABN Newswire, where Plimer claimed that climate scientists are "pompous and arrogant and are treating people as stupid," he claimed that after 1998, climate remained "static" and cooling didn't commence until after 2003.

What's that old adage? A convincing liar needs a good memory?:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfnF7ilVzeo
Posted by Protagoras, Monday, 6 July 2009 1:20:40 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
‘Since the U.S. has moved out of the bad-boy status, Canada and Russia have become the bullies of the climate change process,” said Angela Anderson, program director of the U.S. Climate Action Network. “In Canada, the tar sands is what most people are worried about because this goes against the goal of a low-carbon economic pathway.”'

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601082&sid=aKecgoGFIH7Y

http://knowledge.allianz.com/en/globalissues/climate_change/top_climate_stories/g8_climatescorecards_2009_canada.pdf

“Leaders from the U.S., Canada and other G-8 members meet this month in Italy to discuss ways wealthy nations can support greenhouse-gas cuts in developing countries without harming economic growth.

“The G8, meeting in Rome this week, is weighing a pledge to limit global warming below 2 degrees centigrade, the level at which scientists say a deadly climate chain reaction becomes dangerously likely. Canada, Japan, and Russia are trying to veto the 2-degree limit -- and an immediate global outcry is needed to rescue it."

If you care about the planet, please add your name to the petition below and Avaaz will deliver it to the G8 Rome meeting this Wednesday and Thursday.

http://www.avaaz.org/en/tcktcktck/?cl=273716462&v=3631
Posted by Protagoras, Tuesday, 7 July 2009 12:41:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Speaking of hold-ups and delays, did you see the ABC lunchtime news today?

It seems the IPCC is out of date and has missed the new climate consensus that it is already probably too late, and we've got to get below 350 ASAP (and are already at 385).

Climate institutes in Australia seem to be deciding, along with James Hansen, that we've already run out of time and gone past the safety limits, whereas the IPCC is stuck in the "10 years before it's too late and we can go past 450ppm" mentality.

We've GOT to get to a NEGATIVE carbon economy by 100% renewable energy, energy efficient cities that are "more European than European) (trams, trains, trolley buses) and heaps of Biochar sequestering Co2 in our soils. Beyond Zero Emissions is the mouthpiece of a very large climate coalition and run a Melbourne Radio show and podcast. Well worth subscribing to in iTunes.

http://www.beyondzeroemissions.org/

They cover all my favourite solutions to climate change, including Biochar.
Posted by Eclipse Now, Tuesday, 7 July 2009 1:06:49 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
Thanks for the links , now where do I go to make sure all your links are not Science Fiction ?
In Bendigo , a gold mining location in Victoria AU we have an opportunity to view what the World looked like just after the big bang ; on the surface we have just about every mineral imaginable some harmless others toxic by observing the mix it's hard to believe that an immense Forrest occupied all the Bendigo region , just imagine the toxic gasses in the atmosphere when the "Green Shoots" first appeared into what must have looked like the aftermath of hell ; yet they flourished and still do ?

How did you bond to the CO2 hype ?

Can you imagine what the Human cost is going to be when your program is applied ; shouldn't you justify your predictions with some science first ; given your actions might later be known as the 'CO2 Holocaust'
caused by Amateur Scientists and Fanatics .
Posted by ShazBaz001, Tuesday, 7 July 2009 4:48:05 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
Shaz,
I try to listen to the peer reviewed scientists from the most prestigious, conservative, thorough and credible scientific organizations ever, such as the Royal Society of London, and not the scientists they black ball as corrupt, unmethodical, inconsistent and utterly dishonest.
&#8232;How does that sound as a rough guide for who to listen to?

So Shazza, Co2 hype?

Why couldn’t the candle warmth get through the tube full of Co2? If you think this is a hoax, go to your local climate institute (or phone around your local science universities, colleges, or institutes) and ask them if they have any science awareness days where they might be demonstrating the BASIC PHYSICS!
http://tinyurl.com/mvv325

It seems to me that IF global warming is wrong, it is one of the most successful and spooky conspiracies EVER pulled on the public and, well, heck, Aliens at Area 51 and a faked moon landing are possible. What’s YOUR reason for being such a science denying racist? Just how many extra African’s do you want to starve to death because of our Co2 emissions? Just how many extra have to die in super-monsoon floods, or die across Asia as the mighty agricultural rivers die when their glacial meltwater disappears? Forget rising sea levels, we’re talking about 800 million EXTRA people running out of food.

Also, if you’re right and there are no alternatives to fossil fuels then we’re stuffed anyway. Peak oil by 2015, peak gas a few years later, peak coal by 2025. We’ve just GOT to learn to live without fossil fuels for SO many reasons, and anyone that says otherwise seriously needs their head read.
Posted by Eclipse Now, Tuesday, 7 July 2009 6:01:36 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
Shaz – garbage in – garbage out. If you must make guesses to win an argument, why not make educated ones?

The big bang occurred 12 – 14 billion years ago. Land plants evolved on Earth about 700 million years ago and land fungi by about 1,300 million years ago.

"The appearance on the land of fungi and plants suggests their plausible role in both the mysterious lowering of the Earth's surface temperature during the series of Snowball Earth events roughly 750 million to 580 million years ago and the sudden appearance of many new species of fossil animals during the Cambrian Explosion era roughly 530 million years ago.

"Both the lowering of the Earth's surface temperature and the evolution of many new types of animals could result from a decrease in atmospheric carbon dioxide and a rise in oxygen caused by the presence on land of evolving, lichen fungi and plants at this time."

After the big bang, temperatures were between 20,000 and 100,000 degrees centigrade which is hardly conducive to plant life or any other forms of life on earth.

The Sixth Extinction is now occurring rapidly from man's plundering of fossil fuels, forest, plant, habitat destruction and anthropogenic hazardous, chemical emissions.

“Amateur Scientists and Fanatics.” The cap fits you perfectly Shaz and ignorance is as ignorance does. By the way, did you know that some 900 tons of mercury was lost to the environment from the early mining in Bendigo? Mercury has a life of some 350 years in the oceans.

So what better place to start digesting something about environmental toxicology than your home town of Bendigo where, during a water management analysis this decade, arsenic concentrations in Lake Neanger, Tom Thumb and Lake Weeroona (historic mining areas) were found to be 2 – 4 times greater than the upper trigger level. Mercury concentrations in the sediments were greatest at Lakes Neangar and Tom Thumb.

Mercury and lead cause neurological problems. With respect, perhaps you and lead miner Plimer (recently mutated into climate freak) need to have your heads read?
Posted by Protagoras, Wednesday, 8 July 2009 12:09:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Protagoras, Wednesday, 8 July 2009 12:09:16 AM : replying to :

So you don't know where all the pollutants from that massive oxidation went , it was obviously much greater than it is today and of course we must not forget that your bigbang date is really not viable because our planet would not have cooled to current temp by the next day , that heat loss is still occurring .

The barrow your pushing demands we believe CO2 already has us cooked but apparently you can't explain where all the CO2 went ex Bigbang .

Radon Gas , my understanding is at dangerous levels is still being released from the Bendigo area ; where did this gas go ex bigbang ?

How come CO2 is not slurped up by very cold water at the poles yet there is still plenty of fish in polar regions .

I think the criticism being leveled at Pilmer is really a bit much , I have his book and I am glad I spent the 50 bucks ; what an effort I admire him and what an extent one would have to expect some mistakes .
Posted by ShazBaz001, Wednesday, 8 July 2009 4:15:44 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
Shaz,
what on earth are you rabbiting on about? What has various toxic gases around Bendigo got to do with global warming, why does fish migration disprove the basic physics behind Co2, and what do the poles have to do with the role of co2?

Can you please explain how these questions relate to each other and what your basic problem with global warming is? I'm not a scientist, but at least can comprehend the 'executive summaries' of science reports and I have not even met sceptics that raise the questions you're raising.

In the meantime Australian climatologist David Karoly reviews "Heaven and Earth" and basically says IF libraries have to buy the thing (and he recommends that they don't) they should put it under the Sci-Fi section next to Michael Krichton's "State of Fear". The only difference, there are less scientific error's in "State of Fear". I laughed out loud when I heard Karoly put it that way.

Please Shaz, download this podcast before you go BELIEVING Plimer's rubbish. It's utter, utter rubbish, and the guy is on the board of a mining company. Gee, I wonder why he's biased?

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2009/2593166.htm

Plimer made money selling his "Creationist Debunking" book, and now wants to make money "debunking" climate. If he had any REAL science to contribute he'd do it in the peer review process! But of course, he can't BECAUSE OF THE CONSPIRACY!

(Start playing X-Files theme)

Scully: They are peer reviewed scientists!

Mulder: Scully, they're all in it together, paid by govcorp to suppress the truth about aliens by creating a massive "State of Fear". It's diversion from the truth!

Scully: But dozens of institutes around the world have studied this independently. It's not like they ran ONE computer model and then all agreed to be bound by it. These are sceptical scientists, but they all independently agree!

Mulder: That's because the Aliens probed them Scully. You know what THAT means! How can you do good science with a probe stuck you know where!?
Posted by Eclipse Now, Wednesday, 8 July 2009 4:35:29 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
Eclipse Now

Most excellent post.

Loved the Scully/Mulder reference.

Cheers
Posted by Fractelle, Wednesday, 8 July 2009 4:54:07 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
Shaz

If you want to know where all the “pollutants” went to after the big bang, go ring up an astrophysicist.

Seemingly you believe the earth formed with the big bang? With my limited knowledge on this topic, I believe most of the planets did not form until 4.5 million years ago.

You don’t really believe that the universe, which formed 12-14 billion years ago, stored up all the big bang pollutants and dumped the lot on Planet Earth, do you? Planet Earth is not the only planet in the galaxy though as far as scientists can tell, it's the only planet which can sustain life – well for the timebeing!

Why you’ve raised the topic of the big bang is beyond my comprehension and what has the radon in Bendigo to do with that? Radon gas is seeping through the soil all over the planet. Watch out for those granite benchtops – ya hear? And I’d be concerned about radon’s stable progeny, lead if I were you – it doesn’t decay and plays havoc on the human brain!

So you’ve blown fifty bucks on Plimer’s book – written for the gullible and the greedy in our society. I have a paper of his: “The Cold Facts about Global Warming” published in 2006 where he said:

“The main gases emitted from volcanoes were and still are greenhouse gases H2O, CO2, and CH4 mixed with other minor gases.”

Therefore your climate guru Plimer is completely ignorant about the massive amounts of sulphur dioxide (SO2), which emits during volcanic eruptions. SO2 is responsible for acid rain and masks the impacts of global warming. Industry constantly creates acid rains, emitting sulphur particulates also from its emissions of SO2 from smelting nickel etc:

http://volcanoes.suite101.com/article.cfm/volcanoes_natural_polluters

Quiz: Did you know that scientists estimate that humans emit 150 times more CO2 than volcanoes?
Posted by Protagoras, Wednesday, 8 July 2009 8:50:11 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
"Quiz: Did you know that scientists estimate that humans emit 150 times more CO2 than volcanoes?"

But Protogoras, that's only because the aliens have PLUGGED the volcanoes with the PROBES, masking the TRUE effects of Volcanoes. They're all in it together, the climate scientists, the volcanoes, the aliens and the people who spiked my special green little cigarette thingys with radon the other day. Why, the other night there I was, marvelling at how GREEN my ciggies looked, and then I noticed that the smoke was coming off all the colours of the rainbow. And then the rainbow shifted and went all the colours of blue, or is that shades of blue? I don't know... must be global warming... oh, that's right, I don't believe in global warming except when I get the munchies. Hmmm, I could go a kebab about now... like REALLY go a kebab. Or a roast chicken. Oh-Oh, I think the blue has killed me. I'm dead. Please come quickly and save me because I'm dead because of the blue. Wow, did you know you can be really hungry when you're dead?
Posted by Eclipse Now, Wednesday, 8 July 2009 9:09:20 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'm BACK!

Today President Oboma is in L'Aquila Italy, one of the most breathtakingly beautiful spots on earth. Why? He is there to discuss the climate crisis called Climate Change. The forecast is for a partly sunny day and a full 3 degrees C. below normal, 23 years after the CO2 theory said this wouldn’t happen. Do you think as he is gazing out the pristeen hills of the L’Aquila countryside from up above on a sunlit yet cool patio bar that he will stop and reevaluate this urgency on something that is clearly as political as the WMD scam only a million times larger. A false crisis where everyone gains in power. But a 23 year old theory is unsustainable. There will be a backlash as the climate crisis fails to arrive for another two and a half decades.
Can believers and deniers at least both agree that resulting cooling disproves predicted warming? How is that not fair?
Clearly now, catalytic converter gas and plant food are not what we demonized them for almost a quarter of a century ago so lets call the emergency off and just preserve our surroundings instead of trying to save and rescue them from a non existent crisis of climate.
As George Carlin said:“There is nothing wrong with the planet, it’s the people that are wacked. You know, people, human monkeys or what amounts to moss on a boulder thinking “IT’S” in charge now, not the boulder, not the creator and not good old Mother Nature is in charge anymore. Move over bitch. We’s is gonna tax ya back to what ya used to be, like the inside of an indoor shopping mall: CONTROLLED?”
Ok maybe he didn’t say the last part.
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warming
The world's largest open forum on global warming debate.
Posted by mememine69, Wednesday, 8 July 2009 11:25:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Meme Pity for all of us.
We did not miss you - back to your spouting rubbish again.
Posted by PeterA, Thursday, 9 July 2009 8:29:27 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
The best bit about the DENIERS is that we can follow the money back to the tainted source of all corruption, ExxonMobile. Work for them do you MeMeMine?

ABC news follows the money trail.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/07/03/2615551.htm?section=justin

The world's biggest oil company, ExxonMobil, has given hundreds of thousands of dollars to groups that continue to question the cause and effects of global warming.

The Grantham Research Institute at the London School of Economics (LSE) claims ExxonMobil has reneged on a promise to end financial support to the groups.

It also claims a conference of climate change sceptics in Washington, recently attended by Australian Family First Senator Stephen Fielding, was sponsored by one of the groups that received funding from the oil giant.

A policy director at the LSE, Bob Ward, first wrote to ExxonMobil in 2006, concerned about the financial support the company provided to climate change sceptics.

Last year the world's biggest oil company told the LSE's climate change institute it would discontinue funding several public policy groups whose position on climate change could "divert attention from the important discussion on how the world will secure the energy required for economic growth in an environmentally responsible manner".

<snip>
"Now the reason I single them out is that they have been sponsors of a recent conference of so-called sceptics which took place in Washington, and that is mostly a gathering of lobbyists and other people who reject the evidence on climate change.

"Of course it was also the conference which Senator Fielding recently attended.
<snip>

........

Mr Ward says those organisations are not informing the public about climate change.

"They are trying to mislead people and frankly we have seen these sorts of tactics before, for instance in the case of the tobacco industry, who for many, many years, funded campaigns and misinformation about the adverse effects of their products," he said.

"This seems to be a similar situation in which a commercial company is funding misinformation campaigns because there is abundant evidence that their products are having an adverse effect."
Posted by Eclipse Now, Thursday, 9 July 2009 8:45:54 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
Perhaps meme has read
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2009/07/06/2617756.htm
or
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/07/09/nasa_icesat_study_ice_cap_thinned_dramatically/

And with a bit of luck has buried his head in the tar sands that he wants to pollute the earth with or does he thing he knows better than these experts?
Posted by PeterA, Friday, 10 July 2009 8:41:27 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
Eclipse Now, how much money are warming hysterics getting from governments and green lobby groups? A little more than a few hundred k I'll bet.

And would you support our government giving money to scientists who doubt AGW so that they could prove their cases? I didn't think so.

Hypocrite.
Posted by Mattofact, Friday, 10 July 2009 3:54:46 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
Mattofact, *climate institutes* all over the globe are being paid by *independent governments* and universities to investigate this phenomena. Please try to distinguish between greenie activist think tanks that might be a bit outside the norm, and the peer reviewed independent scientists. You’d have us believe that dozens and dozens of climate institutes paid by different governments and universities around the globe all got together and said, “Lets LIE to the public about this so we can keep the gravy train going”. And somehow, no independent climate think tank makes history publishing THE definitive peer reviewed paper that stands scientific scrutiny and makes the name of that institute forever.

Instead we see all the REAL scientists agreeing, and only Exxon’s scientists disagreeing. Hmmmm?

It must be confusing living in your world where spectrometry helps us develop fiber-optic cables, microwave ovens, the internet... gosh, the modern world, but suddenly doesn’t work for measuring Co2?

It must also be scary to live your world, where conspiracies of this size seem everyday occurrences. A survival guide: when the aliens probe “you know where” I hear Anusol is good for relieving the symptoms afterwards.
Posted by Eclipse Now, Friday, 10 July 2009 4:27:42 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
If you fear mongers are not willing to have the stones to march with a THE END IS NEAR sign, then at least love your planet and your fellow humans on our poor helpless 5 billion year old dead planet and debate all you like at:
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warming
the world's largest open forum on globull warm-mongering.
Posted by mememine69, Friday, 10 July 2009 8:59:57 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
The paid consultants in lab coats say the task of measuring and understanding the extraordinarily complex climate systems has made the science “clear” on the theory of global warming and it’s not what to believe but rather whom to believe. We deniers of the 23 year old theory say if the science is so clear, we all then possess the ability to interpret the facts and theories ourselves.
Here are the denier’s observed facts:
-A policy of precaution is not science, its superstition.
-Just shy of a quarter of a century of failed IPCC predictions certainly disproves the theory.
-La Nina is stronger than all of Global Warming’s magical powers.
-Melting ice does not prove CO2 is at fault?
-Our cooling clear blue sky disproves the theory.
-10 years of NOAA cooling disproves the theory.
-Resulting cooling disproves predicted warming.
Posted by mememine69, Monday, 13 July 2009 12:45:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"We deniers of the 23 year old theory say if the science is so clear, we all then possess the ability to interpret the facts and theories ourselves."

That's what ALL pushers of conspiracy theories start with to sell their books. "You're smart enough to make up your own mind."

EG: The 9/11 conspiracy myths. "Look, it's COMMON SENSE, you're smart enough. Here's a photo of the hole in the Pentagon wall. Here's a super-imposed photo to scale of a 747 including the wingspan. Why are all the windows along the front of the Pentagon still intact? See, it was a MISSILE that hit the Pentagon wall, only a MISSILE fits!"

D'uh! First assumption was wrong. The average citizen is NOT fully informed about the physics of an aeroplane crash, and how the wings fold backwards when impacting a concrete building because the first real point of resistance in the plane is back between where the wing struts join the main body of the plane.

The average citizen is not briefed on atmospheric physics, the strength of various forcings and how we know them, and the study of vastly old geological climate.

You are DEFINITELY NOT smart enough to deal with this MeMe, and are actually just sounding like another attention seeking little 14 year old kid unable to process new data and arguments.

When you can explain why the candle warmth did not get through the tube of Co2 I'll be interested. Until then, (yaaaaawwwwwwwwnssss), away with you.
Posted by Eclipse Now, Monday, 13 July 2009 8:31:43 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
Also MeMe, my sad little chap, just repeating your ridiculous little mantra of silly assertions when they've been comprehensively debunked time and again just reveals what a petty little troll-boy you are. They've been answered time and again, and you just IGNORE what the peer-reviewed science says in each case, NEVER explain why you ignore them, "rinse and repeat". Boring. (yawns).

Now attempt to explain (obviously from your conspiracy theory worldview) why all the following organisations concur WITH global warming instead of against it? (How was the alien probe? Anusol helps.)

The world's most prestigious scientific organizations all agree.
European Academy of Sciences and Arts,
InterAcademy Council,
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
Joint science academies' statements
Network of African Science Academies
Royal Society of New Zealand
Polish Academy of Sciences
American Association for the Advancement of Science
European Science Foundation
National Research Council (US)
American Society for Microbiology
Australian Coral Reef Society
Institute of Biology (UK)
Society of American Foresters
The Wildlife Society (international)
American Geophysical Union
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
Geological Society of America
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
American Medical Association
Australian Medical Association
European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control
World Federation of Public Health Associations
World Health Organization
American Meteorological Society
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
World Meteorological Organization
American Quaternary Association
International Union for Quaternary Research
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American Institute of Physics
American Physical Society
American Statistical Association
Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)
Posted by Eclipse Now, Monday, 13 July 2009 8:40:13 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
Eclipse Now,

You make a little too much of "the candle warmth did not get through the tube of Co2" in that video clip you have linked to.

What the clip clearly shows is the CO2 blocks a certain range of radiation. In short.. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

However the clip also demonstrates that once the radiation is blocked, more CO2 isn't going to make any significant difference, since there is no more radiation in that band to block. I've not found a clear answer on it, but it appears atmospheric CO2 levels are already at that level.

Coupled with the fact that CO2 is orders of magnitude less powerful that H2O in the form of water vapour, which atmospheric effects are poorly understood, and I am left completely unimpressed with basis for linking CO2 levels with massive climate effects.

That said, CO2 levels now appear to be higher than they have been in about 20,000,000 years (since long before the first Homo Erectus) and that is alarming. Whilst I remain unconvinced that higher CO2 levels will produce very significant climate effects, I, and other climate skeptics have to concede that altering the composition of our atmosphere in ways that take it outside previous human experience may have unexpected outcomes.

In short, the poor understanding that scientists presently have of how our atmosphere works, should also make us concerned about the unpredictable effects on us of unprecedented (in human terms) CO2 levels.

In any event, quite apart from any irrational fear of CO2, there are actually very sensible geopolitical grounds for shifting away from our endless reliance on fossil fuels.

Q&A, if you are still there, could you please answer my previous questions?
Posted by Kalin1, Monday, 13 July 2009 6:43:30 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
Kalin you’re a breath of fresh air! At last! An intelligent question by someone actually discussing the subject, not being a troll.

As someone more scientifically informed than me said:

[quote]Thy system is nonlinear. The CO2 forcing is logarithmic (at least at the current concentrations) and blackbody radiation varies as T^4. So linearly increasing concentrations represent a diminishing increase in forcing, and rising temperatures radiate proportionally more energy.

So one problem here is that the values are presented on a graph with a linear scale, when the effects are not linear. A change from 200 ppm to 1000 ppm of CO2 is going to have the same effect on forcing as the increase from 1000 ppm to 5000 ppm. An ideal blackbody at 295K radiates almost 15% more energy than one at 285 K, even though that's only a 3.5% increase in temperature.[/quote]

I hardly understand it, but get the gist that little increases now matter more than big increases later on.

“In any event, quite apart from any irrational fear of CO2, there are actually very sensible geopolitical grounds for shifting away from our endless reliance on fossil fuels.”
Absolutely! You are one of the sanest sounding skeptics I’ve met in a while. It’s not “just” the ENORMOUS threat from global warming, but our own economic energy security that is at stake (especially as peak fossil fuels hits). We buy oil and fund people that don’t like us very much.

Peak oil is also urgent and scary.
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=9149

We MUST Rezone our cities, build rail (trains, trams and trolley buses), renewables, replenish the soil with sewerage (closed loop agriculture), and relocalize much of what we do, and fast.

There is hope, but only if we act, NOW! Having personally briefed some of our politicians on this, I don't have much hope of us acting until it's too late.
Posted by Eclipse Now, Tuesday, 14 July 2009 9:47:31 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
Eclipse Now,

Thanks for the kind words. However, it's still game on as far as arguing about climate change.

A few points:

1. No-one should judge the merits of an argument by the apparent 'madness' of its most ardent proponents. There are mad advocates on both sides of this argument. Mem, may not be the most reasonable advocate for the 'nay' position, but the name calling indulged in retaliation, just makes you look as unreasonable.

2. To assert a long list of scientific authorities, who "concur WITH global warming" is meaningless. What exactly are they concurring with?

All you really have is a concurrence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that greenhouse gases have a warming effect. This is qualitative agreement, but in view of the marginal role of CO2 as a greenhouse gas v H2O (H2O in the form of vapour/clouds is about 20 times more significant as a greenhouse gas - see http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html), the real question is quantitative - how much difference will CO2 make? Your list of scientific organisations who concur on that question will be very short indeed.

3. It is a mathematical reality that knowing that one, very minor variable has a positive effect in complex system, is of little value in predicting the final outcome. An analogy: everyone might agree that having a favourable wind is an advantage in a football game, but, being just one minor variable, no one would sensibly rely on it to predict the outcome of the game (particularly without knowing its strength).

For the same reason, knowing that CO2 makes us warmer, does not of itself meaningfully assist us in predicting what the temperature will be in a hundred years, unless we have a good handle on how other variables, particularly H2O are going to behave. Clearly, at this point, the complex greenhouse role of H2O is not well understood (clouds can, I have read, have a cooling effect and in that sense behave quite differently to greenhouse gases).
Posted by Kalin1, Tuesday, 14 July 2009 3:31:50 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
Kalin1

The effects of water vapour are clearly understood and water vapour is a big player in the atmosphere as far as climate is concerned.

In fact the heat-amplifying effect of water vapour in the atmosphere could more than double the climate warming caused by increased carbon dioxide levels.

NASA, Andrew Dessler and colleagues from Texas A&M University in College Station US calculated the heat-trapping capacity of water vapour during 2008.

"Everyone agrees that if you add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, then warming will result," Dessler said. "So the real question is, how much warming?"

”NASA says the impact can be determined by estimating the magnitude of water vapor feedback:

“Increasing water vapor leads to warmer temperatures, which causes more water vapor to be absorbed into the air. Warming and water absorption increase in a spiraling cycle.

”Water vapor feedback amplifies the warming effect of other greenhouse gases, such that the warming brought about by increased carbon dioxide allows more water vapor to enter the atmosphere.

“The difference in an atmosphere with a strong water vapor feedback and one with a weak feedback is enormous," Dessler said. "This new data set shows that as surface temperature increases, so does atmospheric humidity. Dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere makes the atmosphere more humid. And since water vapor is itself a greenhouse gas, the increase in humidity amplifies the warming from carbon dioxide."

"We now think the water vapor feedback is extraordinarily strong, capable of doubling the warming due to carbon dioxide alone."

Unfortunately those in denial refuse to acknowledge that all things are bound together – all things connect.
Posted by Protagoras, Tuesday, 14 July 2009 8:15:13 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
Protagoras,

Sorry but you haven't done your homework. H2O the gas may be a greenhouse gas and therefore a contributor to warmth, but the main effect of H2O is via the clouds and convection effects which are NOT well understood.

Water is liquid up to 100C but is volatile which gives it the useful cooling property that even below 100C the odd molecule can pick up energy from the surface of the planet and then behave like a warm gas and rise on a convection current, carrying that energy (i.e. heat) way from the surface before condensing into clouds and ultimately rain. Some types of clouds tend to reflect more incoming solar radiation than others, to the point that they actually have a cooling effect. Others trap heat beneath them.

See http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/3__Sun_and_clouds/-_Clouds_and_climate_ti.html

Some clouds have a net heating effect and some a cooling effect. The history of the planet, and in particular the absence of any previous 'runaway greenhouse effect', despite warmer climates and much higher CO2 levels than are conceivable today, give us reason to believe that there are strong negative feedback loops that will mitigate any warming or cooling effects, keeping temperatures within a fairly narrow range. Good old H2O is the obvious candidate.

Suggest you do some reading about this.
Posted by Kalin1, Wednesday, 15 July 2009 12:53:21 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 Kalin,
glad again that you're accepting the subtleties in this, where many sceptics just volunteer that "warmer weather = more clouds = more rain = more crops, so lets warm the planet!"

I do think there are probably cloud related limits to warming and also life cycle events that can also suck Co2 back out of the atmosphere and cool the planet. Climatologists appear to still be modelling the effects of clouds, and according to what I've read from Tim Flannery and seen on Catalyst there appears to still be ongoing debate about the amount of safety net or range in temperature growth due to negative cloud forcings or positive.

But it's like we're facing Dirty Harry and the climate is asking, "Do you feel lucky, Punk?"

The trends are up, and previous geological eras were hotter than today, and experienced dieoffs as a result! See studies linked to under:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELE#Sustained_and_significant_global_warming

For a brilliant half hour on the biological safety nets planet earth may have for preventing a Venus like runaway greenhouse event, see part 3 of "Crude" by the ABC science unit. However, as they suggest there are some NASTY side-effects of letting Co2 levels get that high and while it might be a safety valve that prevents Earth turning into Venus, Crude suggests that the safety value is no where near "safe enough" to save our civilisation and let us be ambivalent about Co2 levels.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/crude/

Again, water appears to "mostly" be a neutral forcing within the climate variation we are worried about. We *are* raising Co2 levels which will accentuate water's role. Water acting as a higher order safety valve preventing Venus is one thing. But will it prevent massive crop failure and an increase in failed states in our current civilisation? So far the literature is not clear, and does not appear to let us relax about Co2, or we'd KNOW about it!

(All those agencies I listed agree that man-made global warming being DANGEROUS!)
Posted by Eclipse Now, Wednesday, 15 July 2009 9:43:41 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
After watching Prof Plimer on A-PAC Mon 13/7 I found this forum and have read many posts with great interest. I like Kalin's analogy of the effect of wind on the outcome of a football game. It seems everyone is missing the most important and telling point made by Plimer - that climate warming / cooling is not driven by one or two factors. The whole system needs to be considered. Lets stop drawing simple correlations between temperature and one or two greenhouse gases and, if we really feel that we need to, start considering at the whole package including solar activity, ocean warming / cooling ....and the list goes on and on. Does Man really think he can influence the balance of such a complex system? History, and (importantly) science has already proven that even after the 5 or 6 events causing mass extinctions (read quick, massive climate change), the 'natural' balance will be restored over time. No matter what we do, we are merely ants scratching an itch on an elephant's backside.
Posted by riffmaninoz, Wednesday, 15 July 2009 2:51:06 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
CO2 in the venus atmosphere is about 96% by volume. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/Solar/venusenv.html

CO2 in the Earth atmosphere is about 0.04% by volume. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_the_Earth%27s_atmosphere

You might think this means there's only 2400 times as much CO2 on Venus as on Earth. But the figure is actually much higher because the atmosphere of venus is Much denser. Also , there is very little H2O in the venetian atmosphere. In short venus is useless for comparison purposes. It is grossly misleading to insinuate that 'runaway global warming' could turn our atmosphere into that of venus. All the known fossil fuels reserves, if consumed tomorrow, would still leave CO2 as trace gas, albiet at much higher levels than today.

As for all those bodies agreeing that global warming is DANGEROUS, I presume by 'dangerous' they broadly mean global warming is likely to cause large scale disruptions to our social and economic systems with inevitable loss of life through famine, and geographical displacement, etc.

I expect you will accept that these same organisations must also agree that global cooling would also be as 'dangerous' for much the same reasons.

It follows then that the only 'safe' way forward is to keep the worlds climate in equilibrium.

Consider then, that most of the time, the planet is MUCH cooler than present. Absent the current fear of man made global warming, scientists would (as they were 30 or 40 years ago) worry about very significant cooling (based on geological history, likely to be as much 10C - http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4116/666/1600/IceCores1.gif), which is also certain to be extremely 'dangerous' and which would appear to be due relatively soon.

Clearly, the ice core records shows that climate fluctuates quite regularly and rapidly, even without our efforts to mess it up. Unfortunately, with our present or forseeable technology, we have no prospect of maintaining such a complex and huge system in a 'safe' happy equilibrium. Climate change is inevitable, as are the 'dangerous' consequences. We will just have to deal with them and it would be wiser to harness our resources to that end.
Posted by Kalin1, Wednesday, 15 July 2009 5:19:39 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
Kalin1

I suggest that you do more research on clouds in the future rather than provide us with a tired old paper published in 2003.

I prefer to glean my more up-to-date information from reputable scientists (attached to reputable climate institutes) who are sufficiently ethical to publish their corrections. While research results continue to vary, increased research and more sophisticated methods of analyses and modelling are drawing us closer to understanding the impacts that cloud compositions have on climate change.

I have concluded that you know little about anthropogenic particulates, soot and sulphate aerosols and their impacts on cloud formations and subsequently, the domino effect. I do not reiterate the “all things are bound together” from some esoteric philosophical whim.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/koch_04/

Large concentrations of human-made aerosols decrease and increase rainfall as a result of their radiative and CCN activities. At one extreme, pristine tropical clouds with low CCN concentrations rain out too quickly to mature into long-lived clouds. On the other hand, heavily polluted clouds evaporate much of their water before precipitation can occur, if they can form at all given the reduced surface heating resulting from the aerosol haze layer.

I am reminded of the Asian brown “cloud” which is 10 million square kilometres wide and three kilometres thick, a fluctuating haze of man-made pollutants now spreading across the whole Asian continent and blocking out a significant proportion of the sunlight. This brown "cloud" also affects Australia's climate.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/11/13/brown-clouds.html

Your allusion to “higher” CO2 levels in the past is also vacuous since scientists have estimated that current CO2 levels are the highest in at least 650,000 years. Humans were not around 650,000 years ago, however, seemingly you have no interest in past extinctions either where scientists (not least, the respected palaeontologist, Dewey McLean)have provided a convincing hypothesis that carbon dioxide played a significant role in past extinctions.

“Those who ignore the past are bound to repeat it.”

Riffmaninoz – Did you know that renowned geophysicist and palaeontologist, David Jablonski, estimated that the recoveries of the “natural balance,” after previous extinctions, were between 5 and 10 million years?
Posted by Protagoras, Wednesday, 15 July 2009 6:48:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nice post Protagoras! Your mentioning the CCN reminded me of this video. I love TED!
http://www.ted.com/talks/willie_smits_restores_a_rainforest.html

Just to prove I'm not a total doomer, PLEASE watch this 20 minute video as it is very inspiring and is one of my favourite things on the net right now. He builds a complete rain-forest ecology, a complete local economy, AND changes the local climate by the trees giving off chemicals that demonstrably increase rainfall.

Kalin you’ve fallen for climate myth number 4, "But they predicted an ice age in the 70's.”

First point: so what if they did? Real science changes and evolves with new data, but dogma doesn’t. Climate sceptics keep trotting out the same old dogma while climate science evolves. Go figure.

Second point: That's Monkton's strawman through and through and it's a pile of garbage. A few climatologists may have mentioned it, and then the media went nuts with it. There was no climatologist CONSENSUS though!

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11643-climate-myths-they-predicted-global-cooling-in-the-1970s.html

On Venus: I do understand Venus is VERY different to the earth. It's atmosphere is 96 times Earth's, and is mostly carbon dioxide. But read this next argument slowly and carefully!

"generates the strongest greenhouse effect in the solar system, creating surface temperatures of over 460 °C (860 °F).[28] This makes Venus's surface hotter than Mercury's which has a minimum surface temperature of -220 °C and maximum surface temperature of 420 °C, even though Venus is nearly twice Mercury's distance from the Sun and receives only 25% of Mercury's solar irradiance."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus#Atmosphere_and_climate

So much for the sun being the main driver of climate. If any planet was meant to have a "greenhouse effect" based on the sun, you'd think it was Mercury!

(Also against the sun driving climate on earth is the fact that temperatures are increasing more during the winter and night, not summer and day).
Posted by Eclipse Now, Wednesday, 15 July 2009 9:17:33 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
All of this talk of climate crisis is so true indeed!
There is no hope and it's so sad. When I look out the window and see this blue sky I think how toxic it really is. Soon we will all be wearing masks and carry air tanks and soon our water will be non drinkable from all of the human chemicals that are making our planet we created a complete garbage dump and with the bio engineered plants taking over and windmills interrupting the natural air flows our planet, we will spin out of orbit and be taken up by the sun to be eaten up by another galaxy at some point soon in the future, maybe, probably for sure. There is no hope. Why go on? All pollution stays in the air for ever and ever and ever.
Some day, our poor helpless 5 billion year old planet will be like it used to be, like the inside of an indoor shopping mall, all nice and perfect and controlled not at all like it used to be in the smoggy 70's when a river caught fire in Ohio USA. The reason we are living longer now than at any time in history is because the evil EXXON execs are setting us up for birth defects that will leave us as an extinct species on a dead planet. There is no hope.
Why did we do this to our poor little planet? If we give our trusted politicians more tax money they will do what they promised to do: to lower the temperature of the planet earth by reducing natures building block of life; CO2 (catalytic converter gas and plant food).
There is no hope.
But it sure is fun getting all worried about something with other people because it brings meaning to my failed and miserable life.
-Diary of a Glowbull Whiner's Insanity Log
Posted by mememine69, Wednesday, 15 July 2009 9:45:54 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
Protag/Eclipse,

Sorry about my 'tired old' link re clouds - it was just the first link that I found that dealt with the issue. Am happy to consider other sources, whether they agree or not.. just as long as they deal with it in sensible way. Your link to the Nasa site was interesting, but since it didn't actually deal with the effects of clouds (beyond dealing with the effects that aerosols and particulates may have on their formation), I can't see how it discounts my assertion that the operation of clouds is not well understood. Indeed this recently identified and very significant effect of aerosols is really an example of how our understanding of the atmosphere is still evolving (i.e. incomplete).

Protag wrote: "Your allusion to “higher” CO2 levels in the past is also vacuous since scientists have estimated that current CO2 levels are the highest in at least 650,000 years. Humans were not around 650,000 years ago, however, seemingly you have no interest in past extinctions..."

Whilst homo sapiens have not been around for 650,000 years, our hominid ancesters have been around for considerably longer than that. In any event, that does not make my "allusion to higher CO2 levels vacuous. My point was that there was no runaway greenhouse gas effect despite higher CO2 levels. I am aware of no widely accepted theory that explains why increased CO2 levels today will cause a runaway effect, but did not during previous periods of high CO2. The question of past extinctions caused by climate change or CO2 concentrations is not relevant to the runaway greenhouse effect issue (though I will try to read up on Dewey McLean's hypothesis when I get a chance).
Posted by Kalin1, Thursday, 16 July 2009 6:46:11 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
Eclipse wrote: "you’ve fallen for climate myth number 4, "But they predicted an ice age in the 70's.”"

Sorry, but you seem to be using the straw man argument against me. I accept that there was no consensus back in the 70s that global cooling was imminent in any immediate sense, however, the Vostok ice core indisputably shows a strong pattern of long glacial periods and short interglacials (just as it shows fluctuations in CO2 levels). Absent human activity there doesn't seem to be any reason that cyclical pattern would not continue. We are some 10 or so thousand years into an interglacial and that's about how long they last (give or take a few thousand years). QED - the end of the current interglacial is due 'about now.'

Yes, there are hypothesis that the current interglacial will last much longer, but these are mere hypothesis and not widely accepted. Far from being a myth, it cannot reasonably be denied that natural dramatic global warming and cooling occur periodically. Are you seriously suggesting that if all these man made greenhouse gas emissions did not occur or were reversed, that there would be no reason to expect dramatic cooling?

Could you give me a link for your statement "temperatures are increasing more during the winter and night, not summer and day" as I'd be interested to read about this.

As for now comparing venus and mercury, it is pointless. Mercury has virtually no atmosphere, and hardly rotates so the side away from the sun is inevitably frigid. No meaningful conclusions can be reached by comparing planets that are so different.
Posted by Kalin1, Thursday, 16 July 2009 6:48:21 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
MeMeMine, Turn off the computer, there's a good boy. Now run outside and play.

Kalin,

"I am aware of no widely accepted theory that explains why increased CO2 levels today will cause a runaway effect, but did not during previous periods of high CO2."
it all depends on which "higher Co2 levels" you are talking about. Previous higher Co2 levels were catastrophic for life on earth!

1. It DID cause disasters... dead oceans, massive ecosystem dieoffs, all sorts of horrors! See studies footnoted at this link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELE#Sustained_and_significant_global_warming

2. The human species was not around in a global agricultural civilisation of 6.5 billion back then. A few proto-humans wandering through Africa may have been stressed by these events, but we're talking about trying to prevent failed states, famine, and war in a time of resource depletion, overpopulation, and climate changing in unpredicable ways. Forget the term "global warming" and try and think of the extra energy in the system as causing "global weirding".

3. Watch Crude, the Incredible Story of Oil by the ABC Science unit.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/crude/

Part 3 deals with the true horrors of higher Co2 levels in the past, and some of the HORRIFIC things we can expect if climate runs away as it has in the past.

RE: ice ages. Do you know WHY they cycle?

Re mercury, BINGO! Yes it has no atmosphere, which is the point. The side that stays closer to the sun for longer periods of time AND receives 4 times the sunlight still doesn't get as hot as Venus. Why?

Re: sun heating at night.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2007/1974497.htm

Bottom line, all those science organisations can test Co2, measure atmospheric concentrations, and study the other forcings (sun, particulates, volcanoes, water vapour) etc for themselves, and they ALL agree? Why?
Posted by Eclipse Now, Thursday, 16 July 2009 7:07:41 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
Kalin1 – Why aren’t previous high CO2 emissions relevant? If you bring yourself up to date on palaeontology, you will find that the researchers’ hypotheses refer very strongly to runaway greenhouse effects – hence the extinctions.

And since man-made emissions of CO2 are a hundred and fifty times in excess of volcanic emissions, due to the burning of fossil fuels, which produce water vapour, carbon dioxide and a myriad of other lethal hydrocarbons and volatile organic compounds, which burn to CO2, let’s trust that we don’t incur any catastrophic volcanic eruptions to add to the environmental carnage we are committing.

In regard to our hominid ancestors – yes the oldest one (Old Man of Chad) is estimated to have been on earth some 7 million years ago.

So why did they vanish? The two major extinctions of hominids were the "robust australopithicenes" (Paranthropus) and the early members of the genus Homo, H. erectus and H. neanderthalis.

Since you appear obsessed with clouds, for reasons unknown, why not google NASA who has additional information? I really don’t have the time to be searching for articles from my very large catalogue when you can do it for yourself.

A three-day conference in Copenhagen, during March saw nearly 2,000 researchers gathered to discuss climate change. Excerpts from the report released soon after stated that:

“Temperatures, sea levels, acid levels in oceans and ice sheets were already moving "beyond the patterns of natural variability within which our society and economy have developed and thrived.

“The world is facing an increasing risk of irreversible climate shifts because worst-case scenarios warned of two years ago are being realized.

"The current climate situation on the planet may be as severe as the worst-case scenarios predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which issued warnings in 2007 of a future beset by flooding, drought, storms and mass extinction of species.”

And to my knowledge not one objection to the report from the 2,000 researchers. So what exactly is your argument Kalin1?

Thanks for the links Eclipse. I shall endeavour to read them shortly.
Posted by Protagoras, Thursday, 16 July 2009 10:02:17 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
Are you lot still at it?

Kalin1, your head is in the clouds (joke) ... this one's for you:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/07/08/vapor-lock/#more-1719

Plimer wouldn't have a clue what Andy Dessler is on about.
Posted by Q&A, Thursday, 16 July 2009 11:31:40 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
The GloBULL Warming Theory is officially now a 23 year old liberal WMD scam misleading the country to war under false pretenses. Calling a country to battle against a counterfeit enemy is treason and we pray the courts will condemn these politicians and scientists to the severest of punishment they disserve
Posted by mememine69, Saturday, 18 July 2009 10:30:44 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
Hmmm

That sounds like a conspiracy to commit treason.
Posted by Q&A, Sunday, 19 July 2009 12:03:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The toxic Meme suffers verbal diarrohea. He's just talked my glass eye to sleep! Snore..........snore........!
Posted by Protagoras, Sunday, 19 July 2009 12:15:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The climate change skeptics keep attacking the messenger.

If they believe that the IPCC has it wrong why are they not trying to change the way that body functions and reports.

I still have not seen any peer reviewed published document to refute climate change.
Posted by PeterA, Sunday, 19 July 2009 10:18:39 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 still have not seen any peer reviewed published document to refute climate change. >>

Me either, PeterA; a plethora of scientific reviewed publications explaining the correlation between pollution and climate change is available from established science journals and while there is dispute among scientists as to the level of impact on the planet's environment, there is not a single peer reviewed publication that offers any evidence that human pollution has zero effect. A lot of hysteria (from a notably non-scientific chorus), but no evidence.

Nor is there any justification provided to continue to exploit and excrete fossil fuels till absolute depletion.
Posted by Fractelle, Sunday, 19 July 2009 11:41:44 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
Exactly! There's no ECONOMIC reason to do so either. If you count the health costs of mining coal and the TRUE subsidies to fossil fuels, renewables may just come out on top!

"GOVERNMENT subsidies to some of Australia's electricity generation companies are so big they exceed the profits made by those companies, a report on energy and transport subsidies says.

*Government support for the coal industry and coal-fired electricity is so generous that in some cases it has led to the construction of coal-fired power plants when other types of electricity generation would have been cheaper, the report by the Institute for Sustainable Futures at the University of Technology Sydney has found.*

Subsidies to fossil fuel energies, worth close to $10 billion, result in a serious market distortion, create an unfair disadvantage to renewable energy, and help increase greenhouse gas pollution, says the report, written by the institute's research principal, Chris Riedy, and commissioned by Greenpeace.

The report identified energy and transport subsidies in Australia during 2005-06 of between $9.3 billion and $10.1 billion. More than 96 per cent of that money flowed to fossil fuel production and consumption, with the remainder going to renewable energy and energy efficiency. "
http://www.isf.uts.edu.au/whatsnew/ISFsubsidiesreport2007.pdf
(UTS study, sadly PDF link is now broken).
Posted by Eclipse Now, Sunday, 19 July 2009 1:04:09 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
Dear IPCC,

I can't motivate my kids anymore concerning environmentalism as long as this ageing climate crisis fear is still around. 23 years later, those very same kids of mine, I've been environmentally motivating, are teasing me now about how silly the theory was. This CO2 theory is not sustainable for another 23 years. You people are just too committed to go back now so as a lifelong environmentalist I hereby denounce 100% of the CO2 warming theory. I beg you to do the same.

At least have the honesty to say something like your usual: “Recent climate data has provided challenges that require more research into understanding the complexity of the mix of earth’s contributing factors in Climate Change”.

Just back off of this theory so we can all work together to preserve, not rescue and save and fear all of the time.

Legally, you could all face serious charges for leading the countries of the world to war against an invisible and now non-existent enemy.

It’s your history, you made it. But as long as you insist on leading environmentalism down the wrong road, I will continue to campaign against this failed theory to as many tail-wagers in the media and the politicians who of course will be blaming you, not themselves. You people at the UN chose to play politics instead of science and the real politicians will be eventually be giving all of you some cruel reminders of that tragic mistake.

History will not be kind to any of you modern day witch burners. Good luck.

Kindest Regards,
Posted by mememine69, Monday, 20 July 2009 4:00:17 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
23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 23 years

So there!
Posted by Eclipse Now, Monday, 20 July 2009 11:09:23 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
Psst ... Eclipse.

Don't tell whats-his-meme, but the theory has been around since the latter half of the 1800's. Some wing-bat by the name of Svante Arrhenius gave it to us.

Oh yeah, I think the IPCC donuts are just messengers too, they don't do the science - 1000's of others at the 'coal face' (pun intended) do it.
Posted by Q&A, Monday, 20 July 2009 11:26:01 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
"CO2 is not a pollutant. In simple terms, CO2 is plant food. The green world we see around us would disappear if not for atmospheric CO2. These plants largely evolved at a time when the atmospheric CO2 concentration was many times what it is today. Indeed, numerous studies indicate the present biosphere is being invigorated by the human-induced rise of CO2. In and of itself, therefore, the increasing concentration of CO2 does not pose a toxic risk to the planet." - John R. Christy, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Alabama

"Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but a naturally occurring, beneficial trace gas in the atmosphere. For the past few million years, the Earth has existed in a state of relative carbon dioxide starvation compared with earlier periods. There is no empirical evidence that levels double or even triple those of today will be harmful, climatically or otherwise. As a vital element in plant photosynthesis, carbon dioxide is the basis of the planetary food chain - literally the staff of life. Its increase in the atmosphere leads mainly to the greening of the planet. To label carbon dioxide a "pollutant" is an abuse of language, logic and science." - Robert M. Carter, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental and Earth Sciences, James Cook University

"Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. On the contrary, it makes crops and forests grow faster. Economic analysis has demonstrated that more CO2 and a warmer climate will raise GNP and therefore average income. It's axiomatic that bureaucracies always want to expand their scope of operations. This is especially true of EPA, which is primarily a regulatory agency. As air and water pollution disappear as prime issues, as acid rain and stratospheric-ozone depletion fade from public view, climate change seems like the best growth area for regulators. Therefore, labeling carbon dioxide, the product of fossil-fuel burning, as a pollutant has a high priority for EPA as a first step in that direction." - S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia
Posted by mememine69, Monday, 20 July 2009 8:49:27 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
Ah yes,

Christy, Carter and Singer - pin-up boys of the Heartland Institute.

Now I understand.
Posted by Q&A, Monday, 20 July 2009 10:16:55 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
Water isn't a pollutant, it lubricates our blood, carries nutrients through our bodies, cleanses us, washes our dishes, and waters our plants. But if you're held underwater for a few minutes you die.

Rocks aren't a pollutant, they sit on mountains and pave our streets. But drop one off a bridge into an oncoming truck's windscreen at 110km / hour and that truck driver might die!

MeMeMine, you still haven't answered my questions about Co2.

If I put an infra-red heat sensing camera on one end of a glass tube, and I put a candle on the other end, the camera easily picks up the thermal energy of the candle. But if I fill that glass tube with Co2, the candle "goes out" on the camera, even though it is still visible through the tube of Co2. WHY?

How do we know what ANY molecule does with ANY wavelength of energy? What is the BASIC science that explains molecules and energy? What is the instrument? or don't you have a clue, as in a single friggin clue?

Hint: try
http://www.te-software.co.nz/blog/auer_files/image001.gif

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

Not that I expect you to even click on either of these or look at them in any detail. You're a troll-boy aren't you?

Please thrill us with another post all about 23 years, even though Tim Flannery (and Q&A) kindly inform us that scientists became aware of Co2's role in our climate over a hundred years ago.

But click your ruby slippers together and say after me "23 years, 23 years, 23 years..."
Posted by Eclipse Now, Monday, 20 July 2009 11:02:42 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
C'mon guys/gals, stop ganging up on poor Mem.

Q&A, you never answered my list of questions from 2 or so weeks ago. Any chance now that your back?

Eclipse,

Proving over and over again that CO2 is a greenhouse gas is not the issue. The question is how much difference it will make, and that isn't something scientists agree on.

I watched ABC's Crude - thanks for the link. An interesting show and I can see why you are alarmed, if you accept the doomsday scenarios, but I sure got the sense this was cutting edge hypothesis. I'd like to read more about the causes, in pre-history, of anoxic ocean conditions. The hypothesis presented seemed a little speculative to have too much faith in.

I'll keep an open mind, but I'd like to hear more about the basis for that hypothesis. Any suggested further reading?
Posted by Kalin1, Tuesday, 21 July 2009 12:37:08 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
Kalin, do you mean the questions here?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8988#143621

If so, I apologise for my tardiness, I was a little peed-off by some of the comments in this thread.
Posted by Q&A, Tuesday, 21 July 2009 12:44:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Here it is boys and girls. Over ten years of cooling in the USA.

Go to: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html

-and just change the “first year to display” as 1997

So from 2009 to 1997 it shows:
January 1901 - 2000 Average = 30.81 degF
January 1997 - 2009 Trend = -0.85 degF / Decade

From 1998 to now it shows:
January 1901 - 2000 Average = 30.81 degF
January 1998 - 2009 Trend = -2.32 degF / Decade

From 1999 to now it shows:
January 1901 - 2000 Average = 30.81 degF
January 1999 - 2009 Trend = -1.85 degF / Decade

From 2000 to now it shows:
January 1901 - 2000 Average = 30.81 degF
January 2000 - 2009 Trend = -1.73 degF / Decade

From 2001 to now it shows:
January 1901 - 2000 Average = 30.81 degF
January 2001 - 2009 Trend = -1.51 degF / Decade

From 2002 to now it shows:
January 1901 - 2000 Average = 30.81 degF
January 2002 - 2009 Trend = -3.57 degF / Decade

From 2003 to now it shows:
January 1901 - 2000 Average = 30.81 degF
January 2003 - 2009 Trend = -2.61 degF / Decade

From 2004 to now it shows:
January 1901 - 2000 Average = 30.81 degF
January 2004 - 2009 Trend = -3.79 degF / Decade

From 2005 to now it shows:
January 1901 - 2000 Average = 30.81 degF
January 2005 - 2009 Trend = -13.63 degF / Decade

From 2006 to now it shows:
January 1901 - 2000 Average = 30.81 degF
January 2006 - 2009 Trend = -26.24 degF / Decade

From 2007 to now it shows:
January 1901 - 2000 Average = 30.81 degF
January 2007 - 2009 Trend = -2.05 degF / Decade

From 2008 to now it shows: It doesn’t have to show because everyone knows it’s colder this past winter, spring and half of the summer.
Posted by mememine69, Tuesday, 21 July 2009 1:09:57 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
Hi Kalin,
Poor MeMemine? He’s a troll!

But I'm impressed that you watched Crude, definitely a non-troll act. Did you watch Parts 1 and 2 as well? Part 2 was great. Saudi Arabia's former head of exploration Husseini warns that the whole western world kept projecting further increases in oil supply and vastly over estimating how much oil there was. The fact that the former head of S.A.'s oil exploration says "There's not as much as you think" *should* have been international front page news.

There simply is no international oil-cop that runs around with a giant dip-stick verifying how much oil is on the books of each OPEC country. The IEA relies on SA’s books, but is not allowed in to verify those books and there was some very disturbing sudden jumps in OPEC’s “paper-barrels” in the late 80’s when production was tied to reserves. So countries that wanted to produce as much as they currently were *had* to increase their oil reserves, whether it was there or not!

The fact that there is no bipartisan oil-cop scares me. The entire western world has pretty much peaked, and with our ever decreasing oil production we rely more and more on countries that treat their oil reserves as State secrets. They won’t let us in to audit their reserves, their only main product in some nations, and yet just look us in the eye and say “Trust me”. Watch 4 Corners for more. This is all the more reason to be on a ‘war-footing’ weaning ourselves off oil.
http://abc.net.au/4corners/special_eds/20060710/

This link was very interesting about the history of ancient earth’s atmosphere, anoxic oceans and the impacts on the evolution of more complex life.
http://nai.nasa.gov/news_stories/news_detail.cfm?ID=280

I personally wonder whether the continental distribution makes today’s world as prone to jump to that higher greenhouse condition. Remember the “Crude” scenario had shallower oceans, but is not the only global warming dieoff scenario. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event#Sustained_and_significant_global_warming
Posted by Eclipse Now, Tuesday, 21 July 2009 1:19:08 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
"Here it is boys and girls. Over ten years of cooling in the USA."

USA eh meme? How parochial but then you've tried to pull that swifty before haven't you?

What's that old adage meme? "Cunning as a sh*#*house rat?!!"
Posted by Protagoras, Tuesday, 21 July 2009 4:18:47 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
Kalin

I'm still not sure which question/s you were referring to. Does this comment to fungo help?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9115#145614

I've been trying to go back over our comments history ... I'm getting lost.
Posted by Q&A, Wednesday, 22 July 2009 12:26:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Q&A,

Yes, those 4 questions.

Eclipse,

I watched the 4 corners peak oil program. I am aware of the peak oil issue, but this is primarily an economic issue. What I'm interested in is the anoxic ocean CO2 threshold hypothesis described in the Crude series. Have to say that my modest web searches revealed virtuallly nothing to back it up. The Nasa link you provided discussed the apparent anoxic oceans of a couple of billion years ago and the role they played in stalling multicelled life, but did not mention any hypothesis along the lines of the doomsday Crude predictions. Leaves me annoyed at yet another alarmist and sensationalist program, which, as presented by the ABC, is misleading.

Mem's euphoria over recent cooling trends in the US is plainly unwarranted given the relatively high levels of recent tempeartures as indicated in Mem's data set, however, the recent trend is still modest evidence that the present trend is cooling.

Yes, you all get stuck into Mem for referring to US data, but until the advent of satelite data (whic I think began in the 70s, very little reliable data is available outside the western world. In other words, most of the last hundred years of global temperatures that are used to 'prove' warming do not capture a global picture, but rather a few local trends.

Whilst increased CO2 levels must have a warming effect, none of the links I've seen here, or my own wider reading indicate that that a 30% increase in the concentration of CO2 has a strong enough impact, relative to the poorly understood effects of clouds to provide a sound mathematical basis for attributing warming to CO2 emmissions rather than to other variables in the system.

That of course doesn't mean there aren't other excellent reasons to break ourselves of our carbon addiction.

Anyway, I look forward to any further reading/viewing any of you can provide.
Posted by Kalin1, Wednesday, 22 July 2009 1:05:27 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
"Whilst increased CO2 levels must have a warming effect, none of the links I've seen here, or my own wider reading indicate that that a 30% increase in the concentration of CO2 has a strong enough impact, relative to the poorly understood effects of clouds to provide a sound mathematical basis for attributing warming to CO2 emmissions rather than to other variables in the system."

Really?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing#Examples_of_radiative_forcing_calculations
Posted by Eclipse Now, Wednesday, 22 July 2009 9:16:38 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
Eclipse,

There you go again. What you have linked to only shows that CO2 has a warming effect but does not deal with this question relative to the overall greenhouse effect and the other variables.

According to the graph on your link a doubling of CO2 levels from 300 to 600 ppm will increase radiative forcing from CO2 by 3.39 w/m2 (and we are many decades away 600ppm CO2 levels), which is about a 1% increase in radiative forcing due to CO2, but according to the wikipedia link:

"When these gases are ranked by their contribution to the greenhouse effect, the most important are:

* water vapor, which contributes 36–70%
* carbon dioxide, which contributes 9–26%
* methane, which contributes 4–9%
* ozone, which contributes 3–7%

The major non-gas contributor to the Earth's greenhouse effect, clouds, also absorb and emit infrared radiation and thus have an effect on radiative properties of the greenhouse gases."

and plainly there are other variables like in solar output, orbital, and inclination cycles, aerosols, and atmospheric particulates.

Only when the range of variations in these factors (or at least the major players) are identified and comparable radiative forcing figures are calculated can the significance of CO2 radiative forcing be understood. Some of the figures are probably out there, but I haven't been able to find them.. any ideas?

Also, the radiative forcing in your link does not state whether it is the radiative forcing stated excludes the overlaping effects of the other greenhouse variables or whether it takes these into account. If the former (as I suspect given the precision of the calculation), then the CO2 forcing described is greatly overstated, since it does not take into account that much of the stated increased radiative forcing was already present due to the other 'overlaping' greenhouse gases/variables.

With a clear picture of the relative forcings of all the variables, and a sense of how much they vary, we'd all be in a position to rationally assess the significance of CO2 levels to warming. Without these, we are not.

In the meantime, my strong doubts linger on.
Posted by Kalin1, Wednesday, 22 July 2009 5:34:50 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
"Only when the range of variations in these factors (or at least the major players) are identified and comparable radiative forcing figures are calculated can the significance of CO2 radiative forcing be understood. Some of the figures are probably out there, but I haven't been able to find them.. any ideas?"

Ever read the IPCC reports? You're acting as if you're the only one who has ever had the thought, "Gee, I wonder if other gases or solar variations affect our climate".

My humble layman's understanding from flicking through their enormous, is that they really *have* counted every forcing and variable ever postulated by the sceptics, and each has been studied by multiple organisations and individuals. You've got a few questions which sound quite uninformed about the state of climate research, and yet act as if your questions trump decades of research by the world's leading climate bodies.

You can try reports linked to at the following websites.
http://www.ipcc.ch/

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

Note: I'm not claiming climatologist know everything, but that they are "up to date". I hope the genuine climatologist DO discover some previously unknown "safety valve", so then we'd only have peak oil, peak soil, peak fisheries, peak fresh water, overpopulation, peak metals and many other resource depletion and toxic overload issues to worry about. But any "safety valve" would have to be peer reviewed for me to take seriously.
Posted by Eclipse Now, Wednesday, 22 July 2009 5:55:08 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
My final comment.
I do not believe in the Global Warming Theory. It's a natural Earth Cycle.
I do believe in reducing Carbon based energy systems in favour of increasing Alternate Energy Systems. If only to have a broarder spread of way to generate energy & a shift away from a single energy source.
Oh, & to kill the monopoly of the Carbon Based Barons.
Posted by Jayb, Wednesday, 22 July 2009 6:01:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kalin, I just lobbed in to answer your previous questions and see you are throwing out more.

I was prepared to do some homework for you, but now I'm not so sure.

You just seem to be creating noise on a word & post limited opinion site, why?

Tell you what, go to google scholar, type some keywords (e.g. earth radiative budget, whatever) and do your own stuff.

Alternatively, do the hard yards - enroll in post-grad science and do some real research.

Elipse just popped up - he's right, have you looked at AR4, or even some of the papers that are referenced? There's heaps.

_________

Eclipse
We don't know everything - but there's a lot we do know and it's getting better all the time. In the interim, I am going to adapt to a warmer and wetter world, and live in a more environmentally sustainable way.
Posted by Q&A, Wednesday, 22 July 2009 6:26:32 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 last on this thread. Here is another Plimer book review;

Ian MacDougall has done a reasonable job (imo) in breaking up the review into six parts (see Plimer's climatology series in the right pane).

Some may just prefer to follow the links below.

http://noahsarc.wordpress.com/plimers-climatology-101/

http://noahsarc.wordpress.com/plimers-climatology-102/

http://noahsarc.wordpress.com/plimers-climatology-103/

http://noahsarc.wordpress.com/plimers-climatology-104/

http://noahsarc.wordpress.com/plimers-climatology-105-lard-franklins-dream/

http://noahsarc.wordpress.com/plimers-climatology-6-his-lordships-list/

Real sceptics would read the review ... maybe the OLO "sceptics" will too.
Posted by Q&A, Thursday, 23 July 2009 3:23:57 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
Thanks for the links Q&A.

DENIALISTS won't read them because they've got their dogma to protect! My feeling is genuinely sceptical technical minds would have turned their sceptical attention to the level of BELIEF required by the *conspiracy theories* necessary to debunk the comprehensive, worldwide peer-review process. They have to *believe in* an amazingly organised and deceptive worldwide movement involving scientists, politicians, independent universities and science institutes, all dedicated to deceiving the public for "some" grand purpose.

Or else they are *arrogant* enough to actually think the climatologists are so stupid they've "just forgotten" to check solar variation / water vapour / cosmic rays (or whatever other pixies and fairydust Plimer wants to sell as THE real driver of climate).

That they call themselves 'sceptics' makes me laugh. They've got more BELIEF than Fox Mulder.
Posted by Eclipse Now, Thursday, 23 July 2009 3:34:51 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
Should I be looking at 1999 as my reference point (last ten years) for temperature changes instead of 1998?
Posted by PeterA, Thursday, 23 July 2009 3:35:38 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
Q&A, Eclipse,

The following is a bit self indulgent so apologies in advance, but some of the recent criticism of my 'endless questions' left me feeling the need to explain where I'm coming from.

Q&A said "You just seem to be creating noise…, why?"

It seems to me people write/read on these opinion threads for two main reasons (trolls aside): 1 to persuade, and 2 to learn. I am mainly here to learn. Thanks to Eclipse, I have definitely learned at least one key fact that had been buried deep within all the rhetoric and melodrama of this subject – CO2 levels are the highest they have been in millions of years (20 million on my further enquiries). This is serious food for thought, and I'm still thinking about it. If that's all I learn from my ramblings and readings on this thread and its many links, it will have been worth it.

However, I'd love to learn more, and that is why I ask questions? It's true I haven't spent months looking for all the answers, but sometimes, on threads like this, I find people who are both knowledgeable and helpful. My earlier questions were directed at you, Q&A, because I had the impression you were one of these rare people.

I am a lawyer by trade and argumentative by nature, but in my school days I was a bit of science buff and studied electrical engineering at UNSW for a couple of years before changing direction. My scientific knowledge is now all rusted up with the passage of time and not worth much, but I did learn a few scientific principles along the way, and am much more comfortable with numbers, statistics and reading scientific material than the average lay person. The principle that has served me best over the years, both as a science student, and as a lawyer, is that examining the truth of any proposition should be begun by examining all the assumptions that underpin it, and all the assumptions that underpin those assumptions, all the way back to first principles
Posted by Kalin1, Friday, 24 July 2009 6:59:17 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
(continued)

My asking questions, often challenging the assumptions behind the answers to my previous question, is not directed at being annoying (though you aren't the first I've annoyed by any stretch), but is a necessary part of understanding the first principles underpinning this whole debate. It's why I have tried to read much of the material that is linked to in this thread.

Many of the answers I have received, whilst well intentioned, are off the mark in ways that suggest a lack of fundamental understanding of what the question is directed at (e.g. I raised the issue of clouds and was directed to a site about water vapour – indicating that the person who referred me does not understand that clouds have a distinctly different effect than water vapour). Whilst I don't expect people on a thread like this to know all the answers, it amazes me that so many people have such strong opinions when they plainly don't have all the answers.

So enough of my 'white noise.' I would really appreciate answers to my previous questions, but if you don't have the time or inclination, or would be offended if I inevitably have further questions, then so be it. I'll just have to struggle on through the tears and hope I find answers elsewhere.
Posted by Kalin1, Friday, 24 July 2009 7:02:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kalin,
you're ahead of me in having some years of science behind you. However, from the little reading I've done on global warming I just can't accept that they've forgotten the effects of "clouds" in global warming theory. There is too much discussion about them.

For example: some of the previous links were to aerosol impacts on cloud formation. This means that while one might assume that more heat = more cloud = cooling = short circuit, we're already stuffing up the ability of nature to form clouds by our aerosols (in Indonesia's "Burning Season" and the Brown cloud across Asia).

Also, various real climatologist blogs had to respond to the silly assertions in "The Great Global Warming Swindle" that it was all down to a link between cosmic rays and cloud formation... leading to this article.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/recent-warming-but-no-trend-in-galactic-cosmic-rays/

But for now I'll leave you with this... until I find something more recent.

The last paragraph reads:

"Since the changes in low- and high-level clouds mostly cancelled each other out, the net global effect of the clouds did not differ very much in the warmer climate scenario from that in today's climate. This scenario differs considerably from what many climate scientists had been assuming in the 1990s. It had been thought that brighter clouds would partly "save" us from significant global warming, by reflecting more energy into space. Instead, these results suggest that clouds are not necessarily the white knight that will rescue us from climate change. Therefore, our society should seriously consider reasonable steps to limit future emissions of greenhouse gases and soot aerosols as part of an overall strategy to reduce air pollution."

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/delgenio_03/

(3 studies linked to at bottom).
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2000/DelGenio_Wolf.html

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/1999/Yao_DelGenio.html

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/1998/Tselioudis_etal.html
Posted by Eclipse Now, Saturday, 25 July 2009 12:09:43 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
Thanks for the response Eclipse,

Having read the articles/ and a fair sample of the threads that follow them, whilst these broadly support a positive feedback effect of low clouds (My reading indicates it has long been theorised, if not quantitatevly understood that low lying clouds have a warming effect, and high clouds have a cooling effect), they certainly also concede the complexity of the issue and that considerably more work needs to be done. I cannot see how anyone could read these articles and conclude that the role of clouds is well understood - see below quotations from each study:

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2000/2000_DelGenio_Wolf.pdf

"We not that our conclusions apply only to the role of low clouds in climate change. Middle and high clouds, which are not directly coupled to the surface, may be governed by different physics, and there is as yet no observational or theoretical basis for predicting the sign of their contributions to cloud optics feedback."

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1999/1999_Yao_DelGenio.pdf

"Increased ocean evaporation will cause cloud cover to increase in a warming climate. Many articles about greenhouse warming in the popular press (cf. Stevens 1997) make this assertion. Yet climate GCMs, right or wrong, almost unanimously predict that cloud cover will decrease with warming..."

"A physical basis for parameterizing cloud cover does not yet exist, so all such predictions should be viewed with caustion..."

"... observations of upward trends in cloudiness over the twentieth century which are restricted to a few midlatitude continental locations, should not necessarily be interpreted as evidence of a global negative cloud feedback..."

{Comment: from this article it seems models almost universally predict that cloud cover will reduce with rising temps, but the available observations (albiet very limited, indicate increased clouds over the warming period of the 20th century. Whilst we might have cause to doubt the observations, surely this equally gives us cause to doubt the models?}

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1998/1998_Tselioudis_etal.pdf

"we have explored only one part of the cloud optical thickness feedback issue. Midlevel and high clouds are subject to different dynamic and thermodynamic influences and have different radiation forcing, primarily in the longwave."
Posted by Kalin1, Monday, 27 July 2009 1:26:06 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
(continued)

"The study also illustrates that potential cloud feedbacks on climate are far more complicated than those predicted by simple adiabatic calculations, or by climate models using cloud schemes that rely on those calculations. The optical properties of the clouds are determined by a balance of water-forming and water depleting processes that depend on dynamical, thermodynamical, and microphysical conditions. The inclusion of interactive optical properties in GCM cloud scemes constitutes a large step ahead in the effort to understand and reslove this balance: the older versions of the GISS GCM cloud scheme produced changes of low cloud optical thickness with temperature that bear little resemblance to the observations."

If the links you provided reflect the current state of the science, then plainly the role of clouds is not well understood, contrary to what some have previously said/implied on this thread. Surely you concede, given the significant role that clouds have on the greenhouse effect, that this is a massive unknown variable in trying to predict future climate?

Nevertheless, I am keen to read more if you have any further links, particularly about the mid level and higher cloud effects.

Also, I am wondering why you described the assertion that cloud formation was dominated by cosmic rays, as silly. My reading indicates that there is considerable correlation between cosmic rays and cloud formation. I don't understand the mechanism, or the strength of the relationship, but my reading of the threads in your link didn't give me the impression that the idea was so easily disproved as to make the idea 'silly.' Such strong language about contrary theories, is rarely justified, so I'm wondering you feel so strongly. As that dullard, Pauline Hanson would have said: "please explain?"

Thanks again for the posts. I do appreciate your helpfulness.
Posted by Kalin1, Monday, 27 July 2009 1:27:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It's silly because it was used by Martin Durkin's mockumentary to "disprove" global warming.

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

It's silly because the theory relies on old solar data that was rather crude, and has since been refined.

As a former head of the IPCC writes (of the "Swindle")...

"6. Changes in the sun influence climate – TRUE. They cited the Maunder Minimum in the 17th century when no sunspots were observed, as a probable example. Solar influences are the main driver of global average temperature in the 20th century – NOT TRUE.

Changes in solar output together with the absence of large volcanoes (that tend to cool the climate) are likely to have been causes for the rise in temperature between 1900 and 1940. However, the much more complete observations of the sun from space instruments over the past 40 years demonstrate that such influences cannot have contributed significantly to the temperature increase over this period. Other possibilities such as cosmic rays affecting cloud formation have been very carefully considered by the IPCC (see the 3rd Assessment Report on www.ipcc.ch) and there is no evidence that they are significant compared with the much larger and well understood effects of increased greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide."
http://www.jri.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=137&Itemid=83
Posted by Eclipse Now, Monday, 27 July 2009 1:44:56 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
Kalin

This may help:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/325/5939/460

Or, you could try this (explanation in layman's terms):

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/325/5939/376

If you can't get past the 'pay-wall', try this:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090723141812.htm

I appreciate your earlier comments, but at the end of the day, OLO is just an "opinion" site where a lot of white noise is generated, from all quarters.

You should browse the topics/questions you're interested in at sites like RealClimate. You can even partake without word/post limits.

You can't 'judge' the science as in a court of law. It is not about guilty/not guilty, right/wrong, black/white - it is about weight of evidence (this is not to say 'consensus' can't be overturned by just one robust 'counter-argument' - it can, it just hasn't been provided).
Posted by Q&A, Monday, 27 July 2009 2:06:07 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
We the concerned and responsible humans and environmentalists of the planet demand the United Nations immediately file charges of treason against the directors of the IPCC, NASA, NOAA the UK’s MET Office and Canada’s Dr. David Suzuki and MP Elizabeth May, for needlessly calling the world to war against a non-existent enemy, the “catastrophic” CO2 based Climate Change Theory, a.k.a. the Global Warming Theory now 23 years old.
We further command a special charge of treachery and betrayal be imposed upon the United State’s Al Gore for recklessly setting back humanity’s struggle to evolve as a more advanced and civilized species of Human Beings.
We have retreated thousands of years back to when it was thought human kind was the centre core of nature and was, as now, motivated only by fear and ignorance and superstition.
Together the people of the world can unite to see the transparency of the hysterical and fear based mentality of our society, to instead preserve this planet, not save and rescue it from a massive cultural error that has convinced our children that they will be suffering an imaginable death ( “life as we know it”-IPCC ) on a sick planet.
We further humbly surrender ourselves to the reality that Nature is in charge, not us and as a progressive society we will preserve, protect and respect this 4.5 billion year old planet at a point in history where we are enjoying our highest longevity rates and strive to cherish instead of fear the future of progress.
Posted by mememine69, Tuesday, 28 July 2009 6:38:43 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
Ummm, what?

Nothing to see here anyone, move along, move along.
Posted by Eclipse Now, Tuesday, 28 July 2009 9:31:24 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
Eclipse,

Thanks for the links,

However dodgy Martin Durkin's documentary, it does not effect, one way or the other, the validity of any of the scientific theories he relied upon, anymore than errors in Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" invalidate all the issues he raised. Zealous advocates of one position or another often mix together their good arguments with their bad ones. It is foolish to treat them all as bad, just because some can be shown to be flawed. I'm not saying the Cosmic Ray theory is correct, just that you can't debunk it by saying it was promoted by any particular nutcase.

Q&A,

Thanks for the links, unfortunately I couldn't get past the 'pay to see' issue so could only read http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090723141812.htm

Whilst that article indicated that recent research suggested low lying cloud (which provides a cooling effect) appears to dissapate with temperature, it also, in the introduction, concedes that "as the earth warms under increasing greenhouse gases, it is not known whether clouds will dissipate, letting in more of the Sun's heat energy and making the earth warm even faster, or whether cloud cover will increase, blocking the Sun's rays and actually slowing down global warming."

Also observed:

"What was not so encouraging, however, was the fact that most of the state-of-the-art climate models from modeling centers around the world do not reproduce this cloud behavior. Only one, the Hadley Centre model from the U.K. Met Office, was able to reproduce the observations. "We have a long way to go in getting the models right, but the Hadley Centre model results can help point us in the right direction," said co-author Burgman, a research scientist at the University of Miami.

In other words, this article, whilst indicating that the effect of warming on some types of clouds may produce a positive feedback, there is clearly great uncertainty, and the same evidence undermines confidence in most climate models.

I was also interested to see a contrary link relating to higher level clouds on the same page:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071102152636.htm
Posted by Kalin1, Tuesday, 28 July 2009 2:48:26 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
(continued)

Again, the clear impression is gained that the response of clouds to other warming factors, whether as a positive or negative feedback mechanism, are not even close to being well understood (I certainly don't understand them as these two articles reverse my earlier expressed understanding that low cloud warms and high clouds cool - apologies for the mix up).

Also, just in case you have changed your mind, my previous questions for your consideration:

1) During previous interglacials, CO2 levels declined after peaking at higher/equivalent levels than our present level? Clearly there has been some strong and sustained mechanism which has prevented runaway global warming, but my reading and wiki searching has been unable to identify any mechanism strong enough to explain why in previous ages runaway global warming did not occur. Can you shed any light on why?

2) Have read that there appears to be some 'mystery' CO2 sink based on the observation that all measured sources of CO2, less all known CO2 absorbers ought to leave us much higher C02 levels that are currently observed (MUCH higher): http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/oco/news/oco-20090123.html. Isn't this a clear indication of how poorly understood the CO2 cycle is, particularly in a quantitative sense? Surely in the face of such significant holes in our understanding the environmental movement is jumping the gun in asserting their is no room for debate anymore?

3) I have read, and others have posted, that the effectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas declines 'exponentially' with its concentration and that current CO2 levels already trap most of this radiation and further CO2 will have very little effect - like further coats of black paint on a window (as another poster described it). To what extent is this true?

4) Do you concede there is a real opportunity cost attached discontinuing/reducing the use of fossil fuels and shouldn't the opportunity cost be a fully investigated part of assessing 'what to do' about GW?
Posted by Kalin1, Tuesday, 28 July 2009 2:49:22 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
Has anyone thought that the increase in CO2 may be due to the increased use of Carbonated softdrinks. I've got one of those machines for making soda water (for mixing with my Scotch) & I just thought. Carbonated Softdrinks, there you go. Ban Coke & all softdrinks & problem solved. ;-)

& then I thought (when I was using the Oxy) I'm burning up Oxygen & making CO2. there you go, ban Oxy/Acetelene. More of the problem solved.

At this rate I solve the Global Warming Crisis on my own.
Posted by Jayb, Tuesday, 28 July 2009 3:19:47 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
Surrendering oneself to a higher power or spiritualism is part of being a conscious human, so I’ll give this massive insane cult a break and say that we do come by Echotheism honestly.
The big lie with Echotheism is not a question of the existence of Earth (God), but rather its assumed demise, its health and its future. But the very fact that this god is tangible makes it simplicity enticing to a Google age culture of confused and constant hysteria at every turn in our fear based society. This religion permeates us to the core. Despite the lack of any climate crisis, we still assume that the Earth God is angry, by allowing weakness to be a new part of nature. Since when has any other culture in history ever regarded the powers of nature as weak and sensitive or “a tender and fragile balance”? At least when ancient Romans sacrificed bulls according to omens that nature gave them, they at least had the sense to fear nature, not fear FOR it. In many ways our new religion of Global Warming / Climate Change / Environ MENTALism / Ecology, call it Echotheism, is more primitive and barbaric than other ancient pagan religions because the Earth God does not give us any omens, only warnings of Armageddon.
Earth Worship has its very own Christian like elements of the holy Earth Day, the EXXON devil and the sins of greed and excess and the promise of betrayal to the tribe by allowing Armageddon. As usual, guilt, fear and the constant ignorance these factors produce play an essential role in this religion.
I believe we as a species should now step forward to the next level of civilized human beings by first eliminating fear as a motivation so we can live out our individual lives authentically and wisely by preserving our planet and accepting the challenges of progress.
The global warming theory has been predicting Armageddon for 23 years and we are now about to give our high priests of Climate tax money to please the angry Earth God.
God help us.
Posted by mememine69, Thursday, 30 July 2009 11:05:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mem,

Environmentalists are no more all lunatics than skeptics are all sane. The fringes of every position are almost invariably irrational.

Your melodramatic description of the environmental movement as a religion while apt for some, (and I definitely concede that group is either growing or getting louder) includes all the reasonable ones too. This has the effect of making you look unreasonable, and they more reasonable. Just like when you shout at someone for making too much noise, or smack a child for being violent.
Posted by Kalin1, Thursday, 30 July 2009 5:15:26 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
23 years! 23 years! 23 years! 23 years! 23 years! 23 years!
23 years! 23 years! 23 years! 23 years! 23 years! 23 years!
23 years! 23 years! 23 years! 23 years! 23 years! 23 years!
23 years! 23 years! 23 years! 23 years! 23 years! 23 years!
23 years! 23 years! 23 years! 23 years! 23 years! 23 years!
23 years! 23 years! 23 years! 23 years! 23 years! 23 years!
23 years! 23 years! 23 years! 23 years! 23 years! 23 years!
23 years! 23 years! 23 years! 23 years! 23 years! 23 years!
23 years! 23 years! 23 years! 23 years! 23 years! 23 years!
23 years! 23 years! 23 years! 23 years! 23 years! 23 years!

Everyone join the mantra, we might find the "true enlightenment" MEME has obviously found. And MEME calls us religious, while he chants "om" and consults his navel.

Yes we all know your opinion meme, but we're trying to discuss the *science*. Go outside and suck your lollipop there... no, not in here, it will drip on the carpet. That's it, close the door now, well done.

Now, what were we saying before MeMe's tantrum?
Posted by Eclipse Now, Thursday, 30 July 2009 5:22:23 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
"1) During previous interglacials, CO2 levels declined after peaking at higher/equivalent levels than our present level"

— Do you have a link for this? As far as I know, we are at the highest levels of Co2 in a million years or so. It takes GEOLOGICAL time to get to higher levels than today.

2) "mystery sink"

— Thank God it is there, and move on to how we can reduce Co2 because despite its existence we're STILL too high for safety! (However, I bet you it has something to do with charcoal in forests absorbing Co2 as it becomes a home to growing fungi).

"3) I have read, and others have posted, that the effectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas declines 'exponentially' with its concentration and that current CO2 levels already trap most of this radiation and further CO2 will have very little effect - like further coats of black paint on a window (as another poster described it). To what extent is this true?"

— I don't pretend to do the math or physics myself, but check this out.
http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showpost.php?p=498994&postcount=46

"So one problem here is that the values are presented on a graph with a linear scale, when the effects are not linear. A change from 200 ppm to 1000 ppm of CO2 is going to have the same effect on forcing as the increase from 1000 ppm to 5000 ppm. An ideal blackbody at 295K radiates almost 15% more energy than one at 285 K, even though that's only a 3.5% increase in temperature."

1000ppm is game over! (We need to be under 350).

4) "Opportunity cost"
Please watch this argument (by a science teacher).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ

1. Opportunities? Discover if we can be energy secure, clean (free of coal mercury pollution), and run a society without fossil fuels before we RUN OUT!

2. Stop paying people we don't like very much for oil?

3. If we stopped paying $10 billion in subsidies a year to fossil fuel companies, renewables would be ECONOMICALLY competitive! Our coal is ARTIFICIALLY cheap! Point 2:
http://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/2007/06/10/refuel-on-renewables/
Posted by Eclipse Now, Thursday, 30 July 2009 5:47:37 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
Excellent post Eclipse.

Will respond more fully over the weekend, but in the meantime:

1. Sorry, forgot to update for my realisation that CO2 levels have not been this high for millions of years (further reading reveals that there is some variation between studies as to CO2 levels over geological time, but it definitely seems we are at least close to the highest CO2 levels in millions of years.

Nevertheless, even if the higher CO2 levels occurred millions of years ago, the question is still relevant.. why was there no runaway greenhouse effect back then?

2. While you may be right about the mystery sink... "thank God..." this clearly demonstrates a big hole in our understanding of the CO2 system.

3. You said "1000ppm is game over" - maybe you are right about this, or maybe not. That's kind of the point of this excersise for me.

The graph you linked to is very interesting. Shows a much weaker correlation between CO2 and temp than the Vostok ice cores (which cover only relatively recent history).
Will do some more reading on this before I comment further.

4. Interesting video. Basically uses an argument I found very pursuasive for a time, but which I now see as flawed. Deserving of its own post in reply, but in short he does not properly deal with opportunity cost, and IMO misrepresents the alternatives.

More later.

4.1 Totally agree with this argument.

4.2 Ditto.

4.3 Think this is an overstated issue. The figures don't show that the price of fossil fuels is significantly cheaper because of subsidies.

Will post more on this later, but again, thanks Eclipse for having a stab at my questions. Some food for thought.
Posted by Kalin1, Friday, 31 July 2009 4:34:58 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
“Nevertheless, even if the higher CO2 levels occurred millions of years ago, the question is still relevant.. why was there no runaway greenhouse effect back then?"

Kalin1

In an earlier post, I advised there was a runaway greenhouse effect “back then,” therefore where is your evidence to support your reiteration? I also suggested you access palaeontologist, Dewy McLean’s hypothesis on the K-T extinctions to which you responded:

“My point was that there was no runaway greenhouse gas effect despite higher CO2 levels. I am aware of no widely accepted theory that explains why increased CO2 levels today will cause a runaway effect, but did not during previous periods of high CO2. The question of past extinctions caused by climate change or CO2 concentrations is not relevant to the runaway greenhouse effect issue (though I will try to read up on Dewey McLean's hypothesis when I get a chance.”

Please note that Dewey's McLean's apolitical research commenced in the 70’s – well before any public debate on climate change:

http://74.125.153.132/search?q=cache:6-zo_Ic1mTYJ:filebox.vt.edu/artsci/geology/mclean/Dinosaur_Volcano_Extinction/pages/studentv.html+dewey+McLean,+dewey+Volcanism-induced+trans-Cretaceous-Tertiary+disorganization+of+the+biosphere:&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au

You claim that the current greenhouse effect is irrelevant to one that could be caused by a volcanic eruption. Why is that? Both anthropogenic and natural causes of hazardous emissions can change the biosphere from orderly to chaotic.

One can only hope that the planet does not decide to deal humans a natural catastrophe when humans already emit massive amounts of CO2 on a daily basis - impacting on the biosphere’s equilibrium.

You appear not to have any interest in the empirical evidence of man's carbon footprint - the rapid species extinctions, emerging zoonotic diseases, chronic dryland salinity, soil degradation, increased cancer rates in humans and animals, atmospheric and ambient air pollution, dead trees, mass fish and bird deaths, forest depletion and toxic (ie. hydrocarbons etc), dying rivers in Australia.

Feel free to deny any relevance between climate change and anthropogenic causes, but please provide another theory. However, unless you are totally oblivious to the state of Australia's environment, I daresay you would be hard pressed to provide a credible theory that lacks any anthropogenic cause and effect.
Posted by Protagoras, Friday, 31 July 2009 8:24:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good revision of the conversation there Proto. I also referred Kalin to the ABC's "Crude" super-greenhouse effect which was quite severe and out of control compared to today's climate, so I don't know why Kalin keeps saying the climate never 'ran away' before, just look at the ELE wiki I referred to earlier!

Also different, modern civilisation is here this time. We want to support the 6.5 billion of us on planet earth. We also NEED to preserve biodiversity and ecosystem services which are of unmeasurable economic value.

So here's the challenge, in previous climate shifts trees and plants and their accompanying animal and insect species gradually migrated into the more comfortable zones. As some areas warmed, seeds sprouted there that had never grown before and the forest 'moved'. As those areas then later cooled again a hundred thousand years later, the cooler species took over again.

How do ecosystems migrate with our cities and agriculture in the way? We've created artificial "ecosystem islands" surrounded by unfriendly "oceans" of us! We're going to have to pay biologists and ecologists to relocate ecosystems! "Ecosystem parks" will start to emerge. This is already being discussed in the Australian scientific community. Imagine the expense!

However, as this is occurring much faster than most gradual climate shifts in the past, even the wilder ecosystems NOT surrounded by us are having trouble adapting fast enough. Flannery documents the loss of the golden toad as one of the first climate change extinctions. He used to visit the site as a field biologist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_toad

But again, back to more selfish questions. All those glaciers we see retreating across the roof of the world? What happens when 1 to 2 billion Indians and Chinese begin to starve?
http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/2008/Update71.htm
Posted by Eclipse Now, Friday, 31 July 2009 9:03:22 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
Conservative:
What’s your view on global warming?

“I don’ think we have anything to worry about with this 23 year old global warming stuff because old Mother Nature is going to do what it’s going to do, the way it’s always done it before and we can’t stop it, no way. Volcanoes, fossils and comet-hits come to mind? Let’s continue taking care of our planet and progress to making life even better for more people of the world.”

Liberal:
What’s your view on global warming?

“Well I suppose we must be doing something to our earth. You can’t deny that. That’s obvious to anyone. Just look around and see the garbage and the dirty air and our polluted seas and lakes. And what’s wrong with helping the planet anyways? We can’t just keep doing what we do to the planet forever like this. Sooner or later it’s going to catch up with us. We are obligated to leave this planet in good shape for our children. And it’s better to be safe than sorry.”
Posted by mememine69, Friday, 31 July 2009 9:50:50 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
MeMe,
Conservative in 50 years:

"What, we're at war with China and India? What food crisis? Why didn't the scientists TELL US the glaciers were retreating? What, I thought that global warming thing was a myth... WHAT? They could MEASURE the heat Co2 traps, and CALCULATE HOW MUCH EXTRA ENERGY WAS BEING TRAPPED? WHY DIDN'T ANYONE TELL ME!? Oh really? And us non-scientists were supposed to BELIEVE them!? No, I'm not an expert on climatology but I just thought.... what's that bright light? bzzzzzzzz..........."

But that's a cheap shot and is basically not really relevant.

I know this is real hard for you MeMe but physics and chemistry are not really all that political. They'll just do their thing even if you voted Sarah Palin in as President for life of the good old boys "Joe-6-pack club" wink wink.

Yes nature could wipe us out.

Yes it has dumped heaps of Co2 into the atmosphere in the past.

And YES you obviously HAVEN'T read any of the recent posts because we've just covered all that!

You've again proved what a non-engaging trolling retard you truly are. If this site were properly moderated you'd have been banned about 20 pages ago. I've seen it happen before. At this point I don't care if I get a ban for crankiness, because unmoderated sites are often just not worth belonging to.
Posted by Eclipse Now, Friday, 31 July 2009 10:25:21 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
Thanks for that "opportunity cost" link Eclipse. Did you know Greg Craven's also written a book?

So meme you say "Conservatives advise:

"Let’s continue taking care of our planet and progress to making life even better for more people of the world.”

Meme old chap - If it weren't for the conservatives taking "care" of the planet, we wouldn't be talking climate change. These grim reapers have violated all laws of nature, all laws pertaining to the Precautionary Principle and are using humans as cannon fodder.

Last night's news saw a win for some 12 young people in the UK who were all born with missing fingers and toes, a result of industrial pollution spewed out with impunity by your conservatives - well up to now. I suspect you'd better get your running shoes on meme since this legal victory for these deformed young people could set a predecent and hopefully the 250 Australians suing Alcoa in the US for cancers and deaths in Australia, will have a similar outcome.

I envisage that in the near future, the obscene and uncontrolled operations of your conservatives will be viewed more widely as crimes, not only against the planet but against humanity. Already countries from Papua to Argentina are demanding their human rights, a result of Australian and Canadian miners pillaging and plundering the lands of the poor and destroying their ecosystems for hundreds of years.

BTW meme. "echotheism?" Mmmmmmmm? Right - "echotheism?" OK.......hellooooooooo......anyboooooodddy theeerrrrrrre? Yoooooooohoooooooo? Nope no echoes yet. Aw give up Protagoras. OK meme. What's the definition of "echotheism?" Is it code for rock ape speak?
Posted by Protagoras, Friday, 31 July 2009 10:35:32 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
Just what exactly would have to happen to prove the theory wrong?
Posted by mememine69, Saturday, 1 August 2009 3:57:43 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
Surrendering one’s self to a higher power is the unavoidable consequence of being human and conscious. This wired-in and basic urge is now compelling us on mass, in our largely godless society to blindly sacrifice ourselves to living with less, consuming less, needing less and wanting less. All to a greater power simply called “earth”. A planet that we mortals have harmed and are being punished for? And all at a time when we are living longer than at any time in human history as a species despite endless news about deadly pollution and access to quality health care. I ask you, why would anyone would wish for this misery to happen that is clearly a bit a stretch of truth and reality because there isn’t a crisis that you or I or anyone can see or experience. Where IS this climate crisis that has brought Nature to her knees after billions of years? Do yourself a favor and at least try to be optimistic on your journey to responsible environmentalism. In your mind, stop panicking for this thought experiment:” Remove this mistaken idea that CO2, Nature’s gift to plants and thus all life on earth, is, after 23 years of warnings, still a deadly poison killing our planet. What do we have left after the CO2 fear is gone? Ask yourself what do we have left to worry about or more realistically, have to be grateful for.”
Fear when used as the only motivator always clouds the issue. Strip away the media and political and cultural blanket of fear we allow ourselves to smother us with and take a closer look at your world, not the staged picture of the polar bear at Google. Be grateful for our defeat of the smoggy 70’s when a river caught fire in Ohio and be quietly satisfied with our enhanced environmental awareness, protections, laws, technology and standards.
A mature-progressive human species of the 21rst century, preserves, protects and respects nature.

"What would the climate have to do at this point to prove the theory was 100% dead wrong?"
Posted by mememine69, Sunday, 2 August 2009 12:44:58 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
Meme attempts to psychoanalyse WHY we are wrong, rather than prove THAT we are wrong. It's an old logical fallacy that can be so easily turned on its head. What if I told you the REALITY is that you're just a retard not willing to accept modern science because you're a scared little infant unable to grow up and accept that the civilisation you're a part of is in peril?

"I ask you, why would anyone would wish for this misery to happen"
We don't wish for it, we just acknowledge the truth and look at all the great things we could do to avoid it.

"Remove this mistaken idea that CO2, Nature’s gift to plants and thus all life on earth"
We've been here before remember, or is your memory as hampered as your cognitive ability? Water is natural, but a flood can still kill you and wipe out crops. Snow is natural, but an avalanche can wipe out a whole village. Air is natural, but Katrina killed thousands.

"What would the climate have to do at this point to prove the theory was 100% dead wrong?"
The average global temperature would have to decline for decades to come. Instead, we note that the last decade was the hottest on record. The average OCEAN temperature would also have to drop as it takes 1000 times more energy to raise the temperature of the oceans than air, and so the oceans are a massive thermal "bank" storing the heat energy. This is a very frightening thought!
Posted by Eclipse Now, Sunday, 2 August 2009 1:20:03 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
Kalin

The only way you can get past the ‘pay-wall’ into Science Magazine is to subscribe. I believe you can do this for $50 p.a. (US I think) for the online version - certainly cheaper than the hard copy and more environmentally friendly. I don’t have these problems being a member. For a more in depth review of ‘climate science’ it may be better to look at other sources, for example; the International Journal of Climatology, the Journal of Climate, the Journal of Atmospheric Sciences or Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology, amongst others. Where does a lawyer stop, let alone an ‘agnostic’ layperson? As to ‘sceptics’ (I use the term loosely on OLO) – they don’t even venture to the IPCC’s freely available published reports.

That “contrary link” you found interesting was from Roy Spencer. Somewhat dated but nevertheless a signature of his enduring search for the elusive negative water vapour feedback. Sometimes I can’t help but feel this God-fearing scientist just wants to find ‘something’ other than Man as a primary driver of this latest round of climate change. Be that as it may, even Plimer has strong criticisms of the creationists’ theories.

Anyway, there is much research (and debate within the scientific community) into clouds and it is wrong for some people to suggest otherwise. It is also wrong for some people to suggest CO2 is the only ‘driver’ of climate change. Nevertheless, there is overwhelming research in support of AGW. I can only assume you (as a lawyer) know what this means in terms of judgements on weight of evidence.

Cont’d
Posted by Q&A, Sunday, 2 August 2009 1:32:57 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
Cont’d

It is impossible to adequately/legitimately criticise any piece of writing without having read the piece, or understood what the author is saying. Equally, it is erroneous to distort what has been written, or taking out of context what has been said. This is precisely what is wrong with Plimer’s latest effort – he is in error on so many counts. Btw, have you finished reading Heaven & Earth yet? While he has got good stuff in H&E, his “A Short History of Planet Earth” is much better, and certainly more aligned to his expertise, imo.

If Plimer is genuine, he should correct all the factual errors that has been pointed out to him and make the amendments for the next print run – he has not done this for either the American or British editions.

Questions.

1. CO2 sometimes leads, sometimes lags. “Runaway global warming” has happened in pre-history (I don’t know where you are getting your info from) and has taken decades to thousands of years, depending on the trigger.

2. The CO2 cycle is complex but that is not to say it is “poorly understood”. You want more sir (apologies to Oliver) – try “The Global Carbon Cycle – Integrating Humans, Climate and the Natural World (edited by Field and Raupach) – alas, you have to pay if you can’t borrow.

No matter which way you look at it (and the accounting isn’t as bad as you imply), humanity is spewing carbon out at a faster rate that the oceans, atmosphere and terrestrial biosphere can absorb.

3. True – with a big BUT.

4. I have nothing to concede here Kalin. Of course there will be an opportunity cost lost. However, there will be a bigger opportunity cost lost the longer we twiddle our thumbs. Those that think adapting to a warmer and wetter world, or reducing our dependency on fossil fuels will cost little, are deluding themselves. In the end, it’s all about priorities, choice. I am not optimistic.

____

Eclipse

mememine69 can't understand stratospheric cooling.

I am finished with this thread.
Posted by Q&A, Sunday, 2 August 2009 1:41:08 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
Meme

Yes you are correct – humans are living longer – more specifically in developed countries thanks to medical science. However, hundreds of thousands are ill from air pollution and hundreds of thousands are dying from industrial pollution.

I know plenty of elderly people. I know very few "long lived" who aren't on a bucket load of pills (except myself.) Then everyone probably knows someone who’s walking around without a prostate, one bung lung, asthma, cardio-vascular disease, diabetes (rampant) one breast (or none at all), a colostomy bag attached to their belly, kidney disease or muscular and neurological diseases - have a look at yourself sport!

“What would the climate have to do at this point to prove the theory was 100% dead wrong?"

CO2 is not a theory – it’s a fact and you have failed to produce any evidence to prove the "theory was dead wrong.” You are a miserable failure. Worse your tactics are just as hazardous as the tar sands you mine in Canada. Why does the description: “a hypocritical troll” come to mind when I think of you?

Your “theories” were demolished when you first inflicted yourself on debaters on OLO.

When one poster requests a specific response from another, it is courteous to acknowledge that poster.

You have not at any time entered into debating with anyone and we have had to endure your spurious and moronic tirades.

“Fear when used as the only motivator always clouds the issue”

Indeed Meme and your terror is obvious to all. Why not cease frothing at the mouth and address your psychotic rants. Take a Prozac! Even top dogs in the deniers’ camp would be embarrassed having you on their side but unfortunately for them, beating a cretin over the head with a club would be totally ineffectual.
Posted by Protagoras, Sunday, 2 August 2009 1:52:52 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
The rate of cooling has increased : (http://www.drroyspencer.com/library/pics/UAH_... ).
Only 5% of greenhouse effect is caused by carbon dioxide. Humans produce only 5% of carbon dioxide emissions with the United States only producing a quarter of that. Therefore we account for less than .07% of greenhouse gas emissions
Posted by mememine69, Sunday, 2 August 2009 9:25:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No MeMeMine you *boring* and oh so *PREDICTABLE* little troll.

I was waiting for the predictable punch-line to your stupid little game. Here I was here discussing things rather pleasantly with Kalin, but you kept farting your stench into the forum and finally I responded. I knew you were PRETENDING to ask "What would it take to disprove the global warming theory?" just so you could rant another one of your retarded little mantras. So I participated in your moronic little game, just to watch it unfold.

I said, "It would have to cool down" just to watch you trot out your moronic myth. How utterly predictable that you'd quote one of your anti-science heroes.

Instead, what we find is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_since_1880

This summary of the *NOAA data* clear states: "Each of the last 12 years (1997-2008) was one of the warmest on record, although the last two years have grown cooler, not warmer (see chart below). These years could be the warmest years for the last several thousand years according to the temperature record, not just since 1880, but the most recent data is the most accurate.[3]"

Don't jump the gun, the last 2 years are STILL in the TOP 9 hottest years. La Nina IS a strong climate forcing, but not strong enough to totally cancel decades of warming. This is the REAL science.

If you want to read the REAL level of forcings for Co2 compared to water vapour etc, google IPCC.

I'm outta here. You win... go ahead and post an infinite number of replies. Make sure you keep writing "23 years!" The longer you spend posting in this thread, the less time you'll spend spewing your our unutterably boring vomitous stench into other forums. Goodbye.

PS: If you ever demonstrate that you are capable of a decent conversation, I'll apologise for everything stated above. I believe in giving PEOPLE second chances. But until then, you are a troll and poison to a good forum. (Which sadly this ISN'T as moderators should have cleaned up this thread long ago and banned you!)
Posted by Eclipse Now, Sunday, 2 August 2009 10:13:17 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
Apologies Kalin, those damn word limits preceded my obtuse answer to your question 3. Besides, this Plimer thread has run its course - I wanted to end on topic.

At the risk of over-simplification, try and think of it this way:

Yes, there is a log relationship. However, what many people (sceptics and non-sceptics alike) fail to appreciate is that the upper atmosphere is not restricted (or constricted) to a defined boundary layer. The log relationship you allude to is all well and good for a fixed container or 'closed' system. But, the troposphere is not fixed. It can 'expand' upwards as we pump more CO2 up there - like we are enveloped in a big elastic balloon.

We are 'pumping' more CO2 out there (we are doing that exponentially as well) and however fast we are doing it, the troposphere will adjust (equilibrate - remember Newton's Laws?) in height accordingly. Ergo, we are far from 'saturating' the atmosphere for the log relationship to limit the rise in mean global temperature to 2-3 degrees C for a doubling of CO2-e concentration.

I hope that helps.
Posted by Q&A, Monday, 3 August 2009 7:16:43 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
Isn’t there a consensus of scientific opinion on man-made global warming?
“Of course not because claims of both consensus and doubting from scientists can't be denied. "The science is done, clear and accessible.", according to the IPCC. Not only is it clear and accessible, it's quite understandable so you are under no obligation as an intelligent human being to surrender yourself to the priests of science. Only 5% of greenhouse effect is caused by carbon dioxide. Humans produce only 5% of carbon dioxide emissions with the United States only producing a quarter of that. Therefore we account for less than .07% of greenhouse gas emissions.”

Is the world heating up? How would we know?
“Ask yourself how witch burners knew if their particular craft worked. When you experience a climate crisis, let us know will you? And melting ice does not prove what caused it outside of emotional liberal panic and cave man like ignorance. "Ug! Ug! Cave man see strange thing. Must be my fault?"

Hasn’t the Earth’s climate alternated in the past between ice ages and warming periods?
“Just the fact that this ridiculous question has to be answered is proof that this not about science. It's officially now superstition.”

Does man-made carbon dioxide (CO2) contribute to global Warming?
“Like farting in a tornado and 23 years of warnings proves it. If this global warming was so powerful as to be able to destroy the planet, this magical global warming crisis should have started by now.”

How do we know what the climate will be in the future?
“We obviously don't. It's still a mystery. Just imagine a world where we knew all about climate. Just think how different things would be. Do you see that world? Of course not.”
The Big Picture:
“While the subject of climate change is complex, there is a common theme that runs throughout the theory of man-made global warming: Nature was in balance before human industrial activity began. But science does not support this naďve and romantic view of nature.”
Posted by mememine69, Monday, 3 August 2009 10:53:32 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
Debate deniers at the world's largest open forum on global warming at:
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warming
Posted by mememine69, Tuesday, 11 August 2009 8:37:55 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
Meme - It must be difficult typing in a straight jacket. How come you managed to evade the white coats?
Posted by Protagoras, Tuesday, 11 August 2009 7:53:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Just listen to us. We are wondering what "causes" weather? Since we don't know, why blame humans? Nature has evolved through much much worse so don't tell us this has never happened before? Have we gone back 2000 years in our thinking? Nature is in charge, not us. Our effect is like passing gas in a tornado. We can't drive a tornado away or control weather or control temperatures of planets and to believe we can is criminal to any modern progressive civilized human being.
Let's preserve, not SAVE. Life is good. Stop this silly fear mongering because this global warming theory is not sustainable for another 23 years. The theory predicts the end of “life as we know it” so why would you jump on this boat load of misery and keep riding it like an obedient sheep? Keep up with this lie and the next generation, and or history will view Al Gore as the Bernie Madoff of climate change, not to mention you teachers, and you consultants posing in white lab coats calling yourselves scientists. Corporate media and politicians are doing what they always do, selling fear.
Stop this childish and silly alarmism, stop scaring my kids by denying them futures and stop this irresponsible CO2 environMENTALism. At least for our kids sake.

Globull whiner: "But, but, but, the ssscientists say........"
Posted by mememine69, Thursday, 13 August 2009 5:21:56 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 have posted the NOAA's decade of cooling and the warmies, in their mental illness of globull whining, even dispute those plain facts presented to them. What can we do to convince these irresponsible modern day witch burners that the theory is clearly dead?
To them it’s not what the truth is, but of who says it’s the truth. Nazi Germany comes to mind?
In the end they cling like fundamentalist bible thumpers to “all credible science agrees and the Arctic melting like no other time in history over millions of years.”

A lot of them like to pretend they are scientists themselves as if we don’t see the obvious transparency and phoniness of their “precaution”, belief and “correlation” they call science. Seriously, I think Al Gore should be arrested and charged with the high crime of treason for leading the world to war against our planet’s air, an invisible and non existent enemy called climate change.
Face to face I can get these sometimes nice and well intentioned believers to at least question the theory long enough to stop moralizing and demonizing. Any reasonable person who still believes in this aging theory who appreciates precaution understands the concept of “preserving” instead of “saving” our planet.
A mature and civilized person would not be so quick to believe in such misery for not just the billions of people on this planet, but the planet itself. It’s a huge leap of logic. It’s so much of a leap of logic that it’s too much to reason for our fear ridden lazy minds in this panic stricken mass culture of ours. I remind these lazy minded doomers that the theory is not theirs in the political sense but the IPCC’s in their so called scientific sense. The end of the world? Give me a freaking break!
There is a certain comfort in fear and that is what we as deniers must make them feel uncomfortable about. They should NOT be so quick to declaring my kids not having futures.
Will we humans ever evolve stop our ignorance and fear outdated doomsday superstitions?
Posted by mememine69, Friday, 14 August 2009 5:47:35 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
NO LONGER can it be credibly argued that “global
warming” is worse than previously thought. No longer can
it be argued that “global warming” was, is, or will be any
sort of global crisis. Recent papers in the peer-reviewed literature,
combined with streams of data from satellites and thermometers,
now provide a complete picture of why it is that the UN’s climate
panel, the worldwide political class, and other “global warming”
profiteers are wrong in their assumption that the enterprises of
humankind will disastrously warm the Earth.
Posted by mememine69, Tuesday, 25 August 2009 7:40:32 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 43
  7. 44
  8. 45
  9. All

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