True,a carbon tax does have a certain beauty compared to that decrepit mangy dog,the CPRS.

But we won't be getting that either short of a near mass awakening of the sheep in their comfortable folds aka electorates.Not going to happen between now and the next election.

We are on the road to perdition - enjoy the ride.

The sky is falling, the sky is falling. Everyone should be forced to wear sack-cloth and ashes. Civilisation, and human life itself, is wicked and rotten to the core. Human beings are a plague, a cancer, a noxious pest. Only by purging our bodies of our desires can we merit salvation. The world has enough for everyones's need, but not everyone's greed. Consumption is morally evil. Tread lightly on the earth. Take nothing but photographs, leave nothing but footprints. Reproduction is a sin. You can't have infinite growth on a finite base. Ein folk, ein ecosystem, ein Fuhrer. We're going to hell in a handbasket. The only way out of this mess is unconditional obedience to absolute and arbitrary political power. People have no right to exist - it's wounding the earth.

Penny Wong is just stooge of Chairman Rudd who controls all. Be glad that the ETS is kaput (for the time) but realise that the Chairman is in charge of everything - except illegal entry, which comes under the 'portfolio' of people smugglers and the UN.

Perhaps the most annoying thing about the whole global warming catastrophe is the fact that these dills, like this bloke, who don't have enough math to know what they are talking about, but still do, are all on our payroll.

Why is it that the very dumbest all appear to be economists, or are at the ANU, or both?

Must be a PHD to be had there, somewhere.

Who is aware of the actual levels of CO2 and methane in the atmosphere and how these compare with the projections set out by the IPCC in 2000? See the Special Report on Emission Scenarios on the IPCC site. If you compare the actual concentrations for both CO2 and methane in the atmosphere with the projections, given in ppm and ppb in an attachment to the 2001 IPCC report, you will find the projections for methane are hopelessly wrong. Methane concentrations levelled off around the turn of the century - no-one knows why. The CO2 concentrations are well below mid-point of the projections. Yet policy makers still seem to be using the top end of the projections for both gases in setting (ineffectual)limits..

Curmudgeon

Perhaps this time we're on the same wave, but perhaps not :)

The SRES is long overdue for an update. However, you do need to understand the different scenarios, I'm not sure you do.

Nevertheless, it is true that econometricians had much input into modeling the scenarios - NOT climate scientists. It is also my opinion that the econometricians didn't do such a good job, but the 'sceptics' still want to blame 'climate scientists', as they do.

What is indisputable? [CO2] is increasing and until the big emitters change their ways (yeah, right) we can expect a '2 degrees C' on average increase by 2100.

But hey, no one can predict the future - another meteor could hit, or all the world's volcanoes could sing in unison.

Check out this site for carbon related info:

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/by_new/bysubjec.html#trace

quanda - actually no and yes. I'm interested in the comment that I don't understand the different scenarios - I'm not sure there is much to understand one way or another - but SERES can certainly do with an update. The reason it has not been updated, I suspect, is that the result would be to lower expected increases in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. Large, well funded and professionally angry groups don't want to hear about concentrations being far less than expected. For example, on present trends there is no way CO2 concentrations will double by 2100 and methane concentrations are not moving at all. Hence, even if we agree with the climate models, no two degree increase in temperatures.. what would be really embarrasing is CO2 concentrations falling all by themselves. Cannot possibly happen? We'll see..

Well, this isn't really on Richard's article, but I'm interested in the failure of CO2 to meet projections. qanda blames the econometricians, but my understanding is that CO2 is presumed to increase proportionally with economic growth. Raises the question as to whether the economic growth scenarios have been met. And if they have whether the assumption regarding CO2 and growth is correct. Getting this wrong could be the fault of econometricians.

We know that more advanced economies consume more services which presumably have a lower carbon content than products, so perhaps it is due to the straight line relationship not being correct.

Or perhaps the emission scenarios are correct, but there is more carbon absorption going on than previously expect (in which case some sort of scientist is to blame). Or perhaps the GFC led to a slight decline.

Interesting that qanda would want to blame the econometricians anyway, rather than the climate scientists. It is climate scientists like Hansen who are making doomsday pronouncements. But qanda appears to be saying these pronouncements are beyond their ability to make.

I'd agree. One of the big issues in the AGW debate is people making statements beyond their level of competence. There are very few people in the world who have a sufficient grasp of the whole to be taken seriously, and most of them aren't climate scientists, or scientists at all.

If the main IQ ( science )..is not online, how can the main (political... bodies make there moves?

Answer this Question.

TTM

P/S EVO was a joke.

Global warming? The question is do we want to continue polluting the environment. Climate changes regularly, but pollution on our current grand scale is man-made and damages the environment and the health of living creatures. That economists brush off pollution as an externality (I have an economics degree though refer to it as my Bachelor of Science Fiction) which is not factored into the cost of production shows how difficult it will be to properly tax pollution. Now W(r)ong and KRudd have thrown the ETS into the policy dustbin along with the home insulation programme as further proof that this Labor Government is the most half-baked bunch of incompetents this country has ever elected. While Abbott may make scribble policies on paper napkins, at least he is not in government, yet Gizzard’s divisive My School and Roxoff’s childishly inane tobacco packaging plan are reality.
To conclude, KRudd and Co must be in cahoots with organised crime, as the new codeine rules and the spectacular hike in tobacco prices are going to lead to the illicit trade in Panadine and chop-chop. Prohibition doesn’t work, but as KRudd is as pure as the driven snow, the message is clear, we must live our lives in the imitation of Kevin Christ

What a bunch of kooks on here!

Manorina has it exactly right.

Curmudgeon, as the SRES clearly states:

>> Future greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are the product of very complex dynamic systems, determined by driving forces such as demographic development, socio-economic development, and technological change...

Their (GHG emissions) future evolution is highly uncertain. Scenarios are alternative images of how the future might unfold and are an appropriate tool with which to analyse how driving forces may influence future emission outcomes and to assess the associated uncertainties...

They assist in climate change analysis, including climate modelling and the assessment of impacts, adaptation, and mitigation. The possibility that any single emissions path will occur as described in scenarios is highly uncertain...

There are 40 SRES scenarios that together encompass the current range of uncertainties of future GHG emissions arising from different characteristics of these models, in addition to the current knowledge of and uncertainties that arise from scenario driving forces such as demographic, social and economic, and broad technological developments that drive the models. <<

To summarise, just look at the graphs and look at the error bars.

What’s really disturbing is that many people unknowingly confuse SRES models with atmosphere-ocean general circulation models – often suggesting by broad sweeping statements that the whole edifice of AGW rests on flawed computer models. They are really referring to the SRES models (imho) but typically accuse the real climate modellers of not having a clue about what they’re talking about. Astounding!

As far as the SRES methane concentration projections go; they don’t stem only from anthropogenic sources. Methane is also emitted by hydrates (deep ocean de-gassing and permafrost melt) but, carries large uncertainty – more the former, less the latter, but still lots. Sources and sinks of methane are affected by the climate itself (temperature, humidity, etc) as well as the environment (soils, microbial activity, wetlands, etc), itself affected by the climate.

Yes, the methane projection is very uncertain. However, the beauty of the SRES is that it does provide a range of scenarios, notwithstanding they should be re-visited.

Cont’d

Cont’d

Mark

You say “the reason it has not been updated ...is that the result would be to lower expected increases in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. Large, well funded and professionally angry groups don't want to hear about concentrations being far less than expected.”

Another one of your conspiracy theories?

>> on present trends there is no way CO2 concentrations will double by 2100 <<

Is that your assertion? If not, I would like to check your source, can you provide a link please?

_______

GrahamY

>> the failure of CO2 to meet projections <<

See my response to Mark.

There are some ‘alarmists’ out there Graham, the overwhelming majority are not. Hansen is obviously very concerned about IF we pass certain tipping points, and in this regard, people should not dismiss him out-of-hand. Have you read his one and only?

Personally, I am more concerned about the planet’s “squealing” – a precursor to the tipping points that worries Hansen so much. Put another way, it would be too late to deal with tipping points once they are reached, nothing we could do will reverse them.

>> There are very few people in the world who have a sufficient grasp of the whole to be taken seriously <<

That is why most research and published papers on ‘climate science’ are conducted by teams of scientists, often from differing areas of expertise and often from different parts of the globe.

Dang-de-dang.

"One and only book", that is.

qanda, I was hoping for a conversation on this, not some spin about how none of this affects the climate models. If their inputs are wrong then their outputs are garbage. Or are you telling me that the GCMs depend on a constant level of CO2?

So let's talk about why the CO2 concentrations are lower than predicted, and what that says about the modelled scenarios. One thing that some googling has turned up is that apparently soil microbes are not behaving as predicted. Something I hadn't thought of.

BTW, anyone who talks about tipping points is likely to be an "alarmist". There is absolutely no evidence of runaway global warming in the history of the earth, which is what a tipping point would have to refer to if it were to have any meaning. So no reason to think there are any to be reached at the current time.

I'm probably being too light on Hansen calling him an alarmist. I think his calls for people who question the IPCC consensus to be prosecuted is actually hysterical.

I'd also be interested in some examples of these multi-disciplinary teams of authors that you claim exist in climate science because of its complexity. Can't think of any. (And I don't count being from a different part of the globe as having any bearing on diversity of expertise!)

Graham

No Graham, I am not telling you that GCMs depend on a constant level of CO2.

If you want to have a conversation, fine – just please stop the ploy of putting your words into my mouth.

So, to help dispel any confusion about the SRES models and the various GCMs, and while we’re waiting for Mark –

Would you identify the SRES model or the particular GCM that has got the projections of CO2 concentrations so wrong as to be outside the expected range of uncertainty? Then perhaps we can talk.

BTW, I did not say Jim Hansen was not an “alarmist” – although from the tone of your response you think, I think, he’s not. No my dearest, Hansen is an alarmist. And you do know my thoughts about alarmists, on both sides – Monckton is hysterical too.

Aside: I would be interested, do you think the planet is “squealing” – put that in your google if you’re not sure what it means.

Graham, re:

>> I'd also be interested in some examples of these multi-disciplinary teams of authors that you claim exist in climate science because of its complexity. Can't think of any. (And I don't count being from a different part of the globe as having any bearing on diversity of expertise!) <<

Sure, how about:

“Attributing physical and biological impacts to anthropogenic climate change”

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7193/abs/nature06937.html

You should note that these people cover a diverse range of sciences, from biologists to population ecologists, from mathematicians to meteorologists.

You might also note that they are situated across the globe! I can use exclamations too.

This is not so unusual, Graham - particularly in ‘climate science’. You will often get atmospheric physicists working with oceanographers, for example. And unsurprisingly, you don't always get them from the one institution ... or country, especially if they have very particular expertise.

Oh yeah, I think an Australian IT guy (no PhD btw), a meteorologist from New Zealand, and a roving Aussie geologist has put something together for the “sceptics” recently – didn’t go down too well I believe.

qanda - I've asked this before with no responses from anyone - how much research is done on CAUSES of Climate Change as opposed to papers using Climate Change as a leg up to get funding?

It is urban legend now that in any science if you add "..and the effects of climate change" or similar, you'll get funding as it is rumored that if you don't you will get bumped by someone who has - hence why many people see the whole climate science now as a bubble, in the sense of South Sea or Tulipmania bubble (ETS/CPRS IPCC blessed schemes)- people back then knew it was based falsely, but .. there was so much money to be made they kept going against their own good sense. Human nature does not change much does it?

So your example, of Climate Science "“Attributing physical and biological impacts to anthropogenic climate change” I suspect is not into the causes of Climate Change, but piggybacking on it - would that be correct?

Actually Graham, before we start wandering off on flights of fancy about how all the input data is garbage and the models wrong etc.,
why don't we talk about how the projections are actually pretty bloody close?
When Mark says that the projections are "hopelessly wrong", he is himself hopelessly wrong.

IPCC projections in 2001
Methane for 2010, 1816ppb-1964ppb, depending on the model used
http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/532.htm

CO2, 388-393ppm depending on the model used
http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/531.htm

Recent gas concentrations (Dec 2009)
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html

Methane: 1865 ppb measured in Ireland/ 1741ppb if measured in Tasmania (but I bet we only want to use the Tassie data don't we?)
C02: 384.8ppm averaged globally for 2009(NOAA)

Mauna Loa CO2
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
Current (March 2010) average 391.06ppm
2009 average 387.35ppm

These currently measured concentrations look pretty close compared to the projected concentrations. Looking at the trends, I'd be willing to bet that the projections will be even closer once 2010 has been averaged properly.

You guys really don't make it easy to check your references do you?
Put in the website references (links) next time and you might have some credibility, for about 10 seconds, the length of time it would take someone to check.

Bugsy I accepted the consensus between qanda and Crumdgeon that the SRES projections were wrong and should be updated. You say that's not so, in which case I'll look for the three of you to argue it out. I don't have an axe to grind in this debate. It was a new fact to me, so I was interested to explore it. If it's not the case there is nothing to explore.

qanda, I was hoping you were going to be civil, but no such luck. I didn't put words into your mouth, I asked you a question, and a largely rhetorical one.

Interesting paper you reference. It doesn't actually demonstrate the robustness of some alleged multidisciplinary approach to determine whether and to what degree climate change is manmade. As the abstract makes clear, it just accepts the IPCC line and then infers that any changes in the world which are in the direction of warming are caused by manmade emissions of CO2.

"Given the conclusions from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report that most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-twentieth century is very likely to be due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations, and furthermore that it is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent except Antarctica, we conclude that anthropogenic climate change is having a significant impact on physical and biological systems globally and in some continents."

So it's a derivative piece of work and nothing to do with proving that manmade global warming is real or will have significant negative consequences at all.

And if you don't want me to infer that you support Hansen, then don't quote him approvingly.

@Hasbeen, Friday, 30 April 2010 12:06:48 PM

Yes there were some very thick carbon clowns at ANU's Fenner School

Isnt change such are a hard thing..............NOT.

TTM

Actually Graham, while qanda did say that the SRES should be updated, I don't think there was anywhere that he said he thought they were 'wrong'. This 'consensus' between these two bloggers doesn't really appear to exist, at least not to me. Besides, I have found that before one goes exploring 'facts' from Mark, it's better to check them out yourself.

Amicus

>> how much research is done on CAUSES of Climate Change as opposed to papers using Climate Change as a leg up to get funding? <<

There is a lot of research being done on “causes of climate change”; in the scientific community more usually described as “attribution”. How much is attributed to natural causes and human induced causes, if you prefer.

To get an idea about how much research was being done on attribution (not to be confused with ‘detection’) of climate change leading up to AR4, you could look at the references in Chapter 9 of WG1: The Physical Science Basis – http://tinyurl.com/Chap9references

There has been more since.

Chapter 9 is here:

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9.html

Note the difference between ‘attribution’ and ‘detection’.

As to the proportion getting a “leg up” for funding? Climate Change is a big issue and funding is necessary. An example of the importance the US, even under George W, can be found here (much bandwidth):

http://www.climatetechnology.gov/stratplan/final/CCTP-StratPlan-Sep-2006.pdf

I agree, you could say the Rosenzweig et al paper is “piggybacking”.
That does not mean their research should not be funded, nor is it unworthy of funding.
_____

Graham

>> Interesting paper you reference. It doesn't actually demonstrate the robustness of some ALLEGED (my emphasis) multidisciplinary approach to determine whether and to what degree climate change is manmade. <<

So what’s that got to do with the price of apples?

You asked me to provide an example of a multi-disciplinary effort in the preparation of a ‘climate science’ paper, I did.

You now want to change the goal posts.

First of all, I don’t think the Rosenzweig et al paper was trying to “determine whether and to what degree climate change is manmade”.

Nevertheless, when a paper is cited by so many others, it is an indication as to how robust it is ... and it is.

The Hansen thing? I’m a sceptic, I have read his book, and it is obvious you haven’t. I don’t agree with his ‘alarmism’, but I can understand why he is.

Now, which playing field do you want to go to now?

qanda, your citing of that paper was supposed to answer my point that "There are very few people in the world who have a sufficient grasp of the whole to be taken seriously." You claim they compensate for that by "most" papers being multi-authored and that the authors often come from different disciplines, and then the best you turn up is essentially a compilation of data from different fields that works from the basis that AGW is a significant factor.

I think you should come back to the playing field we started on. I would have less problems with you if you would just accept it when you're wrong.

As you're an alarmist yourself I'm not sure why you're trying to differentiate yourself from Hansen at the same time as using him as authority for your views.

Yeah bugsy, what you said.

Calling someone an alarmist does not an alarmist make.
A tactic regularly employed from the 'other side'.

Calling someone a "denier" does not a "denier" make.
A tactic regularly employed from the 'other side'.

there, fixed ..

So what.
Hands up all those who think pollution is a good thing.
How about hunting species to extinction, or using up non renewable resources to total depletion?
I don't know if the globe is 'warming' -although most old country folk seem to agree the climate has been acting pretty dam' strange, lately- or if global dimming is counteracting global warming, or if CO2 and CH4 is acting the way they should, but so what?
If there's a problem and we stop doing stupid things, that has to be good.
If there isn't a problem, and we stop doing stupid things, that still has to be good.