The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Al Gore’s movie meets its match in Stockholm > Comments

Al Gore’s movie meets its match in Stockholm : Comments

By Bob Carter, published 13/10/2006

KTH meeting shows that dangerous global warming remains unproved.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 12
  7. 13
  8. 14
  9. All
Well, the article sounds reasonable. It does raise questions worth discussing. It does imply a question :
"If the human contribution to greenhouse gases is not a significant cause of global warming, or even in fact, is somehow a benefit for the future - then how come scientists across the world don't think this? Is there some grand conspiracy to dupe scientists and the public?" That seems to me to be unlikely, - so then I would be asking questions about that Swedish conference “Climate Change - Scientific Controversies in Climate Variability” – I’d like to know more about who organised it, who paid for it – are there some other agendas going on here?

And, my own simple question – not answered in that article, is: "If the current global warming is troubling to us, but is just a natural event, why is it OK for us to not worry , and to continue pouring carbon dioxide into the atmosphere?"
Christina Macpherson www.antinuclear.net
Posted by ChristinaMac, Friday, 13 October 2006 11:15:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Professor Carter,

Thank you for your observations and report of the Swedish climate conference. Many years ago I was advised by a senior figure to be aware of fashion in science and medicine. Today we talk of “paradigm shift”, but the meaning is the same.

I always believed that the greatest support for the human induced global warming hypothesis was media bias, inspired by support from the anti-development and anti-industrialisation red-green lobby.

As they say in science as well as in the garment industry; fashions come and fashions go.
Posted by anti-green, Friday, 13 October 2006 11:45:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“... Professor Erland Kallen, director of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, who noted that the late 20th century Arctic warming does not exceed earlier natural warmings in magnitude, such as the one that peaked in the 1930s.”

This, if true, is extremely important, given that much of the worry about global warming is based on the recent Arctic warming, the loss of habitat for polar bears etc. Anybody know where the details can be found?
Posted by GeorgeT, Friday, 13 October 2006 11:46:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dr. Carter;

Were you not given grants from the Australian Research Council (ARC) which is an Australian government entity? The same government of PM Howard who dismissed Gore's movie and has been totally immoral in its policy on climate change? Therefore, are these your own opinions, or opinions shaped by the government which gives you grants?
Posted by JayM, Friday, 13 October 2006 12:17:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bob, why do you continue to make stuff up?

Mann's "hockey stick" results have not been "scientifically discredited", they've been confirmed:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/06/national-academies-synthesis-report/

"The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes the additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions".

You arguments would be more compelling if you told the truth.
Posted by skellett, Friday, 13 October 2006 1:49:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear JayM, Are you saying that no-one can have a legitimate view on climate change if given government grants - or presumeably, any money from anywhere? Even that may not be enough to get your foot in today's door. I paid my own fare, accomodation and registration for the 29th Annual Conference of the International Association for Energy Economics; no tax deduction either. (Dr Rajendra Pachauri, now head of IPCC, is a some-time IAEE president.) On arrival at Potsdam on 6 June, I was given a letter confirming I was a conference speaker entitled to discounted registration. But on reaching my room, I found that my two-page summary was not in the 480-page book of summaries, and my presentation wasn't listed in the 53-session conference program. This huge event was like a revivalist meeting - for academics and bureaucrats from around the world - about carbon-credit trading, stack-gas geosequestration, wind-power subsidies, hydrogen economy etc. My paper "Global warming or cooling: it's still the Sun" was off-message. The world NEEDS people like Prof. Carter. Hang in there, Bob.
Posted by fosbob, Friday, 13 October 2006 2:11:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you Bob, even just for drawing attention to events that a layperson like myself would never read about in our popular media. No, Skellet, you continue to make the stuff up and the stuff-up! The "Hockey Stick" (be wary of catchy brand names in science), or at least what it claims to say about the last 1,000 years, has been found to be unverifiable in two recent reports, one convened by the American National Academy of Science. Sorry, haven't got a reference for you, but sniff around and you'll find it.
Posted by Richard Castles, Friday, 13 October 2006 4:39:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>As they say in science as well as in the garment industry; fashions come and fashions go.

Oh yeah, like Newton's Laws of Motion and those fashionable ideas like gravity and the Special Theory of Relativity.

You're an idiot.
Posted by mhar, Friday, 13 October 2006 4:48:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Richard,

Are you for real? I was quoting from the NAS report you claim finds Mann's "Hockey Stick" unverifiable! Please read for yourself rather than listen to gasbags like Bob.

So here, I quote - again!

"The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes the additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions".
Posted by skellett, Friday, 13 October 2006 4:49:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes, Skellet, quite real. You might have continued the quote from the report summary. "The substantial uncertainties currently presented in the quantitative assessment of large-scale surface temperature changes prior to about AD 1600 lower our confidence in this conclusion...Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that 'the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium'...Doesn't sound verified to me, 'verify' meaning to "establish the truth or correctness of", according to my dictionary.
Posted by Richard Castles, Friday, 13 October 2006 5:15:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If we are going to trade quotes from the NRC report “Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2000” lets start by having a proper link to the full paper.

http://www.house.gov/science/hot/climate%20dispute/NAS%20full%20report.pdf

Skellet was being economic with the actuality by quoting from that part of the report that summarise the research. Here are some of my selective quotes of what the NRC actually concluded.

From page 110
“Largescale temperature reconstructions should always be viewed as having a “murky” early period and a later period of relative clarity. The boundary between murkiness and clarity is not precise but is nominally around A.D. 1600.”
This says we know it warmer since the little ice age!

From page 107 discussing the hockey stick:
“Regarding metrics used in the validation step in the reconstruction exercise, two issues have been raised (McIntyre and McKitrick 2003, 2005a,b). One is that the choice of “significance level” for the reduction of error (RE) validation statistic is not appropriate. The other is that different statistics, specifically the coefficient of efficiency (CE) and the squared correlation (r2), should have been used (the various validation statistics are discussed in Chapter 9). Some of these criticisms are more relevant than others, but taken together, they are an important aspect of a more general finding of this committee, which is that uncertainties of the published reconstructions have been underestimated.”

The NRC committee were scientists who apart from one support the consensus. This is the way they tell us everything M & M said was right without being too unkind to Dr Mann. If you want to read a heavy duty peer reviewed report into the hockey stick and the quality of its wackey statistics group think and non disclosure you need this link:
http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/home/07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf
Posted by David H, Friday, 13 October 2006 5:48:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I've stopped stressing about climate change ignorance. We're past the tipping point. The public is well aware that it's real, it's here, it's a profound threat, and the only denialists are a handful of industry shills protecting their precious pennies.
Posted by Sancho, Friday, 13 October 2006 7:17:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Richard and David are right that the Mann hockey-stick work and similar proxy compilations are discredited.

Those who wish to continue to argue the point should reflect on an even more fundamental criticism of the Mann approach than statistical validity or invalidity.

And that is the utter inadequacy of trying to make any inferences about CLIMATE change over periods as short as a few hundred to a thousand years.

The main problem with the Mann work has always been its inadequacy in this regard, to which is now added statistical incompetence.

Judgements about climate change need to be made over periods of tens to hundreds of thousands to millions of years. Within the natural rhythmns of climate that operate on these scales, the late 20th century warming is unusual in neither magnitude nor rate.

Given that Mann's work has never offered any insight into the real processes of longterm climate change, it is unclear why his defenders continue to press the point.

Cathy
Posted by Cathy, Friday, 13 October 2006 10:32:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To start, I will defend Prof. Carters ARC grant. Such grants are issued by the Australian government to numerous research groups and are a vital part of ensuring that top quality scientific research is conducted at Australia's university and public institutions. Unlike industry grants, they are generally not biased in any way, and the terms of research are very broad. Prof Carter should be congratulated for receiving such a grant and the government pressured into releasing more.

But that is about all I will defend Prof. Carter on. I quote:
"For conference organiser, Professor Peter Stilbs, had taken care to invite speakers with a diverse range of views,"

This is good for debate and good for science, but in no way reflects the current consensus on the state of climate change.

If I was to sample a random group of people and ask if they prefer chocolate or vannilla ice cream, I'm sure chocolate would be the winner. But the results would be very if I chose a 50-50 split of known vanilla and chocolate ice-cream lovers. While they could debate the merits of each flavour at length, this would not in any way reflect the consensus that exists.

As for the hockey stick. First, I will remined people of the name of MBH1998 paper:

Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the past millennium: inferences, uncertainties, and limitations

The uncertainties in the reconstruction were acknowleged by the authors immediatly. However, I find this point a little redundant, given that so much more research has been conducted on this topic, and the MBH article is not the last word on the temperature record. A link is provided on the real climate blog:
www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/02/dummies-guide-to-the-latest-hockey-stick-controversy/

the Wegman report is not without its critics. eg:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/07/the-missing-piece-at-the-wegman-hearing/

One particular critism by Wegman: "there is too much reliance on peer review" I find almost laughable.

I don't mean to say the science is perfect. Far from it. But the evidence is compelling and there does appear to be some kind of consensus on the topic. A good article is here
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/mg18524861.400
Posted by ChrisC, Friday, 13 October 2006 10:58:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/t...e_meltdown.html

Sea ice falling by six percent in the past two winters compared to only a 1.5 percent decline each decade since satellite imaging began in 1979? That's big, and it is actually frightening. What the hell has to happen before people realize that we have to really start getting our act together? I'm sick of skeptics who continue to work to cover up the truth because they either are defending a governmment entity that needs to cover itself, or those defending special interests. This is real, and no amount of papers one way or the other is going to stop it unless we do.
Posted by JayM, Friday, 13 October 2006 11:01:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bob Carter “That such models can mimic the elapsed temperature curve over the past 100 years does not constitute “evidence”.”

I have spent a lot of time building computer models, admittedly commercial models, not climate models.

The “absoluteness” of outcomes, especially when dealing with the finest limits of change, which these “experts” place on their “models” shows them to be a complete crock of rubbish.

I reckon you would be lucky if you get within 0.02 - 0.03 correlation (2-3%) to actuality with any modeling process. No doubt, feed back based on a few buoys bouncing around the ocean is subject to the same vagaries of accuracy, technical defects and failures exempted.

There is a line which goes “lies, damn lies and statistics”.

In this instance, bearing in mind the considerable amount of public funds available for research into this area, the statistics are flowing fast and furious.

Simply because the “Statistics” are there does not mean projections based on them accurately correlate to what might happen and the likelihood of accuracy reduces with every additional million dollars of available research funding.

Thanks for the insight Bob, the article blows a big hole in Al Gores reasoning, which, based on his political career, was “suspect” anyway.

JayM “Sea ice falling by six percent in the past two winters compared to only a 1.5 percent decline each decade since satellite imaging began in 1979?”

Lack of data is never a good basis for modeling world wide trends.

It’s a bit like basing predictions of general life expectancy on a small sample of folk coming in and out of the cancer wing of a hospital. The resultant analysis would produce results leading to mass hysteria.
Posted by Col Rouge, Saturday, 14 October 2006 9:53:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm sitting here in mid October in a 35 degree 'spring' rip-snorter, stripped to my layman's shorts trying to recall if I heard the precautionary principle mentioned in Dr Carter's dissent or readers' posts. I'll forego the air conditioning having added a second shadecloth awning over sun bearing shuttered windows. All grey water has been diverted. All potted trees have been super-sized. Property being heritage listed I'm prevented going all out solar. Contemplating moving underground. Want me to keep some cave space for you Bob?
Posted by jup, Saturday, 14 October 2006 1:52:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You smart-arses had better be right about the falseness of AL Gore's Message of Global Warming.

Please all give your names and addresses to our WA Greens Party and WA Democrats to keep them in posterity for my great-great grandkids to read and remember.
Posted by bushbred, Saturday, 14 October 2006 4:41:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think the argument can be illustrated in this way -

1. I smoke cigarettes
2. I suspect that cigarettes are likely to do me harm.
3. However, I feel I am as likely to suffer the same damage from passive smoking.
4. Therefore I don't need to stop smoking until everyone else stops.
5. Despite overwhelming evidence of smoking-related harm, I can always find somebody who can cast doubt on the official view.
6. Any illness I suffer may also be part of a "natural cycle" and co-incidental.
7. There are other environmental factors that could make me ill.

Therefore, why stop?
Posted by wobbles, Saturday, 14 October 2006 7:03:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Phlogiston theory, vitalism, caloric theory of heat, miasma theory of infectious disease, Lamarck’s theory of inheritance of acquired characteristics and so on, all part of the history of science ("mhar" please note).

Yes climate like weather is not a constant. Some of the questions that this unbeliever worries about are as follows:

1. How much of the atmospheric CO2 is man made? How much is due to natural events such as volcanic activity?
2. What about other so called greenhouse gasses for instance water vapour? How are you going to control water vapour?
3. A physical chemist should be able to inform us in quantitative terms of the relative effectiveness of the variously named greenhouse atmospheric gases?
4. Another question for physical chemists is the heat trapping effect of the gases linear with concentration?
5. How about other effects such as solar radiation and solar activity (sun spots), the earths wobble about its axis; cosmic rays, and no doubt atmospheric scientists are aware of other confounding effects?
6. How important are negative feed back mechanisms such as the reflection of suns rays from clouds? Or the threatened golf stream block?
7. How important is statistical variation and unpredictability in a non linear climate system?

As for the various doomsday scenarios this is great material for Hollywood film makers etc. Is it really in the national interest to spend billions in preparation for speculative events? This could be a great waste of money? Surely there are more practical ways of using money?
Posted by anti-green, Saturday, 14 October 2006 7:04:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The contrarian/sceptic argument seems to run something like this:

Global warming isn't happening........but even if it is -
It isn't a man made phenomenon........but even if it is -
We can't do anything about it..........but even if we can -
The Asia Pacific group is superior to Kyoto.

That's too many "buts" for this particular fella to take seriously.
Posted by BT, Saturday, 14 October 2006 9:12:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To answer Anti-green's question about the relationship between increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide and increasing temperature.

The relationship is logarithmic, meaning that every additional increment of CO2 results in a lesser increment in temperature. Most of the temperature effect of increasing CO2 comes from the first incremental 50 ppm.

Assuming that the surface thermometer temperature record is accurate (and many scientists believe that, despite being corrected, the record may still include an urban heat island effect), then we had about a 0.6 deg. C increase in surface temperature in the 20th century.

Dick Lindzen, amongst others, has estimated that the increase in forcing from greenhouse gases over the same time period represents 2.7 W/m2 which is about 75% of the full 3.7 W/m2 that will be caused by doubling CO2 from pre-industrial levels.

In other words, as we proceed to full doubling we have about 0.2 deg. C of CO2-forced warming to go. Because that figure likely includes an urban heat island effect that is embedded in the "0.6 deg C warming" estimate, the real increase will be less than 0.2 deg, and trivial.

The only way that you can make further CO2 increases alarming is to adopt the IPCC technique of assuming that additional small increments of CO2 will causes a strong water vapour feedback loop.

As Lindzen concluded:

"what is known points to the conclusion that a doubling of CO2 would lead to about 0.5C warming or less, and a quadrupling (should it ever occur) to no more than about 1C. Neither would constitute a particular societal challenge. Nor would such (or even greater) warming likely be associated with discernibly more storminess, a greater range of extremes, etc."

Cathy
Posted by Cathy, Saturday, 14 October 2006 9:30:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hello anti-green. I'll give it a shot.
1. Around 24,000 million tonnes are man-made. Volcanic sources release approximatly 1% of what humans release (from wikipedia)

2. There are about 30 green-house gases in the atmosphere. After CO2, the next most important is methane (which is 60 times more potent than CO2, and has doubled in concentration in the last 200 hundred years, although lasts fewer years in the atmosphere). NO2 (laughing gas) is 270 times more potent than C02, and the concentration has increased by 20% since the industrial revolution. Water is difficult because high cloud traps heat, where as low cloud reflects it. (from the Wheather Makers).

3. In general (most potent to least): N02, methane, CO2, water
Longest lasting: CO2, NO2, methane, water

4. Thought to be logarithmic, but this does not factor in positive feed-back loops, such as the release of methane from peat bogs, melting of ice etc... This is currently subject to debate, and the exact parameters are still not known.

5. It is thought that solar activity may contribute to between 10%-30% of currently observed warming. However, in a literature review, Foukal et al. (2006), concluded that the variations in solar output were too small to have contributed appreciably to global warming since the mid-1970s. They also found that there was no evidence of a net increase in brightness during this period. More research is needed.

6. Very important. So important that they are generally included in most computer models. In particular, the gulf stream block is though to have been caused by a warming effect, which pushed Europe into an Ice Age (from the Weather Makers )

7. This question doesn't make alot of sense. Do you mean how important are statistical variations in climate reconstruction? Please rephrase.

" Is it really in the national interest to spend billions in preparation for speculative events?"
The days of spectulation are over. The time to act is now.

Sorry about the berevity. Best I can do given the word limit
Posted by ChrisC, Saturday, 14 October 2006 10:01:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I write to thank all who have taken the trouble to respond to my post with useful and pertinent information. For this I am most appreciative.

I understand that my question 7 on statistical variation is not clear. A good starting point would always be to quote 95% confidence intervals for estimates. A wide confidence interval would suggest a lack of precision in the estimate. However, a wide interval also has greater accuracy in the sense that the estimate is contained within the interval. By the same token a narrow interval has greater precision, but less accuracy. In other words there is a trade-off between accuracy and precision.

In a similar way in diagnostic testing there is a trade-off between a false negative and/or a false positive result. By altering the threshold of a test one can plot a “receiver operating curve.” That is the plot of true positive rate (sensitivity) against false positive rate (1-true negative rate or specificity).

For those that find this confusing I am reminded of a quip by professor Richard Dawkins. A type 3 represents the confusion between the definition of type 1 and type 2 errors
Posted by anti-green, Sunday, 15 October 2006 10:02:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anti-green “7. How important is statistical variation and unpredictability in a non linear climate system?”

“statistical variation and unpredictability “ is a critical, nee, fatal flaw in any model or prediction system.

“Valid” prediction systems have to have a high degree of reliability to be worth anything, otherwise they are just hunches, gut feels or “a liking for the colour of the horse”, might as well go feel a piece of seaweed if the bureau of metrology cannot come up with reliable predictions!

No one would not want to take a course in chemotherapy on the basis of a faulty test for cancer.

Bushbred “You smart-arses had better be right about the falseness of AL Gore's Message of Global Warming.”

I wonder if bushbred is prepared to be named and cited for gross waste of public resources when we find the hypothesis he is supporting, through Gore, is a political scam?

Two questions

Does what has happened irrefutably prove what will happen?
Are predictions infallible?

The doomsayers have been predicting the end of the world since the beginning of time.

They have been wrong every time.

Simply because Al Gore, with a political agenda and a few scientists, with a lust for funding predict the demise of life as we know it does not mean we are on the edge of the abyss of human survival. Other scientists predict differently

Certainly their are a lot of things we can do and should do to improve the lot for the future of mankind. I would start with developing a contraceptive which could be introduced into the water supply of every third world country to stop them breeding beyond their economic capacity (the developed nations having already come to terms and effectively implemented a voluntary standard for population control).

Fix that problem and we fix all the side effects of deforestation, over fishing, greenhouse gases etc etc.

Chris C because you do not understand q7 does not mean it lacks sense.

The time for action is always now, it is just a question of which “Action”.
Posted by Col Rouge, Sunday, 15 October 2006 10:57:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The green/left have been at pains to point out to anyone who will listen that they think GW Bush is a moron. Yet, they would now have us believe that the guy who lost out to that moron is some sort of visionary thinker. Lets get this clear, Al Gore came second to "dubbya" and has an ego that needs recognition by the bucket load. It isn't hard to tell which is the cart and which is the horse.

The key point about the so-called Global Warming threat is that both the reserach into cause and effect, and the research into any necessary solutions is in it's infancy. In computerised terms we are still back in the days when a 1 megabyte computer capacity cost $4 million and occupied a whole room.

The question for us costodians of the interests of "future generations" is whether they would rather inherit the $4 million in unpaid debt on a drawn out partial solution, or wait a few years and fix the problem quickly, cheaply and properly with a $1000 lap top?
Posted by Perseus, Sunday, 15 October 2006 11:10:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What exactly is being done, Perseus? Nothing that I am aware of. Governments aren't limiting low lying developments. Even the consideration given to limiting damage from storm surges is laughable.

The warnings by scientists of drier conditions were totally ignored by the planners (Maybe they were waiting for a $1000 laptop?), resulting in the water supply shambles apparent nationwide today. There was also no thought as to how water resourses could cope with the high levels of immigration: Given the political influence of pro-immigration interests there is no likelihood of any reduction despite the fact that it is making the water problem much worse. The potential for individual water saving measures like tanks and grey water recycling for gardens and toilets is seconded to fixes potentially involving huge cost hikes for consumers and some extremely unpopular deals for privately funded infrastructure. (The fact that many privately funded infrastructure projects return many times the initial outlay of the backers makes ludicrous the claim by many public figures that privately funded infrastructure is necessary because publically funded projects dont return the profits."

Even the drive for fuel efficiency and renewable fuels is largely due to the instability in the Middle East, so I guess that is one thing that Bush deserves credit for.

The politicians make a point of regularly expressing concern about the effects of global warming though.
Posted by Fester, Sunday, 15 October 2006 2:23:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
hey Bob ever thought of becoming a tabbco lawyer I hear the pay's good!
Posted by Kenny, Sunday, 15 October 2006 2:31:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Who's pulling the professor's strings for him to present his very own "Uncertain Truth" in such biased fashion, thus manipulating public opinion?

The good professor failed to mention that some 300 NASA scientists concluded that there is a synergistic interaction between ozone depletion and greenhouse warming.

And scientists have concluded that 75 - 85% of the ozone destructive chlorine in the stratosphere is from human activity (www.epa.gov/ozone/, with the balance from natural causes. There is a marked increase globally of cataracts, skin cancers and genetic disorders linked to ozone depletion. Chlorine based chemicals can take up to 15 years to reach the stratosphere but remain in the atmosphere anywhere up to 50 - 200 years.

Why has he not included in his assessment, the devastating impact of fossil fuel emissions on human and animal health and the environment?

Why does he not give us some figures on the increases of CO2 and all the other chemicals in the atmosphere clearly caused by human activity?

And why is he purporting that scientists have reached a firm conclusion on the matter of global warming?

He will need to realise also that ground ozone is now a very real threat to health - all from human activity and the use of fossil fuels!

Here's some data for the prof. to peruse. The following emissions, courtesy of the federal government, are just part of its annual estimate of one specific small company in my region. Could the professor please assess how many stacks there are spewing out hydrocarbons (some Cat.1 carcinogens) including greenhouse gases, just in Australia, and then multiply the total by the following figures. That way he may get an indication of just how toxic this planet has become from human activity. The federal government has rated these figures as "LOW".

SO2 = 37,000,000kgs. CO = 3,100,000 kgs. N20 = 100,000 kgs. Particulates = 3,800,000kgs. Cyanide = 31,000kgs. VOCs (as benzene) = 100,000kgs. Mercury = 7,700kgs and many more!

Hello Professor Bob - are you there? Anybody home?!
Posted by dickie, Sunday, 15 October 2006 10:56:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
dickie,

The ISSUE is CLIMATE CHANGE.

Since the dawn of time, humans have known that COMBUSTION leads to dire health consequences. More recently, high tech combustion processes have produced nano- particulates which according to a combination of Prof Peter Doherty and new high efficiency nano-particulate drug delivery systems, is inflicting ever increasing levels of CHRONIC disease on populations even though we are living statistically longer lives.
However since the dawn of time humans have also known that without COMBUSTION you die.

Thus there has always been that trade off and until technology can give us solar/nuclear/geothermal power at equivalent DENSITIES to combustion it will remain so. So dickie .. just drop it unless you have specific companies breaching clean air standards or unless you want to die fom lack of energy.

On to climate change:

Stockholm has ruled out global warming yet climate change (severe ectopic weather) is a major problem across the planet.

However studies I have done on US coastal waters this hurricane season are suggesting that IF humans reduce the amount of heat trapping colloidal matter in coastal WASTEWATERS, heat is removed from ocean surfaces to the POLES before it can build to levels that will sustain hurricanes or in Australian latitudes, DROUGHT.

So there are now 2 environmental problems that are solvable if we are smart, and anything else will have to wait till technology catches up with our appetite for sexual gratification and overpopulating this planet:

1* WASTEWATER emissions into coastal waters

2* rogue companies that save a few dollars on gas bills and don't
incinerate toxic air streans. I have personal experience with one such Company, a packaging company.
But we can't fight this issue by harping about global warming that is NOT taking place.
Posted by KAEP, Monday, 16 October 2006 6:23:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Richard,

You completely misrepresent the report by taking the quotes out of context - I note your constant use of elipses to remove sections that don't support your argument.

Bob claimed Mann's report has been "totally discredited". The NSA report says Mann's basic conclusions have been supported by subsequent evidence.

You said the report showed Mann's study was 'unverifiable'. Your strategic use of elipses tells me you know this is not true.

I said the report showed subsequent evidence 'confirmed' Mann's basic thesis, and it does.

David and Cathy, please see ChrisC's link to realclimate and its discussion of the hockey stick:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/02/dummies-guide-to-the-latest-hockey-stick-controversy/

In particular, see answers to questions 8 and 9.

Even if you continue to believe Mann has been 'discredited', the fact remains subsequent evidence supports his basic claim - and that cannot be denied.
Posted by skellett, Monday, 16 October 2006 10:54:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Skellett,

The conclusion by the NAS or anyone else that the late 20th century was "warmer than the last few hundred years" is about as surprising as the statement that "the sun will rise tomorrow". It is a scientifically trivial statement.

The whole issue with Mann's work was that it spanned back over the time of the Mediaeval Warm Period (MWP), and allowed pro-IPCC proponents to say that the late 20th century temperature peak was the "warmest in the last 1000 years".

As Bob Carter says, this "disproving" of the MWP - which was the pivotal and intended point of Mann's work - is now utterly discredited.

Rather than defending the indefensible, why not instead get to grips with the real situation (which is that the late 20th century warming is unusual in neither rate nor magnitude) and its implications (which are that there is no need for alarmist measures on climate change, such as the Kyoto Protocol)?

Cathy
Posted by Cathy, Monday, 16 October 2006 11:59:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cathy,

You appear to believe in Myth #3, please refer to the following:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=11

It's a bit rich for you to demand that I "get to grips with the real situation" when you preface your demand with obvious untruths.
Posted by skellett, Monday, 16 October 2006 2:52:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Science rarely gives us absolutely certain answers. Sometimes but rarely. Most of the time the best science can do is develop theories that explain and predict observed phenomena, and if contrary phenomena occur (as often happens), then the theories are refined to accomodate them.

Although the evidence is not beyond dispute, the modest rises in global temperature which have occurred during a period when CO2 levels have risen sharply, and the historical correspondence between rising temperatures and carbon levels, although not proven to be causally linked, do give us reason to be very concerned.

To those who say we should drop everything and cease our carbon emissions to address this 'crisis' I think that is an over-reaction. But to those who say, that simply because we don't have irrefutable truth, we should do nothing, that is a under reaction. We have to act on the best available information and as that information improves, we have refine our action.

We are like motorists speeding along the freeway who see flashing lights in the distance up ahead. Do we know it's unsafe to keep speeding along? No, but we ought to slow down just the same, and make ready to stop if necessary. Yes, slowing down will cost us, and unecessarily if it turns out the flashing light was not an issue for us, but safety is an issue for both a car on the freeway and our humble civillisation.
Posted by Kalin, Monday, 16 October 2006 5:36:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
good to hear both sides of the story...
Posted by Ilone, Monday, 16 October 2006 8:22:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Puzzling that in the current debate on AGW we hear so little on what we now know about the last interglacial (known as Oxygen Isotope Substage 5e) some 117 - 125 ky ago (when global sea levels peaked at 4 - 6 m above present day levels). During that period atmospheric CO2 levels, based on ice core data (noting they possibly suffer some loss due to incomplete system closedness) were at least 300 ppmv (about 380 ppmv now). More significantly, all the isotopic and geomorphic evidence clearly suggests the last interglacial peak was fully bimodal with a peak separation of the order of 4 - 6 ky only. Now here we are today in the (Late?;-) Holocene and we know that conditions were significantly warmer over the period 1 - 8 ky ago (during the rise of human civilization). Proof? Sea levels on the NSW coast 7.5 - 2.5 ky ago went through a peak 1 - 1.5 m higher than now. Indeed, I can snorkel over the top of ~5 ky old coral bommies just off shore near my Wollongong house and it's a species of coral that no longer grows south of Qld! Anthropogenic? Obviously not! So are we simply heading into a 2nd interglacial peak? Who knows? What is th point I hear you cry. To me the point is utterly obvious. The system is clearly too big, too subtle, too oscillatory/variable for us to have any kind of decent predictive 'handle' on it as yet. It's tough enough predicting the weather 5 - 10 days hence!
Posted by Ecowalk, Tuesday, 17 October 2006 10:17:07 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
KAEP

THE ISSUE IS CLIMATE CHANGE - NATURAL/INTERNAL OR HUMAN FACTORS?

I was unaware that it was mandatory to accept that your opinion on global warming was final and beyond reasonable doubt?

I note your indifference to my suggestion that, the burning of billions of kilograms annually of fossil fuels has a devastating effect on all life forms on this planet.

Yet you are frothing away about your own polluted little patch of coastline and espousing your views on the thermodynamics and of the destructive impact of tipping wastewater into the ocean.

I am totally in agreement Kaep, however, I suggest that you get over yourself and look at the big picture rather than that which affects only you. I am also in agreement concerning the negative impacts of uncontrolled population growth.

Your suggestion regarding my concerns on pollution that I "should just drop it" reveals your naivety on just how irresponsible regulators are in this country. I wish to advise that in my region and others:

[Deleted for excessive use of capitals.]

You advise that combustion is necessary, however, again you missed the point. When I referred to an annual emission from one small company of 3,100,000 kilograms of carbon monoxide, I was referring to INCOMPLETE COMBUSTION and the incompetence of EPA's in condoning and encouraging the igonominious status quo.

cont........
Posted by dickie, Tuesday, 17 October 2006 12:57:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Skellett, you're reference to my "constant" use of elipses when, in fact, I used just one in the quote, is exemplary of your general approach.
Posted by Richard Castles, Tuesday, 17 October 2006 1:20:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dickie,

I think we are in almost complete agreement. No use bashing each other about the ears on misunderstandings.

The only difference is that you are not up to speed on THERMODYNAMICS and especially statistical thermodynamics. They are not easy subjects. I can assure you they ARE the big picture and everything else is secondary. That is just the reality of the laws of physics. The key point being that the HEAT CAPACITY of ocean surfaces is 1000 times that of the atmosphere and thus small changes in colloidals (pollution) in coastal waters creates magnified effects in coastal weather patterns that stretch far inland. We call this climate change and using thermodynamic principles it can be controlled as seen in this hurricane free season in the US.

The only reason the IPCC etc have not cottoned on to the basic physics is because they get so much monety to collect data. Thus they only ever do bottom-up analyses on climate change. This of course leads to their erroneious global warming theory.

I support you fully on the notion that EPAs do not enforce existing regulations, do not cover all pollution aspects and that they lie and cheat on behalf of governments and industry. As I said I have personal experience of this.

Unfortunately for EPA's when coastal ocean pollution regs are finally legislated they wont't be able to cheat because of the instantaneous availability of satellite maps to the general public.

You will have to trust me that when these ocean pollution regs are enforced, the subtle realtionship between oceans and atmosphere will also create cleaner air for us to breathe. And while ocean surfaces are polluted, cleaning up atmospheric pollution will be wasted effort: a bit like mopping a bath tub with the tap running and the plug in.

And one othe important aspect of this is the beneficial effects of increased biological fecundity in cleaner coastal oceans and the intrinsic effect that will have on human populations as well in terms of sustaining beneficial land/sea thermodynamic profiles.
Posted by KAEP, Tuesday, 17 October 2006 2:46:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kaep

I reiterate that you can not clean up your oceans until toxic air and land chemical emissions have been addressed. All Australian states dump hazardous wastewaters into the ocean and much of this is the end result of hazardous waste treatment plants.

When you have a hazardous waste plant with an evaporation pond system, where the vile, contaminated remnants of treatment reside, this waste is often dumped in our oceans. Why? Because when evaporation is poor, particularly in winter, then it is simply dumped in the ocean! You may have suggestions as to an alternative dumping site for hazardous wastewaters!

Dioxin emissions here,greatly exceed the Stockholm Convention guidelines. These are chlorinated, transboundary and carcinogenic in nature and invade the entire food chain. One emission from my region may end up on your dinner plate!

You will be reminded of the magnificent, but dioxin loaded Sydney Harbour or perhaps Botany Bay where there is 10,000 tonnes of leaky hexachlorobenzene and 77,000 tonnes of low level HCB's buried under a carpark. Jerzy Jankowski, a hydrogeologist at UNSW claims that the plume of HCB's is the largest in the southern hemisphere. Departments of Environment have sat on their hands for decades!

Back to Professor Bob where he claims "in 2006 alone a new source - trees - ....................have been identified for methane".

In 2003, the Centre for Transportation Studies at the University of Virginia undertook a review of reforestation.

They discovered that as a result of vehicular increase and the subsequent releases of CO (which elevates methane and ozone), methane was predominant amongst the trees! So Professor, hardly a "new source" to support your argument.

Now I am totally perplexed. One would think that little Johnny would have access to the most eminent scientists in the world,however only last night he advised that nuclear power was part of the solution to global warming and:

"Those who say they are in favour of doing something about global warming, but turn their faces against considering nuclear power are unreal." he said.

Would the real fibbers please stand up?!
Posted by dickie, Tuesday, 17 October 2006 5:24:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Richard,

You used elipses explicitly twice, not once. More deceitfully, you left out the first sentence of the paragraph you quoted without acknowledgement because it did not support your claim. Worse, you completely left out the next paragraph because again it did not support your argument.

Your deceitful mis-use of the report says nothing about me but whole lot about your inability to come to terms with the reality of what the report was trying to say.
Posted by skellett, Tuesday, 17 October 2006 5:36:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No, Skellett. Go back. Count. One elipse in the quote itself. There are more important things to be discussed, but any forthcoming acknowledgment of your error will be accepted gracefully.
Posted by Richard Castles, Wednesday, 18 October 2006 10:51:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Richard,

You have clearly demonstrated to all how dishonestly many of you on your side of the debate have conducted yourselves.

You were so confident the NAS report said that Mann's conclusions were "unverifable" that when you read it and found it said something completely different you broke into a cold sweat. Not willing to admit your error like any decent person would, you sliced and diced the report until it almost said what you needed.

Here is what you saw when you first read the paragraph you butchered:

"Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the
preceding millennium."

This sentence should have seen you here acknowledging your mistake. Instead, you disceitfully cut this sentence - and many others - in order to pretend the report implied something it did not.

Your demand for an admission of error from me is laughable. Claiming elipses only count if they are in the middle of the quote is absurd. All can see you used them twice - as I correctly noted - and it should surprise no one that the second elipse at the end of your misquote cut some text that completely undermined your argument.

I note with interest that you do not deny you misquoted the report despite ample opportunity. I can only conclude you know you have been dishonest but you're not man enough to admit it.
Posted by skellett, Wednesday, 18 October 2006 3:13:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My last comment on the Great Elipsis Debate 2006. Apologies to all who want to read more important stuff here.

In my post in question, I made two mistakes.

a) I ended the quote with a single ' instead of a ", which I should have.

b) My second elipsis AFTER the quote was a poor grammatical choice, not intended to suggest ommission, which I would have put INSIDE the quote. Nonetheless, I should have just left a full stop.

My apologies to you Skellet for not including elipses to cover the 141 pages of the report I did not include in my quote. As David kindly provided above, the full report can be found at:

http://www.house.gov/science/hot/climate%20dispute/NAS%20full%20report.pdf

However, I am happy to display for all to see here the full paragraph you suggest I sliced, diced and butchered. The section in brackets is the part omitted by the elipsis in my original quote.

[More before]..."Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium. The substantial uncertainties currently present in the quantitative assessment of large-scale surface temperature changes prior to about A.D. 1600 lower our confidence in this conclusion [compared to the high level of confidence we place in the Little Ice Age cooling and 20th century warming.] Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that “the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium” because the uncertainties inherent in temperature reconstructions for individual years and decades are larger than those for longer time periods, and because not all of the available proxies record temperature information on such short timescales."...[more after]

Continued...
Posted by Richard Castles, Wednesday, 18 October 2006 4:19:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How could I have been so stupid to swallow all this lefty greenie scientist nonsense. All this time I have empathised with the plight of polar bears facing starvation and drowning, but thanks to the Competitive Enterprise Institute, I now know the truth. Their video footage explicitly shows two fat polar bears playing golf in Greenland. They said that things had never been so great and that they were just loving the hot weather. The footage then switched to several more polar bears lounging around a swimming pool. One was even lying back on a banana lounge sipping an iced coffee.

This is the greatest change of mind I have had since seeing a Japanese film showing how well allied pows were treated during the second world war. Up till then I had thought that allied pows were subjected to the most abominable and despicable treatment for which most of their persecutors went unpunished. But all the while they were being pampered and playing golf.

Thank goodness for global warming sceptics.
Posted by Fester, Wednesday, 18 October 2006 8:21:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So Prof Carter is a Swedish media expert? Yes, it’s hard to feel informed about the world without reading Svenska Dagbladet and Göteborgs-Posten as soon as they hit the news-stands.

Quite a boring and pointless article... At about the half-way point, I stopped reading it.

On the other hand, "An Inconvenient Truth" is a great movie. It is informative and touching. I imagine lots of people are now walking out of cinema’s with the idea that conservation is necessary and we can work for a prosperous future.

If there is one movie to see this century it is "An Inconvenient Truth".
Posted by David Latimer, Thursday, 19 October 2006 1:23:27 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Look and learn, global warming is not consistent with what's happening in the Atlantic this year.

Early May showed that heat in the Atlantic was worse this year than the disasterous 2005 season. A worse bout of US hurricanes was predicted for this year
May-11-05
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/dataphod1/work/HHP/NEW/2005131atsst.png

May-11-06
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/dataphod1/work/HHP/NEW/2006131atsst.png

By mid July the situation had reversed with 50% less heat in the Atlantic than last year. This indicated an ABRUPT Atlantic cooling.
Jul-19-06
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/dataphod1/work/HHP/NEW/2005200atsst.png

Jul-19-05
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/dataphod1/work/HHP/NEW/2005200atsst.png

Currently, the Atlantic is still cooler than the disasterous 2005 season despite all the 2005 hurricanes rapidly shifting heat out of the area.
Oct-17-05
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/dataphod1/work/HHP/NEW/2005290atsst.png

Oct-17-06
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/dataphod1/work/HHP/NEW/2006290atsst.png

Comment:
Now global warming is inconsistent with such rapid changes from year to year and month to month in Atlantic heat levels when the whole planet is supposed to be getting warmer. What is worse, the US had a bumper 2006 year for economic activity which means significantly MORE CO2 was being emitted across the Atlantic this year. That ought to have heated the ocean surface even more. IT DIDN'T. Most of this season it was 50% less than 2005.
Posted by KAEP, Thursday, 19 October 2006 5:24:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Continued,

People must ask why Atlantic heat levels behaved this way. Coastal waters were being systematically cleaned of pollution and this was clearly visible in Sea Height Anomaly maps after early July.
As added proof, Manatees were swimming the Hudson river, fish stocks were rebounding along the US east coast and the US was suffering E-Coli outbreaks consistent with a holding back of sewage wastes.

The final proof of this will come next year 2007 when there will not be any US landfall hurricanes once again. Now the US knows how to stop hurricanes and reduce Atlantic sea surface heat levels by holding back its wastewaters, you have to understand that they will continue to do so because the stakes are $100 billion per season high. The only reasons this is still an open secret in the US is that they need more than one season's results for confirmation and probably also because this effective 'climate control' gives the US a significant economic advantage over the rest of the world.

Look at CURRENT data from around the world before assuming global warming theory is valid. Keep watching the US SST and SHA maps during their hurricane season 2007 and for goodness sake lobby NSW state and federal governments to clean up the bloody mess of the NSW coast that is causing the worst drought in our history. And based on this year's US data, a 50% turnaround in hostile climate (drought) can be achieved in as little as 1-2 months
Posted by KAEP, Thursday, 19 October 2006 5:28:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Richard,

I accept your apology for your failed attempt to trivilise this thread when it became obvious you were not able to deal effectively with the substance of the arguments.

I wonder, however, whether those few honest skeptics who you have embarrassed with your antics will be as forgiving. You've certainly made the skeptic position that much harder to defend.
Posted by skellett, Thursday, 19 October 2006 9:55:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
...Continued from above:

The quote is representative of my reading of the report. Briefly, if the Academy finds little confidence in the conclusion that there weren't warmer years or decades than those mentioned in the last millennium, then the Hockey Stick, as it pertains to that millennium, remains unverified -. The onus of proof is on those who subscribe to it, and the report does not grant that proof.

There is high confidence in the Little Ice Age cooling and late 20th century warming, the part I omitted, primarily because, as mentioned by Cathy, this is hardly news to anybody, though it was widely reported as such in the media, and is a distraction from the topic at hand.

Even IF my second ellipsis, which was intended as nothing more than a pause, were included in the quote, it could only be considered as more honest to indicate that there is more after the quote, something you didn’t do. This is not common practice as it is understood by most people that a quote is an extract from a larger text. It IS critical, however, to place ellipses where words have been omitted within a quote.
Posted by Richard Castles, Thursday, 19 October 2006 2:50:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
...continued from above:

For someone so keen to impute dishonesty and deceit in everything NOT on the page (He used an ellipsis, he must be hiding something), I could ask why YOU chose to end your quote where you did? For those interested, the sentence in the report immediately following it begins: "Not all individual proxy records indicate that the recent warmth is unprecedented…” (Yes, there is more.)

The point is, unlike you, I read your quote in good faith as representative of your view. It was that which I wished to challenge. Your subsequent focus on my erroneously described “constant use of ellipses” is little more than an exercise in obfuscation. I agree you took the debate off on a trivial tangent, and I regret being sucked in. I did not apologize for this, however, so I don’t know which God gave you the right to think you could forgive me. As for the false assumptions, insults and accusations, they say more about you than me.

“Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people.” – Eleanor Rossevelt

I stand by my view that the report does not verify the Hockey Stick. I stand by my use of one ellipsis for the reasons mentioned above, and I reject your accusation that I diced and butchered as groundless hyperbole. I don’t think it’s technically possible to dice with one cut.

I have no further desire to argue with an ellipticon (don’t look it up, I just coined it myself). So I’m pulling stumps on this one. I can hear the collective online sigh of relief.

All the best.
Posted by Richard Castles, Thursday, 19 October 2006 4:25:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Vladimir Lenin, the first Soviet leader, was often laughing when he talked about a specific group of academics and intellectuals abroad who were always most willing to assist in putting a spin on, or otherwise explain away the harsh realities of Soviet dictatorship. He called them ‘useful idiots’.

Today we have another kind of ‘useful idiots’. Individuals who are in various ways subsidised or in some other way are benefiting from a little extra job in expressing extremist views and spins which can than allow leading politician the possibility of later claiming a ‘middle ground’ a bit to the right of Mr Ghengis Khan and his oilfields.

Keith Windschuttle and Bob Carter here belongs to John Howard’s own little army of ‘useful idiots’ (we could add a few more names, the monopoly press in Australia is full of them). None of them are experts in the field they have taken on, but that matters to no one. It is all very well organised. An extra little army of so-called ‘ordinary’ people are always lined up and ready to follow up on the latest little ‘gold nugget’ article from the hands of our spin-maker genius – adding a few words of heartfelt gratitude; ‘Finally Dr Carter (or whoever) told us the truth – Hallelujah - praise the Lord- another scientist supporting intelligent design – or the latest fanciful left wing fabrication - and let’s pump out some more co2 - its all good for the lungs (and our pockets)!’

Neither does not matter to Carter that nobody in Sweden recognises his nonsense-spin or that half the worlds Nobel price winners and virtually all real experts in climatic sciences says the exact opposite. Why does it not matter for Carter? The answer is very simple; this is not and never was - a question of truth, science and integrity - this is entirely a question of denying and set in motion some useful public spins for the benefit of his generous friends.
Posted by Mr Ristinge, Thursday, 19 October 2006 7:04:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kaep

That sounds like an awfully big secret for the United States to keep. Surely there would be leaks for an experiment with such profound implications?
Posted by Fester, Thursday, 19 October 2006 9:37:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Richard,

Though I am loathe to kick a man when he is down, you continue to make misrepresentations and I am obliged to correct the record.

First, you did apologise, you said: "Apologies to all who want to read more important stuff here." As someone interested in more important stuff, I generously accepted your apology for trivilising this thread, when, rather than defend your misrepresentation of the NAS report, you chose to focus on my entirely accurate use of the word 'constant'.

Second, you made three cuts to the paragraph, not one. It is burdensome to have to constantly correct your "mistakes", but if they are left uncorrected then I am allowing you to get away with misrepresenting the record.

Third, that you made strategic cuts to the paragraph you quoted in order to misrepresent the NAS report is obvious to all. You admit as much when you say, "The quote is representative of my reading of the report". Of course it is! You butchered the paragraph until it - almost - met with your prejudices. Little wonder you originally chose to focus on my wording and not on defending your conduct. You only changed tact when I called you on your misrepresentation. Nothing more need be said on this score.

Forth, your suggestion that I began this spiral into abyss is amusing, but alas - for you - wrong. I have no need to change the subject. I am clearly standing on solid ground. You, on the other hand, well, that's a different story.

Finally, the NAS report is clear: It does not say the "Hockey Stick" is "unverifable" or "unverified"; it does not say the "Hockey Stick" has been "discredited". On the contrary, it says Mann's conclusions have been supported by more recent evidence.

Ultimately, that is the point. On the whole, the evidence continues to support Mann's position. If you have evidence that says otherwise, by all means, bring it on. I for one would like to believe humanity's ways are not affecting our climate.
Posted by skellett, Friday, 20 October 2006 5:39:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am afraid, dear skellett, that details and facts does not come into the equation for such people. They are way beyond the reach of pedagogic and scholarly measures. They are engaged in producing political spins. Facts of science carry no weight in their world. Part of the strategy is to never admit when you have been defeated by facts, but to carry on with ever new misrepresentations as if nothing happened. Indeed, if the spin-makers are allowed to take over the world it will spell death to any science.
Posted by Mr Ristinge, Friday, 20 October 2006 8:37:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
NSW coastline wastewater pollution, as indicated by extreme SHA levels, has lessened considerabley today 21-10-06.

>Today's SHA (sea height anomaly) map showing major reduction in wastewaters from Sydney, Wollongong, Bega, Newcastle, Lakes Entrance(Vic) and Wilson's Promontory:

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/trinanes/tmp/sha1161420238.gif

The Macleay River by contrast is still polluting.

>Yesterday's map, showing far greater plumes from all the above ports:

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/trinanes/tmp/sha1161323700.gif

>Compare with S. Africa where notable wastewater plumes are evident from Alexander Bay, Capetown, East London, Richards Bay and Maputo:

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/trinanes/tmp/sha1161422188.gif

These plumes are consistent over time and only ever present at the major ports mentioned, strengthening the argument that extreme coastal SHGA values are in fact associated with wastewater plumes.
Also Note the movement of the sea surface harmonics (SHA zonal flux)to the east and onto Sthn Australian waters with the prevailing roaring forties current.

CONCLUSION: Given the current overcast conditions for Sydney and NSW coastal areas plus the cleaner coastal waters, thermodynamic conditions are favourable for rains to now fall in inland NSW and Victoria. These could well be drought breaking conditions if wastewaters can be held back long enough for at least a week of rainfall.

Well done whoever is creating these coastal wastewater reductions and lower entropy conditioning of the NSW coastline.

PLEASE keep it going for at least a week ... we'll be WATCHING YOU.

RIDER: The cleaner coastal waters (less extreme coastal SHA's) may have been caused by yesterday's heavy coastline rains. We will know from tomorrow's SHA map. I sincerely hope NSW and Vic are holding back their wastes however.

LET'S PUT an END to this BLOODY DROUGHT .... NOW!
Posted by KAEP, Saturday, 21 October 2006 7:52:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This time sequence of Sea height anomaly structures off NSW and Sth Africa from 20 Oct to 22 Oct 2006 is showing:

1>Sth Africa's consistent pollution, consistent evolution of SHAs to the east along the roaring forties and 100% correlation of coastal SHA plumes with Sth Africa's major polluting ports is a control subject for Australia's wastewater emissionn profile along coastal NSW..

20 Oct
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/trinanes/tmp/sha1161490090.gif
21Oct
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/trinanes/tmp/sha1161491418.gif
22 Oct
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/trinanes/tmp/sha1161490032.gif

2>By contrast, NSW shows an abrupt cessation of large coastal SHA plumes from Sydney, Newcastle, Wollongong, Bega, Victoria and even Hobart (Tasmania). The only offenders left are the Macleay river in Nthn NSW and Brisbane (Qld).

20 Oct
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/trinanes/tmp/sha1161491121.gif
21Oct
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/trinanes/tmp/sha1161489193.gif
22 Oct
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/trinanes/tmp/sha1161489874.gif

>I will continue to follow this development so long as improvements in the NSW coastal SHA structure continue. Hopefully we will see a break in drought conditions in NSW and Victoria within a week if improvements persist.

NB>For further evidence of consistent correlation between coastal SHA plumes and ports that are emitting significant wastewater volumes, I have done a time series analysis of SHA profiles for Sth African and Australia going back to 1993.

A summary including the years 1993, 1997, 2000 and 2003 at Oct 21 for both countries follows:

Sth Africa:

93
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/trinanes/tmp/sha1161491502.gif
97
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/trinanes/tmp/sha1161491588.gif
00
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/trinanes/tmp/sha1161491545.gif
03
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/trinanes/tmp/sha1161491628.gif
06
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/trinanes/tmp/sha1161491418.gif

NSW:

93
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/trinanes/tmp/sha1161491687.gif
97
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/trinanes/tmp/sha1161491753.gif
00
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/trinanes/tmp/sha1161491809.gif
03
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/trinanes/tmp/sha1161491856.gif
06
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/trinanes/tmp/sha1161489193.gif
Posted by KAEP, Sunday, 22 October 2006 3:06:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ah, Skellett, I can't resist. Are you seriously suggesting that anyone who quotes from any article is guilty of two deceits by not including all that came before and all after? You accuse me of not defending my choice - which I did - whilst you have not answered my question about why you cut your quote where you did. This is characteristic of your tendency to project onto others your own weaknesses. You substitute bullying and intimidation for reasoned debate. You might like to fantasise about kicking me when I'm down or having me breaking out in a cold sweat, but I can assure you the only thing I'm breaking out in is laughter. I concede defeat: reason can't beat such determined unreason. It's like sword-fighting with a ghost.
Posted by Richard Castles, Monday, 23 October 2006 11:12:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There are two separate issues here:

(1) Has the case for global warming due to anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases been proven beyond all reasonable doubt?

(2) Is the case for global warming sufficiently strong that prudence dictates we ought to limit greenhouse gas emissions?

The answer to the first question is "no." The topic is difficult. Huge uncertainties surround the data. In many cases data is sparse or unavailable. There is room for doubt.

The answer to the second question depends on your attitude towards risk. The PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE points in the direction of global warming.

Our understanding of the physics of greenhouse gases leads us to predict that, ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL, as the concentration of atmospheric greenhouse gases increases so surface temperatures should rise.

We find that indeed surface temperatures are rising.

So far as we can tell surface temperatures are rising more rapidly than at any time in the recent past.

There is the POSSIBILITY that rising surface temperatures will cause other changes that reinforce the warming effect with, PERHAPS, catastrophic consequences.

None of this proves that anthropgenic greenhouse gases are the culprit and that we heading for disaster. The observed global warming could be due to greenhouse gas emissions, variations in the strength of solar flux, subtle changes in the Earth's orbit, other unknown factors or, most likely, a COMBINATION of factors. But we can say that observation is broadly consistent with a theory of global warming due to greenhouse gas emissions.

So what should we do?

That leads to another question.

How much of an INSURANCE PREMIUM are you prepared to pay to mitigate a POSSIBLE catastrophe?

If you are rational you cannot avoid this question by pretending there is zero risk. Evidence and theory, however imperfectly, indicate the existence of a RISK of catastrophe due to greenhouse gas emissions.

The evidence says the odds of catastrophe are substantially above zero.

So how much are you all prepared to pay to mitigate this risk?

0.1% of your income?

1%?

5%

How much?
Posted by Stephany, Monday, 23 October 2006 12:20:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So how much are you all prepared to pay Stephany to mitigate this glabial warming risk?

0.1% of your income?

No way. Send 20% of your income to Stephany Hathaway c/o Warren Buffet, New York, New York. Otherwise he'll come get ya or find some other way to scam you.

Global Warming .. Safe as global Coorporate houses!
Would you like fries with that threat? I mean order.

Come on Stephany who you kidding?

The Atlantic reversed to 50% less heat (SST) levels from May 11 to July 31 this year and before May the heat in the Atlantic was far greater than the disasterous 2005 season.
May 11:
05:http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/dataphod1/work/HHP/NEW/2005131atsst.png
06:http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/dataphod1/work/HHP/NEW/2006131atsst.png

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

Global warming?
Go Figure!

ITM, NSW has resumed gross wastewater emissions: http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/trinanes/tmp/sha1161577062.gif
despite yesterday's cleaner coastline:
22-Oct: http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/trinanes/tmp/sha1161489874.gif

That means that extra high entropy in NSW ocean surfaces and its corresponding microclimate-atmospheric-conditions will attract undue heat and moisture (low entropy) from the NSW heartland worsening the existing drought. This is not global anything. It is just simply an enactment of one of the simplest laws of PHYSICS, the Second Law Of Thermodynamics (2LT).

Meanwhile global warming idiots fiddle with us all while NSW burns.
Posted by KAEP, Monday, 23 October 2006 2:55:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Stephany,

I agree with almost all that you say, and it is refreshing to have someone state the two key issues so clearly.

But I can't agree with the sentence:

"So far as we can tell surface temperatures are rising more rapidly than at any time in the recent past".

In fact, precisely the opposite is true. The geological evidence that we have is consistent with rates of global temperature change during the late 20th century (which are 1-2 deg. C/century) falling well within the natural limits of earlier rates of change, both coolings and warmings.

In fact, for the high quality climate record of the Greenland ice core, it has been shown that the rate of warming over the last 120 years lies at the 20th percentile of all 120-year-long periods during the Holocene, i.e. 20% of the earlier 120-year-long warmings occurred at a FASTER rate than has warming over the most recent 120 years.

Cathy
Posted by Cathy, Monday, 23 October 2006 4:21:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes Good on you Kaep

Oh Richard oh Richard

…you like Carter are spinning and spinning and spinning. But fact is that you and your like, along with your short sighted masters in the oil industry have spinned yourself out of reality in the exact same manner as the tobacco industry did.

Mind you the day will arrive when the friend in the big industry will be taken to court in the exact same manner!

They day this case is proven beyond yours and your likes doubt - is equivalent to the day when our world is not capable of sustaining fresh air and a reasonable existence!

Even if you case is right (which it isn’t) we still need to get that emission down! And yes sure we will pay for it and sure we can afford it! Indeed we cannot afford to listen any longer to your and your side! The bill is going to be too high!
Posted by Mr Ristinge, Monday, 23 October 2006 5:11:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cathy,

I stand corrected. Thank you for that.

BTW I completely agree with your earlier comment that the period covered by the Mann "hockey stick" is much to short for us to make any definitive inferences about climate change.

For the record I think rich and middle income countries should consider devoting 0.1% of gross national income towards reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. This figure could rise or fall as more data becomes available.

0.1% is a gut feel figure. I have no scientific basis for it. It is small enough in relative terms not to cause economic disruption but big enough in absolute terms to make a useful start.

If it turns out that global warming is not the global monster some depict we won't much miss 0.1%. If, on the other hand, more research indicates a need for drastic reductions in greenhouse emissions we'll at least have carried out some of the basic research and gained experience with the infrastructure needed to achieve this.

Any thoughts?
Posted by Stephany, Monday, 23 October 2006 6:34:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I guess the first question to ask is, what measure of income should be used, GDP, GNP etc, in the absence of a directive, I will plumb for GDP, not necessarily the best, but GDP was an easy number to find so I will plumb for that at this time.

Australia .01% is US$729 million based on GDP and

USA around US$12,729 million

And Europe about the same as USA (in round terms)

Japan, that another US$4 ½ billion

South Korea, $790 million, about the same as Australia

Canada $1,100 million

Russia reckons about $500 million, (my how the mighty have fallen, now that is a basket case).

New Zealand, about $100 million (seems hardly worth mentioning)

About a billion for South America, do they count or are the exempt on the basis of historic corruption and incompetence?

So around US$33 billion dollars and that is PER YEAR, is to be pushed into reducing global warming.

Just one small problem, who decides what this $33 billion will be spent on – and with that amount of “dosh” up for grabs, where do I apply, c/o Al Gore?

Oh as when do we decide that as it is now the fourth largest economy in the world, that China (twice the size of lil ole Oz) has to come up to support “the monster slush”, lets face it, it is Chinese factories which are pumping out most of the emissions.

So folks, now we see why “Global warming” is such a hot issue.

If you wanna be in for a slice of the “big humungous mega pie”, apply today for your global warming research funds, 0.1% of GDP of the developed world and you win the jack-pot. Better than Tatts or the Casino, set your family and all your second cousins up for the next century with just one grant.

At this point cynicism sets in, better we have something to “fund” before we decide how much to "levy".

This is the same debate with “Carbon Credits” – mythical, intangible and unprovable measures for supposed doing stuff with carbon.
Posted by Col Rouge, Monday, 23 October 2006 10:49:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Steph,

By itself, your suggestion might seem a wise "precaution".

But to apply the precautionary principle you HAVE to know what you are taking precautions against. Regarding what climate will do next, we actually don't know. And, since they started around 1990, not one of the "predictive" GCM computer models has made an accurate prediction of the actual (elapsed) course of climate.

But leaving aside the play world of virtual reality, everything that we know about natural climate change (which, last time I looked, was still operating) tells us that we will face both warmings AND coolings in the future. And most indications now are that we are about to embark on a cooling; indeed, temperature not having risen since 1998, the cooling may already have started.

The best precaution against cooling might be to deliberately add extra carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, because (i) it is likely to have a mild warming effect; and (ii) it has other major benefits for crop yield and plant growth.

Therefore, your 0.1% might best be spent on encouraging CO2 emission rather than inhibiting it.

But perhaps you don't like to apply the precautionary principle?

In which case, you might instead contemplate Bjorn Lomborg's insistent argument that IF you have money to spend (your 0.1%), then you should deploy it where it can do the most good.

Providing clean drinking water, sanitation, and modern power sources to underprivileged societies would be a very good place to start.

Cathy
Posted by Cathy, Monday, 23 October 2006 10:52:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't believe it.

Why must people who can't even read simple Sea Surface Temperature (SST) maps make plans to spend OUR national treasure on useless greenhouse gas curbs that will be perverted into profits by every corrupt AWB style corporation in Australia.
Surely people don't still think we live in a DEMOCRACY do they?

And her Dorothy Dixer follow up, with statistical references in the sub percent range is pathetic. Under their noses, the tropical Atlantic this year has changed its SST content by 50 bloody percent in less than 2 months. And they are too dumb to figure out what is happening. A ten year old could do the math!

Meanwhile the drought in NSW will get worse. The Second Law Of Thermodynamics guarantees this is so: Hot, LOW entropy air (and moisture) from NSW is attracted to HIGH entropy pollutants from wastewaters and their associated High entropy microclimatic zones floating all over the Tasman Sea.
Why will it get worse? Because Howard's dream of subjugating NSW and thus the National psyche with unabated immigration (invasion) and subsequent foreign allegiances (multiculturalism), is creating sufficient wastewaters in the Tasman Sea to extend the current drought into one that will NEVER end.

Australia's climate change problem, enviro-degradation problem and social division problems can ALL be tied to two things. OVERPOPULATION and LIES coming out of Liberal Coalition ministers and their new found MEDIA MONOPOLY. The garbage I see in the Sydney Morning Herald now, like the piece on eugenics this morning (http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/forget-darwin-einstein-will-have-the-last-word/2006/10/22/1161455605828.html), is absolutely sickening. Howard's greed and arrogance has outstripped the carrying capacity of this desert island.

Even if we can get the political momentum to clean up NSW coastal wastewaters and end the drought, the other problems associated with evil government, corporate greed, irresponsibility and overpopulation will cause nothing short of revolution in this nation.

If global warming were real it would be a blessing compared to what Howard is brewing for our grandchildren.
Posted by KAEP, Monday, 23 October 2006 11:27:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Richard,

You misrepresented the NAS report. It does not say what you wish it says. It does not agree with your conclusion that the "hockey stick" is "unverified" or "unverifiable". It says Mann's conclusions are 'plausible'. It says that more recent evidence supports his conclusions.

No amount of amateur (and ironically mis-applied) pop-psych about projection is going to change that basic fact.
Posted by skellett, Tuesday, 24 October 2006 12:01:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear readers,

I would just like to direct this comment to those interested folk who may have inadvertently stumbled upon this thread in the hope they may learn something about global warming.

You should be aware that much of the discussion here (as characterised by KAEP, Cathy and Richard) is extremely unrepresentative of scientific and mainstream opinion on global warming - and borders on delusional ideology.

More informed opinion can be found here: http://www.realclimate.org/

Further evidence and images of man's disastrous effect on the planet may be found here: http://na.unep.net/OnePlanetManyPeople/index.php

Thank you.
Posted by BT, Tuesday, 24 October 2006 12:22:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BT,

We know you have no scientific qualifications by your lack of specificity. It is obvious you have not understood a damn thing that others have posted here and it is thus obvious that you haven't even read and understood the two outdated climate propaganda dregs foisted on us.

Whatever you're selling BT, we don't want it!

ITM, here's how to calculate that the Tropical Atlantic(TWA) lost 50% heat between May-11 and July-31 this yearcompared to 2005:

Sea Surface heat content, M*S*dT, that heat available to hurricane formation, is dependent on the temperature difference, dT between the sea surface and a nominal depth of say 20 metres.

First subtract the 20metre data from the sea surface temperature for both 2005 and 2006 SST maps.
Then subtract the 2005 SST maps from their corresponding 2006 map (dT)and integrate over all pixels in the region defined as the TWA, it is proportional to the difference in sea surface heat content between the same times 2005/2006.

The computed value approaches the 50% mark 2005/2006 at around July 31, within the error limits of the relevant parameters.

Conversely, at May 11, the Gulf of Mexico had substantially more SS heat this year than 2005. At that time I, and most meteorologists rightly predicted a worse hurricane season this year than last year.

What has changed in the M*S*dT computation is that the value of S (specific heat capacity dependent on colloids and other pollutants) of surface waters has changed. This allows less heat to be trapped in surface waters and more heat to be released in continual drifts towards the Nth East Atlantic. That that occurred this year is on record with the number of sub hurricane storms reaching record levels this year.

Do I have to spell out what that means for the TWA region? Waste managers and individuals all over the TWA have cleaned up wastewater emissions in the face of a very grave hurricane threat to their way of life.

AND ITS PAID OFF FOR THEM.
Posted by KAEP, Tuesday, 24 October 2006 4:48:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think most logical people agree that our climate is being affected by human activity.It is all a matter of disciphering which part of our climate is cyclical and which part represents long term change due to our activities.

I can remember in the sixties when we had a run of summers that had extremely hot weeks of 40 degrees celsius plus in Sydney every day.We could be at the moment experiencing such a hot cycle.

If fossil fuels are the main culprit then we are in a catch 22 delimma.Billions of people will starve if we dramatically reduce fossil fuel usage since there are no immediate viable alternatives.Who is going to tell China or India to reduce their economic activity?

Don't forget that fossil fuels we are burning now were once vegetation that took carbon dioxide from the air.The world must have been a much hotter place then and animals survived.

The most important issue I see is that of world population growth.All countries have to take a more pro-active role since a finite Earth cannot possibly keep us all in the manner that we emulate on the big screen.

I don't want to be around for the ensuing world chaos if extreme,rapid climate change is upon us.Imagine the millions of refugees,disease,murder and mayhem.Suicide tablets would be a big seller,perhaps the big drug companies could make a last killing before the final curtain.

But in the meanwhile,"Always look on the bright side of life.When your chewing on life's gristle,just give a whistle,life's a lark and death's a joke that's true...."
Posted by Arjay, Wednesday, 25 October 2006 7:06:00 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Always look on the bright side of life.When your chewing on life's gristle,just give a whistle,life's a lark and death's a joke that's true...." ??

How insensitive to the plight of drought stricken farmers.

I'd like to see Arjay make that case in the pub out at Parkes, Walgett or Wagga.

In the Meantime, look at the current SHA map of coastal NSW:

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/trinanes/tmp/sha1161748869.gif

Observe the large red and blue splodges off the NSW coast, mostly coming visibly from the Macleay river, Sydney, Newacastle, Bega and Eden.

That pollution is a result of Howard's push to subjugate the NSW population with unnecessary immigration. It is this immigration policy that accounts for a significant proportion of the wastewaters entering the Tasman Sea off NSW. That coastal pollution is HIGH ENTROPY in nature and thus by the Second Law of Thermodynamics attracts LOW entropy heat and moisture out of the NSW heartland where it should be involved in convective processes that deliver seasonal rainfalls to farmers in inland NSW.

And while Howard is doling out relief cash to farmers and big noting himself, he no doubt secretly counts the days to when all the small farmers die out and he can privatise agriculture in NSW.

So while you look on the bright side Arjay, everyone else is looking at Howard to see which move he will make next to stuff up the quality of life of this nation in the name of economic progress and wealth on a string when he cynically knows that the only economic progress is in mining.

When I see those SHA extremes flatten out off the NSW coast, only then will I look on any bright side because I'll know that the rains are coming, the drought is about to break and bushfires will be hard pressed to find somewhere to burn.

And speaking of drear, who wants to bet that Scully's replacement will be yet another Italian. So much for Democracy in NSW!
Posted by KAEP, Thursday, 26 October 2006 3:44:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Arjay – I am with you. When we stop laughing at life, the world will be a worse place.

Maybe that is what is wrong with the whole climate warming issue, it is being managed by people who do not laugh or seem to have emotions. The whole thing is one of those huge socialist sackcloth and ashes parades of people afraid to smile or laugh, fearsome of what might happen next and trying to live life safely and securely in a world which never changes. Oh bring on the self flagellation.

They worry about global warming, trying to ensure it does not happen, when they do not really know if it is a short or long term issue or what really to do about it anyway, other than make a penance to the weather god by walking to work or only eating beans.

I agree too, world population is out of control. The developed world is “population stable”, the underdeveloped world is not. That is fact. No might be’s or may be’s.

Stop the population explosion and the rest of the problems disappear.

Now all we need is to get those patronizing do-gooders behind it and we might, just might, stand a chance.

As for the suicide tablets – maybe invest there – I always reckoned an “end of the earth insurance” policy was a good one to try too. For me though, no pills, if things get really desperate, Thelma and Louise showed the way, although I do like the Caddie, for me, substitute a Bentley (the next car I intend to buy).

Oh KAEP – I enjoy your posts, except the last one, loosen up dude. The farmers of every state did not give a toss as they bought the foreign imported tractors and harvesters and the Sunshine factory went down the tubes. Farmers should start to realize, they are not a sacred cow which we need to indulge and maintain for posterity, they are part of the changing world and that means sometimes what they used to do is not going to work
Posted by Col Rouge, Thursday, 26 October 2006 5:50:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It never ceases to amaze me how the truely Dark Forces you represent Col - are capable of spinning the plain truth into a load of maccartyist nonsense about socialist and the communist threat (as if anybody care – but you obviously miss the good old days of the cold war) and twist it all into your masters – the big industry’s - everlasting tune of - ‘don’t worry be happy – just carry on – let us use and abuse nature!
Posted by Mr Ristinge, Thursday, 26 October 2006 9:18:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The choir of people who has been allowed for years now to freely put their spins on reality and twist the mind of the public and ruling politicians in Washington and Canberra – and their little followers such as Dr Carter, and the Stephanys’ and Cols’ – are all nothing but good and obedient servants of the dark and evil forces of greed and narrow-mindedness that drives certain parts of big industry!

Yet don’t be too hard on them - they don’t know better.

Most of them are city-slickers at heart if not by fact – they do truly believe that true nature is urban backyards and that it is certain big-industry generosity, high share prises and what they term as “good economy” that pays for the high-life, pools and air condition they enjoy. Life just seems like that to them.

Truth is they are not yet aware that it really is nature that pays their monthly bills!
Posted by Mr Ristinge, Thursday, 26 October 2006 11:07:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes Col,there was some satire there that illuded KAEP.I agree that Kaep does make a great contribution to debate,however before we all fall into an absolute depression and despair,we have to get our facts right.It is no good we in Aust.punishing ourselves when we make up less than 0.03% of the world's pop.

The really big polluters are all in the Northern Hemisphere and economic rankings should have nothing to do with restraint.Countries that let their populations run amuck have to shoulder that burden.We have given aid too freely and now billions more will suffer.How is that being kind?
Posted by Arjay, Thursday, 26 October 2006 6:02:01 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
KAEP,

Re: "BT, We know you have no scientific qualifications by your lack of specificity."

I have a Bachelor of Science and post graduate qualifications in an area which one might describe as applied science. (I am not a climate scientist). Pull your head in.
Posted by BT, Thursday, 26 October 2006 8:29:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mr Ristinge “little followers such as Dr Carter, and the Stephanys’ and Cols’ – are all nothing but good and obedient servants of the dark and evil forces of greed and narrow-mindedness”

Oh I like that , I am the follower of “dark and evil forces”.

Next you will claim I sacrifice children and new born lambs and drink their blood.

Mr Ristinge you sound as paranoid as the trolls who stalk trades hall and demand the right to command and direct the proletariat.

As for “Truth is they are not yet aware that it really is nature that pays their monthly bills!”

Here is the real difference in our view.
I suspect Mr Ristinge is the sort who demands we all live in identical and primitive misery, where we go to bed at sundown because the power stations have closed to “preserve human existence”.

And that is what Mr Ristinge offers, “existence”.

Forget “life” and expression and choice. You have his permission to “exist” and no more, at an abject level and oh innovation, development, management of resources, that is all disallowed because it is “against nature”.

I know what pays my monthly bills, it is not “big business”, it is my own effort.

I suspect I do just as much to support the nature and the environment as you.

It is the nature of man is to “manage nature” and manage is environment. That is why we live in house instead of caves. Europe has been “managed” for at least 2 millennia.

We are supported by “nature” but simply because not all of us share your apparent desire to tear down the institutions which make much of commerce possible does not make us “anti-nature”.

It just makes you look stupid for suggesting such a thing.

I suggest you go find a “spinning Jenny” to destroy.

Arjay – I could never understand why Kyoto placed restraint on some and not on all nations. I figure, ultimately we all breath the same air. Yes, fix “population” and the rest is miraculously fixed too
Posted by Col Rouge, Saturday, 28 October 2006 9:09:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col,

Surely the fact that the fast-growing Asian countries were exempt from Kyoto is a clear acknowledgement that the science of global warming is NOT compelling.

For if it were true that human emissions were going to damage the planet dangerously, or beyond repair, then when on earth would some the largest culprits want to be exempted? Why would China and India (not to mention US and Australia) want to subject their own and other peoples to grave damage - and why would the other nations of the world permit them to contribute towards damage to all - if it was certain, or even highly likely, that the damage would be (i) human caused, (ii) irreparable, and (iii) preventable?

None of points (i) to (iii) can be proven, because not only can no-one show that severe climate damage is on the way, but also no-one can show that any (global) human-caused climate change is taking place at all!

Given that the basis of the warming alarmism is circumstantial evidence, alarmist speculation and computer games playing, it is no wonder that India, China etc. insisted on being exempted from imposing damage on their growing economies in pursuit of the chimera of "controlling climate".

It seems to have escaped the notice of many that in addition to becoming more innovative and successful at industrial production, the Asian countries are also investing immensely in education and research. In other words they are becoming smarter, and are now much too smart to sign up to unprovable climate alarmism.

Cathy
Posted by Cathy, Saturday, 28 October 2006 3:51:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BT

Still nonspecific and now impotent.

Go Figure!

People coming here and trying to sell something under the thin veil of a discredited global warming theory need to look at the evidence I present and think for themselves.

ITM evidence on paltry fish catches has come to light supporting the claim that SHA extremes at coastal areas off Macleay river(affecting Coffs), Sydney/Newcastle/Wollongong(affecting Hawkesbury and Shaoalhaven) and Bega/Eden are tied to OVERPOPU:ATION and increased wastewater egress from these locations. These are the very locations I have been witnessing to coastal abnormalities associated with wastewater pollutants.

NSW SHA map Oct 28: http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/trinanes/tmp/sha1162030295.gif

Looking at yesterday's SHA map, only those ports on the NSW coast are showing extreme SHAs. Despite nonsense claims of the coastal rivers and their hatcheries drying up, there is more than enough evidence that POLLUTANTS, causing those extreme SHA features, are poisoning fingerlings before maturity. This is especially noticeble around Coffs where the Macleay river continually spews out detergent froth used on farms to break down poor soils.How are fish going to live in that muck, let alone breed?

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/prices-soar-as-stocks-of-fish-dry-up/2006/10/28/1161749358865.html

History is NOW beginning the long process of judging NSW state governments and the iniquitous John Howard in their push to create immigrated profits for a few at the expense of our environment and at the expense of true democratic values. Bushfire, drought and depleted fish stocks are just the beginning of the environmental damage.

Even if current governments KNEW (twice now since OCT 1 there have been days where the SHA extremes have flattened out) that coastal wastewaters were the cause they would be too shame-faced to clean up the problem because it would not only highlight their role, but also take away the biggest bugaboo they have in controlling and farming the Australian population. Farming it on behalf of nepotistic ambition and on behalf of global corporations. If you don't believe we are being farmed then look at your mobile phone bills and ever increasing road toll schemes (which despite the current government loathing, will magically be reinvigorated post NSW election, whoever wins).
Posted by KAEP, Sunday, 29 October 2006 12:07:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kaep

I'm exhausted perusing all your posts on ocean pollution. I haven't yet learnt of what action you are taking to mitigate the results of wastewater dumping.

Have you approached your local Department of Environment, MP, or met with the Minister for the Environment?

Have you been successful in forming a committee of like-minded citizens where you have requested from your Minister, full participation from the DoE and access to relevant documentation?

Have you officially appealed to the Minister against Licensing Conditions of those industries which are permitted to dump in your area?

If you've received any encouraging advice from any of the above officials, have you been advised where the wastewater will be re-directed to?

Do you know what chemicals the wastewater contains and what specific industries are dumping?

Is wastwater monitored for dangerous chemicals and is there a capping on these pollutants?

Do you realise that changes to environmental/industrial legislation is a result of senior environmental officers' advice to parliament? Are you aware that Departments of Environment defend pollutant industries - not the environment?

Are you aware that any new legislation on pollution will be as arcane as the previous one?!

When you advise that some ocean areas show a reduction in wastewaters, do you realise that this is only temporary?

Can I presume that you and I are in agreement that human activities produce climate change?
Posted by dickie, Sunday, 29 October 2006 1:49:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Many posts ago I was told that the relationship between an increase in Temperature is related to the logarithm of the incremental change in CO2 concentration.

If this is the case a change of CO2 from say 10 ppm to 50 ppm is in terms of the natural logarithm a change from 2.303 to 3.912 or an increment of (3.912-2.303)/2.303 that is about 70%.

On the other hand a change from say 300 ppm +/- 50 ppm is in percentage terms represents a drop in temperature of about 3.2% or an increase of 2.7%.

This surely raises the question is such widespread disruption of industrial activities justified for such a small changes in incremental temperature.

I appreciate that these are crude calculations and that the climate scientists have much more sophisticated models. However, I could not resist doing a few simple sums on the back of the proverbial envelope.

I would be interested to have the views of experts in this area.
Posted by anti-green, Sunday, 29 October 2006 7:25:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061024/ts_nm/environment_wwf_planet_dc

Humans on this planet are living way beyond their means, and if WE don't take the moral repsonsibility to change our own habits we will tip the scales. You don't have to be a genius to figure that out. But of course, don't tell this to people who wish to live in denial regarding anthropogenic climate change in order to distance themselves from their part in it, or who are in the service of those who profit from that inconvenient truth who spout out information and numbers specifically designed to go over everyone's heads.

And Mr. Carter, the title of Mr. Gore's very important movie is An INCONVENIENT Truth, not an uncertain truth. I would think you could have been more professional in writing this, realizing that if anyone were to write a critique of a project you put your heart and soul into that you would expect that they would at least not mock the title for their own agenda... and doing that gave yours away loud and clear. Mock Al Gore because he came to Australia to tell your boss PM Howard that Australia must come into the 21st Century on this issue. Amazing how your govt can't face climate change, but has no trouble in joining with Bush to fight a war based on LIES. So much for TRUTH, eh?

I also just read an article where it stated that farmers in Australia are committing suicide because of the worst drought in 100 years, because they have lost everything. Perhaps your focus should then be on doing something about this grave issue instead of mocking a good man who sees what this crisis is doing to our world.
Posted by JayM, Sunday, 29 October 2006 11:37:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I would like to disagree with Cathy’s claim (Posted Friday, 13 October 2006) that a doubling of CO2 will only lead to a warming of 0.5 C or less (enough to cancel the 3.7 W/m^2 IR radiative flux). She states that ‘The only way that you can make further CO2 increases alarming is to adopt the IPCC technique of assuming that additional small increments of CO2 will causes a strong water vapour feedback loop.’

The IPCC technique (actually the global climate model approach) does not assume a water vapor feedback. Instead they assume that the laws of physics and chemistry apply to the global climate system. These laws are represented mathematically (Navier-Stokes equation, equations of state, radiative transfer equation, etc) in various degrees of approximation and solved on a global grid (land surface, atmosphere and ocean). The water vapor feedback is a natural consequence of increased evaporation (principally from the oceans) associated with warming the surface. The vapor pressure of water depends strongly (exponentially) on temperature, so to balance the increase associated with a warmer surface the atmosphere water vapor concentration increases. The increase of water vapor in the atmosphere adds to the downward IR flux beyond the CO2 value, and so on. The present stable of climate models disagree on how much additional warming occurs and that is why there is such a large spread in model projections of the warming caused by CO2 increases.

Cathy assumes that there will be no water vapor feedback effect. Somehow the increase in water vapor pressure that results from warming the surface will be miraculously cancelled out by other (unnamed) processes in the climate system.

So the question is, do you want to put your faith in climate models or, like Cathy, do you want to believe in miracles?

Bruneaux
Posted by bruneaux, Friday, 17 November 2006 9:33:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Answers to questions from about article by Bob Carter.

'Why has global temperature not increased since 1998 despite continuing increases in carbon dioxide?'.
Apparently Dr. Carter doesn't read the scientific literature [K. A. Shein and 96 coauthors, State of the Climate in 2005, Special supplement to the Bulleting of the American Meteorological Society, Vol 97, No. 6, June 2006]. 2005 is now the warmest year on record (page S7). 1998 held the previous record because of a strong El Nino;. 2005 was 0.25 C warmer than 1999.

'And why is the Arctic region no warmer now than it was in the 1930s?'
The warmest year on record in the Arctic is 2003, which was 0.5 C warmer than the warmest year (1938) in the Arctic during the 1930's (Figure 5.2, same reference). In fact, the average Arctic temperature for the first five years of the 2000's is 0.7 C warmer than the average for the 1930's.

I would also like to comment on Dr. Carter's qualifications taken from his vita http://myprofile.cos.com/glrmc where he states defines his qualifications ‘include taxonomic palaeontology, palaeoecology, the growth and form of the molluscan shell, New Zealand and Pacific geology, stratigraphic classification, sequence stratigraphy, sedimentology, the Great Barrier Reef, Quaternary geology, and sea-level and climate change.'

Note that Dr. Carter's expertise is in the paleo-climate and the interpretation of past climate from sediments on time scales of millions of years. This has nothing to do with the physics and chemistry of the processes that drive the Earth's climate system. He has never published a single paper in the Journal of Geophysical Research, the Quaterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, or any of the nine journals of the American Meteorlogical Society. These journals contain 95% of the scientific discourse on the climate system.

Bruneaux
Posted by bruneaux, Friday, 17 November 2006 9:49:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 12
  7. 13
  8. 14
  9. All

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