Resisting Climate Hysteria

[brty]

but most of the argument here is not really about resolving matters of science because very few of the posters here are practising scientists

Here is a revelation for all those caught up in believing in the climate science. The 'science' is not chemistry, nor physics, nor biology, nor geology, it is mostly statistics, something that good traders can fairly easily get a grasp of.

I have a tertiary degree in the Environment area, yet I cannot find any data that is not "adjusted" to show global warming. There is also nothing that is definitive showing that if any warming is happening it is man made. If anyone here has anything to show differently, I'd love to see it. I have read the IPCC reports.

People should be sceptical of all the different reports that come out, as most things are biased.

For the true believers I ask the question, If CO2 is really the culprit for global warming, then can anyone explain why the last time CO2 levels in the atmosphere were 380 ppm (current levels), the oceans were 15-40 metres higher than now and the temperature 3-6 degrees warmer?? (15 million years ago). I have asked this question in various forums, yet never receive a response from the CO2 believers.

Here is a link...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091008152242.htm

brty

 

[wayneL]

I doubt that too, but most of the argument here is not really about resolving matters of science because very few of the posters here are practising scientists and I can't think of anyone who's said that they're a scientist presently working on climate-related problems.

I think that for most of us it's a question of who to trust, and that's why I think that trying to argue against our own position might be useful. As I've said before, I got into this because I wanted The Great Global Warming Swindle to be right about the state of the climate and climate science. That's what? 2 years ago? I've put in a lot of time and effort trying to understand the science, but the confirmation bias I've developed is based more on my experience of the sources I've found than on my assessment of the scientific content. I think that's true of you as well? I'm willing to try and argue for Pielke Jr (Snr would be harder) as the most reliable guide to the science of global warming if you'll try and argue for RealClimate. Hopefully we'd both learn something.

That's not really fair. If I have to argue for someone like Schmidt, then you have to argue for someone like Plimer or Monckton.

Anyway, I don't think it would resolve anything. There is no way I could in good conscience argue for the RealClimate position as it would require me to do some creative interpretations of the facts and make numerous errors of ommission.

Well calling it the CO2 religion probably isn't the best way to convince people that your position is based on science. Why not quantify the relative influences? Specify how they work? Propose specific actions to address negative human influence on global climate?

Cheers,

Ghoti

It is not likely to endear me to believers, but I think it is justified on behavioural science grounds in many cases.

 

[basilio]

For the true believers I ask the question, If CO2 is really the culprit for global warming, then can anyone explain why the last time CO2 levels in the atmosphere were 380 ppm (current levels), the oceans were 15-40 metres higher than now and the temperature 3-6 degrees warmer?? (15 million years ago). I have asked this question in various forums, yet never receive a response from the CO2 believers.

Here is a link...

Excellent source brty. And a very sobering piece of research.

The data from the research study shows that when CO2 levels have reached around the 380-400ppm mark the earths temperature has been far higher than current temperatures and as a consequence polar ice caps much lower.

We are seeing this happen as we speak. That is the whole scary process of monitoring the relentless rapid increase in the temperatures recorded around the globe. It reflects the rapid breakdown in Arctic sea ice, the unprecedented receding of glaciers around the world and the exponentially rising rate of ice loss from Greenland.

The extra CO2 is in the atmosphere. But it has only been increasing since the start of the Industrial Revolution and has really taken off in the last 40 years. In terms of changing the climate this is a very short time. There is a huge mass of water to warm up - but it is warming and in climate terms quite rapidly. It simply takes a little time for the heating effects to be well and truly felt.

A simple analogy would be putting a very large pot of water on a stove, lighting the burner - and then saying in 10 seconds that nothing has happened because the temperature hasn't risen (much..)

Unfortunately the research is telling us that CO2 levels at 380 + ppm will, on past evidence, result in a far warmer earth - and certainly outside the range that humanity has so far thrived in. This new evidence of the effect of elevated CO2 levels is one of the major reasons climate scientists have changed their view about what they consider could be a safe level of CO2 in the atmosphere i.e one that would enable a climate at least roughly similar to the one we enjoy. And of course it is why they have become more and more agitated about the continued refusal of all governments to recognize just how dangerous a situation we are facing.

The safe figure, based on the above research, is now 350 ppm

http://www.350.org/about/science

 

[Knobby22]

The "Flat Earth Society of New Zealand" are global warming sceptics.
And why wouldn't they be? You can't have global warming without believing there is a globe.

http://flatearthersnz.blogspot.com/

 

[wayneL]

A simple analogy would be putting a very large pot of water on a stove, lighting the burner - and then saying in 10 seconds that nothing has happened because the temperature hasn't risen (much..)

This analogy is nonsense. The heat source has always been there and may vary slightly on its own terms without input from Humans, Martians, or those Amazonian females from Venus (one of the indisputable natural factors in climate change).

The argument is over how much heat is prevented from escaping from the top of the pot..

As far as the other assertions in your post, there appear to be problems there too, especially re ocean heat.

Better read some more research... expand your horizon beyond the cherrypicked stuff.

 

[noco]

We have had it rammed down our throats for the past two years that the Great Barrier Reef will be dead by mid century due to climate change; you know the CO2 factor that Rudd, Wong and Garrett keep harping about.

Well, the head lines in the Weekend Australian "Scientist 'crying wolf' over coral". An article written by Professor Peter Ridd physicist with Townsville's James Cook University says it all; these 'wolf criers' have a credibility problem because the Great Barrier Reef was in "bloody good shape".

Professor Ridd who has spent the last 25 years investigating the impact of coastal runoff and other problems for the reef, challenged the widely accepted notion that coral bleaching would wipe it out if climate change continued to increase sea surface tempertures. Instead of dying the reef could expand south towards Brisbane as waters below it became warmer and more tolerable for corals.

NB. Coral did exist in Morten Bay many years ago and was used in later years to manufacture cement at Darra.

 

[basilio]

As far as the other assertions in your post, there appear to be problems there too, especially re ocean heat.

With regard to assertions on ocean heat.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/cooling-oceans.htm

Skeptical science does an excellent job detailing how oceans have been warming over the past 40 years and then examines the question of what has happened between 2003-2008. I assume that is what you were referring to.

My analogy was meant to convey that changes in the temperature of a very large body will not be immediately discernible with a change in net energy input and expecting anything else doesn't make sense. (unless one is taking about extraneous catastrophes ie hits from a comet). It will take a little time for the full effects of the extra CO2 to become apparent...

And of course the main point, the only point in my response was to draw attention to the science that is connecting historical levels of 380+ ppm CO2 with greatly increased temperatures and sharply higher sea levels.

 

[GoodCall]

Scientific proof?

 

[prawn_86]

Article from Wired magazine saying how we should focus on adapting to climate change rather than debating where it is coming from and if we can stop or even slow it - http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/11/st_essay_globalwarming/

 

[Calliope]

Article from Wired magazine saying how we should focus on adapting to climate change rather than debating where it is coming from and if we can stop or even slow it - http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/11/st_essay_globalwarming/

The last thing the pro-warmers want is for us to adapt to change and make the best of outcomes over which we have no control, hence their dire warnings on the fate of the earth and our grandchildren.

In a few years we will look back and wonder what the fuss was all about, in the same way that we now laugh at the ravings of Al Gore just a few years ago.

 

[basilio]

The last thing the pro-warmers want is for us to adapt to change and make the best of outcomes over which we have no control, hence their dire warnings on the fate of the earth and our grandchildren.

In a few years we will look back and wonder what the fuss was all about, in the same way that we now laugh at the ravings of Al Gore just a few years ago

Calliope you obviously have never actually read anything on the consequences of runaway global warming have you? And equally obviously neither has the inimitable writer from Wired magazine.

Scientists have deliberately not chosen to highlight the consequences of going past the various tipping points or positive feedback loops that will quicken and intensify what is currently happening.

FYI I have attached an analysis done two years ago. Good luck on Mars.

http://www.marklynas.org/2007/4/23/...y-of-six-degrees-as-published-in-the-guardian

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/11/six-degrees/

 

[Calliope]

Calliope you obviously have never actually read anything on the consequences of runaway global warming have you? And equally obviously neither has the inimitable writer from Wired magazine.

I obviously have an advantage over you in that I don't waste my time worrying about things that I can do nothing about, or trying to convert others to my way of thinking.

I hope you can put your worries and fears aside over Xmas, and have a merry one.

 

[brianwh]

We have had it rammed down our throats for the past two years that the Great Barrier Reef will be dead by mid century due to climate change; you know the CO2 factor that Rudd, Wong and Garrett keep harping about.

Well, the head lines in the Weekend Australian "Scientist 'crying wolf' over coral". An article written by Professor Peter Ridd physicist with Townsville's James Cook University says it all; these 'wolf criers' have a credibility problem because the Great Barrier Reef was in "bloody good shape".

Professor Ridd who has spent the last 25 years investigating the impact of coastal runoff and other problems for the reef, challenged the widely accepted notion that coral bleaching would wipe it out if climate change continued to increase sea surface tempertures. Instead of dying the reef could expand south towards Brisbane as waters below it became warmer and more tolerable for corals.

Radio National Breakfast carried a piece on this article in this morning's program. A marine biologist (I didn't catch the name) from UQ made the point that this was merely an opinion piece by Professor Ridd and noted that Professor Ridd has not published a peer-reviewed paper on this topic whereas a large number of peer-reviewed papers have been published contradicting his point of view. The point was also made that even if the warming does not kill the coral (he didn't actually say it wouldn't though), serious bleaching would have a major effect on its tourist value. And as for the coral establishing itself further south, he claimed that increasing acidity would make this unlikely.

 

[noco]

Radio National Breakfast carried a piece on this article in this morning's program. A marine biologist (I didn't catch the name) from UQ made the point that this was merely an opinion piece by Professor Ridd and noted that Professor Ridd has not published a peer-reviewed paper on this topic whereas a large number of peer-reviewed papers have been published contradicting his point of view. The point was also made that even if the warming does not kill the coral (he didn't actually say it wouldn't though), serious bleaching would have a major effect on its tourist value. And as for the coral establishing itself further south, he claimed that increasing acidity would make this unlikely.

brainwh, perhaps you should find out the name of your marine biologist and arrange contact with Professor Peter Ridd. No doubt Weekend Australian would have checked Professor Ridd's statement as being authentic, otherwise they would not have published it. Maybe your marine biologist used a 'TRICK' ????? to satisfy Mr.Midnight Oil.

Mate, I'm almost clicking 80 and have noted statements of coral bleaching for decades. I can remember blokes older than me saying back in the 40's and 50's, don't worry the Barrier Reef has been there for thousands of years and has been through it all before. It is strong enough to withstand many adverse conditions. I believe Professor Ridd knows what he talking about and I fully concur.

brainwh, have you any idea how large the Great Barrier Reef is? Well for your information it is 2000km long and has over 3000 reefs. Do you believe all of it is going to die. I don't know where you live or whether you have ever visted the reef, but if you haven't then perhaps you should pay a visit some day to appreciate the extent and the beauty. I have flown over several times and it is absolutely amazing.

 

[brianwh]

Noco

Surely the point is valid - if an opinion NOT based on peer-reviewed material contradicts a large number of peer-reviewed papers then logic would suggest you lean towards the latter.

I don't have the scientific backgound to be confident either way. But I hope most fervently that, if the skeptics are able to influence decision makers and nothing is done, then they had better be right. The consequences of being wrong don't bear thinking about.

And I have seen the barrier reef on several occasions and it is truly magnificent.

 

[wayneL]

Noco

Surely the point is valid - if an opinion NOT based on peer-reviewed material contradicts a large number of peer-reviewed papers then logic would suggest you lean towards the latter.

I don't have the scientific backgound to be confident either way. But I hope most fervently that, if the skeptics are able to influence decision makers and nothing is done, then they had better be right. The consequences of being wrong don't bear thinking about.

And I have seen the barrier reef on several occasions and it is truly magnificent.

People are viewing "peer review" as some sort of admission to the canon as the gospel truth. Peer review has been shown to be anything but as of recently... actually there are numerous examples of junk science and outright fraud slipping straight on through the peer review process, outside and inside climate science.

In many cases, peer review is a joke. I'm not saying that science shouldn't be subject to peer review at all, but that it is extremely fallible. In view of the latest revelations, it doesn't automatically entitle any research to be legitimized at all, it should be viewed with as much suspicion as any process involving vested interests.

If you want to look for threats to the GBR, look to nutrient and other pollutions as a result of farming practices (AKA land use) and NOT purported anthropogenic warming.

....and I got my peers to review that, I got the thumbs up.

 

[mythos]

I find this article by News Limited's James Murdoch provides a balanced view, of that even though the science may be not as black and white as people would like. There are benefits of reducing our dependence on Middle East oil and exploring new clean technologies still.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/03/AR2009120303698.html

 

[rowie]

Here is a revelation for all those caught up in believing in the climate science. The 'science' is not chemistry, nor physics, nor biology, nor geology, it is mostly statistics, something that good traders can fairly easily get a grasp of.

I have a tertiary degree in the Environment area, yet I cannot find any data that is not "adjusted" to show global warming. There is also nothing that is definitive showing that if any warming is happening it is man made. If anyone here has anything to show differently, I'd love to see it. I have read the IPCC reports.

People should be sceptical of all the different reports that come out, as most things are biased.

For the true believers I ask the question, If CO2 is really the culprit for global warming, then can anyone explain why the last time CO2 levels in the atmosphere were 380 ppm (current levels), the oceans were 15-40 metres higher than now and the temperature 3-6 degrees warmer?? (15 million years ago). I have asked this question in various forums, yet never receive a response from the CO2 believers.

Here is a link...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091008152242.htm

brty

I have been a somewhat global warming skeptic of late but this article(if accurate) is really quite scary. It could be basis to prove that higher carbon dioxide levels leads to global warming. If as it states that global temperatures were 4-5 degrees higher with similiar to todays levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, are we headed in this direction of warming. Crap! I am becoming less of a skeptic. And the increase in CO2 emmissions has only really started about 100 years ago, so the warming has only just begun and could grow exponentially? Like Basilio has said, it might take some time before the real warming begins as CO2 levels have only begun to rise dramatically in the past 40 years. Is this article a real worry or am I missing something? I am still 50-50 on this whole debate (not a believer but not entirely a skeptic either).

 

[Wysiwyg]

Does anyone know where on this planet the CO2 levels are recorded. I read one report that recorded from Mauna Loa, Hawaii. This man was the pioneer of atmospheric CO2 research and according to the records, the CO2 levels are rising. Remove the planets vegetation and increase the carbon emissions is obviously a path of ruin.

Are the Charles David Keeling (1928-2005) inspired data readings a true indication?

The work for which Keeling is rightfully most famous then ensued. In 1958 with the support of Harry Wexler of the U.S. Weather Service and Roger Revelle of Scripps, Keeling began an extensive survey of the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration in background air, including air-borne and ship-board measurements, and measurements at Mauna Loa Observatory and other land stations- measurements which have continued to this day under his guidance.

 

[bunyip]

I have no intention of joining an in depth debate on climate change.....I'll leave that to all you folks who relish a good argument!

One thing I note though, is that Rudd has been pointing to certain extreme weather events recently and claiming they're proof of man made global warming...e.g. the dust storm across Eastern Australia back in September, the recent heatwave, the heatwave and associated bushfires in Victoria earlier this year.

I wonder if Kev will have anything to say about the cold snap currently gripping Europe and the USA (with some US centres setting new records.)
Will the silly bastard come out and tell us this is proof of man made global cooling?
Of course not....it doesn't suit him to think that way so he'll keep his mouth closed and say nothing. This Rudd character is shaping up to be the biggest joke Australia has ever had for a Prime Minister.