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

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!

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?

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.

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

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.