Keith

Global warming does not mean increased temperatures every year every where.

It does mean (amongst other things) increasingly more intense and more frequent weather events. For example, longer heat waves here in OZ and sharper cold spells in the higher latitudes.

The frequency and intensity of these extreme weather events is a consequence of the Earth system trying to restore equilibrium. The more energy you put into a system, the harder the system tries to maintain the equilibrium.

This increased energy is not coming from the Sun, cosmic rays, volcanoes, or any other known natural causes. It is coming from billions of tonnes of GHG's that we are releasing into the atmosphere. Billions of tonnes of carbon that the natural sinks can't adsorb at the same rate it is being released.

Averaged over time to filter noise and natural variability from the signal (climate), the trend is up.

Herbert stencil,
Can I humbly suggest you read the article instead of scanning it
The article states Para 4
">While it is natural to attribute increasingly severe weather-related events to human-induced climate change, science cannot be 100 per cent certain with regard to any particular individual event. Rigorous science deals in changing probabilities and risk. The science community says the chances are high that increasing greenhouse gas concentrations are at least partly to blame for more extreme conditions.<"

then in Para 8
>"According to scientists in the joint CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research (CAWCR) human-induced climate change is *likely* to be a *major* cause of this “drought”."< (*emphasis is mine on key words)

Chop the trees down en mass you cause hot air to rise effecting the climate.
Check out the clearing patterns of SA, Vic and Sthn. NSW over the last 150 years.

Then come back and ask questions.
__________________________

anti-green,
Plimers contribution to this debate has been arguably akin to Von Daniken's "Chariots of the Gods" was to archeology. Made him some money but scientifically dubious.

The below site is a scientific review of his book 300 odd errors, misinterpretations etc. The article is well referenced.
http://bravenewclimate.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/plimer2a0.pdf

Examinator. I have re-read the post. Pittock and Glikson go on (in scary language) about the major impacts of "human induced climate change" but they fail to define what they mean by that. If indeed they mean a combination of land-use factors and CO2 (or more strictly 'greenhouse' emissions including CH4), then why do they conclude their piece with this: "In reality, climate change impacts are already costing lives and billions of dollars. These costs will increase rapidly if we do not act to reduce greenhouse gas emissions."

My problem is that, as even you appear to acknowledge, land-use factors could be a factor in 'climate change', as could CO2 and CH4 emissions. Natural factors could also play a role.

If this is so, then why are Pittock and Glikson focussing on reducing greenhouse gas emissions without recommending action of any other kind to deal with the real issues? I don't get it. Rudd and Co have just invested a huge amount of effort, time and money in trying to impose on us an ETS scheme that can only be characterised as costing us all a lot of money, yet having no measurable impact on CO2 emissions. Meanwhile, everybody is more or less silent on the other factors.

In fact, land-use factors can be addressed, whereas CO2 likely cannot. Why don't we work on the issues we can manage as opposed to those we cannot? And why can we not have clarity about the issues, instead of the scary stuff?

Examinator

It is not my duty to defend Plimer or otherwise. However, as a member of the Australian electorate it is my duty to convince myself that there is a causal relationship between anthropogenic carbon dioxide and climate change. On the evidence to hand I am not convinced.

Given that the discussion is as much a matter of public policy as scientific controversy, I suggest that the best forum to determine the issue is a “Royal Commission.” Thus the arguments of the principal protagonists then can be tested by vigorous cross examination.

Q& A

Of course you are going to supply me with the (verifiable) supporting evidence for all the generalisations and assertions you've made in your missive to me. Now be clear, I don't want explanations I want verifiable evidence.

I'll detail them:

1.'Global warming does not mean increased temperatures every year every where.'

2. 'It does mean (amongst other things) increasingly more intense and more frequent weather events.'

3. What the hell does 'more frequent weather events' mean? Is there going to be more weather?

4.'The frequency and intensity of these extreme weather events is a consequence of the Earth system trying to restore equilibrium.'

5. The Earth System is out of Equilibrium.

6. 'The more energy you put into a system,...'. Is there more energy than previously? How much and what is your reference point?

7. 'This increased energy is not coming from the Sun, cosmic rays, volcanoes, or any other known natural causes.'

8.'It is coming from billions of tonnes of GHG's that we are releasing into the atmosphere.'

9. 'Averaged over time to filter noise and natural variability from the signal (climate), the trend is up.'

In relation to 9 isn't that what those totally discredited people at the Hadley Centre in the East Anglia University did. You know the ones who analysed the raw temperature data then produced the hockey stick graph and who supplied their version and intrepretation of the data, which shows rising temperatres, to the UN committee on Climate Change? The same ones who now claim to have lost the raw data so that their calculations and assertions cannot now be verified.

I think it is good you've shown you are prepared to debate the issues and not blindly chant mantra. Good on you. I wish you luck because we doubters are ready with our inquisitiveness.

Thanks Examinator
At last someone can explain the connection between vegetation removal and global warming.
"Chop the trees down en mass you cause hot air to rise effecting the climate.
Check out the clearing patterns of SA, Vic and Sthn. NSW over the last 150 years."
At least you left out Queensland and I guess you mean "affecting".