If you saw Sixty Minutes last Sunday,the section on the AGW does leave a lot unresolved from both sides.Kevin Rudd in his summation appealed to our emotions of being responsible for our children and that he was just taking advice from the broad body of scientific consensus.He did not address any of David Evan's assertions that there were no "hot spots" above the equator and the fact that the Earth has cooled over the last 5 yrs.

Tara Brown did not put any difficult questions to the PM which suggests either she had been gagged or had not researched the topic properly herself.The obivious question would be,why are we, who are such a small nation willing to sacrifice our economy,when the likes of China and India will pay no heed to us limiting CO2 emitions?Is this grandstanding all about Kevin's international image?

What puzzled me about David Evans was that he did not play his other trump card,ie the ice core data reveals that cause and effect happens in reverse.Warming causes CO2 to be released from the oceans some 800 yrs later and CO2 does not cause warming.Either David Evans thought that this concept is too difficult for the masses to comprehend or he is having some doubts himself.

Arjay - I didn't watch '60 Minutes', but David Evans' claims have been well and truly refuted, by authoritative climate scientists. For example:

http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/08/10/dr-david-evans-born-again-alarmist/

I'm increasingly bemused by the sheer entrenchment of the denialist position. Some people are going to be severely embarrassed if they live long enough to witness the sh!t really hitting the fan.

CJ, I gather you are unaware of the petition, signed by 31072 American scientists, including 9021 PhDs, stating that there is no convincing scientific evidence that an increase Co2, or other gas is causing, or will cause any catastrophic heating of the earth.

They also state there is substantial evidence that enhanced Co2 in the atmosphere will produce benificial effects on the natural plant & animal environments of the earth.

I believe this tops the opinion of a few UN funded hacks. Thats about 25, of the 2000 they rave about, who actually wrote the rubbish.

Those of us who live long enough, say 20 years, will spit on the earth floor of our grass huts, at the mention of K RUDD.

Some facts Arjay:-

1 Human actions ARE the cause of the accelerated rate of global warming. THIS is the warming that concerns the thinking person and the warming we have the ability to abate. Any other warming, if indeed there is any of significance is beyond our control.
2 Per capita Australia has in the past produced and continues to produce far more GHG emissions than do any of the developing countries. In fact these countries will probably NEVER be able to attain the dizzy heights of natural resource consumption and waste (including GHG's) that Australia, USA, Canada and other countries take for granted. The planet just does not have the capacity to handle it.

WHEN we bring our per capita pollution of the atmosphere down to somewhere close to that contributed by the average Indian or Chinaman THEN we can complain.

The is not flat but if were we would not be able to do anything about it. We can do something about climate change.

Hasbeen: << CJ, I gather you are unaware of the petition, signed by 31072 American scientists, including 9021 PhDs, stating that there is no convincing scientific evidence that an increase Co2, or other gas is causing, or will cause any catastrophic heating of the earth. >>

Do you mean this one, Hasbeen:

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

If so, you've been suckered by an industry-sponsored hoax. This "petition" has also been thoroughly discredited by most real climate scientists, and has been for years since it first appeared.

Why is it that AGW denialists are so willing to suspend their normal critical faculties in order to maintain their supposed scepticism?

It is becoming more and more evident that the denialist are actually those who believe in gw crap. They deny that there is little evidence to back their fear mongering and already have egg all over their faces with failed prophecies. They would of been stoned a long time ago if they were prophets in Israel.

This show is becoming more and more amusing everyday as the likes of Gore and Flannery live in denial of their many failed prophecies. The greedy Greens are the only winners as they continue to exploit the gullibility among the decreasing true believers.

No doubt just like evolution the science will continue to change while more and more people will wake up to the fraudulent nature of it. The bigoted ones will continue to hold to their dogmas despite the evidence. Thankfully the voting public will question once they start paying more for something that is a bad joke.

CJ, if Hasbeen is correct that 31072 American scientists have signed the petition denying any real catastrophic warming, how many number the 'most real climate scientists' that you mention.

Don't forget the ice-core data. Just because many scientists take their data from there doesn't earn them your label of 'denialists'. At least you haven't called them 'fruitloops' or boofheads'...yet.

The sky is not falling.

Of course the denialists are right.

There is no global warming.

There never has been.

The ice-caps are not melting.
Pacific Islands are not sinking.
Rivers are not drying up.
The deserts are not expanding.
The Seasons are not changing.
Animal species are not disappearing.

And the earth is flat.

Kulu offers Arjay some "facts" being "1 Human actions ARE the cause of the accelerated rate of global warming".

Well I wonder if Kulu knows the difference between a fact and an assertion, but wow, I'm convinced. After all Kulu used CAPITALS and that is really convincing - I mean no one would shout it if it wasn't true, right?

And CJ tells us that the Oregon petition is a hoax because it was industry sponsored. I guess the only good partitions are those sponsored by green groups who clearly are completely impartial in this issue, right? OK so the partition was signed by over 9000 Phds but we all know these people are pretty dumb really and could easily be tricked into signing something that was the complete opposite of what they really think - right?

And Foxy tells us that since the world isn't flat, this proves that global warming is occurring. That's logical, right?

The world hasn't warmed for a decade (or 6 years, depending on your level of belief in the terrestrial measurements) and even some of the warmoholics are conceding it may not warm for another decade. (Don't even mention those that say it could be another 30 yrs). The true believers are therefore running scared and desperately trying to prop up a crumbling edifice. But the really smart ones are already starting to develop their excuses.

CJ, that's a good link ...

In addition to the bulk mailing, OISM's website enables people to add their names to the petition over the internet.

Only a few dozen of the signatories were drawn from the core disciplines of climate science - such as meteorology, oceanography, and glaciology - and almost none were climate specialists.

The names of the signers are available on the OISM's website, but without listing any institutional affiliations or even city of residence, making it very difficult to determine their credentials or even whether they exist at all - some people were added to the list that were long gone dead!

I see also that Drs Frank Burns, B. J. Honeycutt, and Benjamin Pierce are on the list, together with Dr Geraldine (Spice Girl) Halliwell (her specialised field of scientific endeavour being biology.

The list is loaded with misspellings, duplications, name and title fragments, and names of non-persons, such as company names.

And people who rant on about this so-called petition want to be treated seriously? Hmmmmm, I don't think so.

I have just found my name on the list!?

There is no doubt just from anecdotal evidence that the planet is experiencing cooler temps.In Sydney,we have just had a very cold winter,colder than our last.People around the planet have experienced likewise.When the temps were hot and we had catagory 5 class cyclones,the AGW enthusiasts told us that this is the future and things would only get worse.

Now we have a whole lot of conflicting scientific data,and now are told that AGW has taken a rest even with CO2 increasing by 5% in the last 6yrs!

For every molecule of CO2 there are 2500 molecules of gases that make up the rest of our atmosphere.No one has yet demonstrated through experiments or otherwise,how CO2 is 2500 times more powerful a green house gas than all the others combined.

The ice core data has shown that cause and effect happens in reverse.Heating causes the CO2 to be released from the oceans.

$50 billion has been given to the scientific community since 1990,there is a lot of self interest here and they can easily justify their precausionary measures of limiting CO2 emitions,by simply evolving to a general anti-pollution philosophy.Kevin Rudd has hedged his bets and changed his ad campaign from GW to Climate Change to cover both heating or cooling.

I consider myself to be a pretty good judge of character,both Bob Carter and David Evans seem to be genuine in their persuit of truth.David Evans on youtube has stated that he was 90% certain in 2000 that CO2 was the culprit but now is only 20% certain.

What we in Australia should do is to forget about carbon taxes for the next 5 yrs and see what the new scientific data reveals.If we act now and Kevin,Garnaut,Gore is right,nothing will change globally since the big players will take decades to react,and if the AGW theory is wrong,we will have committed economic/social suicide for no good reason.

Runner! Next time you go fishing and you catch one, Please be nice, and say hello to your cousins.

EVO

Excerpts from David Evans’ address (as chief denialist) to the Lavoisier Club included:

“These jobs (Greenhouse Office) would not exist if we didn’t blame carbon emissions for global warming—I was on the gravy train!

He further boasts of his six figure salary.

Further on:

“Talk about a vested interest! Not many scientists wish to risk the wrath of their peers by pointing out that the evidence for blaming carbon dioxide is now a bit thin. Peer review of scientific papers is nothing compared to this. This is about money and good jobs.

"This is a topic that many scientists don’t want to think about too hard. Don’t go there! No wonder it’s mainly retired or independent scientists who are speaking out—it’s financial and social suicide for most others to speak out.

“By the way, I know a heck of a lot about modelling and computers but I am not a climate modeller.”

And to ensure a bet each way and in true contradictory fashion:

“It is possible that the theoreticians are right or at least partly right. Human carbon dioxide might be causing some or all of the global warming. We can’t rule it out for sure yet.”

Sixty Minutes described Dr Evans as a “mathematician and scientist.” Does that mean we should regard every other electrical engineer as a "mathematician and scientist?"

To Arjay and you other deniers, I googled "ice core data" and the first site listed on the page was this:- http://www.cnrs.fr/cw/en/pres/compress/mist030699.html
You might check out the credentials of the authors, the institutions for which they work and the journal in which their papers were published ie the UK journal "Nature".
If these prove to be unqualified or disreputable sources, then you may add some little weight to your claims.
Of course there are many other researchers and scientists from many different disciplines who have in numerous ways accumulated evidence and applied logic to support the climate change argument. Their research and the conclusions they draw from it are not just assertions (as my post may have been) but are peer reviewed and in most cases published in journals with formidable reputations which they would not want to lose by allowing shonky science to be published.

"The earth is not flat." Now that is both an assertion and a fact.

Powerless: << if Hasbeen is correct that 31072 American scientists have signed the petition denying any real catastrophic warming, how many number the 'most real climate scientists' that you mention >>

Austin yet again tries to make a virtue of his ignorance - there seems to be a pattern here. If you'd bothered to follow the link I provided, you would be aware that the so-called petition is very dodgy indeed.

<< At least you haven't called them 'fruitloops' or boofheads'...yet >>

Yeah well, there weren't any in the thread until you and runner showed up :)

mhaze: << CJ tells us that the Oregon petition is a hoax because it was industry sponsored. >>

No, it's a hoax because it doesn't have the authority it purports to have, and contains many spurious 'signatories'. The fact that it is sponsored by denialist industry sources just explains the motivation for the hoax.

Poor old Arjay, like most denialists, is so desperate to avoid facing grim reality that he will apparently accept any quasi-scientific looking 'evidence' rather than face the overwhelming conclusion based on real evidence that we can't continue to conduct business as usual while destroying the planet.

It's like some little kid putting her hands over ears and saying "la la la I can't hear you".

I think it is about time we invented a name for those who are riding the AGW bandwagon, that is equally as insidiously pejorative as "denialist".

Almost every post that emanates from the scaremongers' camp labels their opposition as "denialist", often as a substitute for proper critical assessment.

Check it out.

"Denialist" is a word most often used in recent years for those who have decided that the Holocaust did not occur, and thus carries some ideological freight that is, frankly, extremely insulting.

To use it against people whose only crime is that they have yet to be convinced that drastic unilateral personal sacrifices need to be made in order to head off some potential future disaster scenario, is vicious and hurtful.

There is no comparison. But the term is used indiscriminately, and deliberately.

Words are powerful. It was certainly a deliberate act to select this particular designation, and purely from a humanitarian angle, it sucks.

To have to stoop to such malevolent ad hominem name-calling does nothing for the cause.

If anything, it will harden resistance, since the adoption of personal attacks is so often a signal that the intellectual argument is lost.

Have a great day, suckers.

Touché Pericles.

This is one reason I usually steer clear of this topic on OLO :)

We’ve heard this complaint before, notably from Graham Y – that the widespread use of the term ‘denialist’ to the business-as-usual crowd is egregious because of its alleged association with Holocaust denialism. I thought then that the offence taken was just a tad precious, as I still do, given the extremely widespread use of the term in AGW discussions everywhere.

Personally, I use the term to describe people who oppose actions that are proposed to mitigate the probable deleterious effects of the climate phenomenon known as Climate Change, which is likely to manifest as significant global warming that is exacerbated by human (anthropogenic) activities. There is absolutely no “ideological freight” involved – rather, I’ve always used the term ‘Holocaust denier’ rather than denialist to refer to the David Irvings of the world.

I distinguish between climate change denialists and sceptics, because true sceptics do not reject evidence and probabilities on the basis of what an undesired outcome might cost. Indeed, I’m sceptical about some of the wilder claims made by some “suckers” from the pro-AGW camp. Greenies are very often their own worst enemies.

On the other hand, I’m generally persuaded by the mountains of evidence suggesting that AGW is real, while I’m simultaneously dismayed by what appears to be a moderately successful organised campaign to delay or hinder any adaptive strategies that are proposed, on the basis that they will have significant economic and social costs – rather than on sincere belief based on the weight of available evidence that AGW is a false hypothesis.

I suggest that those increasingly obdurate souls from the latter camp who take offence at being referred to as “denialist” really need to get over their hypersensitivity in a worldwide debate in which they are seen by the great majority as being wrong. The term has been taken up by global popular discourse about climate change and therefore its meaning has altered. Such is the nature of language.

Foxy, there is no such thing as a 'normal, standard' climate.

Over countless millennia, it has changed one way or another, not always in the same directions. Ice ages, warm periods, floods, droughts. The ice cores told us so.

As for disappearing animal species, the dinosaurs died out 70 million years ago and they weren't the first mass extinction, nor the last. Though I will admit to sport hunting as part of the problem.

CJ, you bit so I should reel you in, eh? You are up to your usual tricks in that my opposite view to yours is due to a 'virtue of ignorance'. More empty bluster with no substance. You must have been one of the kids at school who hid behind the big boys. You have nothing to offer in the way of debate.

If you think that the 'great majority' believe in global warming, I find it strange that I never hear of it in conversation with friends and acquaintances but only by agenda-driven 'scientists' on amateurish TV productions and those who are politically motivated.

In the long run, I think that I'll be calling you the 'fruitloop'. Time will tell.

On 22 October 2007, over 50 scientists of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies declared the following statements (and more) unanimously:

“We call on all societies and governments to immediately and substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Without targeted reductions, the ongoing damage to coral reefs from global warming will soon be irreversible.

“Ocean acidification due to increased atmospheric CO2 is accelerating, and will detrimentally effect the growth and skeletal strength of calcifying species, such as corals. Reducing CO2 emissions is the only way to prevent further damage to coral reefs. Loss of coral also impacts on many other species and reduces reef fisheries.

“The Great Barrier Reef contributes $6.9 billion annually to the Australian economy - $6 billion from the tourism industry, $544 million from recreational activity and $251 million from commercial fishing. This economic activity generates more than 65 000 jobs.

“Substantial global reductions of greenhouse gasses must be initiated immediately, not in 10, 20 or 50 years.

“Reefs cannot be climate-proofed except via reduced emissions of greenhouse gasses. Without targeted reductions, the ongoing damage to coral reefs from global warming will accelerate and soon be irreversible.”

Included among the 50 scientists were several scientists from the James Cook University who are Bob Carter’s colleagues and whose theories clearly conflict with Carter's. Carter has acknowledged that human activity affects climate (cooling and heating,) yet recommends adapting to climate changes only after the event.

Last month he spoke against wind power by claiming that the ecological benefits of that technology were nonsense.

If one is to look for a conspiracy, we should look to see who benefits most by not implementing renewable energies.

It’s been reported that the fossil fuel industry has assets in the ground of something around US$200 trillion. I imagine widespread adoption of renewable energies would irritate the people who have control of the wealth and political connections that lie behind the fossil fuel resources.

Therefore, could we but hope for public debate between Carter and his University colleagues, in a bid to clear up the confusion experienced by we, the scientifically illiterate public?

Oh no, not the poor old Barrier Reef again!

It has been on the verge of imminent destruction ever since I first arrived in Australia twenty-odd years ago.

I'm fairly certain that it wasn't expected to recover from a nasty attack of Crown of Thorns, back in the eighties and then again at the end of the nineties. The old "we'll be rooned" cry was pretty audible then as well, but as far as I can tell it seems to have survived pretty well.

Can anyone detect any significant difference between this scare and all those that have gone before?

Except of course, this is caused by the holy AGW, and anyone who isn't a believer is a rabid denialist, foaming at the mouth with denialist madness (soon to become a notifiable disease, I am told) and permanently benighted by unmitigated stupidity.

Sorry, I forgot for a moment.

"It has been on the verge of imminent destruction ever since I first arrived in Australia twenty-odd years ago."

Pericles, the definition of "imminent" is "close in time" or "about to occur." Please supply us with a link to any marine scientist who has claimed that destruction of the GBR was "imminent" and of those who have claimed that "we'll be rooned" or are the exaggerations and hyperbole your own?

"The old "we'll be rooned" cry was pretty audible then as well, but as far as I can tell it seems to have survived pretty well."

And for those who prefer to dwell in the dinosaur era, the reason the GBR has not succumbed to the invasion of COTS is a result of major expenditure over some 30 years committed to research on the coral-eating starfish and much has been learned.

Even by 2003, divers involved in an eradication program had removed some 48,000 starfish across 51 reefs and had helped to significantly reduce starfish numbers at key sites.

Evidence indicates that crown-of-thorns starfish outbreaks are linked to an increase in the run-off of nutrients from agricultural land. Outbreaks of crown of thorns starfish continue during 2008 and ongoing vigilance is essential.

"Except of course, this is caused by the holy AGW, and anyone who isn't a believer is a rabid denialist, foaming at the mouth with denialist madness (soon to become a notifiable disease, I am told) and permanently benighted by unmitigated stupidity."

Again you will need to support such ridiculous swill by something more substantial or is your diatribe yet another figment of a maniacal imagination?

When will KULU and others realise that myself and others are questioning the science.We are not denying anything.

The question that cannot be answered is;how does CO2 cause perceived AGW?There are no verifable repeatable experiments that demonstrate this.The IPCC computer models are totally inadaquate.They don't even approach reality.

Arjay, you say you are “questioning the science ... you are not denying anything”.

I have tried to be patient with you (and others) in the hope that through the OLO fraternity you (and others) might in fact learn something about global warming in general and/or the science in particular.

However, you just keep asking the same old questions and promulgate the same old inane assertions, despite being given coherent responses and cogent links to experts who can spell it out for you.

I used to think you were a misinformed lay-person trying to come to grips with the science (remember your Argo Buoy thread? Or the green-house experiment?) But it is becoming increasingly clear that you are incapable of learning or understanding anything about the science.

It is tiresome, but let me give you the benefit of the doubt (it’s either that or relegating you to the class of ‘troll’ to join the ‘others’ that so frequent OLO articles on global warming) and personally invite you to:

http://bravenewclimate.com/category/climate-change-qa/

Your questions can be answered, relevant sources cited and links provided.

"I have just found my name on the list!?"

Greetings Q&A

I trust you've voiced your strong objections to the dodgy organisers of that petition over the fraudulent inclusion of your name.

Here again we see the main thrust of Q&A and Dickie is to discredit anyone who questions conventional wisdom.Neither of them will enter into direct logical debate.They only allude to a scientific reference which suports their bias.Dickie eg.cannot explain how Severinghaus' explanation of CO2 being an amplifier of GW makes all the other gases retain heat.Is it a catalyst,if so,how does it chemically/physically influence the other gases to retain energy?For every molecule of CO2 there are 2500 of other gases that make up our atmosphere.How is CO2 2500 times more powerful in retaining heat energy?

There are no experiments that demonstrate the above claims by the AGW believers.Science is all about scepticism ,testing/questioning from every possible angle and the theory of CO2 causing AGW is far from being proven!

Arjay, have you bothered to look at Prof. Barry Brooks' blog? He's an Australian climate scientist who, unlike most public commentators, actually knows what he's talking about:

http://bravenewclimate.com/

I directed you to it in the first response to your initial post in this thread, and others have reminded you of it since. You claim to want to know and discuss the scientific facts of the debate, and we've directed you to a site that is specifically set up to answer your questions. There's even a Climate Science lecture and tutorial series there, starting tomorrow.

If you disagree with the science, Prof. Brooks welcomes comments and responds to civil and serious questions. I suggest you suppposed 'sceptics' go and play, learn and engage there, rather than literally promoting ignorance in order to avoid doing anything proactive about the looming environmental/economic crisis.

"They only allude to a scientific reference which suports (sic) their bias." (Arjay)

I think that says enough about Arjay, our science laureate!

Dear me!

Carbon dioxide is a pollutant?

Why does the hydroponic vegetable industry release carbon dioxide into their greenhouses? Answer, to promote plant growth.

Ok Alarmists, supposing you are right, how do you account for the drop in temperature since 2001 and if you tell me that that drop is caused by GW I'll ask you to verify how it is that that can be so.

Will someone give me proof that CO2 is a pollutant?

Cheers

Hello there Phoenix94

“Carbon dioxide is a pollutant?” Well yes indeed it is. Too much CO2 on plant life can also have a destructive effect. Vitamin D is extremely beneficial to humans, however, too much of that is toxic. Humans need iron too, to prevent anaemia – an excess will soon rust you out . All things in moderation Phoenix94 - that goes for CO2 as well:

http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Testimony0408%202.pdf

http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewArticle.do?id=7486

http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=106861

"Ok Alarmists, supposing you are right, how do you account for the drop in temperature since 2001 and if you tell me that that drop is caused by GW I'll ask you to verify how it is that that can be so."

Have you considered the cooling effects of La Nina Phoenix94?

La Niña had been in the average range of such events, but the recent cooling will likely put it in the stronger-than-average category, according to the World Meteorology Organization.

La Niña normally lasts nine to 12 months. The current event started in the July-September quarter of last year.

WMO stated that "it is rare for a La Niña event to persist for two years or more, such as occurred from early 1998 to early 2000, The likelihood of the current La Niña continuing for such a period will remain unclear for some months.

"We can expect with high probability this year will be cooler than the previous five years," said Omar Baddour, responsible for climate data and monitoring at the WMO.

"Definitely the La Nina should have had an effect, how much we cannot say.

"Up to July 2008, this year has been cooler than the previous five years at least. It still looks like it's warmer than average," added Baddour.

Does anyone know if the La Nina has completed its cycle yet?

Dickie

ENSO is pretty much neutral and the 'little girl' is fading. Odds-on that her little brother will return next year. Since he is more long lasting than his sister, we can expect a continuation of the upward global trend (statistically speaking) in unowhat - some regions more so than others.

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisory/ensodisc.html

It's a little more complicated, but you get the drift I am sure.

Thanks for that Q&A. I've requested monthly updates on the ENSO trends.

Cheers

Yes it is very complicated.It seems that both Dickie and Q&A don't have the answers,let alone ask the right questions.
Who would like to commit social and economic suicide with them,on the whim of an unproven theory?

"For every molecule of CO2 there are 2500 of other gases that make up our atmosphere.How is CO2 2500 times more powerful in retaining heat energy?"

Arjay

It is against my better judgement to respond to your "one up-manship" blatherings - particularly when you've manipulated Severinghaus's theories to accommodate your own bias.

Nevertheless, I shall (in my layman's terms) reiterate an example as my interpretation permits. I am happy to be corrected though I confess, preferably not by you unless you can remain on topic:

Methane, a powerful warming GHG, oxidises to CO2 and water.

Methane's atmospheric fate is some 10 years. CO2 is around a hundred -perhaps longer.

Scientists' remain concerned over the potential escape of emissions from the ocean's massive methane sinks, sinks which will react to an increased warming.

Atmospheric gases react with various oxidising agents in the atmosphere in which hydrocarbons are oxidised to CO2 and H2O. The most important of these oxidising agents is the hydroxyl radical.

Hydroxyl radical (OH) has the important property that it can react with reduced gases like hydrocarbons, removing one of their hydrogen atoms to form water (H2O).

Hydrocarbons become quite reactive when the first hydrogen has been removed and goes through a rapid chain reaction eventually resulting in CO2 and H2O.

Therefore, many of the "other gases" you refer to oxidise to carbon dioxide. That is one reason why scientists hold CO2 as the most powerful of all the warming gases and why you cannot reduce emissions of A/CO2 without reducing the emissions of all other fossil fuel gases.

Happily, new scientific revelations are frequently emerging to further enlighten the public.

However, the scientific fact will remain that "all things are bound together - all things connect."

Enough of your obfuscations Arjay - go figure!

Arjay,

I was responding to a question from Dickie ... it appears you have a problem with that, why?

____________

Dickie,

To clarify ... we can monitor changes in El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the Walker Circulation using the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI).

Power, S. B., and I. N. Smith, 2007 - Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L18702, doi: 10.1029/2007GL030854

show that the lowest 30-year average value of the June–December SOI recently occurred. This coincided with the:

• Highest recorded value in mean sea-level pressure (Darwin)
• Weakest equatorial surface wind-stresses
• Highest tropical sea-surface temperatures on record.

They document what appears to be a concurrent period of unprecedented El Niño dominance. Their results, when coupled to rising greenhouse gas concentrations, suggest that the recent ENSO dominance might reflect a shift to a lower SOI mean.

This is important because it suggests that global warming now needs to be taken into account in both the formulation of ENSO indices and in the evaluation and exploitation of statistical links between ENSO and climate variability (natural and human induced) over the globe.

_____________

Arjay (again)

Contrary to your inane and misguided musings, this is good ‘question/answer’ because it could very well lead to the development of more accurate seasonal-to-interannual climate forecasts.

Something of which farmers, irrigators, businesses and governments the world over (regardless of their left/right ideology you twerp) would be interested in.

Unfortunately, you just want to stick your head in the sand, raise your butt to the wind and generate a flatulent GHG rant – thanks for your invaluable input!

Here is another question for you RJ (asked elsewhere but not answered)...

Exactly whose interests are being served by the deliberate attempt of the ‘deny and delay brigade’ to engage in obfuscation, misrepresentation and gross distortion of the science

?

Dickie,

Off topic but thought you might be interested in this piece;

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/120617.php

Thanks for that link Q&A.

I have held an interest in particulate matter (as a pollutant) for sometime and I am delighted that scientists are endeavouring to address the potential ramifications of PM on climate.

And on the domestic front scientists reporting in the Journal of Geophysical Research in 2006 found that "the pattern of increasing rainfall when aerosols are included is strongest over northwestern Australia, in agreement with the observed trends. The strong impact of aerosols is primarily due to the massive Asian aerosol haze, as confirmed by a sensitivity test in which only Asian anthropogenic aerosols are included.

"The Asian haze alters the meridional temperature and pressure gradients over the tropical Indian Ocean, thereby increasing the tendency of monsoonal winds to flow toward Australia. Anthropogenic aerosols also make the simulated pattern of surface-temperature change in the tropical Pacific more like La Nina, since they induce a cooling of the surface waters in the extratropical North Pacific, which are then transported to the tropical eastern Pacific via the deep ocean."

And the following link theorises more on the planet's heating due to aerosols.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6926597.stm

While pollutant industries in Australia monitor for particulate matter, regulators do not enforce any restrictions on emissions, however, I have witnessed reports on PM emissions drastically reduced with pollution prevention control - ie baghouses etc - after the thumbscrews were applied from community outrage!

It appears that monitoring of particulate matter in Australia is only required for PM10 when atmospheric PM2.5 is largely anthropogenic and particularly destructive. It is also particularly dangerous to human health where these tiny particles lodge in healthy lungs unable to expel them.

In the meantime pollutant industries in Australia are pumping it out with relish. Coupled with transboundary emissions such as Asian haze drift, we have quite a toxic soup in our own backyards.

When you hear politicians claiming that measures have been implemented to mitigate industrial pollution - smile quietly Q&A.

The following emissions' report I believe, has been seriously under-estimated:

http://www.npi.gov.au/cgi-bin/npireport.pl?proc=substance;instance=public;year=2007;substance=69;loc_type=national

Cheers for now.

Arjay

You should be interested in this piece;

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/09/simple-question-simple-answer-no/langswitch_lang/in

but then again, maybe not.