< The greatest temptation is the naïve hope for a quick fix that will spare us from the difficult challenges of cutting greenhouse gas emissions or finding a way to live together on a shared planet. Even if one of these geoengineering schemes does pan out, be assured that it isn’t going to prove either simple or a “solution”. >

Absolutely right.

Well...it is the second greatest temptation. The first is denial that climate change is happening or that it is anthropogenic or that we need to do anything about reducing emissions. The problem is just so enormous for many people to get their heads around and the means of doing something meaningful about it are so threatening to their way of life that they take the easy path and just dismiss the whole business.

Technofix advocates are basically business-as-usualists to just the same extent as denialists.

Hi Ludwig,
You too should resume taking your medications.
The sooner that Academics realise that it is the rest of us (who you say are doomed) that provide the taxes that pay your salaries the better.
The end of the world is not nigh, nor are we going to roast in hell.

Oh I see Phoenix - we aren't gonna roast therefore we shouldn't do anything!

Mmmm hmmmm. That sounds sensible.

Methinks it is time for you to stop being so polarised and to start thinking in shades of grey. If things are going to get somewhat worse, and all indications point in that direction, then we should strive to be slightly sensible about reducing the impact, yes?

And if there is any doubt at all, then we should err on the side of caution, yeah?

Aaand, there is no way that you can assert that anthropogenic climate change isn't happening.

So my friend, start erring on the side of caution and at least espouse a stabilisation of greenhouse gas emissions.

BTW, can you show me where I said that we are <<doomed>>? No you can't coz I didn't say anything of the sort.

Whatever you are taking, you'd better give it up. How about a New Year's resolution - give up the hallucinogenic stuff so that you might be able to read comments without reading non-existent stuff into them.

Just another Eco shill selling books, not even a scientist .. meh

Ludwig's reasoning

Smart people - believe in AGW, demand man stop making CO2 (GAK! You first please.)

Stupid people - are skeptical of man's contribution to GW. (I'll translate that for you shall I - DENIERS! or even HERETICS! to the same effect, we all know who you mean)

You can't just simplify it like that, it's like the idiots who say understanding AGW is just simple physics - which isn't simple at all when applied to a chaotic planet wide system

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
The courage to change the things I can,
And the wisdom to know the difference.

Now, this applies to those who arrogantly believe in AGW

The solution is not to turn everyones life back 300 years but to accept what if anything is happening and deal with the reality.

We have a system which works – don’t think giving artificial economic advantages to supposed “green technology”, through forcing ETS taxes on traditional services and products will make one iota of difference…. That is just like believing in fairies.

The more I hear about AGW etc. the more I feel it is just a scam promoted by an environmental movement, infiltrated by collectivists, their last attempt at world domination having (naturally) failed with the collapse of the USSR.

Its all just

Socialism by Stealth

Haven't changed have you, Col Rouge?

The same about Thomas Aquinas when you couldn't believe that he gained a Sainthood for telling Christians to place their feet squarely on earth to get out of the Dark Ages.

All you have to do right now is realise that man became capable of buggering up the Planet with the advent of the Industrial Revolution

As a philosopher as well as a Preacher, Aquinas could have warned about that also.

Which medication and for what should Ludwig be taking it? Evidence would suggest his comments more reasonable than most.

One might ask on what scientific basis are current negative, ad hominem comments?

I have noted three failings that commonly in the 'nay sayers' posts.
- ad hominem and unreasoned, unexplained responses.
- Lack of scientific proof that GW IS NOT happening. The best they can offer is that the the most accurate, reliable data set *maybe* too short to be *absolutely* definitive proof of AWG on its own. Neither does it prove the very broad *precision* free paleontological (geology) perspective either. Geology is a retrospective science not a predictive one, therefore, the time frame is 'emphatically' too short.

The real telling difference between the two is that the observable (provable) facts are not explained by the geological (its natural, so ignore it) perspective, but AGW does.

The best examples are the glacial retreats, speeding up of ice shelf melts ant the subsequent decreases of Arctic/ antarctic ice depths and mass.

The natural process to replenishment of these is historically thousands of years (ice age timescales).The consequence of this melted ice is both obvious and insidious, complex.

FYI Places like Peru/India largely rely on these 1000's of year old glacial ice caps for fresh water.
Without this ice being replenished much of the feeder areas will turn to desert. It is a no brainer to deduce that air blowing over hot desert will alter weather pattens etc.(basic physics, meteorology)

In summary while the AGW is far from *absolute* it is orders of magnitude a better fit for the observable facts than any other scientific option.

In that, and I would suggest the most logical context Ludwig's musings are far wiser than the extremes faux logic that is indicated by both phoenix94, RPG and many other "faux sceptics"(deniers).

Pontificator “In summary while the AGW is far from *absolute* it is orders of magnitude a better fit for the observable facts than any other scientific option.”

Really?

How about the notion that “Ice ages” have “come” and “gone” in the past
What about the idea that the earth’s orbit around the sun fluctuates and thus is subject to a warming which has nothing to do with anthropogenic activity

How about the whole ball of wax is just a scam being promoted by the snake oil qualities of the ex-presidents of USA off-sider

A lot of people believed Enron where the “smartest blokes in the room”

A lot of folk believed Bernard Madoff’s “spin’

A lot of folk think L Ron Hubbard a messiah and “scientology” is a religion

And a lot of folk think AGW is “a better fit for the observable facts than any other scientific option.”

And on a best fit scenario, they are all

WRONG

“Socialism by Stealth” is an equally “better fit”

(actually I could explain AGW using selective quotes from Lenin... and I might just do that)

Col I can understand your "socialism by stealth" position and I even sort of agree with you that it is a part of the "green" movement.

Given that it is the wealthy that overwhelmingly deny climate change while the middle class and the poor overwhelmingly agree with it and support the changes needed to fix it, I think there may be something in the "watermelon" tag used by the many of the deniers.

People for some reason have been convinced that the current capitalist economy is the only way and have accepted that they cannot change it but deep in their hearts they dont like the unfairness, impersonality and viciousness of capitalism and competition and so have jumped on something (climate change) that they see may be a way to moderate and restrict some of the excesses of the capitalist system.

This to me explains many of the people, on both sides, who have no scientific or academic experience but who have very strong convictions on the matter and dont mind letting the rest of us know.
I hope I dont come across like that. I make it quite clear my hatred of capitalism and the rich and powerful that benefit from it and most of my posts even the ones on climate change are openly from that angle. Be more honest on both sides and it will be a very interesting debate.

It explains why people dont want to trust carbon capture/clean coal etc. Everyone recognises it is designed to keep electricity generation in private, capitalist hands. Even if it is government owned it is still centralised and people feel they are dependent and at the generators whims. The vast community dont like this feeling and they are happy to jump on a bandwagon of "anti" whatever to try and get something they can have more control over.

People are sick of being slaves to capitalism and looking to climate change policy, which as Col says is very socialist, as a new and justifiable (to themselves) way of moderating capitalism and its excesses.

Excellent Article.
The fact that it deals with global warming does seem to have elicited a number of pavlovian responses; responses which manage to ignore the substance of the argument and trot out the usual AGW denial comments. If they read it more carefully they would realise that it is far more supportive of their position than they realise.
The author makes two important points. The first is that the solution to the problem of global warming is seen as the whole of humanity working together to save the planet. She argues that this will simply not happen. (It also puts the kybosh on any suggestion that the article is proposing a socialist takeover of the world - again there is plenty of evidence that she regards any venture of that sort as doomed to failure.)
The second point she makes is the legitimate concern that we will take the technofix road - we have developed almost a cargo cult mentaility to science assuming that it will solve all of our problems.
The more I think about the question of climate change the more I realise that for ordinary folk like me it is not about climate change at all - it is about the fact that I am disenfranchised from controlling my own future. Just think about how dependent we are on oil and electricity for our survival. 50%+ of humanity live in cities -totally dependent on huge infrastructure for their energy, water and food supplies. In response I have gradually implemented changes so that I am no longer dependent on this huge infrastructure - the technologies exist to live a 21st lifestyle yet be independent of the power grid and grow most of your own food. That those actions also reduce my carbon emissions to almost zero is just a byproduct; even without any suggestion of climate change it would be a good thing to do - I value my freedom.

As a retired old Cockie who in 85 years has experienced luxurient natural wooded lowlands turned into saltlands, and since become sad with the news that our Globes' most valuable natural jungle country will need to be cleared to feed future mankind, feels kind of glad that he won't be around to witness the end.

But probably the saddest thing is to experience so many of our OLO contributors still arguing that Nature can fix up what man has done to the earth since the beginning of the Industrial Age.

I would have preferred to have said what Man has f-cked up in this World, as an old Cockie like me might naturally say.

Cheers, BB, WA.

Unfortunately the AGW movement continues to distort facts for their own ends. A local example relates to the Darwin temperature figures, which have been radically 'adjusted' upwards over recent for no discernible reason -- other than, of course, to show the 'warming' with which our leaders are trying to panic us into handing over our rights and our dollars.

http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/smoking-guns-across-australia-wheres-the-warming/

If proponents of AGW are so sure of their facts then the next step is obvious: make the raw and the 'adjusted' data available so the public can see for themselves. Until this happens the steady flow of government money will ensure that there are plenty of researchers willing to 'correct' and 'tweak' and 're-analyze' until they obtain the results they are being paid for.

@ Jon J Gee fancy that a right wing website saying AGW is not real.
I wish the foaming at the mouth ring wingers would get the story right. Pick one.
A. Global temps have not gone up.
B. Global temps have gone up but its the sun that making it happen.
C. Global warming is happening but it will cost to much to stop it.
D. Global warming is happening and we should do something about it.

Depending on how ant science you are, the surer your pick for option A. People who pick option A, are likely to not think HIV causes AIDS, the World is only 6000 years old, and Ronald Ragan was the best Prez ever.

The rest of us will observe that just like other anti science groups they will not pick one and stand by it. They know that if they do science will be able to come up with test to prove or disprove they ideas. So just like right wing creationist in the US use a undefined concept called Intelligent design to try a wedge the Theory of evolution so do these Anti global warms.

Go here http://www.desmogblog.com/joanne-nova and here http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/02/joanne_nova_emails_skeptico.php for what other think of JoNova Climate science.
It’s funny really but JoNova is making big money telling right wingers what they want to hear about AGW, and her biggest charge against hardworking climate scientist, “ Well their in it for the money”.

Cornonacob,

Most sceptics, I'm sure, would have no trouble supporting your option D: "Global warming is happening and we should do something about it." Perhaps a little too succinct: the doubts and puzzlements are over what is actually 'happening' and what is the 'something' that should be done. I don't think much good can come out of Jesuits and heretics slagging each other [like this]: yes, something (or many incredibly complex 'things') is/are 'happening': but what do we do about it/them ?

Yes, excess CO2 is probably a major cause of AGW (proportionately, how much a cause ? how much actual warming ?) Are there many other causes - other gases, particulates, global dimming, deforestation which reduces the earth's ability to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, conversion of all sources of energy including wind, solar, subterranean thermal) into heat energy associated with industrial production and urban living, and so on and on. If there are problems, we have to identify them accurately, find solutions and not just declare (with some schadenfreude ?) that the planet is doomed, at least doomed unless we go back to some pre-industrial, even pre-human, Golden Age. But probably very few people would suggest that we do nothing, so please let's drop that straw-man argument.

Either way, it seems pretty simple to me: switch to renewables (including algal conversion farms), electrify the Third World (with renewable energy) and plant more trees. Problem solvered ! Now for the detail .....

Joe

As an aside it would be interesting if OLO publish a article about denialist. Denialist of any flavour but Evolution and Climate science would be the most topical for OLO I guess.
What is it that motivates these people. Sure it is money for some but for most it isn’t. Is it their political ideas, that make their world view inflexible, this can happen for people both on the left and right.
Denialist as opposed to sceptics are generally.
Talking from a position of extreme ignorance some maybe trained scientist but they are normal way out of their field of expertise..
Will not accept standard scientific practices.
Will not develop testable theories of their own.
Will concentrate on one small area of accepted science and try to pin naive holes in the subject.
Will reassert their talking points no matter how often they are shown to be wrong.
Will general appeal to “Common Sense” or the “man in the street”.
Will site books and blogs in defence of their opinions.
Will only read the relevant Science journals if given a free copy and only then use the knowledge to quote mine.
And finally my favourite, They tend to state regularly that they are only interested in the truth, when that is the last thing they are going to stumble across.

I would like to suggest farmers start putting more carbon in their soil. Not because it will help that fairy tale stuff about GW. But because pyrolysis biochar and organic carbon will:-
* save farmers $ in less fertiliser use and run off
* less damage to environment like Qeensland's GBR ( saving the Govt $)
* save farmers heaps of water (and $)
* increase farmers' crop yields by up to 30% (more $)

There is one unfortunate side effect-- doing this will sequester CO2 so those silly people who believe in GW will think was are doing it just for that reason!

At all costs, we should try to stop the government introducing a carbon credits scheme because then farmers will use biochar for the wrong ideological reasons!
;)

Not one of you warming alarmists comment on the deliberate fraud, suppression of alternative ideas and the apparent loss of the raw data at the alarmist warming Hadley Institute at that University in England.

The one that supplied that concocted hockey stick graph and that now totally suspect report to the alarmist warming UN committee on climate change. That unrepresentative UN committee(As is usual practice in the UN structures) that keeps trying to convince the world capitalist activity is dooming the world.

Come on folks ... wake up to the realities.

In Australia you might have noticed the drought as broken, you know that drought many of you warming alarmists were claiming as evidence of warming.

Why are you in denial these things have occurred?

I have to agree with the author that these kinds of technofixes will encourage the already strong urge to put off doing anything significant about emissions reductions. Carbon Capture and Storage is already an ongoing excuse to continue the expansion of coal mining and export by Australia, despite significant problems including the inconvenient fact that there's more than 3 times as much CO2 produced as coal burned to make it.

The acceptance of the problem isn't surprising; governments have resources that most of us don't, including having scientifically competent people to inquire into the validity of climate science (finding it's valid and that most arguments against aren't much better than the popular one that hot spikes like 1998 in warming trends are somehow evidence of cooling). There are judicial and intelligence agencies that can and would find evidence of falsification or hiding of contrary evidence, or of conspiracies to do so if they existed and have the power and authority to enquire and audit scientific organisations. All that and they haven't. Because they can't find what doesn't exist.

So, even rather sceptical political leaders find that their powers don't include the power to overturn scientific conclusions of the institutions that study climate or expose conspiracies that don't exist.

The vast majority of climate scientists and institions - they haven't been implicated in anything sinister - continue to conclude that AGW is a real and urgent problem. All the stolen emails have failed to show that any published scientific papers on climate are wrong in any significant respect.

Thank you Ken but I suspect your comments will fall on deaf ears. It is after all not the science that is questioned but the social science.
As a world community we are simply averse to considering an alternative future - locked into a notion of historical inevitability the assumption is made that either we continue as we are or we are doomed to go back to the stone age. So there are the pseudofixes of clean coal and the other technofixes that the article focusses on. All of them provide a justification for politicians to do nothing.
Of course that justification is cushioned by the knowledge that most people do not understand what the fuss is about - there have always been exceptionally hot days, long periods of drought, severe weather events so what is new? These people choose to see the climate change debate simply as an attempt to subvert their standard of living.
These people basically choose to be unfree - they prefer to be dependent on the whims of corporations as they set their energy prices, hike up the price of fuel and force them to pay more for the necessities of life.

At the risk of repeating myself a win-win carbon sequestration system exists now and is not very high tech.
See the story Ground Control on landline ABC
http://www.abc.net.au/landline/content/2008/s2490568.htm
If that can be combined with the pyrosis technology from BEST Energies at Somersby NSW you can sequester a lot of CO2 and make a lot of money at the same time.

I don't think there is anything at all we can do to change the change of climate. The damage has been done many,many years ago & it is only now that the symptoms are becoming obvious. From the pollutions of the industrial revolution, the great wars & subsequent wars, from holes in the ozone layer by rockets & the Concorde it was just simply too much for the old planet not to change. We are experiencing the beginning of the infection, it'll still be quite a while for the boil to develop. An antibiotic is available but mankind doesn't want to administer it because it would mean cutting back on heavy duty frivolity on one side & preventing the forming of a reasonable lifestyle on the other. My feeling is that good old mother earth will gradually do what's best for her children & we won't like it one bit.

Like most members of the public, I’m not qualified to comment. I therefore refer you to a higher authority through the recent words of a most respected scientist and a lead author to the IPCC:

<< On Oct 14, 2009, at 10:17 AM, Kevin Trenberth wrote to Tom Wigley:
“Hi Tom
How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!”
Kevin>>

I rest my case and close yours.

Curmudgeon Col and others,

Perhaps it a factor of your age, but you really don't read and extrapolate very well, do you?

I said that the 'natural theorists' are relying on a historical science, geology, (retrospectivity) to predict(?). New and unprecedented things happen all the time even in Geology i.e. the 65 million year old mass extinction meteor.

The issue is, my past fixated opponent, is that even geologist have to admit that never before in the history of the earth has a species changed the world so dramatically. Mass biological changes (deforestation),changes in vegetation type and covering, uniquely human pollution (amounts of man made pollutants CFCs ), changes in water flows, destruction of deltas, depletion of fossil water, et al.

The Ice ages and previous warmings have occurred under different circumstances/causal factors. Geologists are unable to *precisely* date anything. They require other science disciplines to give them/confirm details,the same science(ists) who now favour AGW.
NB up untill the 50's tectonics were disputed by them. (oops)

The point is that the *effect of man* is new and the data-set (and time frame)is too short for geologist retrospectivity. But they accept that the era of man ...because of his unique changes.
They are unable determine absolutely and scientifically either that *A*GW ISN'T happening or what the future holds.
The BEST they can do is say it hasn't happened that they can see in the past and ignore the real/observable facts.

As for "socialism by stealth", Stealth? strewth, It's neither Socialism or stealth how many articles have been written?

PS give the term back to the living(?), unwrapped, dessicated, mummy you idolize it's as relevant.

Dear oh dear examinator, what a jumbled post you write.

Between 1798 and 2008 there have been 26 “disaster predictions” including the CFC’s you mention in passing. Each of these shares two key characteristics. Firstly they were all completely wrong and secondly, there share identical analogous hall marks with AGW.

Your challenge is simply to show how AGW is “different”. If you cannot do this then we know it is “the same”, just another politically motivated scare. In which case you do not need much effort to identify which side of politics will benefit.

Your circular arguments not only identify the weaknesses of your case, they are becoming contradictory which, I might add, is a consequence of trying to sustain the unsustainable.

Cornoncob “fancy that a right wing website saying AGW is not real.”

Just as every left wing-nut site proclaims AGW as the next terror

Which conforms with my summation of

Socialism by Stealth

At least AGW is resolved as a big fat Zero and we can get on with real issues

Like how to contain world population numbers

Then how to enhance the life quality of fewer people, rather than sharing the poverty equally among more

Which is the essence of right versus left politics

The right is focused on people making the most of their lives, for themselves, their families and through that (6 degrees etc) the wider community

The left is focused on ensuring no one is allowed to benefit from their personal efforts and all are required to aspire only to some level of common mediocrity.

Then we have all the techno-scientific inquisitors who believe the heretical “Deniers” should be silenced for the common good

Well that was asked of and answered 40 years ago by the renowned politician dearest Baroness Margaret Thatcher simply

"Individualism has come in for an enormous amount of criticism over the years. It still does. It is widely assumed to be synonymous with selfishness...But the main reason why so many people in power have always disliked individualism is because it is individualists who are ever keenest to prevent the abuse of authority."

AGW is about using "bogie man" politics to scare people into surrendering their national autonomy to some totalitarian “world government”

The collectivism is the enemy of the individual

As that well known collectivist, Lenin, said

“When there is state there can be no freedom, but when there is freedom there will be no state.”

AGW is just another name for the bogie man, what dearest Margaret described in the past as

"Socialists have always spent much of their time seeking new titles for their beliefs, because the old versions so quickly become outdated and discredited."

Mikk we are better off a slave to capitalism than the state –

lots of capitalists, to move between

but only

one state

*I would like to suggest farmers start putting more carbon in their soil.*

Michael 2, I would like to suggest that you are well out of date.
Farmers don't need to start, as technology in farming has changed
dramatically in the last 25 years.

In WA for instance, something like 90% of crops are grown using
no-till/deep-till. The net result of that is better use of
rainfall and fertiliser, increased soil carbon levels etc.

That means that with the same amount of rainfall, crops can now be
grown, which would have died from so called drought, under the old
systems.

I've noticed that Eastern States farmers too, have now caught on
to the idea and are copying WA farmers.

@ Loudmouth It’s not a straw man just have a read of some even on this site. I quite clear separate Sceptics from Denials, they are different animals. I was quite sceptical of Global warming from some time, what I did was research the science and become convinced. When I say research I actually read some climate science journals, when it was raw and still up in the air. I thinks this is the bit that Denialist just don’t get, all they have to do is read the science journals over the last thirty years to see how the body of climate scientist have got to where they are. Now you can say what you like about green groups I’m talking about the science community. Sure there are dissenters not many of which are working Climate scientist, but if you look the slurs that are hurled at them are the same slurs that are cast at Biologist. Just have a read of a few anti evolution web sites. The common theme is right wing conspiracy nuts ie Col. Col and his like would have everyone believe that all the scientist are working together to pull the rug over everyone eyes. Anther symptom is to say that alternative theories are being suppressed, that’s just wrong as well, again even a cursory reading of climate journals will reveal this not to be true. What has happened is climate scientist getting sick of untrained denialist wanting to punch holes in climate science by going over excepted facts over and over again, without doing any of the grunt work themselves.

Col it’s probably a wast of time but three simply facts.

CO2 is a green house gas, without it we would not be here.
CO2 concentrations have risen dramatically in the last 200 hundred years.
Man is the reason the CO2 levels have risen.
Even you can connect the dot after that.

@ Yabbie well said, but SA farmers are the best dry land farmers in the world ;-P

Spindoc,
Hope you had a good festive season.

The post in question needed to be read in the context of the one that so upset Col.

I made the point that both AGW and the Geologic counter suffer from the same flaw, that the 'blip' time frame (160-100odd years) isn't long enough, to be Absolute. Although, AGW's *basic science* shows that Anthropomorphic change is (a) primary cause (smoking gun)that explains the observable facts.

NB. AGW science, according to the 'natural' argument, can't show an emphatic trend line. This is due, in part, because of the lack lack of definitive measurements therefore, the use of proxies. Additionally, given the complexities of feedbacks and natural absorbency levels (natural auto stabilization processes), tipping points, a irrefutable trend line is a tall order.

A recent scientific paper (23/12) blamed... the CFCs effect on the upper layers of the atmosphere (ozone hole etc). As yet the hypothesis hasn't been through the mill and given I'm not a scientist or involved astrophysics, prudence suggests leave it in the mix.

Notwithstanding, it all appears to come down to
-the significance of the last 160 yrs increasing reliability of measurements

- How well both hypotheses fit the current facts.

IMO The 'deniers' argument at this stage don't meet the above criteria.
- they don't address or can't scientifically explain the provable observations in context of the current 'blip'(the effect of humans and all their wreaked changes).

- their basic science i.e. physics (save the above paper) doesn't gel.

Conclusion. While there maybe some (small that it appears) doubt, AGW
does seem far and away the best fit, as it stands today.

Give the probable consequences I reason AGW is the most reliable
Therefore I agree that technofixes are inappropriate as a solution on their own.

Thanks Yabby
That is good news although organic carbon has a very limited life. Unfortunately we don't have a good pyrolysis-to-charcoal set up in Australia so can't make organic carbon work much better by adding low temp. charcoal, harvesting the energy and sequestering the CO2 in the soil for thousands of years.
Please tell me I'm wrong here, I would love to be.

Michael 2, we are well aware of biochar and its potential, its not
yet being done on a commercial scale, but there are lots of trials
going on. At the end of the day, it has to be commercially viable.

There is certainly potential there.

As to organic carbon, even if its storage life is limited, if its
replaced by more organic carbon as it breaks down, when you add
it all up, that is still a huge amount of extra carbon stored in
millions of Ha of agricultural soils. About the only ones
cultivating soil to death now to kill weeds, would be so called
organic farmers, as they have no other method, given that they
refuse to use things like Roundup.

cornonacob

"CO2 is a green house gas, without it we would not be here." Yes, agreed, on both counts. So what?
"CO2 concentrations have risen dramatically in the last 200 hundred years." Yes they have risen, compared to 200 years ago. I don't know about dramatically we have no measurements before 200 years ago and recently after the change to the measurement basis, the two systems have never been resolved against each other. CO2 has risen before, we have ice core records and we don't know why it happened back then, several times. So what?
"Man is the reason the CO2 levels have risen." That's an assumption, maybe it's valid maybe not, why did CO2 rise in the past?. Again, so what?

Join the dots .. OK, hmmm so CO2, in your opinion, has risen? Is that it? So what?

Did you mean to put in somewhere that CO2 rise = temperature rise? An unproven hypothesis. Many scientists have tried to prove this, the best they can do is model, but their models are not accurate enough and discard factors they do not understand or make them linear, like clouds. If models were accurate you could tell us the climate next year, or in 10 years, why do they become accurate in 50 years? They don't. Weather is a subset of climate. Or as our government says, a "hot day = AGW proof, it's all around you on a hot day" It's poorly understood at best.

That's the biggie for skeptics, people keep saying it on these forums, but the AGW believers just keep pouring scorn with no proof, pointing to all the science - most of which is grant money based, on effects of AGW, not why is the climate getting warmer.

The bottom line is mankind does not understand climate well enough to forecast anything better than a random coin throw would, but to get $ you have to pony up with better than that, hence all the Climate Scientology which is about what it is, isn't it? Certainly not a science like medicine or engineering is it?

examinator, you have reached a major milestone in your journey when you grudgingly accept the contrary words of a key IPCC author. You then start to make excuses and mitigate on behalf of their scientists. My goodness, do they need all the excuses and mitigation they can get.

Try to mitigate this one examinator.

(IPCC AR4 WG2 Ch10, p. 493) "Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world (see Table 10.9) and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate.”

IPCC’s quoted source paragraph for this report? A non peer reviewed WWF Project. Oopps!

WWF’s source? The International Commission on Snow and Ice (ICSI) and Working Group on Himalayan Glaciology (WGHG) “the likelihood of the glaciers disappearing by 2035 is very high” (Syed Hasnain, Jawaharlal Nehru University)

Report further quoted by: New Scientist 1999 and India Environment Portal (IEP).

So what’s wrong with that? Well provenance for a start, no checking of sources, no checking of facts and no peer review. Ooops!

It gets worse, the original report by glaciologist V. M. Kotlyakov has been “found” by the IEP. His assessment is, given that if the IPCC’s “predicted” warming continues, there will be 80% glacial loss by “2350” (not 2035?). Oopps!

The IPCC makes yet another blunder in the AR4 report, the Table 10.9 to which they refer shows a retreat rate of 134 m/yr but the actual rate was 23 m/yr, this is because of a small error. The IPCC divided the timeframe quoted by 21 years instead of 121 years! Oopps again!. V.M. Kotlyakov is not happy.

Half the planet is being terrified by the IPCC’s “predictions” and the vulnerable still believe them.

It is time the IPCC’s incompetence and bastardry were terminated. Given the huge sums of money that Uncle Sam has poured into this rubbish, perhaps we will see proportional penitentiary time as that given to Madoff

Col I think there is a misunderstanding here. I hate "the state" just as much as I hate capitalists and godbotherers. Anyone who dominates and subjugates another is an evil beast in my book.

I believe that no human being should dominate another. Domination is inherently degrading and demeaning, since it submerges the will and judgement of the dominated to the will and judgement of the dominators, thus destroying the dignity and self-respect that comes only from personal autonomy. Moreover, domination makes possible and generally leads to exploitation, which is the root of inequality, poverty, social breakdown, hate and violence.

Col the right is focused on power, wealth and subjugation of the majority. The right uses its wealth and power to continue and intensify this inequity. The right uses fear, racism, homophobia, "family values" and propaganda to divide and oppress the mass of people and keep them fighting amongst themselves. The right has always hated democracy and anything that gives the common people influence or power. Thats why they hate unions and try so hard to destroy them.

The right NEEDS the state far more than the left. Without property law and the mercenary cops that enforce it people would help themselves to the resources they need to live and the capitalists would be unable to repel them.

The state is nothing more than the enforcers of capitalism and it surprises me so many rightists are so anti government. I think it is part of their delusionary faith and plain greed and selfish lack of empathy that leads them to see capitalism as "fair and efficient" and never mind the reality.

Funny how these fools critisise climate science modeling when they possess the most fanciful and unconnected to reality models ever seen in their economic theories. Especially the neoliberal or "austrian" schools of rightist fascism. Theories that take inequality and poverty as necessary and indeed beneficial to their mad system of exploitation and domination. Theories that fall down utterly when tested against reality.

(continued)

(continued)

Rightists are nothing more than bullies who believe that power over others means you are better than them and that they deserve to suffer while you feed off them as a lazy parasite. "The proprietor producing neither by his own labour nor by his implement, and receiving products in exchange for nothing, is either a parasite or a thief."

I dont know about "all the left" but I want people to succeed to be the best people they can be and have every opportunity to fulfill their potential. That every human person is a unique individual means an infinite amount of difference and diverse ideas and wants and people should have the freedom to satisfy them all. As long as it does not hurt anyone else then it is free for people to do whatever it may be that makes them happy and fulfilled.

You say "The collectivism is the enemy of the individual" but this is simply not true. Humans are social animals and need other humans around us. Without it we suffer severe mental anguish and breakdown. Look for research on solitary confinement and loneliness if you dont believe me. Collectivism is being part of a larger group which is vital to humanity. You cannot escape what is hard wired into your soul Col. People need people, the very essence of "Collectivism" so your statement that "collectivism is the enemy of the individual" could not be more wrong nor logically invalid.

“When there is state there can be no freedom, but when there is freedom there will be no state.” Lenin was right. When there is freedom there will also be no capitalism. No preists, no politicians, no bosses, no gods, no masters.

Col I wont be a slave to the state or capitalism. My point is that slavery is wrong and I state again no human being should dominate another. Domination is inherently degrading and demeaning, since it submerges the will and judgement of the dominated to the will and judgement of the dominators, thus destroying the dignity and self-respect that comes ONLY from personal autonomy.

Spindoc,

Sorry old bean but you are a long way from my stance.I suspect that you are trying to confine the discussion to a line by line contradiction with the intention therefore, discredit the whole. This approach is in this case is flawed on many levels.
Firstly as I indicated AWG is based on the preponderance of the measurable facts and the science available.
*The IPCC report show ranges of of possible/probable consequences*.
I have not changed my view on the existence of AGW nor am I contradicting the chief author of the report.

As I have said before the precision to gain a the accuracy you are assuming is only now coming on line.

I see little point in your analytic modus operandi, I can only repeat the broader more flexible approach and as such no point in my continuing. with the conclusion we should agree to disagree

From some of the posts it is revealed that some people are starting to think laterally , this is a big advance it has revealed a more Honest approach to the type of science required to tackle what is really just the evolution of climate and the accelerating requirement of more Humans requiring more Water .

This means that Humans have simply overtaxed nature or natural Systems that have provided us with free water .

This is not in any way to deny CO2 might contribute , we all remember the dead Forrest's in Germany back in the 60's , CO2 is an acidic Gas produced by many things , it was this gas that came from Industrial Processes that formed the Acid Rain that killed the Forrest's in Germany . But to attribute our Weather Problems exclusively to CO2 we would need to have sore eyes and a lot more dead trees .

My view is that if we were to help the Natural System , perhaps by providing Lake Eyre with sea water from Adelaide , then pump the salt water into what would be the Worlds largest Spray Irrigation Scheme , for those that don't know the water losses from Agricultural Spray irrigation is significant and more so at places like Lake Eyre due to the high ambient Temp . However this would work anywhere for example over the coastal sea front north of Perth , over the Salt Marches in Victoria etc. Who cares where the evaporated water goes to that doesn't matter it's helping the ecology of somewhere and as a bonus it's mopping up CO2 .

examinator, you said <<As I have said before the precision to gain a the accuracy you are assuming is only now coming on line.>> Did you just say what I think you said?

That the information needed by the IPCC was NOT previously available but is “only now coming on line”?

I guess this means that all the “stuff” you have presented and the assessments by the IPCC were based upon input NOT “precise enough to gain the accuracy needed, but good input is only now coming on line!”

That we have mistakenly “assumed” a level of accuracy from the IPCC in the past?

Did you just imply that what the IPCC has been caught doing is indefensible, so let’s not focus on it, just look instead at the “new” stuff coming on line?

What an astonishing set of admissions. Well I guess you really are done here.

I agree with you, you should indeed head for the pavilion and take your wickets with you

This post refers to my Post preceding .

A study some years back was done to find out what rain might result if Lake Eyre was flooded with Sea Water .
I can't remember the details as I am approaching Living Fossil recognition . I am fairly certain it was a Uni Study and it was reported in the old "Au Dept; of Ag" Magazine and concluded that any rain resulting would fall within 30 or 40 miles of Lake Eyre and that was a failure because they would have then been looking for Catchment Area Results , I have no idea how to research this History , perhaps you can help ?

The other Question is : The parcel of Humid Air created over L/E by the sea water Spray Irrigation evaporation would be cooled by the evaporation process and would be heaver than the surrounding air however it would rapidly respond to solar heating because of it's density as it expanded it would again loose density to a point where it would be less dense than the surrounding air subsequently it would begin to rise above the denser surrounding air ; could some genius please explain this process more succinctly and maybe explain any SALR anomalies that may apply .
Thanks for reading my post .

rpg: "I don't know about dramatically we have no measurements before 200 years ago and recently after the change to the measurement basis, the two systems have never been resolved against each other."

On the contrary, as you might expect given its importance huge efforts have gone into calibrating the various ways we have of measuring CO2 in the atmosphere. See references here: http://rm.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png

rpg: "Did you mean to put in somewhere that CO2 rise = temperature rise? An unproven hypothesis."

Certainly unproven, as all hypothesis's. But it is accepted by just about everyone. What you perhaps meant to say is the way water vapour amplifies the temperature rise isn't as well accepted. Even that is a stretch. It is accepted by vast majority of scientists that investigate climate.

rpg: "Many scientists have tried to prove this, the best they can do is model, but their models are not accurate enough and discard factors they do not understand or make them linear, like clouds"

No, they haven't tried to prove it, as it can't be proved from first principles. This is in contrast to say the temperature rise from CO2, which can be derived from basic physics.

As you say, they do model it using finite state analysis. There is nothing new in that. Scientists and engineers use models whenever deriving things from first principles gets too hard. How an well aircraft flies is but one example - all modern aircraft made their first slights as a computer model.

Your are also wrong when you say the models don't include cloud cover. Clouds change the planets albedo (reflectivity) considerably, obviously enough, and equally obviously the models must account for it.

And finally you are wrong in saying the models don't emulate the climate. The models successfully emulate what the climate did in the last million years, where minor changes in the energy received by earth due to orbit changes triggered large changes in temperature giving us periodic ice ages. What is happening is much the same, except the trigger for the minor change is CO2 levels, not orbit changes.

rstuart

point 1, wiki, oh please, I got flamed severely for quoting wiki in this forum, by AGW believers, so as they all said, "what rubbish!", "internet graffiti!"

point 2, Consensus is not science, it's a hypothesis at best, you believe science is democratic, I do not. We should not be betting the world's future on unproven science, if you want to continue to call it a science.

point 3, basic physics does not apply to large chaotic systems, obviously or there would be a proof that additional warming is caused by man's CO2.

"Your are also wrong when you say the models don't include cloud cover", that's not what I said, but I expect to be quoted out of context. I said the models consider them linear, which they are not, but that's one of the many fudges.

"And finally you are wrong in saying the models don't emulate the climate.", that's not what I said, I said "The bottom line is mankind does not understand climate well enough to forecast anything better than a random coin throw would"

You show the normal AGW believer penchant to skew what people say and misquote them.

Thanks you just underlined the behavior of the CRU folks, like them, most AGW believers feel the need to tweak things to suit their own narrative, don't they?

Shazbaz001,

I'm probably even more fossilised than you are, but I recall that acid rain was a consequence of too much SO2 and SO3 (sulphur dioxide and trioxide) being pumped into the atmosphere, as a product of the burning of coal with high sulphur content. Not CO2, SO2 and SO3, which combine with water vapour to form sulphurous and sulphuric acid. Some half-wit has even proposed pumping vast amounts of SO2 into the atmosphere, god knows why, perhaps to seed clouds, or some other suitably grand engineering feat.

And maybe spraying saltwater from Lake Eyre might add to the salt content of the soil ? Maybe just pump the water and leave it in the Lake to evaporate and increase rainfall across NSW ? That would be great if it worked - NSW wouldn't need to thieve SA's water to the same degree.

rstuart,
I was intrigued about a throwaway line about one graph in the Wiki that you recommended:

"Please note: the graph shows the historical level of carbon dioxide which is averaged by diffusion of gasses in the ice core and sampled once per approx. 1,000 years, compared to the current level of carbon dioxide which is sampled yearly. If for a proper comparison, the latter would have been treated like the historical data, the graph would look quite different."

In what way, I wonder ?

Joe

rpg: "point 2, Consensus is not science"

No one said it was. However, when a lay onlooker is evaluating various theories that can only be understood by experts in the field it is normal to choose "the consensus", ie the most common view held by the experts.

rpg: "point 3, basic physics does not apply to large chaotic systems,"

The CO2 part of the system isn't chaotic. It is well mixed in the atmosphere, and thus easily analysed by formal systems. Water is not as well mixed, and it is constantly changing phase. It is chaotic.

rpg: "their models ... discard factors they do not understand or make them linear, like clouds."
rstuart: "Your are also wrong when you say the models don't include cloud cover."
rpg: "that's not what I said,"

Sorry, but I didn't see the "make them linear" bit. They don't discard them or "make them linear". Currently they use thermodynamic flow equations to model water vapour in the atmosphere. Fluid flow equations are a long way from linear.

rpg: "And finally you are wrong in saying the models don't emulate the climate.", that's not what I said, I said "The bottom line is mankind does not understand climate well enough to forecast anything better than a random coin throw would"

You said the same thing using different words. The whole point of modeling something accurately is to make accurate forecasts or predictions. Thus you test if the aircraft flies in a computer model in the hope of predicting whether the real thing will fly. And indeed, that is the point of the climate models.

rpg: "most AGW believers feel the need to tweak things to suit their own narrative, don't they?"

Everybody does. In the CRU's case all tweaks used in their papers were fully disclosed in those papers.

Joe, Loudmouth - one presumes that if you picked a CO2 level from current data, at around 1,000 years from a previous point used in the ice core data, the graph might look flat, it might not too.

Depends who picks the point - certainly if Al Gore or CRU picked the point (with modern day "fudges"), we'd be on the edge of a precipice, or if someone objective picked it, there may be no distress at all.

If we have yearly data from the ice cores, I wonder how that would look - the once per 1,000 years data points are conceivably hiding a lot of data, you could have had huge rises and falls in the intervening years.

So comparing the ice core records to today's records may not be valid.

Interesting though, I wonder if it's similar to the way one measures tree rings.

Spindoc,

Our disagreement around expectations and what I call the “law of modern day Complexity” or the “'Window's' principal.”
As follows.
- Occam's razor is relative

- absolute simplicity = null therefore can't exist in reality.

- the more complex/big an issue is the less likely one is to derive an absolute answer.

e.g. Windows has 2-3 million lines of code.
This includes a n assumed number of bugs, conflicts, incompatibilities, transposition errors, poor coding methods, poor documentation, compile(ing) errors, transposition errors. Simply because of cost, time constraints human error, and because things happen.

If this wasn't true then there would be no need for bug fixes, revisions, maintenance etc. However, given the constraints it is in most areas a functionally/marketable product.
After the release the critics (deniers) find errors or could have done betters.

Question does this mean the product fails to reasonably meet the purpose? No, further releases will sort them out.

AGW is orders of magnitude more complex that that.
Pre-1860 measurement quality is Scientifically, speaking not the best, add to that the proxies and the accuracy becomes more variable.

(my reasoning) Hence *I* limit my thinking to the basic physics, the jointly used most reliable data sets and how well the hypotheses explain the 'symptoms'.
AGW probable match 70-80%

The geological hypothesis is based on even more imprecise analysis.
Possible match 20-30%

Law of complexity, dictates that a 100% match is highly impossible.

The IPCC report is mindful of the scientific caveats and makes a hypothesis based on range and probability not absolutes. It is written for politicians not scientists.

No complex scientific conclusion/prediction can reasonably be binary.

Next, 'only now coming on line". There are a few new satellites that are only recently have come on line, they're able to trace water flows, depth of ice , water underneath ice multiple point sea and land temperatures simultaneous.

This are new, addition to other earth bound measurements. These details are virtually unimpeachable, your demanded "absolute" measurements Their data is confirming if not hardening up the probable outcomes

Examinator, I presented you with admissions by the IPCC of what they got wrong and how they got it wrong. On both counts they admit to being “out” by a factor of TEN!

It reflects badly on you to even attempt mitigate errors of this magnitude by the IPCC. How can you make so many excuses for this level of incompetence?

Quite what MS Windows has to do with things is beyond me. You appear to be drawing a parallel relating to complexity and accuracy between MS Windows and IPCC predictions; you are directly comparing IPCC performance of margin of error at a factor of TEN, with Microsoft’s production coding standard of 1 error per 10,000 lines of code, an error factor of 0.0001. Utter nonsense.

You persist in trying to justify your AGW faith in spite of the fact that several IPCC scientists have told you you’re wrong. What don’t you get?

Dec.16, 2009, R.J. Courtney, IPCC reviewer: “Global warming has stopped. There is no statistically significant rise in MGT since 1995 and MGT has fallen since 1998. Nobody can know if the recent halt to global warming is temporary, permanent or the start of a new warming or cooling phase. But it is certain that anyone who proclaims that “global warming is accelerating” is a liar, a fool or both.”

spindoc: "Dec.16, 2009, R.J. Courtney, IPCC reviewer"

In the interests of balance the IPCC allows just about any interested party to submit comments to its reports. R.J. Courtney is an excellent example of this. He has no tertiary qualifications. Currently, he is Technical Editor of the CoalTrans International, the journal of the international coal trading industry and the Science and Technology spokesman of the British Association of Colliery Management.

It is hardly surprising that Courtney believes there has been no warming since 1998, since he has also said, the "Climate Is not Warming - Has not Warmed in 60 Years". He has also said he couldn't find any negative sides of the announced global warming.

He is also prone to gilding the lilly. He signed the "Leipzig Declaration" which started with the words "As independent scientists concerned with atmospheric and climate problems, we...". In the end he was scrubbed from the list of signatories.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_S._Courtney

spindoc: "So what’s wrong with that? Well provenance for a start, no checking of sources, no checking of facts and no peer review. Ooops!"

The New Scientist, the India Environment Portal (IEP) and for that matter as the inclusion of R.J. Courtney shows the IPCC reports aren't peer reviewed journals. Nor do they claim to be part of the scientific process. They just report on it, explaining the current consensus in lay terms.

All the same, I agree using a WWF study as a source if wasn't cited and verified in peer reviewed journals isn't a good look. You would think replying on sources like the WWF is just the sort of thing someone like Courtney would pick up on. Maybe he didn't put much effort into his reviewing of the IPCC report as he makes out.