Resisting Climate Hysteria

[wayneL]

I enjoyed your read.
The 3 things you have highlighted are all proven and not disputed.
Anthropogenic climate change is yet to be determined.To conclude there are more scientists now becoming skeptic about the evidence.A trend that should be monitored.

Exactly.

In typically alarmist (and hysterical) fashion, parallels are drawn that cannot be logically drawn. A scenario is presented as fact that in actual fact dwells in the realm of hypothesis. Meanwhile, provably damaging pollution and other environmental concerns are ignored.

In addition, the chief alarmists don't practice what they preach, getting rich and living with enormous carbon footprints off the back of their alarmism.

A carbon impoverished lifestyle is always for someone else to live, not them.

Well they can just #### right of with that idea.

If they lead from the front, maybe people might be less skeptical. When people see Al Bore et al living in a teepee and riding a push-bike everywhere, maybe they might take notice.

 

[Beej]

Greenland has been the focal point on climate change.

"From 986 AD, Greenland's west coast was colonised by Icelanders and Norwegians in two settlements on fjords near the southwestern-most tip of the island.[6] They shared the island with the late Dorset culture inhabitants who occupied the northern and eastern parts, and later with the Thule culture arriving from the north. The settlements, such as Brattahlið, thrived for centuries but disappeared some time in the 15th century, perhaps at the onset of the Little Ice Age.[7] Interpretation of ice core data suggests that between 800 and 1300 AD the regions around the fjords of southern Greenland experienced a mild climate, with trees and herbaceous plants growing and livestock being farmed. What is verifiable is that the ice cores indicate Greenland has experienced dramatic temperature shifts many times over the past 100,000 years — which makes it possible to say that areas of Greenland may have been much warmer during the medieval period than they are now and that the ice sheet contracted significantly."

Its a shame the professor Corrinne le Querre and her 31 disciples cant work out WTF happened here and perhaps correlated whats happening today rather than jumping to conclusions.

There was a link posted around here somewhere from the UK "Royal Society" that addresses this and other "misleading climate change arguments". The link now appears to be broken but I printed the document out and have it here in front of me, and your often repeated skeptic argument is addressed in their response to "misleading argument 1":

There have also been regional changes such as the 'Medieval Warning Period', when land less sea ice and larger areas of cultivated land were reported in Iceland. However, in contrast to these climate phases, the increase of three quarters of a degree centigrade (0.74 deg C) in average global temperatures that we have seen over the last century is larger than can be accounted for my natural factors alone.

So it seems in fact the climate scientists are well aware of the cherry picked data and resulting misleading argument that you present, and it is an event that is easily addressed by the science, and certainly has not been shown by any credible research to be a basis for de-bunking the whole anthropolical climate change conclusion as you attempt to do.

PS: Basilo - good post. I think you sum things up nicely. I personally find it more than a little hypocritical that it is the hard-core CC skeptics here on this thread that accuse others of being "religious" and "hysterical"

Just to be clear, as I see it there are really 3 aspects to the CC debate.

1) Has anthropological climate change occurred?

2) How accurate are the models that show how ongoing anthropological CC might impact the global climate over the coming century? Particularly with respect to CO2 emissions?

3) What (if anything) should we be doing about it? Either globally? Or nationally?

These debates seem to always get the 3 things very mixed up. The first point is virtually irrefutable. Those who try to cannot point to a single credible piece of peer reviewed research that dis-proves what is currently known on this front. The second is open to argument - models are never perfect and always have errors - personally I think they pretty much have the trend nailed, as demonstrated by the graph posted in one of the other threads that shows the models getting the last 150 year trend pretty much spot on with was actually observed. The third is the really controversial topic, but I think this thread is really focused on the first 2 aspects?

Cheers,

Beej

 

[basilio]

I enjoyed your read.
The 3 things you have highlighted are all proven and not disputed.

Perhaps I was too subtle with the 3 thought experiments I outlined.

a) Disregarding a legitimate hurricane warning in Australia is just totally foolish because we are confident enough in the science to know there will be a big blow on the way and that we need to make preparations. The fact that the sky is still blue now is immaterial to our decision to take decisive action in anticipation of a highly probable event.

b) It isn't necessarily the case that everyone realises that when the sea recedes quickly that a tidal wave is coming. I can remember observations made before the last Tsunami about people who did go out to pick up fish and look at emerging wrecks. But if you have the certain understanding of what is happening you would quickly realise the need to get the hell out of there.

c) With regard to sending off an overladen ship in the 1840's. It happened, and happened and happened practically as I outlined it. It didn't take rocket science to work out that an overladen ship would sink at the first sniff of a gale. But many owners were happy to insure their ships to the hilt, send them out and watch them sink. Pure legal murder.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Plimsoll
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2006/jun/25/biography.features

This was finally legally stopped when the Plimsoll line legislation was passed in 1876. It had a lot of trouble passing Parliament because there were many shipowners in the British Parliament who had made serious money sending out coffin ships.

You didn't have to be a genius to work out how dangerous accepted sailing practices were. There was plenty of objective evidence. But getting this legalised murder stopped against the financial interests of the shipowners was probably as hard as persuading fossil fuel companies and our broader society that unlimited CO2 emissions are irrevocably changing our climate.

 

[noco]

Isn't it amazing, it seems the more the Sceptics gain momentum in numbers, the Alarmist keep coming up with more outlandish hysteria of unfounded so called scientific facts of Global Warming (sorry it's now Climate Change since the Globe is actually cooling.)

It seems to be a case of, 'I can shout louder then you' and the dam media appears to give preference to the one who shouts the loudest.

Thank goodness we have the likes of Andrew Bolt who is not ashamed to bring out the truth.

 

[wayneL]

We keep addressing old points and going around in circles

1) Has anthropological climate change occurred?

Yes, along with natural CC. But the human induced factors are different to the main scare of GW

2) How accurate are the models that show how ongoing anthropological CC might impact the global climate over the coming century? Particularly with respect to CO2 emissions?

Pathetic.

3) What (if anything) should we be doing about it? Either globally? Or nationally?

Lots.

But the current focus attacks the wrong factors.

It's bogus.

 

[Calliope]

I enjoyed your read.
The 3 things you have highlighted are all proven and not disputed.
Anthropogenic climate change is yet to be determined.To conclude there are more scientists now becoming skeptic about the evidence.A trend that should be monitored.

You can be assured that the sceptics are being very closely monitored. Those who predict the end of the world is nigh sense they are close to victory and they will not willingly concede their power, even if it involves dispensing with democratic processes as Clive Hamilton has suggested.

 

[Vizion]

sorry it's now Climate Change since the Globe is actually cooling

Not quite...

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/cdrar/do_LTmapE.py

In the interest of full disclosure, the full discourse is below.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

 

[noco]

Not quite...

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/cdrar/do_LTmapE.py

In the interest of full disclosure, the full discourse is below.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

Isn't amazing what scientist can do on computers these days to satisfy their masters who pay them to come up with the answers they want to hear.

Penny Wong has produced similar models only to be proved wrong, time and time again. However, she still persists with her hysteria that we are all going to get swamped with sea water or burn to death if we don't stop Global Warming or Climate Change which ever suits the circumstances. Even our fearless leader has pressed the panic button with his recent outburst of cowards etc.etc.

31,700 Scientist from around the world have clearly stated any climate change is created by variations in the intensity of the Sun. Changes that have taken place for millions of years.

The Alarmists are becoming terrified at the momentun of the number of Sceptics of Global Warming, hence their hysteria in coming up with so called new evidence. The heat wave in the Southern states is typical. I can hear the champagne corks popping up hear in Townsille, the Alarmist just love it, the heat wave that is, and probably the bubbly as well.

 

[Julia]

Perhaps I was too subtle with the 3 thought experiments I outlined.

a) Disregarding a legitimate hurricane warning in Australia is just totally foolish because we are confident enough in the science to know there will be a big blow on the way and that we need to make preparations. The fact that the sky is still blue now is immaterial to our decision to take decisive action in anticipation of a highly probable event.

b) It isn't necessarily the case that everyone realises that when the sea recedes quickly that a tidal wave is coming. I can remember observations made before the last Tsunami about people who did go out to pick up fish and look at emerging wrecks. But if you have the certain understanding of what is happening you would quickly realise the need to get the hell out of there.

c) With regard to sending off an overladen ship in the 1840's. It happened, and happened and happened practically as I outlined it. It didn't take rocket science to work out that an overladen ship would sink at the first sniff of a gale. But many owners were happy to insure their ships to the hilt, send them out and watch them sink. Pure legal murder.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Plimsoll
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2006/jun/25/biography.features

This was finally legally stopped when the Plimsoll line legislation was passed in 1876. It had a lot of trouble passing Parliament because there were many shipowners in the British Parliament who had made serious money sending out coffin ships.

You didn't have to be a genius to work out how dangerous accepted sailing practices were. There was plenty of objective evidence. But getting this legalised murder stopped against the financial interests of the shipowners was probably as hard as persuading fossil fuel companies and our broader society that unlimited CO2 emissions are irrevocably changing our climate.

Basilio, I've found some of your previous posts to be reasonably objective but I simply can't see that the above provide a logical analogy to the current debate.

Could you answer just one question?

Why is there such desperation for Australia to have an ETS legislated prior to Copenhagen? Why does it not make more sense for everyone attending to reach some agreement about what (if anything) needs to be done on a global basis? After all it's apparently a global problem.

Do you not consider the current desperate urgency being displayed by the government may be more about Mr Rudd's passion for drawing attention to himself on the world stage by being able to say "We in Australia have already legislated, blah, blah, blah"?

And a further question: do you concede that an ETS - particularly one which is apparently so deeply flawed as this one which has even earned the condemnation of the government's own climate expert, Ross Garnaut - will almost certainly have a highly negative impact on our economy, possibly causing businesses to move offshore with their emissions, and put a great strain on the many Australians who are already attempting to exist at or below the poverty line?

Imo a good deal of the reason the 'climate agnostics' become so irritated with the devotees is the apparent lack of consideration they give to anything other than just the physical environment.

 

[Vizion]

31,700 Scientist from around the world have clearly stated any climate change is created by variations in the intensity of the Sun. Changes that have taken place for millions of years.

31,700... How about a link to where you got this amazing fact.?

I work in the science's, & honestly, I cannot believe I missed such an important document in all the hysteria that is going on. Do please post the link, so I can see which of my colleagues broke ranks with our all powerful masters. My god, they are going to be in such trouble when they get found out.

 

[Sdajii]

This is typical of most human patterns. People choose a belief they like rather than a belief based on a careful examination of the evidence, and then, once they have this baseless belief, they go about trying to fabricate evidence to convince themselves and others that they are correct.

Climate change is blatantly obviously a real phenomenon, it has been having massive effects since before modern humans even existed, let alone started doing anything interesting. We know that climate change has been so extreme it has created land bridges between Australia and PNG, several times, including quite recently. If that was to happen again over the next few years, no doubt many people would blame human influence.

How much our influence is affecting climate change is a question I don't believe we can fully answer yet. I am a climate change agnostic (in terms of how much affect humans are having).

The climate change skeptics seem to laugh at the 'hystericals' (certainly a very unfair and extremely hypocritical label - neither side has the evidence to call the other stupid) and vice versa. Something which strikes me as very strange is that the skeptics seem to think that since humans are not causing climate change, we are all going to be okay, while the other side thinks that if reversing the human influence will solve all our problems...

Both sides seem to be making a fundamental mistake - they both assume that the only potential for climate problems is human influence.

Regardless of whether it is caused by humans, solar activity, natural terran cycles, alien or divine intervention, significant climate change is going to happen, and it will severely screw us. The answer is not necessarily either reversing human impacts or discounting them and kicking back to enjoy ourselves. We need to accept that climate change is inevitable, and we need to prepare for it.

If none of us had ever seen a tidal wave, and we had a magical opportunity to grab fish and explore reefs, we would all probably take it. Modern civilisation has not yet seen significant climate change events, and the first major one of modern history is going to really catch most of the world by surprise. Humans are like that, we never learn our lessons the easy way.

 

[basilio]

Basilio, I've found some of your previous posts to be reasonably objective but I simply can't see that the above provide a logical analogy to the current debate

This thread was about Resisting Climate Hysteria. My discussion started off exploring how Professor Lindzen et al had cleverly crafted a way to dismiss those who accepted the current scientific view were hysterical and could be disregarded. The thought experiments were ways of exploring how quite sensible and logical responses to a situation could be disregarded as hysterical. Obviously I was referring to most of the current comments.

Why is there such desperation for Australia to have an ETS legislated prior to Copenhagen? Why does it not make more sense for everyone attending to reach some agreement about what (if anything) needs to be done on a global basis? After all it's apparently a global problem.

One of the key elements in these negotiations is about leadership and showing good faith. The idea is that if some countries make a stand others are more inclined to follow. That's the theory and I suspect that when it comes down to personalities it's more likely that leaders can be swayed by each other.

Do you not consider the current desperate urgency being displayed by the government may be more about Mr Rudd's passion for drawing attention to himself on the world stage by being able to say "We in Australia have already legislated, blah, blah, blah"?

Possibly. Like all politicians Rudd certainly has a healthy ego. He's very bright, very driven, very determined and on balance would be at the top end of capability in comparision to most political leaders.

Another possibility of course is that he actually get's the issue and realises just how desperate the situation is and how badly affected Australia will be.

And a further question: do you concede that an ETS - particularly one which is apparently so deeply flawed as this one which has even earned the condemnation of the government's own climate expert, Ross Garnaut - will almost certainly have a highly negative impact on our economy, possibly causing businesses to move offshore with their emissions, and put a great strain on the many Australians who are already attempting to exist at or below the poverty line?

Is the ETS flawed? Absolutely. The targets are too low. There are far too many exemptions. I fear there will widespread gaming of the system. I have made these comments in other forums.

Will it have a highly negative effect on our economy? Certainly the industries that are currently heavy fossil fuel users would like us to believe that. But there is another side to story.

If we accept the fact that fossil fuels are running out we must make super rapid progress to renewable energy sources if we are to keep any sort of economic infrastructure alive. One of the economic models Rudd is offering is the rapid development of a green economy with hundreds of thousands of new jobs in new green industries. Will it happen ? Not sure but we can be absolutely sure it won't happen if policy directions and parameters are not established to change the direction of our economy.

The fact is Julia we have to create a renewable and sustainable economy or we just fall over. By definition a mining lead economy runs out of resources in the very foreseeable future.

I think the comment about all the people on the poverty line is a furphy. There is more likely to be widespread employment in a thriving, widespread renewable economy than one based on localised highly capitalised resource extraction.

Just to refer back to my thought experiment and the fight that Samuel Plimsoll had to stop coffin ships. Make no mistake about it. At the time the wealthy ship owners in the name of commercial freedom and profit sent hundreds of people to their deaths in legalized murder. And they didn't lightly agree to laws that would protect the public but were against their economic interests. It took a Royal Commission and many years of widespread public agitation to get the laws changed. I suggest there is a parallel to the current situation where the richest industries in the world have a very vested interest in delaying a movement to renewable energy use.

Imo a good deal of the reason the 'climate agnostics' become so irritated with the devotees is the apparent lack of consideration they give to anything other than just the physical environment.

You can't make a dollar on a dead planet. Obviously many other people on this forum totally disagree but I consider ignoring the overwhelming scientific evidence on global warming and it's causes to be akin to ignoring cyclone warnings because it's still calm and sunny. But if one chooses to not accept this science .. well you take the consequences. Trouble is we all go down in the same boat.

 

[wayneL]

The climate change skeptics seem to laugh at the 'hystericals' (certainly a very unfair and extremely hypocritical label - neither side has the evidence to call the other stupid) and vice versa. Something which strikes me as very strange is that the skeptics seem to think that since humans are not causing climate change, we are all going to be okay, while the other side thinks that if reversing the human influence will solve all our problems...

The above paragraph is confused.

You seem to lump skeptics (aka agnostics) in with outright deniers (while placing yourself in the middle). The reason agnostics like me - and I'm only agnostic about the extent of the role of co2 - laugh at the alarmists, it that they only consider the most extreme Hollywood Al Gore version of the next few decades.

That is totally laughable. The Gore nonsense has proven to be just that, nonsense. Packed so full of distortions, cherry picking and emotive garbage, that it deserves to be considered a work of a productive imagination, rather than a possible scenario. Not science at all.

Yet they studiously ignore the likes of Pielke(s) et al who have a more realistic, balanced and more holistic view of the available science from which more workable solutions may be developed.

The alarmist's views are just as laughable as the people who deny climate ever changes, human influence or not. In actual fact, there are very few of those and many of them are merely taking extreme views to counterbalance the alarmists... classic attitude polarization.

The only thing that is not funny is that the alarmists inhabit (infest) journalism and government and therefore twist and skew the information available to the public. Any contradictory science is quietly ignored or hidden on page 234 of the newspaper next to the bereavements or something like that.

Disingenuous ####s!

Both sides seem to be making a fundamental mistake - they both assume that the only potential for climate problems is human influence.

Regardless of whether it is caused by humans, solar activity, natural terran cycles, alien or divine intervention, significant climate change is going to happen, and it will severely screw us. The answer is not necessarily either reversing human impacts or discounting them and kicking back to enjoy ourselves. We need to accept that climate change is inevitable, and we need to prepare for it.

If none of us had ever seen a tidal wave, and we had a magical opportunity to grab fish and explore reefs, we would all probably take it. Modern civilisation has not yet seen significant climate change events, and the first major one of modern history is going to really catch most of the world by surprise. Humans are like that, we never learn our lessons the easy way.

Climate change will happen, as it has done for the millennia. But to reverse the line from possibly the most annoying ad on TV, It will happen, but it won't happen overnight.

Humans will adapt to changing climate patterns. But we must stop trashing the planet, that is for sure. This is the BIG issue, not the amount of co2 being emitted. The reason it will catch the world by surprise is that it will probably be totally different to what those dogmatic IPCCer alarmists are preaching.

Sudden climate change will only come at the hands of a loons with red buttons or something like Yellowstone or Taupo blowing up.

Meanwhile this whole political Copenhagen/IPCC/Rudd cap and trade nonsense has a whole different agenda... and it obviously ain't reducing overall emissions.

 

[Vizion]

Humans will adapt to changing climate patterns.

There is a high probability of this. To what degree is total supposition.

Yet they studiously ignore the likes of Pielke(s) et al who have a more realistic, balanced and more holistic view of the available science from which more workable solutions may be developed.

This is only your opinion. Pielke has no more an idea of the full mechanisms in play that any other scientist. His research like all others is probability based. His theories simply sit better with your own views. Your choice of language like "holistic" & "reasonable" betrays this fact, you can't have it both ways.

The alarmist's views are just as laughable as the people who deny climate ever changes, human influence or not. In actual fact, there are very few of those and many of them are merely taking extreme views to counterbalance the alarmists... classic attitude polarization.

Agreed.

But we must stop trashing the planet, that is for sure.

Agreed.

Humans will adapt to changing climate patterns.

Yes but to what degree is uncertain. As stated above, NO ONE fully understands the science of climate.

This is the BIG issue, not the amount of co2 being emitted.

Once again this is only an opinion. Please stop saying this as if you know the answers. You DO NOT know this to be fact, any more than those in the scientific community who practice good research, who are honest & state only known facts. You DO NOT know better than ANYONE else what is true.

The only thing that is not funny is that the alarmists inhabit (infest) journalism and government and therefore twist and skew the information available to the public.

Agreed to point, this is as much a blanket statement, as full of bias as any.

Sudden climate change will only come at the hands of a loons with red buttons or something like Yellowstone or Taupo blowing up.

As stated above NO ONE fully knows where or if or at what point, there might or might not be "sudden" climate change. Define sudden. Please stop making blanket statements that are just as wrong as the alarmists ones.

Everyone is entitled to have an opinion, you are being as biased in your methodology in putting them forward as everyone else, by putting them forward as facts. They are unproven theories, nothing more nothing less.

 

[wayneL]

This is only your opinion. Pielke has no more an idea of the full mechanisms in play that any other scientist. His research like all others is probability based. His theories simply sit better with your own views. Your choice of language like "holistic" & "reasonable" betrays this fact, you can't have it both ways.

Perhaps, but Pielke et al do take all the science to form those opinions, rather than cherrypicking data. This means he is likely to be less biased. Actually, Pielke made me change my views, they didn't sit so well at first. I chose his position as the most likely because of his lack of bias and did not exclude any science.

Once again this is only an opinion. Please stop saying this as if you know the answers. You DO NOT know this to be fact, any more than those in the scientific community who practice good research, who are honest & state only known facts. You DO NOT know better than ANYONE else what is true.

I'll stop so long as everybody else does. While they state their pet views as fact, so will I. We all know it is just opinion.

Agreed to point, this is as much a blanket statement, as full of bias as any.

No, it is a demonstrable reality

As stated above NO ONE fully knows where or if or at what point, there might or might not be "sudden" climate change. Define sudden. Please stop making blanket statements that are just as wrong as the alarmists ones.

If you show me an incidence of sudden global climate change without some precipitous intervening event, I'll accept your statement. Until then I stand by mine.

Everyone is entitled to have an opinion, you are being as biased in your methodology in putting them forward as everyone else, by putting them forward as facts. They are unproven theories, nothing more nothing less.

Wrong. They are not even theories, they are hypotheses. If the one thing that could be achieved through all the bluster, bs, grandstanding, scare tactics and debate, is the simple fact of your statement that nobody knows what the ~~~~ is going on.

I will readily concede anything you say here. But the problem is that the alarmists will concede no such thing, they promote their hypothesis as actual fact and are causing dramatic policy decisions having convinced idiot politicians of such.

The terms of the debate is that ones guesswork is promoted as the unequivocal truth; those terms are framed by the extremists and those are the rules all in the debate must abide to be heard.

Look, we live in a world where we are told daily we will be swimming in boiling oceans within our lifetime as if it were a fact. The most dodgy science imaginable is made into a movie and promoted as the future. The producer of such fiction jags a Nobel Prize and gets rich by this alarmism.

The world needs a counterpoint to this vile manipulation with questionable ends. The outright deniers aren't effective and there are issues we do need to deal with.

The truth is that the IPCC models are a failure and much of the science a fraud and/or interpreted for a defined end. This is not how science should be.

Now we have politicians equating CC sceptics with holocaust deniers. WTF? This madness must stop.

Therefore I and others will continue to couch our views in exactly the same way they do. The debate is not fair so there are different rules.

 

[lasty]

"Rudd certainly has a healthy ego. He's very bright, very driven, very determined and on balance would be at the top end of capability in comparision to most political leaders."

No, Rudd is just a spruiker with very little substance and it appears he is doing a very good job at fooling quite a few

 

[Beej]

Isn't amazing what scientist can do on computers these days to satisfy their masters who pay them to come up with the answers they want to hear.

Penny Wong has produced similar models only to be proved wrong, time and time again. However, she still persists with her hysteria that we are all going to get swamped with sea water or burn to death if we don't stop Global Warming or Climate Change which ever suits the circumstances. Even our fearless leader has pressed the panic button with his recent outburst of cowards etc.etc.

Yep - that's the way, if credible, peer reviewed science ever shows up any facts that don't fit with your pre-conceived views and conclusions, it must all be a great conspiracy - got it!

Also, speaking of hysteria and alarmism, got any links showing a quote from Penny Wong where where she indicates that it is likely we are all going to burn to death or get swamped by sea water??

31,700 Scientist from around the world have clearly stated any climate change is created by variations in the intensity of the Sun. Changes that have taken place for millions of years.

The Alarmists are becoming terrified at the momentun of the number of Sceptics of Global Warming, hence their hysteria in coming up with so called new evidence. The heat wave in the Southern states is typical. I can hear the champagne corks popping up hear in Townsille, the Alarmist just love it, the heat wave that is, and probably the bubbly as well.

As others have asked - got a link or reference for the above claim? You call people "alarmists" and "hysterical" and yet you spout completely made up stats and misleading/mis-represented scientific arguments. Please see below quote for what the UK Royal Society has to say re your "it's all caused by changes in the Sun" argument, just for the sake of keeping some of the facts in the debate:

Misleading Argument # 6: It’s all to do with the Sun - for example, there is a strong link between increased temperatures on Earth and the number of sunspots on the Sun.

What does the science say?

Change in solar activity is one of the many factors that influence the climate but cannot, on its own, account for all the changes in global average temperature we have seen in the 20th Century.

Changes in the Sun’s activity influence the Earth’s climate through small but significant variations in its intensity. When it is in a more ‘active’ phase – as indicated by a greater number of sunspots on its surface – it emits more light and heat. While there is evidence of a link between solar activity and some of the warming in the early 20th Century, measurements from satellites show that there has been very little change in underlying solar activity in the last 30 years – there is even evidence of a detectable decline – and so this cannot account for the recent rises we have seen in global temperatures.

The magnitude and pattern of changes to temperatures can only be understood by taking all of the relevant factors – both natural and human – into account. For example, major volcanic eruptions produce a cooling effect because they blast ash and other particles into the atmosphere where they persist for a few years and reduce the amount of the Sun’s energy that reaches the Earth’s surface. Also, burning fossil fuels produces particles called sulphate aerosols which tend to cool the climate in the same way.

Over the first part of the 20th Century higher levels of solar activity combined with increases in human generated carbon dioxide to raise temperatures. Between 1940 and 1970 the carbon dioxide effect was probably offset by increasing amounts of sulphate aerosols in the atmosphere, and a slight downturn in solar activity, as well as enhanced
volcanic activity.

During this period global temperatures dropped. However, in the latter part of the 20th Century temperatures rose well above the levels of the 1940s. Strong measures taken to reduce sulphate pollution in some regions of the world meant that industrial aerosols began to provide less compensation for an increasing warming caused by carbon dioxide. The rising temperature during this period has been partly abated by occasional volcanic eruptions.

PS: To be very clear and avoid irrelevant/confused debate, this post is aimed at exclusively addressing issue "1" around the CC/GW debate. That is, is there concrete scientific evidence of significant anthropological climate impact/global warming? There are no comments or predictions above about what may or may not happen in the future with our climate, or what is or is not appropriate government action in response to any possible threat from CC.

Beej

 

[Mofra]

Our choice of reading on the climate change argument, usually depends on whether we are alarmists or sceptics.

No you got that the wrong way round.

How would you know whether you fit into one camp or another (because nobody is allowed to have an open mind or read any opinion which doesn't match their own ) before reading information about it? How does one choose which paper to read if they haven't yet formed an opinion (because obviously you can't read anything that doesn't confirm to one's own views)?

There is definately a logic-gap in your argument.

 

[Sdajii]

wayneL: I agree with most of what you posted. Just to clarify though, I am not exactly putting myself into a different category from alarmists or skeptics, I suppose you could say I am both. I am skeptical (agnostic) about the human role in climate change, but believe it is going to happen regardless, and severely harm us.

Then again, if it harms us sooner than later it might actually be a blessing in disguise. A billion people dying in 2020 might be enough to wake us up, rethink the way we utilise our planet, and allow us to prevent eight billion people dying in 2050.

Regardless of climate change, we are 'yeast people', and sooner or later the 'sugar' will run out. If significant climate change events happen when we are close to exhausting our sugar supply, the number of people who are caught out and starve to death will be far greater, it could potentially kill most people on the planet. If they happen afterwards they probably won't matter too much. If they happen before, well, it might be beneficial. Then again, it might just turn out that we don't get any significant impact from climate change at all.

Either way, we, the yeast people, are still going to run out of sugar. Enjoy it while we still have a bit left!

 

[Calliope]

Despite the dire warnings of the nasty fate that awaits us if we don't embrace the GW religion I don't think the message is getting through.

The exodus of those from southern states heading north into warmer climes far exceeds those heading in the other direction seeking cooler climes (or higher ground). Queensland even attracts about a third of those migrating from NZ.

Premier Bligh is concerned that Queensland is becoming too crowded for the infrastructure to handle. There is a suggestion that scare campaigns do not work. Instead of Rudd vilifying sceptics perhaps he should start telling the truth. It would be a refreshing change.