Yes Bob, and the Sun orbits the Earth and evolution is a myth.

The validity of GCMs in accurately predicting climate is dubious, admittedly.

But does this negate the science that suggests that human emissions are contributing? Or does it just call into question the severity of the problem?

If the science that claims we are adding to the cause is sound, then surely it makes sense to begin to make moves at lessening that contribution. Any real, long term solution to this must be compatible with capitalism and rule of law - as anyone of sound mind can clearly see it can't be left up to business and individuals to address the problem. In light of that, legislation and a carbon tax seem like viable long term, structural changes to our system which will ensure future contributions are kept as low as possible - so we don't get 10 or 20 or 30 years down the track and realise it's too late to 'turn on a dime'.

Yes, Bob Carter - someone should tell John Howard, and Kevin Rudd, about these new revelations - that apparently we don't need to worry about carbon emissions and global warming any more.
In that case - well, it still wouldn't hurt to have renewable energy sources - as they are becoming ever less costly - and the fuel (sun, wind, wave, heat in rocks -) is free.And, we can still save money by energy efficiencies.

And in that case, neither Australia, nor any other country needs nuclear power. Yet - I have an awful suspicion that our noble political leaders don't really care about saving the world from global warming.

So - I guess they'll keep this discovery a secret, and go right on helping their corporate backers to make billions out of uranium and receiving international nuclear wastes - to dump on aboriginal land.
Christina Macpherson www.antinuclearaustralia.com

and 'concerned activists' like chrism will go on shrugging her verbal shoulders and saying "nothing to be done."

Kenny

U certainly nearly go the second part right. Evolution might not be a myth but it is a hopelessly discreditted scientific theory.

So the sum total of the professor's argument is that predicting the weather is not easy, often inaccurate and varies?

"Prediction" of climate change has to do with trends. If I "predict" that the weather is going to get warmer over the next month yet give inaccurate predictions that doesn't mean that the trend is incorrect.

Dr. Kevin Trenberth's comments are quite accurate. Modelled climate change works on "all other factors being equal". They cannot, and should not, try to account for variables such as changes in human behaviour. They can only operate with "if x goes on then y is the likely result". Anything else would simply not be good science.

It still surprises me that people who conduct scientific research on their day-to-day lives often appear not to know what constitutes the scientific method and therefore how to interpret scientific data. Perhaps the old criticism of "glorified bean counters", in some cases, is not inaccurate.

"If I 'predict' that the weather is going to get warmer over the next month yet give inaccurate predictions that doesn't mean that the trend is incorrect."
Ahhh yes it does...you predicted it was going to get warmer and it didn't...therefore the trend is either negative (opposite trend) or nil. Also Kevin Trenberth didn't say GCM's are not predicting the weather, he said climate. How often have you heard the argument from the warmers that weather and climate are different. In fact to quote realclimate.com "Although ultimately chaos will kill a weather forecast, this does not necessarily prevent long-term prediction of the climate. By climate, we mean the statistics of weather, averaged over suitable time and perhaps space scales (more on this below)."
This statement is a nonesense as well, as chaos will ultimately kill a long-term prediction as well.

"They can only operate with 'if x goes on then y is the likely result'. Anything else would simply not be good science."
Actually I think Kevin Trenberth is saying that 'if x goes on then y MAY result'

I think you may need to re-read the article Lev.

"GCMs 'assume linearity'"
This is another frightening admission. When was the global climate system ever linear? I may have just as well used my ruler and drawn a temperature trend line from 1900 and projected it to 2100. The result will be just as likely as the GCMs. Should we change our lifestyles on my hand drawn trendline?

"Evolution might not be a myth but it is a hopelessly discreditted scientific theory."
runner is bible basher..look out!

The politically motivated scare campaign on climate will eventually be proven to be a gigantic hoax.

Unfortunately, the con trick will run long enough to enable the social engineers to gain more control over a docile, gullible population, and increase the wealth of energy providers who will use the permission given to them by governments to jack up their prices in the name of development of 'climate-friendly' alternatives, which don't exist and which are not needed anyway.

Climate change there may be, but anyone who tells you it is man made is a confidence trickster, and you will be forced to pay dearly for your electricity and water merely to put more of your money into the pockets of big business - mainly foreign controlled.

Weather forecasters cannot even tell us whether or not is is safe to put out the washing tomorrow; yet we, fools that we are, believe their wild predicitions for 50 years hence!

Apart from the money-making opportunities of climate change scare-mongering, there is also the opportunity of moving closer to world government - we must all get together, must we not, on the "greatest threat to mankind"

@alzo

-quote-
"GCMs 'assume linearity'"
This is another frightening admission. When was the global climate system ever linear? I may have just as well used my ruler and drawn a temperature trend line from 1900 and projected it to 2100. The result will be just as likely as the GCMs. Should we change our lifestyles on my hand drawn trendline?
-quote-

Apart from the fact that linearity in climate change means linearity in time series. An example of comparative time series can be found in the following PhD thesis on http://www.hydromap.com/publications/ames_thesis_complete.pdf. The suggestion of "use a ruler and draw a temperature trend" by the professor is remarkable dishonest.

@leigh

You're quite right. The One World Government black helicopters are coming for YOU. Keep your tinfoil hat secure, or the orbital mind-control lasers will get you!

Bob,
Could you please email your piece to the 1,600 scientists half of whom are Nobel prize winner in their field who presented a report to the UN in 1991 telling us what was to come. Prolonged droughts! more severe Hurricanes/Cyclones, Katrina, Larry etc. Bob you're the best mate, all that knowledge [more than 1,600 combined scientists] and nowhere to put it except here, oh by the way Bob I've heard the Earth is flat, is that true?

Wrong SHONGA. Only 787 Nobel Prizes have been awarded in all fields since 1901.

Richard,
Thanks for the nit pick the fact remains some of the 1,600 scientists had a Nobel prize, the balance were leaders in their fields. Why do we educate children to become doctors? When we are ill we seek their advice.

Other intellegent people go on to become scientists who create medical break throughs, we believe them. However as soon as the scientists give us the truth that we don't want to hear, all of a sudden they are a pack of raving ratbags.

Obviously vested interests are at work trying to discredit the work of the scientists, my only vested interests are my children, and their children. If someone can produce scientific proof that we don't need to act urgently to save the planet, let them come forth, no I thought not.

Not a nit pick, SHONGA. A correction of a grossly misleading claim. Of our 787 winners, about 330 were in Physics and Chemistry. Of those, a large proportion were deceased by 1991. Presumably, not all of those living signed your report, leaving, at best, a small fraction of your numbers. If you respect science, you wouldn't call that nit picking, nor would you brand Bob Carter a flat earther.

Two of those 787 laureates were Australia’s Robin Warren and Barry Marshall in 2005, who challenged a long held consensus that stomach ulcers were caused by physiological stress. The culprit is now believed to be bacterial. How did centuries of medicine miss that?Discovering this does not make "rat bags" of all those doctors who came before them. The best scientists can be wrong, but the best of the best openly invite others to prove them so. That's how science progresses.

"If someone can produce scientific proof that we don't need to act urgently to save the planet, let them come forth...." (SHONGA,4:38:22 PM)

Ah there speaks a true believer.

Climate changes all the time. The changes can be fast or slow. We would agree that human activity is making a difference to climate. Most of us would agree that keeping climate changes relatively stable or slow changing is a good thing to do. Now we have the ability to influence climate let us work towards trying to keep the climate about the same or if it must change let us try to influence is so that change happens slowly. We know that increasing green house gases will change the climate because it has happened before. We have the technology to stop the increase and even reduce greenhouse gases. It would seem prudent to do so while we work on the exact details of how great the change in climate will be.

Typical of Bob Carter, he continues to promote the ongoing pollution of the planet.

Clearly, he is opposed to any carbon tax or trading describing that proposal as ineffective and costly.

Whether one accepts anthropogenic carbon is interfering with climate or not, the continuing excessive man-made emissions are desecrating all eco systems and that's scientific!

Carter clearly has little knowledge of the science of carbon based emissions or other hazardous chemicals which pollutant industries are recklessly dumping on our environment, already struggling to sustain the health of all life forms on this planet.

Carter's irresponsible recommendation to keep polluting simply gives humans two choices:

1. All life forms will be struggling to survive due to climate change created by excessive CO2

AND/OR

2. All life forms will be struggling to survive due to anthropogenic pollution.

I'll put my money on the IPCC's recommendations, thanks! At least we may avoid having to wear gas masks and respirators!

I find it interesting in following Professor Bob Carter's links and published works that he appears to specialise in geology. As one who works in the energy sector, and who relies on digging up and burning coal for an income, I am curious as to Bob's motives in adopting the role of climate sceptic. I note that there is much to learn about past climate trends from geology. But I also know for a fact that folks such as he are well paid by mining, petroleum and energy industries to spruik long and often on dubious assertions denying that there may be a need to change tack. His publications are in journals well read by those carbon-reliant interests. So Bob, others have declared that their interests include human and ecological well being - what is yours?

It is widely acknowledged that the editor of this site is similarly minded, hence the 'balanced' postings. Similar sentiments are also found in the mainstream media, largely due to the fact that sustainability is not newsworthy, and will not get ratings or sell papers. A 1400MW power station rates better than 140,000 homes with panels and a little gas turbine.

The evidence is overwhelming that something needs to give – and the alternative is not detrimental to the economy, with current modelling showing that a do nothing option is actually more harmful. The petroleum and mining interests, who recently begrudgingly handed over a measly few hundred million bucks for a clean coal pilot plant (after Peter Beattie beat them over the head) have a lot more to lose.

So Bob, what is the harm in developing this nation as a leader in solar panel research and construction rather than letting the Germans provide them to us? What is the harm in moving away from baseload generation to more reliable, stable and diverse embedded generation from solar homes, local wind, run of river hydro, or even, dare I say it, demand management and energy efficiency. How can walking, riding or getting transit to work be worse than driving? Honestly, you are too much!

Bob,

You silly old bugger, why did you misrepresent Trenberth's post? It's very bad manners to misrepresent someone AND not give a link to the original. So first of all, here's the link:

http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/06/predictions_of_climate.html

What is Trenberth actually saying?

More investigation is required, and that:

"[we must] face up to the challenge of building a climate information system that tracks the current climate and the agents of change, that initializes models and makes predictions, and that provides useful climate information on many time scales regionally and tailored to many sectoral needs"

However, lest anyone (and I am looking at you Bob) thinks that global warming isn't a major risk that must be addressed, Trenberth goes on to say:

"A consensus has emerged that “warming of the climate system is unequivocal” to quote the 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Working Group I Summary for Policy Makers (pdf) and the science is convincing that humans are the cause. Hence mitigation of the problem: stopping or slowing greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere is essential. The science is clear in this respect."

Bob, finding that you have taken Trenberth out of context doesn't fill me with confidence that your other quotes aren't similarly massaged to conform to your pre-existing belief system.

sjk

Many thanks for your informative post and the Trenberth link - a link which Bob Carter "omitted" to advise of in his article.

That link was enlightening and re-affirmed my previous conviction - Carter's a fraud!

Bob Carter has been tenaciously holding onto the 'there is nothing to worry about' view at least since 2003, when his first article appeared in OLO.

It would take a bit more than two researchers, as with the stomach ulcer rethink in Medicine, for a publically vocal scientist to modify or change a held position. At least in public.

Thank goodness, people like him are being ignored more and more by those who matter

Bob Carter, at the end of his waffle, says;

“Yet Australia has an Opposition and a Government that profess to set their climate policies on the basis of IPCC advice. Both also seem determined to impose an inefficient, ineffective and costly carbon trading or taxation system on the economy, for the aspirational absurdity of ‘stopping climate change’… Perhaps someone should tell Prime Minister John Howard that dangerous global warming has been called off.”

Bob Carter has to understand that countries of differing political ideologies all over the world are trying to address the problems of GW – not just Australia.

Maybe Bob himself should tell all their leaders “that dangerous global warming has been called off.”

Bob, you know all these countries are signatories to the UNFCCC, maybe at the same time you should tell the United Nations that they too have got it all wrong about GW. Bob, be brave, you might even get a Nobel!

Of course, Bob has tried before to tell our government that GW is a beat-up (through right-wing think-tanks who, like the Lavoisier Group, adopt strategies to subvert the science behind climate change for the purpose of power and control). Hey Bob, It seems that even our John Dubya is a climate change realist these days.

Bob, I appreciate your value judgements on carbon trading and taxation. However, some other learned people say the economy will be very resilient to these changes; they just need some goal posts to aim for.

Further, other learned professionals are saying our future economy would be really stuffed if we don’t act now – to me it would be absurd not to hedge your bets, even if you don’t believe in GW.

Some people have issue with the IPCC (like Bob Carter). Some scientists have a contrarian view to GW and GHG (like Bob Carter), so be it – I hope they get a Nobel one day too (like Bob Carter).

But Richard is right, even the best can be wrong sometimes, although they don’t like to admit it.

Thanks sjk for the link to Trenbreth's article. The fact that we cannot predict what is going to happen is even more reason to start to reduce emissions. Some of the other scenarios on what could happen are scarier than a mere rise in sea level by a 100 meters or so.

The only reason I have seen not to reduce emissions appears to be the so-called economic impact. If you think climate predictions are inaccurate take a look at the economic predictions.

My economic prediction is that changing to a non fossil fuel burning economy will bring significant economic benefit. The reason is simple.

Oil and coal are valuable compounds. Use them for plastics, food, building materials etc. gives greater economic value than burning them.

The ONLY reason that non renewables are said to be more expensive than burning fossil fuel is that non renewables require more investment money. The ONLY reason that investment money is expensive is the human invented discount rate. Change the discount rate and we change the economic argument.

A possible way to tackle climate change immediately is to make interest rates low on investments in renewables and to compensate the lenders with money from a carbon tax.

@dickie
"All life forms will be struggling to survive due to climate change created by excessive CO2"
Like they struggled in the Jurassic when CO2 was over 2000ppm? Hardly any life forms around then was there.

@Justin W
"with current modelling showing that a do nothing option is actually more harmful."
As Kevin Trenberth pointed out, the current models are very crude and don't actually predict climate. Maybe doing too much may be the more harmful option.

@sjk
"lest anyone (and I am looking at you Bob) thinks that global warming isn't a major risk that must be addressed"
You better look at Michael Griffin the boss of NASA...he doesn't seem to think its a major risk that needs to be addressed (much to James Hansen's chagrin). I personally agree with Griffins too.

@dickie
"That link was enlightening and re-affirmed my previous conviction - Carter's a fraud!"
Ha! As if you would ever think otherwise you sheep.

@yvonne
"Thank goodness, people like him are being ignored more and more by those who matter"
Sorry did you say something?

@Fickle Pickle
"The ONLY reason that non renewables are said to be more expensive than burning fossil fuel is that non renewables require more investment money."
Oh I thought it was more about energy in versus energy out. Maybe thats why they require more investment money. I think you'll find oil and coal are a long way ahead.

sjk,

Excellent post. You are quite correct. Bob is misrepresenting Trenberth's position. I recommend that everyone read Trenberth's actual blog using the link you so helpfully posted.

It's a case of here we go again.

There is only one way to be certain what will be the effects of adding CO2 and other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. That's to keep pumping them out and see what happens. If we had a few planets to spare that's what we'd do.

Right now we're faced with the following situation.

The science of climate change is uncertain. We cannot be sure what will happen if we keep adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.

The weight of evidence available today suggests that adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere will do us damage. How much damage and who will suffer the damage is uncertain.

SO WE HAVE TO MAKE DECISIONS UNDER UNCERTAINTY.

Guess what.

We ALWAYS have to make decisions under uncertainty.

We can almost never wait for certainty before making important decisions.

In business we have a term for people who demand certainty before they will take a decision. We call it:

ANALYSIS PARALYSIS

Right now the rational course of action is:

--Take steps to limit greenhouse gas emissions; and

--Adapt to possible climare change as best we can.

1% of GDP as suggested by the Stern report seems a reasonable insurance premium given the current state of knowledge.

Uncertainty is a reason for caution. It is not a reason for inaction or for ignoring what evidence is available.

I too will join the chorus of voices, congratulating sjk on the excellent link.

I would be interested in how the good professor responds to the following facts:

Global warming is an observed fact of the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere and oceans. In the 20th century the near-surface atmospheric temperature rose 0.6 °Celsius and particularly sharply in the last fifty years. This variation is more significant than the "medieval warm period" of the 11 century, and is about the same as the "little ice age" of 16th to mid-19th centuries.

The overwhelming scientific opinion is, as expressed by the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the U.S. National Research Council, the American Metereological Society, and, as reported in Science in 2004, 100% of revelant articles from referreed scientific journals from 1999 to 2003, is that most of recent warming is due to human activity, especially the increased release of "greenhouse gases" such as carbon dioxide, from the burning of fossil fuels, land clearing and agriculture. Greenhose gas emissions account for a +0.7 °C change to temperatures over the last 100 years, solar and ozone changes to +0.2 °C and +0.1 °C respectively, sulphates to -0.25 °C and volcanic activity -0.15 °C.

From 3,000 years ago to the start of the 19th century sea level was almost constant, rising at 0.1 to 0.2 mm per annum; since 1900 the level has risen at 1 to 3 mm per annum; since 1992 satellite altimetry indicates a rate of about 3 mm per annum]. Glacial retreat is almost universal (mainly sections of Scandavia excluded) with cumulative mean thickness declining by some 14 meters since the mid-1950s, with the most extreme instances in New Zealand.

Just a seasonal variation I suppose?

Lev,
I can tell you how he will react, he will try to baffle us with BS as usual. Bob may be out of touch or the rest of the world is, I tend to think it is Bob who fits the biblical term "there are none so blind as those who will not see."

"From 3,000 years ago to the start of the 19th century sea level was almost constant, rising at 0.1 to 0.2 mm per annum; since 1900 the level has risen at 1 to 3 mm per annum; since 1992 satellite altimetry indicates a rate of about 3 mm per annum]." (Lev, Saturday, 30 June 2007 5:01:38 PM)

'Since 1900 the level has risen at 1 to 2 mm/yr; since 1992 satellite altimetry from TOPEX/Poseidon indicates a rate of rise about 3 mm/yr.[2] The IPCC notes, however, "No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected." [2]' (Wikipedia)

Whether the global temperature rise of the last 100 years is so steep that it can only be explained by attributing it solely to human activity is, at best, debatable. Why not consider that we are still emerging from the Little Ice Age?

All these contentious assertions are based on the assumption that conditions at 1900 represent some optimum.

Get used to it.

There is no 'optimum' sea level, there is no 'optimum' global temperature.
The Earth's climate system is an enormous, chaotic system (like the oceans) and, at present, is impossible to predict let alone control.

By the way, personal attacks on the author does not improve your case.

@Admiral
"All these contentious assertions are based on the assumption that conditions at 1900 represent some optimum."

No it doesn't. It simply reflects the fact that there is a correlation between global warming, rising sea levels and the prevalence of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

"There is no 'optimum' sea level, there is no 'optimum' global temperature."

Actually there is if you think about it. The optimum global temprature is the one which allows for life on the planet to flourish. The optimum sea level is the one which doesn't destory lives and livelihoods.

"By the way, personal attacks on the author does not improve your case."

If a scientist is unfamiliar with scientific methodology and is either engaging in deception or ignorance it is right and responsible to point this out. That is not a personal attack, but attacking the argument. A personal attack would be questioning (for example) his sexuality as a reason for why his argument is incorrect.

HTH HAND

Dickie said: "All life forms will be struggling to survive due to climate change created by excessive amounts of CO2."

Alzo retorts:

"Like they struggled in the Jurassic when CO2 was 2000ppm. Hardly any life forms around then was there."

Dewey McLean, Emeritus Prof. of Geology at Virginia Polytechnic University in Blacksburg; Paul R Renne Ph.D, geochronologist at the Inst. of Human Origins, Berkeley CA;
and Asish Basu, Prof.and Chair of Dept. of Geo. Sciences at the University of Rochester have written papers on the volcanism of the Siberian Traps and the Deccan traps in India.

Their recent theories have the scientists questioning previous hypotheses of extinctions, such as the asteroid theory.

These suitably qualified scientists are now attributing large previous animal extinctions to volcanic eruptions suggesting these were the major culprits behind the global warming,
caused by the volcanic sediment and ash, and the release of massive amounts of CO2.

"More than half of all marine families and most groups of mammal like reptiles were killed off - a total of some seventy percent.

"The dust blocked sunlight preventing plant photosynthesis, food chains collapsing or CO2 trapped the sun's heat sending temperatures on earth soaring and killing many forms of life.

"Earth's suficial systems with CO2 were faster than they could have absorbed it.

"People do not realise embryos are easily damaged by environmental heat and that the reproductive systems of mammalian embryos is currently being destroyed on a global scale by
greenhouse/embryo coupling."

It's estimated that some 30 million acres of forest are felled each year and there has been a 43% growth of CO2 in one hundred years.

At this rate CO2 levels would reach over a 1,000ppm in 3 centuries.

Of course humans (and other life forms) will only witness part of this event as they are slowly eliminated by being cooked to a crisp, as perhaps most life forms were, millions of years ago.

Luckily, volcanic activity currently accounts for only 1% of atmospheric CO2.

And do the sceptics on this thread greedily believe that humans can continue playing tit for tat with Mother Nature?

The company geodynamics (hot rocks) http://www.geodynamics.com.au claims to install generating capacity for $2500 per kw. Coal fired stations can be built for $1500 per kw. Coal's running costs is 2 cents per kwh. Geodynamics running cost is 1 cent per kwh. Assume both technologies have the same life of 30 years. A discount rate of 5% will give both the same economic return. A 20% discount rate gives at least 3 times the return on a coal investment than hot rocks and paradoxically if we introduce emissions trading it gives an even higher return for coal.
When you go to investors for money they want at least 20% or more return on investment and so "hot rocks" does not get the investment because the time value of money dominates the investment decisions.
There are "other economic worlds" where the time value is not so dominant. We cannot experiment with the planet because we only have one. We can experiment with economic worlds because they are our creation. Another way of tackling climate change is to create an economic world that results in less emissions but where the economy expands and we all get wealthier. It can be done.

Don't you ignorant buggers realise universal history has never had man and his modern technology on this earth before to stuff up nature.

For example, as herbage is said to be nature's way of clearing or exorbing injurious carbon from the atmosphere, what would be the outcome if all the tropical forests were cleared for agriculture?

Maybe we need to think more deeply and sensibly about it?

There is a saying that modern means of natural deep thought has been destroyed by computers etc, taking place of the most important part of the human brain - the deeper recesses of the brain - which work best when humans become deep in thought in a trance-like situation - technology now sadly having taken its place, which includes the lulling exciting music we now have the choice of on Foxtel TV, including human activity.

The above is not the ravings of a old maniac, seeing that such philosophy was written about by the Australian historian Geoffrey Serle, when he wrote about how the real creative spirit of Australia originally coming from the Australian outback, where people though under the stress of so-called hardship and loneliness, did have more time to create and analyse, thus the cover of his popular publication so bearing the title - From Deserts the Prophets Come.

Ah, bushbred – “From deserts the prophets come” – you malign the aspects of society from whence I was spawned.
One where there was time during the October storm period to wander into the rainforest and pillage an egg or two from a Scrub-turkey nest; during winter’s sunny days to scramble down into an open-forest patch in the gorge and count Amethystine Pythons - emerged from the scrub to sun themselves.
Three-score-years-and-ten from those free-ranging days - of togetherness with the local ecology - maybe I don’t need such crap, as I can watch it all on “reality TV” or a filmed documentary; while diabetically fixed to the lounge chair- propelled to that position with the assistance of McDonalds, Coke, and fast-processed meals.
We have progressed to such an era, past the silent movies, through the talkies – but thankfully not yet to the smellies.
More likely it is not just I, that has such need, but society in general.
Yes, it is essential to re-engage mentally and physically with our planet’s seething biological mass. A mass of which we are, as a temporary component during a fleeting millisecond of its geological time scale, in plague proportions.
If we do re-engage and get some common sense in relation to our society’s behavior, we will become cautious in this rush to shorten our fleeting geological millisecond of comfortable existence.
For two million years, geological imperatives have favored the genus Homo. For just a hundred thousand years it has favored Homo sapiens. Only in the fleeting past ten thousand has it enabled agriculture to develop and thrive.
Only in the last hundred years has our species multiplied at such vast rates – like lemmings or mice; expanding our numbers four-fold – in less than four generations. At the same time we have escalated our ability to throw our wastes into the oceans and air; unlocking, in a geological instant, millions of years of the earth’s stored carbon (coal, oil, vegetation, soil-embedded mycology) to active participation in climate matters.

What scientists worth their salt would tell us not to worry.

I wonder if Carter bothered to read Trenberth article (which he didn't link to, the article is here: http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/06/predictions_of_climate.html)
because, for my money, he misrepresents the article totally.

For one, Carter made much of the following:

"In fact there are no predictions by IPCC at all. And there never have been. The IPCC instead proffers “what if” projections of future climate that correspond to certain emissions scenarios"

This shouldn't come as news to anyone. We cannot accurately guess how much CO2 we will emit in 50 years. Stock-market crash? Breakthrough in some technology? All these could change CO2 emissions. As Trenberth says:

"They are intended to cover a range of possible self consistent “story lines” that then provide decision makers with information about which paths might be more desirable."

The article Trenberth wrote was primarily about the lack of long term, regional forecast models. We don't yet have models that work on short enough time or space scales. Real climate has a good post on the limits of the models:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/climate-models-local-climate/

"Global climate statistics, such as the global mean temperature, provide good indicators as to how our global climate varies. However, most people are not directly affected by global climate statistics. They care about the local climate; the temperature, rainfall and wind where they are. When you look at the impacts of a climate change or specific adaptations to a climate change, you often need to know how a global warming will affect the local climate."

There is a lot of work going on in this area, and the models have recently been able to represent El-Nino cycles, and a lot of other stuff they couldn't 5 years ago. But Trenberth's criticism is valid. He is not making a "confession" that the models are useless. They provide useful projections on what the global climate will be like under a range of senarios

Carter also engages in cherry picking. For instance, he neglects the following:

So if the science is settled, then what are we planning for and adapting to? A consensus has emerged that “warming of the climate system is unequivocal... and the science is convincing that humans are the cause. Hence mitigation of the problem: stopping or slowing greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere is essential. The science is clear in this respect.”

He should really present his own arguments, not misrepresent other's.

So how did the climate models do? A recent paper by James Hansen tested his (primitive by today's standards), 1988 model against the observed. It didn't do too badly. The paper can be found here:

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2006/Hansen_etal_1.html


Keep in mind that 20 years is not enough time to validate the model. But also keep in mind that the models have improved out of sight since then, and the essential nnumbers are unchanged.

Also keep in mind that the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming doesn't rely on models, it is mearly suplemented by them. The basic physics is clear in this case.

"They are intended to cover a range of possible self consistent “story lines” that then provide decision makers with information about which paths might be more desirable."
Story lines is a very apt term...no wonder Hollywood loves it.

"So how did the climate models do?"
Comparing to the satellite measurements of global temperature all three of Hansen's scenarios predicted the amount of warming to be greater than what was actually seen. If he is a little bit wrong in 20 years, he will be massively wrong in 100 years.
If instead comparisons are done to the surface temperature record, the closest match is Scenario C. Temperatures in Scenario C rise until 2005 and then begin to slowly decline.
Either way there is not much to worry about. Personally I'd go for the satellite measurements due to the bias in the surface temperature record (guess who is in charge of the surface temperature record).

"keep in mind that the models have improved out of sight since then, and the essential nnumbers are unchanged"
Bigger and bigger computers runing more and more complex models all based on dodgy assumptions. No wonder the results are unchanged.

"mammalian embryos is currently being destroyed on a global scale by
greenhouse/embryo coupling"
By 0.6 degrees? Yeah right dickie.

"Of course humans (and other life forms) will only witness part of this event as they are slowly eliminated by being cooked to a crisp"
I think you're done...bing!

THE REAL CLIMATE DYNAMIC

1. The atmosphere does NOT have the mass necessary to determine global warming or cooling patterns compared with the mass of the top 50 metres of ocean surfaces.

2. The greenhouse effect is overstated. Since when did a greenhouse spin at 1000 miles per hour. Since when did a greenhouse have an open top that allowed convective heat escape above and beyond any reradiative reheating. And further, unlike Earth, true greenhouse planets like Venus all have one thing in common ... they have very low rotational velocities and thus weak CONVECTION patterns to keep them cool.
SUMMARY Pt 2: The Earth is NOT a greenhouse

3. The biggest mass of human high entropy wastes is NOT emmitted to the atmosphere but into the oceans. A further suupplement of 40% of atmospheric gases like CO2 that are immeditely dissolved in those oceans.
Summary Pt 3: humans ARE affecting climate but through C.R.A.P. (Colloidal Recirculation of At-ocean-surface Pollutants) from over 3 billion people living on global coastlines, plus their attendant mining, industrial and agri waste footprints. The net effect of this C.R.A.P. is to HEAT the entire biosphere, including atmospheric systems, and it is directly proportional to human numbers living in coastal cities.

Continuing..

Continued..

4.The greatest bio-absorbers of heat on the planet are the ecosystems of the ocean surfaces. These ecosystems are being destroyed by human C.R.A.P. That means the capacity of the oceans to emit CO2 is increased, to absorb CO2 is decreased and to HEAT regional AIRSHEDS is increased dramatically. This SEEMS to be CO2 based global warming, however this effect depends on the rate of wastewater C.R.A.P. emission. When increasingly ASPiring Humans destroy each other in internecine competion for energy reserves by about 2025, C.R.A.P. emission rate will fall to pre industrial levels within days, not centuries. Any survivors will truly be left wondering at OUR global warming HOAX.

5. The effect of atmospheric heat on the ice caps is open to research. Because the poles are the lowest entropy (macromolecular crystallized ice) global masses, they DO NOT attract heat by the second Law of thermodynamics. What is observed is a circulation and gradual degradation of heat around polar oceans till it MATCHES quantum mechanical requirements for creating super cooled ice. Despite any incidental surface snow fluctuations, the underlying ice caps will increase under the action of CONVECTIVE heat flows provided no additional radiative sources are applied. Such radiative sources like volcanos or precessional solar exosure are the ONLY way that ice caps can ever melt. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is very specific in action and this possibility ought not be so surprising when all the current climate panic dies down.

**If you dump billions of litres of C.R.A.P. every year (including the brine from 250 megalitre DESALINATION plants) in your coastal oceans and expect low entropy 'ocean-cyclonic' or 'land-desert' based heat formations to ignore it, they will decimate your cities and your populations with storm or flood or drought just the same.

It's all in the second law of thermodynamics.

WEll you are all digging into a subject that is very complicated.

However one simple point;

The IPCC prediction or whatever you want to call it suggested
that the "Global Temperature" exactly what ever that means, will rise
by up to 4 deg C wasn't it ?

However that presumed that the hydrocarbon supply would be as growth
predicted. However that is nonsense, as hydrocarbons will be depleting.

As this is certain then there is absolutely no point in our reducing
CO2 emmissions, they will reduce faster than all the suggested rates
anyway !

That there is a climate change seems fairly certain, but it does not
look like we are to blame or can have any effect on it.

Bazz

You've failed to consider one important factor.

The impacts of the release of today's CO2, will not be evident for some 80 years or a even a century.

In other words, the specific release of that CO2 will remain fairly benign for some 100 years. Then humans will reap what their ancestors have sown - just like we are at present, though it will never be obvious to some!

Mind you, much of the atmospheric CO2 was once another toxic hydrocarbon chemical during the industrial process and most of those chemicals released to the environment are carcinogenic, mutagenic or teratogenic.

So just for the health of humans alone and our already depleted and contaminated eco systems, it is imperative that we immediately reduce CO2 emissions.

KAEP

Please point us to some published papers or particular web sites on your musings about CRAP - seriously.

It was interesting to read Trenberth's letter on the link provided in the comments. He was a lead author of an IPCC Summary,and it was his unprofessional conduct which caused Chris Landsea to dissociate himself from the IPCC, and its misleading and unscientific approach.

Landsea’s letter is here:
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/landsea.html

Trenberth has not reformed, but in rationalising his situation makes the assertion that the IPCC is not lying, but using weasel words.

Trenberth asserts that the Summary makes all its assertions on the basis of “what if”.

Bob Carter has simply pointed out that this amounts to a retraction of the assertions made by the IPCC in its Summary, which is perfectly correct.

Why the posters of comments on this article consider that there is some obligation on Bob Carter to deal with the rest of Trenberth’s peculiar assertions, defies reason, but it is obvious that reason plays little part in formulation of their criticisms of Carter. The accusations of "cherry picking" are puerile.

We should be grateful to Bob Carter for pointing out another example of where attempts by the IPCC to mislead have rebounded on them, and their apologist, Trenberth, has made the situation worse, by emphasising the situation.

Ahh, the Lavoisier Group, such a trustworthy organisation with no vested interets whatsoever.

Shares a 'phone number with the Bennelong Society, and a post-office box with the same and the HR Nicholls Society. Founded by an executive of Western Mining Corporation (WMC), and whose current VP is the Director of WMC Resources, whose Treasuer is the Director of the Clough mining and resource group.

And once accurately described as the "true fairies at the bottom of the garden"

http://www.uq.edu.au/economics/johnquiggin/news/Lavoisier0104.html

I believe the group is now following the "cyclical" weather theories of the astrologer Theodore Landscheidt.

IPCC "lying", "misleading." That's a clever play on words to influence the reader. What are the IPCC's motives for "lying" and "misleading"? It was Landsea who threw the tantrum and declined to stay and fight, to be part of the fray. Did any other IPCC members support him?

Interestingly, since Landsea made his attack in 2005, to my knowledge, he's remained silent. Of course his views are strongly favoured by the White House. However, there is nothing to indicate Landsea disagrees with the bulk of the GW science but simply a lack of predictability with hurricanes.

Landsea's opponents, Prof. Greg Holland of the Nat. Centre of Atmospheric Research and Prof. Peter Webster of Georgia Tech. School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences theorise that anthropogenic CO2 is causing intensity in hurricanes.

Other scientists are claiming that storm tracks over the North Pacific are a result of Asian pollution.

Yes indeed. There is much work and more investigations to be done by the IPCC, unhindered by the likes of Bob Carter and the other silly coot, Ian Plimer, who in the twilight of their careers, have resorted to writing misleading articles on behalf of the Lavoisier Group and the powerful eco-destructive mining industry.

Lev,

Thanks for the post (and the link). However, I would have said “Agghhh – the let’s maintain the power and control of the politicians and the masses group” – aka, let’s maintain the status quo and business as usual group!

I alluded to this right-wing ‘think tank’ in a previous post – although Nick Lanelaw seems to be a Lavoisier front-man by his insidious and repetitious links to their website, here and else ware.

Notwithstanding, I tried to point him to an alternative perspective, based on reason. Unfortunately, I ran out of word-space and he, head-space.

I would appreciate your thoughts here:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6038

Some people want to kill, the messenger that is, vis-à-vis: the IPCC.

These same people obviously don’t understand the science and are not prepared to read the technical papers (or even the technical summary in the AR4) but are quite prepared to criticise it … hello?

Climate Change science is there for anyone who wishes to understand it – if they could be bothered to look – even simple graphs and basic statistics seems to elude the recalcitrant.

Anyway, my contention is that political ideology and philosophical posturing are exacerbating the problems we now see.

Corollary, it’s not the science stupid – it’s the ‘me vs them’, east vs west, capitalist vs socialist, Islam vs Christianity’, etc. that is causing all the consternation, and only with particular individuals.

Population pressures, education, pollution, food, health, ‘Peak Oil, gas & coal,’ global warming – these are the real problems we are facing. Humanity has a real chance to alleviate these problems – governments are trying, businesses are, even some individuals are. It really is about sustainable development, all else follows.

Others, as we are seeing, are mired in the mud, they don’t see the big picture – they don’t even want to help in a constructive way, they are full of negativity and criticism.

Is this the way to educate our children, it is going to be their world one day?

KAEP

In the 'real' world I am heavily involved in inter/national water resources and wastewater management. I am interested in your musings, as would be others I am sure.

It is recognised that atmospheric CO2 concentrations have increased from 280 to 380 ppm since about 1850 and fossil fuel burning is the main cause.

It is also recognised that the oceans and terrestrial biosphere can not absorb GHG emissions at the rate humanity is pumping them out.

Your hypothesis does raise some interesting points, not least the oceans are a huge sink of CO2 (albeit with raising ocean temps and acidity make it increasingly more difficult to absorb CO2).

Seriously, please point us to more research on your ideas.

I appreciate your posts on other threads - got tied up with off-topics.
Cheers

Dickie,
Go see the thread on "Is this it.. where to now?"
I would also like to hear your comments on this subject.
Regards
Spanky