“The science is clear: even if global emissions are cut rapidly from today, the impacts of climate change will continue to worsen until at least 2030 and these impacts will be borne most heavily by the world’s poorest countries.”
If the science is so clear, perhaps Oxfam Australia could clear up a number of points for me (in lay terms).
1. How is the mean global temperature measured? Can you list the uncertainties and errors in such global estimates? Is the highest alleged year for maximum heating in North America 1998 or the revised NASA estimate of 1934?
2. Can you describe the sampling methods used to determine global atmospheric CO2 levels?
3. Do the climate models assume a linear or a logarithmic relationship between temperature and CO2?
4. Since neither the logarithmic and/or linear curves have an upper bound; do you envisage temperature increasing beyond bounds? Do you discard the possibility of “earth cooling mechanisms” and/or negative feed back mechanisms leading to an equilibrium position for global temperature? Have you considered the possibility of an oscillating temperature around a global mean

"If the science is so clear, perhaps Oxfam Australia could clear up a number of points for me (in lay terms)."

I'd like to hear those answers too, but you won't get them because the science is CLEAR!

even if you agree with the writer about what should be done as a matter of moral obligation, i hope you understand that the government has only one imperative, which is 'stay in power'. using 'must' about some one else is a certain signal of fuzzy thinking and/or weak argument.

parliaments are very bad at delivering 'good' to the majority, since their survival depends on bleeding the majority to reward their supporters. still, if survival depends on it, they will respond. the trouble is, political survival depends on winning the next election, while racial survival will be someone else's problem, several elections down the road. the chance of politicians taking adequate measures in time, is slight.

that's why i have been pressing the case for democratizing australia. a nation with direct elections and citizen initiative can mobilize quickly and act for the common good, since the majority will be directly involved in setting policy.

it's not too late to save the planet, but if we leave management in the hands of people who created the problem, it soon will be.

Sigh. I swear there are some people that would happily sit there in front of a thermometer watching the temperature gradually rise, all the time doubting the result, until they ultimately keeled over from extreme hyperthermia.

Point being, there will never be 100% rock-solid proof that current climate change predictions will come to pass. In fact, I'm 100% confident they won't, because humanity, while occasionally slow off the mark, just ain't that stupid. Sadly, we'll probably let it get to the point that hundreds of millions are regularly suffering the effects of C.C. before we actually do anything serious, and having left it that late, may be left with little choice but for such radical and expensive solutions that our standards of living will be negatively affected. But at least there will be a planet that our descendants can again prosper on.

Alternatively, we could simply start adopting inexpensive, gradual solutions now, that, on the rather unlikely chance that thousands of climate scientists around the world have collectively got it completely wrong, would have no truly significant downsides.

Doesn't seem like a particularly difficult decision, does it?

Labor has committed to ratify the Kyoto protocol with its CO2 emmission targets, has committed not to use nuclear energy, and committing to maintain economic growth.

There is a porker in there somewhere.

I agree not even allowing nuclear as an option is a bit silly, but the reality is that Australians as a whole aren't likely to accept it any time soon, and further, there are economical reasons why it's unlikely to be competitive with renewables long term - if nothing else, the fact that Australia is a very large, sunny, sparsely populated country. Nuclear makes far more sense for most densely populated northern European and American environments.

As far as the extent to which economic growth is dependent upon fossil fuel usage - yes, I'm very much concerned by this, especially in regard to a likely oil supply squeeze in the next decade. But, while the technologies are not fully mature, there are so many options with renewables that there's no reason that a suite of them can't eventually provide all our energy needs (which themselves can be dramatically slashed with some basic efficiency improvements).
Further, the coal industry isn't going to commit suicide in a hurry, so it will be doing everything it can to reduce the carbon intensity of coal-fired power (including solar preheaters, IGCC generators, biological carbon filters, CCS etc.).

If you told someone in 1970 that in 30 years time there would be twice as many vehicles on the road and a fraction of the pollution, I doubt anyone would have believed you. So there is good reason to be confident we can simultanenously increase energy generation and reduce carbon emissions.

"it's not too late to save the planet"
Since when did a planet need saving.

"Sigh. I swear there are some people that would happily sit there in front of a thermometer watching the temperature gradually rise"
*Sigh* I swear that some people think the temperature is gradually rising even when it isn't.
Latest HADCRUT3 Anomaly is 0.387 C
Latest RSS Anomaly is only 0.09 C
Its really getting up there...

"But at least there will be a planet that our descendants can again prosper on."
Again, the planet will be here whether we are or not.

"we could simply start adopting inexpensive, gradual solutions now"
And here is the rub....sounds great, but I've yet to see any solutions that are inexpensive. If you've got a few up your sleeve maybe you could share them.

"Doesn't seem like a particularly difficult decision, does it?"
Guess it depends how you frame it...eg. global warming versus climate change

(1 of 2)

Since Oxfam Australia is highly unlikely to give anti-green an official response here or anywhere, I'll bite and answer his points. I'll assume the questions to be directed to "climate change orthodoxy."

> 1. How is the global mean temperature measured

The global mean temperature was not under discussion, so this question is not relevant to the article. It isn't measured and can't be. Anomalies from local means are measured. All local weather stations have local biases. Satellite measurements take ocean-surface readings which are more consistent but land temperatures must come from surface air temperature measurements on-site.

> Can you list the uncertainties and errors in such global estimates?

The uncertainties and errors are all local and are far too numerous to list in 700 words or less.

> Is the highest alleged year for maximum heating in North America 1998 or the revised NASA estimate of 1934?

What is "maximum heating"? The year of the highest average temperatures in the USA is 1934.

2. Can you describe the sampling methods used to determine global atmospheric CO2 levels?

The canonical level is from the sampling station on Mauna Loa. Measurements elsewhere corroborate trends in this signal but are rarely quoted because only the Hawaiian measurement is relatively free from noise from local CO2 sources.

3. Do the climate models assume a linear or a logarithmic relationship between temperature and CO2?

Working climate models assume no relationship at all between temperature and CO2. They calculate a top-of-atmosphere energy budget taking into account absorbtion of solar radiation at all levels of the atmosphere and at the surface, and thermal re-radiation from the surface and at all atmospheric levels. Since the atmosphere (at a suitable thickness) is opaque to the frequencies of infra-red radiation absorbed CO2 and water vapour, only atmospheric re-radiation can account for any loss of heat at these frequencies.

The relationship between surface temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration is neither linear nor logarithmic. If all other factors were equal, the earth's surface uniform, and there was no vertical convection in the atmosphere

(2 of 2)

(vertical convection is a major carrier of heat from surface to upper troposphere) the relationship would be very close to linear.

> 4. Since neither the logarithmic and/or linear curves have an upper bound; do you envisage temperature increasing beyond bounds?

There is an upper limit on the potential of human and biospheric activity on the quantity of greenhouse gas that might be released to the atmosphere, so there is an upper limit on the radiative forcing that can be caused by this mechanism. Other forcings could push the temperature higher.

> Do you discard the possibility of “earth cooling mechanisms” and/or negative feed back mechanisms leading to an equilibrium position for global temperature?

If greenhouse gas levels were to stabilise and all other forcings remained stable, the climate system would settle to an equilibrium temperature simply due to increased thermal radiation. This stabilisation would take several years due to cycles in the biosphere and ocean.

A prime candidate "cooling mechanism" is a change in energy and land-use policy amongst the nations of Earth.

The only other candidate mooted is increased albedo due to cloud cover, but there is no indication to date that clouds function as negative feedback.

However several *positive* albedo and greenhouse gas feedbacks from increased temperature are recognised: melting ice; a decline in the ability of the surface layers of the ocean to absorb CO2; and emissions of methane from rotting soil biomass in the Arctic tundra.

> Have you considered the possibility of an oscillating temperature around a global mean?

Inasmuch as forcings other than greenhouse gas levels are known to oscillate, and that in past eras the biosphere and geochemical processes have repeatedly brought greenhouse gas levels down from elevated levels, this is the geological norm.

But the known processes do not operate on human timescales. Human industry and land use does operate on a human timescale, so if humans are to be spared the consequences of human greenhouse gas emissions, it is more likely to be a consequence of a human response to the problem than some magic natural cause.

Any discussion on the third world needs to address these points:

1. The third world will never be developed. Peak Oil will see to that.

2. This is just as well, as if it were developed the resulting pollution would make the world inhabitable.

3. Even if we could discover a cheap source of energy to replace oil, the population explosion in the third world will prevent any improvement in living conditions. With the expected doubling of population there in the next 30 years, twice as many resources will have to be consumed just to maintain current standards.

4. The fundamental key to the rise of China was their one child policy.

5. The only issue that unites George W Bush, the Pope, the third world and the muslim world is that NOTHING must be done to limit population. As a result, the issue is rarely discussed, and when discussed is denounced as racism or genocide.

6. Any effort to ameliorate things without taking into account the previous points is doomed to failure, and amounts to urinating into the breeze.

7. This is not our fault.

8. There is nothing we can do about it.

I am most grateful to xoddam for his explanation of climate physics. This is not my subject. However, it is clear that the climate system is most complex. No doubt there are many simplifying assumptions in the model.

“If all other factors were equal, the earths surface uniform and no vertical convection in the atmosphere.”

Or

“But the known processes do not operate on human timescales. Human industry and land use does operate on a human timescale, so if humans are to be spared the consequences of human greenhouse gas emissions, it is more likely to be a consequence of a human response to the problem than some magic natural cause.”

I was not aware that natural causes were a form of magic. No matter, my emphasise is on the complexity of the system, and the gaps in knowledge. Therefore, one must presume differences in scientific opinion.

The point I wish to make is that the scientific uncertainty is glossed over by the journalistic short handed, “The science is clear.” Writer after writer ignores the underlying physical theory to build more and more imaginative fictions of what may happen. Given the assumptions made about climate are true. I suspect that most of the global warming advocates are not interested in atmospheric physics.

Who really knows for certain, that the sea level will rise and swamp civilisation? Further added on to the many Hollywood type fictions on climate, is a good helping of guilt and self doubt.

For instance, “Therein lies the deep injustice of climate change…….”

Sorry, I feel no guilt when switching on the air conditioner.

About 5,000 years ago it was possible to walk to Tasmania. Climate change altered that and this occurred long before the industrial revolution.

I also understand that 5,000 years ago the climate in Australia was much wetter than now or even the 20 century.

Climate change on this planet and in Australia happened before, with out mankind helping it along.

If this planet decides to change the climate, there is not a dam thing us mere human beings can do about, except adjust to the changes. Despite all our scientific advances, we are just a mere speck in the bigger scheme of things.

Thanks for making it so clear JamesH, you have no doubt missed your calling.

I suggest you enlighten our illustrious leaders (whoever they are) before they make fools of themselves at the world’s climate change meeting in a few weeks.

While you’re at it, you may as well send off an email to Australia’s Geological Survey – they have been scratching their heads about Tassie for years.