Climate change another name for Weather

[jonojpsg]

Well, Smurf, here's the solution.
You get out of Tassie and its shocking climate, come up here to balmy Qld (where all you have to contend with are house demolishing storms), and take over the management of the Queensland electricity supply.
It would seem to be a win-win situation all round.
We'd make you very welcome.

Hey stop trying to pinch people Julia - we've got few enough as it is! Although I did manage to convince my good mate to move back from Brissie recently he he he. When the temperatures gone up another couple o degrees and you are sweating away up there in 30+ averages most of the year then you'll be wanting to head south

BTW for those who are positing arguments about colder temperatures in Europe being evidence against AGW, remember that big current called the Gulf Stream without which Europe would be frozen solid?

 

[wayneL]

Hey stop trying to pinch people Julia - we've got few enough as it is! Although I did manage to convince my good mate to move back from Brissie recently he he he. When the temperatures gone up another couple o degrees and you are sweating away up there in 30+ averages most of the year then you'll be wanting to head south

BTW for those who are positing arguments about colder temperatures in Europe being evidence against AGW, remember that big current called the Gulf Stream without which Europe would be frozen solid?

1. The cooling of Europe because of Gulf Stream interruption is something that is postulated for sometime in the future. There is no current effect
   
2. The Gulf Stream effect has a much smaller effect on European weather than is portrayed in the media by warming alarmists.

Ref: http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/gs/

 

[2020hindsight]

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=286707
The above discusses Gulf Stream. It's not expected to be too dramatic (as if anyone knows for sure )

For a list of myths addressed by NewScientist :-
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462-climate-change-a-guide-for-the-perplexed.html

Can we trust the science?
Chaotic systems are not predictable
We can't trust computer models of climate
Many leading scientists question climate change
It's all a conspiracy
They predicted global cooling in the 1970s

Is the sun to blame?
Global warming is down to the Sun, not humans
It's all down to cosmic rays

Does CO2 cause warming?
Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter
CO2 isn't the most important greenhouse gas
Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming
Ice cores show CO2 rising as temperatures fell
The cooling after 1940 shows CO2 does not cause warming

What happened in the past?
UPDATED: The 'hockey stick' graph has been proven wrong
It's been far warmer in the past, what's the big deal?
It was warmer during the Medieval period, with vineyards in England
We are simply recovering from the Little Ice Age

What is happening now?
Mars and Pluto are warming too
Antarctica is getting cooler, not warmer, disproving global warming
Polar bear numbers are increasing
The lower atmosphere is cooling, not warming
The oceans are cooling
NEW: Global warming stopped in 1998

What is going to happen?
Warming will cause an ice age in Europe
Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production
Hurricane Katrina was caused by global warming

Why should I worry?
It's too cold where I live - warming will be great
We can't do anything about climate change
We also published a blog to accompany this special, looking at the history of climate science

 

[2020hindsight]

the hockey stick..
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11646

The hockey graph was first published in a 1999 paper (pdf) by Michael Mann and colleagues, which was an extension of a 1998 study in Nature. The graph was highlighted in the 2001 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Since 2001, there have been repeated claims that the reconstruction is at best seriously flawed and at worst a fraud, no more than an artefact of the statistical methods used to create it (see The great hockey stick debate).

Details of the claims and counterclaims involve lengthy and arcane statistical arguments, so let's skip straight to the 2006 report of the US National Academy of Science (pdf). The academy was asked by Congress to assess the validity of temperature reconstructions, including the hockey stick.

"Array of evidence"
The report states: "The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world".

Most researchers would agree that while the original hockey stick can - and has - been improved in a number of ways, it was not far off the mark. Most later temperature reconstructions fall within the error bars of the original hockey stick. Some show far more variability leading up to the 20th century than the hockey stick, but none suggest that it has been warmer at any time in the past 1000 years than in the last part of the 20th century.

It is true that there are big uncertainties about the accuracy of all past temperature reconstructions, and that these uncertainties have sometimes been ignored or glossed over by those who have presented the hockey stick as evidence for global warming.

The problems
Climate scientists, however, are only too aware of the problems (see Climate myths: It was warmer during the Medieval period), and the uncertainties were both highlighted by Mann's original paper and by others at the time it was published.

Update: as suggested by the academy in its 2006 report, Michael Mann and his colleagues have reconstructed northern hemisphere temperatures for the past 2000 years using a broader set of proxies than was available for the original study and updated measurements from the recent past.

The new reconstruction has been generated using two statistical methods, both different to that used in the original study. Like other temperature reconstructions done since 2001 (see graph), it shows greater variability than the original hockey stick. Yet again, though, the key conclusion is the same: it's hotter now than it has been for at least 1000 years.

In fact, independent evidence, from ice cores and sea sediments for instance, suggest the last time the planet approached this degree of warmth was during the interglacial period preceding the last ice age over 100,000 years ago. It might even be hotter now than it has been for at least a million years.

 

[wayneL]

LOL

A list of debunked debunkings.

The New Scientist eschews any evidence to the contrary and disseminates junk science as it's core mission.

Some points to consider of course, but cherry picking arguments cannot be taken seriously.

Laughable.

 

[derty]

Some comments from a solar physicist regarding the Sun's role in the observed warming in recent times. Claims increases in solar energy cannot account for recent warming, though measurements only go back to 1978, which some may argue is much too short a time frame to make any significant conclusions. Either way he is pretty adamant that AGW is a factor.

from: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24748258-11949,00.html

THE sun is a powerful player in the planet's climate as the energy it sends to Earth waxes and wanes. But the sun is not driving recent global warming as climate change sceptics claim.

That is the message from atmospheric scientist Marvin Geller of Stony Brook University in New York state, a keynote speaker at this week's Australian Institute of Physics national congress in Adelaide.

"Solar physicists and climate scientists agree that while the sun affects climate (they) cannot account for the last several decades' warming trend without including human influences," he said.

"There is no doubt humans are making the earth warmer by adding greenhouse gases (like carbon dioxide)."

According to Professor Geller, solar radiation varies in an 11-year solar cycle but it has changed only one-tenth of 1 per cent since 1978 when solar satellite measurements began. ...

 

[treefrog]

Must be done ASAP. But that is still short term. The only real way to solve this problem is less people. I have strongly believed it for a long time that caping the amount of new borns world wide will solve so many problems.

However we must have continued "wealth creation" we must grow grow grow. I don't agree. Some things just have to be done.

Reduced our consumption in electricity from 29 KWH's per day down to just under 20 KWH's per day. It has now averaged that for a year now. Light globes, turning the air conditioner off at the switchboard has saved most of the power. At the end of the day it doesn't make much of a difference because more consumers are born. It's just prolonging it all.

Mr, for me the jury is still out on GW - was very disgusted when ICCC (chair I think) admitted science not there, yet, but let's change the world in case it eventuates or similar. I do however agree the most significant world problems currently stem from overpopulation and the drive by human nature to advance there individual lot. People are by nature selfish - the human race would not be here if people did not have that trait.
But this from the US census burea.
Monthly World population figures:
07/01/08 6,706,992,932
08/01/08 6,713,766,305
09/01/08 6,720,539,678
10/01/08 6,727,094,555
11/01/08 6,733,867,928
12/01/08 6,740,422,806
01/01/09 6,747,196,179
02/01/09 6,753,969,552
03/01/09 6,760,087,438
04/01/09 6,766,860,811
05/01/09 6,773,415,688
06/01/09 6,780,189,061
07/01/09 6,786,743,939
-about 73mil extra in one year!!!! and nobody dares to talk about it, the GWarmers don't dare, certainly not the pollies or the churches - why not??

back in 78/9 as a young married (no kids) I was overly impressed by the club of rome's publication "Limits to Growth" - a remarkably similar emotive argument to GW. - the best science in the world, all the best brains etc etc, yarda yarda.
I fell for the hype (as GWarmers have today) and had my nuts disconnected as my contribution to overcome the obvious resouce consumption and overpopulation problem.
Today, much older, much wiser and certainly a cynic towards religious zealots (GWarmers are definately in that bracket), I am a firm believer in people having the courage of their convictions (how indeed I did back in 79), but can no longer convert to any such fashionable religion.
I do believe that everyone has a very definate footprint on this planet and the best thing the GWarmers could do (and seriously) is put their name down to participate in a cull: no good just talking about "the problem" if you really do believe it, have the courage of your convictions.

 

[basilio]

Back to the discussion on whether climate warming is for real, the effect it may have on our future and what we might be able to do about it.

I notice that 2020 hindsight has simply referred readers to his previous explanations and the New Scientist which addresses the global warming myths. In theory New Scientists represents some of the best analysis of current scientific knowledge but I would be interested to hear Wayne et als views on their authenticity.( But we now know the New Scientist just disseminates "junk science". That is a real laugh.)

But the discussion on this forum and across the world has not been about the science. I suppose it couldn't be because on any objective measure the overwhelming majority of scientists who study climate related issues agree that climate change is real and caused by us.

The argument has become one of cherry picking of evidence, attacks on the presenters, appeals to false logic and the introduction of red herrings. The whole intention has been not to win the argument (because the overwhelming evidence to the contrary quickly kills that possibility) but to create sufficient misunderstanding, fear and confusion to ensure no action is taken that might harm the interest of those who would be affected by tackling the problem.

A few posts back I brought up the comparison between the disgraceful campaigns run by the tobacco industry to protect their profits and the campaigns against global warming, again to protect the interests of fossil fuel companies. Both very clever, very effective campaigns. And not by accident, orchestrated by many of the same players.

Wayne response was to simply attack George Monbiot as a lefty radical. The evidence is documented and available for public viewing. But it is easier and quicker to dismiss uncomfortable truths by just attacking the person rather than examining the facts.

Another troubling attack is labeling "global warmers" as "god botherers" "a new global warming religion" and so on. Another neat, nasty, trick.

This ad hominem attack is saying that all the science behind understanding our climate and in particular the effect on the planet is just some blind religious zealotry. In effect those people who argue there is something to be worried about are the equivalent of your sunday morning Seventh Day Adventists (and apologies to those people). Again nothing to do with the science just attack the person.

It gets even better (or worse) when the role of traditional religions is wilfully misrepresented as some of the recent posts have done. I suggest almost all religions would have a respect for the earth either as part of Creation or simply because it's a wonderful place. With that mindset how could you countenance a course of action that, on clear evidence, you believed was going to radically hurt the earth? In fact you don't have to be religious to be seriously concerned about the impact of global warming on the only place we have to live.

This is not an example of blind religiosity just simple respect for our home and healthy self interest

In the past few years we even saw some really creative stories pointing out the climate changes on Mars ect and attempting to use these to debase what is happening on earth. (I suggest these were so obviously dumb even the proponents had to make a strategic withdrawal)

The cleverest and probably most dishonest part of the discussion about the uncertainty of global warming has been the cherry picking of evidence. Going back to the examples of the tobacco industry, all the research undertaken by the industry was systematically culled to weaken the connection between smoking and cancer. Disappear a few results, disappear a few studies, alter a couple of givens and what is left can be made to sing your tune. In fact the basis of good science is replicability. A scientist has to outline all the details of his/hers research so that it can be replicated and proven (or disproven).

For example Wayne recently highlighted out some research that suggested

1. The cooling of Europe because of Gulf Stream interruption is something that is postulated for sometime in the future. There is no current effect
2. The Gulf Stream effect has a much smaller effect on European weather than is portrayed in the media by warming alarmists.

Ref: http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/gs/

But if you go to the paper you'll find that in his conclusion the author is extremely concerned about global warming. To quote

The climate system is so rich, complex and still not well understood that the current emphasis on the limited impacts of the Gulf Stream and North Atlantic ocean circulation is a serious distraction of effort and resources when many regions of the world face a truly worrying future, even in the near term.

Priorities should shift to :

Subtropical droughts
Summer heat waves
Loss of glacial ice forcing sea levle rise
Severe storms and extreme weather
Water, water, water (and not so much temperature)

Is it honest to accept one element of the research and then totally ignore the entire conclusion?

The last 20 years of scientific research has given us reams of understanding about the changes in climate over the millions of years on earth. Certainly there are many factors that have affected and are affecting our climate and there is much more to learn. But there is overwhelming evidence that we rapidly heating the earth through CO2 emissions and we have a very short time to work out how we are going survive the consequences. We are all in the same boat.

References

http://www.ajph.org/cgi/reprint/95/S1/S39
Manufacturing Uncertainty: Contested Science and
the Protection of the Public’s Health and Environment

Overviews the effective efforts of industry to create sufficient doubt about products to keep them in the market place

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
This paper analyzed the overwhelming support of the scientific community on the causes of Global Warming

 

[spooly74]

Certainly there are many factors that have affected and are affecting our climate and there is much more to learn.

Agree 110%

But there is overwhelming evidence that we rapidly heating the earth through CO2 emissions and we have a very short time to work out how we are going survive the consequences. We are all in the same boat.

This is where the is sufficent doubt basilo, and it's based on one of the most important scientific foundations ..... observation.

CO2 in the atmosphere in 1900 ~ 280ppm
CO2 in the atmosphere today ~380 ppm

IPCC pedict a forcing of 3 degrees per doubling of CO2. It was 3.5 degrees in the last IPCC report. What changed?
Doing the math results in a warming of roughly 1.3C since 1900, which we have not seen. Why?

Trying to predict the Earth's climate is the most complex scientific project ever undertaken, and any objectivity has now been completly destroyed by the media and politicians. :bad:

 

[2020hindsight]

so your opinion today ( as against a couple of weeks ago) is that it's not getting warmer?

well Wayne
your respect for Suzuki - and the green movement - seem to have taken a dive over the course of these discussions that's for sure.

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=237706&highlight=suzuki#post237706

I'll tell you one educator who has my utmost respect - David Suzuki. That man walks the walk and has done for as long as I can remember. Where's his peace prize?

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=245848&highlight=suzuki#post245848

FFS!!! Hasn't that been my position throughout the whole debate? How disingenuous!! Please do me a favour and re-read my posts.

That is exactly what I am advocating. By the disproportionate focus on the nebulous possibility of AGW, less focus is placed on the above points. The world focuses on stupid electric cars and nuclear energy so we don't have to change our lifestyles, when the ONLY answer is to change our lifestyles.
I'm a card carrying greenie dude (in the practical, not political sense), that's obvious (Sarcastic quips about Hummers aside).

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=257461&highlight=suzuki#post257461

I'll forgive Suzuki's muppetry on AGW because as a zoologist, he knows SFA about climate;

But equally there are plenty of examples of you saying you have problem with "AGW" not with "GW" - so you agree that it's getting warmer yes?

 

[Smurf1976]

I'm not an enviro fanatic. But I do see the logic in the GW/CC argument.

I also find it illogical to dismiss/ignore the argument based on contradicting evidence. The hypothesis can only be proved/disproved with (lots of) time. unless you got a crystal ball...

We should work on a solution to the problem... That doesn’t mean destroying the economy/world as we know it to find the solutions. The solutions actually have a chance at making this world a much better place to live.

Totally agreed there. If only we'd start focusing on solutions like that rather than the ones that DO destroy the economy / world as we know it which seem to dominate the proposed actions.

 

[2020hindsight]

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2008/s2437363.htm

Young tradies turning green
AM - Thursday, 4 December , 2008 08:21:04
Reporter: Michael Turtle
PETER CAVE: A new survey has found that some young tradespeople and apprentices believe they have a moral obligation to be more environmentally friendly. But they're facing resistance from bosses and clients, who just want the cheapest solution. etc

MICHAEL TURTLE: A new survey by the development group, Dusseldorp Skills Forum, has found about 80 per cent of young apprentices and tradespeople like Nigel Croke care about being green.

.....
MICHAEL TURTLE: But there are barriers to turning that desire into practice. The survey found the biggest is the cost of the materials and tools.

....
MICHAEL TURTLE: The Dusseldorp Skills Forum found the other main factor that stopped young tradies from being more environmentally friendly is a lack of support.

 

[Wysiwyg]

From just about every perspective it's better to use the coal or gas directly than to turn it into electricity then H2.

Efficiency, environment, financial - all in favour of skipping the electricity and H2 step and just using it in the conventional manner in an engine etc.

As for stopping using coal and gas for electricity, it's technically very doable but faces truly massive resistance from established interests.

Hi, just wondering how coal/gas can be used directly with these considerations

A. cleanly --- coal = dirty, dusty, choking, smoky (big problem unless high-grade anthracite) , carbon monoxide, CO2 still produced

B. efficiently?? --- coal/gas = every home and car using the stuff means that it would have to be delivered or collected and then stored (see C), ash disposal would be a daily chore, chimney sweeps regular, still have cost of fuel.

C. safely --- coal/gas leaks can lead to explosion and illness when handled by the inexperienced (mums/kids), extreme storage fire hazard, carbon monoxide poisoning, burns, suffocation, sabotage.

Enjoy your thoughts smurf76 but I don`t see how direct use would be better.

 

[Smurf1976]

Hi, just wondering how coal/gas can be used directly with these considerations

A. cleanly --- coal = dirty, dusty, choking, smoky (big problem unless high-grade anthracite) , carbon monoxide, CO2 still produced

B. efficiently?? --- coal/gas = every home and car using the stuff means that it would have to be delivered or collected and then stored (see C), ash disposal would be a daily chore, chimney sweeps regular, still have cost of fuel.

C. safely --- coal/gas leaks can lead to explosion and illness when handled by the inexperienced (mums/kids), extreme storage fire hazard, carbon monoxide poisoning, burns, suffocation, sabotage.

Enjoy your thoughts smurf76 but I don`t see how direct use would be better.

We already use oil directly to power vehicles with relatively few problems.

What I mean is that rather than turning coal into electricity, electricity into hydrogen and then running the vehicle on hydrogen, it's more efficient to just turn coal into diesel and use that in a conventional diesel engine.

Consider this. Burn 11 MJ of gas at home to heat enough water for a shower. Or burn 29 MJ of the exact same gas at a power station and use electricity to heat the water. It's clearly a lot more efficient to just use the fuel and skip the electricity stage.

Another one. Take 10 litres of oil, turn it into petrol and deliver that to the service station. That will drive my car about 120 km. Or take the same oil, burn it in a power station, use the electricity to make hydrogen and use the hydrogen in the car. Now I need about 45 litres of oil to drive that same 120 km. No fumes out the car's exhaust maybe, but it's anything but an efficient process overall.

Not directly related to the above, but I've made the point before about what's wrong with distributed generation and why large scale is better. It seems I'm not the only one thinking that way. http://www.electricalworld.com.au/onestory.php?idNum=869

 

[2020hindsight]

smurf
bet you $50 we'll be nuclear powered in 100 years if not before

 

[Smurf1976]

This would be the Flannery who thinks we should pump SO2 into the atmosphere and fill our skies with chemtrails?

So industry and power stations have spent an outright fortune to STOP putting SO2 into the air due to the problems it is well understood to cause (acid rain) and now we're going to deliberately let the stuff out into the air?

I really can't take seriously anyone who thinks adding SO2 is a good idea. Get yourself a tour of a sulphuric acid plant and you'll soon understand what SO2 does. Just don't park a decent car anywhere near the place. And don't build the place anywhere near houses because they'll end up rusting and falling apart too. Heck, even the fence around the plant and the sign out the front will rust and fall over alarmingly fast. And you end up with holes in your clothes literally everywhere. (A tour won't be long enough to hurt your car etc, just give it a wash afterward, but working there will take its toll for sure).

The zinc works in Tas bought roofing material from Israel as that's the only thing they could find that had a chance of lasting in that environment. So far so good - it used to rain and on at least one occasion snowed inside the plant as there were so many holes in the old roof. All thanks to good old SO2 eating its way through everything. And that's despite the $100 million+ they've spent containing the stuff.

We know SO2 does seem to cool the planet. And we know that temperatures went up once the big cuts to SO2 emissions took plance in the 70's. No surprises there but trust me, we really don't want to start putting heaps of SO2 into the air.

 

[2020hindsight]

So industry and power stations have spent an outright fortune to STOP putting SO2 into the air due to the problems it is well understood to cause (acid rain) and now we're going to deliberately let the stuff out into the air?

I really can't take seriously anyone who thinks adding SO2 is a good idea. ....

smurf
He doesn't think it's a good idea
He pretty sure it's the lesser of two evils
Ever heard of the pine beetle? - damage it can do?

(lesser of two weevils?)

Tim Flannery wrote the Weather Makers - he's no slouch on this stuff
http://www.webwombat.com.au/entertainment/books/the-weather-makers-tim-flannery.htm

PS. Just been watching him on TV - with John Doyle in "Two Men in a Tinnie". Funny witty honest dudes.

 

[drsmith]

The SO2 would be released into the stratospthere which is a layer of atmosphere above the weather layer (troposphere). It would therefore not find it's way into the water cycle via clouds and rainfall in theory at least.

In practice, who knows.

 

[wayneL]

well Wayne
your respect for Suzuki - and the green movement - seem to have taken a dive over the course of these discussions that's for sure.

The "green" movement have become prostitutes for funding and attention. As detailed earlier, I prefer the term "sustainable".

Suzuki was great until he became mesmerized and sold out to the AGW gravy train. It's true, I wouldn't p!ss on him if he was on fire now.

But equally there are plenty of examples of you saying you have problem with "AGW" not with "GW" - so you agree that it's getting warmer yes?

I think there is pretty clear evidence emerging that warming has halted and that we may be cooling.

There is very little credible evidence of a long term warming trend to due to human influences, the hockey stick having been thoroughly trashed and discredited. There is however, ample evidence of natural climate change.

That said, some areas will still warm against the cooling trend, just as some areas cooled against the warming trend previously. Will there be warming again some time in the future? I have no doubt, as I have no doubt that there will also be periods of cooling.

I also have no doubt that humans are behaving in an unsustainable way and are trashing this planet. CO2 is a non-issue, but nearly everything else is and I will continue to try to focus people's attention away from CO2 an onto the myriad of other genuine, and measurable problems we face.

The REAL problem we face is that funding is only available for warming alarmists and not for research that can really benefit us.

In this I have been totally consistent.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

GG,

You will enjoy this article:

The Religion of Global Warming

Thanks for an excellent article wayne.

Summary

Tom DeWeese sums it up well. “Global warming has become a new religion. No one is supposed to question whether it is a fact and the faithful have vowed to follow no matter what the true facts may show. Global warming is a theory, nothing more, and large numbers of scientists around the world are beginning to question its validity. There is no consensus of support.” (10) Within the past years, multitudes of peer-reviewed journal articles and at least a dozen books have provided sound evidence of this lack of consensus but you won’t find the books at your local bookstore. Try Amazon instead. Why? These recent books have the temerity to question ‘the doctrine.’ A good example is An Appeal to Reason by Nigel Lawson of the UK. This is his fourth book but he could find no British publisher. He reports, one rejection letter said, “My fear with this cogently argued book is that it flies so much in the face of the prevailing orthodoxy that it would be very difficult to fine a wide market.” (11)

DeWeese concludes, “The truth is there is no man-made global warming. There’s only the scam of an empty global religion designed to condemn human progress and sucker the feeble minded into worldwide human misery.”

gg