How have we come to this?
Have we lost our senses?
Ignorance remains ignorance and no amount
of sophistry can hide that reality.
Every group deserves smart people. Especially in
government when we are now globally linked and want
our country to be able to measure up. That's
not suggesting that the others are not entitled
to an opinion. Nobody is suggesting that. It's
a popular exercise to criticise "knowledge,"
and expertise, and even economic nous,
and refer to people as the "elites." However it
wouldn't be an improvement to supplant them by
persons of thoroughgoing ignorance and incompetence.

Joe, you raise so many questions:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5280#143316

There have been articles on OLO before, you may not have had a chance to follow them?

Try this one:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=13746

The comments are also worth a peek.

.

Joe: In that other place – what makes you think “it is all attributable to AGW?”

Of course there are other attributes. Of course ‘climate scientists’ know about solar, urban heat island effect, cosmic rays, volcanoes, Milankovich cycles, etc.

It's difficult to discern if you are being sarcastic (or not). So I will ask (sarcastically):

Do you really think 'climate scientists' have not taken those things you raise (and more) into account?
Do you really think they don’t know the difference between sea-ice and land-based ice?
Do you really think oceanographers, glaciologists, atmospheric physicists, etc, etc. are so stupid?

Maybe you should just google “climate change attribution”, it will help.

If you haven't the inclination, this:

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/07/29/4672565/prominent-climate-change-denier.html

Stemming from this:

http://berkeleyearth.org/results-summary/

Cheers : )

For all that and all that, Bonmot, has the temperature rise been as little as 0.8 degrees over a century ? Is that true or not ?

How much of that 0.8 degrees has been attributable to human activity ?

I'm simply trying to get straight answers, yes/no.

Of course the scientists would be aware etc., etc. And I'm not suggesting any attempt to con us simpletons, I just want to have some idea of the real story.

So, 0.8 degrees rise in temperature and what, 2 inches rise in sea-level ? Is that it ?

Thanks, Bonmot.

Joe

Joe, people often ask simple questions that require very complex answers.
Simplifying the answer then leads to many misunderstandings.
I will try.

The total radiative forcing from 1750 to 2000 is about 1.7 W/m2

The biggest warming factors in W/m2) are:
CO2 1.5
CH4 0.6
CFCs 0.3
N2O 0.15
O3 0.3
black carbon 0.8
solar 0.3

Main cooling factors are:
sulphate and nitrate aerosols -2.1
land use -0.15

Clouds can have both a cooling and warming effect.
Water vapour has a relatively short residence time, CO2 very very much longer.

Each has uncertainty associated with it (a lot for aerosol effects, less for the GHGs).

CO2's role compared to the net forcing is about 85% of the effect, but 37% compared to all warming effects.

All anthropogenic forcings are about 80% of the total.

If solar trends were doubled, it would still only be less than half of the effect of CO2, and barely a fifth of the total greenhouse gas forcing.

If we take account of the uncertainties (we do) then the CO2 attribution (compared to all other warming effects) could vary from 30 to 40%.

The aim really is to adapt to a changing climate AND to lessen the attribution caused by human activity.

Humanity should wean itself off a relatively finite energy resource, sooner or later.

As to sea levels, the world clock doesn't end in 2050 - do you really care?

Cheers

In summary, Joe.

Humanity should try and limit temperature rise to 2 degrees C

It will reach that (sooner or later) barring catastrophic meteor strike, for e.g.

Humanity cannot really reduce the temperature increase but we can lessen the rate of increase.

Do you understand the difference?

Thank you, Bonmot.

"Humanity should try and limit temperature rise to 2 degrees C" - do you mean, ever ? Never more than 2 degrees ? Or 2 degrees over a period, such as a century ?

And what is the estimated rate of increase, the exponential growth, given that temperature rise over the past century has been about one degree ? At present rates, will temperatures rise an average of another degree in another century, or in only fifty years ? And double again in another fifty years ?

Okay: "Humanity cannot really reduce the temperature increase but we can lessen the rate of increase."

Is that with our current technology ? Or ever ? From an idiot's viewpoint, if we can "lessen the rate of increase", why can't we aim for reversing it ? Or am I really showing my ignorance here ?

Thanks for that little sting in the tail :) And yes, I do care, I don't get involved in this sort of thing, and put myself in danger of showing that I know almost nothing, for no reason.

Joe