I don't know all the science behind global warming, and unfortunately, I think very few people do - geologists may have a significantly different opinion than climatologists, who probably see things differently to marine researchers.

That being said, I can't help but wonder what the motive behind this 'scare campaign' (if that's what it is) could actually be.

Okay - I could believe that some people have become trapped in a paranoid environmentalist dogma, and have succeeded in convincing a large part of world that this is in fact true.

Though this camp would be acting with good intentions - even if they are flawed.

On the other hand, there are very strong financial incentives for the other side of the debate. Very powerful, and very influential people have vested interested in maintaining the status quo.

In terms of the likeliest situation, I can't help but feel the latter is more probable. When investigating the science has become a matter of pre-concieved notions and bias, it makes it difficult to properly ascertain the truth.

I find it hard to believe the scientists that have been persuaded global warming is real (which as I understand it, is a majority) have completely ignored the planetary warming cycle.
Again, as I understand it, this warming is proceeding faster than it has in previous cycles, though to be fair, there have been previous instances in world history where the phenomenon has occurred.

Bob next piece will be about the evil people who think the world isn't flat and then go on to prove the virus's don't cause illness.

Bob, using a statement from someone back in 1982 to back up your lack of any evidence other than bagging the writer, shows your lack of intellect.

I'd like to see your evidence that world temperatures haven't risen since 1998, against the constantly growing collapse of ice shelf's, decline of glaziers and melting permafrost around the world.

As Al Gore said, its a bit over the top, but if only 50% of what he says happens, we're in huge trouble. Actually it's your veracity that's in trouble Bob, as is our society, species and the planet

Are not the global warming scare mongers the same people who have come up with the conspiracy theories about 9/11. The movie would be better titled 'a convenient lie'.

Well said, Bob. The quote from the London Institute of Spivs says it all.

“the task of climate change agencies is not to persuade by rational argument. ... Instead, we need to work in a more shrewd and contemporary way, using subtle techniques of engagement. ... The ‘facts’ need to be treated as being so taken-for-granted that they need not be spoken”.

The sleazy end of the research community have found a "category 5" gravy train of government funding. It comes with no serious scrutiny of the realistic probability of threat and hence, has no effective audit function. And they then have the gall to accuse sceptics of having a vested interest.

It is the classic extrapolation to extreme to justify the unjustifiable and there is little wonder that they are not keen to argue on the facts.

More than 99% of greenhouse gas is water vapour.
CO2 is less than 1% of greenhouse gas and only 0.03% of total atmosphere.
So water vapour is 3% of the total atmosphere.

Are we to seriously believe that a change in CO2 from 0.03% of the atmosphere to 0.04% cannot be matched by nature with a reduction in water vapour from 3.0% of the atmosphere to 2.99%?

Give us a break. The natural range of variation in humidity, even in deserts, is from almost zero % to 100% when it actually rains. And the science is clear that plants use less water when CO2 increases. Less transpiration means less water vapour. But there is no funding for finding out how much substitution takes place

Gore's most damning assertion is sea level rises. Yet they are well within natural variability.

Further, if you integrate the amount of INSOLATION recieved by Earth over say the last 1000 years under the lagrangean constraints of global precession, Earth's spin, tidal motions and rapid transit of heat from tropics to poles via regular hurricane and storm singularities, you will reach the conclusion that the ice caps have already melted and the Earth is one Kevin Costner Waterworld planet.

Heating should be almost uniform over the entire planet given the constraints mentioned. It clearly is not. So something is MISSING. And that something is tied up in the physics of how ice has LOW ENTROPY (highly ordered) yet has almost ZERO energy and how the poles with such low Entropy can attract heat within the scope of the second law of thermodynamics.

That conundrum hints that ice somehow radiates incoming tropical heat. The physics of radiative properties of large scale supercooled macromolecular ice formations is not well understood and is known to involve complex quantum interactions (Bose-Einstein Condensation and superconductivity). These interactions occur as massive ice sheets expand upon freezing. A most interesting phenomena!.

NASA did a recent audit on uncertain snow cover over Nth Pole central for this very reason. I have not seen any results from this study to date. But I am betting the results did NOT show a consistent degradation of ice/snow cover for the reasons mentioned above.

Given the current lack of US incident hurricanes and information that suggests cleaner US coastal seas (mainland E-coli outbreaks, manatees in the Hudson, changes in sea-height anomaly patterns, SST heat reversal since MAY2006 etc) and the fact that the themodynamic gravitas of the planet is in global ocean surfaces, a more likely cause of climate change is wastewater pollution. This will become apparent as we see continuing hurricane free seasons in the US. This proposition also raises the possibility of ending the NSW/Victoria drought.

Interesting, ironic and dogmatic best describes this post.

I note that there is not one credible scientific counter claim in this article (or rant if you prefer) for the basis of climate change. There is nothing backing up Professor Carter's assertion that this is "junk science". Citing a reference 24 years out of date in no way could possibly reflect the current state of knowledge with respect to climate science. To suggest that is the case is an appalling misrepresentation of the immense body of work that has gone into understanding our climate.

My understanding from direct contact with climate researchers is that the largest source of uncertainty in the modelling of climate science is not physical but economic. The questions of "how many people will there be? how much coal will they burn? how much petrol will they use?" are now the single largest source of uncertainty in the modelling.

This article is a testament to the dearth of peer reviewed science to "debunk" climate change. When the sceptics start trotting out science fiction authors to support their case in US senate hearings you have to think long and hard about their credibility.

There is indeed a moral issue. It centres around inter-generational inequity. I would say it is immoral to knowingly adversely impact on future generations' capacity to live a decent life. Spin has dominated the debate to protect vested interests in fossil fuels. Immense amounts of cash have been expended on lobby groups to counter the money spent on increasing knowledge. To suggest that climate researchers are on a gravy train to delude policy makers and the public is absurd. There has been a spectacular lack of action on climate change. I think it is time to liberally apply Occam's razor to the sceptics' arguments.

Runner,

Oh how the land you live in must be a joyous and wonderful place, in your gumdrop house on lollypop lane, where pollution is a myth and governments hell bent on world domination would NEVER attack its own people to justify pre planned military invasions

Please invite me to this magical land of yours.

Thanks Kveldulv for your post. You said it nicely.

I agree with your comment - "to suggest that climate researchers are on a gravy train to delude policy makers and the public is absurd". I'd like to further add that throwing doubt on the motives of researchers and others is a double edged sword. People can then look at your own motives. There is certainly advantage to be gained - in publicity etc. by taking an opposing view in a high profile issue like this and attacking the messenger.

However I have no reason to doubt that Bob Carter's motives are pure. I'm just using it to illustrate how easy it is to cast aspersions on someone's intentions.

I have just spent a few hours perusing http://www.cei.org/pdf/5478.pdf as referred to at the end of Bob Carter's article, and subsequently looking up some of the references.

I find it, ironically enough, an apparently "inconvenient truth" that the paper above relies extensively on sources and people with financial connections to Exxon. I say apparently inconvenient because the author does mention this as a possible conflict of interest.

A search on Google will bring up some interesting information the organisations http://www.co2science.org and http://www.worldclimatereport.org (both referenced extensively) and the personnel behind the organisations. The author specifically mentions Paul C. Knappenberger (who is associated with worldclimatereport.org) at the beginning of the paper: "The author is grateful to CEI Research Interns Jonathan Burns and Elias Dayoub for their help in analyzing economic and environmental data, and to Paul C. Knappenberger of New Hope Environmental Services and Willie Soon of the Center for Science and Public Policy for their comments on an earlier draft of this paper." Knappenburger's history with Exxon is not mentioned, while Exxon itself is portrayed as the victim of a "disinformation" campaign.

Hmm....

Apart from the above threads I've managed to tease out in just a few hours, I have issues with accepting of a paper that quotes Wikipedia as it's authority on "Greenhouse Basics". There are surely more authoritative sources available.

While I accept that the paper may well refer to some legitimate issues with "An Inconvenient Truth" (seeing that I do not have the time to research each and every reference), it does not in any way appear to be much more than a propaganda piece aimed at discrediting AIT, while conveniently "forgetting" to mention the vested interests behind all the "evidence".

Food for thought.

Isky

On ya Isky;

As it happens I saw "An Inconvenient Truth" last night. I used to be sceptic and thought the scientists were on the gravytrain until I met a group of csiro climatologists at a bbq last christmas. They simply had a reasonable and plausible answer for every doubt I could throw at them.

It is easy to throw a 110 page document critisising a 2 hour movie and come out looking more "official". The two media have different formats and a paper in a scientific format conforms to the stereotype of academic credibility and will thus be believed by many people. However in this age of spin we have to follow the money trail. A quick google of the author and the institute he represents reveals that they are funded by the oil and petrochemical industries:
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=2

A pity professor Carter didn't mention this.

It is ironic that the paper likens the movie to Zola's 19th century newspaper article "J'Accuse". In the artcile Zola condemns the prosecution of the jewish officer Dreyfuss on based on secret evidence and antisemitism. It caused a huge stir at the time and its echo resonates strongly in our times. We could do worse than read Barbara Tuchmans chapter on the affair in her book "The Proud Tower". On the centenary of Dreyfuss' rehabilitation Zola received wide praise in his fight against the forces of "darkness and injustice". It would be interesting to see how Al Gore is viewed in 100 years time.

Alas we live in an age of spin. Objective information is a rarety. Who do we believe; the "privilegded patrician" mr Gore or the "lackeys" of the oil industry. My vote goes with Al Gore.

The consequences of global warming are very serious. Even just the sea level rise can have a significant cost. I grew up in Holland and the dykes designed after the 1952 flood took 30 years to build and cost billions of 1980 dollars.

Finally in a "battle of facts" lets get them right. The little iceage occurred in the 17th acentury, not in the middleages.

Amendment:

"I say apparently inconvenient because the author does mention this as a possible conflict of interest"

Should read:

"I say apparently inconvenient because the author does NOT mention this as a possible conflict of interest."

My apologies for any confusion.

Isky

I am amazed that all of you are so quick to dismiss what Prof Carter has written based, not on the facts of the matter or the strength of his argument, but on who you think might have funded who and what you think might have motivated them? I guess none of you drive cars 'cause you wouldn't give your money to big oil?
I reckon Al Gore is making a lot of money out of the movie and the crusade ... so why do you believe him? Particularly given he does not practice what he preaches: http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm .
How are about starting from the beginning ... testing a couple of Al Gore's claims versus a couple of Bob Carter's claims against the available evidence?

So did the London Institute of Spivs make that statement about avoiding the facts, or not? It is all very well to be looking up gossip blogs but did anyone bother to confirm such a clearly damning quote? No, and you all made your own political biases perfectly clear.

As a past member of the Australian Greenhouse Office's Consultative Pannel on the Land Use Change and Forestry part of the Greenhouse Inventory, I have first hand experience of the way this process has such a scant regard for the distinction between fact and speculation.

One couldn't call it idle speculation because there was no shortage of plainly ideologically driven people who were very actively trying to distort the picture for their own political objectives. And given that so much of the IPCC methodology has a blatantly European bias, with serious detriment neatly apportioned to those outside the club, these actions by the AGO have bordered on treason.

Deceptive conduct is most certainly a moral issue and that makes the spin and deception of the greenhouse goons a major moral issue.

Some commenters have asked for a scientific rebuttal of Carter's claims against the film. Here is one. Carter claims that "it is noteworthy that global temperature has not risen since 1998". 1998 was the hottest year on record but that does not mean that the overall trend of increasing global temperatures has stopped. For a detailed scientific critique, including a graph of Global Mean Temperature over Land and Ocean since 1880 see: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/anomalies.html (US National Climate Data Centre)

This particular claim is an example of a spin technique known as cherrypicking (choosing only the data that suits your argument) and does nothing for Carter's credibilty.

Carter says "Nor does he (Al Gore)present any evidence that climate during the 20th century departed discernibly from its historical pattern of constant change. This is not surprising, for no such evidence yet exists."

Professor Carter seems to have conveniently forgotten that one of the most significant indicators of climate change is the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere which seems to be rising exponentially. Hardly "constant change", and according to my calculations, at the present rate of our burning of fossil fuels, it will double within the lifetime of many of us.

I will put my money on Al Gore.

Better start thinking about the forewarned global change, you office armchair critics,
'cause surely you are the ones out to make hay while the sunshines - shares in the big coal companies most like.

Bet most of you have never considered that the biggest change in the whole last thousand years of global existence has been that of man and his technology - using anything that can produce combustion, most of which in turn pollutes the atmosphere.
s a veteran farmer who has cleared out big trees not only to produce more crop, but also because he could now see Dalwallinu over forty K's away. Makes one really feel good and grand - really like a man.

Young wife thinks different though, telling him if he knocks down any more beautiful salmon gums, she's leaving...

Oh, she'll be jake, says the hubby, we can fix it. We can make up for it. And f- it all, too, says the young wife, already beginning to swear.

But it is a story about the environment that is typical, as shown by John Howard, who though he has knowledge of how noxious discharges can be sent miles underground, and old-fashioned discharges can be metered and payment made accordingly, he'd rather kid to the public that something is going to be done.

But because it means slowing down production, John Howard like the young cockie, just keeps on at the same game

Guess Bob you haven't got a house by the sea ... just in case!
And no relatives living in Tuvalu either?
I find it almost incomprehensible that anyone – especially a scientist – could argue that changing one variable factor in an equation that has been in equilibrium for over 100k years will have no impact – to borrow a phrase “it’s the CO2 stupid”!
It must be an interesting world to live in where human impacts are unimportant to the environment – are you and John Howard the only people in it – no wait … you must have Exxon-Mobil in there with you!
It doesn’t matter if the overall impacts are hotter or colder – it is the sudden change that will impact live forms.
It must be quite a hoot being on your campus.
All the best, Bruce.

From time to time, I meet an academic who wears the goggles of their own discipline just a little too tightly. In my case, I'll admit to sometimes seeing everything as an information technology problem.

In the case of geologist Bob Carter, looking at the whole history of the earth, a jump in CO2 levels or temperatures may seem rather natural and benign. After all, the present increase in CO2 is nothing compared to 100 million years ago.

Of course that misses the whole point. Humanity has values, is self-conscious and occasionally intelligent. We believe that we are somehow different from a plague of locusts who mindlessly consume the landscape before them, even though locusts are certainly part of a natural cycle. This is why I agree with Al Gore saying global warming is ultimately a moral issue rather than a scientific one.

-00-

A response to Jennifer who says "I reckon Al Gore is making a lot of money out of the movie." I was wondering if this was an objective comment or a projection of Jennifer's partisanship. Al Gore has stated "Tipper and I are devoting 100 percent of [our] profits from the movie and the book to a new bipartisan educational campaign", as reported in the magazine of the US Smithsonian Institution (http://www.smithsonianmagazine.com)

Gore's data is speculation, deceptively presented or simply wrong! This forum is limited to 350 words so if you want a more thorough assessment then www.trac.org.au/myths/myths.htm

Most of what Gore prophesises are PREDICTIONS of computer models. Most of these models do not take into account such fundamentals as celestial influences and solar flux variations. Further, models of the earth's basic atmospheric absorbtion chemistry are woefully inadequate, the cell size is orders of magnitude too large and initial/boundary conditions are not know with any real accuracy. Most telling of all is that NONE can model the gas which makes up >96% of the greenhouse gases (water vapour and/or clouds) with anything other than order of magnitude accuracy!

CSIRO’s statement on modelling:

“This report relates to climate change scenarios based on computer modelling. Models involve simplifications of the real processes that are not fully understood. Accordingly, no responsibility will be accepted by CSIRO or the government for the accuracy of forecasts or predictions inferred from this report or for any person's interpretations, deductions, conclusions or actions in reliance on this report.”

This is why the "we are all going to die" climatologists keep their computer models SECRET!

Reid Bryson, Emeritus Professor at the University of Wisconsin, and universally regarded as the ‘father of climatology’ and the inventor of the weather and climate modelling systems said:

“A model is nothing more than a formal statement about how the modeller believes the part of the world of his concern actually works … it may be years before computer capacity and human knowledge are adequate for reasonable simulation … the main models in use all have similar errors, but it is hardly surprising, for they are all essentially clones of each other."

Gore's film is a "movie" and is a deliberate mis representation of the science with artistic drama and music to achieve a political agenda. The Ex Canadian Environment Minister expressed the sentiment perfectly:

“No matter if the science is all phony [sic], there are collateral environmental benefits…. Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world."

Here is what the Royal Society has to say about Exxon and its funding of Global Warming denial. The report by CEI quoted by prof Carter gets a specific mention. http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1876538,00.html

Yes Al Gore is a politician and he is leading a grassroots campaign on this issue. No doubt he could have written or commisioned a scientific paper on the issue however that would have reached far fewer people than his lecture tour and film. Books and pamphlets are just not as popular as they once were.

The op-ed article from USA Today was written by a Bush and Reagan biographer it is hardly going to be unbiased. Surprise surprise the Hoover Institution for which he works features on the same list of Exxon funded attack dogs. http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=43 Key members are Rumsfeld, Rice and George Schultz.

It is amazing how useful google is on finding news background.

Of course I also drive a car, live in a house and am a user of petrochemical products. That doesn't mean that I can't change my choices to greener options. Recognizing the need for change is the first step in making a change. No one is perfect and I am sure many people can be accused of hypocracy at some level.

Go an see the movie and decide for yourself. As prof Carter points out if you don't like the politics there are plenty of nice nature shots. They won't last long if we don't change direction.

I don't know about the science,but we are all presently experiencing rapid change in our climate with new records in temperature happening all over the planet.There is reason for concern since Earth is the only spaceship we have.

All the hydocarbons we are burning now,were once plants that took co2 from the atmosphere.The earth must have been a much hotter place in the past with all that co2 in the atmosphere and life still survived.That point I would consider to be a positive for us,however if these dramatic changes continue to accelerate,I don't want to think about the chaos and suffering our humanity will experience.

It is all up to us and we cannot expect some miracle from the hand of god to intervene.I think most of us just put it at the back of our minds and hope for the best.

If we act now to reduce hydrocarbon emissions while we continue to investigate the global warming phenomenon, and the threat turns out to be a false alarm, the worst that could happen is some medium term economic pain.

If we choose to do nothing and the threat of global warming turns out to be correct, then the consequences could be far more devastating.

Carl

If the US is after world domination as u seem to imply I would be a lot happier living under that regime than Islam or worse still one dominated by the loony left who seem to radiate so much hate that they would rather believe a pack of lies than to face up to the truth. I suppose u also believe John Howard arranged for the Bali bombings and Me Blair the London bombings? Give us a break!

One poster has asked about alterior motives of the Global Warming lobby. The answer, anti-capitalism. China and India are exempt from the Kyoto protocols and they are the largest contributors of green house gasses. If you check the political leanings of Al Gore et al and most environmentalists you will find that they are socialists. As far as climate change is concerned, it happens. However the most quoted study that is used to prove that humans are responsible for recent climate change is the one that is called "The Hockey Stick". According to that study, there has been no significant change in climate for the last 2000 years until the 20th century where a drastic rise in temperature (about 2C) has occured. So there is one large camp of scientists that deny natural climate change cycles exist (modern flat earth scientists) in the face of what is obvious to most; climate changes. The best solution to all this was proposed in a US Senate hearing by Dr. Richard Alley of Penn State University. His reccommendations can be found in detail at http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=750&wit_id=2028. Dr. Alley has extensively researched climate change over a 2 million year period of earth's history and has concluded that yes, the earth's climate changes drastically over time. Rather than trying to stop it from changing which is impossible, the sensible thing to do is spend time and resources on mitigating the consequences of climate change on at risk populations; a sensible no-regrets policy. So rather than spending time and resources on drastically changing the way modern societies generate power which won't stop climate change, let's work on solutions that will have a positive impact on global society.

Do I care about halting global warming? No.

Do I care about reducing pollution? Yes.

Good science is based solely on reason and evidence not authority or affiliation. When Einstein published his theory of relativity he was a junior clark in a patent office with a high school degree. Darwin was a retired country gentleman when he published On the Origin of Species. Neither appeared in a peer reviewed journal. All of which is irrelevant to the fact that they proved to be right.

By the criteria offered by critics in the present discussion it would appear they must also reject both relativity and evolution. Critics should address the substance of Professor Carter's article. Attacking the credentials of the author or the CEI reference and who they are, or who is alleged to have paid them is irrelevant. The only important issue is "are their scientific arguments correct"?

Similarly, dismissing the Lamb quote because it was written in 1982 is fatuous. Again, do we also dismiss Einstein and Darwin because they were published even earlier? The question is not "when was it written" but "is it true"?

Skeptics are not arguing that CO2 does not absorb IR or that burning fossil fuel does not add CO2 to the atmosphere. In essence the AGW debate is about whether increasing CO2 by a few hundredths of one percent of the atmosphere will have catastrophic consequences on global climate. AGW proponents claim scientific certainty that it will and cite as proof a 0.6 degree C increase in average global temperature over the past century, a putative increase in extreme weather events and predictions of ongoing future warming based on computer models. Skeptics find significant uncertainty in the amount, causes and consequences of any warming and in the accuracy of the models. They point to major doubts regarding the amount and cause of recent warming, past extremes that equal or exceed recent ones, benefits of CO2 enrichment, plus numerous simplifications, guesses and omissions in the models as well as wide discrepancies between them.

Anyone who claims this issue is scientifically settled is either in denial or simply ignorant of the amount of uncertainty and conflicting evidence involved.

Spot on, Walter. So many of the posts above demonstrate that these people are in the habit of running facts through a political filter before they actually assess those facts. Now that process may be appropriate for processing perceptions and political spin, but to do the same with facts is strong evidence that they do not distinguish between perceptions and facts. To them, they are all just grist for a political mill.

And once they have crossed that threshold, as Al Gore clearly has, there is no prospect of them dealing with issues in an honest and open manner. Once their minds have switched to a framework of "our facts" and "their facts", it is only a very small step indeed to the deception of them witholding facts that may not support their position and over emphasising facts that do support their position.

It is the hard evidence of their contempt for our right to make informed decisions that may not agree with their preference.

And that, folks, is the definition of the common liar. The guy who competes for social standing with the village idiot.

Lets face it, Gore almost made it to the very top of the US political heap, and people seriously expect us to believe he is an honest man? Give us a break.

Perseus said, “Spot on, Walter. So many of the posts above demonstrate that these people are in the habit of running facts through a political filter before they actually assess those facts. Now that process may be appropriate for processing perceptions and political spin, but to do the same with facts is strong evidence that they do not distinguish between perceptions and facts. To them, they are all just grist for a political mill.”

It sounds to me as though you are advocating that we should just take for gospel whatever “facts” are dished up to us.

I may only be a lowly Bachelor degree student, but one of the cardinal rules of critical thinking is to query who is saying “the fact”, and what reasons they may have for interpreting and presenting “the fact” in that particular way. In short, to examine the presentation for any bias.

Also, should any bias be present, it should be stated up front so that the author’s motivation can be taken into account.

I was simply pointing out that the paper referred to by Bob (in criticism of “An Inconvenient Truth”) did not make clear that bias could be present given the fact that the institute, and people who assisted create the paper, had financial links to a major oil company who stand to lose money if people are inclined to agree with AIT.

As NicM pointed out above, “cherrypicking” can work for any argument. “Facts” can be a little like statistics – depending on the context, they can mean whatever you want them to.

Given the lack of upfrontness about the paper’s potential bias, and the cherrypicking, it is reasonable for the writer’s and supporter’s motives to be questioned when the connection to a multinational oil company is discovered.

Isky,

Please read Jennifer and Walter's comments again.

We are dealing here with matters of science.

Your subjective opinions about CEI, and where it gets its money from have nothing to do with it. Either their arguments are valid or they are not.

I suggest that you discuss one or more of the main science points, and desist from pointless maundering about other person's motives.

Cathy

Based on history, it generally takes around 40 years for a new scientific proven idea to fan out, become digested and become accepted by the general community.

Ditto climate science.

15 years ago half the scientific community were undecided or 'sceptical' on climate science. Now almost no serious scientists working in the area have any doubts. The ratio would be 500 to 1.

Scientists are generally extremely conservative. Yhey simply hate the thought of spouting emotional argument not pinned down by hard facts. The fact that these naturally sceptical people are convinced convinces me.

It will take maybe another 20 years for the phenomenon to become accepted by the community at large. The 'sceptics' are no longer in the serious scientific community, they are just ordinary folk who don't like hearing the news, using crude street science to back up their fears.

One problem: if the news is as Al Gore is telling it , then there ain't 20 years to wait sitting on our hands.

To cater for these situations then there is that other accepted scientific pathway - the Precautionary Principle. So long as there is a prima facia case that human induced climate change is real, then we should take appropriate action to ward off the worst eventualities.

Or at least not go digging the grave deeper whilst we wait for absolute proof.

I believe gecko has identified the key point in this discussion. It is not really about the science 'fact' as such because resolving that arguement could take many years because of the need for absolute proof (which is fine in a nice theoretical discussion of quatum mechanics!).

In this case though, it is a bit like driving your car across a flooded creek. You can plow on because no one has 'proved' there is a problem, or you can take a precautionary action while you investigate further. It might cost you some time (GDP growth in this case) but the consequences of not checking are pretty dire!

I imagine there must be a lot of people in this discussion group who have almost drowned their cars!

Gecko and Bruce,

Sorry to use up my daily comment allowance in two goes within 5 minutes, but nonsense.

You say "Take precautionary action?"

How do we do that when we do not know whether to take precaution against a warming or a cooling planet over the next few decades?

In fact, given (i) that most empirical computer models, and work on
solar variation, suggest that we are entering a cooling phase (and
remember that there has been no warming since 1998); and (ii) that
the hazards of sharp cooling exceed those of mild warming, then the
most effective precautionary action to take is any measures that
encourage mild warming.

Increasing the amount of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere does
precisely that (and note the adjective "mild"). The obvious
conclusion is that there is no need to interfere with current carbon-
based energy and economic activities, and that the best precaution
that we can take is (i) to continue with our present activities, and (ii) consider how we might create additional mild warming - if necessary - when, eventually, fossil fuels become scarce enough that they are replaced by other (perhaps non-greenhouse-emission-creating) sources. And that time is still a very long way off.

Cathy

Cathy,

Please be prepared to repeat all that to the many thousands of people who are now already suffering from demographic changes to disease regimes, such as malaria.

Please be prepared to repeat it to the Australian farmers who are sufferring the wrost drought in decades and no end in sight.

Please be preared to repeat it, open faced, to the millions of our planetary citizens who are destined to suffer immensely from changed weather regimes that are already affecting.

Cathy if you are really certain about your hypothesis, be prepared to take your share of the guilt as you did your bit to prevent remedial action being taken.

It is very easy to be glib about historic climate changes in eons gone by, as a justification for non action, but go to where the people are being affected, go to New Orleans, go to Bangladesh, the growing deserts of African Sahara and tell them all's fine, no need for change.

Take a reality check in 20 years time Cathy. Then look back. I will forgive your mistake, but many would not.

Walter and Perseus, I am an engineer no climate scientist. I can read the CEI article and understand much of it. But I am not in a postition to do a peer review. In a departure from normal scientific papers even the author distances himself from its contents by crediting two interns for writing it in a footnote. At the same time the Royal Society, the premier scientific institute in the UK, which had members like Newton, claims it is deliberate misinformation.

Then we have an article attacking Al Gore his zinc mine and shares in an oil company. The article is written by an institute that has the republican top as its key members. It doesn't mention what activities the oil company is involved in. Many oil companies have clean energy programs.

It seems that every day we have reports of more unusual weather and climate events. Like today we get a report that the artic has melted to the extend that we can sail a ship to the north pole.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/scientists-shocked-by-arctic-melt/2006/09/21/1158431791746.html

As far as I understand the climate models are simplified and tweaked regularly to match current observations. Unlike many scientific applications we don't have a box full of lab-earths on which we can experiment so there is perhaps more uncertaintity than in some other branches of science.

The fact is that GW has been highly politicised with much deliberate misinformation and I believe that it is appropriate for lay people to read the press through a political filter. http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1876538,00.html

Sadly it feels very similar to the tobacco causes lung cancer denials from the 70s and 80s.

No one is saying we should immedeatly abadon mining, fossile fuels and adopt a greenie life style. We should just stop putting large quantities of green house gasses in the atmosphere.

Gee Bob,

I hope you are right. But who pays the price if you are wrong? Probably not you, but the children who will inherit this planet from you.

Your type of science, denying the reality of climate change is very much a minority, and it is a diminishing class. Perhaps you will be the last one, standing up to your armpits in water, saying it aint so.

I hope you are right. But it's high stakes poker. And we lose our planet if you're wrong. You'd hate to have spent an entire lifetime working to deceive people about something that could kill them. Much like those in the tobacco industry. Oops I've just become Al Gore.

We've had a posting from an member of the NSW parliament, Dr Jon Jenkins MLC on 20 September 2006 8:19:43 PM. Jon is a member of the Outdoor Recreation Party and the site he referred to is his own blog which includes a path on why global warming is a myth.

I would prefer that MLC's disclose their status when contributing to a debate, as they are under oath to represent the people of their state.

On the subject of the posting itself, criticising federal agencies like the CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology for propagating the myths of Global Warming is as credible as saying CIA orchestrated the faking of the moon landing. Indeed, even NASA gets a serve on Jon Jenkins website for using out-dated data.

The irony is that the Outdoor Recreation Party has a seemingly rational policy of supporting energy conservation, supporting renewable energy and thinking of our fossil fuels as ultimately a reserve or supplementary supply for windless cloudy days.

I suggest Dr Jenkins think about the role the CSIRO and BoM would have in realising such a policy before dumping on these apolitical organisations.

Gee Nahum,

But who pays the price if you are wrong? Probably not you, but the children who will inherit this Nation as slaves from you.

Your slavish science-avoidance and global warming toady is denying John Howard's neo-US-colonial mendacity and its cancerous damage to this nation:

* Creating social class divisions and effective reintroduction of SLAVERY via selective education http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/expert-warns-of-colonial-divide-in-education/2006/09/21/1158431843968.html
http://www.smh.com.au/news/heckler/who-needs-values-lets-have-slaves-straight-roads/2006/09/20/1158431781702.html

* Getting Mandy-Vee the pig farmer to say skilled immigrants are OUR engine room when they are their own bloody engine room whose contribution to the economy is NET ZERO by Bureau of Statistics figures http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/skilled-migrants-are-economys-engine-room/2006/09/21/1158431843958.html

* Getting Mandy to endorse Euthanasia to solve the ageing population dilemma where forms can be rigged to make it look like undesirables want to 'end it all'.

* Turning a blind eye while NSW Labor turns precious public space around Botany Bay (Botany Vegas) and Cook Cove, Cooks River foreshore into a Mafia style casino complex. All in order to boost a corrupted anti-Australian economy http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Australians-gambling-155b-a-year/2006/09/20/1158431785330.html

Climate change is very much a minority problem and its impact is a diminishing class. The US will not ever have another landfall hurricane due to the open-secret of stricter wastewater management regimes that are currently controlling US climate. This has to be factored into the debate now.

Perhaps YOU will be the last one --- standing up to your armpits in sewage, saying it aint so.

But it's high stakes poker. And we lose our true fair-go, fair-dinkum Australian VALUES to Howard's mandacity if you're wrong. You'd hate to have spent an entire lifetime working to deceive people about something that could enslave and even kill them and their grandchildren.

Much like those in the tobacco industry or in the IPCC.

Oops I've just become the TRUTH

I can't believe you guys are debating whether global warming is real or not. Why do you believe some tin pot crank who publishes on OnLineOpinion when all reputable science in peer reviewed journals agrees that global warming is upon us.

In Australia we see the effects of it right now, with prolonged dry conditions, the continent is markedly hotter than it was 100 years ago and we have turned 100 fresh water rivers in south west Western Australia to brackish or salt in the last 200 years.

"Fraid to say it but the white man is the worst thing that happened to the ecosystem of this continent and we are destroying the land we are leaving for our grandchildren to inherit.

Gusi, et al, one should be very wary of anything out of the UK Royal Society as any credibility they may have had in the past has long since migrated to places elsewhere.

Their paper on the claimed acidification of the worlds oceans was based on the assumption that CO2 is only absorbed by the top 100m of our oceans. And as our oceans are an average depth of 4000m this neatly allowed them to overstate the modelled mixing of CO2 by a factor of 50 or 5000%.

They made this assumption even in the face of gulf stream eddies that routinely extend 1.2km deep and at the same time as some other Global Warming Spivs were talking up the risk of collapse of the very system that negates the 100m mixing assumption. That is the North Atlantic thermohaline circulation that exhibits the sinking of cold water off the UK coast that is supposed to cause an ice age in Europe if it stops.

So they, and the intellectual giants in the UK Dept of Environment have managed to support two entirely contradictory modelled outcomes based on assumptions that each rule out the other scenario.

And that certainly does not amount to grounds to trigger the precautionary principle. For this principle was never intended to justify any and every reaction to any outrageous risk scenario. It was always intended to incorporate a test of significance to ensure that threats had to be largely substantiated but not absolutely confirmed before the precautionary principle would apply.

That is not the case with global warming.

I couldn't help but be amused watching a documentary a little while back, when the CEO of Shell admitted he was worried about global warming... this was before the PR woman sitting on the couch in the office told him to zip it... Dang I wish I could remember the name of that documentary. It was british anyhow, and compared nuclear power to wind power and the like, and focused on the threat of global warming.
Can anyone remind me as to which one it was?

Response to TurnRightThenLeft:

The documentary was "The End of The World As We Know It"
http://www.rdfrights.com/catalogue/prodexd.asp?catalogid=2464
written and presented by Marcel Theroux.

I'd recommend it too.

Yeah,

Every reasonable scientist of merit is of the opinion that we can't just keep burning carbon, and producing long term carbon waste which builds up in our atmosphere without there being major, catastrophic circumstances.

It's almost like the nuclear argument. Yeah, maybe we need nukes, but don't put the waste anywhere near me... I'm not advocating nukes, but this current waste problem is all around us.

I can't understand it. We have smart people with good intentions running our countries, and our companies. I won't believe that John Howard and his cronies are evil, only perhaps a little tipsy on the power they have, which they have always craved.

But logic stands that you can't keep s**tting in your swimming pool year after year without some of your friends deciding they don't want to swim there anymore. If you look for scientists, the proof is overwhelmingly out there in support of Climate Change. Logic backs it up.

So how do regular citizens act to make a difference. Well, you can start by talking to your friends, and doing a carbon audit. Reducing personal consumption make some difference but we all need to communicate to marginal seats that this is a key electoral issue.

Where is the Labor party? Oh, that's right, Kim Beazley has decided he can't beat JH, so he's going to join him...

Soccer mums and Tradesmen need to be concerned about this issue. We need to stop s**tting in the swimming pool!

This reminds me about the mobile phone debate.

There is constant and continuing research showing that there is no direct link between mobile phone use and cancer.

However, there IS a direct link between mobile phone use and genetic damage and this has been known for many years.

The notion that cancer is caused by genetic damage is "outside the parameters of this research" so the research is based on semantics more than common sense.

Like the tobacco industry, there is lots of money tied up in mobile phones.

How much more is involved in the fossil fuel industry and those industries that are reliant on burning fossil fuel?

This argument was occurring in the 60's and 70's.We were being warned then of the potential for global warming.It was called the "green house effect"Surely scientists can come to some agreement on the likely outcomes in the light of the tangible evidence facing us now.How hot will it get and over what time frame?They should collectively be able to predict a worst and best case scenario and we should act accordingly.It is no good just the developed countries suffering from restrictions of carbon emissions.Both India,China and all the developing world need to be included.

Can we do anything that will realisticly will reverse the present trends or have many already decided that it is just too late anyway?
The energy alternatives don't look all that promising and considering we will burn the other half of the world's oil supplies an the next few decades,the time to act is now.It reminds of the tobacco warnings we have heard for decades.No one really takes notice until they get the "BIG C" diagnosis,then it is often too late.
It's just human nature I guess.We don't think it will ever happen to us.

I saw the film in question, 'An Inconvenient Truth' and was extremely impressed. This is a very positive film. I recommend everyone see it.

When writing in this forum, I usually do a bit of homework so when I make arguments here in support of sustainability they are truthful and reliable. So I was surprised to find out how much more there was that I and everyone on the planet needs to know.

The title of Bob Carter's article correctly states: "climate change is indeed a moral issue." Given that he does not dispute the "raw scientific facts" of climate change, I wonder what has possessed him to choose to be immoral.

In a way doesnt it not matter if the pollution is causing climate change or not - we should do everything we can to minimise pollution anyway.

People can no longer rely on outdated, inadequate IPCC data sets to deduce global warming. It must be remembered that peer review is NOT PROOF of Global Warming and that NOT ALL reputable scientists agree with it: http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm

And you cannot rely on NASA, NOAA and USGS after a major blunder I will now explain.

A Sept 21 report from NASA's JPL claims the oceans have been cooling in 'little dips' over the last 3 years:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14944138/?GT1=8506

Now if you LOOK at the Data from the tropical Atlantic 2005/2006 you will see that HUGE changes have slowly taken place over 3 months. These canges are not 'little dips' and are ad hoc in occureence so NASA's credibility has been BUSTED for starters.

Then, these changes are too great for solar fluctuations and are CONTRARY to greenhouse warming because over the same period US economic output has seen spectacular growth with certain increases in CO2 output filtering from the US right across the Atlantic basin. To top this off an analysis of Sea Height Anomaly maps over the same period has shown rapid retractions in wastewater plumes emitted from US and neighbouring nation's coastal cities.

The conclusion is that global warming is IRRELEVANT in the Climate Change debate and that there is a high probability that the US and Caribbean Nations are in effect controlling climate change. I stress that THERE IS NO OTHER EXPLANATION for the above observations. The Reason is Heat-Capacity changes in ocean surfaces: Colloidals in wastewaters simply hold onto heat better than cleaner ocean surfaces where they are mitigated.

Everything in SCIENCE must come down to DATA and I also cannot stress enough how important it is for participants in the climate change debate to LOOK at the data for themselves.

Here is the 2005/2006 data that shows a gradual REVERSAL of heat in the TWA from May 11 2006 where heat was much greater than 2005, through June 30 and onto July 31 where the heat levels were only around 50% of 2005 levels.

May 11:
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/dataphod1/work/HHP/NEW/2005131atsst.png
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/dataphod1/work/HHP/NEW/2006131atsst.png

June 30:
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/dataphod1/work/HHP/NEW/2005181atsst.png
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/dataphod1/work/HHP/NEW/2006181atsst.png

July 31:
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/dataphod1/work/HHP/NEW/2005212atsst.png
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/dataphod1/work/HHP/NEW/2006212atsst.png

An inconvenient truth that Al Gore does not mention is his family's (and his?) vast holdings in Occidental Oil in Latin America. Not only has Occidental been responsible for the death and destruction of many indigenous peoples but also the pollution and destruction of land in their grab for more oil profits.

Where does Al Gore stand on that?

Candy that all sounds shocking ... but can one shareholder, even with VAST holdings, be held responsible for a company's actions? To help enlighten us how did you determine that Al Gore actually holds vast quantities of this stock?

In a wider context, are you implying that these native people will somehow benefit from climate change ... or are you merging another issue to cloud the waters?

I have a problem with this type of statement that makes no attempt to support the position. Do I have to do the web search? Does this somehow imply that anything Al Gore says cannot be trusted? Your further comments would be appreciated.

I am sorry that you do not understand the relationship between oil exploitation and oil dependency and climate change. I did think it was already clear. I doubt you really want facts or you would not say something stupid like do I think the indigenous peoples would benefit from climate change.

As to the proof or information you say you are interested in knowing on Al Gore and Occidental Oil - it is easy to google. And finally, it is an old truism, but true nonetheless, that your actions speak louder than words. If you have oil holdings, investments, etc. or if you divested yourself of them, incorporate that into what you say. It shows you have made changes in your life.

And yes, we are responsible for where we invest as well as where we spend our money.

I have googled, and found that Candy is not telling the truth. I am not surprised, and neither are you, but why should we keep excusing and forgiving this behaviour?

For the record, Candy is taking advantage of Al Gore having the same name as his father who died in December 1998. When the father died, Al Gore Jnr was in control of his estate which included oil, land and other shares, and the oil shares were sold sometime in 2000.

Candy should apologise for misleading the forum. Of course, people like that don’t apologise, do they.

I'm getting rather disgusted and despairing about people who do nothing more than spin obvious lies and rumours. Every time they do it, someone decent has to spend time knocking them down and asserting the truth.

Look at the nonsense of KAEP asking us “to LOOK at the data for themselves” because we “cannot rely on NASA” or reputable scientists. This is from an anonymous post, linked to an opinion piece written by a public affairs company director.

Do you really think that clutching onto any old rumour or repeating plain nonsense is going to make the rest of abandon our values which include integrity, civility, fair go, honesty and responsibility?

I can assure you it won’t happen.

I'm getting rather disgusted and despairing about D Latimer who does nothing more than spin and obfuscate the SCIENCE without ever having looked at the data or having properly read the links presented. Every time he does it, someone decent has to spend time knocking him down and asserting the truth.

IF you LOOK at the data for yourself, and NASA's Sept 21 article you will see that we “cannot rely on NASA's reputable scientists". It's Res Ipsa Loquitur. And the opinion piece written by a public affairs company director is a totally separate issue and is based on a number of significant scientists' observations, including those of our own Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University.

Mr Latimer, do you really think that clutching onto an Australian Republic to profit from sudden fiscal and cultural shifts in Australia's socio-economic fabric excuses you from repeating confusion and nonsense as a substitute for looking at scientific data?

As for your slander, I won't lodge a complaint this time but I will reflect it right back at you to let you feel how hurtful your kind of republican politics can be: Whilst YOU abandon OUR values of integrity, civility, fair go, honesty and responsibility, people watch and NOTICE .

I can assure you an Australian Republic will be at least 50 years away and out of the reach of secular profiteers, due to your clumsy efforts. And I hope your bully-boy Republican idols are REAL pleased about that

The following Sea Height Anomaly map of Australia's coasts for today
can be used to discover where wastewaters are being most problematic in causing DROUGHT and Bushfire conditions around Australia over the coming summer months.

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/trinanes/tmp/sha1159247773.gif

This map along with SST data from NOAA can be analysed to determine which wastewater plumes need to be cut back and by how much in order to gradually reverse Drought and bushfire conditions across eastern Australia over the coming months in much the same way as the US reversed Hurricane conditions across the Gulf of Mexico since May 11 this year.

I will proceed with this analysis IF I get appropriate support from this forum and from the PM's newly formed water resources office http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/pm-sets-turnbull-at-water-crisis/2006/09/26/1159036513015.html .

In any event people on this forum ought to be able to see that coastal SHA structures are related to very specific industrial, metropolitan, agricultural and remote aboriginal reserve regions. Given the heavy structuring off the East coast and a little knowledge of the second law of thermodynamics it should not be surprising that Australia is experiencing its worst drought. It also should not be surprising that this year's bushfires will be horrific and very expensive to contain if less expensive actions to clean up coastal waters is not taken.

Note: the SHA map is temporary so if people expect to view it after 2 days then they should save it to disk.

Headline on abc.net.au - Earth's temperature nears million-year high
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200609/s1748741.htm

Gee, do you think even a geologist might find that significant?

In a previous "discussion" with KAEP, (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4574) I asked KAEP to refrain from making personal remarks about another person, saying "you are probably bought". His/her response was to launch a personal attack on me saying "Perhaps you would prefer if I called you a weasel. Because that's how you come across here."

Now KAEP is trying to turn the tables (good luck with that), but it's just an empty accusation. I still believe that flaming is against the rules of this forum, and that apology is outstanding from last time.

In the Candy's case, I have asked her(?) to apologise for misleading the forum. These are the only posts Candy has made to this forum (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp?id=28507), so I'm definitely wasting my time there.

In KAEP's post, the problem is that nonsense was written up and the content speaks for itself. In particular, the set of maps, of the Carribian sea do not show that "US and Caribbean Nations are in effect controlling climate change." And the map of Australia, posted 26Sept2006 4:54AM, shows nothing of interest.

Of course I do ask people to "look at the nonsense" in KAEP's post, because the technique of using pseudo-science and discrediting scientific institutions is manifest. We should be all aware that public relations firms (eg KAEP's hyperlink) do the same but in a far more professional and believable way.

So, go see the movie. It is not a public relations exercise. It is a great documentary with important and reliable information and a positive message. Al Gore is doing a good job, takes a moral stand and integrity is his motivation. We should applaud that.

(P.S. It's off the topic somewhat, but as a proud republican, I'll assert there are people with great integrity, greater than I, who do not support change. A republican debate with integrity shall serve Australia well.)

Hermes, "earth's temperature nears million year high".
So what, to a geologist. That is miniscule in geologic time, during which our planet has had far more extreme climatic changes. Hectic times prevailed about 65 million years back, and real devilish stuff some couple of hundred million before that.
The earth has seen it all before, so why should a geologist worry? The impertinence of a scientifically-oriented political animal like Gore to send us a message saying we might not be able to adjust to the demonstrated changes that are upon us. So what if ice-melt is at its greatest in 11,000 years! We are not Trilobites; not Dinosaurs. They both had it too good for too long (200 million years or so each); too rigidly attuned to their climatic periods. Couldn't cope with change, so all their species died out.
Genus Homo is new, is different, is technological. We will persist. Lomborg says so and, though no geologist, is a Great Dane as many people seem to believe. Whatever we do, we must not put any store in what is said by our very own acknowledged climate specialists such as Pearman and Pittock. Whatever you do, do not read the reasoned information on the subject in Pittock's book Climate Change; or all that data from time to time by Pearman. Their opinions are surely tainted: their termerity in demonstrating there is great cause for concern, especially for our children and grandchildren. But they are not geologists; their time frame encompasses but a short geological blip. On the same basis, it must be sheer ratbaggery, the stuff being published on the subject by the Australian Academy of Science and sister organisations in the USA and UK. Just believe the blogs by our dissenting geologists.
Undoubtedly, 6.5 billion Homo sapiens are not coping too well with the climate we have become attuned to over the past 10,000 years; but technology is sure to prevail for us, and climatic deterioration surely will be miniscule on a geological scale.

A website that I find informative is http://www.realclimate.org/
The site presents the latest research and is moderated by a team of scientists. It also allows public comment to which the moderators may respond.

My big concern is with sea level rise and storm surges associated with extreme weather events. This is arguably the greatest economic threat of climate change, and also seems to prompt the wildest denials by sceptics. The political debate thus leaves my disgusted, as I believe the underlying motive for discussing climate change to be self-interest and not the discovery of truth.

Consequently I limit my own reading to scientific reports. It is a shame that some of the media clowns dont even try to understand the science. And unlike the scientists, they seem to have licence to publish debunked ideas, misleading information and slander without limit.

I can't believe this Carter person ! He's some sort of marine scientist up in Townsville, can he really be looking at the Great Barrier Reef bleaching before his eyes and still be rubbishing Al Gore et al ? How come ? It reminds me of a recent experience - I emailed a scientist at Wollongong Uni asking for help from his Faculty for a community group worried about the wrecking of rivers in his region by poorly regulated mining operations, which the NSW government is allowing to go too close to our river systems. When he replied that he was unable to give any assistance or advice whatsoever, it was under the letterhead of "BHP Billiton Chair of Environmental Science." Perhaps Carter similarly occupies a chair sponsored by Xstrata or whatever. Such is the parlous state of academe. I would welcome a disclaimer from Carter which would need to give details of his refusals of the usual sponsored trips overseas, lucrative "speaking engagements" at conferences in exotic venues, work experience "opportunities" for favoured students, profitable consultancies and all the other enticements these hugely powerful companies are becoming so adept at handing out to academics who publicly support them.

Alarmists vs Skeptics...hmmm. Little chance of actually changing
anyone's mind,but I did change mine in 1989.In about 1987 a TV
special along the lines of Gore's movie had me all alarmed and I
jumped headlong into belief since articles fanning the flames came
along regularly.It suited me at the time to believe.
After a while I thought I'd best read up on it.Pre-internet so I read up on glaciers[they have been due to disappear since the last ice age]
carbon dioxide-.03% of atmosphere.traps some of the heat leaving earth at night on a different infrared wavelength to its arrival in daytime.without it very much colder planet.
increase co2 what happens? As far as is KNOWN...extra CO2,let's say a doubling to .06%,may not trap any more night-radiating heat.A bit like having 2 air filters on your car,if one can catch the dust the second won't.
ICE CAPS- ice floats when it sinks the water level doesn't rise
so only ice sitting on land then melting in water raises level.So whole north pole can melt,no rise in sea level.Ross Ice SHELF if on land then in water can raise water but not if being replenished inland.
STATISTICAL DATA not old enough or good enough to prove Global Warming.Other phenomena like Coral bleaching could be anything.

In short reading up led me to skeptecism.I now want science and facts to back up the alarmist conclusions which have almost a fundamentalist weirdness to them.Millions of people who failed high school science or never even opened a book seem to have a deep personal need to believe the Global Warming Industry who mostly have some kind of education and can spin a good yarn and keep themselves in PRIUS and Overseas Study Tours.

People love the Unspoilt Planet idea the way Rousseau did and are sadly romantically misguided.

Response to Collinset:

Brilliant! Very funny!

Response to Kang:
I find it hard to believe also. Nevertheless, according to the JCU website Bob Carter is an adjunct research fellow and not a chair. Unless you know of or genuinely suspect him having such corporate relationships, then I feel its a bad policy to ask someone to defend themselves without cause.

If anyone thinks the reasoning to be unsound then I would suggest putting your ideas directly to the scientists. In this electronic age there is little reason for resurrecting dodgy arguments.

The latest research suggests that ice loss from Greenland increased 250% in the two years to April 2006 compared to the previous two year period. http://www.innovations-report.de/html/berichte/geowissenschaften/bericht-71009.html

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn9717&feedId=online-news_rss20

But it is no surprise to see such vocal sceptics. The property at risk from rising sea levels is in the trillions, so dont expect any property developer flogging low lying developments to be convinced by the science anytime soon. And dont expect to see governments receiving substantial tax revenue from these developments to pay the climate change threat anything more than lip service.

lets not forget Greenland was inhabited by adventurous humans not long ago who lived,died,built etc-whats happening in Greenland is within normal variation and proves zip.More clutching at straws.

Let's seperate theory from reality.Why are believers still trying to prove the theory if they already believe.If they are a little unconvinced,we sceptics welcome you.

The most frightening thing for this sceptic is the radical believers are already cooking up "cures"with even dodgier science than their half baked theory.

To me it's like phrenology,manifest destiny,terra nullius,phlogesteron etc trendy mumbo jumbo masquerading as wisdom.

Proving greenhouse warming theory false - enter RECCE Theory (Regional-Ectopi-Climate-Catastrophe-Event Theory)

American coasts 28 Sept 2005/2006

05:http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/trinanes/tmp/sha1159418498.gif

06:http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/trinanes/tmp/sha1159418434.gif

Notice the loss of large anomalies around US coasts and a general loss of comlexity in deep ocean and GOM anomaly structuring (lower ENTROPY)

b NSW (Drought) East coast after warning on local forum about bushfires and causal effects from coastal pollution:

28 Sept 05
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/trinanes/tmp/sha1159419320.gif
25-Sept-06:
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/trinanes/tmp/sha1159419452.gif
28 Sept 06:
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/trinanes/tmp/sha1159419302.gif

Notice a slight improvement in coastal entropy (SHA structuring) from the 25th Sept when the warning was issued and 28 Sept. This indicates action has been taken to mitigate wastewaters along the NSW coast in the last 2 days. This will dampen bushfire threats in NSW this coming summer if mitigation efforts persist. Also note the similarity in heavy SHA structuring for 2005/2006 at Sept 25, before suspected mitigation occurred.

As a control, Japan and China coastal seas Sept 28:

05: http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/trinanes/tmp/sha1159418939.gif

06: http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/trinanes/tmp/sha1159419110.gif

Note that little has changed from 05 to 06. In fact coastal areas of China show increased strength of high SHA anomalies this year compared to last year indicating a rise in coastal pollution.

Conclusion:

These maps indicate that wastewater mitigation is in effect in the US and the TWA and is persisting as the hurricane season draws to an end. This is good news for future seasons as it shows that procedures are in place to keep coastal waters clean and hurricane free at relatively short notice and presumably at fairly small cost.

A persistent mitigation in NSW coastal wastewater emissions along with a mild bushfire season and a reduction in drought levels would reinforce this conclusion. I will be monitoring this development over the coming 5 months.

PS save the maps! Temporary only.

Kaep, dont forget that an event can have more than one contributing cause.

And let us separate faith from facts. Measuring the melt rate of Greenland’s ice sheet is a scientific exercise. Measuring rising sea levels is a scientific exercise. To say that the change in Greenland’s ice sheet is within normal limits without supporting evidence is faith. What is of importance is being able to accurately measure change. I think it of some relevance to know if a proposed development could be threatened by rising sea levels in a few decades. If such an event were within normal limits, then that would only make the planners more culpable. So I doubt that councils will be using the “within normal limits” line as a legal defence.

As for the cures cooked up by radicals with dodgy science, I would welcome elaboration. The research I am aware of relates to solar, wind, geothermal and nuclear technology, and techniques for synthesising fuel from otherwise unused and sometimes polluting biomass. And as the present atmospheric composition is overwhelmingly due to microbial activity over billions of years, research is also active on this front. Some of the research taking place offers the prospect of improving human life and is anything but dodgy. The only dodgy things I see are some of the deals taking place which seem closer to nepotism than problem solving.

Fester,

You haven't a clue what you are talking about. Save your crumby no-account detractions for after the season is over. Otherwise you won't last the distance.

On the other hand I will be investigating the next 5 months of NSW summer with the support of 3 years experience analysing and correctly predicting the US hurricane season for 2006 using SHA and SST maps.

As for NSW, so far it looks like wastewater cleanup efforts around Brissy and Grafton could signal a reversal from what is currently predicted to be the worst bushfire and drought season on record, to a mild season. I will know from the maps in advance and you will just have to watch and learn .. if you have the stamina to keep up.

I will be looking for a substantial cleanup of the deep sea outfall SHA anomaly off Sydney. If we see that then this bushfire season is all but OVER.

5 MONTHS TO GO .... let's see what the Morris, Frank and the HowardBullKoperberg conundrum can come up with shall we.

Cleaning up those plumes off NSW is a lot cheaper than a day's SKYCRANE flight.

Kaep

Air pollution can also suppress rainfall according to this report:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/03/000314065455.htm

Now how would this fit in with your hypothesis?

Al Gore is doing what all failed politicians do, in an attempt to attract power he becomes a doom-sayer.

He is simply saying "Do as I say or disaster will befall you all." It is childish really.

In the nineteenth century the worlds supply of coal was expected to be exhausted within 50 years – Wrong

In the 1970’s some were saying the worlds supply of oil would be exhausted in 20 years –Wrong.

In the 1990’s and now, some doomsayers are saying global warming will bring down civilization as we know it –

The problem is, doomsayers only know what they know.

“They do not know what they do not know” and hence, the innovation and adaptability of mankind is ignored. With humanity's collective knowledge doubling every generation, who knows what we will know in another 20 years time.

One thing I can put money on, a lot of us will still be here and some will not.

Ultimately, all that pent up anxiety over global warming will most certainly cause more heart attacks and ulcers for doomsayers than it will for the more balanced optimists.

KAEP-You're sure backing a winner if "predicted" big fire season is
"reversed" by cleaning up wastewater plumes.Nobody could ever tell if you're right but there's great odds you can claim a win! No wonder you don't have a problem believing in C02GW.
At the risk of sounding like ykw,please explain.

FESTER-your buddy KAEP is a benign dodgy science acolyte.Great to clean
up those plumes,but really-long bow conclusion.A dodgy AND SCARY science
I read this week involved radical greenhousers considering introducing some sulphurous gas into the stratosphere to save the planet.Get me outta here! One day they might have enough resources to do it

I'm hearin' ya Col Rouge.In 1989 the doomsdayers were saying by 2005
average temperatures globally were going to be up by 2 to 5 degree C.By
2030 we were gonna be stewing in our own juice.
Guess their computers can now be blamed-just as today's modellers
will one day blame their primitive 2006 computers.

GARBAGE IN GARBAGE OUT,as they used to say.

Col Rouge,

Just wanted to point out that “They do not know what they do not know” applies equally to those on all sides.

So does the expression, "Having enough knowledge to be dangerous." Thinking that we have all answers and are above answering to the forces of nature is folly. I am the first to admit that I do not have all the answers, but I would prefer to err on the side of caution rather than stuff the environment up and then wonder what to do about it. Prevention is generally much easier than cure.

On the other hand, I am fully aware that the disappearance of human beings from Earth will be of little consequence in the grand scheme of things. However, that doesn't mean we should be complacent about the effect our technology has on the world.

CARBONARI,

1 "Nobody could ever tell if you're right" - There are several years of consistent SHA and SST 'off the NSW coast' data. It never changes .. till now when the stakes are HIGH and the warning, backed by relatively simple THERMODYNAMICS, has been issued. If changes like Brisbane and Grafton persist and the Sydney plume is retracted (It HAS RETRACTED!-29/09/06:http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/trinanes/tmp/sha1159504204.gif)
it will stick out like a sore thumb. If the bushfire season fizzles then I have proved my hypothesis.

2. "No wonder you don't have a problem believing C02GW" I DO NOT believe CO2GW. Your comprehension is challenged. Or you have been too lazy to read the maps and assertions.

3. "FESTER-KAEP is a benign dodgy science acolyte"
Thermodynamics is not dodgy. There is a flow of heat from the Equator to poles and the ultimate conclusions have IPCC based scientists in a tizz. It challenges overselective bottom-up data sets which have taken lifetimes to collect.

The Thermodynamic reality:

* Heat moves from tropics to poles (eg US Gulf of Mexico), or from mid latitude deserts to poles (eg Australia drought). Unless diverted by some high entropy concentrations on the WAY to the poles it will take a direct path.

*Since the heat capacity of oceans is 1000:1 of air and since ocean surfaces induce atmospheric microclimates, the gravitas for these entropy diversions is in COASTAL OCEANS. not air masses. This is why Fester's article on Rosefeldian pollution plumes is largely irrelevant. At best these plumes can only ever achieve localised 1-10% thermodynamic gravitas.

* Since heat flows to the poles, we know that it must also flow outward from the poles. There are several reasons. I note you have provided one. This is why sea levels will NEVER rise external to some cosmic(meteor etc) input of energy. In physics this 'Steady state divergence' is well understood. In climate science its a bugaboo because it threatens careers based on lifetime data collections.

Kaep

The relation between air pollution and reduced rainfall has been determined by careful observation. To say it is irrelevant you would need another explanation for clouds associated with pollution plumes having their rainfall potential shut down. Many scientists find Dr Rosenfeld’s hypothesis convincing. http://www.insidebayarea.com/dailyreview/localnews/ci_4342234 But if you think your hypothesis a better one then advance it.

Have you ever wondered why the link between air pollution and reduced rainfall is largely ignored by government? If they did pursue this link then ultimately they would be forced to correlate declining rainfall with an increasing population. It is much easier to use climate change as an excuse for severe water restrictions and cosy deals for new dams, water pipelines, desalination plants etc. At the same time you can have unrestricted low lying development by announcing that there is no point in restricting things until the science is certain. This is a great way of escaping any liability for property destruction if sea level does rise more quickly.

As a technological fix for water supply, carbon nanotube membranes hold enormous promise, both as a potential desalination membrane requiring one quarter the energy of conventional reverse osmosis, and perhaps as a particle filter to reduce air pollution.

Isky “Just wanted to point out that “They do not know what they do not know” applies equally to those on all sides.”

Of course it does

”So does the expression, "Having enough knowledge to be dangerous." Thinking that we have all answers and are above answering to the forces of nature is folly.”

No argument here

However, what is certain is – our accumulated knowledge will expand and with so much attention being paid to it, solutions or practical resolutions (by that I mean things which work instead of the luddite edicts of Kyoto and the doomsayers) will come to pass, which will eliminate the hysteria of the small minded control freaks who demand we switch off every electrical appliance and revert to pushbikes.

One of the great things with human development is, almost all the major developments have been made to improve the lot of individuals (one of the wonders which comes from developing consumer societies – versus medieval subsistence societies). Trying to turn back the clock to some mythical age when what is supposed to be “climate change” could or even should be averted is impossible not only from a scientific perspective but also from a social perspective.

Gore got into politics because he was motivated by power, his movie is, as I suggested, merely a stage show which threatens people with the consequence of not giving him power now.

Yup. Just like Elvis, UFO's, and many more of those unexplainable events...9/11, global warming - the list goes on...

Depont du Nemours patents on "R" series refrigerants (classed as CFC's) were due to expire in the 1990's, so in the 1970's we just conveniently cobble up an " oops thar's a hole in the Ozone layer" to get a few research dollars. Then siphoned off into to other 'worthy' projects.

Now the newer HCFC's are hailed as the panacea substances to the GWP (Global Warming Potential) facing us into the new millenia, we see China, former USSR, and other countries are still producing several thousands of tonnes per day of the so called banned Ozone Depleting substances to keep older buildings and associated HVAC systems in major cities running for a bit longer. Retrofitting... what a joke!

Not being published is the danger posed by types of oils used in refrigerating systems using HCFC's, such as Poly Alkylene Glycols/ Esters etc. Not nearly as nasty as those dioxins we used in capacitors a couple of decades back, but still tricky to dispose of at your local council tip. Ok to flush it down the dunny? Don't wash your hands in it though. The policing of relevant legislation is also a farce.

Another instance of mega corporations getting at us by the 'short and curlies'? Never let the thought cross your minds.

Col Rouge. G'day.

To add to your last, even if each and every one of us bought a treadly tomorrow and went off to our respective workplace/shopping forays etc, the amount of methane generated from all those huffing & puffing humans would initially outweigh the advantages.

It might however sort out the macho 'mud crab' mentality displayed by both genders on our roadways today. For the first few weeks all those who expired from heart attacks would not be sadly missed.

Damn it - forgot the milk, I'll just jump back into my 4.8 litre Land Crusher and drive the 2 kays to the air conditioned mall.

Albie,

They tell me that in Darwin there is one bureaucrat for every eleven citizens. If this is true, and they did what you suggest in their Toorak Tractors, then we would be witnessing the worlds second jihad on the roads. The first would be Iraq of course, from whence we would get the copy-cat sundrome.

Amen.

NSW coastal wastewater pollution still marginally improved from 25th Sept.

This should be enough change in the NSW coastal thermodynamics to induce much needed inland rainfalls.

If the cheezy wastewater plumes off Bega and Eden on the NSW Sth coast are retracted a bit it might just clinch the deal and get rid of bushfire threats for 2006/2007.

I also have some concerns about pencil-plume high-SHA-anomalies out of Sydney and Wollongong.

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/trinanes/tmp/sha1159592427.gif

Meanwhile, in the US More Money is Sought for Storm Research:

The report, from the National Science Board, recommends a streamlined, multiagency effort to improve hurricane science and engineering research, along with about $300 million a year in additional financing. Hurricane-related losses in the United States totaled $168 billion in the last two hurricane seasons, and 1,450 storm-related deaths were reported, according to the report.

Comment:

The SHA maps I have presented plus the zero US landfall hurricane status for this year suggests there will not be any more US hurricanes ever. They already know how to ward off hurricanes in the US after the successful turnaround in events this season. Which is probably why they don't say 'Hurricane Research' in the article header.

They should send the money here to Australia and we will give America an unmanned MPAL SPACE PROGRAM they can count on, with one ton payload to LEO every 5 minutes, non-stop, out of Astrolab bay and Mt Wilhelm (6 deg Lat) in New Guinea!

Australia can develop a lot of much needed high-tech jobs and skill sets with that kind of funding.

MPAL:Maglev, Packet switched, scramjet Assist, incremental Launch.

Col:

“However, what is certain is – our accumulated knowledge will expand and with so much attention being paid to it, solutions or practical resolutions (by that I mean things which work instead of the luddite edicts of Kyoto and the doomsayers) will come to pass, which will eliminate the hysteria of the small minded control freaks who demand we switch off every electrical appliance and revert to pushbikes.”

I agree, our accumulated knowledge is bound to increase. However, I lack your faith in the emergence of solutions that will be miracle-like.

All solutions have their downsides. We can never predict the outcomes and potential future uses of any scientific discovery. Just ask Albert Einstein – I think we can be pretty certain he never anticipated the use of atom-splitting for mass slaughter. For another example, chemicals such as pesticides have been found to have far greater effects on the environment than the original intention, and then the result has to be remediated.

Ironically, I pointed out that thinking we have all the answers is folly, and your response was basically, “I agree. But we will have all the answers”. Why is it humans think they are infallible? What makes us the gurus? Higher intelligence does not necessarily make us smart.

*

“One of the great things with human development is, almost all the major developments have been made to improve the lot of individuals (one of the wonders which comes from developing consumer societies – versus medieval subsistence societies).”

What do you consider major development? And when you say “individuals”, exactly *which* individuals are you referring to? I’m sure that most of the wealthy individuals would agree that the world is good for them. Not so sure about those individuals who don’t have access to our “developments”, or who have been on the receiving end of the downsides of “developments” such as clearing of indigenously-occupied forest. (...cont. next post)

Your definition of “improvement” of peoples’ lots may not align with others’ definition of “improvement”. Money in the bank is surely an improvement for many people in the business world. Pollution and exploitation of resources in the pursuit of money may not be considered improvement by those who have to live daily with the downsides of money-generating activity.

*

"Trying to turn back the clock to some mythical age when what is supposed to be “climate change” could or even should be averted is impossible not only from a scientific perspective but also from a social perspective.”

I agree. However it’s not an excuse to stand by and continue to crap in our own beds.

Gadget - Hi!

It is, I am reliably informed from a political scientist mate, about 4 bureaucrats to each Territorian. By far the biggest employer(s) here are the Territory and Federal governments. Followed by the mining and energy sectors.

The petro industry is about to have a boom of sorts with Stage 2/3 of Darwin LNG being commenced here in late 2007. More feilds are being opened up in the Timor Sea and some older ones are having new extraction techniques applied in the hope of getting the last few drops out. See: Coogee Resources.

Uranium mines - near Batchelor & the old Rum Jungle sites are being put back into the picture, several new gold mines and the possibility of another diamond mine (in East Arnhem Land I hear) are being looked at seriously in the last few months. A new Renaissance for these sectors.

Topically, the diversion of McArthur River to allow extraction by open cut method has been contentious both for the mine, and government.

The upshot is NT's economy (and Canberra's) will benefit, but will we Territorians actually get much of it? The environmental issues have yet to be fought with any gusto. The proposed NT EPA will no doubt get its 'baptism of fire' on these and many issues of the next decades.

And the predicted temperature rises and accompanying sea levels - well Kakadu will be inundated, as will the Mary and Alligator river systems. More "Crocodiles in my backyard" stories for the Empty News to print no doubt. As if we didn't already get enough!

The diaspora of Bangladeshi folk and others spoken about in previous posts, the thin edge of the wedge has not been seen yet. The seas around Ashmore Reef/Cartier Islands are already being plundered by illegal fishing activities, and the resources needed to police it are sadly under-funded. Thy Holy War on Terror has absorbed valuable personnel and materiel away from this most important effort.

We are, without doubt, a continent ripe for the picking, just as to when the harvest will occur is anyone's guess for the moment.

How appropriate that Mr Carter uses some London social policy shop and a 1982 textbook to criticise Al Gore and current science. It typifies the strawman approach to debate that PR flacks have schooled RightThinkers in - avoid any facts, obtusely miss the essence of any argument, and just read parrot-like from the cheat sheets provided by ExxonMobil funded deniers. Guess all those pseudo-scientific parasites needed work after Big Tobacco fell foul of its own documentation, but i wonder how they (and you Bob) look their children in the eye.

More alarmist propaganda on SBS tonight disguised as an attack on the worst President since Nixon,George Dubbya.Seems if you build some houses on ice near Alaska they will eventually fall over especially if they are centrally heated-but of course it is due to Global Warming...hmmmm run that past me again.Did someone say they'd been there for 4000 years ? That is some special archeology.
Loved the Armageddon-coming voiceover !!

CARBONARI is ignorant of the widespread warming already seen across the Arctic, how surprising for a fundamentalist sceptic - not.

Blasting A/C in the Arctic
Howard Witt, Chicago Tribune
RESOLUTE BAY, Nunavut -- They never used to need air conditioners up in the Arctic.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0609290169sep29,1,1322189.story?ctrack=1&cset=true
But earlier this year, officials in the Canadian Inuit territory of Nunavik authorized the installation of air conditioners in official buildings for the first time. Artificial cooling was necessary, they decided, because summertime temperatures in some southern Arctic villages have climbed into the 80s in recent years.

Inuit families in the region never used to need to shop in grocery stores, either. But the Arctic seas that always stayed frozen well into the summer have started breaking open much earlier, cutting off hunters from the seasonal caribou herds on which their families depend for sustenance.

And experienced Inuit hunters, as comfortable reading ice conditions as professional golfers are reading greens, had seldom fallen through the ice and drowned. But this year in Alaska, more than a dozen vanished into the sea.

Over the past three years sea levels have cooled, but sea levels have risen. This can only be due to melting ice and is yet another inconvenient truth for the sceptics.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14944138/

Gadget. It appears that I misquoted the political scientist mates figures...your figures were correct.

Mea culpa! Should check my data.

Cheers mate.

From US Senator James Inhofe:

The National Academy of Sciences report reaffirmed the existence of the Medieval Warm Period from about 900 AD to 1300 AD and the Little Ice Age from about 1500 to 1850. Both of these periods occurred long before the invention of the SUV or human industrial activity. Scientists believe the Earth was warmer than today during the Medieval Warm Period, when the Vikings grew crops in Greenland.

Will you be able to live with yourself for opposing the Kyoto Protocol?"

My answer is blunt. The history of the modern environmental movement is chock full of predictions of doom that never came true.
The alarmists freely concede that the Kyoto Protocol, even if fully ratified and complied with, would not have any meaningful impact on global temperatures.

I firmly believe that when the history of our era is written, future generations will look back with puzzlement and wonder why we spent so much time and effort on global warming fears and pointless solutions like the Kyoto Protocol. French President Jacques Chirac provided the key clue as to why so many in the international community still revere the Kyoto Protocol, who in 2000 said Kyoto represents-

"the first component of an authentic global governance."

Comment:

Inhofe does not mention the most vitl evidence for falsifying Greenhouse warming.

At May-11-2006 there was more heat in the tropical Atlantic than the disasterous 2005 season. Since then the heat profile reversed to 50% less heat by July31 and consequently there were NO US hurricanes this year. Only a man made intervention could achieve a turnaround in such a short time. THAT MEANS Climate Change is CONTROLLABLE and that means greenhouse warming is FALSE.

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/dataphod1/work/HHP/NEW/2005131atsst.png
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/dataphod1/work/HHP/NEW/2006131atsst.png

ITM, the NSW coast is looking CLEANER on the SHA maps. There is an artifact problem with the maps however and I will present current reports when that has cleared.

Isky “What do you consider major development?”

Well in terms of medical development we can start with heart bypass surgery, a development my Dad needed but was not available, thankfully, both my brother and I have benefited considerably.

Artificial joints. My mother was an early user in 1960’s. After the third one her hips collapsed and she was invalid. Today, medical and metallurgical developments mean her hip would have lasted a lot longer.

The treatment of waste products and the improved technologies developed and developing around recycling – all those plastic storm pipes from recycled plastic, instead of using virgin new materials and creating more landfill.

Agricultural technology has improved cropping rates on most crops.

Of course, the entire micro electronics revolution and communication developments from mobile phones to internet are really just by-products of the evolved search starting with a navigation controller for cruise missiles.

“Social development” has been marked by a breakdown of social class/caste order (a good thing) and a greater respect for individuals and individuality.
Hence homosexuals can express their individuality with other consenting adults without fear of prosecution.

Women have the vote and are treated, by advanced societies as equal to men, although in some matters some of them think they are entitled, erroneously, to be treated better and have preferred job opportunities despite broken work attendance due to pregnancy etc.

Work attitudes are slow to change but the job-for-life attitude is one which has gone and that’s a good thing. Diversity is what makes for a happier life, generally.

We come back to why live at all – and my humble view is to develop as an individual as much as possible. Any strict social order will repress such growth and hence the past 100 years has seen the greatest revolution in history as we continue to extol the individual and their individual sovereignty, versus their subordination to a social system or order.

All human knowledge drives us toward recognising the sovereignty of individuals and the gross immorality derived from the assumed authority of power groups of church, state and political groups etc.

NOAA Sea Height Anomaly maps are UnServiceable. NOAA has at least one bird down.

The SHA maps have been UnServiceable for over a week now.

This is an important time where I need to convince NSW authorities to clean the NSW coast of wastewater effluent, lower coastal entropy and so undo this year's bushfire threat.

Although the current maps are showing definite signs of a cleaner NSW coastline, the maps have too much artefact to be presented with confidence.

Maps:

Sept-25 (Normal pollution of NSW coastal waters)
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/trinanes/tmp/sha1160014552.gif

Sept-30 (marked improvement in NSW coastal pollution profile)
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/trinanes/tmp/sha1160014645.gif

Oct-2 (Bigger improvement in pollution profile but artefact lowers confidence level)
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/trinanes/tmp/sha1160014645.gif

Climate change is indeed a PRACTICAL issue.

A major heatwave is predicted for next week following hot Foehn like winds from the Nth West set to flow down to Sth Australia and across to the NSW coast.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/record-temperatures-next-week-meteorologist/2006/10/07/1159641576913.html

The Sea Height Anomaly (SHA) maps from NOAA are now reliable again and show that the NSW coast is now as polluted as ever.

Sept-30-06

Oct-7-06
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/trinanes/tmp/sha1160195210.gif

Oct-7-05 (Reference)
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/trinanes/tmp/sha1160195383.gif

This pollution or high entropy WILL attract built up heat now over the Plbara in NW Australia.

Wastewater effluent discharges along the NSW coast can be temporarily suspended to mitigate this coming heatwave event.

The consequences of not doing so will be a drying out of NSW and Victoria, setting the stage for Bushfires for the following week and for a general accentuation of existing drought conditions.

Hi KAEP

I would like to go on the "monitor the wastewater off NSW coast" ride with you over the next 5 months. I would like to see if you are onto something.

Can we keep in touch?

Current SHA map changes:

Oct-7-06
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/trinanes/tmp/sha1160195210.gif
Oct-8-06
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/trinanes/tmp/sha1160283023.gif

* Sth Australia seems to have reduced the SHA anomaly that is visually assosciated with metropolitan wastewater pollution. For whatever reason, this will serve SA well over the coming week of Foehn weather.

* Sydney has retracted the High SHA anomaly associated with its deep ocean outfall wastewater flux. Its not enough but better than an expansion. It remains to be seen how much more this can be retracted and what mitigating effect it will have on the impending heatwave due thursday 12-10-6.

* NSW Sth Coast cheeseland has increased the intensity of its SHA anomaly. Not a good sign for Sth coast Bushfires in the months ahead.

These changes are almost subliminal but nevertheless if they portend future changes in the right direction we can expect to see a reversal in drought conditions and in bushfire potential in the areas indicated.

Tragedy,
By all means keep in touch.

A remarkable shift in the wastewater plume out of Bega/Eden is evident on today's SHA map. This should provide the sth coast with a better buishfire resistant profile for the predicted heatwave conditions Thursday.

Oct-8
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/trinanes/tmp/sha1160283023.gif

Oct-9
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/trinanes/tmp/sha1160367008.gif

The Sydney deep ocean outfall plume has remained static. In order to alter drought conditions a bigger effort at holding back wastewaters on a temporary basis is needed.
Putting up the "FULL" sign above Sydney would be a welcome move in that direction. The reduction in wastewaters from reduced population growth could end the drought and would be far better for the NSW economy, as well as social stability, than the net zero economic benefit of immigration into Sydney.

KAEP

Bare with me as I try and fully understand what you are onto. Can you please explain the SHA maps since they are on a large scale. What is SHA measuring? I take it it is the yellow area off the east coast we are monitoring? In the legend it is 35? What is 35? Are you saying these yellow areas are a result of wastewater plumes? What is causing the yellow areas in Great Southern Ocean and elsewhere? Are the yellow areas in these other areas relevant? You refer a couple of times to SST - what is that?
How do you propose the NSW govt can manage its wastewater especially since you believe it can be done quickly for a turn around in drought fortune?

In relation to bushfires, the only element humans can control with confidence is fuel (and 21st century urbanite experts make sure we can't even do that these days!). You are now saying by controlling wastewater plumes, we can control the weather (or climate) to avoid a severe bushfire season. Remember, just because we have severe fire weather doesn't mean we have fires - we need an ignition source and fuels for that.

T,

Sea height anomalies or SHA measures the change in height above the light-green sea level. Deep blue is 35cm below and Deep red is 35cm above sea level. SST maps are Sea Surface Temperature. A combination of SHA divided by SST is related in a convoluted way to ENTROPY which is a measure of the disorderliness (eg wastewater pollution) at the sea surface. More on that later.

Total Energy in the sea surface is potential energy (including stored heat and the 'mgh' of SHAs above or below sea level) and the Kinetic energy. All energy incident to the planet from Geo-mech, Geo-thermal, solar, tidal, spin and biological(including human sources) eventually shows up in sea-surface-harmonics(SSHs) and have a fairly long residence time due to the high HEAT CAPACITY and surface tension of water.

This heat capacity is strongly increased by colloidal matter and other content of human wasewaters. Relatively small chnges in pollutants can dramatically change zonal thermodynamic properties (including entropy) and microclimates over polluted ocean areas.
Further, the flux of wastewates and their mixing is not a pure, instantaneous diffusion. Observation has led to RECCE theory which views the sea-surface-manifold as a Morse Map geometric topology over the approximate dSHA/T differentialhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/morse_theory

This leads to concepts of RICCI flow from coastal wastewater sources, which can be analysed using the GEE (geometric-evolution-equation)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ricci_flow

Observations in US waters this year have confirmed this mathematical approach.

What is causing the yellow areas in Great Southern Ocean?
Heat migrates from the tropics and deserts to the roaring forties. I have long postulated that there is a settling zone that melts fringe ice and mimics ice cap melting. The GSO areas are confirmation of this.

The US has managed wastewaters this year in the GOM and off the East coast. It is clearly visible in their SHA maps. It is backed up by e-coli-outbreaks and manatees swimming the Hudson. If the US can do it, so can we. The stakes are HIGH.

Tmperature and humidity factors can be controlled by altering the thermodynamic land/sea balance. This WILL stop potential bushfire threats.

EAT THE EARTH
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6033407.stm
On 9 October
The date symbolised the day of the year when people's demands exceeded the Earth's ability to supply resources and absorb the demands placed upon it.

And as for global warming...
If diminishing resources, collapsing ecosystems or toxic pollutants don't get us, global warming certainly will.
Wake up and open your minds

More DROUGHT anyone?

This Harry Trigubouf 3rd-world vision for Australia would be just another neo-nazi rant if it weren't for the fact that John Howard was in the audience at his presentation.http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2006/10/10/1160246131958.html

The intent of the article is clear and Howard's involvement smacks of straw man media control.

By forcing a 20 million Sydney population (by 2050 of all things) on NSW via his new media monopoly, citizens will be expected to be grateful for a 10 million population and all the Drought and economic depression that will cause to NSW. And over the next 5 months it will become apparent why Sydney's immigrant population expansion is causing drought and economic depression!

We desperately need to get this Howard monkey-of-steal off of our backs before he sells the very space we stand on and our politicians become our GAOLERS.

Meanwhile Iemma has his own straw-man media campaign to take away rich people hogging our harbour foreshore only to cave in at the last minute. HOW CONVENIENT! He expects our vote for this 'try-hard' yet doesn't to do a damn thing for equal access to Sydney's habour foreshore.http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/tide-turns-in-battle/2006/10/10/1160246131986.html

And get this : We are all happy about interest rate rises:http://www.smh.com.au/news/Business/Most-Aussies-not-worried-by-rate-rise/2006/10/10/1160246123041.html
Yeah right!

Australia, don't let other people get their kicks for you. Vote out Iemma, Sartor, and Howard ASAP. Vote down media monopoly laws. We are free people. We don't nedd a bunch of spoilt rich jerks telling us how to live while they lay plans to rape our environment behind closed doors.

March and November 2007, show them that Media-Monopoly corralling of Australian citizens into a bleak house '1984' future is not acceptable.

The home of Media-Monopoly and especially of straw-man politics is Britain. This BBC.co straw-man courtesy of LivinginLaLa says that we have exceeded the planet's ability to supply resources yet in the last section has an expert say its OK because some MAGIC technology will solve all our problems.

No wonder all the Poms are down the boozer getting drunk. Being force fed all this STUPERT page-3 media garbage would suck the HOPE out of any living thing.

NSW coastal waters are showing around 20% less SHA anomaly structiring since 25-Sept.

This indicates a greater orderliness in coastal thermodynamics and is consistent with lower entropy and less wastewater pollution or a different strategy in emitting wastewater streams.

25-Sept
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/trinanes/tmp/sha1160540998.gif

11-Oct
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/trinanes/tmp/sha1160540643.gif

Notes:

A more intense low SHA off Sydney may be responsible for the Malabar bushfires currently burning.

Intense High SHA anomalies off Tasmania are probably contributing to bushfire problems in that state. For a small state that's a lot of garbage put out to sea.

The removal of that persistent SHA anomaly off Bega/Eden is quite unusual and will serve Sthn NSW well over the next 5 months.

Sth Australia is looking for touble with the Nth west Foehn about to hit.

In the US:

New OCTOBER_9 heat reversal in the Tropical Atlantic

The SST maps for 9-Oct 2005/2006 are showing an abrupt release of heat from the TWA compared to a greater CAPACITY to hold heat in 2005. Only a week ago, heat levels were on an even par 2005/2006 and in late September the TWA had heat levels greater than 2005.

2006:
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/dataphod1/work/HHP/ [...]

2005:
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/dataphod1/work/HHP/NEW/2005282atsst.png

This can only mean that TWA waters are generally getting cleaner and only human actions can achieve this.
It is very unlikely that there exists any other NATURAL phenomena that could account for this.

There is a significant Geophysical experiment in progress here. The reduction in proximal coastal SHA anomalies (red and blue colours) on the SHA maps associated with US coastal ports and river mouths needs much closer attention if NOAA really wants to understand heat levels and Hurricane formation in the TWA.

b The NSW coast is back to its usual mess

I kind of knew it wouldn't last. The wastewater plume off Bega/Eden is back and making for a bleak prognosis for Sthn NSW this bushfire season.http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/trinanes/tmp/sha1160627691.gif

In other places:
Sth Africa is having an inordinate impact on Australia's weather. The plumes from Durban and Capetown, clearly visible in this map,
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/trinanes/tmp/sha1160627829.gif
are reaching Perth before settling down to the roaring forties latitudes.
Note the Ricci flow from these ports. The dark blue plumes from Durban/Capetown EVOLVE (GEE) onto the sea surface manifold as a topological harmonic structure that carries energy away to the poles under the second law of thermodynamics (hot goes to cold).

This is consistent and can be seen in many REGIONS of the world.
For example the US:
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/trinanes/tmp/sha1160628008.gif
Note the concentration of harmonic structuring off the east coast from Cape Hatteras to Newfoundland where much of the US population and industry is concentrated.

Another example, Japan/China:
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/trinanes/tmp/sha1160628194.gif
Note the exact correspondence with large SHA anomalies at the coasts(plumes) and specific industrial and metropolitan centres and major rivers.

My God what a mess Asia is becoming compared to Australia. Nonetheless, our much smaller mess off NSW IS causing our drought/ bushfires and we really need to do something about RECYCLING sewage to alter coastal thermodynamics in our favour ... Stat.

Kaep

What properties of water does pollution alter?

Fester,

Properties of the sea surface manifold altered by wastewater fluxes:
Density, chemical composition, vapour point, surface tension, heat capacity to name a few.

But the most important all encompassing parameter is ENTROPY, which is by definition S=kLn(W) where k is Boltzman's const and W is the probability of one state out of the number of ordered states that are available. When water is polluted, the number of states literally skyrockets and thus so does the entropy. It is this fact and the second law of thermodynamics that drags heat off the NSW plains (low entropy) and out to sea (high entropy) taking all the available moisture with it and leaving DROUGHT conditions prevailing.
Remember the 2LT states that low entropy tends towards high entropy.

The other most relevant parameter is vapour pont which allows sea surfaces to commute with atmospheric entropy, thereby creating zonal microclimates that are dependent on sea surface chemistry for their thermodynamic rank.

Thanks very much for that Kaep. At least it gives me something to learn. It would be nice to see the entropy hypothesis tested now that we are officially in the worst drought in history.

Pollution plumes out of Bega, Sydney, the Gong, Newcastle and the Macleay river are perpetuating NSW drought.
Current cooler conditions will not last if these plumes are not significantly retracted.

The following series of SHA maps show this clearly. Also ,there is an abrupt removal of significant wastewater SHA harmonic disturbances that can be seen to have occurred off eastern Tasmania as of today. This shows a willingness of Tasmanians to end their bushfire season in advance of Summer. Full marks, well done!

Oct 11:
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/trinanes/tmp/sha1160886937.gif

Oct 14:
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/trinanes/tmp/sha1160887383.gif

Oct 15:
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/trinanes/tmp/sha1160885484.gif

I was taught that as Australia is mainly desert, our continent could only sustain a population of about 20 million people.
How many people can the planet sustain if we don't value every inch of it, along with our precious and diminishing biodiversity of plants and animals?
Water is such a precious resource, and the drought has finally made us value its importance.
We shouldn't have a problem with effluent pouring into our oceans. Each dwelling in a major centre should have a piped-in recycled water, along with the usual piped-in drinking water, for those of us who are lucky enough to have it.
Climate change is a moral issue, and I hope that everyone on this beautiful blue planet can act ethically about our future path, or it shall turn very blue indeed.