Sorry, global warming has not been cancelled : Comments

By Geoff Davies, published 8/12/2009

The evidence for human-caused global warming is far more diverse and robust than denialists make out.

Pages:
‹
1
2
3
...
6
7
8
Page 9
10
11
12
›
All

Posted by one under god, Thursday, 10 December 2009 7:15:42 AM

Having an international meeting to work out what to do about climate change brings the deniers out but they've got nothing to compare with the accumulated science from multiple lines of reseach done by the world's leading institutions. Which still overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that warming is real and is almost certainly a result of human activities.

If the best the deniers have is insinuations based on quotes out of context and selected bits of selected graphs - selected to show the opposite of what all of the whole relevant graphs show - the debate is all over bar the shouting. I could wish for less shouting but, honestly, some of the commenters here do such a great job of showing why it's more sensible to get our climate science off scientists and institutions that study climate that I say let them rant.

Posted by Ken Fabos, Thursday, 10 December 2009 7:58:02 AM

Col Rouge: "That in no way absolves even so called "scientists" from btheir duty to report what they anticipate to be the BENEFITS of the measures they would see imposed on the rest of us."

Expecting the scientists to do the accounting is a bit much Col. They are having enough trouble predicting the effects of altering CO2 levels on sea levels, water availability, ocean Ph, disease spread, crop viability, coral reefs, rain forests, and what not. And now you want them to also do the job of pencil pushers like yourself. I think not. Let the scientists do what they are good at. We have more then enough pencil pushers around to do the arithmetic once they are given the results.

More to the point, that is exactly what has been done. Our politicians would be a bit remiss if they hadn't let the accountants at it to see what the various effect would be. Ever heard of the Stern review?

Horus: "it highlights extreme weather conditions around the globe this year, including three 'exceptional heatwaves’ in Australia… in January and February, August and November…"

I can't honest say I remember what happened in January and February, but I distinctly remember both August and November. They were downright weird. It was absolutely no surprise at all to see BOM say November was the hottest on record, with a +1.something degree anomaly.

Horus: "It’s virtually a carbon copy on many reports on many other parts of the world"

I don't see how that could be so for the Northern Hemisphere. Certainly it was a hot decade, but as the graph in Geoff's article shows the temperature has been dropping in the last 4 years and this years summer in the Northern Hemisphere was no exception, in particular this October was the coldest for some time in the USA. Apparently it takes a few months for our hot southern hemisphere El Nino temperatures to work they way across the equator. If it does, our Northern cousins are in for a bit of a shock.

Posted by rstuart, Thursday, 10 December 2009 10:19:34 AM

http://I-get-it_You-can-put-350-links-in-a-post-and-still-pass-OLOs-word-limit

Posted by Geoff Davies, Thursday, 10 December 2009 12:21:48 PM

“Expecting the scientists to do the accounting is a bit much Col” Hold on – these are the guys that took measurements and then, collated, interpolated, modeled, synthesized, hypothesized and even maybe massaged them. Surely, if they can juggle figures to come up with GW they can juggle a little more to come up with some benefits of their suggested actions. Not just a “save the world scenario” but something that may suggest any efforts are not in vain. For instance, Rudd and Wong’s ETS – They were going to save the planet be shearing 20% off Australia’s 1.4 (odd)% of the world’s emissions! Fantastic stuff. And for their next trick………?

Interesting that you mention Stern. It seems some of the most vocal in this debate have not been the scientists but the economists. This should send shivers up the spines of any thinking person. Garnauts’ vision of credits, compensation, imputations, permit revenues etc. is a dog’s breakfast.

I am not suggesting that Governments do nothing but setting up and maintaining a massive bureaucracy to govern any scheme is pointless and wasteful in the extreme. If the Government wishes to throw huge sums of our money at GW, throw it at the ground level where it might do some good. Not to the lofty towers of an already bloated financial sector.

I am old enough to remember many unusual seasons. Unseasonal rainfall, colder than usual, hotter than usual seasons – fierce storms – hail covering the ground like snow……a Christmas so hot that unlit candles melted in their holders. And yet today any unusual event is a direct result of GW. Only yesterday we were treated to this little gem in an OLO piece “ Frequent cyclones, drought and floods have become almost regular phenomena. It is true that the poor are hardest hit by such climate-change related disasters.” The writer obviously doesn’t live in Australia.

Posted by Sparkyq, Thursday, 10 December 2009 12:47:10 PM

Herbert

The significance of the divergence is a “problem”, recognised as such by dendrochronologists themselves. The ‘decline’ hasn’t been ‘hidden’, as some people want to believe.

The reliability (of the method) is tested by omitting some of the instrumental data and seeing how the reconstruction matches the known climate at some past time (e.g. volcanic residue, micro-flora, isotopes, etc). I’m sure many people don’t understand this and perhaps take ‘hide the decline’ out of context – for various, nefarious, reasons.

Reconstructions can be tested against historical sources of climate information that go back centuries, and overall reliability is tested with different methodologies, and with different proxy choices (tree rings, corals, ice cores, ocean sediments, stalagmites, etc). If they vary widely, then proxy reconstructions wouldn’t be very reliable. However, if they are consistent (they are) then we can have confidence they’re robust. That’s why the so called “MBH hockey stick” isn’t crucial – there’s dozens of hockey sticks, from many different proxies and from many different sources, that all show the same thing – the warming trend is up. Ok, the methodology of any proxy reconstruction is complicated (I’m no expert) – but, the principles are not.

Obviously, uncertainties do increase the further you go back in time - and the ‘divergence problem’ for trees less than 50 yrs old is, well ... problematic. Agreed, further research must be carried out to explain the ‘divergence’ – but you don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. Much of the misinformation (intentional or otherwise) that surrounds this issue is because people mistake a reconstruction of the past with a present ‘attribution’ – and of course, that’s impossible.
_______

OUG

Don’t’ flatter yourself, what I said was;

“It’s people LIKE you that misrepresent and distort what the science is actually saying”

You’re only one under god, after all.

And-by-the-look-of-your-stupefying-mind-numbing-posts ... you-preach-dogma-like-any-other-religious-fundamentalist-extremist.

Funny that.
_______

Arjay, you say;

<< This is the group that the IPCC bases all its findings on! >>

Really?
_______

Rstuart

Col’s not an economist/econometrician. Nevertheless, the benefits should be obvious to even the most-myopic-misguided-misanthropic-maccountant ... whatever.

Posted by Q&A, Thursday, 10 December 2009 12:54:05 PM

Pages:
‹
1
2
3
...
6
7
8
Page 9
10
11
12
›
All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy