Resisting Climate Hysteria

[OzWaveGuy]

You can see why alarmists have been quiet on the % contribution of CO2 from man v's nature. The numbers are so small and the government could never win a PR campaign should these figures (esp the Australia contribution) be openly discussed.

Ask your friends (and MPs) what % of the atmosphere is CO2 and what is the human component of that. Then ask them if we reduced our CO2 gas emissions by 5%, what change in the global temperature would we expect to see?

Alan Jones in his "comical" way goes thru the numbers....

Alan Jones speaks to climate change scientist Professor David Karoly.

 

[derty]

You can see why alarmists have been quiet on the % contribution of CO2 from man v's nature. The numbers are so small and the government could never win a PR campaign should these figures (esp the Australia contribution) be openly discussed.

Ask your friends (and MPs) what % of the atmosphere is CO2 and what is the human component of that. Then ask them if we reduced our CO2 gas emissions by 5%, what change in the global temperature would we expect to see?

Alan Jones in his "comical" way goes thru the numbers....

Alan Jones speaks to climate change scientist Professor David Karoly.

I haven't heard that much stupid packed into 20 minutes in a long time. Jones is an ignorant rude bore who cuts the mike to talk over his guest.

Jones probably also thinks that the last ice age is a warmist conspiracy too OWG.

 

[wayneL]

I haven't heard that much stupid packed into 20 minutes in a long time. Jones is an ignorant rude bore who cuts the mike to talk over his guest.

Jones probably also thinks that the last ice age is a warmist conspiracy too OWG.

Hey derty,

Claims and assertions on both sides there and not much scientific backup really.

The word "clearly" repeated as nauseam by the boffin. But nothing is clear really is it? I think AJ did a great job in highlighting that, whether an ignorant rude bore or not. Last statement contained "beyond reasonable doubt", yet he admitted beforehand that the science isn't settled.... that means there is reasonable doubt doesn't it?

I contend the use of language by Karoly is rather less scientific and rather more political. IMNTBCHO of course.

BTW, are only AGW dissenters ignorant rude bores or can a climate alarmist be one too?

 

[basilio]

I haven't heard that much stupid packed into 20 minutes in a long time. Jones is an ignorant rude bore who cuts the mike to talk over his guest.

Jones probably also thinks that the last ice age is a warmist conspiracy too OWG.

Yes it was an eye opener to realise how much totally stupid vitriol could be poured on a highly knowledgable scientist. You certainly couldn't use facts or logic in talking with Alan Jones on a topic like climate change.

With reference to the statement that humans only contribute 3% of the CO2 in the atmosphere.

Quite true. Before the industrial revolution the natural cycle of growth and death resulted in a CO2 levels staying stable. Overall CO2 was cycled from the growth and decay of plants. In fact scientists are able to see a saw tooth pattern of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere which corresponds to the cycles of spring and autumn.

However when humans started to add substantial amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere through burning fossil fuels the extra CO2 has mostly stayed there ( there has been some absorption in the oceans but this is starting to slow down as well) . So we now see the saw tooth graphs rising at first steadily but now at an accelerating rate.

The effect of the extra CO2 has been to trap more heat into the atmosphere. The greenhouse effect.

The time lags for temperature changes as a result of this additional CO2 are measured in decades not years. But they are coming and unless the process is reversed we will see average global temperature increases of 2-5 C.

If (as seems likely) the increase in temperatures releases CO2 already stored in the ocean or the soil and the permafrost continues to melt in the Arctic regions releasing billions of tons of methane into the atmosphere then the greenhouse effect will be accelerated and average global temperatures would increase above the 2-5 C degree levels.

 

[mexican]

Yes it was an eye opener to realise how much totally stupid vitriol could be poured on a highly knowledgable scientist. You certainly couldn't use facts or logic in talking with Alan Jones on a topic like climate change.

With reference to the statement that humans only contribute 3% of the CO2 in the atmosphere.

Quite true. Before the industrial revolution the natural cycle of growth and death resulted in a CO2 levels staying stable. Overall CO2 was cycled from the growth and decay of plants. In fact scientists are able to see a saw tooth pattern of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere which corresponds to the cycles of spring and autumn.

However when humans started to add substantial amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere through burning fossil fuels the extra CO2 has mostly stayed there ( there has been some absorption in the oceans but this is starting to slow down as well) . So we now see the saw tooth graphs rising at first steadily but now at an accelerating rate.

The effect of the extra CO2 has been to trap more heat into the atmosphere. The greenhouse effect.

The time lags for temperature changes as a result of this additional CO2 are measured in decades not years. But they are coming and unless the process is reversed we will see average global temperature increases of 2-5 C.

If (as seems likely) the increase in temperatures releases CO2 already stored in the ocean or the soil and the permafrost continues to melt in the Arctic regions releasing billions of tons of methane into the atmosphere then the greenhouse effect will be accelerated and average global temperatures would increase above the 2-5 C degree levels.

So what do you think about Professor Bob Carter's hypothesis?

 

[OzWaveGuy]

How quickly the alarmists rush to defend with the usual regurgitated "zombie" CO2 propaganda, yet even Karoly couldn't point to any observed evidence of CO2 driving temperatures. In fact, it's temperatures that drive CO2 not the reverse, no surprise that Karoly didn't debate Jones when this topic was raised in the interview.

But no problem, alarmists can simply add an "Important Notice" to their magical work paid by the people of Australia to ensure there is no liability whilst collecting their grants.

 

[Boggo]

I copied this from another site, worth showing I think.

Below is a picture of Michael Caton with a picture of the Battersea power station in the UK in the background, Battersea was closed down in 1983.

Bottom pic is what it actually looks like.

These people seriously believe the majority are morons, maybe they are right ?

.

 

[Knobby22]

They have painted the towers white - how pretty! No soot there.

 

[bandicoot76]

They have painted the towers white - how pretty! No soot there.

actually what you can vissibly see emitted from the stacks of any power station is only water vapour! not soot nor CO2,

any solid bi-products (ie 'soot') is cleaned & removed by scrubber units where-as the CO2 is non visable... its colourless.

the pictures of stacks 'belching CO2' are a miss-representation. engineering 101

 

[Boggo]

They have painted the towers white - how pretty! No soot there.

They were actually white when Pink Floyd placed a flying pig between the chimneys on one of their album covers many moons ago.

(Flying pig - relevance ? )

 

[spooly74]

the extra CO2 has mostly stayed there (there has been some absorption in the oceans but this is starting to slow down as well) . So we now see the saw tooth graphs rising at first steadily but now at an accelerating rate.

My bold. Are these local or global studies?
Ref?
Thx

 

[basilio]

My bold. Are these local or global studies?
Ref?
Thx

At least 2 separate recent studies have identified a reduction in absorption of CO2 in the oceans. The IPCC report also noted that as the world gets warmer there is a substantial increase in the likelihood of the earth releasing CO2 as well as release of methane under the meltaing permafrost.

Sea absorbing less CO2, scientists discover


David Adam, environment correspondent
The Guardian, Monday 12 January 2009
Article history

Scientists have issued a new warning about climate change after discovering a sudden and dramatic collapse in the amount of carbon emissions absorbed by the Sea of Japan.

The shift has alarmed experts, who blame global warming.

The world's oceans soak up about 11bn tonnes of human carbon dioxide pollution each year, about a quarter of all produced, and even a slight weakening of this natural process would leave significantly more CO2 in the atmosphere. That would require countries to adopt much stricter emissions targets to prevent dangerous rises in temperature.

Kitack Lee, an associate professor at Pohang University of Science and Technology, who led the research, says the discovery is the "very first observation that directly relates ocean CO2 uptake change to ocean warming".

He says the warmer conditions disrupt a process known as "ventilation" - the way seawater flows and mixes and drags absorbed CO2 from surface waters to the depths. He warns that the effect is probably not confined to the Sea of Japan. It could also affect CO2 uptake in the Atlantic and Southern oceans.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jan/12/sea-co2-climate-japan-environment

Oceans are 'soaking up less CO2'

The study was carried out over the course of a decade
The amount of carbon dioxide being absorbed by the world's oceans has reduced, scientists have said.

University of East Anglia researchers gauged CO2 absorption through more than 90,000 measurements from merchant ships equipped with automatic instruments.

Results of their 10-year study in the North Atlantic show CO2 uptake halved between the mid-90s and 2000 to 2005.

Scientists believe global warming might get worse if the oceans soak up less of the greenhouse gas.

Researchers said the findings, published in a paper for the Journal of Geophysical Research, were surprising and worrying because there were grounds for believing that, in time, the ocean might become saturated with our emissions.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7053903.stm

Why the news about warming is worse than we thought:

Oceans, soil and trees will become worse at absorbing carbon dioxide as temperatures rise


The Guardian, Saturday 3 February 2007 02.46 GMT
Article history

Predictions by international scientists that global warming will lead to a sharper rise in temperatures than previously thought made sobering reading yesterday. But what is the major factor that has driven their gloomy conclusion?

Dramatic flips in the way ecosystems absorb carbon dioxide will see oceans and vast swaths of land falter in their ability to draw up the greenhouse gas, allowing it to build up in the atmosphere and cause more warming. The phenomenon is known as a positive feedback - where global warming drives changes in ecosystems that themselves cause more heating.

The warning came in a major report on climate change published yesterday that suggests average temperatures could rise more than expected - by as much as 6.4C by 2100, unless greenhouse gas emissions are reined in. The report, from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has upgraded its 2001 estimate that temperatures would rise by at most 5.8C, because at the time the feedback mechanisms were either unknown or poorly understood.

The latest report states that the predicted temperature rise for 2100 was raised because "the broader range of models now available suggests stronger climate-carbon cycle feedbacks".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2007/feb/03/greenpolitics.science?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487

 

[Calliope]

BTW, are only AGW dissenters ignorant rude bores or can a climate alarmist be one too?

They are easy to spot on this thread... especially the long-winded bores.

 

[spooly74]

At least 2 separate recent studies have identified a reduction in absorption of CO2 in the oceans.

Both say the uptake has halved. Wondering how much CO2 is already there and how much it can store?

Also, no mention of the study in the second link in the first link. Probably sloppy journalism?

He warns that the effect is probably not confined to the Sea of Japan. It could also affect CO2 uptake in the Atlantic and Southern oceans.

 

[explod]

If (as seems likely) the increase in temperatures releases CO2 already stored in the ocean or the soil and the permafrost continues to melt in the Arctic regions releasing billions of tons of methane into the atmosphere then the greenhouse effect will be accelerated and average global temperatures would increase above the 2-5 C degree levels.

Even my own Grandson pointed out from his own reading that the ice and snow loss hasw taken away an important reflective blanket, ie., it reflects heat back into space.

Good post as usual basillio.

Listening to John Michael Howson on Saturday and anyone putting up a common sense rebuttal were shouted over. What intellectual missfits the business lobby have.

 

[basilio]

A number of contributers to this forum believe that commonsense is superior to science.

Please feel free to skip anything that resembles any scientific research and analysis and stick to your commonsense approach and/or noting how hot hot/cold/wet/dry it is today.

 

[sails]

A number of contributers to this forum believe that commonsense is superior to science.

Please feel free to skip anything that resembles any scientific research and analysis and stick to your commonsense approach and/or noting how hot hot/cold/wet/dry it is today.

Ahhh but not all scientists agree with your version. Even though you may not agree with them doesn't mean they are wrong either...

And I don't think any pro carbon tax has actually refuted the wiki link that I have posted from time to time. Posted it again yesterday when IFocus listed all the countries that are doing something to reduce carbon. Apart from India, all eight other countries emit a combined total of 1.04% of world carbon dioxide.

Australia emits 1.35% (by memory). Even if we reduce our emissions by 5% - it seems futile to put the economy at such risk for this piddling amount.

I think there are two arguments - one is the one being mostly discussed here and this is how much responsible man is for CO2. An argument that will always have opposing view points.

The other more important thing IMO is - even IF we are responsible, unless the heavy polluting countries which emit a combined total of approx 70% such as China, US, Japan, Rusia do something, isn't it futile for the rest of the countries who emit such tiny amounts? Any thoughts from our climate "experts"????

 

[wayneL]

A number of contributers to this forum believe that commonsense is superior to science.

Please feel free to skip anything that resembles any scientific research and analysis and stick to your commonsense approach and/or noting how hot hot/cold/wet/dry it is today.

Oh and of course science is infallible? The very basis of the scientific method is fallibility; picking the eyes out of any hypothesis to see if it stands up. Of course climate scientists and their fellow gravy train passengers believe they should be exempt from such inquiry.

If we define commonsense as some sort of logical "thinking through" things, surely it must be applied to experiment design to avoid silly flaws which may give an erroneous conclusion. I observed a lack of commonsense results in totally inappropriate experiment design in equine exercise physiology, relative to the target athlete, making conclusions worthless. Very few were designed properly, using so called "commonsense" (read basic logic). The biggy - experiments conducted at sub-maximal exercise and conclusions extrapolated to equines undergoing maximal effort.

There are still products on shelves that don't do what the "science" says they do, due to such muppetry.

And such muppetry is oh so prevalent in climate science too.

 

[explod]

Oh and of course science is infallible? The very basis of the scientific method is fallibility; picking the eyes out of any hypothesis to see if it stands up. Of course climate scientists and their fellow gravy train passengers believe they should be exempt from such inquiry.

If we define commonsense as some sort of logical "thinking through" things, surely it must be applied to experiment design to avoid silly flaws which may give an erroneous conclusion. I observed a lack of commonsense results in totally inappropriate experiment design in equine exercise physiology, relative to the target athlete, making conclusions worthless. Very few were designed properly, using so called "commonsense" (read basic logic). The biggy - experiments conducted at sub-maximal exercise and conclusions extrapolated to equines undergoing maximal effort.

There are still products on shelves that don't do what the "science" says they do, due to such muppetry.

And such muppetry is oh so prevalent in climate science too.

Yes, and once apon a time the world was flat and the heretics who expresses another possiblity, based on some crazy science, were cast out and some burned at the stake.

Waynel, subjective gobbledygook is just that and science works and points to conclusions which are objective.

But of course we will only see what we want to look at. Our dreams and desires cannot be measured and quantified but they unfortunately get in the way of the objective.

 

[basilio]

Wayne I think the contributors who wanted to ditch all scientific research on climate change (unless they agreed with it of course !) in preference to their own robust commonsense made more sense than you have.

FWIW I leave the discussion on the robustness of the current science behind climate change to a real expert.

Climate debate 'almost infantile'
Adam Morton
May 25, 2010


A SCIENCE adviser to the federal government has described the debate in the media over the basics of climate change science as ''almost infantile'', equating it to an argument about the existence of gravity.

Speaking at a Melbourne summit on the green economy, Professor Will Steffen criticised the media for treating climate change science as a political issue in which two sides should be given a voice.

While there were uncertainties about the pace and impact of change, he said, the core of climate science - that the world was warming and the primary cause since the middle of the last century had been industrial greenhouse gas emissions - should be accepted with the same confidence as the laws of gravity and relativity.

''It's a no-brainer. If you go over the last couple of decades you see tens of thousands of papers in the peer-reviewed literature, and you have less than 10 that challenge the fundamentals - and they have been disproved,'' Professor Steffen said after an address at the Australian Davos Connection's Future Summit.

''Right now, this almost infantile debate about whether 'is it real or isn't it real?', it's like saying, 'Is the Earth round or is it flat?' [Climate change] is a hugely important question and yet we are not having a rational discourse in the media in Australia on this question. That is my biggest frustration.'' He called on the media to focus on areas where there was not a consensus, including the link between climate change and the south-east Australian drought and how rapidly sea levels would rise.

Professor Steffen, the executive director of the Australian National University's Climate Change Institute, was appointed a science adviser by the Howard government in 2004. He has advised Labor's Penny Wong and the Coalition's Ian Campbell and Malcolm Turnbull.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/environmen...st-infantile-20100524-w81e.html#ixzz1NuZFpCeZ

And, please note, Professor Steffen was John Howards appointment as the government science advisor in 2004.