Ammonite

I have no beef with the sort of modeling you refer to. It is necessary. We need to plan for future power stations as best we can. All good stuff.

But there is a difference in kind between the sort of modeling that you are talking about and models which purport to support the rather remarkable assertion that human activity is somehow changing the climate of the planet. I would be more inclined to go along with them if anyone were able to demontrate that there was something unusual about the climate of the 20th century. We know from historical records, from sediments and from ice cores that the climate changes all the time. At issue is whether the observed variation is statistically significant. It does not appear to be so.

Then sham models were put forward that were riddled with fudge factors ("flux corrections") and ad hoc ajustments ("water vapour feedback") and which purport to predict the climate of the planet centuries into the future. This isn't science, mate; it's astrology.

Pericles wrote:

>>….I certainly hope to be around then, stevenlmeyer, sound in mind and limb. And if you'd like my predictions, here they are. One, that we will still be arguing about climate change. Two, that we will be doing so in a world whose climate has barely shifted from its present state. And three, that we will have made significant progress towards widespread access to renewable energy sources.

If you'd like a fourth, bonus prediction, it would be that there will be some who will claim that two is as a result of three. But won't be able to "prove" it, hence the ongoing argument.>>

Well if I’m still alive in 2030 I’ll be 85. Here are my predictions:

Atmospheric CO2 levels will be in the range 430 – 440 ppm. (Currently around 385 ppm)

We will be seeing significant climate shifts though nothing catastrophic.

Neither side will concede anything. The “sceptics” will be asserting these are natural changes.

The “catastrophists” will claim catastrophe is just around the corner.

The biggest problem is likely to be not climate change but ocean acidification although I would not under-estimate the ability of ocean flora and fauna to adapt to and partially negate acidification.

Just to make my own position clear (yet again)

The preponderance of evidence, which I have explained elsewhere and which does NOT rely on elaborate climate models, suggests that a climate catastrophe is a likely outcome of continuing to add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Not a certainty. But a reasonable probability.

However I am not going to go into all that again here.

See you in 2030 if we’re both still around and compos mentis.

ammonium nitrate..quote..""If a forest burns down, for instance,
much of the carbon stored in it will re-enter the atmosphere."

mate
use your eyes
when we watched many forrest burn on tv
you se the bulk..of the arbon...[them blackend trees]
still standing*

to wit only the leaves..grasses and twigs got 'burnt'
ie the lassdt years carbon..not the 20 years or 100 years of carbon IN THE TRUNK

i thought you came from common sense country stock
and would have at least driven past many 'burnt' forrests

this lie[clear lie]
invalidates the rest of the link

and clear lies have been one consistant
in the whole topic

i thought today..to ask kids
what is polution?

[sold on the lie..that carbon IS POLUTION]
im sure most will say carbon..!

these ignorants will be raised on the lie
that carbon is THE WORST POLUTANT

as they eat/breath/wash in
the real polutants
and die of cancers

mate..little lies..*become big lies
a step at a time

you missing the for-rest for the trees
just like all the others..born of guilt blame and shame

[sold by huge lies]
for yet anouther new tax
a tax that dont go to govt
but direct to the globalist scamers

[to REALLY polute
elsewhere]..and kids will know no different

just like we were once told that ddt is a vitamin
or fibro cottages was good housing..[best practice]

or smoking causes cancer
[i repeat the incidence of smokers vesis non smokers
getting all forms of cancer...*is the same][thus cant be a factor..except by statistical lie.

to wit...SPIN*

John Reid says, with the gravitas of a consensus of climate scientists, "We know from historical records, from sediments and from ice cores that the climate changes all the time. At issue is whether the observed variation is statistically significant. It does not appear to be so."

The last sentence ignores facts and analyses available to all in the IPCC report, which brings together the findings of many scientists and scientific disciplines applied to climate science, not just modelling which John focuses upon and is wrong about.

Regarding the earlier sentences, yes, climate has changed over millions of years and within millenia. What we have here is a rapid change, accelerating beyond anything man has ever had to deal with except extreme events.

In the space of a man's lifetime, we either have to adapt to coasts, harbours and tidal rivers flooding into many world settlements, increasingly extreme and numerous weather events, dry places getting wetter and vice-verse, and other consequences of CO2 such as acidification of the oceans to the point of affecting our food chain.

If you simply have faith that man will change and adapt, you are probably right, even though earth, our petri-dish, may win the day and world population takes a dive.

As an organism our drive is to send our own DNA into the future. We are not bacteria living on a petri-dish, ultimately suffocating themselves in their own wastes. We have rational minds that can be turned to creating sustainability. We must start on this now rather than waiting until the eleventh hour when we will be swamped by the the exponential arithmetic of the problem. Should we simply adapt, or, or should we work the problem from both ends? Do you want to risk your own DNA to an uncertain fate?

It is not sufficient to coddle ourselves in the fact that climate change is a constant. It is not sufficient to put our faith in the opinion of one scientist whose work is in dispute. Our basic instinct is to protect our DNA with our intellect and our actions.

Thanks people.

It has been an interesting discussion. I circulated the original letter to major newspapers and other blogs. OLO was the only place where it appeared. I see from Science Heresy web stats that I have reached 17 people.

Next time I will hand out leaflets in Bourke Street.

Cheers