Resisting Climate Hysteria

[basilio]

Ahh the D word again. You lose basilio.

However, to repeat *yet again*, nobody is denying the warming and sea level trend since the end of the little ice age, otherwise we'd still be in the little ice age wouldn't we?

But wasn't the immediate point the lack of integrity and debunking of the Cook paper? What has that got to do with a paper on Antarctica?

The paper on Antartica? Just the science that outlines the reality of big changes in the earths warmth, in this case shown through warmer ocean waters, and the dramatic effect this is having on the Antarctic ice shelf.

If you choose to ignore this evidence- and the thousands of other papers that document how our world is being affected by warming - thats your business.

With regard to the the warming since the Little Ice age. At what stage does coming out of the Little Ice age turn into serious warming? I suggest about 1 degree C ago. - before we saw the melting of the Arctic sea ice, Greenland ice cap, glaciers around the world and the Antarctic ice shelf.

 

[basilio]

Where do we get our evidence re Global Warming? It's causes, current effects, possible long term consequences.?

Why not consider the work of NASA in pulling together this information.

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

What does NASA have to do with climate change

When people think of NASA, they think of rovers on Mars, astronauts floating aboard the International Space Station, or probes veering out to the edge of the solar system. They don’t necessarily link NASA with climate research and observations. But Earth is a planet too, and NASA is one of the biggest players in the Earth science arena, with broad expertise on observing our climate, especially from the vantage point of space. Today it spends over a billion dollars a year doing Earth science and has more than a dozen satellites in orbit around the planet watching the oceans, land, ice, atmosphere and biosphere.

In the 1970s, NASA’s planetary exploration budget fell dramatically. It was then that the agency really got into the business of studying our home planet from orbit. It was also a time when people were beginning to realize that our climate could change relatively fast, on the scale of the human lifespan. Today, we know that our climate is changing at an unprecedented rate and that humans are a key part of that change. NASA continues to launch new satellite missions, and is also relying on aircraft (manned and unmanned), as well as scientists on the ground, to take vital measurements of things like snowpack and hurricanes, augmenting the big-picture view we get from space.

NASA’s role is to make observations of our climate that can be used by the public, policymakers and to support strategic decisions. Its job is to do rigorous science. However, the agency does not promote particular climate policies.

 

[wayneL]

If you choose to ignore this evidence- and the thousands of other papers that document how our world is being affected by warming - thats your business.

This is where you seem to be having problems bas. Indeed this is where Cook seems to be having problems.

You see it as a binary deal:
a/ outright denial, or
b/ a worst case scenario

Most "sceptics" are somewhere in the middle, accepting the real world data and relating to modelling and forecasts....with an eye on political manipulations.

IOW there is a spectrum of views bas and only the realization of events as they unfold will validate those views.

 

[orr]

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...tic-set-up-australian-centre#comment-50567296

Abbott gives $4million to Bjorn Lomborg to sprook drivel; See what happens when you don't have a Science Minister.

http://www.lomborg-errors.dk

Funding better spent on women sheltering from domestic Violence maybe. Not to Captian Climate Change Is Crap Clown Shoes. If that ain't Denialist I don't know What is

 

[basilio]

You see it as a binary deal:
a/ outright denial, or
b/ a worst case scenario Wayne

I suggest Wayne this is where you have the problem.
It is totally fallacious to say that Cook et al see only a worst case scenario re climate change.

Everyone from the IPCC down discuss a range of scenarios that might unfold. These are based on how many greenhouse gases will end up in the atmosphere, the range of possible climate sensitivities to these gases and then the current unknowns - melting of the permafrost, loss of forest and therefore carbon sinks and so on.

The most cursory reading of any CCanalysis will discuss the range of scenarios. Check out this URL for that type of summary

http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/201...cc’s-predictions-for-future-temperature-rise/

And then we have people who essentially reject even the possibility that increasing greenhouse gases will have more than a modicum of effect on the climate. I have yet to see a skeptic acknowledge even the lowest level scenarios outlined by the remainder of the scientific community

Indeed many of these people think that there is nothing of note currently occurring when we have had roughly 1 degree of warming. For example I have yet to hear any Climate Contrarians address the research I raised on the irreversible melting of part of the Antarctic ice shelf and the consequences that will have on coastal cities.

 

[wayneL]

One degree of warming since when?

 

[basilio]

One degree of warming since when?

The above graph takes us to 2009. In 2014 we have reached the previous maximums of 1997. The difference between 1950 and 2014 is the One degree C. In fact the majority of the increase occurred from the late 70's

From a geographical perspective many of the large scale changes in glacier loss, melting of Polar ice caps, melting of permafrost have occurred in this time span.

 

[wayneL]

How do you explain the difference in the Berkeley data and the sets I put up earlier?

 

[explod]

How do you explain the difference in the Berkeley data and the sets I put up earlier?

No one can because the variables are massaged by which ever side of the result wanted.

However, I have observed enormouse change in my lifetime.

The tadpoles on our farm till the drought of 1968 were prolific and have never returned, and they evolved there over many millions of years. The rains used to start, about now and there was mud to the tops of our gumboots till late October. No mud of any consequence since the early 70s.

The possums on Belcolm Creek Mount Marta were all taken out in a heatwave about 5 years ago never to be seen again. It took millions of years for them to evolve also.

If one has read the Sixth Extinction you will know that the mealt and change this time has been so fast it is frieghtening. Apart from a fast reaction from a volcanoe and a metiour the change now is beyond a natural cause. Of course the damage by coal burning and vehicle engines started the melt but now we have 20 times more pollution occurring due to methane escaping from under the permafrost areas as triggerred by coal/oil.

People of the bush know it by observations and that is why even farmers are turning away from the CP and towards the Greens . Of couse the numbers are slow because the farms are being sold off to overseas interests.

 

[basilio]

How do you explain the difference in the Berkeley data and the sets I put up earlier?

Because, Wayne, your data only covered the period from 1996-2014 while the graph I posted was from 1950 to 2009. The longer term does tell the full picture.

 

[wayneL]

Because, Wayne, your data only covered the period from 1996-2014 while the graph I posted was from 1950 to 2009. The longer term does tell the full picture.

I'm comparing the relevant (same) period, i.e 20 years

 

[basilio]

I'm comparing the relevant (same) period, i.e 20 years

Isn't that a bit off the topic Wayne? I thought we were trying to establish evidence of the recent increase in earths average temperature (roughly 1C) and the consequent effect on melting of ice caps and ice shelfs.

The point there is that these increases alone are causing changes in our geography that will have a very big impact - let alone any further temperature increases that are likely to directly caused by ice melt.

Decreasing Arctic albedo boosts global warming

A new paper in PNAS, called Observational determination of albedo caused by vanishing sea ice, reminds me of scientific work Peter Wadhams published a year and a half ago wherein he showed Arctic ice melt is 'like adding 20 years of CO2 emissions'. He based this assertion on calculations, as can be read in this BBC article from around that time.

This new paper by Pistone et al., however, is based on observations (as it says in the title) and similarly concludes that the "decrease in albedo is equivalent to roughly 25 percent of the average global warming currently occurring due to increased carbon dioxide levels"

http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2014/02/decreasing-arctic-albedo-boosts-global-warming.html

 

[wayneL]

Seeing as you are avoiding the Cook take down, the current topic seems to be 1 degree of warming.

My question is according to what data and since when. These queries are entirely relevent and on topic.

 

[moXJO]

Not sure about in total (assuming you are referring to Australia only rather than global) but I can comment so far as electricity generation emissions (the largest single source) are concerned.

Thanks smurf for the detailed post.

 

[Smurf1976]

Thanks smurf for the detailed post.

No worries.

I'll add that where electricity comes from on a day to day basis is driven by the commercial and other (eg technical) considerations of generation businesses. The market as a whole must be supplied in full, that is a "hard" engineering limit that is very precisely complied with at all times (lights go out otherwise) but whether power station A, B or C generates a specific amount at any given time (or at all) is driven by price offers, themselves driven by what the owner wants to do.

That said, costs have certainly tilted the balance in favour of coal in recent times. That's a purely economic outcome - brown coal is almost free as it always was, black coal prices have dropped, gas prices are going up. That shifts the economic balance toward coal and away from gas.

Meanwhile hydro operators with storage capacity are holding back in the expectation that market prices will be higher post-2017 than they are now due to expiry of their rivals' cheap gas contracts and possibly the re-introduction of some form of carbon tax. There's just no point selling cheaply now, if you can store it and sell at a higher price in 2 - 3 years' time. Not all hydro schemes can store water for that long, the dams just aren't large enough, but some can and they've got quite a bit of space to store more at the moment.

 

[Knobby22]

Good points. The advantages of hydro are manifold but there aren't any hydro companies on the share market are there?

The so called shortage of gas that was going to up the price 4-8 times really should not occur now that it will not be generally used to produce electricity. it is going to be a bit embarrassing however at the next international climate meeting when our emissions continue to rise however.

On another point, the sacking of the climate commission saving $1.6 million dollars long term could probably be justified to save tax payers money but why then give $4 million to the Danish climate change minimiser Bjorn Lomborg to set up a "climate consensus centre" in WA? Why come here?

Goodbye taxpayers money, enjoy the holiday Bjorn.

 

[Logique]

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...tic-set-up-australian-centre#comment-50567296
Abbott gives $4million to Bjorn Lomborg to sprook drivel; See what happens when you don't have a Science Minister.
http://www.lomborg-errors.dk
Funding better spent on women sheltering from domestic Violence maybe. Not to Captian Climate Change Is Crap Clown Shoes. If that ain't Denialist I don't know What is

Where were you when Flim-Flam was raking in $180k of taxpayers money each year, plus public speaking fees, to tell us that Perth was going to be a ghost metropolis? And that the dams would empty? Or now suddenly becoming a paid advisor (salary undisclosed) to the Climate Council.

Submit to my alarmist religion or the wives get it - is that what you're saying.

 

[noco]

How can flim flam Fannery live with himself after making all the wrong predictions and accepting climate change scientist of the year.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...l_warns_sceptics_that_it_knows_where_we_live/

 

[wayneL]

About on par with Obamas peace (cough) prize

 

[noco]

How can flim flam Fannery live with himself after making all the wrong predictions and accepting climate change scientist of the year.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...l_warns_sceptics_that_it_knows_where_we_live/

And to think this Flannery idiot convinced the three Labor states of Victoria, NSW and Queensland to spend billions on desalinization plants, which are now in mothballs, with his dud predictions.

I don't think he will be saying "SORRY".

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...un/comments/when_will_tim_flannery_say_sorry/