Climate change another name for Weather

[2020hindsight]

Thanks derty,

It makes me wonder though that with so many variable changes, weather, tectonics etc, how the warmeners with their graphs and predictions can be so sure about the future.

I'm not.

Its a chaotic system our universe.

gg

it's because they are scientists trying their best to understand and model the parameters and see if they can understand the trends - and predict tomorrow's weather (so you can better plan a fishing trip) , next week's (so you can better plan a trip), next year's (so you can better plan a crop), and next century's (so you can check whether indeed we are carrying on in a sustainable way - and try to avoid dropping the grandkids in a mess that they won't thank us for)

 

[wayneL]

This thread has become more about personalities than CC or weather.

Let's cut the ad hominem from now on, OK.

 

[Calliope]

OK 2020. You have shot your bolt. I accept he is a drag on the non-believers cause. And besides he writes for a right wing rag. A believer with the same level of bias who wrote for the Age or the Guardian would be quite acceptable to your mob.

 

[2020hindsight]

Here's one Professor on Andrew Bolt <removed>
http://www.crikey.com.au/Media-Arts...nge-scientist-quoted-by-Bolt-fights-back.html

Andrew Bolt abused my research: climate scientist
5 Oct 08
In his column (published in the Herald Sun and the Brisbane Sunday Mail in September), Bolt quoted the findings of Jeff Severinghaus, Professor of Geosciences at the University of California, San Diego:

Gore says ice cores from Antarctica, that go back 650,000 years, show the world got warmer each time there was more carbon dioxide in the air. In fact, as the University of California's Professor Jeff Severinghaus and others note, at least three studies of ice cores show the earth first warmed and only then came more carbon dioxide, many hundreds of years later. So does extra carbon dioxide cause a warming world, or vice versa?

Severinghaus told Crikey that he doesn’t make a habit of Googling his own research, but Bolt appeared on his radar when a librarian in Brisbane wrote to him asking if “I’d really meant what Bolt said I meant”.


He didn’t. “Many, many other studies have found that carbon dioxide causes the earth to warm. This is not controversial, and to continue to deny it is akin to denying that cigarette smoking causes cancer,” Severinghaus told Crikey. “The evidence for a human-caused warming of the globe is overwhelming. The scientific debate is over, and what we are seeing now is an attempt to mislead the public.”

Severinghaus explained how Bolt had been slippery with the facts, "...Bolt omitted the key piece of information that the warmings took 5,000 years, thus misleading the reader into thinking that carbon dioxide was not warming at the same time as temperature and thus cannot have caused the warming...”

Severinghaus wrote a letter to the editor of the Sunday Mail, but it was never published. He posted a comment on Bolt’s blog but told Crikey “...effectively I have not been able to make much if any response”.

“At the very least I would like it to go on record that Bolt's abuse of my science is not done with my approval,” says Severinghaus.

 

[spooly74]

Nasa set to launch 'CO2 hunter'

The US space agency is set to launch a satellite that can map in detail where carbon dioxide is in the atmosphere.

Nasa's Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) will pinpoint the key locations on the Earth's surface where CO2 is being emitted and absorbed.

CO2 from human activities is thought to be driving climate changes, but important facts about its movement through the atmosphere remain elusive.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7769619.stm

This will help.

 

[2020hindsight]

Correlation? Maybe?

http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/

refer my reply to LCL999 , post #493.
there's more than one factor. cmon ! - sheesh

they are miles ahead of you, spooly.

 

[2020hindsight]

Indeed it does. But if it's the social drinker staying totally sober so that the loud mouth alcoholic can guzzle massive amounts then I see a problem there. In practice, that's exactly what seems to be happening so far.

heck - the can that we pass back (because we don't waste as much power )might be handy to experiment with CCS (carbon capture and storage) - which doesn't come cheap energy-wise (massive energy required in fact) )

Gotta be an industry there waiting to be developed. (not that I hold out much hope for CCS being a significant assistance - but we might as well have a go I guess)

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=369959

 

[spooly74]

refer my reply to LCL999 , post #493.
there's more than one factor. cmon ! - sheesh

It was simply a possibility to explain the missing heat we are not seeing in the IPCC models. What are your thought on this?
I agree there is more than one factor, when/where did I say otherwise?

It will be interesting to see what happens with the PDO index and temp in the future. No?

they are miles ahead of you, spooly.

Child.

 

[2020hindsight]

It was simply a possibility to explain the missing heat we are not seeing in the IPCC models. What are your thought on this?
I agree there is more than one factor, when/where did I say otherwise?

It will be interesting to see what happens with the PDO index and temp in the future. No?

Sure it will be interesting...
As long as we start doing something in the meantime.
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=QIzztkyovjc part 7 – 10m
procrastination penalty , level of risk, etc


btw, I'll concede that your 1.3 degC is consistent with doubling = 3deg etc, and that 0.7C (as per post #493) is less ...

...if you concede that 0.7 degC is still massive.

As I asked you once before (unanswered I believe), is this better channeling of research money i.e. into the health of the planet .. than the Large Hadron Collider ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider

 

[Smurf1976]

More dodgy information being used with this issue. And it's in an official government publication.

http://www.climatechange.gov.au/renewabletarget/consultation/pubs/RATE_consultation.pdf

In short, the electricity consumption for the pulp and paper industry in Australia that they've quoted is only slightly more than that used by one mill in Tas. Quite simply, they're seriously understating the energy consumption of the industry at the national level whilst seeming to correctly state the value of production.

That conveniently allows a serious understating of the impact on the industry of any increase in energy prices...

 

[rederob]

This thread has become more about personalities than CC or weather.

Let's cut the ad hominem from now on, OK.

That would be a good idea.
It would also be useful if the anti climate change brigade could put up a contrary case.
If you are not going to "believe" that the climate is warming, present some "evidence" that refutes it.
Garpal's contributions to a thread he started pander to the head in the sand brigade, or those that can feign ignorance of the facts as a valid excuse for whatever they prefer.
Yours, Wayne, are often equally disconcerting; tarring those with a view shared by Gore as unworthy, then invoking the "straw man" ploy against your critics. Jump off your bandwagon and ask yourself what the consequence of unprecedented planetary pollution will be within a generation. I know that you know and are acting to redress it. But you need to convince several billion people that oblivion is around the corner unless we all take some personal responsibility and act now.
Smurf's point about CO2 emissions misses two vital points. First, without any "agreed" cap on emissions it is probable that CO2 levels will simply continue to increase: Someone needs to start with something that actually constitutes a reduction, no matter how little. Secondly, methane is a more potent greenhouse gas and emissions are set to substantially increase as frozen lands continue to open up and release methane that has been trapped since the last ice age.

 

[wayneL]

That would be a good idea.
It would also be useful if the anti climate change brigade could put up a contrary case.
If you are not going to "believe" that the climate is warming, present some "evidence" that refutes it.
Garpal's contributions to a thread he started pander to the head in the sand brigade, or those that can feign ignorance of the facts as a valid excuse for whatever they prefer.
Yours, Wayne, are often equally disconcerting; tarring those with a view shared by Gore as unworthy, then invoking the "straw man" ploy against your critics. Jump off your bandwagon and ask yourself what the consequence of unprecedented planetary pollution will be within a generation. I know that you know and are acting to redress it. But you need to convince several billion people that oblivion is around the corner unless we all take some personal responsibility and act now.
Smurf's point about CO2 emissions misses two vital points. First, without any "agreed" cap on emissions it is probable that CO2 levels will simply continue to increase: Someone needs to start with something that actually constitutes a reduction, no matter how little. Secondly, methane is a more potent greenhouse gas and emissions are set to substantially increase as frozen lands continue to open up and release methane that has been trapped since the last ice age.

Red

Can you please review my views on pollution sans co2. Then, will you please review the PM exchange between you and myself, detailing the same.

You will see that my accusations of straw man arguments are thus valid, particularly now, against yourself. Bad show Mr Rederob. I will however accept an apology, if offered.

As far as evidence, this thread is interspersed with links to evidence contrary to, or pointing to exaggeration of anthropogenic global warming. Your review of the thread will turn them up.

Good hunting.

 

[wayneL]

Once again, it's probably a very tough issue not to get emotional about, but let's leave the personality issues out of this thread. We've all had a good go at each other, but it's time to stop and focus on the topic of debate.

Thanks

 

[Smurf1976]

Smurf's point about CO2 emissions misses two vital points. First, without any "agreed" cap on emissions it is probable that CO2 levels will simply continue to increase: Someone needs to start with something that actually constitutes a reduction, no matter how little. Secondly, methane is a more potent greenhouse gas and emissions are set to substantially increase as frozen lands continue to open up and release methane that has been trapped since the last ice age.

I haven't missed anything there since my point isn't about reducing CO2 emissions.

My point is about misinformation of the general public, convincing them that doing this or buying that is going to help when that is not the case. I'm not sure of the precise legal term, but it's deceptive marketing at its worst - misleading consumers that spending their money in a certain way will result in an outcome that is legislated to happen anyway.

I don't have a problem with the idea of cutting CO2 per se if that is what they science says should happen. My issue is with schemes to separate ordinary consumers from their money in the belief that they are helping solve a serious problem when in reality all they are doing is paying for something that is going to be done anyway.

It is a reality that the vast majority of Australians have no real technical knowledge on this issue. All they have is an idea that CO2 is a bad thing and that burning coal makes it worse. That's about it.

I know for a fact that if you ask ordinary people on the street (major capital cities) how electricity is generated then the vast majority give the wrong answers. That one's been done and bottom line is most don't have a clue. That's to the point of some people living near power stations not even knowing what it is (true).

Likewise there are many who think that diesel accounts for the vast majority of transport-related emissions and that LPG is pollution-free. Completely wrong on both counts.

So I do think that there's a responsibility to be giving consumers accurate information about the impact of the decisions they make rather than doing whatever it takes to grab their money.

 

[explod]

So I do think that there's a responsibility to be giving consumers accurate information about the impact of the decisions they make rather than doing whatever it takes to grab their money.

I dont' think you can tell consumers anything. They will do what they think is best for thier pocket. As far as accuracy, climate change cannot be quantified very accurately. I get the feeling that the planet's system to support life is turning pear shaped and we do need to take some notice of that.

Have been reading Chris Turners book, "The Geography of Hope" kindly lent to me by Basilio a week ago. The thing hitting me between the eyes is that alternative clean energy output (no co2) is now increasing at a greater rate that fossill fuel output(and that is including the coal fired plants being built in china. There is an underlying revolution of change happening because some do care about the future and they are finding it cheaper. Even BP are getting involved. And talking of yield in this low interest environment I noticed the other day that Babcock and Brown Windmills have a yield of about 6 cents and the shares have dropped to about 80 cents. Now that is getting somewhere.

 

[Smurf1976]

I dont' think you can tell consumers anything. They will do what they think is best for thier pocket.

I'm no expert on marketing but I'd assume there's at least some proof that it works - otherwise businesses wouldn't keep spending so much on it.

The present marketing on this subject, largely from government, says do things that aren't best for your pocket because that will help the environment. Trouble is, it won't help the environment, it's just transferring money.

Basically, we've got those who stand to profit calling for action and those that stand to lose opposing it. It's all about money, not the environment.

 

[rederob]

Anthropogenic Climate Change Hypothesis in the same paragraph as Modern Economic Hypothesis; how apt.

Both arbitrary input sensitive.

Both rely on public funding.

Both dominated by corrupt/self interested academics.

Both complete rubbish.

Your early forays into this thread set your theme: Attack the messengers.
Scientist, the IPCC, Al Gore and anyone else thinking that AGW has some merit are discounted out of hand. So anyone posting in favour of climate change is guilty by association and a junk science, CC/AGW religious freak to boot.
And apparently attributing these themes to you in this thread makes me guilty of misrepresentation, requiring an apology!!!
I don't discount the possibility that AGW isn't now happening, and that it's just weather.
However, the data suggests that man's contribution to greenhouse gas emissions is aligning with historical data that positively correlates higher temperatures with higher gas levels.
More importantly, surface and lower tropospheric temperatures are trending sharply higher, consistent with the theory of global warming.
Lucky this isn't rocket science.

 

[Smurf1976]

More importantly, surface and lower tropospheric temperatures are trending sharply higher, consistent with the theory of global warming.

I'll keep out of the personal arguments but I do have a serious scientific question about this.

How much of that warming is due to man-made non-greenhouse gas sources? (Direct heat emission, solar absorption change due to land use change etc)

I don't hear much said about this one and yet we do know the heat emissions are significant - they warm up entire cities and a great distance around them for example. So how much has this added to the global temperature? It wouldn't be zero.

 

[Smurf1976]

I don't discount the possibility that AGW isn't now happening, and that it's just weather.

The temperature as we are measuring it has trended up, that's a fact.

Whether we are measuring it properly (thermometers at surface level in cities would be useless to measure such a change, for example) and why it's gone up are the questions.

I've followed this whole issue and plenty of other environmental debates for years now and not much has changed overall. Any response that involves cutting CO2 comes down to that same issue at the heart of all environmental debates - jobs versus the environment. It's the same with the forests. Same with pulp mills. Same with dams. Same with just about any environmental issue you care to mention - someone loses their job and has their life effectively destroyed if we change what we're doing, something else gets destroyed if we continue business as usual.

The truth is almost certainly somewhere in the middle as it is with all these issues and most others. Adding lots of CO2 will probably impact something in some way, but the worst case scenarios are unlikely to be what actually happens.

But the facts always get distorted in the debate - that's political reality. It's been the same in every debate, environmental or other, that I've seen. Listen to the most extreme views and you'll be left thinking that the last tree will be cut down by Christmas and we'll be suffocating on CO2 by next Easter. That's just not true.

As is nearly always the case, the truth is likely somewhere in the middle.

 

[basilio]

The truth is almost certainly somewhere in the middle as it is with all these issues and most others. Adding lots of CO2 will probably impact something in some way, but the worst case scenarios are unlikely to be what actually happens.

That might be a dream Smurf..

The problem with the Global Warming situation is that it is getting out of hand in a very dangerous way. The best analogy is a forest fire or avalanche that picks up its own momentum. This is being caused by positive feedbacks that are currently releasing more and more CO2 into the atmosphere beyond what humans are inputting. See below.

With regard to the Rudd governments 5% reduction. It is a sick joke. If we are going to have any chance of stopping runaway global warming the overall amount of greenhouse reduction needs to be much more much quicker.

If anyone is interested in poking a stick at the Rudd government consider supporting Get Ups Boxing day Climate Change ad.

Check it out

We need to act fast. Hidden in the fine print of Prime Minister Rudd's woefully inadequate 5% climate target announcement on Monday was over $130 million for an 'information campaign' to sell us his sparse climate package. Doesn't it remind you of the kind of climate policy John Howard would have announced?

So we're planning to make waves this Summer by landing the first blow during the Boxing Day cricket Test.

The Boxing Day Test is the biggest TV event of the season, and our team has been working day and night to get our own climate ad ready for it. Watch it now and help us raise the urgent resources we need to get our ad on the air as families around the nation tune in:

www.getup.org.au/campaign/SpotTheDifference

By the way Smurf that was a deadly accurate analysis of the personal effect of reducing energy consumption. It does highlight the need for more effective measures.

Feedback Loops In Global Climate Change Point To A Very Hot 21st Century

ScienceDaily (May 22, 2006) — Studies have shown that global climate change can set-off positive feedback loops in nature which amplify warming and cooling trends. Now, researchers with the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) and the University of California at Berkeley have been able to quantify the feedback implied by past increases in natural carbon dioxide and methane gas levels. Their results point to global temperatures at the end of this century that may be significantly higher than current climate models are predicting.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060522151248.htm