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 > Global warming is happening right now > Comments

Global warming is happening right now : Comments

By Des Griffin, published 31/1/2005

Des Griffin argues the evidence pointing to global warming is being ignored for political and economic expediency.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
This article adopts the erroneous attitude that scientific matters are resolved by consensus. Consensus belongs to the social arena, among legal decisions and politics, not among science where demonstrable correctness is the key. Society would be in a significantly backward state without the break-throughs by scientists who opposed consensus.

Griffin has failed to produce any evidence for his claim that global warming is occurring now, nor the more important but implied claim that the warming is anthropogenic and that something can and should be done about it.

Indeed the steadily increasing level of atmospheric carbon dioxide but failure of recent temperatures to reach the 1998 peak suggests that the notion of carbon dioxide driving temperatures may be seriously flawed.

In the last few months the famous "hockey stick" graph of temperature has taken yet another beating, bringing those refutations to about 6 in recent years.

In recent weeks the notion of anthropogenic global warming has been disputed in the Dutch, Portuguese and Canadian media in reports which are long overdue.

This week we will see a rash of reports from the conference at the UK's Hadley Centre. It's a conference which will define a "dangerous level" of greenhouse gases to the British prime minister so that he can take action. Impartial advise to a politician? I don't think so. Not when numerous other climatic influences are poorly understood and they may have some influence on temperatures.

With any luck though, when the spin from the UK conference dies away, we will see some genuine and not one-sided discussion of the possible causes of climate change.

John McLean
Posted by Snowman, Monday, 31 January 2005 12:36:56 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
John McLean

John McLean’s response does not benefit from a reading of what has been written. I do not say that scientific matters are resolved by consensus, I say that despite the scientific method and the framing and testing of hypotheses scientists nevertheless are people and often behave like other people.

I don’t rely on my originally discovered evidence for global warming. I reference, extensively, the evidence gathered by others. And the point of my concluding comments is that it is very extensive indeed! The hockey stick graph can sustain beatings. Why don’t people like McLean actually go and read the stuff on the several sites I mention such as RealClimate and even Wikipedia. These completely traverse attempts to refute the proposition of warming.

And how interesting it is that McLean does not mention the unexpected rise in CO2 levels reported recently or the news last week of the testing of climate models which suggested future rises of up to 11 degrees C. (The latter probably deserves more analysis than has so far been given.)

To suppose that the Hadley Centre conference is gathering evidence just o satisfy PM Blair is silly. The Centre is not run by any intelligence agency such as the CIA or MI6, so far as I know. What is the personal gain of scientists who conclude that global warming is occurring?
Posted by Des Griffin, Monday, 31 January 2005 12:59:56 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
My car dealer service department just called to tell me that the "knock" in the engine is of some concern and they need to pull it down to check the problem. A friend of mine is an engineer and tells me that it is nothing to be concerned about!

Who do I believe?

For any issue there will always be a multiplicity of opinions, options and solutions. If my car expires it cost me money and some inconvenience but I would be less sanguine about the end of the world!

The problem is that global climate change has such profound implications that I am not sure that we can trust political parties to apply non biased intellectual rigour to this vastly complex issue. We cannot have much influence internationally but at every opportunity we should be pressing politicians of every persuasion to reflect carefully on inaction.

After all they are parents and grand parents and if the doom sayers win 6-0,6-2,6-3 it will be a shallow victory indeed.

John McLean wants a genuine discussion on the causes of climate change; fair enough but I don't believe we can have that discussion while ever vested interests are involved and a party preferred "other natural causes" result is the ultimate objective.
Posted by Peter King, Monday, 31 January 2005 3:38:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Des,

Let me take your points in order.

You say that you are not claiming consensus and yet with the briefest of backward searches I find in your conclusion "First, very large numbers of scientists do consider that warming has occurred in the last few decades, that it is global in extent and rapid, is likely to continue and is due mainly to human activity."

If that is not an statement implying that consensus should rule then what is it?

The "Hockey Stick" can take a beating? I doubt that very much. Mann has still refused, after 4 years, to fully reveal his data and methodology. A principle key of science is that results must be replicable and yet Mann is refusing to provide the information to do so.

McIntyre et al have just shown that the type of analysis used by Mann will easily generate a hockey stick from even random data. (see http://www.climate2003.com/pdfs/2004GL012750.pdf). This adds to von Storch's analysis of Mann's method late last year in which he concluded the "hockey stick" was rubbish.

You didn't mention RealClimate or Wikipedia in your article so forgive me for not deducing that I should read them. Personally I find RealClimate to be a misnomer and UnRealClimate more appropriate. The website exists only to defend established positions, mainly via a series of references to either the IPCC TAR or to papers by those who operate the site. The site is censored and I have seen far too many scientific questions and comments that have been rejected. It is a biased little "marketing" site that should be treated with contempt. As for Wikipedia I don't bother to read it for anything other than very specific information from reputable and credible sources - minor points like the apparently rising sea levels in Bangladesh being due to movement of tectonic plates.

Perhaps you should try my website, http://mclean.ch/climate/global_warming.htm, for information with numerous references. Please read the "eye-openers" before you download the 22-page "summary" document.

There was no point mentioning the press statement last week that claimed that increased CO2 would cause up to 11C degrees of warming because it was a farce. It was marketing masquerading as science. If you had checked the website that it came from you would find that the computer models were greatly simplified and that any results showing "excessive" cooling were rejected (and by implication models showing "excessive" warming were retained).

I have emailed the site to ask what warming "power" they are assuming for carbon dioxide because the Stefan-Bolzmann equation indicates 0.7 degrees for a doubling of CO2 and Arrhenius's work - when the action of water vapour is removed from his data - indicates that a doubling CO2 will result in just 0.22C degrees warming. What was used in the climate modelling? They seem very reluctant to tell me!

To suppose that the Hadley Centre conference is gathering evidence just to satisfy PM Blair is not silly at all.

A press statement from the UK's Met Office on 4 Nov 2004 (athttp://www.met-office.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2004/pr20041104.html) starts with the sentence "Defra today issued details of the conference announced by the Prime Minister in September to discuss scientific aspects of stabilising climate change, 'Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change: A Scientific Symposium on Stabilisation of Greenhouse Gases.'"

and ends with the two sentences...

"David Rogers, Chief Executive of the Met Office said, 'Climate change is an issue of utmost importance. The work of the Met Office's Hadley Centre enables government and other decision makers to formulate policy for the future; this conference is a crucial part of that process.'

"The Director of the Hadley Centre, Dr Dave Griggs, said "This is an ideal opportunity for the scientific community to identify emission levels, especially of carbon dioxide, at which the Earth's climate could be thrown into irreversible change."

There you have it - the conference concentrates on levels of greenhouse gases and is part of the process of advising government.

Since you raise the question of personal gain for these scientists - I didn't - let's see... assured research funding, prestige/reputation, awards (didn't Mann receive one for his graph?). Maybe you should contrast that to the sceptical scientists who are often retired or involved with pursuits where funding for climate studies is not a major issue to them.

By the way, I see you make no response to my comments about increasing carbon dioxide levels not being matched by temperature increase. Nor do you respond to my comments about media outlets starting to become seriously interested in global warming scepticism.

cheers

John
Posted by Snowman, Monday, 31 January 2005 4:18:10 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
I'm no bleeding lefty but I do know that we can't keep taking from the planet at this accelerated rate.Too many religious people think that somehow God will fix it.Two important things must happen.Firstly get off our addiction to fossil fuels,and secondly make real efforts to reduce our pop. growth.The dinosaurs lasted 160 million yrs."Civilised man" will be lucky to last a hundred more years.
Posted by Arjay, Monday, 31 January 2005 8:24:58 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
Peter King, how can you have your 'genuine discussion' when you apparently will not accept that 'other natural causes' may turn out to be more significant than man's action?

Computer models predicted Nuclear Winter. Fear of nuclear holocaust waned. The programme parameters were switched to 'Global-Warming'. Too simplistic? Maybe, maybe not. The new "beer and circuses" crusade for the masses is worship mother earth and forsake fire for fear of global warming – and, by the way, nuclear is now 'good'.

Are the models accurate? Do they CORRECTLY predict the weather even 30 days ahead? Clearly they don't and can't. So why trust them to predict reliably 10 or 20 years ahead if the dozens of parameters and interactions are not well understood. There are enough critics, who don't earn their living from the global-warming industry, to suggest that serious problems from global warming are unlikely.

History say weather changes and we adapt. Palaeontology shows us that there was maybe 10 to 20 times more carbon active in the carbon cycle than now - e.g. the fossil fuels correspond to 10 to 20 or more times the current carbon biomass. That is, the earth formerly had much more CO2 in the air. Now if that made things warmer, then the evidence is that it was good - more CO2 makes plants grow bigger and faster – and what do we see in the fossil record? Giant-size versions of plants we know and lush vegetation from pole to pole!

So maybe we should burn more fossil fuel (cleanly) to boost CO2 levels to speed up crop growth! But, more importantly, global warming green house fear is based on unprovable models which depend on dozens of parameter estimates which can't be measured or checked with any accuracy. So why rely on models that will cool or warm just by fiddling parameters.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

Miscellaneous: Des Griffin's article was unduly long with irrelevant side waffles:

Waffle-1: What on earth has therapeutic cloning got to do with global warming apart from Des's dislike of Bush and Howard. And on that diversion: cloning has the advantage that there is no rejection from the host cloned, but it has serious practical problems like premature aging, tumours etc - and the moral issue of creating a human for destruction – and it has zero success in curing diseases so far. In contrast, adult stem cells, harvested from the patient, have no rejection problems either – and have had many documented cures to their credit. So why the push for PC TC? Money? Or maybe fame and money?

Waffle-2: Des threw in abortion and population control. But he can't have it both ways. If you absolutely must have cloning to save hundreds of thousands of people, then aborting millions of unborn babies every year should be a no-no. Be consistent Des. If you kill unborn babies because that's more convenient for someone, or to clean up the gene pool, then why not kill sickly people?

Seems to me that those sidetracks Des introduced have very little connection with global warming, rather they seem to relate to dislike of the Judeo-Christian values that Bush and Howard support. Arjay wants to toss in God and dinosaurs too!
Posted by Percy, Monday, 31 January 2005 11:38:58 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
Michael Crichton is writing fiction and therefore may be only half correct in his thesis.
As they say one fights fire with fire and therefore by extension fiction with fiction.
Posted by anti-green, Tuesday, 1 February 2005 12:18:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Percy,

I was making 2 points. The first that presumably global warming data is subject to interpretation. Therefore there will alwalys be differing points of view. Secondly, that each interpretation will gravitate to the political party most encouraging to that view.

Unfortunately, the technology to monitor in real time multiple spots on the planet as well as ocean currents is relatively new and therefore has no historical points of reference.

However, surely if it can be shown that mean temperatures across a geographical spread have risen sharply over the monitoring period and that rate is increasing, then we "might" agree that something is happening! We can only view fossil records across the millenia and make assumptions about previous cycles.

There may be any number of causes for such indications and they may be entirely natural but it would be "reasonable" to infer that it could be related to human activity.

We should insist that our government dissociates political and economic considerations from an analysis of the available data. I agree that modeling is an inexact science and that weather predictions even for tomorrow can be vastly wrong. But we have to have a starting point where reasonable conclusions can be drawn as to the existence or non existence of a problem before we can even begin to determine the cause.

It seems to me that we are still arguing about Global Climate Change as a fact
Posted by Peter King, Tuesday, 1 February 2005 6:13:46 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
Peter,

I think we are on the same side but it doesn't mean we can't disagree on detail. ;-)

I don't agree with your statement "Secondly, that each interpretation will gravitate to the political party most encouraging to that view." Most political parties fail abysmally when it comes to rational and impartial debate and decisions. Right, Left and Centre have all chased votes from those people who believe the story of anthropogenic global warming albeit some of those leanings slightly less than others, but they are all in there. (I note particularly Tony Blair's insistence that carbon dioxide is to blame and his implication that it is just a matter of setting CO2 limits and all will be wonderful.)

You say "There may be any number of causes for such indications and they may be entirely natural but it would be 'reasonable' to infer that it could be related to human activity." but I ask you, is it reasonable to spend $15 trillion (latest estimate I've seen) in implementing Kyoto when the proof of significant CO2-induced warming is non-existent?

I have to agree with Lomborg when he says that there are other global problems that are better understood and where the benefits of spebnding the money are more certain.

Unfortunately those political and economic factors will not be disassociated from the global warming debate. Governments have funded the IPCC and it is the IPCC that is dragging those factors into the discussion. (They are doing so very badly according to Ian Henderson in another Opinion piece !)

cheers

John
Posted by Snowman, Tuesday, 1 February 2005 7:06:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think Snowman works for a pressure group, Maybe it's the same one that says 5 cent deposits on drink containers doesn't improve recycling!

two points.

1).Life on Earth is only possible because of greenhouse type heating, without the green houses gass's in the air it would be to cold.
2). The that the world is heating is a fact that only the mad would not agree.

So my take is who cares who/what is causing it what can we do to stop it. Just think all those baby boomers houses under water in Qld.
Posted by Kenny, Wednesday, 2 February 2005 9:21:19 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 will try to address the main points in responses to my article up to the present (2 February).

First, to summarize the argument.

As I understand it Oxley (and the Lavoisier Group and conservative think tanks in the US and Britain) variously argue (going beyond the outcomes of the Buenos Aires conference) that warming is not occurring to any greater extent than in the last several hundred or thousand or several thousand years, and/or that CO2 levels are not significantly related to any warming that is occurring, and/or that if warming is occurring it is not anthropogenic, that whatever is happening Kyoto won’t fix it and indeed limits on emissions will require significant reductions in use of fossil fuels and therefore will be economically disadvantageous. It is further contended that the science underlying the proposition that global warming is happening does not stand up to scrutiny. There is also an economic argument which I don’t need to go into further because a distinguished proponent of the view has an article in the same issue of On Line Opinion. However, I do mention that John Quiggin reviewed this argument in August last year pointing out that it did not have the significance claimed for it.

My argument is that, contrary to these assertions, various businesses, US States, European countries are pursuing measures to address CO2 emissions, including through carbon trading. Second, the very large number of scientists involved in work under the umbrella of the IPCC and the numerous articles and argument and the conclusions which are being drawn are to the effect that rapid global warming is occurring and it is related in a causal way to levels of CO2 which are generated by human activity.

In reaching these conclusions I have read many of the articles on the RealClimate and Wikipedia sites, which are linked by hypertext. If one carefully read the article then one would know that! But I have also taken the issue as significantly a political argument driven largely by some resource business interests. And further that when one looks at the content of these people’s arguments one has to ask how much is driven by economic interests and political alliances rather than careful scientific analysis.

I used as evidence that political views determine attitudes and policies the record of the Bush administration internationally and nationally and the close match between Australia’s actions and US policy. That is why the reference to therapeutic cloning is there. And that is why the reference to population control is there. Surely no one would sustain the proposition that Australia is supporting a ban on therapeutic cloning because it has carefully considered the scientific and medical evidence and that this has special significance to Australian people or the region. Likewise, surely population control policies are important in a world of scarce resources.

By the way, if we think the developed west has plenty of resources contemplate the causes and effects of the fires which have severely damaged two of the New York subways lines. An editorial in the January 29 issue of the New York Times said, “Years of underfinancing and borrowing have left the system on the threshold of a crisis bigger than anything since its nadir in the late 70's and early 80's.” And consider the present argument in Australia that exports are hampered by a failure to invest in transport infrastructure.

It seems there is a need to clarify the meaning of consensus. It means both general agreement, as in government by consensus, and an opinion reached by a group as a whole. The former meaning is the one objected to by Crichton who implies that scientists go along with the proposition of global warming because other scientists whom they respect have that view, not because they have independently considered the evidence. When I said that scientists were like other people in being prepared to adopt a consensus view on issues I did not mean that the main feature of decision-making by scientists was consensus. When I say that very large numbers of scientists consider that warming is global and rapid etc I mean that individual scientists, specialists in climatology, have considered the evidence and come to that view. Have a look at the comments by former Meteorology Chief John Zillman’s comments at the launch of a book by a former colleague which is on the Lavoisier site.

It is of little benefit to take a few scientific comments by Manne or McIntyre in isolation as if they are the last word, or not. The criticised RealClimate site comments on the latest von Storch paper by saying it “has appeared too recently for responses to have made their way through the appropriate peer-review process. While we are already aware of some recent work arriving at very different conclusions from von Storch et al, it is premature at this time to comment on that work.” This hardly accords with the description of the site that you make John, does it?

I will not dignify the writings of Bjorn Lomborg by commenting on them. As far as I am concerned his stuff is discredited. Refer to the Quiggin responses, which I reference, and to the host of criticisms. And consider the people who are supporting his views. Before someone jumps down my throat I am not by that endorsing the attempt to kick Cambridge Uni Press for publishing his book. Nor am I saying that because global warming is occurring then Kyoto is the answer. I make this clear in my article!

Assertions that www.RealClimate.com is in essence a PR exercise seem to me to ignore the considerable effort which has been made to deal with very many propositions and to ignore even the detail of the arguments. Are the comments on Crichton simply PR?

Assertions that the scientists at the Hadley Centre are prepared to vary their scientific opinions because of possible personal gain and that this is shown by the statement of David Rogers that government will be able to make decisions based on the information from the Centre ignores the way in which government agencies have increasingly been brought to the service of government in western countries in the last 20 years. Mostly this has been done by neoliberal governments. But to conclude that thereby scientists are prepared to serve up whatever view their political masters want ignores the conduct of science. What is being suggested is that climate scientists are being pressed into service in the same way as Lysenko’s ideas were supported by the Soviet government. What was the furore over David Kelly about?

You ask, John, that we consider the sceptical views of retired scientists. Is this an illusion to Fred Singer and the Science and Environment Policy Project? If so, it is not an advance in our understanding. Singer’s material is not published in peer-reviewed journals and there have been many criticisms of his conferences and petitions.

There seems to be less than adequate understanding of the difference between climate and weather as shown, for instance, in the assertion that because meteorologists make poor forecasts of weather then we can’t trust them on climate. People who say this should go and do some more reading. We can see this on sites like that of Warwick Hughes. I really cannot see any point whosoever in pursuing this. It is in the same league as suggesting that economists and meteorologists change places because they are both equally unreliable.

No John I did not comment on the (few) mismatches between CO2 levels and temperature rises because I was concerned with overall evidence. And media interest is not scientific evidence.

And I have looked at your site John. I like the pictures. I do not mean to be gratuitous in saying this. However, the statements you make are a mix of broad generalisations and selective items to support your generalisations.
Posted by Des Griffin, Wednesday, 2 February 2005 10:48:21 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
Snowman,

It's good to be on the same side with someone ;-)

What can we conclude on a figure of $15 trillion for Kyoto?

Are the participatory countries wanting to drop some spare cash or do they know more than is publicised? Have they been victims of a giant hoax?

Cynically we can assume the US is protecting its own business interests and without starting a pro/con Howard debate we may well be adopting a syncophantic stance in not ratifying Kyoto. Who knows!! I believe Des illustrates that possibility in alluding to cloning.

We know from the Ozone layer issue that firstly, most scientists (I am sure there were many dissenters) agreed on the damage being the result of CFC emissions and secondly, there would also appear to be an improvement in the disruption of the Ozone layer after reduction in CFC usage. I think this "reasonably" demonstrates that human activity does have a negative effect on the environment and that it may be reversible or at worst, mitigated by reduction in our outputs.

Irrespective of NGO agencies bureaucracy and their subsequent politicization they must surely be privy to sufficient irrefutable opinions to have scared the daylights ( and $15 trillion) out of the treaty countries.

I believe there is sufficient data and reputable commentary from distinguished scientists for most of us to be both alert and VERY alarmed!

Whether Kyoto is the best mechanism is debatable but I can't imagine any other way to encourage, cajole or influence a disparate group of nations to take effective action in reducing CO2 emissions.
Posted by Peter King, Wednesday, 2 February 2005 11:37:13 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
Kenny,

I work for no pressure group. My primary interest is that the arguments for anthropogenic global warming simply do not hold water. They are assertions and assumptions based on little or no solid evidence. The three pillars of AGW theory are weak. The correlation between carbon dioxide and temperature is poor (because often temperature rise has occurred before CO2 increase); the "hockey stick" graph has been discredited; and the much-loved computer models of climate have known errors.

I'll agree with you that life of earth would be nigh on impossible without the presence of greenhouse gases. (By the way, despite what the media may say, water vapour is the most influential of these gases, not CO2).

Call me mad if you like, but my understanding is that the failure of global (and Australian) temperatures to exceed their 1998 values is a sign that there has been no further warming for the last 7 years. Sure there has been warming in some regions but there has been cooling in others and the average across the globe indicates no rise in temperature.

Unless we know what is causing temperature change then it is pointless to spend huge amolunts of money on something that has no reasonable guarantee of success.

I note, from the ABC online News today, that at the current UK conference the IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri said that climate science was still in its infancy.

Then he showed his lack of impartiality (as is demanded by the IPCC's charter) by saying that even if today's emissions were immediately stopped, temperatures will continue to rise for generations to come because of the gas which has already been spewed into the atmosphere.

Unfortunately for him, the evidence doesn't support that assertion because temperatures have fallen since 1998 while CO2 has increased.

John

PS. I'll reply to Des's comment later.
Posted by Snowman, Wednesday, 2 February 2005 1:14:38 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
Snowman,

On what basis can you argue that temperatures have not risen over the last 7 years?

What sources of data would indicate net cooling versus warming is neutral?
Posted by Peter King, Wednesday, 2 February 2005 3:33:22 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
Peter,

You ask "On what basis can you argue that temperatures have not risen over the last 7 years?"

For all years up to 2003 please see http://www.meto.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/CR_data/Annual/land+sst_web.txt

...and for 2004 see the WMO webpage at http://www.wmo.ch/news/news_december2004.html. (If that doesn't work directly, go to http://www.wmo.ch/index-en.html, then go to "news", then to "Archive", then to "Dec 2004" where you will find the comment and link to a Word document about half-way down the page. Sorry but the WMO website uses frames.)

(Incidentally that WMO note is just about a comment about El Nino conditions and they have a very strong natural influence on temperature. I've also recently heard of a study that tracked El Nino-induced warm water as it moved north. The warm water took about 8 years to reach the polar regions. I guess that might be why there are some signs of polar warming in the regions where the currents bring waters from the south. The 1998 warm water will just about be at the poles by now.)

cheers

John
Posted by Snowman, Wednesday, 2 February 2005 5:31:43 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
Stay with us Des Griffin, your patient explanations are an important counter to the muddled tripe and self-interested tosh from the Institute of Public Affairs, and Alan Oxley, amongst others.

The following extract is from "The Book on Bush: How George W Bush (Mis)leads America", by Eric Alterman, Mark Green, Viking 2004, p13:

"Fewer than sixty days into his [first term] presidency Bush declared that he was dropping his campaign pledge to cap carbon dioxide emissions...What then, one asks, had spurred the president to change his mind? A White House spokesman explained that "CO2 should not have been included as a pollutant during the campaign. It was a mistake." Bush himself argued that "important information" had been brought to his attention and that he was "responding to reality".

"That "important information" apparently came directly from the oil and coal industries. Among the documents ultimately prised out of Vice President Cheney's National Energy Policy Task Force was the resignation letter of Jane Hughes Turnbull, a member of the National Coal Council, which warned that Bush's reversal was "profoundly shortsighted [and] and obvious and expedient response to industry interests." The numerous emails and letters of gratitude from coal, oil, and gas industry groups also found among the task force documents hint at the hammerlock in which these businesses held Bush during those early months...

To justify his turnabout on global warming, President Bush has had to reject two decades of climate research - research on which the United States has spent $18 billion between 1990 and 2000, more than Japan and the entire EU combined. Since taking office Bush has repeatedly asked panels of scientists and industry leaders for input, only to disregard it when the results don't please him...

"In 2001 additional reports from the National Academy of Sciences and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change unequivocally stated that global warming is occurring and that man-made pollution is responsible. Even the Global Climate Coalition, an industry lobby group that for years published anti-climate-change reports, disbanded that year as its members found themselves on the wrong side of scientific and public opinion. Philip Watts, the chairman of Royal Dutch Shell (once a member of the coalition), summed up the revised position of many businesses: "Amid all this uncertainty, we have seen and heard enough in Shell to say we stand with those who believe there is a problem and that it is related to the burning of fossil fuels...

"...the Bush White House has made a habit of of altering data or simply removing references to global warming from otherwise comprehensive environmental reports. The EPA deleted the entire global warming section from its landmark Report on the Environment after the White House Office of Management and Budget insisted that the EPA inject industry-sponsored scientific reports into the chapter. An internal EPA memo leaked to the National Wildlife Federation captured the agency's frustration: "Conclusions of the [National Research Council] are discarded...Uncertainty is inserted where there is essentially none...Most important, the [Report] no longer accurately represents scientific consensus on climate change."..

"A 2002 memorandum sent to Republican strategists by Frank Luntz, the pollster who helped craft the 1994 "Contract with America", advises Republicans to call themselves "conservationists", not "environmentalists"' to talk of "climate change" instead of the more alarming "global warming"; and to foster skepticism about the science of environmental problems..."
Posted by grace pettigrew, Wednesday, 2 February 2005 5:56:56 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
Grace,

Please explain why the quoting of observational measurements is "self-interested trip"

Please also explain why a proper scientific refutation of Mann's "hockey stick" is "self-interested tripe". (And while you are at it, please explain why Mann's refusal to fully disclose his method and data does NOT make his work "self interested tripe".)

... and why my quoting from a UK Met Office press statement makes my comment "self interested tripe".

... and why an explanation why the known warming caused by carbon dioxide is very small makes it "self interested tripe"

... and why it is that you believe that voting on scientific matters is a suitable way for science to proceeed - or is that your own self interested tripe?

On the subject of consensus, I am sure that Christians are of the consensus that God exists but does their consensus make it at all true?

My introduction of a religious analogy is not an accident. It seems the man-made global warming is accepted on faith and belief rather than rational scientific methods. That belief sounds to me like self-delusional tripe.

cheers

John
Posted by Snowman, Thursday, 3 February 2005 12:00:58 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
Snowman, I thought your name was John McLean, not Alan Moran or Alan Oxley. I am actually quite interested in what you have to say, and I have made no comment on your personal motivations. However, I do find Des Griffin much more convincing. Carry on.
Posted by grace pettigrew, Thursday, 3 February 2005 9:53:55 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
Grace,

You didn't answer my questions!!

You also chose to ignore observational data and research into climate and the factors that influence it.

I find it hard to understand that you claim an interest in the subject and yet seem so unwilling to properly explore the evidence.

John
Posted by Snowman, Thursday, 3 February 2005 3:15:13 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
Snowman,

I followed the link to "...and for 2004 see the WMO webpage at http://www.wmo.ch/news/news_december2004.html. (If that doesn't work directly, go to http://www.wmo.ch/index-en.html, then go to "news", then to "Archive", then to "Dec 2004" where you will find the comment and link to a Word document about half-way down the page. Sorry but the WMO website uses frames" in your recent posting.

However, it TOTALLY contradicts your comments about temperature rises not being observed in the last 7 years!!

<<

WMO STATEMENT ON THE STATUS OF THE GLOBAL CLIMATE IN 2004:

GLOBAL TEMPERATURE IN 2004 FOURTH WARMEST


GENEVA, 15 December (WMO)—The global mean surface temperature in 2004 is expected to be +0.440 C above the 1961-1990 annual average (140C), according to the records maintained by Members of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). This value of 0.44o C places 2004 as the fourth warmest year in the temperature record since 1861 just behind 2003 (+0.490C). However, 1998 remains the warmest year, when surface temperatures averaged +0.540C above the same 30-year mean. The last 10 years (1995-2004), with the exception of 1996, are among the warmest 10 years on record.


Calculated separately for both hemispheres, surface temperatures in 2004 for the northern hemisphere (+0.60oC) are likely to be the fourth warmest and, for the southern hemisphere (+0.27oC), the fifth warmest in the instrumental record from 1861 to the present.

Globally, the land-surface air temperature anomaly for October 2004 was the warmest on record for a month of October. The blended land and sea-surface temperature (SST) value for the Arctic (north of 70°N) in July and the land-surface air temperature value for Africa south of the Equator in July were the warmest on record for July. Significant positive annual regional temperature anomalies, notably across much of the land masses of central Asia, China, Alaska and western parts of the United States, as well as across major portions of the North Atlantic Ocean, contributed to the high global mean surface temperature ranking.
Over the 20th century, the global surface temperature increased by more than 0.60C. The rate of change for the period since 1976 is roughly three times that for the past 100 years as a whole. In the northern hemisphere, the 1990s were the warmest decade with an average of 0.38oC. The surface temperatures averaged over the recent five years (2000-2004) were, however, much higher (0.58o C).
>>


You need to be carefull citing sources that you have read incorrectly!
Posted by Peter King, Thursday, 3 February 2005 6:09:37 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
Peter, Peter...

You asked where I found the temperature data and I told you.

I see in the WMO report that...

(a) the mean global temperature in 2004 was 0.44 above the 1961-90 average and that it was the fourth highest year on record

(b) "However, 1998 remains the warmest year, when surface temperatures averaged +0.540C above the same 30-year mean."

Question: Did the 2004 temperature exceed the 1998 temperature? No.

Question: Has the temperature in any year since 1998 exceeded that 1998 value? No (as the WMO says, but you will have to look at my other references to get the numbers)

I did not say that in the last 7 years there have been no increases in temperature (which would be demonstrably false because year to year increases have occurred). What I did say was that no annual mean temperature has exceeded the 1998 value - and that is exactly what the WMO document states.

cheers

John
Posted by Snowman, Thursday, 3 February 2005 7:06:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
** This is a 5-page, 16-point response. You have been warned! :-)


Des,

You seem to be shifting the basis for the discussion again but no matter, I will shift too.

Point 1

You summarise the position of sceptics reasonably well but let's make them more readable (because this format does not lend itself to long sentences).

The general sceptical position is as follows (and I say general because sceptics have various opinions but they don't regard that as an issue because there is still an awful lot to learn about climate).

- recent warming (since 1970 and maybe ending in 1998) is more than likely within natural levels. (There is a point of contention over what is normal and hence the dispute over Mann's graph but there is little doubt that temperatures have been warmer today about 2000 and 3200 years ago)
- the cause of this warming is not known with any certainty. (Many possible natural factors exist but there is no evidence that CO2 plays any more than a very minor part and no firm evidence that a significant part of the warming is anthropogenic.)
- climate models have insufficient credibility because they have known errors, numerous questionable assumptions and they produce output that fails to match observations
- the Kyoto Accord has no solid scientific evidence to justify its implementation (let alone any extensions to it)

Sceptics also question the extent of global warming and point to numerous studies which detail Urban Heat Islands, where urban areas influence any local measurements - or some European studies, influence measurements several kilometres away in the countryside.


Point 2

Your argument "contrary to these assertions, various businesses, US States, European countries are pursuing measures to address CO2 emissions, including through carbon trading." is not contrary to these assumptions because to be properly contrary you would need to directly oppose them. The fact that people are implementing emission controls is in no way proof of theory; it is an acceptance that this action is what is expected of them but not a confirmation that the reasons for the expectation are valid.


Point 3

Your second argument about the large number of scientists who believe that rapid warming is occurring and it is due to human activity is a CONTRADICTION to your previous comments that you were not talking about consensus. For my views on this idea of consensus, that scientists should essentially be voting on some topic, see elsewhere.


Point 4

As I have said, I don't read RealClimate or Wikipedia. The former claimed to be a website for discussion and debate but it is no such thing. There is no discussion and no debate, just the operators of the site defending their position. I have posted comments and questions to that site and the response failed to answer the question and attempted to ridicule me for asking it. Others have had similar experiences. It appears that if they cannot answer they will attempt to ridicule the poster.

If you want a website for actual climate debate try http://groups.yahoo.com/group/climatesceptics/ where you are free to ask question and discuss issues. I warn you though, you may not be happy with the responses because they come from climatologists, meteorologists, geophysicists, astrophysicists and others.

Also, restricting your reading to just RealClimate and Wikipedia is doing yourself a disservice. This is like US people restricting themselves to watching the Fox News channel. (If you saw "Outfoxed" on ABC television this week you should understand the reference!)


Point 5

You drag out the old hoary chestnut that if research is funded by some organisation then the results will be in accord with their wishes. Do you honestly believe that only funding by eco-political groups such as WWF or Friends of the Earth - or government funding - buys "the truth"? Are you entirely unaware that scientists' work is usually subject to peer review and that they have reputations to consider ?

Are you also aware that Michael Mann's "hockey stick" was subject to a "mates' review" or that Michael Mann himself was the lead author of the chapter in the IPCC report of 2001 in which the graph was widely discussed?


Point 6

The political aspects of global warming appear to be that "green" parties regard global warming as their iconic campaign. It fits well with their notion that humans are to blame for everything.

In most countries the greens aren't strong enough to take any kind of power and it is often the left-leaning parties who have jumped on the band-waggon in order to try to gain the popular vote. is this attempt political opportunist or political good sense? The judgement is yours.

Yes indeed. One really should ask how much is driven by economic interests and political alliances (and ideals) rather than careful analysis. This fact is something that we do agree on however I put it to you that neither you, Peter or Grace have shown much interest in looking at the facts - by which I mean going right back to the observational evidence rather than simply adopt someone's assertions.

Your reasons in regard to therapeutic cloning and population control are logical but why do you not adopt a similar approach - the examination of scientific evidence - to climate change? It really appears that you never attempt to look beyond the claims and assertions.

Your title "Global Warming is Happening Right Now" confirms my point because as I showed from official data, temperatures in neither the world nor Australia have exceeded values of 6 years ago. You appear to have only listened to someone's assertions and you failed to look at the data.


Point 7

Your comments about a consensus appear to deal with the mechanics of that consensus. Does it really matter if metaphorically I said that scientists vote if what they do is unquestioningly repeat the statements of others and thus assign a credibility that is not deserved?

Case in point from yesterday: Tony McMichael an epidemiologist who was talking of deaths during the European heatwave of 2003 and implied that this was global warming. He seems to have taken your approach and listened to the assertions of a group of self-interested scientists rather than listen to the meteorologists, including those from the UK's Met Office, who were adamant that the heatwave was due to a stationary pressure cell. McMichael is simply wrong in his claims but the repeating of ill-founded comment is all part of the consensus.


Point 8

I have exchanged emails with John Zilman of the Bureau of Meteorology. He said that he cannot find any natural factors to account for warming and therefore it MUST be caused by carbon dioxide. I regard that as being like police who say that they can't find any other suspects therefore the one they had MUST have committed the crime. Zilman's argument is unacceptable when climatologists and meteorologists continue to say that our knowledge of climate is very poor.


Point 9

It is not of "little benefit" to look at comments by McIntyre, von Storch and others. Mann's "hockey stick" is a linchpin of the whole anthropogenic global warming argument. If his graph is wrong and conclusions about warmer periods in the last 1000 years is correct, then we have proof that warming even by more than 0.5 degrees is quite natural AND THAT THE WORLD COOLS QUITE NATURALLY. (I don't like using upper case but I can't see how else to highlight something.) In other words it would be proof that climate change can take place without human involvement and, by extension, claims that recent warming has been caused by human activity must be view very sceptically.

Of course RealClimate is going to try to cast doubt on von Storch's paper. What did you expect? That the creator of the "hockey stick" would acknowledge that von Storch's argument is very persuasive and yes he, Mann, did use dodgy methods and dodgy data to create that graph. DO you seriously believe that a lead author of a chapter in the IPCC's TAR would admit to what amounts to scientific fraud?

This accords perfectly well with my description of the site - defence and justification of the position of those who run the site.


Point 10

I find it odd that you believe that one should look at the facts and yet you will not consider the dispassionate analysis of global problems by Bjorn Lomborg.

I have not seen the Quiggins responses and have no idea to what you refer. I have just found the article "Justice Danish Style" (at http://www.ntu.edu.au/faculties/lba/schools/Law/apl/blog/stories/environment/general/187.htm) and I see that Denmark has a Committee on Scientific Dishonesty. I'd have more faith in it if it was called the Committee for Scientific HONESTY. From what I recall that committee took action against Lomborg and then rescinded it.



Point 11

Are RealClimate's comments on Chrichton PR? I must admit that I don't read RealClimate - I did for a few days then dismissed it - so I can't help you. If memory serves RealClimate dredged up articles in support of their claims but don't forget that Chrichton included extensive references for the reasons behind his statements.

RealClimate, like others, would not like to find that the emperor has no clothes!


Point 12

Are Hadley Scientists advising the government to take certain action for personal gain? Statements from Hadley clearly state that their purpose is to advise government. Do you honestly believe that these scientists, many who have made their name as proponents of global warming, will change their tune? Surely this would be trying to force the Labor party to admit that it was wrong about climate change - and that is simply not going to happen. Do you also believe that scientists who take up employment at Hadley Centre would contradict previous statements from that establishment?

The myth has become self-perpetuating. Hadley Centre won't contradict government, government continues to make statements and to support Hadley Centre. (What was your earlier inference to the effect that he who pays the researcher calls the tune?)

You say "What was the furore over David Kelly about?" and that supports my contention. Look what happens when someone who advises the government, albeit indirectly, and then contradicts what the government says! They get hounded out of office with talk of stripping their pension from them.


Point 13.

Did I claim or imply specifically that Fred S Singer was a retired scientist? What about William Kininmonth, the retired BoM senior scientist for whose book John Zilman wrote the foreword? What about numerous other scientists who work mainly in other areas of science, such people as McIntyre and McKitrick who are statisticians who analysed Mann's graph in their own time and from their own pockets?


Point 14.

I think it shows your questionable understanding of the situation if you cannot see the relationship between meteorologists and climatologists. One looks mainly at short-term weather conditions and the other at long-term conditions. Many mathematical models of climate use very similar principles to mathematical models of weather - they both use short time steps and evaluate energy flows between regions.

Point 15.

I believe that you did not comment on the times that temperature increase preceded CO2 increase because there are far too many of them and they don't fit with your explanation. Contrary to your comments, as far as I know the media have shown no interest in this fact so your comment "media interest is not scientific evidence" is totally without merit. If you had read my "summary" document (see previous posting) you would find research papers that clearly conclude that there are many instances where temperature increased before CO2, in fact one paper which studies ice-cores says by about 800 years and another quite recent paper about tropical environments indicated a 6 to 8 month lead time.


Point 16.

You say "... the statements you make are a mix of broad generalisations and selective items to support your generalisations." Well, yes, that is the idea. I do clearly state that the "summary" is purposely simple and directed at the general reader and journalists but that I also provide many references (more than 60) for those wishing to read further.

What would you have me do? Write a detailed paper that goes above the heads of most people and thus fails to properly communicate anything about this important topic? Or do what you do and simply write broad generalisations, many unsubstantiated (and unsubstantiable) ? If I say something that I at least back up my comments and that is far more than your assertions do.


cheers

John
Posted by Snowman, Thursday, 3 February 2005 7:09:39 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
Snowman, you say: "You didn't answer my questions!!" No I didn't, Snowman, and I am under no obligation to answer your questions. At the moment, rather than climb into the boxing ring with you and Des, I am enjoying the view from the sidelines. Your rhetoric is warming up and you are starting to repeat yourself.

"You also chose to ignore observational data and research into climate and the factors that influence it." No I haven't, Snowman. In fact, by my reading, Peter seems to have just given you a bit of a left hook. Perhaps you should not have let him into the ring.

"I find it hard to understand that you claim an interest in the subject and yet seem so unwilling to properly explore the evidence." As I said before, I am reading your increasingly heated explorations of the evidence with interest, and I still find Des more convincing.
Posted by grace pettigrew, Thursday, 3 February 2005 7:48:18 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
My apologies for repeating myself but it takes too long to back-track to see what I have already said. It is also probably best to repeat it because there seems to be a good chance that it didn't sink in the first time. Besides, this is probably how the myth of anthropogenic global warming got traction with its audience - repetition!

Peter doesn't bother me. It was clear that he hadn't read what I posted. (I'll credit him with failure to read rather than deliberate misconstruing!)

The evidence on which I base my efforts is far more than I could include here. I suggest that if you want to see this wider evidence that you read my summary and follow the references - and please, understand that it is deliberately written a certain way as I explained to Des.

cheers

Joh
Posted by Snowman, Thursday, 3 February 2005 10:06:36 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
Snowman - sorry, but you will have to argue your case here or not at all. I will not be following any of your links, or reading your further writing on the subject. Like most people, I am content to let the experts slug it out, and make my conclusions on what is available before me, including my reading and listening elsewhere. There is a universe of information out there, and I don't live on this website.

Nothing you have said so far has persuaded me that I should agree with your personal take on the evidence, selective as it appears to be, any more than I should agree with the Bush/Howard administrations and their business cronies, on the political context of the global warming debate. In any case, my interest in your postings is more to do with the way you aggressively argue your case. The harder you push, the less convincing you are.

And please stop demanding that I answer your loaded questions, I will not be responding. Even if you can't convince me, you haven't lost your battle Snowman, there are still a few who agree with you. You can all stand howling in the wind, its your choice. The rest of us, who are prepared to face reality, will just get on with trying to solve the problems that will face our children and grandchildren as planetary weather systems wobble off into unpredictable directions. Its already happening, look around you.
Posted by grace pettigrew, Friday, 4 February 2005 8:48:38 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
Gee, I bet Des is sorry he started this!!!

I grabbed your article Snowman not because it contradicted your statements per se. Rather that I believe it fairly clearly indicates that the "trend" is to a faster warming cycle over the past 100 years.

I think all contributors here would agree that climatology is an inexact and fledgling science and in the words of a famous Secretary of State, "we don't know what we don't know".

If you speak to National Parks and Wildlife in the Snowy Mountains you will find that their statistics on snowfall indicates a hugely declining trend; yet in any given season they can have a record dump. To me, the trend is more important than any specific year or month.

We may be entirely wrong in blaming our outputs for warming but if we are not wrong the consequences are disastrous. As Grace says our children and grandchildren will not look kindly on our response or lack thereof.

Maybe we should look at the positive outcomes of adopting major fossil fuel reductions; coal and oil will not last forever ( i will avoid another debate on how much reserves exist) and we may just find a clean renewable alternative that reduces CO2, general pollution et al.

I for one would like to see Sydney NOT looking like LA perpetually covered with smog.
Posted by Peter King, Friday, 4 February 2005 9:36:58 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
Grace and Peter...

First you, Grace.

I don't know whether to thank you for showing me why the notion of global warming has been adopted or whether to be dismayed.

I really find it difficult to understand why anyone with an interest in a contentious issue would not want to look at the facts (in this case raw data) for themselves and form their own opinions rather than rely on the opinions of others.

I have offered you access to more data but you refuse to take me up on that offer and claim that I am being selective. Well how would you know that my data mentioned in this discussion is selective beyond being a subset of the most relevant of that larger pool of data?

As for the questions I asked you, I'm sorry but you made the comment about self-interested tripe and I have been asking you to back it up. It seems that you won't - or can't.

I see that you persist in saying that global warming is still happening despite my evidence - that you elect not to read - that temperatures have not exceeded a value from 1998.

Thanks again for the insight that you have inadvertently given me. It lends support to comments I've heard about people's opinions global warming being based solely on Faith, never on irrefutable evidence.



... and to you Peter,

Des is not the only one who might wish he never started this. I find it very time-consuming to respond especially when I need to find the exact data, look up bookmarked references, verify my thoughts and so on.

But you have to admit, I did post a warning on my last response to Des ;-)


The period for considering climate records is a tough one. The convention is 30 years but I agree, there are good reasons why that might be extended.

You choose 100 years and that's fine, but are you aware that global warming of 0.6 degrees occurred between 1912 and 1945, then cooling of 0.2 degrees from 1945 to 1970 and about 0.4 degrees since 1970 ? In other words of the often-claimed 1.0 degree warming last century, more than half of it occurred before much increase in carbon dioxide levels?

Maybe we should choose 1000 years because, after all, that is tiny in historical terms.

Based on the temperatures from Greenland's ice-core that would make the last 1000 years the coldest in the last ten thousand. Quite honestly, there's only been a three brief periods (about 150 years or less) when temperatures were equal to or less than what they were about 100 years ago when we were in a mini-Ice Age. For the majority of the last ten thousand years temperatures were at least one degree higher than today. (Search for "GISP" and "temperature" if you want to see for yourself - or ask me and I'll find a good reference to the raw data.)

I appreciate what you are saying about the risk of human-induced global warming but one of the basic principles of risk management is quantifying the risk. In this case the fundamental science is not well understood - the IPCC chairman admitted as much just yesterday - so it is not much help. We can see that the world has warmed in the past and it has cooled again, so we do know that warming is not a one-way event.

At the moment far more is known about the risk of you being hit by a bus on the way to work - you going to work, not the bus - than is known about global warming. If you consistently adopted the precaution principle (as it is sometimes called) then you wouldn't get out of bed in the morning. Of course not getting out of bed might risk something falling on you.

Yes, this is heading in a nonsensical direction but this is what happens when we take a precautionary approach even to KNOWN risks.

Science does not yet know enough about climate in order to properly assess the risk of change or to consider possible counter-action. The argument that carbon dioxide is the cause is very weak - but in the absence of any other obvious suspects I can see the attraction to accuse it.

In closing, I completely agree with you with your thoughts on pollution. I don't want to see anywhere look like LA. I've also visited or experienced several smoggy places and I have to admit, the temperatures always seem warmer there. Maybe the petro-chemical smog and the steam thrown into the atmosphere are the principal causes of the local warming.

You could well be correct that warming has a human cause but maybe it is via a different substance (or substances) than you think.

cheers

John
Posted by Snowman, Friday, 4 February 2005 10:49:58 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
I absolutely agree that it may not be CO2 but perhaps Methane or CO (carbon monoxide from petro chemical sources).

I also agree that perhaps the climate is not on a warming cycle in the grand scheme of things; measured over 100's or thousand's of years.

The problem is as Grace commented, that most of us don't have the time to research every article written and analyze every data set collected. This leaves us with having to rely on generalist articles in forums such as Online Opinion and robust discussion in this specific forum.

We rely on enthusiasts such as Snowman and Des to distill the data down to pertinent facts. Ultimately, however, elected goverments will make the decisions based on their assessments of those facts (and public opinion). If we don't trust the government then bad luck...
Posted by Peter King, Saturday, 5 February 2005 3:20:34 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
Global warming caused by CO2 is an unproven theory that has about as much credibility as the existence of god. Both seem to exist in the minds of only the ignorant and gullible. Also, why is it that the major proponents of climate change are the ones who are anti-american and anti-capitalist. No one seems to mention that the two most populated nations on earth, India and China, and whose industrialised outputs will soon exceed that of all the western nations combined. And those nations are exempt from Kyoto. That immediately brings into question the credibility of Kyoto and the claims of the henny penny climate change advocates.
Posted by minotaur, Tuesday, 8 February 2005 12:43:41 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
Greenhouse gas warming from human waste output is not possible on this planet.

The facts are:

1. The second Law of Thermodynamics predicts that Climate Changes (hereafter referred to as Climate Catastrophes) add energy to the quasi closed thermodynamic Biospheric syatem. Global Warming is a result of thermodynamic decay or the loss of energy from the Biosphere. If Climate catastrophes are the result of Global warming they will also negate it. In other words on this planet, which has such a diversity of energy inputs to its Biopsphere, you cannot have a global warming greenhouse gas scenario caused by anthropogenic means.

2. What you can have on this planet is a transistor base current like effect by humans on huge global energy currents which whilst they are in progress of cleaning up any greenhouse warming are diverted by OUR activities to populated areas. If humans create high entropy sinks along polluted coastlines for low entropy energy currents ... they WILL come.

3. It is impossible to quantify the energy inputs to the Biosphere. Stainforth et al from the Exeter conference MUST do this for their models to be vailid. This is why there predictions are WRONG. All we know is that nothing that 6 billion people can do will have much of an effect on the Solar and Geothermal inputs that exist. Except redirect their effects in accordance with the principle of least action (Hamilton's Principle) .. towards our own cities and towns.

A reminder of the scope of the second law of thermodynamics and why dynamic models are so overrated:

It does not matter how a system changes in detail. We look at it in the beginning and (note) its initial state. It may have temperature, mass, volume, phases, electrical, biological, chemical, hydrualic, pneumatic, geologic or mechanical characteristic properties. Applying the laws of thermodynamics correctly, we calculate the final condition of the system with new (different final) values for its characterictic properties. What happens during the transition although interesting, does not need to concern us. This overall approach is not by choice: even a tiny bacterium is already such a vastly complex system that modern science cannot explain or predict what goes on during transitions. Further, experience teaches us that this general endpoint thermodynamic problem solving technique yields acceptable results.

If we can't explain or predict what goes on inside a bacterium, how can scientists see fit to pontificate about global warming outcomes in the far more complex quasi closed thermodynamic system of the Biosphere.
Posted by KAEP, Friday, 11 February 2005 1:29:31 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
To solve Climate Catastrophe increses across the globe:
All you need is love .... and Thermodynamics 101 .... and political independence.

As for anyone entertaining thoughts of greenhouse gas warming from human sources?

All they need is ... well I'm too polite to say:

1. The Biosphere is a quasi closed thermodynamic system. It is regularly pumped from an equilibrium or stasis by geothermal events and climate catastophe events.

2. Greenhouse gas warming scenarios are the expression of a GLOBAL thermodynamic equilibrium or stasis. Given the energy inputs in point 1, far greater than any waste heat or pollution mankind can supply, greenhouse warming from anthropogenic means cannot happen.

3. Where we do want localised or regional thermodynamic equilibrium, is at coastal cities and towns. It's relatively easy to arrange for this to happen by cleaning up coastal ocean buffers and riverine systems.

4. World governments are NOT prepared to tolerate the consequences of accepting that greenhouse gas warming CANNOT occur. Why?? Because it will mean they must put an end to ocean dumping of industrial, agricultural, sewage and urban waste waters and solids.
Cleaning and maintaining pristine coastal ocean buffers and riverine catchments is how we can prevent large global energy currents from violent and negative interaction with our cities and towns.
World governments are relying on media hype and amateur opinions to stage a bogus greenhouse warming scare to facilitate the staus quo approach of oceanic waste disposal at great personal cost to us all. They cannot do this forever.

Increasing coastal ocean cleanliness will lower the incidence if climate catastrophes.

Installing thousands of 1-2 acre strategically placed engineered wetlands (EWs) is the preferred method of holding back and treating wastes before release to rivers and oceans. This has MANY other advantages to our lifestyles than creating thermodynamic equilibrium on our coasts and preventing climate catastrophes. These EWs will lower the entropy of our living areas on a REGION by REGION basis and that means our energy levels and health will be raised to new standards. This applies to politicians, industrialists, developers and farmers as well. Their negative stance on cleaning oceans is not in their interests either if they thought the situation through.

To all the amateur climate commentators: Don't be a patsy for big business and the politically ambitious. Outside of making money these people aren't that bright when it comes to the cost/benefit analyses of thermodynamic science.
Posted by KAEP, Friday, 11 February 2005 1:37:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for the laugh KAEP, that was fun.
Posted by grace pettigrew, Friday, 11 February 2005 12:25:43 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
Gracie,

Wait n see.
It's also very true.

And it's catching on across Nth America as we speak.

To halt increasing climate catastrphes, all that's required is a clean up of coastal oceans and a prohibition on ANY waste dumping to sea. This strategy also gives us other benefits like saving poisoned species like coral reefs.

You think that's possible? I think we should demand it!
Posted by KAEP, Friday, 11 February 2005 1:01:03 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
KAEP, I am with you entirely on stopping the destruction of wetlands and the pollution and laying waste of the oceans and reefs, not to mention increasing ocean acidity...
Posted by grace pettigrew, Friday, 11 February 2005 1:21:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Let me throw this into the mix:

One of the major puzzles in the study of late 20th century climate trends has been that satellite measurements appeared to show significantly less warming in the troposphere (the atmospheric layer between the surface and about 10 to 15 km) than at the Earth's surface, although climate models predict that rates of warming of the troposphere and at the surface should be roughly equal. Much attention has been focused on this conundrum since the last comprehensive report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC in 2001).

Only recently has this puzzle been largely resolved. Recent work by Fu et al. (2004a) reveals a systematic oversight in previous analytic procedures -- an oversight that did not account for the inclusion of cooler stratospheric (atmospheric layer above the troposphere to about 50 km) temperatures in data from a satellite sensor targeted for the troposphere. Reinterpretation of the satellite data after correction for this sensor feature shows that during the period 1979-2001, global mean tropospheric temperatures rose at a rate close to that of the surface temperatures, in good agreement with predictions of climate models.

This recent work is important not only because it helps solve a scientific puzzle but also because it undermines one of the major arguments of climate skeptics, who have used the apparent discrepancy between surface and tropospheric temperature trends to cast doubt on human-induced climate change. The skeptics have variously argued that (i) this discrepancy shows that global temperatures have not really warmed, and/or (ii) that this discrepancy shows that the climate models are untrustworthy, and/or (iii) that this discrepancy shows that the physics of climate are not sufficiently well understood to relate recent surface warming to anthropogenic heat-trapping gases.
Posted by rainbird, Tuesday, 15 February 2005 3:51:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

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