voxUnius

@ >> However the arrogance and hubris of humanity in thinking that it can both cause and rectify environmental global scale catastrophes is astounding to me <<

This is a comment typically of the ‘religious right’ and/or the ‘ideological right’ – not one of science. What is astounding is that people don’t think humanity can cause such environmental disasters. The world’s population is heading for 10 billion by 2050. Did you read the link to a “squealing” planet?

@ >> The Earth will have its own way with us in its own good time no matter how much carbon tax we pay and no matter how much mouth-noise we make about it <<

voxUnius, this statement displays a fundamental disconnect between the premise and the conclusion - that renders the argument invalid. This type of fallacy is called a ‘red-herring’.

Australia’s “carbon tax” has got nothing at all to do with changing global temperatures (natural or human induced).

The Australian government’s “carbon tax” is meant to transition our economy to an alternative (to fossil fuel) energy future – that is what the policy says. It can’t be done over-night (it will take decades) but a start must be made – regardless of AGW and regardless of who is in government.

@ >> social collapse is a much more likely threat to humanity. Western civilisation appears to be coming apart at the seams at this very moment. <<

I agree. Perhaps more thought should be given to WHY?

@ >> So, will we all be going back to the Dark Ages? <<

Of course not (glad you doubt it too Vox) but that argument for doing nothing is another ‘red herring’ often put forward by the so called ‘deny and delay brigade’. We humans are a very creative lot, particularly in time of adversity.

@ >> humans controlling the temperature of the Earth by way of paying tax, but who concerns themselves about that one? <<

See above red herrings.

cont'd

cont'd @ voxUnius

I’m glad you downloaded the PDF – the book has 200+ more pages and costs more : (

Persevere, the enhanced greenhouse effect is real and humanity is a significant component - check-out radiative transfer and energy balance (assuming they're in the PDF).

@ >>> I just wish people could have more genuine scientific discussion without the hysterics and political grandstanding <<

Me too, that is why you will find more scientists and more scientific institutions having their say ... that's the reason I am convinced of AGW.

Bonmot; I also believe in evidence based science; and the evidence says to me that the Co2 already in the atmosphere is enough to lift temps above 2C, and irreversible climate change, by as soon as 2070?
Co2 is a very poor insulator and by itself traps very little radiant heat; however, atmospheric moisture does! Repeatable scientific tests, demonstrates this fact. Take a cubic metre of air and extract all the Co2; and the drop in temperature, is just 0.03C; and, exactly the same for as many times as the test is repeated! The very bedrock of good science.
Conversely, when all the moisture is evacuated from the sample(s); the temperature drops by around 30C; thereby identifying atmospheric moisture as the real agent/culprit of global warming?
How is Co2 implicated?
Co2 acts as a super fertilizer and promotes verdant plant growth, which in turn extrude vastly increased moisture.
This is natures way of trying to adjust?
But there are finite limits to its ability to do so! i.e. As the ice melts less and less of the radiant heat is reflected, but instead, absorbed by the oceans.
Mount Kilimanjaro now spends the summers completed free of its former snow cap; ditto for many other mountains.
Climate change is very real and occurring/advancing at a pace; no so-called climate scientist ever predicted. Sorry mate.
We have a very small and diminishing window of opportunity to reverse current trends; many of which have decades to run; even were we to turn to carbon free energy tomorrow.
I'd much rather been seen as a so-called alarmist and shake our so-called leaders out of their lethargy; or laissez faire approach, given there are things we can and ought to be doing, with long overdue bipartisan cooperation; that can begin to reverse current trends, without also cruelling the economy.
Vastly up-scaled algae farming, would be a very good place to start; given the inherent water savings and the increased economic growth/activity/complete self sufficiency in endlessly sustainable fuel supplies; and the Co2 reductions; this one single, Murray/Darling saving/rescue measure would provide! Cheers, Rhrosty.

bonmot writes -

@>>This is a comment typically of the ‘religious right’ and/or the ‘ideological right’ - not one of science.<<
Ah, this comment isn't very scientific either bonny - your political slip is showing.

@>> Did you read the link to a "squealing" planet?<<
Yes I did. Not much science in there either - more hysteria and political spin.

@>>Australia’s "carbon tax" has got nothing at all to do with changing global temperatures (natural or human induced).<<
Really!!? So all that political hysteria about "big polluters", the (climate) science is settled, greatest moral challenge of our time, limit temp increase to 2 deg C, we must act now to save the planet, - that's all been a big con all along then? So AGW is all about hysteria and political grandstanding. Well I knew that. Good of you to admit it.

@>>The Australian government’s "carbon tax" is meant to transition our economy to an alternative (to fossil fuel) energy future<<
Yeah, I knew that too. But if that's what they wanted, why didn't they just come out and say so? Why did they have to drag false science into it? Again hysteria and political grandstanding.

bonmot, you do see there's not much science in what you've been presenting here to encourage me to become an ideological convert to AGW. I just want the real science. I'm passionate about it. I want to find out the facts. I don't want altruistic causes, I don't want guilt trips about my grandchildren and I seriously don't want any more hysteria or political spin.

I truly don't give a hoot about the "sustainable" future of civilisation, the environment or any political/economic/social ideology. I couldn't care less about any of these things. They can all go rot. The Earth will do what it wants, when it wants and it won't give a damn about any of us. It might even have a few tempeature variations and climate changes from time to time - like it always has.

@voxUnius

1. Fact is, it’s true

2. Here’s the actual paper:

http://deepeco.ucsd.edu/~george/publications/09_critical_transitions.pdf

Care to comment?

3. You are conflating various issues.

We should find better and more efficient ways of producing energy, or do you not agree. Science is never settled (but fake sceptics and alarmists keep bringing that up in their arsenal). You can’t turn on nuclear, or solar thermal, or whatever alternative overnight. Yes, politics (from both sides by the way) get in the way of science – dilemma is, politicians and economists make the rules.

4. “The Australian government’s "carbon tax" is meant to transition our economy to an alternative (to fossil fuel) energy future”.

>> Yeah, I knew that too. But if that's what they wanted, why didn't they just come out and say so? <<

They did say that – most people haven’t read the policy document – you obviously haven’t.

5. >> Why did they have to drag false science into it? Again hysteria and political grandstanding. <<

What false science Vox? Do you get your science from Alan Jones?

6. You seem to confuse ideology with science.

7. You say you want real science? It’s there if you were really interested … remember this?

@ voxUnius, Tuesday, 5 July 2011 5:29:53 p.m.

>> With all due respect vox, it is more complicated than that.

There are many good studies on the subject, this one is particularly good and is recent (check-out the references):

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/pub/seager/Seager_Naik_Vecchi_2010.pdf

Of particular interest is part 8, consideration of the Clausius–Clapeyron relation. <<

Cognitive dissonance was stronger than passion, then and now.

8. You ...

“don't give a hoot about the "sustainable" future of civilisation, the environment or any political/economic/social ideology. I couldn't care less about any of these things. They can all go rot. The Earth will do what it wants, when it wants and it won't give a damn about any of us. It might even have a few tempeature variations and climate changes from time to time - like it always has.” (sic)

Says it all really – why all the bullsh!t about your passion for science?

The silence is very telling.

Of course climate changes naturally. The trick is to distinguish natural variability (noise) from anthropogenic causes (signal) - we can. Whether you believe that or not is irrelevant and inconsequential.

Bye