A mildly funny, but completely idiotic article; showing nothing, denying everything. Shame on you.

Where does On Line Opinion keep dredging up these fruitcakes from? It seems like every day recently we get an article on climate change that contains a succession of blatantly false claims, drawn apparently at random from the pool of endlessly recycled memes that circulate around the denialosphere. Each of these has been thoroughly rebutted many times; not one of them represents a challenge of any substance to mainstream climate science; and yet, zombie-like, they continue to live on and treated by many as if they were true.

This article is no exception. I started counting the number of errors in it (utterly false claims, or misleading statements that ignore the broader context or subsequent events) and found 18 on the first page.

The author neglects to mention the fundamental flaw in the theory that cosmic rays are driving global warming: <strong>cosmic radiation has shown no correlation with global temperatures since around 1970</strong>.

Matt Andrews accuses the author of many errors but mentions only one - that cosmic rays have not been tracking temperatures over the past few decades. Is there a link on that? Another aspect of the cosmic rays business is at the centre of a major scientific debate at the moment, but there's no hint of their failure or otherwise to track temperatures. Interested.
The articles on climate change keep on bobbing up because the science is still obviously open to question. The problem with the hypothesis that CO2 concentrations is linked to temperatures, is that it just doesn't stand up to any real scrutiny. Those who push this line are usually forced to argue that alright the earth's climate has changed substantially in past eons and up to 1940 (the agreed IPCC case is that the variations up to 1940 are natural), but the variations beyond that are artificial.
Then why haven't we seen any real change since the turn of the century, and why is it possible to say from the Hadley temperatue record that global temperatues have been declining over the past few years? The answer given to that one is that natural variations are masking the artificial signal. Well what's causing these natural variations? How can we seperate out that natural from the artifical changes?
The answer to that one is that we can use the models. But the only validation or test we have for the models is what is called back testing. (Matching against already known data.) The only time they have tried to forecast future developments they have failed miserably - temperatues are supposed to have increased over the past decade, not declined. The writer points to other failures.
Time to scratch carbon from the race.

Curmudgeon: all science is "open to question", that's what makes it science, as opposed, say, to religion which purports absolute truth. the rest of your comment just rehashes the usual silly bleatings.

"John Ridd is a retired secondary schoolteacher. For many years he was a member of the Moderation Committee of the Qld Board of Senior Secondary School Studies. John is co-author (with Santo Russo) of a series of Maths textbooks for Years 8/9/10."

Wow, Online Opinion's really scraping the bottom of the barrel to look for anti-science dogma these days! What's up OLO? Plimer's thread not enough for you? Got to go get a High School teacher to "debunk climate science"? I'd love to know what the agenda was here at OLO!

Nothing to "See or Tool" over here, move along, move along.

Curmudgeon, the big-picture situation with cosmic rays is nicely summarised here:

http://skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming.htm

This has a bit more detail:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/cosmic-rays-don%E2%80%99t-die-so-easily/

There's a lot more to the topic, and there's still some uncertainty about the role of cosmic rays with respect to low level clouds, but it's quite clear that cosmic rays cannot explain the current warming.

Re your questions "what's causing these natural variations? How can we seperate out that natural from the artifical changes?"

This area of climate science is described in terms of "forcings". A "forcing" is a particular influence on the climate; there are many, many forcings at play.

The major short term influences on temperature are ENSO (El Nino Southern Oscillation), aerosol levels, solar variation (changes in the Sun's output), volcanoes (though their effect is very short term - usually only a few years at a time), and some others.

For a handy visual overview of the relative effect of forcings over the last century, see here:

http://skepticalscience.com/The-CO2-Temperature-correlation-over-the-20th-Century.html

Re "why haven't we seen any real change since the turn of the century":

In fact, the climate has continued to warm over the last decade. This is an easy mistake to make, and it's not helped by the fact that most global temperature data (graphs) are presented in terms of annual averages. One-year averages are strongly dominated by short term variability such as El Nino. Step back a moment: what does the word "climate" mean? It actually means the long-term average of the weather, and this is generally defined in terms of periods of 30 years or more. Take a look at a graph of 30-year averages in global temperature (instead of annual averages) and you'll see that it has continued to rise steadily throughout this decade:

http://tbp.mattandrews.id.au/2009/07/16/the-graph-the-senator-and-the-weather-watchers/

Hope that helps.

Nicely put Matt!
The article was total junk with many errors.
Just like the US "intelligence" community consumed it's own misinformation, so too the denialist junk science is doing the rounds.
It is hard for the layman to tell real from junk as this is now so politicised

Agreed ozandy,

"Oh, you just believe in climate science because you're left wing, I don't buy all that junk". Blaaarrgh! Chemistry and physics are not political. ;-)

How sad that climate change debate is now down to a bulverism!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulverism

"You must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong. The modern method is to assume without discussion that he is wrong and then distract his attention from this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how he became so silly. In the course of the last fifteen years I have found this vice so common that I have had to invent a name for it. I call it "Bulverism". Some day I am going to write the biography of its imaginary inventor, Ezekiel Bulver, whose destiny was determined at the age of five when he heard his mother say to his father — who had been maintaining that two sides of a triangle were together greater than a third — "Oh you say that because you are a man." "At that moment", E. Bulver assures us, "there flashed across my opening mind the great truth that refutation is no necessary part of argument. Assume that your opponent is wrong, and the world will be at your feet. Attempt to prove that he is wrong or (worse still) try to find out whether he is wrong or right, and the national dynamism of our age will thrust you to the wall." That is how Bulver became one of the makers of the Twentieth Century.

Pattern

The form of the Bulverism fallacy can be expressed as follows:

* You claim that A is true.
* Because of B, you personally desire that A should be true.
* Therefore, A is false.

or

* You claim that A is false.
* Because of B, you personally desire that A should be false.
* Therefore, A is true."

Obviously the responses to this are falling along ideological lines. Let me introduce some relatively new evidence: evidence on the extent of sea-ice.

Arctic: http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png

Antarctic: http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_timeseries.png

It can be seen that the Arctic cover is below the pre-2000 20-year average but considerably above last year's figures. The Antarctic figures, meanwhile, are hitting a new high.

Claims that the Northern Hemisphere is warmer than average can therefore be viewed with some sympathy, though the trend appears to have petered out. The Southern Hemisphere is equally clearly cooling. So global warming credulists are still half right. Sort of.

Matt Andrews
From an article in Time, July 21 2009 which is a fair summary of the debate to date..
Dr. Svensmark and his colleagues found a correlation between the rate of incoming cosmic rays and the coverage of low-level clouds between 1984 and 2002. They have also found that cosmic ray levels, reflected in concentrations of various isotopes, correlate well with climate extending back thousands of years.

But other scientists found no such pattern with higher clouds, and some other observations seem inconsistent with the hypothesis.

Terry Sloan, a cosmic ray expert at the University of Lancaster in England, said if the idea were true, one would expect the cloud-generation effect to be greatest in the polar regions where the Earth’s magnetic field tends to funnel cosmic rays.

the big argument is that they are taking on Slone about cosmic rays in the polar region ect.
In any case I am not wedded to the cosmic ray suggestion. Its known that the sun and the earth's climate are linked but if you knock out cosmic rays then you have to look for another link.
From your graphs it is also clearly a better link than carbon dioxide. It certainly passes more tests.
As for temperatures sorry but there has most definitely been cooling. Your links clearly show temperatures dipping in the last few years. but in any case it uses GISS. GISS methodology and results have been called very seriously into question of late. There are four sites that track global temperatues Hadley, GISS, NOAA, UAH and RSS .. GISS is the odd one out in showing the peak in 2005 rather than 1998, although it also shows cooling since then. Hadley is the authority, and it shows cooling since about 2000-01 - albeit not a great deal. In any case this point has now been conceeded. The greenhouse proponents have now switched to arguing that the heat is going into the top metre of the oceans.. see the reply to the skeptics in the debate started by Senator Fielding

Matt Andrews your supercilious attitude does not endear you to anyone, learn some manners.
We have two opinions here that the Earth is either warming or cooling. Now my spin on this is that the people saying it's warming want me to pay a lot more tax and the people who say it is cooling do not want me to pay anymore tax. Hmmmm who do think is the opinion I trust here? Is it the pick pocket gypo's or people who believe I should be left alone? Correct I will trust the one who is not going to try and take my money.
Now lets hear from Matt Andrews about why I should have my hard earned thieved.

The usual toxic cocktail of hostility and strangling self-pity from Brain Eclipse, so nothing new to see there.

Congratulations on your article John. I note that as a substitute for intelligent response, Braino has paid you the respect of googling your name in order to assess your vulnerability to assault, launched an attack, and gone on to cast aspersions on High School Maths teachers. Perhaps he didn't do so well in the subject. I have the utmost respect for them on the whole.

I applaud OLO for maintaining what seems to be a democratic agenda of balance, something Total Eclipse obviously finds intolerable. As Matt Andrews says, nothing is proven in natural sciences. So I wonder why the hostile intolerance of those who remain skeptical of supposed certainties and curious about the uncertainties. And to echo my reading of Q&A, even if it was black and white, A + B in science does not = C when it comes to sensible policy. So let free and open debate flourish in the face of those like Brain Eclipsed who want it silenced.

This article should be one of great embarrassment to the author.

Major carbon cycle perturbations affect nearly every aspect of earth's surficial systems, and in often drastic ways. As carbon dioxide builds up in the atmosphere, causing greenhouse climatic warming, climate zones shift causing tropical conditions to migrate over temperate zones.

These shifts in climate zones trigger great ecological instability, migrations of animal and plant populations, expand the range of tropical diseases to plague temperate-adapted organisms, and cause them to experience elevated body temperatures, a condition known as hyperthermia, beyond their experiences.

In the oceans, warming, and acidification of the upper waters as atmospheric carbon dioxide diffuses into them, can kill life on a massive scale. For example, warming of Pacific Ocean waters during modern El Niño events devastate marine life.

Greenhouse conditions existed during the KT mass extinctions 65 m.y. ago and the Pleistocene-Holocene mammalian extinctions of 10-12,000 years ago. Coupling climatology to reproductive physiology via effects of ambient air temperature upon uterine blood flow to developing embryos accounts for the extinctions via established physiological principles.

The Deccan Traps volcanism was one of the greatest episodes of mantle plume volcanism in Earth history, and the vast bulk of its lavas erupted right at K-T boundary time. The duration of its eruptions was coeval with major shifts in the carbon and oxygen stable isotope records, "Strangelove conditions" in the oceans, and the K-T bioevolutionary turnover.

In addition, it occurred simultaneously with other phenomena such as marine transgression, reduced photosynthesis of terrestrial and marine floras, and reduced weathering rates that would all have contributed to producing a major trans-K-T perturbation of the carbon cycle (Dewey McLean, 1995).

Effects of a Major Carbon Cycle Perturbation:

Atmosphere:
Carbon Dioxide buildup
Greenhouse climatic warming
Climate Zone shifts

Hydrosphere and Lithosphere:
Sea level rise
Ocean chemical changes
Sedimentation changes
Polar Ice melts

Biosphere:
Ecological instability
Animal and plant migrations
Tropical diseases expand range
Hyperthermia

Anthropological emissions of “See O’Too” are now 150 times greater than volcanic emissions. Hopefully John Ridd will perform some research, prior to future articles, to better understand the potential consequences?

Matt Andrews, thanks for your links and info.

However, I will observe that your blog article is an example of why I find many of the claims - and indeed counter-claims - in the climate change debate ... untrustworthy, is possibly a poor word, but it will have to do.

I freely admit that I speak only as a layman (although one with a lifelong interest in science) but it seems to me that too much of the climate change debate relies on computer modelling, which while impressive in themselves, are still rudimentary at best when compared to a system as overwhelmingly complex and chaotic as climate. Indeed, I'm reminded of nothing so much as Laplace's overconfident cosmic clockwork.

It seems that too often when observation conflicts with the models' predictions, whether it be the apparent recent cooling trend or tropospheric warming, instead of conceding that the model is inadequate, some climate scientists resort to some statistical prestidigitation, and juggle the data to fit the model.

I may be wrong, but that strikes me as rather weak science.

Finally, maybe it's just an ageing GenXer's inherent cynicism speaking, but I'm also inclined to be skeptical about, not the fact of climate change itself, but some of the claims regarding its causes and effects, simply because I've heard all these claims of imminent and overwhelming, and ultimately illusory, disaster far too many times before.

I should also add that when people such as Freeman Dyson, who I respect immensely as scientists, are distinctly heretical about claims of climate change disaster, while people who I can only describe as snake-oil salesmen, hypocrites or indeed outright liars, such as Al Gore, Sting and HRH Prince Charles are the leading lights of the climate change lobby, it doesn't do much to alleviate my cynicism.

Matt Andrews - just to follow up the last post with a few links. Here is the response to Senator Fielding's queries.
http://www.environment.gov.au/minister/wong/2009/tr20090624c.html

Now note this is not a skeptic document its from the global warming crowd, and it agrees that temperatures are declining. It says that now we have to look at heat in the oceans. We won't go into the ocean stuff just yet, but for now lets agree the point is conceeded and move on. This decline is not substantial yet, so its possible to laugh it off or argue that the heat is really in the oceans, but if it continues for, say, two more years then scientists will start to abandon ship.
Further on the cosmic rays business. It is an on-going and developing part of science. This link is to a poster paper presented at the recent conference in Copenhagen which links cosmic rays to clouds.
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1755-1315/6/29/292024/ees9_6_292024.pdf?request-id=5575c04d-4d0b-4f04-b8b4-e40272f3590a
Mind you considering where he presented it I'm surprised this guy made it out alive, and never mind the science. Of course it is one paper but so are the others and as a line of inquiry its looking a lot more promising than carbon.
Here's a recent interesting paper in Geographical Research linking drought and the sun's magnetic field. http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/121542494/abstract
says the droughts in eastern Australia
are related to the solar magnetic phases and not the greenhouse effect.
The Aus met office strongly disagrees but the academic (from Uni of New England) seems to have a strong correlation.
This incidentally is the problem with the link to forcings you gave. Its assumes all the forcings are known, but its becoming increasingly clear that they are not. The sun's influence is not just through radiant light

I am reminded of the Book of Lamentations, which sits just after Jeremiah in the King James Version. I have a distinct feeling that critics of this article are all convinced they are God himself. At the end of the day what does it matter. The world has always had prophets, of doom and otherwise.

With the media, harboring a few skeptics, and a host of true believers, it is truly breathtaking to be able to read an article, that runs against the tide. In the short term Rudd and Wong, Gore and a host of others will be permitted to devastate the world we live in, and at the end of the day, every one of us will end up in a cemetery. The skeptics and the true believers will either be buried or give up their carbon dioxide to the atmosphere in a crematorium.

Whether they are right or wrong is neither here nor there. I am reminded of the wisdom of an old priest. Man proposes God disposes, and at the end of the day this is still true. All the words in the world will not alter one bit of what is going to happen. China will continue to pollute, because they have a huge population, India will continue to boast that it has one of the lowest per capita See O’Too emissions in the world, and continue as it is doing, industrializing, and Africa will slowly become industrialized, Brazil will continue to clear rainforest, and if Mike Baillie is right, in his dendrochronology science, a comet will come past, and cause a mass extinction.

Michael Crichton in his book State of Fear makes an impressive case that CO2 warming is a confidence trick. Mike Baillie in Exodus to Arthur documents the last six thousand years of disasters, and in New Light on the Black Death, documents atmospheric disturbances, that showed up in tree rings, but hardly anywhere else at that time.

From a distance, the world look round, and the snow capped mountains flat. Lighten up, you will probably not make one iota of difference

The author's opinions may be sincere but they reveal his profound ignorance of the real state of science on this. Almost everything he says is wrong.

Scientists don't go making this stuff up. Multiple independent lines of research all confirm that climate change is real. The chances that science has the fundamentals of this wrong are next to zero by now. We should abandon all they know in favour of a cosmic ray effect no-one's been able to clearly show exists at all?

The author's recycled and unsubstantiated slanders of real people doing real science and doing their best to honestly answer the serious questions put to them are really quite insulting. He may have the right and the opportunity to air his opinion, but I'm glad that OLO allows me to air mine and I think the article is denialist drivel as well as insulting to vast majority of people doing climate relevant science.

When an article is saying stuff so completely the opposite of what every institution that actually studies climate says alarm bells should go off.

Protogoras can waffle on and on and on but Global Warming is total nonsense. Ken Fabos can also fulminate till he is black in the face. Boys it was called Global warming and now it's climate change, like the climate has not been changing for ever. You blokes can worship the white coats and clip boards brigade but not me. I have seen so many instances of the "truth" being overturned too may times. Add to this dodgy as all get out politicians (Al Gore) and the idea that this will all take millions of taxpayer dollars to prove. The kicker of course is we need to increase taxes to pay for it. Come on! 99% will go in administration and downright corruption.
The ex head of Greenpeace runs an outfit getting million to replace light-bulbs in NSW, need I go on?
The high school teacher has it just right thanks!

initial ipcc report some years ago suggested that human impact on climate was detectable, this has now changed to human impacts the major factor.
can someone then indicate how many tonnes of greenhouse gases are put into the atmosphere from non-human (natural) activities and how many tonnes derive from human activities.
secondly if we were to consider the earth's atmosphere as being fixed in volume by earth's gravity, then the pv=nrt (established relationship between pressure of gases, volume and temperature) would apply
n is the number of molecules of gas, r is a constant and t is temperature, p is pressure and v is volume
therefore if n and t are increasing and v is fixed then p must increase. we can confirm independantly of temperature measuring if atmospheric temperature is increasing because atmospheric pressure would be increasing. so can someone point to either the quantities of greenhouse gasses from human and non-human activities and also provide data on atmospheric pressure changes?

This does not seem to be relevant.

1. Anthropogenic Co2 is dwarfed by natural Co2 emissions in the natural carbon cycle. But this is irrelevant. The cycle was finely balanced. "In and Out" each season... google the carbon cycle for more or try the wiki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle

Think of 2 very big, equally weighted semi-trailer trucks on each side of gigantic scales. Now think of humanity throwing a bag of feathers into the trailer of one of the trucks. At first it is laughable because the trucks are so heavy, what could feathers possibly do? But then gradually, as the size of the bags of feathers increases every year, the scales begin to tip.

2. Atmospheric pressure is not affected by the rise and fall of the natural Co2 rhythm because Co2 is such a small percentage of the atmosphere. But lets not make the mistake of equating small percentage of atmospheric volume with small percentage of radiative forcing please!

EG: A tiny injection of ebola virus is an insignificant percentage of my body weight, yet can still kill me.

Matt Andrews .. .some of us believe the “fruit cakes” are those who have the hubris to insist AGW (if it exists) is actually the product of CO2 emissions and that you can stop human development in the name of humanity.

The Luddite movement is nothing new, they smashed the “spinning jennys” in the 18th century and are now hell bent on stopping the free development of other people in the name of the myth of AGW/CO2.

And I see some other Inquisitors of AGW demanding OLO curtail publishing because they perceive the publication of a heretical viewpoint.

I see most of those inquisitors suggest the article contains many errors but would support the notion of AGW with no tangible evidence other than their own blind faith.

Now children, this is the following is the train of gullibility which we are being pulled along by small minded politicians who are bereft of real understanding of how the world works:

Find a possible crisis

Beat it up into a major event of global proportion

Justify your existence of defeating the crisis by the most extreme means, which converts into the curtailment of personal liberty, in one form or another, all in the name of government profligacy.

When the crisis does not materialize, simply claim it as a success of your policies, the defeat of the mythical foe, quietly ignoring the increase in government cashflows.

Now, were we talking about AGW or GFC.. I cannot remember but I do know:

Either way

You, me and our children are going to be paying for all this “Socialism by Stealth” for a long, long time to come.

(Yawns)
Just another patronising anti-climate, anti-science, political rant.

(Yawns again)

How many of you idiots will the climate scientists have to deal with before governments can actually act to prevent the worst of this crisis?

(Yawns from total and utter boredom at pointing out this next, self evident fact)

Whether you are Luddite or not, left or right wing, misanthropic 'progress' hating greenie or pro-globalisation Corporation loving CEO suit, it just doesn't matter.

**The physics and chemistry of climate are not political**.

So have your petty little rant if it makes you feel better. Patronise the cutting edge science of thousands of climatologists like the idiot you are. The physics and chemistry of climate will just chug along at their own pace, whatever you say.

Eclipse Now you go and have a nice lie down dear. I understood what Slasher was saying but could not make head nor tail of your repudiation. Try harder after a little nap.
The physics and chemistry of climate are not political? Who said they were? We are trying to get through to you that the "Scientists" are trying for lots of research money from the politicians who can only get it from us, that's the politics mate! The politicians are trying to tax the air we breathe with this nonsense and also the water too.
The world temperature on their previous measurement has not increased for ten years so now we change the method, do me a favour. They have refined the science? No they are changing the story again. Not global warming, it's now climate change. Once the pollies have the tax watch what happens although I for one will spend my life hammering this stupid tax and the politicians who force it on us.
Have you woken up yet Eclipse?

Reading consecutive posts on the topic of "Climate Change" - or whatever is the current phrase-du-jour - is like watching a game of tennis on one of the outer courts at Wimbledon.

Two well-muscled Estonian ladies, one ranked 97 by the WTA, the other 145, are on court.

"Serve"

Doesn't matter which side starts the ball moving.

"Return"

Whichever side it was, you can guarantee that they will immediately be told they are talking rubbish

One side believes the world will rapidly dissolve into a pool of its own sweat unless we retreat to our caves and learn to grow tofu.

They will continue to believe this, no matter what, because it is in their nature to feel this way.

Many of these are public servants.

The other camp believes that everything will be just fine and dandy forever, however much we consume, burn, devastate or flatulate.

Many of these are capitalists, raw in tooth and claw, treading on the bones of the proletariat as they order the destruction of another rainforest.

It certainly is fun to watch for a while, as is that tennis match.

But after a time it gets very tedious, watching the same ball being batted back and forth by people who just get crosser and crosser. And anyway, it's not the ball's fault.

Serve, forehand crosscourt, forehand down the line, backhand down the line, forehand crosscourt, forehand, forehand, forehand to the baseline, forehandd....zzzz

It does seem to me that the only denialists around here, are those who deny there may be an insufficiency of information available yet, and firmly believe that they know the answer.

Well said, Pericles. It's depressing to watch this debate become like the abortion debate, with two armed camps circling the wagons and damned be he who dares try and stay in No Man's Land.

(I'm not sure how many metaphors I've mangled there ...)

But for me, I'd rather drink and dance with Doubt, as Mr. Crowley would say.

If CO2 is so finely balanced, why has it gone up and down so much in the past? I think comparing carbon/oxygen to the ebola virus is also a little far fetched. Sustainability is like perpetual motion - it is impossible. Humans must always have some effect on the world in which we exist. We can try to curtail CO2 emissions if it isn't too costly, but then something else will be decided to be out of balance, and we will drive ourselves mad trying to control the climate, if that hasn't already happened. I think we are kidding ourselves a bit, and our leaders get to feel great telling us they are saving the planet. It sounds like something out of Flash Gordon.

Pericles and Clownfish,
Do you doubt lead poisons people, or that E=MC2 can produce a lot of energy in a hydrogen bomb? Why are you so selective in your doubt of science? ;-) I doubt you are just objective observers of the game.

The IPCC scientists say that while we don't know *everything* and there will be some surprises ahead, we know *enough* to take action. So rather than being objective observers you are instead hitting the ball back into the climatologists court, forcing them to respond. You’ve fallen for Myth 4: “Many leading scientists question climate change.”

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11654-climate-myths-many-leading-scientists-question-climate-change.html

Bowyer,
if you truly believe climate change is a conspiracy of money grabbing scientists, what a horrifically corrupt and frightening world you must live in! Why, the moon-landing *could* have been faked. The world as we know it *could* be about to end in 2012 and there really *could* be aliens at Area 51. (Just like in all those movies that we watch for entertainment... they’re *make believe*, you know that don't you?)

You’ve fallen for Myth 4, “It’s all a conspiracy”.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11653-climate-myths-its-all-a-conspiracy.html

And Myth 22,
It’s been cooling since 1998.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14527-climate-myths-global-warming-stopped-in-1998.html

This is a very nicely produced video explaining the latest temperature trends from leading sources.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y15UGhhRd6M

Gilliana,
the Co2 cycle *is* finely balanced within *today’s* climate norms.

It changed in DEEP history (dinosaurs and before) due to geological epochs, such as extra volcanism, etc.

You might be thinking about more recent 100-thousand year swings in Co2 and climate. These were Milankovitch cycles acting as triggers and Co2 levels following the Milankovitch “triggers” but amplifying them vastly.

The following is a truly great Youtube channel that I subscribe to.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWJeqgG3Tl8&feature=related

Great article John Ridd.
Pay little heed to your critics – they’re just not into horses!

Consider the following from Professor David Freestone the visiting Ingram fellow, UNSW, and a leading advocate of AGW.
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2008/s2655389.htm

--“300,000 people are year are already dying from climate change effects… more than 30 million people actually adversely affected, that it actually costs more, nearly two billion dollars a year, developing countries the impacts of climate change”

How do they determine this –well, there’s a clue later: “We're talking about, too much water and not enough”

So you have an ever growing population drawing on aquifers, damming rivers, clearing forests (remember the relationship of forest cover to precipitation ) –and the expectation is, water supply will goldilocks like, never be too little or too much!

And , then he cites actual events attributable to AGW :
--- “Exactly, you know Myanmar. There's big floods in China, in India. So you see that exactly.”
--- “in Africa the increased desertification now in the Sahelian regions, in the… south of the Sahara and that's happening also.”

David is charging that bigger than normal storms are the result of climate change –and there might we a little to that –
but some not afraid to be ridiculed and label denialists might venture to ask –didn’t clearing of mangroves that formed a natural buffer play any part – didn’t settling on low lying land play a part?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090414172924.htm
http://factsanddetails.com/china.php?itemid=395&catid=10&subcatid=65

And, what is the likely effect of people like David saying it’s ALL to do GHG induced climate change –especially when in his next breath he maintains that the developed world bears “ 90%” of the responsibility ?

It tells those undeveloped nations that produce “10%” of the pollution and 90% of the new births.
--Keep having 10 kids per family.
--Keep over fishing & over farming.
--Continue to settle on low lying land.
Because if anything untoward occurs – it’s not your doing.

A real head in the sand stance.
And that John Ridd is why your critics are not into horses –you see, they prefer Ostriches!

Eclipse Now, I doubt because juggling data to fit computer models which are rife with assumptions and approximations does not inspire confidence, and because eminent scientists such as Freeman Dyson most assuredly do question not climate change, but the claims of the climate change lobby.

Eclipse now, bringing up movies is nonsense and do not attribute to me what I DID not say.
Money grabbing scientists exactly and that mate is the real world. These scientists exist from one grant to the next. The United Nations has always been a totally corrupt organisation as evidenced by their "Food" organisation that never fed anyone but the beuracrats and scientists that ran it, climate change IPCCC, whatever, the same. As I told you the politicians are going to tax us some more.
Here is a real question have you ever worked at a place that pays tax or have you always been at quangos that do not pay tax and whose workers pay a lot less tax because of "Charitable " status.
This is not make believe I do know that!

Yup, predictable to the end. New Scientist really has your number!

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11653-climate-myths-its-all-a-conspiracy.html

If you believe that tens of thousands of scientists are colluding in a massive conspiracy, nothing anyone can say is likely to dissuade you. But there are less extreme versions of this argument.

One is that climate scientists foster alarmism about global warming to boost their funding. Another is that climate scientists' dependence on government funding ensures they toe the official line (pdf).

It has taken more than a century to reach the current scientific consensus on climate change (see Many leading scientists question the idea of human-induced climate change). It has come about through a steadily growing body of evidence from many different sources, and the process has hardly been secret.

Now that there is a consensus, those whose findings challenge the orthodoxy are always going have a tougher time convincing their peers, as in any field of science. For this reason, there will inevitably be pressure on scientists who challenge the consensus. But findings or ideas that clash with the idea of human-induced global warming have not been suppressed or ignored - far from it.

(snip)

As for the idea that scientists change their tune to keep their paymasters happy, under the current US administration many scientists claim they have been pressurised to tone down findings relating to climate change (see US fudging of climate science details revealed).

Indeed, those campaigning for action to prevent further warming have had to battle against huge vested interests, including the fossil-fuel industry and its many political allies. Many of the individuals and organisations challenging the idea of global warming have received funding from companies such as ExxonMobil.

eclipse now does not understand basic chemistry physics. pv=nrt
I accept that additional greenhouse gases are minute in terms of total atmosphere, therefore n(number of molecules) change attributable to greenhouse gas will have negligble impact on pressure, however if atmospheric gas temperature is increasing due to greenhouse effect, then t increases will have direct and proportionate increase in pressure, simple physics.

Eclipse Now, no scientists are fostering alarmism, are they? Not even the ones who go on national media, claiming that our major cities will be abandoned and under water this century, or that Sydney's dams would be dry in a few years, or that the Arctic would be ice free last year?

Slasher, if you're such a physics genius spell it out for us then will you? What does 280ppm Co2 increased to 385ppm equal in terms of pressure? 105 parts per million, or 0.0105% of the atmosphere? Does that equate to a tenth of 1 percent increase in atmospheric pressure? I don't know, I'm not a physicist. But how do I know it isn't offset by other changes in gases in response? How much atmospheric pressure change is there in the larger 'natural' Co2 cycle (that we contribute to and distort by adding Co2 above and beyond the natural system's ability to absorb it).

Is any of this *really* relevant? You're the one putting the argument, the burden of proof is with you. Please demonstrate something or link to a credible science report so I can forward it on to the climatologists for a response.

Clownfish, according to that logic:
* Some politicians are like Pauline Hanson so we should abandon democracy
* Some people really can't drive, so we should ban driving
* Some people really cook crap, so we should abandon all cooking

So what if some people become a bit hysterical about global warming? There are nutters in every societal discussion and discipline. The scientific process is more rigid than that. Try and learn the difference between some greenie activist making a big flamboyant statement to attract attention to the absolutely worst case scenarios, and a more solid statement of scientific probability.

I'd like specific examples please, with who said what, when, and where if we are going to continue down this line.

“We're going to be witnessing whole cities being destroyed through the sea level rise. We can expect the destruction of the Great Barrier Reef for sure ... I think the big unknown to most people is the extent of the catastrophe. It is going to be severe beyond imagination.“ – Dr. Charlie Veron, Sixty Minutes, May 14, 2009

“(Tim Flannery) predicts that the ongoing drought could leave Sydney's dams dry in just two years.” ABC NewsOnline June 11, 2005

“this may be the Arctic's first ice-free year.” – Tim Flannery, guardian.co.uk, August 9, 2008

“Professor Flannery says climate change is happening so quickly that mankind may need to pump sulphur into the atmosphere to survive.” Sydney Morning Herald, May 19, 2008

“ James Hansen - who is the world's leading thinker in this area ... believes we're on the brink of triggering a 25m rise in sea level.” – Tim Flannery, WWF website interview.

“If the Greenland and Antarctica icesheets melt (which they are doing in spectacular fashion), sea levels could rise, as they have done many times in the past, by 100 metres. If that were to happen, forget the metre-in-a-century mantra, and forget half of Sydney, along with most of the world's coastal populations.” – Mike Archer, dean of science at the University of NSW, Sydney Morning Herald, February 1, 2007

“(a sea level rise of 100 metres in the next century) is possible, yes ...it will be huge”. – Robin Williams, ABC, March 10, 2007 (not a scientist, I know, but still has enourmous clout in science reporting)

No need to even get started on Al Gore.

Are these your "greenie activist(s) making a big flamboyant statement to attract attention"?

Your logic is also absurd. I never argued that we should "abandon" anything other than ill-thought-out, knee-jerk reactions fomented in the heat of a mass panic. This is why it does matter if "some people become a bit hysterical about global warming" - especially people in authority.

"No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear" - Edmund Burke

Vernon's statement seems about right with the "new consensus" amongst the Hansen's and other real climatologists out there. James Hansen is probably right, all his models from the 80's have come true so far. He even "modelled in" (don't use the term PREDICTED because that is unscientific, more on that later) in a volcano that might slow global warming, and got that right within a few years!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6Un69RMNSw

As far as 100 m sea level rise, I thought that even if all ice and snow on earth melted the maximum was 65 meters. Maybe that's thermal expansion of the water?

Tim Flannery's "ongoing drought" issue has a context.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200506/s1389858.htm
He spells out 3 natural systems that are affecting rainfall in Australia, all of which still appear to be factors, and then states...

"If you think there's only a 10 per cent chance that this rainfall deficit's going to continue for another few years, you'd be pulling out all stops to preserve water," he said.

He was talking in the language of PROBABILITIES, not PREDICTION!

It's called risk management. Rather than being a "prophet" PREDICTING what will happen, risk management is all about playing the odds appropriately. He was spelling out a risk management scenario with the clear suggestion of low PROBABILITIES, that it probably only had a 10% chance.

And note this. Many are saying El Nino is back. Our lovely year without a summer is over. All that beautiful La Nina rain! My lawn was so green. Now we're heading back into El Nino... what if climate change makes it "get stuck" for a bit longer than it should be? We could STILL see Tim Flannery's 10% risk mitigation scenario come to fruition.

Sometimes people need worst case scenarios to prepare, because sometimes things are just true. The language of fear is called for. I have seen NO evidence presented by the sceptics that stands rigorous scientific scrutiny, and instead we witness the climate changing FASTER than the most dire warnings of the IPCC!

It is often not understood that the IPCC, as a political body based on a consensus approval process, has produced in its summary reports language that expresses the lowest common denominator position; statements that were so unassailably supported by the science that even Bush-era US, Saudi Arabia, etc etc could not object.

There's a substantial body of opinion among climate scientists that the 2007 AR4 IPCC summary report understates the potential risks. Note that the IPCC "summary reports" are subject to this political consensus approval process; the "technical reports" are not. The technical reports stand up as excellent syntheses of the scientific understanding of the time; however, bear in mind that things have moved on considerably since then.

Eclipse Now,

On one hand, you say that scientists are not fostering alarm, but now you say "the language of fear is called for". I think perhaps you should just quieten down for a while.

Gilliana

Eclipse Now seems to be subscribing to Robin Williams ilk, ABC Science Person, who predicted 100 metre sea rises by the end of the century and under extreme questioning by a JJJ compere, admitted, very bitterly, that "you have to exaggerate to get people's attention".

End of all credibility. Unbelievable that this person is considered a National Treasure, so that "award" goes the same way as the Nobel Peace Prize, (after it was awarded to Yasser Arafat), down the drain as a political tool rather than an unemotional measure of humanity.

EN is of the same genre, all panic and doom, "to get attention".

Sorry EN, but you and your cohorts of the Scientology AGW religion deserve no less.

eclipse now, i will spell it out very clearly pv=nrt, v is constant defined by earth's gravity (volume of atmosphere), r is a constant. n increases marginally with additional greenhouse gas, temperature increase lead to increased pressure. directly proportional. this is normal in linear equations showing the relationship between variables. Let me know if I have lost you so far.

Therefore a 1% increase in temperature leads to a wait for it 1% increase in pressure. the purpose of raising this is that the measurement of pressure will independantly confirm or refute the temperature changes.

Slasher
The atmosphere is not a closed system.
You are misrepresenting and distorting the science, why?
If you want to play 'climate science', do some homework.

While I'm not sure that the atmosphere's volume is constant, I will give slasher the benefit of the doubt.

It seems that sea-level pressure changes have been recorded for some time in a lot of places and has been compiled into large dataset called the HadSLP2. Given your knowledge about pressure/temperature relationships in the atmosphere, can you tell us what the HadSLP2 dataset says about it slasher? Does it confirm global temperature changes or not?

Bugsy

<< While I'm not sure that the atmosphere's volume is constant, I will give slasher the benefit of the doubt.>>

The Ideal Gas Law slasher bangs on about is a reasonable response from a high school physics/chemistry student. I can understand how his comment would sow the seeds of doubt.

Nevertheless, it is also reasonable to assume that a student does not have enough experience or tutaledge in more advanced physics/chemistry. On a personal level, I thought I knew calculus until I was confronted with tensor calculus.

Slasher has not discovered anything new that scientists have not been aware of and while it may seem nice to him to describe the atmosphere in terms of a simple linear model,unfortunately, its not. The climate system is profoundly non-linear.

When I said "the atmosphere is not a closed system", it was not only alluding to volumes (implicit in the gas law) but also other external factors that must be taken into account in regard to heat transfer e.g. sources/sinks. I expect to be amused by his answer to your challenge.

I can only suggest that if people want to learn about atmospheric physics or radiative transfer, they should go to a prime source, rather than an opinion forum.

To others whinging about "alarmist" writing in risk mitigation scenarios:
1. I said I don't know about the 100 meters, they might be right when one includes modelling for thermal expansion as well as ice-water melt. It also depends on time scales.

2. I doubt some of the IPCC's models because there simply isn't the oil, gas, and coal to exponentially increase our consumption to the year 2100. When I hear the IPCC say things like (for example only, haven't bothered to look up the actual statement for a while) "by 2100 we'll be consuming 150 million barrels of oil a day"... I just laugh. We're about to hit peak oil at somewhere around 90 million barrels a day and from then on it's all downhill. Gas follows a few years later, then coal maybe around 2025 to 2050.

Now global warming is already BAD, we need to get down under 350 ppm. Burning just all the remaining OIL would be serious enough, let alone all the gas and COAL cook cook the planet 5 times over. But I'm talking about economic incentives to change suddenly overwhelming nice "greenie" incentives to change. Once we pass the peak of these resources their price skyrockets in a market competing for them. All I'm saying is that I'm looking forward to what the market comes up with after this occurs! You guys will no longer be able to complain about government conspiracies to tax us, it will become a profound economic necessity!

3. You are all actually sounding REALLY uninformed about the scariest *realistic* global warming scenario that could have enormous ramifications for the world's politics in just a few decades. So if you're busy debunking climate alarmism, why haven't you gone for the biggie? Maybe you don't even know about it?

4. Real science evolves, but dogmas stay the same and keep trotting out the same old myths. Some of you are just repeating the same tired old narratives which are so unutterably boring and predictable. Fiddling while Rome burns.

I have to hand it to you, Eclipse Now: I thought there were some elegant rhetorical gymnasts on this forum, but you make them look like rank amateurs.

Of course some scientists aren't being alarmists - they're not being alarmist enough!

The IPCC represents the consensus view of every scientist who's ever lived ever, and absolutely cannot be wrong about anything - until Eclipse Now disagrees with it!

Well, I think I have learned "the difference between some greenie activist making a big flamboyant statement to attract attention to the absolutely worst case scenarios, and a more solid statement of scientific probability" ... you've just given us a prime example.

EN

There is no doubt humanity is conducting an *experiment* that has not been done before. The *experiment* can’t be repeated and we don’t have a control against which to test it. Therefore, it makes sense to proceed with caution, risk management if you like.

Anyway, are you familiar with the work of Susan Solomon (co-chair on WG1 for the IPCC’s AR4)?
Earlier this year she and some colleagues published a paper showing that reducing CO2 concentrations will take a very, very long time - so long in fact that they describe it in terms of irreversibility. The so called ‘deny-n- delay brigade’ jumped on this research and used it as an argument not to mitigate GHG emissions – what’s the point was their catch-cry. Their response of course was/is just silly.

Solomon et al were saying that we (humanity) have to find a way to limit our GHG emissions given that we are already committed to an embedded increase in CO2 concentration, because if we don’t, we will just have to get used to high levels – and the concomitant problems, of which I am sure you are well aware of.

You say “we need to get down under 350 ppm.” To suggest this is fine, but if you understand the implications of Solomon et al, you must also understand that your statement is just as naive as the ‘deny-n- delay brigade’s call to do nothing. If you do not accept the conclusions of the Solomon paper, perhaps you could tell me why not.

Regardless, I think it will be difficult enough to limit the CO2 concentrations to 450 ppm, given the projected increase in world population to 9.5 billion by 2050.

I will say I too am bothered by the UN’s Special Report on Emission Scenarios. I am not an econometrician but I suspect they (like economists) have difficulty with the modelling. Climate modelling is very different.

Here is a link to the Solomon et al paper:

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/01/28/0812721106.full.pdf

Hi Q&A,
none of my previous comments were targeted at you but at those whining about "alarmism".

So I guess it started me thinking about what is alarmist? Is the IPCC alarmist when it talks about huge volumes of fossil fuels being used in 2100... when no such volumes of fossil fuels exist on earth to delay peak fossil fuels till after 2100? Or is the IPCC NOT being alarmist enough because their political processes, slowed by the Saudi's and other interests, have left its models far behind the climate consensus as expressed by the leaders in their fields?

So when you say... "Of course some scientists aren't being alarmists - they're not being alarmist enough!" I think I'm inclined to agree.

I guess I was trying to say to the others "Sure, I can see problems with the IPCC models..." but the bottom line is I think they're actually not alarmist enough because they're still running on the 450ppm model.

Anyway, did Solomon deal with biochar?
What about painting our roofs white?
What about moving to economical Gen4 nuclear reactors that Dr Barry Brook always goes on about, and running our car fleet on "Better Place" battery-swap vehicles from that (coming to Canberra in 2012 as a large scale trial).

Better Place are ONLY using clean wind energy.

Surely there's stuff we can do to limit what we emit, change the albedo of our cities, and suck Co2 out of the air and into our farmland soil where it will do us some good? Surely there's always hope, even though the sceptics here STILL haven't mentioned what could happen to India and China?

eclipse now, q&A, increased atmospheric pressure is used to detect global warming see attached where threefold increase in atmospheric pressure has been detected directly attributable to global warming.
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2002/pluto.html

my point was that there was a mechanism to independantly confirm/refute global warming. i have been surprised by the absence of stats/data of pressure changes in the debate. we have seen debates about the temperature measurement methodology between location, urban heat trap, satellite data etc. if someone was to look at pressure changes it would add a new dimension to the argument. whilst you can argue non-linear system the relationship between pressure and temperature of gas is still direct proportionate relationship, the non-linear aspect relates to changes when dealing with different molecular sizes of the gases, nevertheless the relationship between temperature and pressure is directly proportionate.

Eclipse,

You raise some interesting points. The UNFCCC are quite aware of the alarming (not alarmist) messages emanating from the IPCC and they are trying to address the issues, they are not debating the science. The IPCC on the other hand do 'debate' and correlate the science (they don't conduct it) and the processes involved can 'dilute' the message. That is the politics at play (remember the brouhaha in Bali with the US contingent?). The fact remains, government representatives cannot change or alter the science.

You will have to provide me with a link to where you think I said "Of course some scientists aren't being alarmists - they're not being alarmist enough!" I certainly think there are extremists on both sides and that scientists (through the various science academies) should find a better way to disseminate the findings of their research to the general public. That raises issues unlikely to be adequately addressed here (I wasn't even going to comment in this thread until I saw slasher's remarks, you just confounded
it).

Eclipse, 450 ppm is alarming enough, really. I do think there is room for optimism but you can't set the bar too high - otherwise you will lose the support of the people that you need the most. Am I confident? I would like to be. That confidence is tempered by thoughts about society recognising that rabid consumerism and growth at all costs is the wrong road to travel. Politicians, economists and accountants are going to have a lot to answer for.

As for Barry Brook, I have a lot of time for him. As far as alternative energy sources, geo-engineering, carbon sequestration and the like go, there is much to do.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9298

Hi Q&A, sorry the "not alarmist enough" message was Clownfish.
Also, I appreciate some of Barry's responses to the denialists... I just wish he wasn't proving me wrong on renewables all the time! ;-)

Slasher, you're so funny! So let me guess, OUR atmosphere must increase by 3 times if global warming is real because the same happened on Pluto? Hilarious. How much atmosphere is ON Pluto anyway? What is it like most of Pluto's "year"? How hard IS it for Pluto's atmosphere to multiply 3 times if there is hardly any there to begin with? All these answers, and more, await the diligent enquirer that can take the extremely difficult and challenging academic step of *checking the WIKI for 60 seconds!*

And there we find that Pluto's atmospheric conditions are exactly like those on Earth. No really! (winks)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluto#Atmosphere

"Pluto's atmosphere consists of a thin envelope of nitrogen, methane, and carbon monoxide, derived from the ices on its surface.[62] As Pluto moves away from the Sun, its atmosphere gradually freezes and falls to the ground. As it edges closer to the Sun, the temperature of Pluto's solid surface increases, causing the ices to sublimate into gas. This creates an anti-greenhouse effect; much like sweat cools the body as it evaporates from the surface of the skin, this sublimation has a cooling effect on the surface of Pluto. Scientists using the Submillimeter Array have recently discovered that Pluto's temperature is about 43 K (&#8722;230 °C), 10 K colder than expected.[63]
Pluto was found to have an atmosphere from an occultation observation in 1985; the finding was confirmed and significantly strengthened by extensive observations of another occultation in 1988. When an object with no atmosphere occults a star, the star abruptly disappears; in the case of Pluto, the star dimmed out gradually.[64] From the rate of dimming, the atmospheric pressure was determined to be 0.15 pascal, roughly 1/700,000 that of Earth.[65]"

eclipse now, your arrogance and ignorance is astonishing. I have in earlier posts indicated that the temperature change is directly proportionate. that is if there is a change of 1% in temperature there will be a change in pressure of 1%. I have never indicated that there needs to be a threefold increase in pressure to suggest that global warming is occurring.(the threefold issue comes from the scientific consensus about what is happening on Pluto). the article is used to show how the scientific community uses changes in atmospheric pressure to demonstrate changes in the atmosphere temperature.
Could i suggest you go to a dictionary and look up the words directly proportionate. Further I suggest you read a little wider than wikipedia. The scientific consensus is that Pluto is experiencing global warming not cooling as you suggest by quoting wikipedia.
The relationship between pressure and temperature is not disputed in physics.

Slasher (post limits got me this morning).

Pluto is a different test tube.

There is a very fundamental (scientific) reason why there has been an "absence of stats/data of pressure changes in the debate" (sic). Bugsy alluded to this in his challenge to you - which you have apparently decided to ignore.

I fully understand the linear relationship with respect to the Ideal Gas Law (including the proportionality constant), thanks. It is patently clear you don't understand how this simple linear equation is *compromised* by for example; 'non-plutonian' and/ocean/atmosphere coupled systems (I am not referring to "molecular sizes of gases" btw).

If you want to *play* scientists, do some homework. You are displaying yourself as an ignorant dill to those that have devoted their career to the subject you raise. Otherwise, you are just spreading guff for your personal agenda.

eclipse now, thanks for the moron response that the laws of physics are not the same on each planet. suggest some work on the topic for you. what's next e=mc2 only applies on earth. how about v2=u2+2as only applies on earth. yes there are interrelationship with ocean and atmosphere. but if the temperature of gasses(atmosphere) rises then the pressure will rise.
i have used ideal gas law to demonstrate relationship between temperature and pressure if you want the higher sophisticated formula it is as follows (p+n2a/v2)(v-nb)=nrt nevertheless if temperature goes up and volume is constant then pressure goes up. As other variables not changing again it is a direct proportionate relationship. I have already acceptable additional greenhouse gases would have neglible though measurable impact.
why are you afraid of admitting that there is a basis to either confirm or deny a scientific hypothesis.

Slasher,
I never denied the laws of physics but merely pointed out that the variables in the equation were completely and utterly different. A planet in an asymmetrical orbit that freezes most of it's orbit but warms up at one point, with a delayed warming that can last 15 years after the closest exposure to the sun, and also with an atmosphere 1/700,000 that of Earth, is just so completely different

I apologise for misrepresenting your statements about the earth's atmospheric pressure multiplying by 3 times, but I was cranky for what I perceive as a largely side-issue. Lash out at me a second time by all means, but whatever you do DON'T address Q&A's posts. ;-)

So when you say "As other variables not changing again it is a direct proportionate relationship" I just laugh. Q&A, who works in this stuff, assures us that you are taking us into an extremely complex side issue that really doesn't debunk THIS planet's incredibly complex climate and dynamic atmospheric system. I take that to mean YES, the laws of physics still work on earth, but NO, the SYSTEM they are a part of cannot be condensed to such a trite little formula, especially when the percentages of change and margins of error are so low. If you are convinced you have the scientific clout to write up a paper on this why not try it, and see what *actual climate scientists* say? But Q&A's answers are sufficient for me. I'm not even planning to humour you by googling this issue.

I think the onus rests with you to get to the point about worldwide temperature records and whether or not you believe the laws of physics apply to them!

eclipse now, i originally asked two simple questions what was the tonnage of co2 emitted into the atmosphere from anthropoligical sources and non-anthropoligical sources. Secondly was there any data on atmospheric pressure that might add weight to the debate about whether global warming or cooling was occurring.
For asking these questions the greenhouse mafia come out in force, with bigotry and zeal which would have made Pope Urban and his committee for heresy proud.
Protgoras provided information that anthropological emmissions are 150 times that of volcanoes, this implies the total emmissions must be known.
Bugsy has alluded to a dataset on pressure that may be available.
The purpose of science is not to advance one ideological over another but to increase the knowledge and understanding of our universe. There has been debate about the method of measuring global temperature. My suggestion to use pressure was to provide a data set that could either confirm or refute the alternative theories nothing more or less. I had posed this same question to the Australian Office of Greenhouse and received no response. i suppose public funds creating jobs for bureaucrats is more important than keeping the public informed.
The standard greenhouse theory is that solar activity contributes 25% of global warming, alternative theories has the figure as high as 69%.
Unfortunately the modern day committee for heresy is using the same bile and unscientific attacks to stifle debate. Just as religious fevour seriously undermined scientific thought and exploration of ideas that challenge the power elites in the past the modern day equivalents such as eclipse now threaten open debate and the advancement of scientific methodology.

Total anthropogenic Co2? Don't you know that from memory? You're the one proposing a new tool by which climatologists can measure temperature, and you can't even quote the total anthropogenic Co2 emissions per annum from memory? Honestly! How about you google & wiki it and get back to us here. ;-) (A little homework for you on the EXTREME BASICS when you're the one trying to hi-jack this thread into an extremely complicated side-issue).

"greenhouse mafia"? Please relax, you'll live longer. This simply isn't the thread to get hi-jacked into what sounds like a very complicated technical debate about an area YOU find interesting.

"religious fevour" etc
I notice you're still talking to me? Not to Q&A, who actually works in this area? All Q&A did is point out that the subject you're addressing gets VERY complicated very quickly, and is probably beyond the technical expertise of most readers here, including you and I.

If you want to know about atmospheric pressure, please write your concerns up and post on http://www.realclimate.org/ where there are some serious experts on this stuff. It is side-tracking this forum, which is actually to discuss the position of the lead article.

This is my last post on this thread, as your rants about the purpose of science and my place in obstructing it, blah blah blah, are actually getting quite boring. Goodbye, and good luck. Ask politely at Real Climate as many there are quite professional in what they do.

Regards

I have to say, I'm disappointed, Q&A; even if I disagreed with you, I had regarded you as one of the more rational folk in the climate discussion. However, it's now obvious that you're so bedded down with the dogmatists of the Alarmist camp that you simply cannot bring yourself to criticize even their most egregiously outrageous claims.

It seems that indeed you are afraid that "you will lose the support of the people that you need the most". Which I think is a strong factor in climate change alarmism: if the hodge-podge of quangos and activists can't keep the fear factor running high, their income will simply dry up.

I'm also disappointed with your hypocrisy: you admit you're not an econometrician, yet you doubt the econometric modelling; yet, time and again, when skeptics have questioned climate modelling, the standard response is, "you're not a climatologist, so shut up and listen to the experts".

Presumably the same standard doesn't apply to you?

Clownfish?

<< it's now obvious that you're so bedded down with the dogmatists of the Alarmist camp that you simply cannot bring yourself to criticize even their most egregiously outrageous claims.>>

Which part of the following do I need to explain further?

"You say “we need to get down under 350 ppm.” To suggest this is fine, but if you understand the implications of Solomon et al, YOU MUST ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT YOUR STATEMENT IS JUST AS NAIVE as the ‘deny-n- delay brigade’s call to do nothing. If you do not accept the conclusions of the Solomon paper, perhaps you could tell me why not".

You obviously haven't been following my discussions with Ian Castles, he is very familiar with econometric modeling of the SRES, and we both agree there are issues. What you appear to misunderstand is that GCM's (climate models) are not predicated on econometric or economic modeling (they are predicated on science). SRES econometrics must account for carbon emissions, amongst other things. Like I’ve said, econometrics is not the same as climate modeling. Do you think I need to explain my response to slasher in simpler terms?

<< Presumably the same standard doesn't apply to you? >>

I presume you presume wrong – but this does not get anyone anywhere.

Right boys and girls I have the perfect solution to the whole problem. First we stop all funding to the IPPC authority, this is a real emergency and they should work for nothing because of this.
Next all the people who think we are in danger register today and have the electricity, water and gas cut off from their dwellings that will save so much carbon that the problem will be solved.
The climatologists will prove that this is not some sort of scam by living off their savings and UN pensions (Which are considerable) and the proponents of AGW can really show us how it can all work.
Sorry is it AGW or global warming or is it "Climate change" I am getting mixed up although I really do try and keep up with all this.

Oops, I missed that particular piece of withering scorn you poured on the alarmists, there. I guess I was too busy waiting for you to rebuff Eclipse Now's support for Robin Williams' alarmist exaggerations.

On the other hand: sadly, I don't think you can respond to slasher any simpler without resorting to crayons.

Oh no... I accidentally clicked on the email and I'm back! (But at least not responding to slasher's "pressure". ;-)

Clownfish, how alarmist is it to suggest that today's observed retreat rates of glaciers might have 2 billion people without water or agriculture in the next few decades? Would you call that a serious scenario? Forget sea-level rise, it's the glaciers across Asia we should be worrying about!

Can the scientists in this field make the risks any clearer?

If the scenarios ARE that serious, can we please stop bagging the IPCC and other climatologists for being paid to study this stuff?
It's a piddling little fraction of the world economy that might just help us understand the risks and save the world economy.

Or do you have some over-inflated sense of how fast science *should* progress, so that they should just "know it all by now?" If so, grow up. Run along now with your silly little funding problems, the grown ups have some policy to draw up.

Nemo :)

This link to a paper by Katherine Wells is very sobering and puts EN's 350 ppm CO2 (not CO2e) in perspective.

http://bravenewclimate.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/recent_climate_change_science_kw.pdf

Barry Brook sums it up at his web site.

There's a lot I like about Barry's work busting deniers.

There's some bits about Barry's blogging style I find frustrating, as my comments on his blog will show. As far as I can tell, nuclear is not the only option we have... the renewables guys are telling us there is a variety of ways we can deal with the intermittent nature of renewables. But if Barry is right about nuclear becoming ever cheaper and safe, maybe we'll have yet another *option* to choose from?

Still, it's electricity, not liquid fuels, so the transport crunch looks like it is on it's way. Get ready to car-pool and buy a "Better Place" EV asap, so we can priortise the oil to the "do-or-die" industries like agriculture.

Eclipse Now, before run off to your cave with your supply of tinned food and your stuffed polar bear, it's been pointed out before that "OH NOES! Teh glaciers are melting!!" is a bit of a furphy.

Q&A, I'm curious about your claim that " humanity is conducting an *experiment* that has not been done before. The *experiment* can’t be repeated and we don’t have a control against which to test it."

I'm assuming you're referring to the release of large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere?

Hasn't this "experiment" been done before in the laboratory of the past? In which it appears that the relationship between atmospheric CO2 and global warming is a little problematic.

Also, if the record of the past is anything to go by, warmer climates generally seem to have been pretty good times, generally. What is it that makes this time so different? Surely it couldn't be either the pace or degree of warming: more rapid swings of climate have been recorded in the past, and greater warming; life has gone on.

Clownfish, the glaciers ARE melting. The 'problematic' relationship between CO2 and temperature in the past has been dealt with a number of times in all these climate threads. I assume you're talking about the "Co2 follows temperature change myth"?

If so, you're choosing to just go along with the denialists and promote a myth. The whole thing is based on a strawman and is quite an immature, unsophisticated, and ill-informed argument strategy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWJeqgG3Tl8&feature=related

Or this.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11659-climate-myths-ice-cores-show-co2-increases-lag-behind-temperature-rises-disproving-the-link-to-global-warming.html

Oh, and as for the second myth you're proposing... that warming will be good for us, please GROW UP!

See myth 26: "It's too cold where I am, warming will be great!"
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11657-climate-myths-its-too-cold-where-i-live--warming-will-be-great.html

Those glaciers are retreating, and it is incredibly serious. Please cite some peer reviewed papers proving otherwise unless you wish to be seen as yet another boring internet troll.

Yes, Eclipse Now, glaciers are melting. No dispute about that. The question is, is it worth working oneself into a fit of the vapours about?

For starters, glaciers advance and retreat; most glaciers reached a maximum early this century or late in the last century as a result of the Little Ice Age. It's inevitable that they would retreat eventually. The exposure of archaeological remains shows that these glaciers have advanced and retreated as one would expect.

Secondly, the fact that glaciers are melting doesn't necessarily mean that the precipitation that feeds them is likewise vanishing and therefore there is less water in the system.

With regard to the second "myth", I merely point out that, if we look to what we know (within reason) HAS happened in the past, rather than what we can SPECULATE on, based on computer modelling, the historical record, and prehistory, show that warming times have invariably been times of abundance.

Oh, and that CO2 rises have historically lagged temperature rises is not a myth. Nor does it disprove the greenhouse effect. What it does show is that climate change is a lot more complex than "OMG!! Carbon dioxide!!" What I was referring to specifically was cases, most famously the late Ordovician glaciation, where atmospheric carbon dioxide levels during climate minima have been higher, indeed far higher, than atmospheric carbon dioxide levels today.

The glaciers melt during the summer feeding the rivers that would otherwise run dry. The winter snows are the stores of water that feed the summer rivers. Without the glaciers there IS less water in the system as that winter water will rush down in one horrible episode, rather than being stored up for a calmer distribution all year round.
http://earth-policy.org/Updates/2008/Update71.htm

Warming times were times of abundance? Look, in case this is a semantic game you are playing I'll cast it this way.

"Colder" than now = "bad" (for us, less crops etc).

"Warm" like it is now = "good" (for us, just right for a population of nearly 7 billion).

"HOT" = OK for a few dinosaurs running around*, but is going to be very bad for us.

Too fast for many life support ecosystems to adapt. Previous changes were much slower than this, occurring over 800 year swings of the Milankovitch cycles.
Too hot for our agriculture in many areas, and the change will be too fast for us to adapt!
Isolated ecosystems will collapse. Unlike previous slower climate changes, there is no space for ecosystems to migrate now. We've locked them all into tiny little 'islands' or pockets of nature in between our vast sprawling suburbs or farmlands. Systems that once migrated over hundreds, or even thousands, of years up mountains or down towards the poles are now going to be stranded by our activities in the landscape.

Also consider that there is far LESS wildlife and 'nature' to being with. We've chopped it down or ploughed it up, so there’s less to survive.

* There's even evidence that the "HOT" climates also caused stress on the dinosaur systems! See part 3 of "Crude", the incredible story of oil, for another real shocker we could be in for if we let the climate get out of hand.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/crude/