Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Resisting Climate Hysteria

Ms basilio (and Mr Plod):

Um Wayne, Did you (or anyone else) read the article you posted? And the other links don't work!

Summer might change minds of climate change skeptics
WASHINGTON – Still don’t believe in climate change? Then you’re either deep in denial or delirious from the heat.
EUGENE ROBINSON; The Washington Post

Published: 07/03/12 12:05 am Updated: 07/03/12 12:26 am

WASHINGTON – Still don’t believe in climate change? Then you’re either deep in denial or delirious from the heat.
As I write this, the nation’s capital and its suburbs are in post-apocalypse mode. About one-fourth of all households have no electricity, the legacy of an unprecedented assault by violent thunderstorms Friday night. Things are improving: At the height of the power outage, nearly half the region was dark.
The line of storms, which killed at least 17 people as it raced from the Midwest to the sea, culminated a punishing day when the official temperature here reached 104 degrees, a record for June. Hurricane-force winds of up to 80 miles per hour wreaked havoc with the lush tree canopy that is perhaps Washington’s most glorious amenity. One of my neighbors was lucky when a huge branch, headed for his roof, got snagged by a power line. Another neighbor lost a tree that fell into another tree that smashed an adjacent house, demolishing the second floor.
Yes, it’s always hot here in the summer – but not this hot. Yes, we always have thunderstorms – but never like these. The cliche is true: It did sound like a freight train.
According to scientists, climate change means not only that we will see higher temperatures but that there will be more extreme weather events like the one we just experienced. Welcome to the rest of our lives.
This is the point in the column where I’m obliged to insert the disclaimer that no one event – no heat wave, no hurricane, no outbreak of tornadoes or freakish storms – can be definitively blamed on climate change. Any one data point can be an anomaly; any cluster of data points can be mere noise.
The problem for those who dismiss climate change as a figment of scientists’ imagination, or even as a crypto-socialist one-worldish plot to take away our God-given SUVs, is that the data are beginning to add up.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration says the past winter was the fourth-warmest on record in the United States. To top that, spring – which meteorologists define as the months of March, April and May – was the warmest since record-keeping began in 1895. If you don’t believe me or the scientists, ask a farmer whose planting seasons have gone awry.
NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, which monitors global surface temperatures, reports that nine of the warmest 10 years on record have occurred since 2000. The warmest year of all was 2010; last year was only the ninth warmest, but global temperatures were still almost a full degree warmer than they were during the middle of the 20th century.
Why might this be happening? Well, the level of heat-trapping carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is more than 35 percent greater than in 1880, NASA scientists report, with most of the increase coming since 1960. And why might carbon dioxide levels be rising? Because since the Industrial Revolution, humankind has been burning fossil fuels – and spewing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere – at what could turn out to be a catastrophic rate.
Scientists’ predictions about how quickly temperatures would rise – and how rapidly assorted phenomena, such as melting polar ice and rising sea levels, would proceed – have turned out, thus far, to be conservative.
There comes a point where anomalies can start looking like a trend. What much of the country has seen the past few days is no ordinary heat wave. Temperatures reached 105 in Raleigh, 106 in Atlanta and 108 in Columbia, S.C., and Macon, Ga., 109 in Nashville – all-time highs.
Meanwhile, the most destructive wildfires in Colorado history were destroying hundreds of homes – a legacy of drought that left forests as dry as tinder. Changes in rainfall and snowfall patterns in the West cannot, of course, be blamed on climate change with any certainty. But they are consistent with scientists’ predictions.
It becomes harder to ignore those predictions when a toppled tree is blocking your driveway and the power is out.
One other observation: As repair crews struggle to get the lights back on, it happens to be another sunny day. Critics have blasted the Obama administration’s unfruitful investment in solar energy. But if government-funded research managed to lower the price of solar panels to the point where it became economical to install them on residential roofs, all you global warming skeptics would have air conditioning right now. I’m just sayin’.
Eugene Robinson is a Pulitzer Prize-winning Washington Post columnist. Email him at eugenerobinson@washpost.com.

Read more here: http://www.thenewstribune.com/2012/...comment-575334775#storylink=cpy#storylink=cpy
 
I certainly did knobby. Bastardi's Comments were in response to the article
 
However the indications are that we may have a problem and should do something as when the hard evidence hits it may well be too late for our species.

The more important angle you dodged wayneL, com on pal ?
 
im amazed people still believe in this nonsense, at worst you are a shill or at best completely intellectually deranged..

If i was a real greeny id be pissed so much BS time is wasted on this.

Anyone find its funny how the Armageddon-mongerers describe 'skeptical' politicians as dangerous..
 
A few years ago I was expecting $200 a barrel combined with a Depression!
Once again through ingenuity and luck we seem to have avoided the worst and given ourselves time to change how our economy works. Humanity is lucky, if other alien races are watching us they must gasp to see our wars, weapons, energy usage, posioning of environment and yet we always seem to escape.

Even global warming won't be all bad. The arctic sea will be trafficable. Our farms will be able to grow plants quicker.
Sure the other creatures we share the earth with will suffer, and some third world countries in Africa and Asia. And our insurance premiums will continue to rise but hey in Australia and New Zealand we can just ignore it, perhaps providing a bit of aid to salve our consciences.


use your own money to save your conscience, dont petition for others to stick their hand in my pocket for you to feel good and have a misguided air of moral superiority..

Regarding oil say its goes to $1000 a barrel (lets say due to whatever doomsday peak oil fetish scenario seems most apt), what would happen? Ud see replacement technology come in at a cheaper price, most likely 'clean' tech at the right price, without coercion by the moral emperors of the champagne classes, simply the price mechanism. Is it any wonder the factories, cars, manufacturing the list goes on, was getting cleaner, cheaper without some iron fist from government telling people to do so, we arent living in some Dickins nightmare (which is a whole other topic of discussion)...

Stop openly petitioning for a group of narcissists in the nations capital to save the world or whatever Malthusian fantasy you happen to dream up while you have your pants around your ankles and a box of kleenex..
 
use your own money to save your conscience, dont petition for others to stick their hand in my pocket for you to feel good and have a misguided air of moral superiority..

Regarding oil say its goes to $1000 a barrel (lets say due to whatever doomsday peak oil fetish scenario seems most apt), what would happen? Ud see replacement technology come in at a cheaper price, most likely 'clean' tech at the right price, without coercion by the moral emperors of the champagne classes, simply the price mechanism. Is it any wonder the factories, cars, manufacturing the list goes on, was getting cleaner, cheaper without some iron fist from government telling people to do so, we arent living in some Dickins nightmare (which is a whole other topic of discussion)...

Stop openly petitioning for a group of narcissists in the nations capital to save the world or whatever Malthusian fantasy you happen to dream up while you have your pants around your ankles and a box of kleenex..

Nice last paragraph, start in the gutter and maybe one day you can rise above it.

I'm pretty much in agreement though, I am not for petitioning the Australian Government to do anything unless the world acts together. I'm not even saying we should interfere with market forces so I don't know where you got that from. Read it again! ...and get off your low depraved horse.
 
use your own money to save your conscience, dont petition for others to stick their hand in my pocket for you to feel good and have a misguided air of moral superiority.....



So true - why are the majority of Aussies being slugged with this tax when they didn't want carbon to be priced and many don't believe it is even necessary.

Those who want to feel warm and fuzzy to pay for something that may not need fixing should go ahead and pay. But don't rob money from the others.
 
Nice last paragraph, start in the gutter and maybe one day you can rise above it.

I'm pretty much in agreement though, I am not for petitioning the Australian Government to do anything unless the world acts together. I'm not even saying we should interfere with market forces so I don't know where you got that from. Read it again! ...and get off your low depraved horse.

the world acts together.. when has the world acted together on anything? And if it has who was deciding that?
Let individuals deal with this in the marketplace, this whole climate agenda stinks of statism, propaganda and corruption... You want to feel good and save the world, invent clean energy at low cost or wait for fossil fuels to be so high price that they become cheaper by default..

Government, banks, and the granted scientific community, what an unholy triumvirate of climate armageddon, the useful idiots also paly there part.
 
where are the real greenies in all of this? corrupted by the money thrown at them? Keeping silent out of fear of professional Siberia?
 
Nobel prize winner ”” Ivar Giaever ”” “climate change is pseudoscience”

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/07/nobel-prize-winner-ivar-giaever-climate-change-is-pseudoscience/

"Gieavar (sic) found the measurement of the global average temperature rise of 0.8 degrees over 150 years remarkably unlikely to be accurate, because of the difficulties with precision for such measurements””and small enough not to matter in any case."

Finally someone calls it how it is, if you set out TODAY with the best equipment, that was calibrated, done to a standard and logged all around the world you would be lucky if the error in measurement was 0.5C

So what did they do 30 years+ ago to measure the earths temperature.:rolleyes: We are only talking a 1C rise in global temperature.
 
Lots of thread grasping going in with this topic..

So the latest line some people want to run is that somehow the measurements made by meteorologists over the last 150 years are somehow inaccurate. Just not precise enough ...

What absolute obvious dribble.. Firstly I don't think any meteorologist would accept the systematic corruption of temperature data. Whether you accept or reject AGW at least the figures are recognize as accurate.

Secondly there is the small matter of major ecological changes that have occurred as result widespread warming. Earlier summers, changes in plant habitat as trees start spreading into warmer climates. Scores and scores of studies have examined the changes in plants and ecosystems as the climate has warmed. Nature doesn't need to read thermometers to know its getting hotter out there. :D
________________________________________________________________

Wayne in an earlier post wanted to take the discussion back to the scientific basics. He suggested that there was now good evidence to show that "luke warmers" - those who accept we have global warming as a result of extra greenhouse gases but that it is too small to really matter - had a better case based on hard observations rather than the models he claimed climate scientists were using.

In fact that argument has been dissected and dismissed by scientists. The main paper (as I understand) that argued this view was produced by Lindzen and Choi in 2009 and then updated in 2011. The basic point they tried to make was that climate sensitivity to the doubling of CO2 was very low - approximately .5C . Virtually all other research using many different lines of evidence comes up with a figure of between 2 and 4.5C.

Lindzens paper remains unpublished because none of the reviewers including the ones Lindzen chose could accept his logic or very narrow observations.

There is an analysis of why Lindzens theory doesn't hold water on Skeptical science. I have included the final summary but the rest is worth reading.

LC11 - Overhyped and Under-Supported

Ultimately the main flaws in LC11 are the same as those in LC09 - Lindzen and Choi simply did not address most of the problems in their paper identified by subsequent research, and what few issues they did address, they failed to explain why their results differ from those who attempted to reproduce their methodology.

Nevertheless, LC09 and LC11 have become extremely over-hyped. Frequently climate contrarians (for example, Christopher Monckton and John Christy) claim that mainstream climate sensitivity estimates rely wholly on models (which is untrue), whereas lower climate sensitivity results are based on observational data. When they make this assertion, they are referring to LC09 and LC11.

This is a key point for climate contrarians, whose arguments are effectively a house of cards balanced atop the 'low climate sensitivity' claim. Since the body of research using multiple different approaches and lines of evidence is remarkably consistent in finding an equilibrium climate sensitivity of between 2 and 4.5 °C for doubled CO2 (whereas a 'low' sensitivity would be well below 1.5 °C), climate contrarians reject the body of evidence by (falsely) claiming it is based on unreliable models, and attempt to replace it with this single study by Lindzen and Choi under the assertion that it is superior because is observationally-based.

However, subsequent research identified a number of fundamental errors in LC09 which simply were not addressed in LC11, which is why the PNAS reviewers - even those chosen by Lindzen himself - unanimously agreed that the journal should not publish the paper. While LC09 and LC11 are based on observational data, they also rely on a very short timeframe, mainly on data only from the tropics, and their methodology contains a number of problems.


Quite simply, this one paper is insufficient to overturn the vast body of evidence which contradicts the 'low climate sensitivity' argument.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/lindzen-choi-2011-party-like-2009.html
 
Marine scientists have just released their latest report on ocean acidification. The excess CO2 humans are poring into the atmosphere is being partially absorbed by the oceans and increasing the acidity.

Is this consequence of out of control fossil fuel use sufficient to persuade us we have to change direction ?


Rising ocean acid levels are 'the biggest threat to coral reefs'


The speed by which oceans' acid levels have risen has caught scientists off-guard, says the head of NOAA

Associated Press
guardian.co.uk, Monday 9 July 2012 12.00 BST
Comments (…)

'Bleached' coral reef off Caye Caulker, Belize. Oceans' rising acid levels are one of the biggest threats to coral reefs, scientists say. Photograph: Str/Reuters

Oceans' rising acid levels have emerged as one of the biggest threats to coral reefs, acting as the "osteoporosis of the sea" and threatening everything from food security to tourism to livelihoods, the head of a US scientific agency said Monday.

The speed by which the oceans' acid levels has risen caught scientists off-guard, with the problem now considered to be climate change's "equally evil twin," National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) chief Jane Lubchenco told The Associated Press.

"We've got sort of the perfect storm of stressors from multiple places really hammering reefs around the world," said Lubchenco, who was in Australia to speak at the International Coral Reef Symposium in the northeast city of Cairns, near the Great Barrier Reef. "It's a very serious situation."

Oceans absorb excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, leading to an increase in acidity. Scientists are worried about how that increase will affect sea life, particularly reefs, as higher acid levels make it tough for coral skeletons to form. Lubchenco likened ocean acidification to osteoporosis a bone-thinning disease because researchers are concerned it will lead to the deterioration of reefs.


Scientists initially assumed that the carbon dioxide absorbed by the water would be sufficiently diluted as the oceans mixed shallow and deeper waters. But most of the carbon dioxide and the subsequent chemical changes are being concentrated in surface waters, Lubchenco said.

"And those surface waters are changing much more rapidly than initial calculations have suggested," she said. "It's yet another reason to be very seriously concerned about the amount of carbon dioxide that is in the atmosphere now and the additional amount we continue to put out."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jul/09/acid-threat-coral-reef?intcmp=122
 
The dots are coming together. This is New Scientists take on the current rounds of extreme weather events and the role that AGW is playing.


As freak weather becomes the norm, we need to adapt[/B]

09 July 2012
Magazine issue 2872. Subscribe and save
For similar stories, visit the Editorials and Climate Change Topic Guides

IT HAS been yet another week of extraordinary weather. Torrential rainfall caused chaos across the UK. A record-breaking heatwave drifted across the US, broken by freak thunderstorms that left a trail of destruction from Chicago to Washington DC. Meanwhile, in India and Bangladesh more than 100 people were killed and half a million fled when the monsoon arrived with a vengeance.

We have become used to reports of extreme weather events playing down any connection with climate change. The refrain is usually along the lines of "you cannot attribute any single event to global warming". But increasingly this is no longer the case. The science of climate attribution - which makes causal connections between climate change and weather events - is advancing rapidly, and with it our understanding of what we can expect in years to come.

From killer heatwaves to destructive floods, the effects of global warming are becoming ever more obvious - and we ain't seen nothing yet. Our weather is not only becoming more extreme as a result of global warming, it is becoming even more extreme than climate scientists predicted.


Researchers now think they are starting to understand why (see "How global warming is driving our weather wild"). Human activity cannot be held solely responsible for all of these extreme events, but by adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, we have loaded the climate dice. Only political leaders and corporate masters have the power to do anything about that - but they are doing little to help.


http://www.newscientist.com/article...eather-becomes-the-norm-we-need-to-adapt.html
 
Good article Basilio. I regularly read New Scientist and they treat global warming as just another scientific issue and often it is not mentioned between 10 issues.

The counter argument that is trotted out is that extreme weather events have occurred before and our history of weather watching with accurate measurement has been too short so therefore we are jumping to unfounded conclusions.

I think the effects of global warming will become much clearer over the next 20 years. The trouble is we can't experiment but can only observe so it is difficult to prove causality in such a complex system as our atmosphere.
It is a mistake however to say that this means that the causality is not real!
 
there is nothing extreme about the weather at present.. repeating something ad nauseum doesnt make it true, perception arent facts, short term memories doesnt make recent events more severe than those forgotten
 
If you are a scientist and need funding to say study Squirrels collecting Nuts in winter you may not get the funding , but if you as to study the effects of GW in there some where you are home and hosed.
They need to keep the carbon Credits going for a select few
 
Top