Just to add one point ... Temperatures since 1998 have not been exceeded despite all the carbon dioxide emitted in the last six years, an amount equivalent to almost 20% of the total emitted since 1960.

Last week Reuters reported James Hansen, the director of NASA's Goodard Institute for Space Studies trying to explain this by saying that the warm temperatures of 1998 were due to severe El Nino conditions in the Pacific. He then said that weak El Ninos contributed to warming in 2002 and 2003.

In other words Hansen, a long-time believer in carbon dioxide as the major cause of warming, is now saying that even weak natural events can influence temperature.

I dare say that some "expert" will tell us that a computer model says X amount of warming is due to natural causes but don't forget that every model contains assumptions and these may be be inaccurate or completely invalid.

It is clear that (a) the uncertain correlation between carbon dioxide and temperature undermines the basis for the Kyoto Agreement, and (b) that more knowledge is desperately needed in the field of climate science.

That's a brave prediction that another cool period will arrive 'some time soon'. A 10,000 year wait for example is not helpful. Once the planet Venus was relatively cool but got hotter and stayed hot. Unusual cold weather doesn't mean it is cold everywhere else; inside the fridge is a pocket of cold air but around the back is a flow of warmer air that we don't notice.

Jennifer Marohasy is the Director of the Environmental Unit at the Institute of Public Affairs, the same organisation that employs Alan Moran, the Director of the Deregulation Unit, who recently published an article on OLO dumping on environmental concerns about global warming (January 20 2005).

Jennifer distinguished herself a few years ago by arguing that there is no need for concern about the environmental degradation of the Murray-Darling system. Wonder why?

The Institute of Public Affairs is a right-wing "think-tank" funded by undisclosed commercial and business interests, and regularly publishes feature articles in the media in support of big business, particularly energy and mining interests, and against the scientific consensus on global warming and the Kyoto Protocol. The Institute of Public Affairs has been described as follows:

"Founded in 1943 by Charles Kemp (father of the Howard Government’s David and Rod), the Institute of Public Affairs calls itself 'Australia’s oldest and largest private-sector think tank'. An IPA form letter, dated soon after John Howard’s election as prime minister, stated: ‘Although measuring success is difficult in our business, IPA’s influence is clearly significant. Our views appear frequently in the media. We are regularly asked to write for newspapers and other publications, to comment on radio and television, to give public talks (with over 100 delivered in 1995), and to make submissions to public inquiries..Our publications are distributed to Federal and State politicians, to many educators and libraries, and to 4500 subscribers.’

"Long associated with the ‘dry’ end of the Liberal Party, IPA’s primary concerns have always been economic. From the mid-1980s however, it began pushing ‘family’ issues as well, with regular opinion columns in Rupert Murdoch’s Australian that argued for more durable marriage and more difficult divorce, for example..." (Marion Maddox, "God under Howard: The Rise of the Religious Right in Australian Politics", Allen & Unwin 2005, p 210).

On page 254 of her book, Maddox further informs us that the IPA, being a Non-Government Organisation or NGO, jealously guards its special influence with the Howard Government, and enjoys the quid pro quo that follows. In 2003 the IPA, as an NGO itself, received a $50,000 contract from the Howard Government to investigate "the relationship between government and NGOs."

Maddox continues, "..the fact that the government had skirted the usual sources of background information and research, and gone instead to an organization with a long history of ideological campaigning on topics such as the environment, overseas aid and indigenous issues..in ways that have generally helped conservative governments against more progressive groups, gave the move a look of paying to get the advice you want."

In other words, Jennifer Marohasy, Alan Moran and the IPA have a clear vested interest, not least through their direct contract funding by the Howard Government, in dumping on environmental NGOs like Greenpeace, and publicly advocating the position of the Howard Government in relation to the Kyoto Protocol (which comes into effect today, with the USA and Australia as non-signatories.) Money sings.

In my view, Jennifer's article should be read as political propaganda in support of the Howard's government block-headed recalcitrance on the Kyoto Protocol at the behest of big energy business interests (including Rio Tinto, who supplied the Howard government with its Chief Scientist). Science it ain't.

Grace Pettigrew should learn to play the ball and not the player. She makes no useful comments about the arguments put forward by Marohasy but rather tries to discredit her by saying she is from the right wing side of politics. Even if this were true, it implies that if you are from that side of politics you are by definition wrong.

Pettigrew should read the argument. Even if anthropogenic warming is a reality and we stop all CO2 emmision today, the geological record says the climate will change by a degree or so on time scales of a 100 years (it has done so continuously in the past)with occasional rapid and masssive falls and rises. We had better be prepared for climate change no matter what.

Maybe grace is just reminding you to read between the lines and not just accept the article at face value. Just as you would if reading an article written by someone from Greenpeace. Jennifer has her motivations for writing the article too.

I think it would be more useful to debate the evidence for climate change, than what motivates Jennifer Marohasy. However, given there appears to be more interest in Jennifer, than the issue, let me tell you what motivates her.

At heart she is fascinated by the natural environment and natural history (why she studied both at University in the early 1980s).

She also has a fundamental interest in the truth. She believes that if we really care about the environment we will take a disciplined approach to issues and seek to really understand what is happening - including the exact nature and magnitude of enviromental issues so that we are in the best possible position to put effective solutions in place.

Jennifer is a fan of evolutionary biologist Michael Ghiselin who once wrote something along the lines of: "Man's brain, like the rest of him, may be looked upon as a bundle of adaptations. But what it is adapted to has never been self- evident. We are anything but a mechanism to perceive the truth for its own sake. .... In order to so imperfect an instrument as the human brain to perceive the world as it really is, a great deal of self discipline must be imposed."

Jennifer believes more discipline needs to be applied to the 'science' of climate change - so we can get to the truth of the various issues.

Cheers Jennifer (Marohasy)

Very nice, Jennifer, I too have an interest in the truth.

Very interesting, and persuasive article. Compliments to the author.

People might also be interested in following the debate on John Quiggin's blog

http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2005/02/16/kyoto-comes-into-effect/

cheers

Roberto

Grace, so what's your background???

Robertomelbourne1,

Don't waste your time questioning Grace's credentials. She claims to have a B Sc (and may well have) but she won't use the skills that she acquired with that B Sc to look at the facts, especially the raw data which others use as evidence.

Grace has tried to imply that Jennifer's article on the Murray-Darling River was some kind of political distortion when in fact Jennifer was very clear about her data sources just in case anyone wished to verify her statements. Grace clearly hasn't bothered to check those sources or she would see that there is nothing political about them.

Grace's world is based on Belief in her "experts" and she relies on solely others for the basis of her statements. If she would look at the data and discuss/argue about what that data is telling us she might have some credibility, but she refuses to. She claims that she doesn't want to examine raw data because she doesn't live for this site (ie. she doesn't want to put in the time and effort) but she is very willing to put time and effort into arguing.

Grace says she's interested in the truth but for her the truth is what others say, it's not her own truth and it is certainly not a truth based on evidence.

Also don't bother asking Grace any questions because she will not answer them, but she will demand that others answer hers. I am still waiting for her to explain why temperatures have not exceeded 1998 levels despite the increase in carbon dioxide, but then if she refuses to look at the data and she refuses to answer questions I could be waiting some time.

Her world is innuendo and implication, and always about those who make statements and never about the accuracy of those statements or the evidence on which they are based.

For all the above reasons I regard her as a second-rate holder of a B Sc who lives on second-hand opinions and sees a right-wing conspiracy in everything that contradicts her self-imposed limited view of the world.

Arguments made with the support of experience tend to stand the test of time. And credentials do tend to speak for experience.

My question for Jennifer Marohasy is from which credentialed climatologists do you gather your opinion?

From where do you get your evidence and under which peer reviewed hypothesis do you formulate your understanding?

And when and where will you publish your findings?

Gracie,

Please tell us how the evil Howard government is contributing, by his refusal to ratfy Kyoto, the melting of the polar ice caps on Mars?
I have a theory. Global warming is real. So to are solar flares. It is a fact that our Sun is in a solar storm cycle & has been for the LAST 20 YEARS.
So, Occums Razor anyone?....Do you think that with the Sun burning hotter, things around it may warm up? As I say, the polar icecaps on Mars are melting, & it has nothing to do with Kyoto.
I think the Lomborg thought process re Kyoto is valid.

Snowman - we have had our "debate" on another forum so I am not going to reprise that entire debacle, except to say the following. I was directly challenged as to my right to join in that debate on global warming, and responded in good faith that I have a Bachelors degree with honours in science followed by a Masters degree.

These are my basic qualifications in science, which include working for a number of years as a scientist and publishing in reputable, peer-reviewed journals. They are not my complete academic qualifications. I subsequently moved on into another career path, but I retain what Martin Callinan has described in his posting as "experience" in the field to the extent that I can understand the methods and terminologies and follow the scientific debates these days without too much difficulty.

But essentially this should not matter here, as many others, including yourself, joined in the previous global warming debate without stating their qualifications and without being challenged on their right to have a say. I note for example, that when I asked my interrogator in that forum for his credentials in return, this was met with silence. That same interrogator, and others, cast serious aspersions on the scientific expertise of the author of that article, who happens works for Greenpeace, without even knowing what his formal qualifications were. I note also that the OLO editor did not intervene on that occasion to scold the many contributors who queried that author's credentials and motivations (see also the recent Caspar Conde forum).

Snowman, you have repeatedly glossed over or ignored my arguments put to you about the nature of scientific inquiry and consensus, the necessity for global modelling in place of experimental proof, the logical expectation that there will be anomolous observations over large time frames and within complex systems, and the relevance of cybernetics in steady-state systems and the mathematics of chaos theory. I say again, take your raw data up to the current experts in the field and argue them out in a proper scientific forum, otherwise I must conclude that you are afraid of being proved wrong by those experts - the first principle for any real scientist.

My doubts about your approach to sceptical inquiry are reinforced by your contribution to a recent forum where the constitutional structures of the USA and Australia were raised in relation to exporting democracy to Afghanistan. You demonstrated there an incomplete understanding of the separation of powers principle. Yet you felt confident enough to state your muddled case without any subsequent concession that you might be misinformed.

I suggest you try to address the questions that have been put by Martin Callinan to Jennifer, and provide us with some answers about yourself, since you have decided that my credentials are "second-rate" and not worthy of any further attention. I am also interested in Jennifer's responses to Martin, which go to the heart of my original comments about the motivations of her employer, the Institute of Public Affairs, in joining the public debate on global warming from a point of view that happens to support the economic interests of those who fund that organisation.

Sayeret the sun has a quite fixed solar cycle of 11 years we had a peak in the solar cycle a few years ago. The output from the sun is less then 0.5 within this cycle. Because the global warming issue has been come very political Grace is correct in reminding people to look at who saying and not just what they are saying. Jennifer has joined a list of pressure groups who have interest in not cutting emission that is a fact. These pressure groups tend to wok in the space of trying to discredit, trivialize others work. This is always much easier then doing the research themselves. This is much the same tacit used by creation scientist against evolution. A continuing success of groups like this is the creation of a pressure group to try and stop a drink container deposit scheme Australia wide. The only state where a deposit scheme is in place is SA and roughly three times as many drink containers are returned there then any other state.The figure for pickaxe glass is over 90 %. So why would a pressure group be arguing against this?

Jennifer should come up with a climate model and demonstrate how it’s better.

Kenny,

A good clear, well thought out response. So why are the Martian Ice Caps melting? You never answered my question.

Just to end my contribution to this thread, have a look at the following:
http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=379

It reads in part:
“A petition circulated to scientists urging lawmakers to reject the Kyoto Protocol has been signed by over 17,000 individuals including over 2,000 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers and environmental scientists. An additional 4,400, according to the petition’s sponsors, are qualified to assess the effects of carbon dioxide upon the Earth’s plant and animal life and most of the remaining signers have technical training suitable to understanding climate change issues.

Martin, Kenny,

Let me say upfront that I believe something should be done about carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. There has been a steady increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels apparently from the burning of fossil fuels and this constitutes a form of pollution.

Kyoto, however, will not effectively address this issue with the more optimistic predictions suggesting a 1 per cent reduction in emissions (including the US and Australia in the deal) and at most a 0.15C reduction in temperatures.

Putting this to one side.

Can we agree:
1. There has never been a period in the earth's history when climate was constant?
2. Global temperature is influenced by more than atmospheric carbon dioxide levels?
3. Data from ice-cores and sediment cores indicated that the earth goes through cooling and warming cycles. The warm cycles - also known as interglacial warm periods - tend to last about 10,000 years?

(If there is credible data/information/evidence available that disproves the above I would be keen to see it.)

Accepting points 1-3:
1. The idea that we can stop climate change by signing Kyoto is nonsense.
2. It would be useful to put effort into planning for the next ice age as well as working out what to do about reducing emissions from the burning of fossil fuels - and the two are not mutually exclusive.

This is essentially my thesis, and it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with being from the right or left of politics.

Cheers, Jennifer

Nobody has suggested that signing Kyoto would stop climate change. That is a furphy not a thesis.

The proposition is that signing Kyoto would be a first step in addressing a mounting global problem through international cooperation. This is as much a political issue as a scientific one, and reflects on our position as a responsible global citizen. Everyone agrees that there is much more work to be done, including more scientific research, and further negotiations on national responsibilities. We should be there at the table.

Australia is now locked out of this discussion on future directions, along with the USA, Leichtenstein and Monaco. By standing virtually alone as an international pariah, we stand to lose out on the benefits that flow from international agreements, including the economic benefits of joining the global carbon trading market, and the potential for innovation in developing technologies and the business investment that follows

Grace,

Yet again you fail to directly respond to a post but go off a tangent to claim all kinds of things.

If you ever raised arguments with me about the nature of scientific inquiry and consensus and the necessity for global modelling in place of experimental proof (which I doubt but cannot be bothered looking for because the effort would be wasted when you move arguments again) I would say...

(a) scientific inquiry is a regimented process which produces results which must be replicable if they are to be valid. (Michael Mann's "Hockey Stick" graph of temperature failed this miserably and despite legal requirements he has failed to reveal full methodology and data.)

(b) consensus has no valid place in Science because Science is not determined by majority decision, only by the provable correctness of theories

(c) computer modelling is great when all factors are known with high precision and trusted algorithms can be created. It is therefore fine for many relatively simple situations but fails miserably in more complex situations. Climatology remains one of those complex situations. Climate models contain parameterizations to attempt to quantify the unknown, artificial boundaries to prevent run-away conditions, gross assumptions, missing factors (Hadley Cell circulation, solar emissions, wind, cloud etc.). For example, the CSIRO's models regular predict rainfall about 50% of that which was observed.

For your information, I am currently writing a paper (and will probably write another very shortly) for publication in peer-reviewed journals. It's not that I consider the peer-review process has much credibility - the task of doing a proper review of every statement is no longer realistic - but others appear to believe it has credibility.

That's all your statements I will respond to for now. There's no point when you won't answer questions (as evidenced from previous exchanges) and when you will inevitably try to move the goal posts again.

Snowman - let us know when you are published in a peer-reviewed science journal and I will be interested to read your contribution to the debate.

In the meantime, you might try reading a bit about the nature of scientific consensus, here's some suggestions: Thomas Kuhn, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions", Karl Popper, "Conjectures and Refutations", and just for fun, Paul Feyerabend "Against Method".

See you later alligator.

Grace,

It seems we agree:

1. Kyoto will not stop climate change and is mostly about posturing and politics, and

2. Consensus has a role in science. For example, Thomas Khun in his seminal work The Structure of Scientific Revolutions explains how the scientific community cannot practice its trade without some set of received beliefs.

Now a couple of questions:

1. Doesn't Khun's work also emphasises the importance of dissident and minority views for the advancement of science - and the development of new paradigms/ways of looking at things that could get us closer to some ultimate truths? So wouldn't Khun be particularly sympathetic to the climate skeptics - including Snowman?

2. Also, does Khun works, and the work of the others you quote, give any indication whether the right or left of politics is better at science?

Cheers

Jennifer - please don't put words into my mouth and read my post above again. I did not say that Kyoto is "mostly about posturing and politics", but I do understand why you wish that to be so, as the IPA does a lot of such posturing and not much science in its opposition to Kyoto.

It is not clear what you mean by "received beliefs" in science. Assuming you are referring to the current scientific consensus that global warming is occuring, with which you apparently concur, then do you regard yourself as operating only on a "received belief"?

The reason I suggested that Snowman might read Kuhn is precisely because it lends some sympathy to his role as the lonely dissenter. But I don't think you or Snowman are on the cusp of scientific revolution, if that's what you mean.

As to your question about whether these works "give any indication whether the right or left of politics is better at science", with all due respect, that is a very silly question. However, there is plenty of evidence that politics, whether left or right, manipulates science to its own ends.

At present, in the global warming debate, it would appear that the most forceful political manipulation is coming from the right, given that the right holds government in the USA and Australia. As an example, the following is a quote from Des Griffin's essay published on OLO on Jan 31 2005:

"Early 2004 the Union of Concerned Scientists said, 'When scientific knowledge has been found to be in conflict with its political goals, the [Bush] administration has often manipulated the process through which science enters into its decisions'....Last September The Observer revealed that White House officials had help from [the Competitive Enterprise Institute] in undermining government scientists' research into climate change. Research warning that the impact of global warming is serious was edited or removed: Scientists producing work seen as accepting too readily that pollution is an issue, were attacked. CEI was instrumental in having Bush reverse his campaign pledge to reduce carbon emissions....

Hi Jennifer I’d be very interested to have you in a debate with some of the scientists that you are so fond dismissing either concerning the Murray or on Global warming.
Is this a case like in the 1920’s with eugenics that you are right and whole scientific disciplines have a bad case of institutional or ideological bias or are you- given you contradict a whole swath of mainstream respected science and scientists- the one with a severe case of confirmation bias?
You have to laugh though that within the same week Michael Duffy had you on Counterpoint, Phillip Adams has those self same Murray River scientists you contradict on LateLine.
How about we get you and some of those scientists together for a debate either topic concerning bias in science or how the Murray River is Ok and getting better?

Jennifer, Grace, et. al.,

To say Kyoto will not effectively address climate change is to say trying to crawl will not effectively run a marathon. You’ve got a point, but there’s an inherent hierarchy that supersedes your point. Unless, of course, you’ve got a recipe for a ‘marathon running’ pill, suitable for toddlers.

Your points:
1. There has never been a period in the earth's history when climate was constant?
-Yep, if you examine a certain scale (10,000 years)
2. Global temperature is influenced by more than atmospheric carbon dioxide levels?
-Yep
3. Data from ice-cores and sediment cores indicated that the earth goes through cooling and warming cycles. The warm cycles - also known as interglacial warm periods - tend to last about 10,000 years?
-Yep

Accepting points 1-3:
1. The idea that we can stop climate change by signing Kyoto is nonsense.
-Nup, see above

2. It would be useful to put effort into planning for the next ice age as well as working out what to do about reducing emissions from the burning of fossil fuels - and the two are not mutually exclusive.
-Nup, at issue is deleterious impacts upon ecologies and societies. Anthropocentric climate change, by its relative rapid occurrence, will hurt us (and we can do something about it). The next ice age, by its relatively slow coming, does not present the same threat.

Kyoto has been about negotiating an agreement between all nations to address climate change. As every nation is looking out for its own citizens as a priority, this process has entailed politics. Competition, war, power differences make it pretty difficult for the world to agree on altruistic action. Kyoto, and developments made at annual meetings since, is as far as we’ve got.

Dissident and minority views have a place in science; dominant paradigms can be stifling and at times oppressive. This is why we have a system of review by peers via empirical validation, to verify people’s contributions.

All opinions are not equal. However everyone should have the right to express their opinion. To separate the noise, the misguided, the mischievous, the deceitful, the parrots, the ill-informed from that which adds to human knowledge, we have peer review and editors.

There are about 6 billion opinions on climate, I take as news only what I read in (or is properly reported from) peer reviewed journals.

Hacks masquerade as skeptics all the time, most particularly columnists and academics that stray from their actual area of expertise, lobbyists just doing their job and crazy people. A real skeptic though publishes counter theories and criticisms in the journals recognised for their integrity. They have something to contribute and they want it to share their discovery with their peers. They build their case with elements that everybody agrees upon. They sometimes change the world.

Here's my thesis: I don't think a conservative approach to addressing climate change has a snowball's chance in hell of working.

Thank you Martin, and I note that Jennifer has not yet answered your questions from your first post.

Pending Ice Age? Yes Jennifer. And wouldn't that make the coal industry happy.

Neohuman,
I agree that there is a need for these important issues (bias in science, Murray River, global warming) to be properly debated. I would be keen to participate. What did you have in mind?
Cheers,
PS For those interested in my views on the Murray River and seeing some hard data on the issue see: http://www.ipa.org.au/publications/publisting_detail.asp?PubID=249 .

The global warming debate has indeed become a politically polarized argument, with advocates on both sides abusing science to score politcal points. The issue of whether "global warming" is occurring, and whether if it is occurring, it is attributable to human action, is a scientific question. What actions, if any, to take in response to the problem, if any, come down to political and economic considerations.

Critics of such scientific assessments as the IPCC report are presented as "skeptics" in the global warming debate. They are peforming a service on one hand by continuing to cast doubt on scientific conclusions. This is good and how science should work. But some of these critics are committing the very error they accuse IPCC scientists of, namely, taking a position as an article of faith. In this case, they assert that global warming predictions are wrong and/or exaggerated, that the consequences of global warming will not be deleterious, and that the costs of reducing fossil fuel emissions will be economically and socially harmful.

There is a gradient of "debatability" in the global warming issue:

* Not debatable: The carbon dioxide concentration of the atmosphere is rising, due to burning of fossil fuels and of living biospheric carbon reservoirs. This rise will continue through the coming century at at least its present rate. Not much debate about this.

* Still debatable, but becoming less so: Global warming has begun already. BUT, the "detection and attribution" problem remains: can a statistically significant trend be pulled out of the background variability, and if so, can its cause be pinned on human action? The IPCC scientists have said, cautiously, and with many caveats, yes. (The _spatial_ pattern of warming in the atmosphere is consistent with that expected from the enhanced greenhouse effect.) Are they correct? Well, time will tell.

* Debatable: What will the climate effects of this CO2 enrichment be? Most simulation studies yield a global temperature rise in response to the CO2 rise. Here there's large uncertainty as to how much warming will occur, and where, and how soon. The "skeptics" have really jumped on the model uncertainties, and pointed out, rightly, that the models used to forecast climate change have large errors in their estimates of the magnitude, distribution, and rate of future temperature change. (They'd do well to bear in mind that the uncertainties run in two directions.)

What about other climate effects? Rainfall (more important in many ways than temperature in itself)? Sea-level changes due to ocean warming and ice sheet melting? What about feedbacks, such as atmospheric clouds, soil moisture, vegetation? The models are notoriously bad at dealing with these. So the critics have a point - but again the uncertainty cuts both ways, and some feedbacks may just as well amplify the climate response as damp it.

* Debatable: What about the impact of the predicted climate changes? Isn't it possible they will benefit humanity (say, longer growing seasons in temperate latitudes)? Here again the critics have their point, but here again they're trapping themselves in their own logic: the effects of global warming may be beneficial (to some), but they may be even more harmful than even the most pessimistic forecasters anticipate. We just don't know.

* Debatable: If society decides that the risk of the harm due to possible global climate change is great enough to warrant action, the costs (of limiting fossil fuel combustion) will outweigh the benefits, say the "skeptics." Beyond a certain point, perhaps they will. But up to a certain point at least, there are clear benefits to following the so-called "no-regrets" policies (involving increased efficiency of energy use and conservation), in reduced energy costs and local pollution. Here again the economic models that many put so much faith in are even cruder than climate models in predicting the economic response to emission limitations. But the "skeptics" assert that emission limitations will impose an unbearable economic cost on both developed and developing countries. Again we just don't know.

These uncertainties make the global warming issue different from other environmental problems: though the uncertainties are large, so are the potential consequences. It's a kind of insurance question. Analogy: even if you're a good driver (say, a 35-year-old driving a Volvo wagon with anti-lock brakes, etc. The kind of statistic the insurance companies love), you carry insurance and pay your premium. Why? Because you recognize that even if the *probability* of your getting in a serious accident is low, the *consequences* are potentially great (e.g. catastrophic injury).

But I think there's another aspect of the fossil-fuel debate that's missed in the "Day After Tomorrow"-driven hysteria. My own view is that there's actually too much emphasis on the prospect of global warming as a rationale for reducing our use of (or at least dependence on) fossil fuels. I hear too little talk about the immediate and local environmental benefits of reducing tailpipe and smokestack emissions. Never mind global climate change over the next century - taking steps to limit fossil-fuel emissions would make every city a better and healthier place to live almost immediately.

Some of this could be done by energy efficiency measures that make economic sense regardless of environmental considerations. Large energy utilities in the US have already started spending money to get their consumers to use _less_ electricity. Why? Because they have a hard time keeping up with the expansion in energy demand that accompanies economic growth. It's expensive to build new generating plants, and proposals to build new capacity inevitably run up against the "NIMBY" (Not In My Back Yard) principle, whatever the energy source. Up to a point, the most cost-effective source of "new" energy for them is the kilowatts they can get their customers _not_ to use. Similarly, such "no-regrets" energy-efficiency steps must be weighed against the costs of mitigation by disposal - geosequestration for example.

Finally, let's not forget the geopolitical benefits for Western societies of reducing our dependency on imported fossil fuels. Whatever one thinks of the US-British-Australian intervention in Iraq, we can certainly make ourselves less vulnerable to political instability in the Middle East by reducing our need for imported crude oil. And although we are not running out of oil, new finds are increasingly of reserves that are expensive to extract, transport, and refine. All in the face of growing demand from the huge and fast-growing economies of China and India. These factors will also drive our economies toward alternative energy sources and efficiency measures. (What was that saying - something about how the Stone Age didn't end because mankind ran out of stones?)

Frankly, I think those who oppose reducing fossil-fuel emissions just love global warming. The uncertainties of impacts, and long time frames, make global warming an easy target for economic rationalist arguments for doing nothing.

(Disclosure - I am a climate scientist myself.)

Martin,

I agree that having credentials and peer review is incredibly important. However, it is also important to not simply believe what is written because it has been published by a 'celebrity scientist'. It is important that the evidence is presented and/or a logical argument sustained. Your argument seems to appeal to 'academic fundamentalism'i.e. they are more expert they must be right.

It has been my experience that in the environment area a lot of good work is excluded from the best journals because it would bring the 'house of cards' tumbling down. Then again the scientific establishment has a bad track record when it comes to tolerating alternative view points when they may seriously threaten the status quo.

Why do you think Chris Landsea resigned from the IPCC process? How is it that everyone is saying there has been an increase in the incidence of extreme weather events when the data just does not support this position?

Please read my work on the Murray and then tell me we should simply believe the establishment when it comes to some of the most important environmental issues (http://www.ipa.org.au/publications/publisting_detail.asp?PubID=249).

You may also be interested in the Great Barrier Reef and the extent to which Queensland's Chief Scientist was prepared to go with the flow (http://www.ipa.org.au/publications/publisting_detail.asp?pubid=191).

Cheers,

BTW The onset of the next iceage may be very dramatic/very rapid given evidence from natural history

Jennifer First here is an edited background piece that I posted on John Quiggins Blog.

I’ve developed an interest in cognitive biases and especially confirmation bias and it makes me wonder how does one know when one is under such a bias?
In the global warming debate I see one side the human induced global warming advocates backing the mainstream scientific community both the majority of the worlds climatologists and most of the leading scientific associations like the Royal Society and their equivalents, on the other, a minority of climatologists, or fringe science, and those outside the field either lay, academic or with science backgrounds who feel they are justified in dismissing the work of these scientists.
Some do so on technical grounds others that there is some sort of ulterior motive either ideological, they are anti-capitalist or with self-interest to promote their careers.

One could counter the same of these individuals and groups with many linked with industry lobby groups or with groups with similar ideological positions like the Libertarians or economic rationalists. But not only do these individuals question the climatologists but also the work by environmental scientists whenever they claim that humans are adversely impacting on the worlds ecosystems and environment.
Can a scientific consensus position be questioned by those without the necessary qualifications and how likely could it be that they are right and the leading scientists in that field are wrong?

Being a lay individual on this matter I go with the mainstream. This because of their authority and the years I’ve spent reading and watching respected reputable science journalism and journals which have consistently given a picture of the cross disciplinary nature of science and that humans are in fact having and adverse impact on the planet.

The problem is that I could as easily question or dismiss the work of a scientific field under certain circumstances. I noticed that in the field of psychiatry that there has been an explosion of what is considered child mental disorders of what seems really mundane instances like a child’s tantrum. I also came across a community mental health webpage that stated what I would consider ordinary sexual fetishes like foot or bondage were mental disorders. Some psychologists still think homosexuality is a metal disease.

Now if these positions became mainstream I would as a unqualified outsider dismiss their work as some sort of social/institutional bias along the lines that happened in Victorian England with the non-sexual female and masturbation as a symptom of mental disease, or in the 1920’s with race and eugenics.

Now and again you will hear the issue raised that there is a definite left leaning in to days academia, so it wouldn’t be far of a stretch for those who want to do so to say that this ‘left’ bias leads to flawed science, especially in the environmental sciences. Aren’t they all just anti-capitalist closet greenies?

So how different am I to those on global warming skeptics when I would do the same under different circumstances, since we do know that there have been times that the scientific mainstream have arguably been under some sort of social/institutional bias?

On the other hand if you take something like the Creation Science vs Evolution debate, which even for many of the Global warming skeptics would appear a simple case of confirmation bias on the CS side, shows how easily it is to misrepresent, pick and choose and twist the data to make the argument appear plausible to lay people, especially when those making the claims have science backgrounds or backup their arguments with scientific looking papers and references.

So with Global Warming will it take time and hindsight like in the case of eugenics and the Victorian non-sexual female that we will see that our academic institutions were in fact under some sort of institutional bias or are the GW skeptics endangering our and our children’s future because of a confirmation bias they are many are not even aware they hold?

Jennifer, as far as a debate maybe we should correspond via email to set out the guidelines, format etc. but I would like it to be a on air discussion then an extended blog chat.

I’ve already asked Michael Duffy on numerous occasions for a show along these lines, Robin Williams on the Science Show may be interested, Earthbeat is no longer with us and I’m not sure about Phillip Adams and LateLine.

I’m open to suggestions :)

Hello All

The most significant thing about this thread is how it is clear that some people, that is, Martin Callinan and Grace Pettigrew, obviously believe it is not possible to have a principled position on anthropocentric global warming (and Kyoto) other than their own. Grace has implied in her posts Jennifer is simply a paid stooge of the evil coal companies “Yes Jennifer. And wouldn't that make the coal industry happy.”, and Martin is even more explicit “:Hacks masquerade as sceptics all the time, most particularly columnists and academics that stray from their actual area of expertise, lobbyists just doing their job and crazy people”. This is an insulting slur on Jennifer’s integrity, and shows a lack of good will and tolerance of diverse viewpoints. She has handled the criticisms with good grace, and her critics would do well to attack her arguments, rather than her character and motives, neither of which are relevant to the science of the situation.

With Kind Regards
Geoffrey

Geoffrey while one cannot dismiss input because it comes from someone with connection to a lobby group or outside a field of expertise, but questions of a conflict of interest and qualifications are relevant.

As my earlier post raised, when can one feel justified when going against the scientific establishment on often complex issues that one hasn’t studied or has access to all the relevant information? Especially when a full understanding or crucial information on a subject is needed for informed judgments on that subject.

But on the other hand the establishment has got it wrong and I think it would be an error to think those in the present are not capable of making the same mistakes. I think the same happens in ethics but that’s another subject.

Should we give equal consideration to the claims of Creation Science advocates or those company paid scientists who said there was no link between smoking or cancer?

Grace do you know of anyone who has looked at cultural/social/institutional bias in science in particular to Victorian sexuality and eugenics in the 1920’s?

I'm just catching up on this thread. We would be very interested in hosting a debate on this site, which could be also run in collaboration with someone like Michael Duffy (to take part of a suggestion by Neohuman).

We've run debates before under the banner "Havachat", and you can see one of them at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=372. Much better than a radio debate which will be truncated, hurried and partial. The Havachat format allows for a more organised discussion of issues. We also get agreement from the two participants beforehand as to the topics that they will cover so that we don't just get bogged down on one point.

There are a number of serious issues that can be debated in this subject area and which are not being debated. It's a perfect area for On Line Opinion. We can also run qualitative analysis as well as the normal forum threads, as well as chat rooms to complement things. I have the email addresses of those on this thread who've expressed interest in the idea, but if you want to email me before I email you, please feel free.

For others lurking who may have an interest, please email me at editor@onlineopinion.com.au. You may also be interested to know that OLO attracts a monthly readership of somewhere around 60,000 individuals - not a bad audience to be talking to. Particularly as many of them are journalists who will likely pick up some of the ideas and run with them.

Jennifer,

It’s not celebrity scientist that've convinced me climate change is real and worrying but the hundreds of climatologist in Australia and thousands overseas. The vast majority of whom conform to the normal profile of a scientist; cautious professionals perusing scientific advancement.

It's not that they are authorities so they must be right (I am arguing against authority in Australia / US don’t forget) but that ‘right makes might’.

Is it not ironic that the conservatives invoke conspiracy theories when it comes to climate change? Sure, lines of academic enquiry sometimes lead to dead ends but to say this is deliberate and in order that the 'house of cards' 'they' built doesn’t come ‘tumbling down’ is a bit rich.

I don’t know why Chris Landsea resigned from the IPCC. I don’t know why Brad and Jennifer split up either. Honestly, how can I?

Your quote: “How is it that everyone is saying there has been an increase in the incidence of extreme weather events when the data just does not support this position?” I don’t know about this.

I know you can’t relate today’s weather to climate change but I do know that in 20 years we will be able to say something about this decade and climate change. And I expect, and am prepared to act on the expectation, that there will be a causative link.

Shall have a look at your Murray stuff.

And just to be clear, Geoffrey’s posit (a previous comment) that I slurred Jennifer is entirely his own interpretation.

As Jennifer’s reaction testifies, and I’d like to think my words affirm, my view of hacks is common and one which I am sure Jennifer shares.

He should also note I did address her argument and, further, that I am keen to learn of any aspect of any other position on climate change as long as it is based on reality. As opposed to someone’s ‘principled’ reckoning, which while rich in dogma happens to be devoid of substance.

Martin,

A few pointers for you ...

In 1997 a survey of US State climatologists found that the majority disagreed with the "consensus" beliefs about Global Warming. Full report is at http://www.nationalcenter.org/Climatologists1097.html . (Yes, I know the survey was 7 years ago but it is the most recent that I can find with a quick search. I just wanted to make the point that not all climatologists follow the crowd.)

Chris Landsea's resignation letter, which includes his reasons for resigning, can be found via the link near the bottom of the list down the left side of http://mclean.ch/climate/global_warming.htm .

You may like to explore some of the other links on the above page. I know that in the "summary document" I talk about the claim that extreme events are becoming more frequent. I'm pretty sure there's at least one reference listed in the document. Be warned, the full document is just over 20 pages - it may be easier to download and save it rather than print directly from the web.

cheers

Hi Everyone,

I have agreed to a Havachat type debate as per http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=372. Though I am not sure who GrahamY or Neohuman are suggesting I debate or the topic? Any suggestions?

On a slightly lighter note, has anyone read Michael Crichton's new book 'State of Fear'? I understand it is a best seller in the US.

Cheers

Re: increased CO2 levels, perhaps the electricity generation industry should switch to nulcear power

Jennifer maybe a start would be those scientists who appeared on late Nite Live that talked about the Murray river. Why not google their names contact them and see if they would debate you over your claims on this forum.

BTW as a lay person I don't enter debates about GW as anyone who has been in debates with Creation Scientists know it is so easy to misrepresent facts/data references and make claims that have no scientific foundation look plausable. It often gets down to a he said, she said debate.

I would rather leave it up to the experts.

The thing I'm interested in is how confirmation bias effects our reasoning especially without us knowing it. Also what happens when it approaches massive group think proportions in academic institutions and what current academia does to avoid what happened with eugenics and Victorian women. My guess is that nothing is done and if thought about it is only something that happened in the past and couldn't happen now. But that is not to say that indeed it is happening now!

That is why i think this debate will need input from cognitive/social psychologists for their viewpoints on cognitive and social bias. But having said that I know of one far right wing psychologist who thinks that the mainstream psychologists are biased left wingers and that homosexuality is indeed a mental disease

Neohuman,

I understand that confirmation bias occurs when we selectively notice or focus upon bits of information which tends to support the things we already believe. Confirmation bias is important when it comes to issues of faith, or tradition – but should be very susceptible to empirical evidence.

By this I mean that knowledge as opposed to faith can be tested through an evaluation of the evidence. This distinguishes science from religious belief. To quote Thomas Huxley writing in about 1860 “a religious idea can not be subject to scientific proof … (in contrast) science and her methods are independent of authority and tradition.”

I often pondered the extent to which Australians seem to expect facts and figures in commodity report, from super fund managers, from economists, but not, it seems from leading environmentalists. For example, when celebrity scientists write that water quality is deteriorating or local temperatures increasing, basic data/graphs/figures are never/rarely presented. There is a tendency to completely believe what is said, believe the testimonial without asking for basic supporting information.

cheers,

Well done Jennifer.I think your article was soundly based and well written. Concise and logical as usual. But I have 2 questions for you, and anyone else who cares to respond.
1.Can someone point me to the actual validated research that has been done,or calculated,to establish that 380ppmv of C02 (0.038% of the atmosphere)can be heated by reflected radiation to the extent that it will heat the troposphere and thence the ground level.

2 If the sun is partially responsible as many now believe, how can such small variations in energy of w/sqmetre falling on the earth cause such temperature variations.

bigmal

This thread encapsulates a number of recurrent themes in environmental debate that seems to warrant recognition and comment.

1.The strong resistance of advocates of purported environmental problems to any evidence or suggestion that a problem may not be as bad as is being claimed. Possible good news is greeted with anger and denial but never with hopeful interest.

2.Throughout recorded history doomscryers have perennially prophesied immanent disaster with an almost perfect record of failure. Bad things do happen but rarely is it anything foreseen. Despite the power and prestige of science the track record of scientists in prophesy has been equally abysmal. The Club of Rome Report, Ehrlich’s The Population Bomb, and the Y2K problem are but a few of the better known failed prophesies that in recent decades were accorded wide credibility by both the public and many scientists.

3.The claim of authority where none exists. In this instance it’s a proclaimed science of climatology with purported expertise in predicting future climate changes. Climatology is in fact only a recently coined label applied to a disparate group of researcher attempting to understand and predict the very poorly understood possibilities of anthropogenic effects on global climate.

4.The demonstrably false claim of scientific consensus with an implication that all or nearly all credible scientists are in agreement. The claimed consensus is predominantly a relatively small group of researchers actively studying the possible effects of anthropogenic climate change and a very large number of biologists who have subscribed wholesale to something about which they are poorly informed but which lends some sense of urgency and importance to their own studies. Among meteorologists and geologists, who are the scientists best equipped to understand and have insight into climate change the support for global warming is nowhere near consensus.

5.The false claim that recent warming is unprecedented. Here we are talking about a half a degree global warming over the period of a century. This is a figure derived from averaging millions of measurements adjusted by guesstimate for the urban heat island effect that has greatly increased over the century. Then this is compared with a relative handful of proxy records from the past. Could anyone seriously believe that all this is accurate to within a half a degree Celsius?

What is apparent from proxy records from all continents is that there has been a millennial scale cycle of warming and cooling that coincides with a Roman warm period followed by a cooler dark ages, then a medieval warm period succeeded by the little ice age and that we are now entering another warm period. Both proxy data and historical records indicate a medieval warm period that was somewhat warmer than at present.

6.The focus on CO2 to the exclusion of other climatic modulators and the assumption that any increased CO2 must result in increased temperature. Water vapor has two to three times the greenhouse effect of CO2 and is much more variable but is rarely mentioned. Clouds, vegetation, aerosols, snow and ice cover and other factors all have important climatic effects. We not only don’t know the effect of increased CO2 we don’t even know if its level in the atmosphere is the cause or the effect of accompanying temperature changes in past climatic records. The atmosphere of Mars contains almost 30 times the concentration of CO2 as does Earth yet it has an average temperature nearly 90 degrees lower than Earth.

7.The total focus on possible negative consequences with no consideration of any of the likely benefits.

8.The treatment of computer models as proof. The current penchant for computer modeling is remarkable. It appears that making some greatly simplified assumptions about complex phenomena and running a mass of guesstimates through such a model is believed to confer some kind of reality to the result. Moreover, the more dramatic (albeit unlikely) the result the more attention it receives. Typically in such models minor tweaks to inputs can have dramatic effects on outcome and considerable tweaking is required before they begin to produce outcomes one might consider as even possible. Although such models can be useful to gaining insight into the possible dynamics of complex systems they are very poor predictors of real world events.

In the end all the arguing will be for naught as the only way we can avoid the possibility of adverse effects from greenhouse warming would be to voluntarily engage in the certainty of massive economic hardship by drastically curtailing the burning of fossil fuel. Such would have to include curtailment of further economic development in lesser developed countries. Quite obviously this isn’t going happen and the predictions are going to be tested against reality.

What seems most likely is that some warming will occur but that it will neither be as severe nor as detrimental as predicted and that economics and advancing technology will impel the replacement of fossil fuels with a mix of renewable and nuclear energy.

bigmal,

I don't know of any references which will provide the information that you seek but I think I can give you some background. (I've omitted your questions in order to meet the word limit!)

Response to Q1: Warming of the greenhouse gases in the troposphere will cause them to emit long-wave radiation both upwards and downwards. (LW radiation is the process by which the earth cools at night.) The amount of LW radiation depends on the difference in temperature between two bodies, so given that the surface of the earth is warm(ish) most of the LW radiation heads off into space where temperatures are close to 0 Kelvin (ie. -273 C).

I've been told by a retired meteorologist that the net effect is that the troposphere emits more LW radiation than the greenhouse gases absorb. The troposphere would actually cool if it was not for heat energy coming up from the earth's surface via Hadley Cells and via the evaporation of water (particular tropical sea water).

Can the troposphere heat the earth? Not to much extent it would seem and the little bit of extra energy comes back up to the troposphere via the circulation mentioned above.

Response to Q2: If the sun is partially responsible as many now believe, how can such small variations in energy of w/sqmetre falling on the earth cause such temperature variations.

I believe that the W/sq metre varies with the seasons and it is this, combined with the change in the amount of daylight (ie. period of solar radiation), that gives us the difference in temperature.

Some researchers now consider that other solar emissions also play a part in earth's climate. One company in the UK makes good money from predictions based on solar particle emissions (see http://www.weatheraction.com/). Other researchers suggest that the 22-year cycling of the sun's magnetic field may also play a part. (Sorry but I can't think of a good reference at the moment. Try searching the web.)

I don't think I've answered your questions but hopefully I've provided some useful information.

cheers

Sorry about the length of this news release February 18, 2005 but it is interesting as it is pertinent to Snowman's continual references to "no warming since 1998" on this and other forums.

...

For the first time, scientists have linked the world's warming oceans to a rise in greenhouse gases produced by the burning of fossil fuels and other industry.

The research was conducted by scientists at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla and the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Northern California. It showed that temperature readings in the oceans during the past 40 years matched computer models simulating how higher levels of human-generated greenhouse gases were expected to heat the oceans.

"We were stunned by the degree of similarity between the observations and the models," said Tim Barnett, a marine physicist who wrote the study with fellow Scripps scientist David Pierce.

"It's really undeniable that global warming is going on, whether you see it in the ocean or in the ecosystems," he said. "There's really a gazillion places to look for it."

The rise in ocean temperatures has varied around the world, but none of the increases can be explained by fluctuations in energy output from the sun, Barnett said. Some scientists have said the sun can drive climate changes at least as much as greenhouse gases.

However, the close match between actual temperature readings and what the computer models predicted rules out any other cause for warming oceans, Barnett said. It also suggests that the models are powerful tools for predicting how increases in carbon dioxide might change the global environment, he added.

Oceans, which cover more than 70 percent of Earth's surface, are the major regulators of climate. Average global temperatures have risen about 1 degree Fahrenheit during the past century, and scientists estimate that the oceans have absorbed about 90 percent of that heat.

Put another way, the oceans have sucked up enough heat energy during the past 40 years to power California for the next 200,000 years, Barnett said... (article continues)

--- End

Over to you Snownam et Al.

Thanks Peter. I just knew someone would post something like this!

It seems that professor Wayne Sawyer was probably on the mark about the lack of critical thinking.

The only (probably) honest and irrefutable statement in Scripps report is that their computer model produced output that showed a reasonable match to observational data from more than 40 years ago without much(?) inclusion of human-induced warming but a greater amount of human-induced warming to produce output that approximated recent observations.

Climate models are still a long, long way from being accurate and thorough. They include lots of fudge factors for climate factors that are not well understood (particulary cloud and wind) and they have artificial contraints to stop runaway warming or cooling and the rapid oscillation between them.

Surely you are not claiming that climate science is settled by whatever a dodgy computer model tells us!

Barnett also ignored other research that says that heat from El Ninos in the Pacific takes years to reach the poles. He's also forgotten(?) that warm air is a very slow warmer of water and the heat penetrates only a short distance into water.

In short it is a beat-up crock, one that has certainly not been subjected to peer-review.

By the way, Scripps gets a lot of funding to study the impact of man-made global warming. Are they going to bite the hand that feeds them by saying that it doesn't exist? (I hope you are not someone who thinks that only sceptical scientists could ever be accused of having vested interests!)

cheers

You would think so Jennifer but like stats raw data must have context and meaning and is easy to misrepresent or sincerely mistake its implications.

About your commmnet about expecting facts and figues well first when you say environmentalists who are you talking about the 'greenies' or the environmental scientists?

You see I don't bother about Green Peace or WWF press releases I go straight to science journals or reputable science
journalism/publications.

I suppose that during Victorian times and 1920's journalists just parroted the scientists of the day, that is why i cannot dismiss you out of hand.

But still can an outsider come along and so casually dismiss the work of scientists in their field of expertise? One could not dismiss that outsider out of hand but the onus would be on them to prove their case. You've heard extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence, well the balls in your court for that one.

BTW do you want to debate those Murray River scientists?

Hi BigMal,

I will have a go at your two questions from a slightly different perspective to Snowman.

Your Q. 1. How will the 380ppmv of CO2 ...heat the troposhere and thence the ground level?

Yes there is an argument that goes extra anthropogenic greenhouse gases intercept more of the outgoing heat escaping the earth and as a consequence the troposhere (lower atmosphere) warms with some of the extra heat redirected to the earth's surface.

I understand that the IPCC assumes its numbers which are that a doubling of CO2 levels will increase temps by 1.7 to 4.2C i.e. they are not calculating from first principles or observations.

There is also an argument that goes if we look at the observed temperatures since satellite observations began in 1979, the earth's surface appears to be warming faster than the lower atmosphere and the simplest explaination is that the observed warming is therefore not from the greenhouse effect.

Your Q. 2 If the sun is partially responsible as many now believe, how can such small variations in energy falling on the earth cause such temperature variations.

The argument goes that irradiance (solar heat output) is not the key to the Sun's variable influence, but rather changes in the sun's magnetism associated with increased eruptive activity for which sunspots are one of several indicators.

The argument seems to be based on correlations, as much as on causal mechanisms. The correlation between temperature and the sun's magnetism has been rather good for the last couple of hundred years see, figure 5 at
http://www.sepp.org/NewSEPP/Testimony-baliunas.htm.

Hi Peter King,

It is interesting that there is a computer model that can generate past, and presumably predict, future ocean temperatures. Do you know how changes in C02 levels drive ocean temperature change in their models?

Hi Martin,

In an earlier post you suggested that natural climate change would not be dramatic and I suggested this was not necesssarily the case - there is an interesting article today at http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200502/s1308849.htm
suggesting "an abrupt rise in the sea level, 20 times faster than previously thought" at the Great Barrier Reef.

Cheers,

Hi Neohuman

In response to your most recent posting:

I've already said that I am happy to debate "those Murray River scientists" - I understand Deb Nias and Ben Gawne were part of Phillip Adams program. What venue/forum and specific title do you suggest? Some NSW farmers last year challenged me to debate Peter Cullen - I was/am still available.

When I refer to environmentalists I refer to Greenpeace and also many CSIRO scientists. CSIRO work on the Murray River has been pure advocacy in many instances, see:
http://www.ipa.org.au/publications/publisting_detail.asp?PubID=249.

When I came to the issue in 2003 public statements were being made by key institutions including CSIRO that directly contradicted the recieved evidence on major issues. On Line Opinion was the first media outlet prepared to publish my initial concerns, see http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=632.

The head of CSIRO Land and Water has since resigned.

Cheers

Hi,

Many thanks to those gentlemen who tried to answer my simple questions. I cannot find the answer on the net either, although some publications do come close such as the AIP tome by Spencer Weart. W.Kininmonths book is also helpful but doesnt quite get there.

I cannot accept that something as small as 0.038% of the gaseous volume can cause so much strife ( and occasional benefit).Surely there is smart one amongst you all who can calculate the energy imparted to the atmosphere by the infamous infra red when it excites the CO2 molecule, and further how an accruing 1-2% increase in this piddling 0.038% can cause the temperature to rise by such a massive amount as claimed by CSIRO/DAR, and others.

Similarly given that the temperature changes do seem to correlate well with sunspot activity and the period of the sunspot cycle how does this mechanism work.

I am just simple retired business man and technologist with rather ancient degrees in science and business. I can ask the obvious questions, but dont have the base knowledge to work it out myself.

Any more ideas.?

Jennifer I'll take the first steps and see if they are interested.
If not there isn't any point going into other details.

This doesn't answer any particular questions but I think it is very thought-provoking.

From Rober E Stevenson ... "an oceanography consultant based in Hawaii, trains the NASA astronauts in oceanography and marine meteorology. He was Secretary General of the International Association for the Physical Science of the Oceans from 1987 to 1995, and worked as an oceanographer for the U.S. Office of Naval Research for 20 years. A member of the scientific advisory board of 21st Century, he is the author of more than 100 articles and several books, including the most widely used textbook on the natural sciences."

At http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/ocean.html.

Don't be distracted by the occasional reference to events and papers at the time it was written, mid 2000.

cheers

Hi BigMal and others

William Kininmonth (formerly head of Australia's National Climate Centre and a member of Australia's delegations to the Second World Climate Conference and the UN Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee for a Framework Convention on Climate Change) emailed me answers to BigMal’s original two questions. The answer to the first question is much too long to post (exceeds 350 words) but I will work on a cut down version. The answer to Question 2 was only marginally too long, a slightly abbreviated version follows.

Please note the reference in the following answer to “an increase of solar radiation by 1 W/m2” is within the range of what would be expected from sunspot activity.

Q. 2 If the sun is partially responsible as many now believe, how can such small variations in energy of w/sqmetre falling on the earth cause such temperature variations?

Answer: The earth preferentially receives solar radiation over the tropics. There is already excess solar energy compared to longwave radiation loss to space over the tropics. The surface temperatures (and hence tropospheric temperatures) are largely contained by evaporative cooling and so the radiation loss to space (a function of fourth power of temperature) is also largely contained. Excess solar energy is transported to middle and high latitudes where temperatures can more readily respond and where polar ice sheet volumes can fluctuate. The surface area of the tropics is of order 3*10^^14 m2 and an increase of solar radiation by 1 W/m2 represents an increase of the incoming solar energy of 3*10^^14 W. The annual average peak poleward transport of energy is 5*10^^15 W at about lat 35 in each hemisphere. Assuming half of the increased solar input is transported poleward in each hemisphere (no storage in the tropics for the reasons given) we are looking at a 3 percent increase in the average poleward transport in each hemisphere. … a 3 percent increase (obviously an upper limit) is a significant increase to the input of energy over polar regions and likely to have dramatic impact on surface temperatures…

Cheers,

Anyone catch Catalyst to night?

Look at my web site where I have described how the emissions of carbon dioxide is automatically reduced to a specific equivalence level depending on how natural forces such as thermodynamics and gravitation acts on the properties of the carbon dioxide which varying its density dependent of the pressure.

Ingvar Astrand, Sweden
ingvar_astrand@yahoo.se
http://www.theuniphysics.info