Resisting Climate Hysteria

[medicowallet]

The ocean would become toxic according to this thesis:-



http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/12/061207084052.htm

Ocean plant growth increased from 1997 to 1999 as the climate cooled during one of the strongest El Niño to La Niña transitions on record.

Really ??? So much for that theory then !

From what I understand about this, it is not the temperature, but variations between seasons that makes the difference.

I need to look into this much more, seems very interesting.

A very basic guide for people at

http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/1vg.html

 

[Knobby22]

I lived most of my life in NZ and remember much warmer weather in summer than ever happens now.

Please, one of you climate change enthusiasts, or even Knobby who has recently shown a bit of objectivity, could you please tell me what vital factors I'm missing?

Ah memory. Its a fascinating area. I'm going to post something on this under a different thread but memory is famously faulty. You can't trust it.

Some biases.

Rosy retrospection: the remembering of the past as having been better than it really was.

Fading affect bias: a bias in which the emotion associated with unpleasant memories fades more quickly than the emotion associated with positive events.

Positivity effect: that older adults favor positive over negative information in their memories.

Check this out for more memory biases that no one is immune from.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_memory_biases

It would be interesting Julia if you went back in the records to where you were and see whether it was actually warmer. If you haven't time let me know the area and I will see if I can get the information.

In my view the problenm with the environment warming rapidly over 50 years is that we can't predict all the events such as bigger storms? extinction of animals? more rain, more droughts? I think man cannot rate itself above nature and our biosphere. I suppose it is about risk. Say something really bad happened we didn't foresee??

 

[Knobby22]

IOW the science ISN'T settled?

Lo!!

Any scientist would say that. Any skeptic would say this.
It is one thing saying it isn't settled to saying it is all rot!!

 

[Knobby22]

The ocean would become toxic according to this thesis:-



http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/12/061207084052.htm

Ocean plant growth increased from 1997 to 1999 as the climate cooled during one of the strongest El Niño to La Niña transitions on record.

Really ??? So much for that theory then !

It supported the theory, did you read what you posted????

 

[Calliope]

I've asked before and received no response so I'll try again with what undoubtedly seems a naive and even stupid question:

i.e. could someone very kindly tell me just exactly why - if there really is global warming - this is so terrifying?

Wouldn't much of the world's population be happy to be a bit warmer if that were actually to happen?

We will adapt, and if we don't it's no big deal. Most of the species that ever existed on earth are now extinct.

If this global holocaust that we are threatened with, does occur, perhaps it will make our species stronger by wiping out those of us who can't adapt.

 

[drsmith]

As opposed to a loud another

The response to this new tax should be loud.

A government's underlying reason for new taxes are typically to raise more revenue with any other secondary reason to appease the public. Put another way, to pluck more from the goose with the minimum amount of squawk.

During the week, Wayne Swan in a lateline interview initially tried to dodge the issue of revenue neutrality on the carbon tax although, when pressed did still indicate it would be broadly revenue neutral in line with an earlier comment from Penny Wong.

From the government that brought us "No carbon tax under a government I lead" during the last election campain, it will be interesting to see exactly what "broadly revenue neutral" means.

Practice you loudest squawk.

 

[Knobby22]

The response to this new tax should be loud.

A government's underlying reason for new taxes are typically to raise more revenue with any other secondary reason to appease the public. Put another way, to pluck more from the goose with the minimum amount of squawk.

During the week, Wayne Swan in a lateline interview initially tried to dodge the issue of revenue neutrality on the carbon tax although, when pressed did still indicate it would be broadly revenue neutral in line with an earlier comment from Penny Wong.

From the government that brought us "No carbon tax under a government I lead" during the last election campain, it will be interesting to see exactly what "broadly revenue neutral" means.

Practice you loudest squawk.

The tax will make the economy less efficient which is why I am against it. They could have got similar results in other ways. This thread is not about the tax though, that belongs in the Gillard lies whatever it is called thread.

 

[sails]

The tax will make the economy less efficient which is why I am against it. They could have got similar results in other ways. This thread is not about the tax though, that belongs in the Gillard lies whatever it is called thread.

I agree Knobby - there are two different issues. One is the AGW controversy and the other is the carbon tax controversy.

However, while AGW is used as the excuse for carbon tax, it has merged the two and yet it is quite possible that, despite theories to the contrary, carbon tax will do next to nothing to help AGW. Bizarre...

 

[Julia]

Ah memory. Its a fascinating area. I'm going to post something on this under a different thread but memory is famously faulty. You can't trust it.

Some biases.

Rosy retrospection: the remembering of the past as having been better than it really was.

Fading affect bias: a bias in which the emotion associated with unpleasant memories fades more quickly than the emotion associated with positive events.

Positivity effect: that older adults favor positive over negative information in their memories.

Check this out for more memory biases that no one is immune from.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_memory_biases

It would be interesting Julia if you went back in the records to where you were and see whether it was actually warmer. If you haven't time let me know the area and I will see if I can get the information.

I quite accept that bias could be colouring my memory, knobby. Other factor is that - although I remember as a kid skipping about in summer clothes from October on - kids don't have the sensitivity to cold that we develop as we get older.

I've googled for actual temps and the variation is less than 1 degree, so that supports your theory.

In my view the problenm with the environment warming rapidly over 50 years is that we can't predict all the events such as bigger storms? extinction of animals? more rain, more droughts? I think man cannot rate itself above nature and our biosphere. I suppose it is about risk. Say something really bad happened we didn't foresee??

Sure, but the current frustration is that the proposed carbon tax in Australia is apparently not going to make any genuine difference to the climate. If we were able to believe that the tax was actually going to achieve some positive effect on climate concerns I believe most people would accept it without argument.

 

[sails]

...Sure, but the current frustration is that the proposed carbon tax in Australia is apparently not going to make any genuine difference to the climate. If we were able to believe that the tax was actually going to achieve some positive effect on climate concerns I believe most people would accept it without argument.

Although any new tax is a difficult thing to sell, I agree that it would help the electorate if they thought it was actually going to do any good. Then the debate would be back to the science controversies of AGW. So those not agreeing or unsure about AGW will still oppose the tax. Only the AGW diehards would be fully supportive, imo.

 

[Knobby22]

although I remember as a kid skipping about in summer clothes from October on - kids don't have the sensitivity to cold that we develop as we get older.

Yes, my 7 tear old still runs around in his undies all the time and it is winter in Melbourne so its pretty cold. He just doesn't feel it.

Good point Sails.

 

[wayneL]

Any scientist would say that. Any skeptic would say this.
It is one thing saying it isn't settled to saying it is all rot!!

It is also one thing saying the science IS settled as the alarmists have been claiming for a number of years now and saying the science ISN'T settled.

So we should be putting the non-scientific "science is settled" Gorist, Hansonist et al alarmists in the same category as the "it isn't happening" denialists? I think we should (and do).

We should then reserve respect for those asking questions and challenging the purported science, whichever side of the warm divide they sit.

That means people like Carter, Deacon et al on one side, as well as Curry, the Pielkes' et al on the other should command our respect; and not subject to ad hominem attack.

 

[bandicoot76]

I agree Knobby - there are two different issues. One is the AGW controversy and the other is the carbon tax controversy.

However, while AGW is used as the excuse for carbon tax, it has merged the two and yet it is quite possible that, despite theories to the contrary, carbon tax will do next to nothing to help AGW. Bizarre...

i would go one step further and say the whole AGW debate could be broken down even futher, as per the quote i posted previously:

"Usually, in scientific disputes, there is more than one claim at issue. With global warming, there's the claim that our planet, on average, is getting warmer. There's also the claim that human emissions are the main cause of it, that it's going to be catastrophic, and that we have to transform civilization to deal with it. These are all different assertions with different bases of evidence. Evidence for warming, for instance, isn't evidence for the cause of that warming. All the polar bears could drown, the glaciers melt, the sea levels rise 20 feet, Newfoundland become a popular place to tan, and that wouldn't tell us a thing about what caused the warming. This is a matter of logic, not scientific evidence. The effect is not the same as the cause.

There's a lot more agreement about (1) a modest warming trend since about 1850 than there is about (2) the cause of that trend. There's even less agreement about (3) the dangers of that trend, or of (4) what to do about it. But these four propositions are frequently bundled together, so that if you doubt one, you're labeled a climate change "skeptic" or "denier." That's just plain intellectually dishonest. When well-established claims are fused with separate, more controversial claims, and the entire conglomeration is covered with the label "consensus," you have reason for doubt. "

 

[trainspotter]

It supported the theory, did you read what you posted????

LOL ..... if there was another El Nina / Ninio whatever do you not think the ocean would cool? All of this on a measly 9 years of data. I can give you temperature variances over the same period from my pearl farm and come up with the same data.

BTW the water has averaged cooler LATER over the past 3 years than previous 9 years. This completely stuffs seeding/production/spat growth/cleaning schedules etc. There has been no temperature SPIKES to the uptick that has caused mort rates either.

Now there's an idea !!!!! I will set it up as a carbon credit bodice of water and offset my footprint with the amount of carbon the ocean can swallow in 258 acres !!!!! Bugger growing pearls for a living. I can get on the gravy train of Carbon Credits just like AL Gore.

 

[Smurf1976]

Sure, but the current frustration is that the proposed carbon tax in Australia is apparently not going to make any genuine difference to the climate. If we were able to believe that the tax was actually going to achieve some positive effect on climate concerns I believe most people would accept it without argument.

Judging by the arguments some are now making against gas as a fuel, and to some extent I think they are likely correct, a carbon tax could actually make the situation worse (assuming we accept that both CO2 and CH4 (methane) are greenhouse gasses).

Pay more, to make the problem worse. It's an arguable point, but that could well be what we're about to do.

 

[trainspotter]

No carbonistas seem to be worrying about the volanic ash from Chile?

VIRGIN Australia has joined Qantas in suspending all domestic and international flights in and out of Melbourne as a plume of volcanic ash drifts across from South America.

Virgin's Sean Donohue said 34 domestic flights and one international service would be suspended from 7pm (AEST).

"We have been closely monitoring the situation all day," he said in a statement.

"Safety is always our number one priority."

This afternoon the airline decided to cancel five flights to and from Australia and New Zealand.

Earlier, a Qantas spokeswoman said all of its flights in and out of Melbourne and Auckland would be grounded from 6pm.

All Qantas flights to and from Tasmania, Christchurch, Queenstown and Wellington had already been cancelled.
Read more: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-new...ts/story-e6frfku0-1226073900625#ixzz1P3dDZHqL

Surely no planes flying means less pollutants in the air? Bit what about the CO2 that the volcano spewed out? HUH?? :

 

[Julia]

I've asked before and received no response so I'll try again with what undoubtedly seems a naive and even stupid question:

i.e. could someone very kindly tell me just exactly why - if there really is global warming - this is so terrifying?

Wouldn't much of the world's population be happy to be a bit warmer if that were actually to happen?

Exactly what is to be so feared about an average of a couple of degrees warmer overall?

Any temperature alteration is obviously not uniform, if in fact it's happening at all.

I lived most of my life in NZ and remember much warmer weather in summer than ever happens now.

Please, one of you climate change enthusiasts, or even Knobby who has recently shown a bit of objectivity, could you please tell me what vital factors I'm missing?

No one has responded to my question above on the thread, but the following has come to me via an alternative source. Comments on it would be welcome.

The current ecological systems are adapted to live inside the current temperature range. We don't see trees in very hot and relatively dry environments. Most crops won't grow if it gets too hot. A number of crops won't set fruit for example if there arn't enough cold nights. These are just a few examples of consequences of a rapid increase in temperatures. Some areas might indeed become more amenable to agriculture but lack of sufficient daylight (in the norther hemisphere) and poor soils will limit any potential advantage

There is also the likelihood that increases in temperatures will trigger tipping points in various ecological systems around the world releasing huge further amounts of CO2 that would drive temperatures even higher. Particular examples that have been noted are

1) Release of huge amounts of methane currently locked up in the permafrost.
2) Release of carbon in the soil as it gets warmer
3) Reduction of tree cover as higher temperatures destroy current forest areas. This would work in 2 ways. Firstly the dead trees would effectively release further CO2 into the atmosphere. Secondly the (dead) trees would unable to pull CO2 out of the atmosphere
4) Warming oceans would release CO2 back into the atmosphere. The colder the ocean the more CO2 it can hold.

The other issue with a warming world is that extreme heat waves would become far more common. The consequences of this eco systems would be fatal (not to mention us.)

The unfortunate part is that if we believe current scientific research the earth is already committed to at least another 1 degree of warming as result of the CO2 already in the atmosphere . (It just takes a few decades (which is nothing in geological time) for the warming effect to be fully felt. The point of reducing CO2 emissions now is to forstall even bigger temperatures increases.

 

[Happy]

...
Surely no planes flying means less pollutants in the air? Bit what about the CO2 that the volcano spewed out? HUH?? :

Maybe "narual disaster TAX" or something like that to cover the nature doing naughty things?

 

[Happy]

15-th century Global Cooling was probably worse.

Humans need warmth to live!

 

[Ruby]

I agree we don't need to by hysterical and I don't even agree with carbon tax we are going to get but to have completely closed minds and be not able to look at pro and negative findings is unfortunately a weakness of the human condition. Humans are biased but think they are being fair and everyone else is bias. If you know you have biases then you can combat them.

I just ask for everyone to keep an open mind, this includes the people who are certain climate change is caused by CO2, because lets face it, the global weather systems are extremely complex.

Knobby, there is a lot of commonsense in what you say, and I agree that both sides need to get rid of bias. See my previous post below....

Knobby, I think that underneath the debating we are all on the same side. We all want a cleaner, greener planet, and we all want to learn to cope with a climate that has always changed and will always change. It is unfortunate that it has become so clouded by politics.

"Usually, in scientific disputes, there is more than one claim at issue. With global warming, there's the claim that our planet, on average, is getting warmer. There's also the claim that human emissions are the main cause of it, that it's going to be catastrophic, and that we have to transform civilization to deal with it. These are all different assertions with different bases of evidence. Evidence for warming, for instance, isn't evidence for the cause of that warming. All the polar bears could drown, the glaciers melt, the sea levels rise 20 feet, Newfoundland become a popular place to tan, and that wouldn't tell us a thing about what caused the warming. This is a matter of logic, not scientific evidence. The effect is not the same as the cause.

There's a lot more agreement about (1) a modest warming trend since about 1850 than there is about (2) the cause of that trend. There's even less agreement about (3) the dangers of that trend, or of (4) what to do about it. But these four propositions are frequently bundled together, so that if you doubt one, you're labeled a climate change "skeptic" or "denier." That's just plain intellectually dishonest. When well-established claims are fused with separate, more controversial claims, and the entire conglomeration is covered with the label "consensus," you have reason for doubt. "

These are excellent points. I think a lot of us who sit on opposite sides of this debate would actually find that we have a lot of areas of agreement when we break the issue into its different components.
(My bolds)