Climate change another name for Weather

[Smurf1976]

And the spike 1998 was a bad El Niño year.
You cannot argue - as Andrew Bolt and co try to do - that it's been cooling since 1998.
Wait till the next El Niño.

That graph shows, roughly, a rate of warming since around 1980 that is about the same as the rate of warming 1910 - 1940. Given that the rate of CO2 emissions now is much greater than during the period 1910 - 1940, it is apparent that there are factors other than CO2 which are influencing this warming.

 

[Smurf1976]

Smurf will soon do a few more calculations on my scenario of how to implement actual reductions in CO2 emissions. I'm proposing the following, comments welcome.

1. Extend the Tasmania scenario to a 30% cut by 2030.

2. Repeat the same exercise for Victoria - 20% by 2020 and 30% by 2030.

3. Do the same exercise for both states with zero GDP growth over the entire period.

 

[2020hindsight]

That graph shows, roughly, a rate of warming since around 1980 that is about the same as the rate of warming 1910 - 1940. Given that the rate of CO2 emissions now is much greater than during the period 1910 - 1940, it is apparent that there are factors other than CO2 which are influencing this warming.

Sorry, Don't think I can necessarily agree with your logic there Smurf.

In any case CO2 is not the only factor, there are half a dozen. But CO2 is one of the main ones we can control (reflectivity etc)

ANd in any case - CO2 is going up, and so is temp Are you suggesting that's a coincidence?

(The hockey stick is terrifying, even after a recalculation - second draft if you wish - hence I've dropped about 0.1 deg from that extrapolation).

Attitudes in some of these posts remind me of Ayn Rand. viz:-

... a quote by Ayn Rand (US novelist - ironically she wrote "Atlas Shrugged" )

Ayn Rand ........Here's what she said about pollution:- back in the 60's granted - but we are reaping the rewards today ...

"If it were true that a heavy concentration of industry is destructive to human life, one would find life expectancy declining in the more advanced countries. But it has been rising steadily. Here are the figures on life expectancy in the United States:
1900 - 47.3 years
1920 - 53 years
1940 - 60 years
1968 - 70.2 years (the latest figures compiled [as of January 1971])
Anyone over 30 years of age today, give a silent "Thank you" to the nearest, grimiest, sootiest smokestacks you can find.-- Ayn Rand, "The Anti-Industrial Revolution," The New Left: the Anti-Industrial Revolution

 

[Smurf1976]

Sorry, Don't think I can necessarily agree with your logic there Smurf.

I'm simply looking at the "Getting Warmer" chart YOU posted. The "Global Temperature Change" chart shows essentially the same thing.

It shows warming of about 0.5 degrees between 1910 and 1940 followed by a sudden cooling of about 0.2. Then there's a jump in the late 1970's of about 0.2, back to about 1940 levels, followed by a warming of 0.5 over the following 30 years.

Two obvious points from these charts:

1. There is a warming trend.

2. Warming over the period 1910 - 1940 and 1978 - 2008 occurred at about the same rate of 0.5 to 0.6 over a 30 year period or 0.02 degrees per annum.

Not shown on the chart is that CO2 emissions during the period 1978 - 2008 were far higher than during the period 1910 - 1940 and yet the extent of warming was almost identical. That very strongly suggests that there are factors other than CO2 at work here.

What caused the 1910 - 1940 warming? If it was CO2 then why have we not seen far greater warming since given the huge increase in CO2 emissions?

If it was not due to CO2 then what, if any, evidence do we have that the cause of the 1910 - 1940 warming has not again caused warming since the late 1970's?

I note an approximately 30 year cycle seems to exist at least during the 20th Century. It could be argued that the 1940's - 1970's period should have cooled more than it did but CO2 emissions worked to keep temperatures higher. But if that is the case, then you would logically expect the rate of warming since the late 1970's to have exceeded that during the 1910 - 1940 period which it clearly hasn't.

CO2 may well have an influence, but we certainly aren't seeing anything resembling a linear relationship between CO2 and temperature during the 20th Century. The effect would seem to have diminished over time - more and more CO2 is pumped out but the rate of warming is the same as it was 70 years earlier with far lower CO2 emissions. That is what the charts show. Why I don't claim to know.

 

[2020hindsight]

Two obvious points from these charts:

1. There is a warming trend.

2. Warming over the period 1910 - 1940 and 1978 - 2008 occurred at about the same rate of 0.5 to 0.6 over a 30 year period or 0.02 degrees per annum.

Not shown on the chart is that CO2 emissions during the period 1978 - 2008 were far higher than during the period 1910 - 1940 and yet the extent of warming was almost identical. That very strongly suggests that there are factors other than CO2 at work here.

The hockey stick has gone mad since then, but moving on ...

You answer this yourself surely. (below)
Who says it is a linear relationship?
And who says it is instantaneous?
....

CO2 may well have an influence, but we certainly aren't seeing anything resembling a linear relationship between CO2 and temperature during the 20th Century. The effect would seem to have diminished over time - more and more CO2 is pumped out but the rate of warming is the same as it was 70 years earlier with far lower CO2 emissions. That is what the charts show. Why I don't claim to know.

Found this excerpt from IPCC report. (GHG's since 1970).
Actually I was looking for a New Scientist article where they pointed out that CO2 and temperature can be mutually dependent. And that starts to make for a pretty complicated relationship.

http://books.google.com.au/books?id...=book_result&resnum=8&ct=result#PRA1-PA103,M1

And, you're right, it still comes back to the big challenge(s) - to try to improve the efficiency of energy, reduce energy per capita, as well as the number of those capitas. - While at the same time those capitas want more capital each. Hence I also add this extract from that report which amounts to a mission statement.

 

[2020hindsight]

Here's what a sensible scientist would propose as the way forward (wean ourselves off coal) - albeit it will never happen to his proposed plan obviously - we're struggling to even admit there's a problem , let alone act. :-

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/back-to-1988-on-co2-says-nasas-hansen/?apage=2

And so what do we do? in NSW anyways...
lol
we announce that we're gonna spend a fortune upgrading our ability to dig up more coal

 

[2020hindsight]

http://www.seed.slb.com/en/scictr/watch/climate_change/causes_co2.htm

Are the changes in CO2 concentration causing changes in temperature or is it the other way around? It’s both

 

[wayneL]

I'm simply looking at the "Getting Warmer" chart YOU posted. The "Global Temperature Change" chart shows essentially the same thing.

It shows warming of about 0.5 degrees between 1910 and 1940 followed by a sudden cooling of about 0.2. Then there's a jump in the late 1970's of about 0.2, back to about 1940 levels, followed by a warming of 0.5 over the following 30 years.

Two obvious points from these charts:

1. There is a warming trend.

2. Warming over the period 1910 - 1940 and 1978 - 2008 occurred at about the same rate of 0.5 to 0.6 over a 30 year period or 0.02 degrees per annum.

Not shown on the chart is that CO2 emissions during the period 1978 - 2008 were far higher than during the period 1910 - 1940 and yet the extent of warming was almost identical. That very strongly suggests that there are factors other than CO2 at work here.

What caused the 1910 - 1940 warming? If it was CO2 then why have we not seen far greater warming since given the huge increase in CO2 emissions?

If it was not due to CO2 then what, if any, evidence do we have that the cause of the 1910 - 1940 warming has not again caused warming since the late 1970's?

I note an approximately 30 year cycle seems to exist at least during the 20th Century. It could be argued that the 1940's - 1970's period should have cooled more than it did but CO2 emissions worked to keep temperatures higher. But if that is the case, then you would logically expect the rate of warming since the late 1970's to have exceeded that during the 1910 - 1940 period which it clearly hasn't.

CO2 may well have an influence, but we certainly aren't seeing anything resembling a linear relationship between CO2 and temperature during the 20th Century. The effect would seem to have diminished over time - more and more CO2 is pumped out but the rate of warming is the same as it was 70 years earlier with far lower CO2 emissions. That is what the charts show. Why I don't claim to know.

^^^^^^^ An Inconvenient Truth ^^^^^^^

 

[2020hindsight]

1. 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?

2. Trying to predict the Earth's climate is the most complex scientific project ever undertaken .....

1. Certainly it's nonlinear as you say spooly.
Certainly (as both you and Smurf say) it's getting hotter - and CO2 is increasing.
If it's not exactly matching what you believe should be the instantaneous prediction, then I'd refer you to your second point - that it's extrememly complex ( including feedbacks etc)

2. The question becomes, should we be diverting scientific reseach funds from the health of our globe ...
to check what happens when particles collide in big underground rings.

Which is the more important do you reckon?

 

[basilio]

What is the worst thing that can happen regarding Climate Change?

We have gone back and forth on the ins and outs of climate change. We have probably agreed that we can't be certain about what will happen. The clearest fact is that by continuing to debate the issue we end up doing nothing about it and facing whatever consequence occurs.

There is a particularly excellent argument on YOU Tube which doesn't try to convince anyone of the certainty of Climate Change but does show that the safest course is to act furiously as if the scientists are right.

How does the argument go ? Put simply if climate change is crock of sxxx but we plough billions into renewable energy, changes in lifestyle , business upheaval ect the possible worst consequences could be a global depression, poverty and so on.

However if climate change is real and we don't take action then the consequences will be even more disastrous than simply a global depression. We are talking the full catastrophe. Sunk cities, destroyed landscapes, floods, droughts, total collapse.

The conversation doesn't attempt to prove or disprove the science behind global warming. It just gives us a clear understanding of the choices we face and the consequences of action or inaction.

It is only 10 minutes long. Whatever your views on the science of the issue the logic of how to approach the situation is worth considering. I'd be interested to hear responses.

Cheers



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ

 

[wayneL]

What is the worst thing that can happen regarding Climate Change?

We have gone back and forth on the ins and outs of climate change. We have probably agreed that we can't be certain about what will happen. The clearest fact is that by continuing to debate the issue we end up doing nothing about it and facing whatever consequence occurs.]

I don't agree. My point has always been to shift the debate sideways to real, demonstrable, measurable and current environmental issues, issues that because of the focus on co2 get totally ignored. Concentrate on these and co2 will naturally be contained, whether it is a real issue or not.

 

[Knobby22]

I don't know why anyone is worried about global warming.

Goerge Bush whispered to me his plan.
If the world gets too hot, we explode a couple of nukes. Heard of global winter? It will balance out.

Knob

 

[2020hindsight]

btw smurf, you've made a few approximations in your post back there.
In general I wouldn't bother to reply, but you add phrases like "which it clearly isn't" etc - and I though I'd reply as follows (pedantry on both our parts maybe):-

a. I'm simply looking at the "Getting Warmer" chart ... "Global Temperature Change" essentially the same..

b. It shows warming of about 0.5 degrees between 1910 and 1940 followed by a sudden cooling of about 0.2. Then there's a jump in the late 1970's of about 0.2, back to about 1940 levels, followed by a warming of 0.5 over the following 30 years.

Two obvious points from these charts:

1. There is a warming trend.

2. Warming over the period 1910 - 1940 and 1978 - 2008 occurred at about the same rate of 0.5 to 0.6 over a 30 year period or 0.02 degrees per annum.

c. Not shown on the chart is that CO2 emissions during the period 1978 - 2008 were far higher than during the period 1910 - 1940 and yet the extent of warming was almost identical. That very strongly suggests that there are factors other than CO2 at work here.

...
d. I note an approximately 30 year cycle seems to exist at least during the 20th Century. It could be argued that the 1940's - 1970's period should have cooled more than it did but CO2 emissions worked to keep temperatures higher.

e. But if that is the case, then you would logically expect the rate of warming since the late 1970's to have exceeded that during the 1910 - 1940 period which it clearly hasn't.

f. CO2 may well have an influence, but we certainly aren't seeing anything resembling a linear relationship between CO2 and temperature during the 20th Century. ect

a. There's a chart back there which shows the steepest imaginable slope since the industrial revolution compared to prior to that - but no matter, let's stick to the last 100 years or so

b. It actually shows warming of about 0.39 degC in the 30 years between 1910 and 1940.

and about 0.54 degC between 1974 and 2004 - note that these are 5 year mean values, centred about the year in question.

These equate to about 0.013 deg per year and 0.018 deg per year resp.

1. warming trend? - agreed

2. about the same rate? - I disagree

c. no problems with your statement that "factors other than CO2 at work here". - some with negative and some positive effects.

d. that cyclical stuff was what the Great Global Warming Swindle tried to argue. Durkins soundly thrashed by Tony Jones when interviews - exposed for manipulating NASA graphs to suit his arguments etc Sure some of the factors are somewhat cyclical (and accounted for by IPCC). But the big one is the steady rise in GHGs.

e. "which it clearly hasn't" - lol - sorry mate - refer to the scaled atttachment - it clearly has. 0.013 deg per year, vs 0.018 deg per year, (at least between 1974 and 2004). Btw, I'm not gonna try to justify every bend in that graph - and the "stitch to the right" in the graph has gotta have complex origins (though still well matched by the IPCC models).

f. no-one said it was linear relationship - including the IPCC. (nor instantaneous, nor simple etc)
cheers

 

[basilio]

I don't agree. My point has always been to shift the debate sideways to real, demonstrable, measurable and current environmental issues, issues that because of the focus on co2 get totally ignored. Concentrate on these and co2 will naturally be contained, whether it is a real issue or not

.

Wayne what part of the logic of the video did you find a hole in? As I see it your logical approach is

This is the Titanic

The Titanic is unsinkable

Therefore we can't be sinking

 

[wayneL]

.

Wayne what part of the logic of the video did you find a hole in? As I see it your logical approach is

This is the Titanic

The Titanic is unsinkable

Therefore we can't be sinking

(sigh) How goddamn tiresome you warmers are with your strawman arguments. That is anything but my logical approach.

Until you lot read posts properly, I'm just not going to bother.

The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.

 

[Aussiejeff]

Regardless of anyone's point of view, the fact is that the GuvMint has just released it's long-awaited policy on Carbon Trading.

Essentially, to offer a MAX reduction of OZ emissions of 15% by 2020 - but only if the Rest Of The World signs up to at least the same.

Otherwise, an "unconditional" maximum of only 5% cuts by OZ will be mandated.

I'm sure these targets are going to be slammed by Greens and many others over the coming days.

Can't say I'm all that impressed myself, purely from an environmental pollution point of view. But big polluting businesses will be ****-a-hoop, no doubt. FREE Carbon Credits for all....

For me, the most disturbing part of the announcement is actually that the GuvMint appears to be so strongly down-beat with respect to ANY future hope of effective joint action by the world's developing nations in setting meaningful emission cut targets.

By the sound of it, they have already packed up the bat and ball and started to head home....

http://business.theage.com.au/business/big-emission-cuts-ruled-out-20081215-6ymf.html

 

[basilio]

Your absolutely right Wayne. It is a waste of time talking with people who don't read posts properly.

It's even more useless trying to address zombie arguments that no matter how thoroughly discredited are still trotted out for another airing.

 

[Aussiejeff]

For anyone who may have forgotten, in the run-up to the election a little over a year ago, our esteemed KRudd was on the verge of "supporting a [size=+1]60% cut by 2020[/size] to lower greenhouse emissions - depending on the Garnaut report".

I predict that the next KRudd approval ratings might look a fair bit sicker in % terms.

I wonder what Malcolm will make out of this... all he has to offer is 1% more on KRudd's MIN & MAX numbers and he will have the Greens in his pocket! He will have a grin like a Cheshire Cat right now.

 

[wayneL]

Your absolutely right Wayne. It is a waste of time talking with people who don't read posts properly.

It's even more useless trying to address zombie arguments that no matter how thoroughly discredited are still trotted out for another airing.

Agreed, but you've precluded about 90% of the warmer's arguments then.

 

[MrBurns]

For anyone who may have forgotten, in the run-up to the election a little over a year ago, our esteemed KRudd was on the verge of "supporting a [size=+1]60% cut by 2020[/size] to lower greenhouse emissions - depending on the Garnaut report".

I predict that the next KRudd approval ratings might look a fair bit sicker in % terms.

I wonder what Malcolm will make out of this... all he has to offer is 1% more on KRudd's MIN & MAX numbers and he will have the Greens in his pocket! He will have a grin like a Cheshire Cat right now.

Yep Labor Voters dudded in the eye AGAIN ...LOL You think they'd learn by now but trot out the old Labor line and they roll over like employees of the Daily Planet..
5% HAHAHA sucked in again, like to hear what that hero and mega hypocrite
Garratt has to say.