Since there has been no overall increase in global temperatures for about ten years now (see http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif), the evidence for 'global warming' is looking increasingly thin. Rudd appears to be taking a sensible wait-and-see approach, while doing and saying just enough to prevent a hysterical outcry on the part of the Greens. He may even WANT the emissions trading scheme defeated, as a good way to get out of a pledge which will have embarrassing consequences in the future, while at the same time making both the Greens and the Liberals look bad.

Rudd is a known disciple of Lincoln, who said 'you can't fool all the people all the time'. People who have been fooled by the global warming hoax are waking up, and those who inveigled us into it are going to be more and more unpopular as time goes by. Maybe Rudd is smart enough to realise this.

JonJ

I'm curious. Since you linked to it ... if you 'eye-ball' the black line, when do you think global warming stopped?

1955
1980
1990
2002

I'm assuming you understand global warming does not mean an increase in temperatures every year.

Q&A, since you bring it up - what would it take for you to believe carbon is not causing climate change? Is it possible your opinion could be changed, or are you secure in your belief.

Also, how many years of cooling will it take for you to admit "global warming" has stopped, 10, 100 a thousand years?

What's your definition of Global Warming.

We all agree climate changes, no problem there - what we appear to disagree on is the cause, a lot of us believe it is natural and will go on changing from cool to warm and so forth.

You appear to believe the earth is constantly warming, allowing for cooling of course, in your convoluted way of betting on both horses here. So it's global warming when it cools as it is now, and yes statistically there is variance, but at some stage you have to admit that the cooling "variation", actually is "cooling" - when will you know that?

What's your reason for believing humans cause warming, do you have proof that man made Carbon DiOxide is factually linked to warming temperatures, and not just coincidental data, an actual paper and some facts please? (please no links to silly circular logic websites that self reference as proof)

Q&A - I've downloaded the figures and done the maths, and they show that 1998 was hotter than any year since. Obviously there are fluctuations from year to year; and obviously if something as big as the earth's atmosphere and aquasphere gets hot, it's going to take a while to cool down. In other words, this year's temperature is probably going to be pretty much the same as last year's regardless of underlying trends.

Also, before 1970 there were many fewer weather stations supplying data points, so I am not prepared to put much credence in pre-1970 figures as the basis for 'global' estimates.

But in essence we have about twenty-eight years of warming and ten years of non-warming which is still going on. Why is this a problem for global warming theory? Because CO2 levels have gone on rising steadily over that period. Therefore, global temperature changes cannot be attributed solely to CO2 levels, but they must be affected by something else -- call it Factor X -- which has kept them roughly static since 1999.

OK, what is Factor X? Can you point to it in any of the global warming models? Of course, it MIGHT be 'natural variation', but as the years roll by it becomes harder to explain why 'natural variation' should exactly offset the 'global warming' that the models tell us we should be having. If Factor X can keep temperatures steady for ten years, how do we know it can't keep them steady for a hundred, or a thousand? Whatever it is, it's a hell of a big gap in the IPCC models -- and getting bigger year by year.

Anyway, Odo's challenge is to the point. Tell us, on behalf of the global warming credulists: how long do global temperatures have to decline or remain static before you will begin to doubt the model? And what would you have replied to this question ten years ago?

The bad news for Carol Johnson is that the climate change debate already is a fiasco. Unlike the republic debate, it has the potential to undermine our government by removing a major plank its policy platform and severely reduce its credibility. I predict there will be much “egg on face” in the near future.

Whilst I have never found any correlation between atmospheric carbon content and the near earth temperature measurements (both uncontested research), I have been able to convince myself that the biosphere is working very hard to mitigate human carbon emissions. (See posts under “What would it take to change your mind”).

I’ve already acknowledged a change in my position and now accept that because I can see an increase in the biospheres’ response to total FFC (Fossil Fuel Combusted), that there is a cause and effect, something is happening, but is it natural?

What I cannot find evidence for is any direct correlation between ACC and the global temperature measurements. This leaves me with two questions; firstly, if an ETS is the answer, what was the question? And secondly, how have so many scientists, journalists, intellectuals and politicians been distracted by the “noise” generated by the global phenomena we have come to know as the AGW debate?

Perhaps the latest book by Ian Plimer might throw some light on this. (The Weekend Australian, Christopher Pearson). I have no doubt that many OLOers will play the man, but for those of us more interested in the origins of the anthropological “noise” than the rapidly decaying AGW case, perhaps both Carol Johnson and Ian Plimer have something to offer to explain this phenomena?

We can clearly evidence that when faith based concepts are challenged, the responses get more convoluted, making lees and less sense to realists, as evidenced by religious theology, political dogma and social ideology.

Just how and why so many of us devour such a variety of ever more complex faith based, mystical mumbo jumbo is a mystery. It seems to me to be one of the greatest impediments to progress for our species.

John J

I note the graph you provided continues to be flogged off around the country. Please advise why you et al have omitted to provide the information accompanying that graph which clearly contradicts your claims.

Since you have accepted the graph from http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/
as firm "evidence" that there has been no “overall increase in global warming” (my eyes must be glued on) why have you not accepted the additional information the authors also provided?:

“The time series shows the combined global land and marine surface temperature record from 1850 to 2008. The year 2008 was tenth warmest on record, exceeded by 1998, 2005, 2003, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2001, 2007 and 1997. This time series is being compiled jointly by the Climatic Research Unit and the UK Met. Office Hadley Centre. The record is being continually up-dated and improved (see Brohan et al., 2006).

".......Increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere due to human activities are most likely the underlying cause of warming in the 20th century.

“The 1990s were the warmest complete decade in the series. The warmest year of the entire series has been 1998, with a temperature of 0.546°C above the 1961-90 mean. Thirteen of the fourteen warmest years in the series have now occurred in the past fourteen years (1995-2008). The only year in the last fourteen not among the warmest fourteen is 1996 (replaced in the warm list by 1990).

"The period 2001-2008 (0.43°C above 1961-90 mean) is 0.19°C warmer than the 1991-2000 decade (0.24°C above 1961-90 mean."

May I, as an average punter, for the time being, be sufficiently presumptuous to believe that 8 out of the 10 warmest years on record, have occurred in the 21st century? Therefore, why do you claim that "People who have been fooled by the global warming hoax are waking up?"

Do you intend submitting your hypotheses to the CRU/UEA?

May I, as an average punter, for the time being, be sufficiently presumptuous to believe that 8 out of the 10 warmest years on record, have occurred in the 21st century? Therefore, why do you claim that "People who have been fooled by the global warming hoax are waking up?"'

If you switch on an oven it heats up. If you turn the oven off, it doesn't go back to room temperature immediately. The bigger the oven, the longer it takes. The world was getting hotter from at least 1970 to 1998. Naturally it will take some time to cool down again -- it's a big place. As I have already pointed out, the best estimate of next year's temperature is this year's temperature. But there is no sign of an INCREASE in temperature, which is what the global warming models are predicting, since 1998, although there has been an increase in CO2 levels over the same period. It's up to the climate modellers to tell us why, or to acknowledge that the models are broken.

Thank you John J for your response though I must say I am disappointed that you did not address the official figures for global average temperatures that I had provided.

Unfortunately I find your hypothesis about a “hot oven” implausible and to my knowledge, it has never been supported by any reputable climate scientist.

I also regard your cherry picked claim, that 1998 was the hottest year without subsequent increased warming, misleading:

“The highest global surface temperature in more than a century of instrumental data was recorded in the 2005 calendar year in the GISS annual analysis. However, the error bar on the data implies that 2005 is practically in a dead heat with 1998, the warmest previous year.

“Record warmth in 2005 is notable, because global temperature has not received any boost from a tropical El Niño this year. The prior record year, 1998, on the contrary, was lifted 0.2°C above the trend line by the strongest El Niño of the past century:”

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/

"An improved data set, which incorporates innovative algorithms that better account for factors such as changes in spatial coverage and evolving observing methods, results in 2005 being slightly warmer than 1998:"

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2005/ann/global.html

Then: “Climatologists at NASA’s GISS in New York City have found that 2007 tied with 1998 for Earth’s second warmest year in a century:

"The eight warmest years in the GISS record have all occurred since 1998.

ihttp://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/earth_temp.html

And on a regional scale Australia has officially recorded 2005 as its warmest year on record. Data collected by the Bureau of Meteorology indicate that the nation’s annual mean temperature for 2005 was 1.09°C above the standard 1961-90 average, making it the warmest year since reliable, widespread temperature observations became available in 1910. The previous record of +0.84°C was set in 1998:

http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/climate/change/20060104.shtml

Please address my previous question: If 8 out of the 10 warmest years for a global record, have occurred in the 21st century, why do you claim that "People who have been fooled by the global warming hoax are waking up?"'

Ono

1. “What would it take for you to believe carbon is not causing climate change?”

A complete re-write of our accumulated scientific knowledge of physics and chemistry that we have acquired over the last 100 years or so ... but that’s somewhat facetious.

Carbon per se is not causing climate change; it is contributing to it. If you remove ‘greenhouse’ gases as a significant contributor to global warming then no other ‘forcing’ can explain the time-series warming we have been experiencing. The ‘enhanced greenhouse effect’ is superimposed on natural climatic variation.

2. “Is it possible your opinion could be changed, or are you secure in your belief?”

Of course, my ‘professional’ opinion (about AGW) can be changed ... but it would require robust research that has passed the rigor of scientific review to sway me (not the opinions of my accountant, doctor, electrician or local school headmaster). This has not been done, IMO.

Having said that, I think more research into ‘negative feedbacks’, attribution and climate sensitivity is important ... indeed, it is being done.

I trust and feel secure about the scientific process. It is not a “belief” or faith that one attributes to a religious doctrine.

3. “How many years of cooling will it take for you to admit "global warming" has stopped, 10, 100 a thousand years?”

Barring any unforeseen natural climatic event (like a major-major volcanic eruption) I would expect the current “warming trend” to ramp up by 2015, if not much sooner. If it hasn’t, then you could then say the globe has cooled.

4. What's your definition of Global Warming?

The planet undergoes glacial and inter-glacial periods (always has, always will) and if Milankovitch is right, we’re heading for another ice-age in about 30,000 years. Ergo, if you view the long term geological time-series, then the planet is in a cooling trend.

However, if you view the ‘anthropocene’, then the planet is warming. Whatever time-series is used, you will always get the ups and downs, bumps and wiggles.

Cont’d

Cont’d

What we have to do (and we are) is delineate the noise (e.g. weather) from the signal (climate change) – this requires a time-series analysis of at least 15 years.

It gets a little more complicated: we also have to delineate other ‘noise’ like natural variation (sun spots, GCR, ENSO, PDO, etc)

So, in answer to your question, “global warming” is the trending upwards of ‘global temperature’ (however that is measured) over a time period that will separate out the noise, typically about 30 years.

5. You appear to believe the earth is constantly warming ... but at some stage you have to admit that the cooling "variation", actually is "cooling" - when will you know that?

No I don’t – see above.

6. What's your reason for believing humans cause warming ... an actual paper and some facts please?

Put simply ... humanity (and all that it implies – population, technology, economics, ideology, etc) has been pouring billions and billions of tons of ‘energy’ into the Earth’s environment at a rate that the oceans, atmosphere and terrestrial biosphere cannot absorb quickly enough. The Earth system tries to equilibrate and in doing so, becomes warmer and wetter insofar as climate is concerned.

The enhanced greenhouse effect is well known and accepted by AGW sceptics (in the scientific sense). What some would dispute are the details (e.g. the amount of warming caused by CO2) – not the science of GW per se..

The vast amount of papers/facts can be found in a cursory perusal of the science journals published by scientific institutions and academies (but you know this) and you want me to give you only one? Tell you what, do some homework – do a ‘google scholar’ search and type in your search field ‘carbon isotope attribution global warming’.

_________

Jon J

Did you actually understand what the Met Office was saying? You don't understand the graph. Do you really want to reinvent the wheel?

Have another look:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20080923c.html

You say “global temperature changes cannot be attributed solely to CO2 levels” – who said they were?

______

Spindoc, tbc

Q&A "The vast amount of papers/facts can be found in a cursory perusal of the science journals published by scientific institutions and academies (but you know this) and you want me to give you only one?"

Yes, that's all.

So, stop sneering and put one up, it should be so simple for you really, any one of the papers that proves global temperature rise and carbon dioxide are linked. (Then we will then know how much the temperature will rise for any given amount of CO2.)

Argue all you want about climate change or warming, the question relates to whether the emissions trading scheme will be thrown in the too hard basket as was the republican debate. It's an ideological debate which can't be won or run on ideological grounds, it requires common sense to take action which helps resolve the situation. That's the dilemma and the ideologically inclined fail on every aspect towards a sane and survivable future.

An emission trading scheme is irrelevant, it'll make no difference, just put more money into the hands of the rich. Whilst the thing we should all be worrying about, yet doing nothing, is ecological collapse and environmental destruction. What's the use of an economic scheme when the natural support base for life is collapsing around us rapidly, city people don't see it, but country people do.

There should be no emission trading scheme, but a complete change of direction, which addresses the ecology, climate, environment and not just money and greed. Climate warming climate cooling, who cares, we are turning the earth into a barren, smelly heavily polluted garbage dump. But the ideology is more important it seems to most, than sane approaches.

An excellent appraisal of the situation Stormbay.

I do not believe the ETS will see the light of day and even if it did, it will make no difference to the state of the environment, in fact it has the potential to lead to its destruction.

Some forty years ago in Australia, legislation was enacted in various states as an Act:

“to provide for an Environmental Protection Authority, for the prevention, control and abatement of pollution and environmental harm, for the conservation, preservation, protection enhancement and management of the environment and for matters incidental to or connected with the foregoing.”

Included in the preambles are “The polluter Pays Principle,” “The Precautionary Principle,” “Environmental Harm,” “Material Environmental Harm,” “Serious Environmental Harm,” etc etc. Whole chapters are dedicated to “Enforcement,” “Environmental Regulation,” “Legal Proceedings” and “Penalties” for polluters.

Society continues to be duped while the Act is breached, ignored, abused and manipulated by regulators, governments and industry, to protect polluters.

Taxpayers have paid billions over 40 years to prop up affiliated agencies to “protect” their environment (and their health) – agencies such as EPAs, Departments of Environment, Departments of Health, Appeals Convenors, MARPOL, various farcical conventions, Ministers for the Environment and massive costs for the ongoing remediation of thousands of contaminated sites which had been trashed by pollutant industries, who continue to pollute with impunity.

The present economic reality prizes the accumulation of profits over human well-being and environmental sustainability. As such, it is illegal, in fact criminal and hypocritical, and definitely not the way to “regulate” our fragile environment. The proposed political trend is increasingly giving the agents and institutions of capital a free hand to threaten our survival.

Astonishingly, pollutant industrial barons have been awarded the highest accolades in society - even knighthoods for fouling the environment.

Citizens should lobby state and federal governments to enforce the existing legislation to include emission limits in the conditions of licence(currently, a convenient loophole!) and without cost to the taxpayer. If polluters breach the Act – prosecute! After all, how far would Joe Citizen get by driving around with a smoking exhaust pipe?!

This threads original theme was about the scale, divisiveness and passion surrounding the ETS in relation to the republic debate. If these posts are anything to go by as a sample of how people feel then the case is clearly made, it is on a similar magnitude.

We do however, need to separate some of the key issues and remember that the ETS is just our governments’ response to AGW, regardless of whether we as individuals agree with the case for AGW or not. The problem remains one to be determined by scientists if they are to be successful we need to fund them and get off their backs. The human generated “noise” whipped up by often ill informed media and vested interests have become a massive distraction. In my view this is also leading to dangerous politicization and demands for action, any action.

I cannot find any scientific commentary from either side that does not support the view that “the complexity is the single largest factor limiting our understanding”.

My journey is about trying to separate the “noise” from uncontested science in order to try to understand the key issues. The global “howling” seems to be winding everyone up with levels of righteous indignation well beyond those of our paltry republic debate. This to me is a human phenomenon and has taken on characteristics of mass hysteria or religious zealotry. Its origins seem to have little to do with AGW since we respond in the very same way to any number of vexatious subjects. That is why it is dangerous.

I’ve satisfied myself, (and no I don’t need any more links at the moment thank you) that something is happening to our biosphere, the uncontested scientific data shows it is working harder today, by a factor of 12.8 times harder that it was in 1850.

That said my only interest is to see sufficient “scientific” understanding for “scientists” to produce a “scientific” solution to a “scientific problem”.

Political/economic solutions tell me only one thing. We don’t have an answer yet.

Q&A, likewise.

I agree with the views expressed by Professor Johnson. After all, we have a global problem and the solution (if it is going to be solved) is premised on the vagaries of social, political and economic pundits across the globe converging – a big ask given the diminutive response to climate-change at the recent G20 meeting.

Spindoc, your comments:

<< Whilst I have never found any correlation between atmospheric carbon content and the near earth temperature measurements (both uncontested research) ... >>

Déjà vu? Maybe you haven’t really looked (see my response to Ono below). The research is not uncontested, btw.

<< What I cannot find evidence for is any direct correlation between ACC and the global temperature measurements. >>

Again, see my response to Ono below.

<< ... rapidly decaying AGW case >>

I think you would have to back this statement up with some very substantial evidence from many other sources.

<< We can clearly evidence that when faith based concepts are challenged, the responses get more convoluted, making less and less sense to realists, as evidenced by religious theology, political dogma and social ideology. >>

In your context of AGW, this is a false dichotomy, spindoc. You are comparing “religious theology, political dogma and social ideology” with science. You are also inferring (by extension) that scientists are not realists.

<< Just how and why so many of us devour such a variety of ever more complex faith based, mystical mumbo jumbo is a mystery. >>
Again, it is wrong to compare the scientific process to “faith based, mystical mumbo jumbo” of “religious theology, political dogma and social ideology”.

<< That said my only interest is to see sufficient “scientific” understanding for “scientists” to produce a “scientific” solution to a “scientific problem”. >>

I guess that’s where we differ spindoc. The scientific problem/solutions have been canvassed widely. The real problem/solution is no longer scientific – it is a social, ideological and economic problem ... I am not optimistic.

Apologies to all

Ono

In one paragraph you confuse “attribution” with “sensitivity” and ‘probability’ with ‘proof’.

In terms of climate sensitivity: about a 3 degree (C) change for a doubling of [CO2] +/- a bit.

Here’s an original:

Arrhenius, Svante (1901). "Über die Wärmeabsorption Durch Kohlensäure und Ihren Einfluss auf die Temperatur der Erdoberfläche." Förhandlingar Svenska Vetenskapsakademiens 58: 25-58.

Ok, that too was facetious.

Skipping a few years (and volumes of papers):

Manabe, Syukuro, and R.J. Stouffer (1993). "Century-Scale Effects of Increased Atmospheric CO2 on the Ocean-Atmosphere System." Nature 364: 215-18.

Murphy, J.M., 1995: Transient response of the Hadley Centre coupled ocean-atmosphere model to increasing carbon dioxide. Part III: analysis of global-mean response using simple models. J. Clim., 8, 496–514.

Gregory, J.M., et al., 2002: An observationally based estimate of the climate sensitivity. J. Clim., 15, 3117–3121.

Allen, M.R., and W.J. Ingram, 2002: Constraints on future changes in climate and the hydrologic cycle. Nature, 419, 224–231.

Sausen, R., et al., 2002: Climate response to inhomogeneously distributed forcing agents. In: Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gases: Scientific Understanding, Control Options and Policy Aspects [van Ham, J., A.P.M. Baede, R. Guicherit, and J.G.F.M. Williams-Jacobse (eds.)]. Millpress, Rotterdam,
Netherlands, pp. 377–381.

Joshi, M., et al., 2003: A comparison of climate response to different radiative forcings in three general circulation models: towards an improved metric of climate change. Clim. Dyn., 20, 843–854.

Boer, G.J., and B. Yu, 2003: Climate sensitivity and climate state. Clim. Dyn., 21, 167–176.

Johns, T.C., et al., 2006: The new Hadley Centre climate model HadGEM1: Evaluation of coupled simulations. J. Clim., 19, 1327–1353.

Stainforth, D.A., et al., 2005: Uncertainty in predictions of the climate response to rising levels of greenhouse gases. Nature, 433, 403–406.

Lock, A.P., et al., 2000: A new boundary layer mixing scheme. Part I: Scheme description and SCM tests. Mon. Weather Rev., 128, 3187– 3199.

Soden, B.J., A.J. Broccoli, and R.S. Hemler, 2004: On the use of cloud forcing to estimate cloud feedback. J. Clim., 17, 3661–3665.

Annan, James D., and Julia C. Hargreaves (2006). "Using Multiple Observationally-Based Constraints to Estimate Climate Sensitivity." Geophysical Research Letters 33: L06704 [doi: 10.1029/2005GL025259].

Q&A - just one paper that proves that increased CO2 relates to global temperature, not all these links to barely related science.

You've just assembled the usual collection of modelling discussions (which are hardly proof are they? They are more about the modelling techniques used.) and some related papers that mention CO2 and temperature, but don't provide the proof. (Are all these from some favourite "how to deal with sceptics" website?)

Classic obfuscation, there is no proof in these papers, nor the German one by the way.

I believe if you could prove it with one paper, you would have?

Thank you for trying, but in the end it's the same confusing methodolgy that is used to try to silence anyone who questions the faith and is typical of religious rhetoric.

end.

Q&A, my last post not very specific, let me clarify.

<< ... rapidly decaying AGW case >>, <<comparing “religious theology, political dogma and social ideology”>>. << Again, it is wrong to compare the scientific process to “faith based mystical mumbo jumbo” of “religious theology, political dogma and social ideology”. with science. You are also inferring (by extension) that scientists are not realists. <<

Any reference to the above comments was specifically intended to exclude scientists, by extension or otherwise, from the religious zealotry being generated by both sides of this debate. Sorry for not making that clear.

The way I see it we have multiple levels of input to this debate.

Level 1, uncontested scientific measurements. 1.1 ACC in PPM. 1.2 Global near earth temp. measurements, only contested insofar as there are other related measurements and 1.3 Total FFC since 1850.

Level 2. Scientific interpretation. Where scientists attempt to interpret the data in level 1. (Both pro and anti but mostly peer reviewed)

Level 3, Scientific predictions/Modeling. Where scientists attempt to forecast outcomes.

Level 4. Political interpretation. Where politically affiliated organizations attempt to interpret the data in level 1, 2 and 3. Political expediency.

Level 5. Journalism, non peer reviewed articles, news and current affairs production, documentaries. Books/publications. Where media and entertainment industries make money by spinning the results from 1 – 4 and generating political influence.

Level 6. Public domain. Mostly people scared witless by the fear, uncertainty and doubt mongers. Those who have formed a view and are fiercely defending it, others who genuinely seek answers.

I embrace Levels 1 & 2, but I have professional experience in Level 3 “modeling”, and know that it is neither real nor evidence.

Levels 4 thru’ 6 are the areas driving the debate and form the great diversion of hysterical proportions.

My “scientific” questions remain, please help. If the total Fossil Fuel Consumption since 1850 has increased by 1,280%, why has the ACC only increased by 30% and what does that logically tell us about the proposed ETS? Level 1 data only please.

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/

Part of the problem is that we are being asked to support a system that is not the most cost effective way to drive down emissions. In addition, it depends on "putting a price on carbon" to get results.

Putting a price on carbon means that there has to be potentially destabilizing jumps in prices before investment in the clean alternative starts, even though in many cases, the average cost may only ramp up slowly as the clean alternative replaces the dirty alternative. (Think electricty for example. It is the sudden and unnecesary jump in price that has got so many industries spooked.)

In addition, putting the one price on carbon means that many industries will find it more cost effective to pay the price, pass it on to their customers and do nothing about emissions - all pain for no gain.

It would make a lot more sense for Penny wong to get out of her ETS bunker and have a serious look at the alternatives.

It would make a lot more sense to use a "multiple scheme approach" (MSA). Under MSA, a number of separate schemes would operate at the same time with each scheme designed to deal with specific industries or opportunities. For example, the fuel consumption of new cars could be reduced by regulation without any need to change the price of fuel.

“My “scientific” questions remain, please help. If the total Fossil Fuel Consumption since 1850 has increased by 1,280%, why has the ACC only increased by 30% and what does that logically tell us about the proposed ETS?”

I would say logically (and in my unscientific opinion) Spindoc that you can not equate liquid with a gas. If that were correct, humans would have fossilised long ago - assuming that you are referring to carbon dioxide(ACC?) Industrial CO2 is a result of combustion processes including motor vehicles and the transport industry.

The following information may be helpful:

Currently, for each 4 gigatons of fossil carbon burned, the atmosphere's CO2 content rises about 1 ppm; including deforestation, we now emit about 8 Gt of carbon per year (2006 – 8.38Gt.)

The rate at which chemical change happens matters and you would need to know the lag time for each carbon chemical's process. For instance what is the atmospheric lag time before benzene’s conversion to carbon dioxide? Some hydrocarbons may oxidize to CO2 quickly, others may take decades or centuries.

The lifetime of a pollutant is often considered in conjunction with the mixing of pollutants in the atmosphere; a long lifetime will allow the pollutant to mix throughout the atmosphere. Average lifetimes can vary from about a week (e.g., sulfate aerosols) to more than a century (e.g., CFCs, carbon dioxide.)

The lifetime of a greenhouse gas refers to the approximate amount of time it would take for the anthropogenic increment to an atmospheric pollutant concentration to return to its natural level (assuming emissions cease) as a result of either being converted to another chemical compound or being taken out of the atmosphere via a sink. This time depends on the pollutant’s sources and sinks as well as its reactivity.

tbc

Delays can occur in climate change as a result of some factor that changes very slowly. For example, the effects of releasing more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere may not be known for some time because a large fraction is dissolved in the ocean and only released to the atmosphere many years later.

However, there appears to be a consensus among climate scientists that more CO2 absorbed by the oceans will raise their acidity, and a number of recent studies have concluded that this will eventually disrupt the ability of marine micro-organisms to use the calcium carbonate in the water to produce their hard parts.

Unlike the EPA’s in Australia, who remain captured by pollutant industries, the USEPA has now deemed carbon dioxide (and other GHGs) a pollutant, which endangers public health and welfare. I find it curious that ill-informed Australians refute this fact when benzene and other hydrocarbons are proven carcinogens and carbon dioxide is the final process for those carcinogens.

In addition and during 2008, a Stanford scientist spelt out for the first time the direct links between increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and increases in human mortality, using a state-of-the-art computer model of the atmosphere that incorporates scores of physical and chemical environmental processes.

That of course is not the concern of the denialists in Australia even though Professor of Ecology and Agricultural Sciences at Cornell University, David Pimental, wrote in his peer reviewed paper that “in the United States alone about 3 million tons of toxic chemicals are released into the environment annually - contributing to cancer, birth defects, immune system defects and many other serious health problems.” He concluded that about 40 percent of deaths worldwide are caused by water, air and soil pollution.

However, the environmental degradation at the hands of greedy corporations continues where the ecological desecration is glaringly obvious (except to the corporations and their supporters) but then they only have to keep the population healthy long enough to plunder the resources before moving on, leaving destruction in their path. But climate change cares nought for the economy.

Protagoras, this thread seems to have gone off the main page so hope you pick this up and thanks for the valuable info.

The data I used was from http://cdiac.ornl.gov/, there are slight variations on your data from my source but I’m not contesting either.

Can you explain what you mean by saying not to “equate liquid with gas”? What liquid were you referring to? My comparison was (I think) between two gases. The total Fossil Fuels Combusted (into the atmosphere), plus emissions from Land Use Change, compared with the Atmospheric Carbon Content (the measured residual in PPM after the biospheres’ sink process). Both gases I think?

If I am right in referring to two gas processes, the point remains that from1850 to 1990 we have pushed a total of 2,700 Gt of emitted carbon into the biosphere, this includes 1,400 Gt from LUC. Cdiac figures for 1990 state 6.4 Gt p.a., your figure for 2006 - 8.38 Gt p.a.

I’m happy with either figure however, even taking the lower 1990 number, total FFC has increased from .3 Gt in 1850 to 6.4 Gt p.a. by 1990 (8.38 Gt by 2006), this is an increase of 1,280% minimum.

Now compare this data set with the increase in ACC which has increased 22.5% 1750 to 1984 and 6.8% 1994 to 2008, let’s say 30% increase for a similar period as the FFC measurements.

The question remains (I think), why has a 1,280% increase in total Fossil Fuel Combusted only resulted in a 30% increase in the residual ACC?

I accept the NASA Oceanic data showing that delays in the oceanic carbon cycle take 8.3 years and I also accept the CSIRO’s Digital Global Vegetation Model (Roger M. Gifford) that the Land Take-up of Carbon has been steady at 27% for the past 35 years.

Can you reconcile this?

Thanks

Sorry Spindoc, all those figures are doing my head in. Perhaps you are making these matters difficult by endeavouring to assess percentages over such a large time frame.

Why not attempt to correlate elevated atmospheric concentrations of CO2 with elevated fossil fuel production? Only then will you see an emerging correlation between FF production and increased CO2 levels.

In addition coal production did not rapidly expand until towards the end of the nineteenth century and the largest expansion of petroleum products occurred after WW2, however production even then, in comparison to the latter half of the twentieth century and the twenty first century, was trivial in comparison:

Coal Production (million tons/year)...Atmospheric Concentrations CO2

1965 1566.3..................................................320.03
1976 2969.....................................................332.06
1998 3548.3..................................................366.50
2001 3602.....................................................371.07
2005 3897.....................................................379.75
2006 3914.....................................................381.85

Gas (billion cubic metres/year)

1965.......655.2
1975.....1196.5
2006.....2850.8

Therefore over 41 years of the highest gas and coal production, atmospheric CO2 concentrations increased by 61.82ppm and these figures clearly indicate that CO2 has significantly increased during the period of greatest growth - the last half century or so.

However, in the 41 years preceding the above – ie. 1879 to 1920, CO2 concentrations increased by a mere 10.90ppm.

In fact, over 750 years ie. 1000 to 1750, atmospheric CO2 concentrations actually reduced by 0.23ppm.

"Worldwide production of coal increased from 150 million tons in 1860 to 4.573 billion tons in 1987 (a less moderate figure to the above data) and in the United States alone the production of coal has mushroomed from 10 million tons in 1850 to 1 billion tons in 1990 (Newton).

"There are similar patterns in the production of oil and natural gas."

I would suggest Spindoc that you apportion the 30% carbon increase to the appropriate eras and I imagine the experts on the link you provided would be happy to answer any additional queries.

It is relatively simple to contort data over an inappropriate lengthy period of time, however, one would need to present a very convincing argument in denying the correlation between elevated carbon emissions and elevated fossil fuel production.

The downs of the ups and downs of the hottest decade since records began are evidence that the Earth is cooling? It doesn't take the world's leading climate scientists to debunk that one (although they have of course)! It would be amusing if the issue weren't so serious.

In any case the ups and downs of global surface air temperature aren't direct measures of the Earth's energy balance; it's never been a case of warming one year, cooling next. Any graph of global temps needs to be interpreted in the context of what's going on with climate cycles like ENSO and PDO. Ongoing scientific efforts are pinning down causes for variability, as should be the case.

Warming goes on unabated - and is increasing - with the heat finding it's way into oceans, powering ongoing melt of ice sheets and glaciers. We'll see the consequences in SAT's as ongoing and accelerating warming overwhelms short term variability.

Protagoras, Thanks for the info. and your efforts, much appreciated. Will take your suggestion onboard to contact the sources. I guess I have to spend some time formulating the right question in order to get an answer that I might understand.

tbc.

Spindoc

Like Protagoras, I would defer to those with more expertise in things ‘carbon.’ It would seem more appropriate to actually ask the experts at the CDIAC.

My simple take on it is that humanity is pouring Gt’s of ‘carbon’ into the atmosphere, oceans and terrestrial biosphere at a rate that these systems cannot absorb as quick. As a consequence, the Earth’s systems try to equilibrate (using a suite of complex biological, physical and chemical processes) and results in both spatial and temporal changes. In other words, 'globing warming' is a symptom of human activity.

I can understand what you are saying about various “models”. However, they are getting better all the time (some GCM hindcasts are frighteningly accurate, demonstrating their predictive capacity).

Nevertheless, I do have my own concerns about some IPCC modelling (not the GCM’s per se) in that they revolve around the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios. As you may well know, there is a significant component of economic (and ideological) assumptions input into the IPCC projections – I do not think econometricians have a clue about the economics of the present, let alone the future. This is why I see the 'problem' as mainly political, social and economic, not scientific.

The IPCC’s next report (AR5) will address some of these issues

Odo says ‘end’ so no reply is warranted?

Since 1901, scientists (from many disciplines) have been judging the “German one” from many angles. As technology developed, the proposition was able to be scrutinised in much deeper detail, to such an extent that now the “German one” has become extremely robust – due to the rigor of the scientific process, which Odo clearly does not accept.

Put another way, since 1901, independent individuals and groups, in various cognisant and expert fields, by way of independent methodologies, using observations and empirical findings, with the aid of the world’s state-of-the-art super-computers, all agree that there is something real and significant about AGW.

Nevertheless, this does not constitute the “proof” that Odo is so desperately searching for. No more than he can prove E = mc^2 or that the tides will rise and fall tomorrow. We can derive these physical concepts using the tools of mathematics, but we cannot 'prove' them as we could 1 + 1 = 2

I’ve provided a list of papers that demonstrated the link between [CO2] and temperature and also papers demonstrating the derivation of climate sensitivity. I had twice as many but word limits prevented me from including them. For every one that I gave, I could have easily provided 10 others.

And they are not “the usual collection of modeling discussions” – they were sourced with a cursory perusal of Google Scholar on attribution and climate sensitivity ... it really is not that difficult.

Odo (and anyone else) can question the science all they like, but I would recommend not behaving like raving banshees if they don’t like the answers, particularly when they cannot comprehend the science, or understand the scientific process itself.

Here comes the facetious bit for Odo ... I suggest he goes to Mass on Sunday and listen to the religious dogma and watch the faithful, then observe the difference when he then attends a physics lecture at university.

Odo

I imagine if a medical doctor advised, after analysis, that the wart on the end of your nose was in fact a melanoma caused from sun exposure, you’d scream “liar” and seek a second or third opinion from specialists. Despite the likelihood of a medical consensus of opinion and unlike the more prudent in our society, you would still scream “liar.”

Fortunately the more enlightened in society will respect a “consensus of opinion” (despite the unknowns) from relevant experts in preference to the rants of a screeching ninny.

Your persistence in rubbishing the assessments of reputable climate specialists is curious. Just whom do you believe can provide you with a more accurate assessment on climate?

Q&A has been most generous in providing this information for your benefit and to him, "I dips me lid." Despite his generosity, your sneering continues unabated.

As a result, I request that you substantiate your refutations by providing us with the evidence in your possession. In other words, simply put your money where your mouth is – put up or shut up or forever be discredited.

Thanks Protagorus, I often wonder if its worth the effort though.

As to your challenge to Odo, he seems to have picked up his ball and gone home.

I hope Spindoc can get back to us on his question (and response) to CDIAC. I was a bit baffled by his query (I am a water-man) so he is better off going directly to the source of his concerns.

Spindoc mentioned earlier in the thread Ian Plimer's new book. I have no doubt many people will extol it as the 'nail-in-the-coffin' to AGW, and Plimer himself as the messiah to the 'deny-n-delay' brigade.

Books are a great way of ensuring an income stream into retirement, particularly if they are 'popular' and targeted to the audience. However, they primarily thrust a collection of the author's thoughts out there, right or wrong.

I think Plimer would have been better off writing a scientific paper and getting it published in a reputable science journal (Nature, Science, Climatology, Climate Dynamics, Geophysical Research Letters, PNAS, etc) to be reviewed and critiqued by his peers - no money in that though.

Anyway, here is a link to Barry Brook's take on it.

http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/23/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth/

It does give an opposing view, so even Odo should have a geezer.

I'm going to be having a break for a while (personal things to catch up on). Hang in there.
Cheers
qanda