Resisting Climate Hysteria

[Calliope]

It is all hysteria, religious mumbo jumbo, this climate belief.

I think that the majority of the western world has accepted the warmist's arguments that we may be making some contribution to warming. What has not worked has been the attempt to scare us into the belief that we are facing floods, droughts, cyclones and sea rises unless we take urgent action.

Gillard started her spiel on Carbon Sunday with all sorts of dire warnings, about our fate if we didn't act quickly, but she could not say how a carbon tax would delay this.

It all went over like a lead balloon. Common sense wins. AGW is dead in the water.

 

[Boggo]

The reality vs the hype and sensationalism.

 

[medicowallet]

the warmist's arguments that we may be making some contribution to warming.

lmao.

If only this represented the warmist's argument.

Warmists are arguing that man is DRIVING DANGEROUS warming, on an unprecedented scale, that we must WRECK our economy to stop.

Factor in that Australia is going to go at it without China, US and India and at a price higher than the rest of the world.

lmao indeed.

 

[OzWaveGuy]

The reality vs the hype and sensationalism.

Isn't this the truth!! Very well put together and hits the mark - perhaps Boggo, you could add an extension to this and represent a mountain of money in AU$ that the Government intends to steal by deception.

Like this from this post. This represented Britain's "investment" to tackle climate change in pallets loaded with 50 pound notes.

 

[derty]

The reality vs the hype and sensationalism.

Here let me fix some of that reality for you:

The assumption is that 1% of the atmosphere are greenhouse gasses (10,000ppm). With 9500ppm being water vapour (at the surface water vapour ranges from 1-4% (10000-40000ppm) though when you take the whole atmosphere into account it is only 0.4% or 4000ppm, but lets stick with ~0.95% as in the image).

C02 is now ~390ppm (not 362ppm)
Methane (1.79ppm) + others (nitrous oxide - 0.3ppm and ozone - 0.07ppm)

Correcting for the methane error of confusing ppm for %, for the greenhouse gasses to = 1%, water vapour needs to be 9608ppm not 9500ppm.

So that breakdown gives us:
Water Vapour - 96.08%
Carbon Dioxide - 3.94%
Methane and Others - 0.02%

Though then they go on and assume that as annual anthropogenic CO2 is approx 3% of the global emission that then it must equal only around 3% of the total atmospheric CO2. When in fact it is pretty easy to work out what the anthropogenic total is: Current CO2 = 390ppm, pre-industrial = 280ppm therefore (390-280)/390 *100 = 28.5% of CO2 is caused by human activity (an increase of 40% in CO2 levels).


Now looking at the small red section - we have the claim that the reductions equal reducing a 100km length of string by 1mm. They don't really say what the 100km length of string represents. Lets look at that:
A 100km piece of string equals 100x1000x1000mm = 100 million mm

If the string represents annual anthropogenic CO2 emissions then 5% of 1.5% = 0.05 x 0.015 = 0.00075 or 0.075%. So 100 million mm x 0.075% = 75000mm = 75m (not 1mm)

If the string represents that erroneous assumption that anthropogenic CO2 = 3.4% of atmospheric CO2 then we have 5% of 1.5% of 3.4% = 0.0000255 = 0.00255% = a reduction on the length of the string by 2550mm or 2.55m

If the string represents the total green house gas content of the atmosphere with water vapour approximated at 9600ppm and using the erroneous assumption that anthropogenic CO2 = 3.4% of atmospheric CO2. We have 5% of 1.5% or 3.4% of 3.94% = 0.000001 = 0.0001% = a reduction of string length of 100mm or 10cm (getting closer).

If the string represents the entire atmosphere with greenhouse gasses representing 1% of the volume with water vapour approximated at 9600ppm and using the erroneous assumption that anthropogenic CO2 = 3.4% of atmospheric CO2. We have 5% of 1.5% or 3.4% of 3.94% of 1% = 0.00000001 = 0.000001% = a reduction of string length of 1mm (bingo!).

This would be fine except that 99% of the atmosphere (according to their calculations) is transparent to visible light and infra-red so there for you can't really include that in the calculation if you are discussing greenhouse emissions.

You might say that I am being picky, but if you claim to be presenting on behalf of reality then it helps if your numbers are correct and that those you represent actually display some understanding of the ratios and processes involved.

Factor in that Australia is going to go at it without China, US and India and at a price higher than the rest of the world.

lmao indeed.

Contrary what you may think from the first part of my post, I think the govt's attempts at the moment are futile in the face of the lack of any cooperation from the worlds major emitters.

Why should we go to hell in a hand basket while most everyone else decides to go there in the Bentley?

 

[trainspotter]

*GGGGGGGGGG GOSH *

 

[wayneL]

derty,

Sans political agendas, funding imperatives and other extraneous factors, where do you see the future with regards to AGW.

I'm asking for a bare bones opinion that can be scientifically substantiated.

 

[Boggo]

You might say that I am being picky, but if you claim to be presenting on behalf of reality then it helps if your numbers are correct and that those you represent actually display some understanding of the ratios and processes involved.

Contrary what you may think from the first part of my post, I think the govt's attempts at the moment are futile in the face of the lack of any cooperation from the worlds major emitters.

And herein lies the problem, those with the science qualifications can't seem to agree.
How can there be such differences between the numbers and each lot look so convincing.

Maybe this aspect is the weak link in the defence of any perceived reality, which one is reality or is it acceptable and the case that those whose who produce (generally publically funded) experiments and meanderings that we are expected to rely on really haven't got a clue ?

If they did have a clue shouldn't they all agree a little bit rather than disagree

Makes it easier for Bob and Julia to find an achille's heel to exploit.

 

[sails]

Derty - that's the science.

But where is the scientific solution?

Why are economists and politicians deciding on the solution? They are not qualified. Doesn't this worry you from a science perspective?

AND trading carbon credits (or abatements) to other low co2 emitting countries (or companies as apparently Al Gore does or has done with his own companies) does not actually remove co2 from the atmosphere?

Can you please explain to me how trading money is going to reduce co2 in the atmosphere?

Look forward to your reply...

PS - please don't point me to economist papers, because they are NOT scientists qualified in climate and atmospheric science.

 

[IFocus]

Here let me fix some of that reality for you:

The assumption is that 1% of the atmosphere are greenhouse gasses (10,000ppm). With 9500ppm being water vapour (at the surface water vapour ranges from 1-4% (10000-40000ppm) though when you take the whole atmosphere into account it is only 0.4% or 4000ppm, but lets stick with ~0.95% as in the image).

C02 is now ~390ppm (not 362ppm)
Methane (1.79ppm) + others (nitrous oxide - 0.3ppm and ozone - 0.07ppm)

Correcting for the methane error of confusing ppm for %, for the greenhouse gasses to = 1%, water vapour needs to be 9608ppm not 9500ppm.

So that breakdown gives us:
Water Vapour - 96.08%
Carbon Dioxide - 3.94%
Methane and Others - 0.02%

Though then they go on and assume that as annual anthropogenic CO2 is approx 3% of the global emission that then it must equal only around 3% of the total atmospheric CO2. When in fact it is pretty easy to work out what the anthropogenic total is: Current CO2 = 390ppm, pre-industrial = 280ppm therefore (390-280)/390 *100 = 28.5% of CO2 is caused by human activity (an increase of 40% in CO2 levels).


Now looking at the small red section - we have the claim that the reductions equal reducing a 100km length of string by 1mm. They don't really say what the 100km length of string represents. Lets look at that:
A 100km piece of string equals 100x1000x1000mm = 100 million mm

If the string represents annual anthropogenic CO2 emissions then 5% of 1.5% = 0.05 x 0.015 = 0.00075 or 0.075%. So 100 million mm x 0.075% = 75000mm = 75m (not 1mm)

If the string represents that erroneous assumption that anthropogenic CO2 = 3.4% of atmospheric CO2 then we have 5% of 1.5% of 3.4% = 0.0000255 = 0.00255% = a reduction on the length of the string by 2550mm or 2.55m

If the string represents the total green house gas content of the atmosphere with water vapour approximated at 9600ppm and using the erroneous assumption that anthropogenic CO2 = 3.4% of atmospheric CO2. We have 5% of 1.5% or 3.4% of 3.94% = 0.000001 = 0.0001% = a reduction of string length of 100mm or 10cm (getting closer).

If the string represents the entire atmosphere with greenhouse gasses representing 1% of the volume with water vapour approximated at 9600ppm and using the erroneous assumption that anthropogenic CO2 = 3.4% of atmospheric CO2. We have 5% of 1.5% or 3.4% of 3.94% of 1% = 0.00000001 = 0.000001% = a reduction of string length of 1mm (bingo!).

This would be fine except that 99% of the atmosphere (according to their calculations) is transparent to visible light and infra-red so there for you can't really include that in the calculation if you are discussing greenhouse emissions.

You might say that I am being picky, but if you claim to be presenting on behalf of reality then it helps if your numbers are correct and that those you represent actually display some understanding of the ratios and processes involved.




Contrary what you may think from the first part of my post, I think the govt's attempts at the moment are futile in the face of the lack of any cooperation from the worlds major emitters.

Why should we go to hell in a hand basket while most everyone else decides to go there in the Bentley?

There you go again quoting numbers etc unbelievably boring who wants facts and basic common sense that the changes in percentage terms are by any measure extreme..............Christopher Walter Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (but not a member of the house of lords btw) is much more entertaining.

 

[wayneL]

There you go again quoting numbers etc unbelievably boring who wants facts and basic common sense that the changes in percentage terms are by any measure extreme..............Christopher Walter Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (but not a member of the house of lords btw) is much more entertaining.

Ahhhh numbers. Interesting things numbers... depending of course, how much they agree with one's bias.

 

[IFocus]

Anyone read this http://www.merchantsofdoubt.org/

This by Wendy Carlisle pretty much put me off the anti climate change mob http://www.abc.net.au/rn/backgroundbriefing/stories/2011/3268730.htm the irony of the claims of fear are just extraordinary.

 

[IFocus]

Ahhhh numbers. Interesting things numbers... depending of course, how much they agree with one's bias.

Last 20 years spent a fair amount of time dealing with gas analyzers in process control not much bias but plenty of appreciation of Derty's explanations.

I would'nt make claims with the future of climate but the numbers are not positive by any means.

 

[Wysiwyg]

I don't recall seeing anyone commenting on the hole in the ozone layer. In my youth I remember the phasing out of chloro-fluro-carbons which were damaging to the ozone layer. Does this problem still exist with other gases being released into the atmosphere damaging the ozone layer and causing the assumed AGW? Derty or anyone?

 

[moXJO]

Anyone read this http://www.merchantsofdoubt.org/

This by Wendy Carlisle pretty much put me off the anti climate change mob http://www.abc.net.au/rn/backgroundbriefing/stories/2011/3268730.htm the irony of the claims of fear are just extraordinary.

gee ever thought it might run the other way as well

 

[medicowallet]

I don't recall seeing anyone commenting on the hole in the ozone layer. In my youth I remember the phasing out of chloro-fluro-carbons which were damaging to the ozone layer. Does this problem still exist with other gases being released into the atmosphere damaging the ozone layer and causing the assumed AGW? Derty or anyone?

I would let you know, but my computer with a calculator was destroyed by the Y2K bug..

Maybe my book on nostradamus will have something. Now it must be floating around in my room somewhere, because I don't allow gravity in here because it sucks down the bacteria which I will NEVER immunise myself against.

Don't worry though, I have thick skin, but brittle bones, from the fluoride that the government puts in the water to control my mind, so that I can watch the television which beams messages telling us to consume more.

Oh well, back to my hobby, got my trusty EL480i telescope.. just trying to find any evidence of a flag or footprints on the moon. Anyway, I have to go, Elvis wants another pie god dammit, he'll have to eat it cold, because Carbon dioxide is now a potent poison....

 

[Smurf1976]

I think that the majority of the western world has accepted the warmist's arguments that we may be making some contribution to warming. What has not worked has been the attempt to scare us into the belief that we are facing floods, droughts, cyclones and sea rises unless we take urgent action.

Gillard started her spiel on Carbon Sunday with all sorts of dire warnings, about our fate if we didn't act quickly, but she could not say how a carbon tax would delay this.

It all went over like a lead balloon. Common sense wins. AGW is dead in the water.

Too true.

My mind is open to the idea that CO2 might be a problem, and we should take sensible steps to reduce emissions due to that. Where the problem arises is with the definition of "sensible".

I don't consider moving the steel works from Whyalla to somewhere in China, shipping the ore and coal there and shipping steel back to Australia, to be an overly sensible solution to anything. That would wreck the local economy in Whyalla (and no doubt cause considerable harm to Australia generally) whilst increasing CO2 emissions due to the extra shipping involved. It's pure madness really, and yet that's a specific example of what the Greens seem to view as sensible.

 

[bandicoot76]

David Beckham Reignites Hypocrisy of “Overpopulation” Alarmists

Ultra-rich elitists lecture middle class on having less children, reducing living standards while living in opulence and procreating with gusto

Paul Joseph Watson
Tuesday, July 19, 2011

Following the birth of the David and Victoria Beckham’s fourth child last week, the modern vanguard of the elitist, arcane and racist eugenics movement, now re-packaged as “overpopulation,” reacted by lambasting the Beckhams as a “bad example” for families, labeling them “environmentally irresponsible” for having too many kids. However, the leaders of this movement are almost exclusively comprised of ultra-rich elitists who themselves have numerous children and are rampaging hypocrites.

“The Beckhams, and others like London mayor Boris Johnson, are very bad role models with their large families. There’s no point in people trying to reduce their carbon emissions and then increasing them 100% by having another child,” said Simon Ross, chief executive of the Optimum Population Trust.

The scope of this article is not to debate the validity of the overpopulation argument, which in other reports we have vehemently debunked as unscientific quackery (the population of the planet is set to rapidly decline after 2050 and is already doing so in many countries), it is to expose the rampant hypocrisy of those telling us to lower our living standards, reduce CO2 emissions and have less kids while they themselves live in luxury, fly around in private jets, and procreate with little concern for “overpopulation”.

Just take a brief look at the lifestyle choices of some of the leading proponents of global warming and overpopulation movement, who while telling others to reduce their living standards and have less children, are themselves living in opulence with their giant families.



Al Gore

As the leading luminary of the global warming movement, you would expect Al Gore to live up to the standards he lectures everyone else about. Gore recently called on women to access “fertility management” (abortion) in order to stabilize global population.

However, just like the Beckhams, Gore has four children of his own, who presumably enjoy the luxury of his $8.8 million seaside mansion in Montecito, California (absent any worries about rising sea levels).

Gore is set to become the first “carbon billionaire,” but he offsets his 12-times the average power consumption by purchasing carbon credits ….bought largely from his own company, Generation Investment Management.



George Soros

Soros was one of the participants of a secretive 2009 conference of elitists which took place in Manhattan at the home of Sir Paul Nurse, a British Nobel prize biochemist and president of the private Rockefeller University. The meeting was focused around curbing ‘overpopulation’.

But Soros himself seems to have little personal interest in following a lifestyle consistent with his public persona – he has five children from two different marriages.

Illustrating this hypocrisy, Soros has given over a billion dollars to his family’s Open Society Institute, which issues grants to promote abortion.



Warren Buffett

Billionaire industrialist Warren Buffett has donated millions to charities and foundations that are involved in population control, including Family Health International, IPAS, Planned Parenthood and the Population Council. The money was used to develop drugs that sterilize women, as well as equipment used to carry out abortions in the third world. Only after his shareholders complained did Buffett cease such donations through his Berkshire Hathaway company in 2003.

However, Buffett was present at the 2009 “billionaire club” meeting in Manhattan, suggesting that his zeal for population control has far from waned.

Of course, Buffett’s desire to reduce overpopulation doesn’t apply to his own personal life, he has three children and travels the globe in a $6.7 million dollar private jet.



David Rockefeller

In 1992 at a UN Ambassador’s Dinner, Rockefeller gave a speech in which he decried the rapid rise of world population and its impact on “our planetary ecosystems”.

Another attendee of the “overpopulation” club in 2009, Rockefeller has six children and owns four mansion estates. He has poured millions of his fortune into global warming and overpopulation fearmongering.

Rockefeller doesn’t seem to fussed about his own half a dozen offspring’s impact on the “planetary ecosystem”.



The Rothschild Family

Being the owners of the leading carbon trading exchange, the Rothschilds have been eager to spread the global warming/overpopulation myth with enthusiasm, particularly through the work of David Mayer de Rothschild (pictured) who has become a leading climate change campaigner.

The exchange is set to be worth $150 billion dollars by next year, continuing the Rothschilds’ historical legacy of manipulation, financial scams and rip-offs that have established them as the foremost banking dynasty on the planet.

The founder of the family, Mayer Amschel Von Rothschild, had no less than ten children.



Ted Turner

“Mr. Turner – a long-time advocate of population control – said the environmental stress on the Earth requires radical solutions, suggesting countries should follow China’s lead in instituting a one-child policy to reduce global population over time. He added that fertility rights could be sold so that poor people could profit from their decision not to reproduce,” the Globe and Mail reported last year.

Turner’s call for western nations to enforce a tyrannical policy that in China is administered by undercover police and “family planning” authorities who kidnap, force drug and then forcibly abort babies of pregnant women, has nothing whatsoever to do with his concern for the environment.

Turner himself has five children and owns no less than 2 million acres of land. He is the largest private landowner on the planet, falling short of only the royal families of Europe. Turner has publicly advocated shocking population reduction programs that would cull the human population by a staggering 95%, a figure only achievable by outright genocide, mass abortion and infanticide.



Prince Charles

Prince Charles, the next King of England, routinely lectures the unwashed masses about sustainability and reducing their living standards. While stating that the “age of convenience” must come to an end to save the planet, in 2009 he embarked on a 16,000 mile round trip in a luxury converted Airbus with 14 of his staff at a cost of half a million dollars to browbeat people into limiting their carbon dioxide emissions.

While ordering the peasants not to eat beef to help mother earth and insisting that people “use less stuff,” Charles gorges himself on the finest cuisine prepared by the royal family’s chefs as he relaxes in the surroundings of his four mansion estates, including his Highgrove estate which covers over 900 acres.

21st century eugenics

The fact that the leaders of a movement that is trying to guilt trip the middle class into shying away from having children, suppressing their quality of life and obsessing about CO2 emissions, are ultra-rich elitists who come from huge sprawling family dynasties and spew carbon dioxide from every orifice as they gallivant around the globe living a life of opulence, should tell us something about the credibility of the message.

The overpopulation myth is a tool of control freaks, a discredited and arcane reinvention of the eugenics dogma, designed to oppress, micro-manage and enslave the population by imperiling them to stunt their freedom, prosperity and happiness, while its proponents are stinking hypocrites who would do the planet a huge favor by following their own advice and disappearing off the face of the earth for good.

 

[Happy]

....
The overpopulation myth is a tool of control freaks, a discredited and arcane reinvention of the eugenics dogma, designed to oppress, micro-manage and enslave the population by imperiling them to stunt their freedom, prosperity and happiness, while its proponents are stinking hypocrites who would do the planet a huge favor by following their own advice and disappearing off the face of the earth for good.

While on subject of overpopulation I refuse to believe that help to starving millions will change anything, it will help to breed more millions and just postpone that hard decision to later on.

Similar medicines help us after testing on mice made me think, that if plague overpopulation hits humans we too will resort to cannibalism to live.

No eugenics necessary.

 

[derty]

derty,

Sans political agendas, funding imperatives and other extraneous factors, where do you see the future with regards to AGW.

I'm asking for a bare bones opinion that can be scientifically substantiated.

Well I don't really see it being addressed in any way that will begin to actually reduce emissions. Mind you there are ruminations that China is to embark on a emissions trading scheme though the aim is not to reduce emissions but to slow the rate of increase. The end result will be that we will see global annual emissions rise and will see an acceleration in rate of increase in the atmospheric CO2 levels.

The magic number touted is levelling atmospheric CO2 at 450ppmv to limit the temperature rise to 2 deg C. Now I don't know enough about climate modelling to know how accurate that number is. However, what we are seeing is a sustained period of temperature rise coupled with an increase in atmospheric CO2 almost entirely from anthropogenic sources. Regardless of what is said about Mann's hockey stick, the fact remains that the temperature anomaly has been confirmed by multiple studies using varied temperature proxies.

The absorption properties of CO2 within the infra-red spectrum is well understood, as is the band saturation effect that causes the logarithmic reduction in the energy intensity leaving the Earth. The radiative forcings of the long lived greenhouse gasses are well understood as are their contributions with increasing intensity. While the role of water vapour is less understood it's very short residency period makes it a reactionary atmospheric component and is not a long term driver of temperatures. The role of variations in the Sun is also less well understood, though the uncertainties are such that they cannot be used to explain the temperature variations.

The bare bones is that the current temperature variations (as well as those of palaeo variations) are not adequately explained in the absence of CO2 and the greenhouse effect and with anthropogenic additions of CO2 increasing the atmospheric CO2 levels by nearly 40% it is entirely logical to conclude that the bulk of the observed temperature anomaly is human induced.

As for the ramifications for humans on Earth that is a whole lot more subjective. Most of the doom and gloom merchants peddling imminent catastrophe are almost certainly wrong and most of the high profile ones all have political motives. From what I remember most of the predictions do not have a global 2 deg C rise in temperature occurring until late this century. However as the CO2 rise is leading the temperature rise the conditions for ensuring that temperature rise will be met long before then.

Judging from the rate of change we have seen in the last few decades I don't think most of the older members of this forum will see obvious large scale changes in the climate and will likely go to their graves still convinced it is a load of piffle. Though I think later in my life there will some major and obvious changes and my children and their children will live in a significantly different world.