Climate Change

HenryBG said :

When you hear people complaining about “climate models”, this is what they are complaining about – research into sensitivity. After analysing past data to discover relationships between various variables and temperature outcomes, these researchers have to create a model that tracks all these variables, then input a time-series of values for each of these variables and then adjust their algorithm so that it hindcasts correctly.

So the scientific evidence for AGW consists of a selection of computer models, programmed according to the consensus position, then tweaked through hindcasting to confirm that same consensus position?

Isn’t it a worry that when projected forward past the fitted hindcast period, these same models are unable to track observed climate trends?

Does science today have a physical model for how the global climate system works? What are the feedback effects, what sign are they, and what magnitude?

The sensitivity is estimated at 1.5 to 8 degrees – don’t you think that’s pretty vague?

Without an underlying coherent physical model, using computer models to predict climate is like using computer models to predict financial markets. There can be some short-term predictive success, more due to luck than anything else. On any longer time scale, the chaotic and complex nature of the system means unanticipated and unpredictable factors will soon overwhelm the model.

One needs either considerable faith, or considerable trust in authority, to think of climate change as settled science.

dungfungus said :

I am starting to tire from your model-dependent realism theories topped with lashings of fallibilism.

In science, a “theory” is an explanation for a set of observations, which explanation isn’t contradicted by any known facts. In other words, in science, a “theory” is a True description of reality.

The atmospheric greenhouse effect, for example, is a theory that describes the physics whereby certain atmospheric gases’ absorption spectra act to trap heat on Earth, which would otherwise escape to space. In the absence of the atmospheric greenhouse effect, the average surface temperature of Earth would be -18degreesC, instead of the +15degreesC it is thanks to the atmospheric greenhouse effect.
This theory was devised over 150 years ago, and it is absolutely sound, with no contradicting evidence.

From this theory, it is predictable that an increase in greenhouse gases should cause in increase in average surface temperature. Of course, confounding factors (such as an unknown negative feedback) could disprove this prediction.

Many groups of scientists have therefore conducted research into the precise warming response that would be caused by an increase in various greenhouse gases. They call this research into “climate sensitivity”, and to assist the conversation, it is generally expressed as, “warming caused by a doubling of CO2, from pre-industrial levels”.
All the research into this question reveals a predicted range of climate sensitivity of between 1.5degrees and 8 degrees, with the most likely range being 2-3 degrees.
Graphically displayed here: http://www.nature.com/climate/2009/0905/thumbs/climate.2009.41-f1.jpg

When you hear people complaining about “climate models”, this is what they are complaining about – research into sensitivity. After analysing past data to discover relationships between various variables and temperature outcomes, these researchers have to create a model that tracks all these variables, then input a time-series of values for each of these variables and then adjust their algorithm so that it hindcasts correctly.

These climate models say nothing about the reality of the atmospheric greenhouse effect physics, and they say nothing about real-world observations, they are merely an exercise for testing complex relationships between future combinations of potential conditions that will affect the Earth’s radiative balance.
So now you know: anybody who professes disbelief in climate physics and moans about modelling is a person who doesn’t actually understand the subject at hand.

One of the very earliest attempts was made in 1981:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen#mediaviewer/File:Hansen_2006_temperature_comparison.jpg

Some of the very worst attempts at modelling climate sensitivity are illustrated here:
http://static.skepticalscience.com/pics/Predictions1976-2011.png

HenryBG said :

dungfungus said :

HenryBG said :

dungfungus said :

If “the science is settled” why do we need more scientists?

To settle even more science.

According to Dungfungus we should have stopped at the invention of firesticks.

Aside from the fact that I said nothing of the sort,

It is eminently clear that by questioning the need for any more science, you expressed precisely the idea that I articulated for you.

Of course the real issue here is the first half of your logically fallacious proposition,
but it has become clear that you are not communicating in good faith, therefore my pointing out the errors in your argument is still having no effect on your continuing erroneous exposition.

I am starting to tire from your model-dependent realism theories topped with lashings of fallibilism.

dungfungus said :

HenryBG said :

dungfungus said :

If “the science is settled” why do we need more scientists?

To settle even more science.

According to Dungfungus we should have stopped at the invention of firesticks.

Aside from the fact that I said nothing of the sort,

It is eminently clear that by questioning the need for any more science, you expressed precisely the idea that I articulated for you.

Of course the real issue here is the first half of your logically fallacious proposition,
but it has become clear that you are not communicating in good faith, therefore my pointing out the errors in your argument is still having no effect on your continuing erroneous exposition.

dungfungus said :

The warmists prefer blind faith to anything which may be seen and observed directly.

Weirldy, that’s not how science works.

And even more weirdly, science says the “warmists” are on the right track, whereas in your corner all we see is Exxon and the tobacco-lobbying Heartland Institute. And a couple of kook-blogs on the internet.

dungfungus said :

It’s almost a religion with people like Tim Flannery and Al Gore (neither are climate scientists) as the high priests.

Is that a parody, or completely unconscious humour?

HenryBG said :

dungfungus said :

If “the science is settled” why do we need more scientists?

To settle even more science.

According to Dungfungus we should have stopped at the invention of firesticks.

Aside from the fact that I said nothing of the sort, it is timely to look at the history of firesticks as without the reliability of base load electricity generated by fossil fuel we may have to use them.
http://www.endeavourferngully.org.au/?page_id=297

CaptainSpiff said :

HenryBG said :

CaptainSpiff said :

What you’re calling the ‘denial’ side I would call the realist side.

You can call it that if you like, but that just makes you wrong.

As we have conclusively demonstrated over the past week, the denialist position is based on opinions that are not even remotely based on reality.
The denialist position is also based on strenuous efforts made to ignore real facts when they are presented.

This is rather typical of pro-AGW argumentation – “you’re wrong so you should just go away”.

As for conclusive demonstrations:

What scientific evidence is there for determining how much of observed climate change is due to natural factors and how much is due to CO2 emissions?

I wonder if you can point us at a computer model that accurately predicts global climate change?

Can you show what is different about the last 50 years of warming (which IPCC claims is manmade), and the 100 or so years of natural warming that preceded it?

What does science have to say about the lack of warming over the last decade and a half?

Like most convinced AGW supporters you will now surely fall back on a consensus or authority based argument, rather than talk about evidence. That’s fair enough, but you have to concede that doing so makes this a political argument, not a scientific one.

It’s interesting that in a field that is claimed to be so settled, it’s defenders still prefer to talk about consensus and authorities, rather than about the underlying evidence.

The warmists prefer blind faith to anything which may be seen and observed directly.
It’s almost a religion with people like Tim Flannery and Al Gore (neither are climate scientists) as the high priests.

dungfungus said :

If “the science is settled” why do we need more scientists?

To settle even more science.

According to Dungfungus we should have stopped at the invention of firesticks.

dungfungus said :

HenryBG said :

dungfungus said :

It appears that “climate” scientists are working to the script. The scriptwriter is the UN’s IPCC

Apparently you don’t know what the IPCC does. It certainly doesn’t write any “script” – completely the opposite. The IPCC’s job is synthesis.

Maybe you could read a bit about the IPCC and then read their latest report, in order to be able to provide informed comment on what it does?

http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

I always understood the word meaning of “synthesis” as “”to make up by combining parts or elements”
Something that is “synthetic” is a product of “synthesis”.
The word meaning of “synthetic” is “something artificially made”.
I find I am in agreement with you about what the IPCC does then.

Perhaps you would develop a far better grasp of this discussion were you to focus on understanding the facts rather than indulging in pointless semantic excursions?

HenryBG said :

CaptainSpiff said :

What you’re calling the ‘denial’ side I would call the realist side.

You can call it that if you like, but that just makes you wrong.

As we have conclusively demonstrated over the past week, the denialist position is based on opinions that are not even remotely based on reality.
The denialist position is also based on strenuous efforts made to ignore real facts when they are presented.

This is rather typical of pro-AGW argumentation – “you’re wrong so you should just go away”.

As for conclusive demonstrations:

What scientific evidence is there for determining how much of observed climate change is due to natural factors and how much is due to CO2 emissions?

I wonder if you can point us at a computer model that accurately predicts global climate change?

Can you show what is different about the last 50 years of warming (which IPCC claims is manmade), and the 100 or so years of natural warming that preceded it?

What does science have to say about the lack of warming over the last decade and a half?

Like most convinced AGW supporters you will now surely fall back on a consensus or authority based argument, rather than talk about evidence. That’s fair enough, but you have to concede that doing so makes this a political argument, not a scientific one.

It’s interesting that in a field that is claimed to be so settled, it’s defenders still prefer to talk about consensus and authorities, rather than about the underlying evidence.

Maya123 said :

dungfungus said :

HenryBG said :

CaptainSpiff said :

As a scientist in a politicized field, would you risk taking an unpopular stance, knowing that your funding may dry up?

With Tony Abbott’s anti-science government currently busy drying-up science funding, it seems that taking an unpopular stance is indeed a risk that scientists with integrity take in their pursuit of honest scientific research.

If “the science is settled” why do we need more scientists?

Exactly; let’s go back to the dark ages and ignorance.

The next Dark Ages will be what happens when we become 100% reliant on renewables.

Actually, let’s examine some events immediately after the Dark Ages:
150AD The world’s populations begin to fall and over the course of 250 years, Rome’s population dropped from about 65 million to 50 million. Some people believe this was because of a global cold front that swept the earth.
Interesting to note now that Russia’s population is starting to fall by millions.
300AD The Romans slowly lost their control of the empire as other, stronger groups moved through the area. There were many battles, and the Romans were defeated. The people scattered through the lands. We now call them asylum seekers.
650AD Following a rise in Islamic victories, Muslim people began moving into what had been Roman territory in the past. Their influence spread quickly and they took over many lands.
Note now that ISIS say they will retake Southern Spain and Rome.
700 Western Europe begins to see improvement with historical records show that the temperatures began to warm up, and crops began to grow. The population and farms saw an increase.
OMG. Global Warming!
800AD As the weather warmed, the people fell into a regular way of life. Lands were split into 1 acre blocks of land, and they were farmed.
1000AD Christianity spread through the lands and people began to settle down. The lands settled firmly into their own kingdoms, and the fighting died down for a time. It was considered the end of the “Dark Ages”.

Mankind has a way of adapting so even if man is causing climate change it will only be a speed bump in the scope of everything.

dungfungus said :

HenryBG said :

CaptainSpiff said :

As a scientist in a politicized field, would you risk taking an unpopular stance, knowing that your funding may dry up?

With Tony Abbott’s anti-science government currently busy drying-up science funding, it seems that taking an unpopular stance is indeed a risk that scientists with integrity take in their pursuit of honest scientific research.

If “the science is settled” why do we need more scientists?

Exactly; let’s go back to the dark ages and ignorance.

HenryBG said :

CaptainSpiff said :

As a scientist in a politicized field, would you risk taking an unpopular stance, knowing that your funding may dry up?

With Tony Abbott’s anti-science government currently busy drying-up science funding, it seems that taking an unpopular stance is indeed a risk that scientists with integrity take in their pursuit of honest scientific research.

If “the science is settled” why do we need more scientists?

HenryBG said :

CaptainSpiff said :

What you’re calling the ‘denial’ side I would call the realist side.

You can call it that if you like, but that just makes you wrong.

As we have conclusively demonstrated over the past week, the denialist position is based on opinions that are not even remotely based on reality.
The denialist position is also based on strenuous efforts made to ignore real facts when they are presented.

I don’t care for “conclusive demonstrations” (aka computer modelling) – I do take notice of evidence that might flow from that though. When are you going to give me photographic proof of sea levels rising?.
And drop the “denialist” label, please. Sceptic is OK but denialist is close to heretic and I am not ready to be burnt at the stake just yet.

HenryBG said :

dungfungus said :

It appears that “climate” scientists are working to the script. The scriptwriter is the UN’s IPCC

Apparently you don’t know what the IPCC does. It certainly doesn’t write any “script” – completely the opposite. The IPCC’s job is synthesis.

Maybe you could read a bit about the IPCC and then read their latest report, in order to be able to provide informed comment on what it does?

http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

I always understood the word meaning of “synthesis” as “”to make up by combining parts or elements”
Something that is “synthetic” is a product of “synthesis”.
The word meaning of “synthetic” is “something artificially made”.
I find I am in agreement with you about what the IPCC does then.

CaptainSpiff said :

As a scientist in a politicized field, would you risk taking an unpopular stance, knowing that your funding may dry up?

With Tony Abbott’s anti-science government currently busy drying-up science funding, it seems that taking an unpopular stance is indeed a risk that scientists with integrity take in their pursuit of honest scientific research.

CaptainSpiff said :

What you’re calling the ‘denial’ side I would call the realist side.

You can call it that if you like, but that just makes you wrong.

As we have conclusively demonstrated over the past week, the denialist position is based on opinions that are not even remotely based on reality.
The denialist position is also based on strenuous efforts made to ignore real facts when they are presented.

dungfungus said :

It appears that “climate” scientists are working to the script. The scriptwriter is the UN’s IPCC

Apparently you don’t know what the IPCC does. It certainly doesn’t write any “script” – completely the opposite. The IPCC’s job is synthesis.

Maybe you could read a bit about the IPCC and then read their latest report, in order to be able to provide informed comment on what it does?

http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

gooterz said :

If we’re using ice cores to map CO2, and the ice is melting when CO2 increases, aren’t all the ice cores going to contain only low levels if high levels were captured they’d be melted out?

Also doesn’t the lack of glaciers also bring on warming at an exponential rate?
Perhaps the pole are temperate poles too in the engineering temperature sense?

No.

No. No.

So the question.

If we’re using ice cores to map CO2, and the ice is melting when CO2 increases, aren’t all the ice cores going to contain only low levels if high levels were captured they’d be melted out?

Also doesn’t the lack of glaciers also bring on warming at an exponential rate?
Perhaps the pole are temperate poles too in the engineering temperature sense?

CaptainSpiff said :

watto23 said :

As an engineer, I just hope engineers never get ignored as much as scientists seem to when someone doesn’t like the outcome.

That is the issue here, there are more conspiracies on the denial side.
In the news now there is evidence that companies with vested interest have driven the political difference in this country, by making big donations. I’m not saying thew other side is guilt free either. Just saying political policy is not driven by factual evidence.

I’d also just raise a point. Scientists tend to not get paid that much, they certainly don’t do this work for money. Yet if any scientist could prove beyond doubt that global warming is not occurring, they not only be wealthy, but they’d probably be considered the greatest scientist of the current era.

What you’re calling the ‘denial’ side I would call the realist side. Climate change science is inconclusive – scientists simply do not know how much of observable climate change is due to natural causes and how much is due to CO2 emissions. Science just hasn’t gotten that far yet. The climate system is massively complex and to say or imply, as AGW activists do, that we now know how the whole thing works, is just foolish.

The scientific status quo, as expressed by the IPCC, is sytematically overstated by AGW activists and by media. For example, there has not been an observed increase in extreme weather events, yet we are constantly told by activists that extreme weather events are increasing due to climate change. The pro-AGW position is based more on faith than anything else.

In an inconclusive field of science there will naturally be speculation, and as one might expect, those that come to alarmist conclusions will generally receive more funding than those that don’t. You say scientists don’t work for money. Yet they have mortgages and families like everyone else. Government grants play a big role in which research happens and which research doesn’t. As a scientist in a politicized field, would you risk taking an unpopular stance, knowing that your funding may dry up?

It appears that “climate” scientists are working to the script. The scriptwriter is the UN’s IPCC whose dodgy reports are a tactic in the strategy for the UN to soak the wealthy countries so the poor countries (who are doing nothing to control population) can be compensated for the alleged damage they are suffering from climate changed caused by the wealthy countries.
I don’t remember ever being asked to vote for anything the UN has done or proposed.

watto23 said :

As an engineer, I just hope engineers never get ignored as much as scientists seem to when someone doesn’t like the outcome.

That is the issue here, there are more conspiracies on the denial side.
In the news now there is evidence that companies with vested interest have driven the political difference in this country, by making big donations. I’m not saying thew other side is guilt free either. Just saying political policy is not driven by factual evidence.

I’d also just raise a point. Scientists tend to not get paid that much, they certainly don’t do this work for money. Yet if any scientist could prove beyond doubt that global warming is not occurring, they not only be wealthy, but they’d probably be considered the greatest scientist of the current era.

What you’re calling the ‘denial’ side I would call the realist side. Climate change science is inconclusive – scientists simply do not know how much of observable climate change is due to natural causes and how much is due to CO2 emissions. Science just hasn’t gotten that far yet. The climate system is massively complex and to say or imply, as AGW activists do, that we now know how the whole thing works, is just foolish.

The scientific status quo, as expressed by the IPCC, is sytematically overstated by AGW activists and by media. For example, there has not been an observed increase in extreme weather events, yet we are constantly told by activists that extreme weather events are increasing due to climate change. The pro-AGW position is based more on faith than anything else.

In an inconclusive field of science there will naturally be speculation, and as one might expect, those that come to alarmist conclusions will generally receive more funding than those that don’t. You say scientists don’t work for money. Yet they have mortgages and families like everyone else. Government grants play a big role in which research happens and which research doesn’t. As a scientist in a politicized field, would you risk taking an unpopular stance, knowing that your funding may dry up?

watto23 said :

As an engineer, I just hope engineers never get ignored as much as scientists seem to when someone doesn’t like the outcome.

That is the issue here, there are more conspiracies on the denial side.
In the news now there is evidence that companies with vested interest have driven the political difference in this country, by making big donations. I’m not saying thew other side is guilt free either. Just saying political policy is not driven by factual evidence.

I’d also just raise a point. Scientists tend to not get paid that much, they certainly don’t do this work for money. Yet if any scientist could prove beyond doubt that global warming is not occurring, they not only be wealthy, but they’d probably be considered the greatest scientist of the current era.

I am glad you mentioned “the outcome” because that hasn’t happened according to all the scientific modelling and expert predictions.

As an engineer, I just hope engineers never get ignored as much as scientists seem to when someone doesn’t like the outcome.

That is the issue here, there are more conspiracies on the denial side.
In the news now there is evidence that companies with vested interest have driven the political difference in this country, by making big donations. I’m not saying thew other side is guilt free either. Just saying political policy is not driven by factual evidence.

I’d also just raise a point. Scientists tend to not get paid that much, they certainly don’t do this work for money. Yet if any scientist could prove beyond doubt that global warming is not occurring, they not only be wealthy, but they’d probably be considered the greatest scientist of the current era.

HenryBG said :

User777 said :

– Whilst some countries or individuals may be willing to change, some (very) heavily populated countries who haven’t experienced the West’s decadent living (China, Pakistan, India to name a few) now want to and are only consuming more. So while some countries may wake up to themselves, others will not and if we are to slow down a cycle we’ve helped speed up it will need to be on a global level and any isolated efforts are NEAR worthless. .

You seem to have fallen for some of the fossil-fuel lobby propaganda. You need to be far more sceptical.

http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2014/06/11/what-does-it-mean-to-put-a-price-on-carbon
“About 40 countries and more than 20 cities, states and provinces use carbon pricing mechanisms such as emissions trading systems and carbon taxes or are preparing to implement them.”

This includes China.

The fossil fuel lobby (via the IPA & Murdoch media) spreads this propaganda to the effect that we shouldn’t do anything because nobody else is therefore nothing we do will make a difference. It’s a complete pile of lies. Plenty of people are doing stuff.

The other bit of dishonest propaganda that The Australian and some of its columnists like to push, is this idea that China is merrily cranking up its emissions therefore nothing we do is ever going to make a difference.
What the biased media working for political interests fails to tell you is stuff like this:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jackperkowski/2012/07/27/china-leads-the-world-in-renewable-energy-investment/

“China was responsible for almost one-fifth of total global investment, spending $52 billion on renewable energy last year. The United States was close behind with investments of $51 billion, as developers sought to benefit from government incentive programs before they expired. Germany, Italy and India rounded out the list of the top five countries.”

Meanwhile, here in the clever country, instead of investing in modern technology, we are ramping up subsidies to coal producers.

Quite the opposite Henry > I’d hoped to outline an underlying theme in my post, clearly I have failed 😉 but it doesn’t help when you quote only one paragraph and reply to only that.

My view is about as skeptical as it gets……and I’ll leave it at that 🙂

User777 said :

– Whilst some countries or individuals may be willing to change, some (very) heavily populated countries who haven’t experienced the West’s decadent living (China, Pakistan, India to name a few) now want to and are only consuming more. So while some countries may wake up to themselves, others will not and if we are to slow down a cycle we’ve helped speed up it will need to be on a global level and any isolated efforts are NEAR worthless. .

You seem to have fallen for some of the fossil-fuel lobby propaganda. You need to be far more sceptical.

http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2014/06/11/what-does-it-mean-to-put-a-price-on-carbon
“About 40 countries and more than 20 cities, states and provinces use carbon pricing mechanisms such as emissions trading systems and carbon taxes or are preparing to implement them.”

This includes China.

The fossil fuel lobby (via the IPA & Murdoch media) spreads this propaganda to the effect that we shouldn’t do anything because nobody else is therefore nothing we do will make a difference. It’s a complete pile of lies. Plenty of people are doing stuff.

The other bit of dishonest propaganda that The Australian and some of its columnists like to push, is this idea that China is merrily cranking up its emissions therefore nothing we do is ever going to make a difference.
What the biased media working for political interests fails to tell you is stuff like this:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jackperkowski/2012/07/27/china-leads-the-world-in-renewable-energy-investment/

“China was responsible for almost one-fifth of total global investment, spending $52 billion on renewable energy last year. The United States was close behind with investments of $51 billion, as developers sought to benefit from government incentive programs before they expired. Germany, Italy and India rounded out the list of the top five countries.”

Meanwhile, here in the clever country, instead of investing in modern technology, we are ramping up subsidies to coal producers.

Here is a thought for you budding climatologists. If global warming at the levels we are seeing and expecting to get worse do continue, what happens to the ice in the poles and glaciers? It melts like we are so worried about. So, in global warming situations, the ice trapped CO2 that we are using as evidence of these high levels could melt or not form at all due to the warm climate. Once a balance is achieved, the levels drop to what we see as high in the samples and ice begins forming again. This can possibly be an explanation as to why we do not have any historical data showing higher CO2 levels such as we have now, it all melted away. Perhaps the highest readings we have in history cannot be exceeded without changing the climate so much that the evidence has disappeared.
This could still be a normal part of the cycle, but without being around to study the previous ones it is all still speculation in my opinion.

Thanks for some interesting reading everyone > on both sides of the fence.

My own views for what they’re worth (not much really):

– Climate change happens naturally, be it from year to year or a larger/longer scale;

– IMHO It would be VERY hard to argue that humans have not helped the process along – the way we consume, be it the use of fossil fuels or ripping out large tracts of forests MUST have had an effect – if not, do we really think we can continue to rape the earth without causing damage to ecosystems that rely on each other to thrive or adding to an already existing cycle?;

– Further to this we understand that ecosystems require balance and from what I have read so many systems are out of balance be it from resource (ab)use or things like the Pacific Ocean Trash Vortex – a video on this subject alone was quite disturbing showing all sizes of fish with mammoth (get it?) amounts of plastic in their guts (see food chain) subsequently the bigger fish ingest the smaller ones and the impact is 10 fold. Birds who have fed on the plastic bottle caps floating in the ocean or fed on fish filled with plastic – pics/video even showing cigarette lighters in their dead carcasses. If you ask me, how humans have ‘evolved’ to abuse their own planets delicate ecosystems and essentially our very own life support system/s is BEYOND belief – so clever yet so dumb;

– That said, large global events (say like a massive volcanic eruption) can change things almost instantly;

– Whilst some countries or individuals may be willing to change, some (very) heavily populated countries who haven’t experienced the West’s decadent living (China, Pakistan, India to name a few) now want to and are only consuming more. So while some countries may wake up to themselves, others will not and if we are to slow down a cycle we’ve helped speed up it will need to be on a global level and any isolated efforts are NEAR worthless. considering how well we’ve worked together as a collective in the past, I doubt this can be achieved;

What is somewhat amusing is we sit here arguing whether motorcyclists can filter in traffic or where we can all park our vehicles (proving we can’t even reach a local consensus on pretty basic things) and whether ‘climate change’ is real or not (global consensus) > then how do we possible expect to have a global agreement on changing the way we consume and tackling some of the very real issues that most certainly exist? As a whole, we have proven time and time again that we can’t, which paints a very bleak future for our planet and EVERYTHING that resides on it.

I fear that without a holistic and COMPLETE change in how we interact with the environment around us there are simply too many problems, too many people with political reputations on the line or companies that reap the financial rewards of said plundering for any major improvements. Wow, we stopped pumping ozone depleting chemicals into the atmosphere but problems ABC through to XYZ are still flourishing. Any useful Help desk monkey will tell you ‘Have you tried turning it off/on again?” – we almost certainly need to reset society, return to the dark ages and try again.

All said and done since it seems we humans can’t or won’t change, the systems we rely and ultimately the only planet we know we can survive on will wipe us all out anyway. Or to put it another way, our own actions will one way or another be the cause so really, arguing about climate change is neither here nor there.

My 2cents, largely based on personal opinion. No scientists were harmed in the forming of this opinion. Maybe I’m totally wrong > I certainly hope so.

wildturkeycanoe said :

the samples from Antarctica are lower than atop the volcano near the equator, so of course a sudden rise compared to old data from ice cores is going to happen, .

Excellent, thanks for this – you seem to be saying that you believe the atmospheric concentration of CO2 varies considerably according to altitude, and latitude.

This is incorrect. (Measurements from Cape Grim (sea level, high SH latitude) can be compared with measurements from Mauna Loa (2000m, low NH latitude) and taking seasonal variations into account, they agree, very closely.)

What we know about CO2 is this: CO2 is a very well-mixed gas in the atmosphere.

It is well-mixed around the globe, and well-mixed all the way up to very high altitudes.
We know this thanks to the work of scientists:
eg,
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/11/2455/2011/acp-11-2455-2011.pdf
or
http://ps.uci.edu/~rowlandblake/publications/177.pdf

The difference between the Vostok cores (showing a long-term stable CO2 concentration of around 250ppm) and today’s CO2 concentration (400ppm) is massive.
So massive, some believe it isn’t just the highest it’s been since our species has existed, but the highest it’s been for 15million years or more.

dungfungus said :

“Quite simply, the matter has been proven and is settled.”
That is arrogance in its purest form.

Actually it is as far from arrogance as anyone could possibly get. I accept that this is not my field and defer to the opinions, studies and evidence presented, peer reviewed and accepted by almost every scientific expert in this area. I am humble enough to know that they know what they are talking about and that I should accept their findings.

Arrogance only comes from those who, after having all the evidence presented to them many times and in various formats, still believe that they know better than the experts.

That is arrogance in its purest form.

gooterz said :

Climate change is terrible.

Increased humidity, increased CO2, increased rainfall.

Its like the whole world will be come habitable by plants again. Just imagine the return of giant tree’s and faster growing plans. Absolutely terrible.

The weirder thing about the climate is that for the previous 10k years we’d have really weird stable temperatures. before that things went extinct quicker and we have much more evolution.

Large parts of inland Australia might be better off with climate change. After all 90% of aus is desert.

You know what? I quite agree. Stuff the humans and their overpopulation, their destruction of the native habitats of millions of species. Let the oceans rise, the poles melt, the air become more suitable for plants and the earth can take back what mankind took from it. Better that than polluting the entire planet with radiation and killing off everything for an eon.

wildturkeycanoe said :

As for Canberoid’s advice on skerpticalscience, looking at this – http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-measurements-uncertainty.htm shows that the samples from Antarctica are lower than atop the volcano near the equator, so of course a sudden rise compared to old data from ice cores is going to happen, not necessarily due to any part of mankind’s participation.
If all the data came from the same source, then a plausible argument can be made but it is like saying that the world is warming because the temperatures in Hobart were averaging 20 degrees for the last thousand years but now it is 30+ in Darwin on average. Not the same sampling point, the data is irrelevant.

Did you actually read the text on that page you linked to? It seems you read the “Climate Myth” section and ignored the rest of the page which explains why it is a myth. I’m quite sure that if the evidence could be dismissed that easily, notable climatologists would have done so.

Do you honestly believe that the global scientific community is just making it all up? If so, why would they do that? We’re not talking about a few snake oil salesmen here, but thousands of highly trained and dedicated researchers. It seems quite unlikely that they are actually all in on a global conspiracy, and for what plausible reasons?

Climate change is terrible.

Increased humidity, increased CO2, increased rainfall.

Its like the whole world will be come habitable by plants again. Just imagine the return of giant tree’s and faster growing plans. Absolutely terrible.

The weirder thing about the climate is that for the previous 10k years we’d have really weird stable temperatures. before that things went extinct quicker and we have much more evolution.

Large parts of inland Australia might be better off with climate change. After all 90% of aus is desert.

HenryBG said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

http://www.climatedata.info/Forcing/Emissions/Emissions/CO2.html – The graph in this page, figure 6, shows CO2 emissions and temperatures from a glacier in Antarctica. Funny how to me it looks like we are simply reaching the peak of what is a 150,000 year cycle.

You’re making a very common mistake in confusing modern measurements with past reconstructions.

The “150,000 year cycle” you talk about does not show any modern measurements – these cycles are a historical record of fairly low granularity. Recent changes are on a completely different scale and timescale. Completely different.

Here is what the very end of the graph would look like, if you could go forward a couple of hundred years and extend the Vostok series up to and past the present date:
http://climatephysics.com/files/2009/06/IPCC-CO2-Data.jpg

As you can see, the modern, sudden increase in atmospheric CO2 is completely unprecedented in the Vostok series. (The scale on the Vostok graph goes up to 300ppm. Right now, the Earth has 400pm, and rising.).

This is a very good demonstration of how easy it is to publish faffle on blogs in order to deliberately mislead people who want to think that their “independent thinking” is a valid alternative to the professional analysis by actual experts.

This graph you have linked completely validates my argument that scientists are taking the data they want and making it say what they want it to say. The sudden increase in CO2 from 1958 onward is taken from a mountain 11000m above sea level in Hawaii. The rest of the graph pre-dating it is from ice samples in Antarctica. It’s like comparing apples to oranges. If the data from the mid 1900s to present was taken from ice in Antarctica and showed the same thing, I may be swayed a little more but that just stinks of manipulating figures to suit the outcome required. Not convinced at all.
As for Canberoid’s advice on skerpticalscience, looking at this – http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-measurements-uncertainty.htm shows that the samples from Antarctica are lower than atop the volcano near the equator, so of course a sudden rise compared to old data from ice cores is going to happen, not necessarily due to any part of mankind’s participation.
If all the data came from the same source, then a plausible argument can be made but it is like saying that the world is warming because the temperatures in Hobart were averaging 20 degrees for the last thousand years but now it is 30+ in Darwin on average. Not the same sampling point, the data is irrelevant.

dungfungus said :

“Quite simply, the matter has been proven and is settled.”
That is arrogance in its purest form.

For the record I also arrogantly believe in gravity, microwaves, heliocentrism, Hubbles law of cosmic expansion, relativity and evolution.

None of which I can personally see or prove.

But I am not arrogant enough to believe I know better than the experts. I am happy to question these principles and examine them however when presented with evidence by the leaders in the fields I submit to their higher knowledge.

Only a truly arrogant fool would believe that, in the face of overwhelming evidence, their limited experience and opinion is correct. That is true arrogance and avarice to an appalling degree.

HenryBG said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

http://www.climatedata.info/Forcing/Emissions/Emissions/CO2.html – The graph in this page, figure 6, shows CO2 emissions and temperatures from a glacier in Antarctica. Funny how to me it looks like we are simply reaching the peak of what is a 150,000 year cycle.

You’re making a very common mistake in confusing modern measurements with past reconstructions.

The “150,000 year cycle” you talk about does not show any modern measurements – these cycles are a historical record of fairly low granularity. Recent changes are on a completely different scale and timescale. Completely different.

Here is what the very end of the graph would look like, if you could go forward a couple of hundred years and extend the Vostok series up to and past the present date:
http://climatephysics.com/files/2009/06/IPCC-CO2-Data.jpg

As you can see, the modern, sudden increase in atmospheric CO2 is completely unprecedented in the Vostok series. (The scale on the Vostok graph goes up to 300ppm. Right now, the Earth has 400pm, and rising.).

This is a very good demonstration of how easy it is to publish faffle on blogs in order to deliberately mislead people who want to think that their “independent thinking” is a valid alternative to the professional analysis by actual experts.

Just to be clear: the “150,000-year cycle” is entirely separate to current CO2 and temperature increases, which are caused by human-emitted CO2.

Boring.
Thank goodness for Solitaire on computers.

wildturkeycanoe said :

http://www.climatedata.info/Forcing/Emissions/Emissions/CO2.html – The graph in this page, figure 6, shows CO2 emissions and temperatures from a glacier in Antarctica. Funny how to me it looks like we are simply reaching the peak of what is a 150,000 year cycle.

You’re making a very common mistake in confusing modern measurements with past reconstructions.

The “150,000 year cycle” you talk about does not show any modern measurements – these cycles are a historical record of fairly low granularity. Recent changes are on a completely different scale and timescale. Completely different.

Here is what the very end of the graph would look like, if you could go forward a couple of hundred years and extend the Vostok series up to and past the present date:
http://climatephysics.com/files/2009/06/IPCC-CO2-Data.jpg

As you can see, the modern, sudden increase in atmospheric CO2 is completely unprecedented in the Vostok series. (The scale on the Vostok graph goes up to 300ppm. Right now, the Earth has 400pm, and rising.).

This is a very good demonstration of how easy it is to publish faffle on blogs in order to deliberately mislead people who want to think that their “independent thinking” is a valid alternative to the professional analysis by actual experts.

Just to be clear: the “150,000-year cycle” is entirely separate to current CO2 and temperature increases, which are caused by human-emitted CO2.

pajs said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

http://www.climatedata.info/Forcing/Emissions/Emissions/CO2.html – The graph in this page, figure 6, shows CO2 emissions and temperatures from a glacier in Antarctica. Funny how to me it looks like we are simply reaching the peak of what is a 150,000 year cycle. How does this data support the argument that we are causing a massive global warming when it has happened naturally since the earth was created? Like I have said before, scientists take the little piece of data they want and use it as “proof” of something, instead of looking at the big picture. Their own information doesn’t seem to support the argument, so how can one be convinced with such a narrow minded view?

And what physics would explain your 150,000 year cycle?

Just because climate has changed before doesn’t mean human activity releasing greenhouse gases can’t lead to more change. A good response, explained at different levels, to the ‘Climate’s changed before, therefore people can’t be changing it now’ myth is at http://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm

The ~150,000 year cycle is fairly clear, and it does look like we are nearing a peak as wildturkeycanoe says. I don’t think that historic cycle is up for too much debate. The problem is that we aren’t particularly concerned about what happened over the last 50,000 years or the next 50,000 years, but what we’ve done over the last 200 years and will do in the next 100. The natural cycle may have dropped again “soon” without human interference, but that isn’t the reality now.

This might also be worth a read for wildturkeycanoe: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-natural-cycle.htm

wildturkeycanoe said :

http://www.climatedata.info/Forcing/Emissions/Emissions/CO2.html – The graph in this page, figure 6, shows CO2 emissions and temperatures from a glacier in Antarctica. Funny how to me it looks like we are simply reaching the peak of what is a 150,000 year cycle. How does this data support the argument that we are causing a massive global warming when it has happened naturally since the earth was created? Like I have said before, scientists take the little piece of data they want and use it as “proof” of something, instead of looking at the big picture. Their own information doesn’t seem to support the argument, so how can one be convinced with such a narrow minded view?

And what physics would explain your 150,000 year cycle?

Just because climate has changed before doesn’t mean human activity releasing greenhouse gases can’t lead to more change. A good response, explained at different levels, to the ‘Climate’s changed before, therefore people can’t be changing it now’ myth is at http://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm

http://www.climatedata.info/Forcing/Emissions/Emissions/CO2.html – The graph in this page, figure 6, shows CO2 emissions and temperatures from a glacier in Antarctica. Funny how to me it looks like we are simply reaching the peak of what is a 150,000 year cycle. How does this data support the argument that we are causing a massive global warming when it has happened naturally since the earth was created? Like I have said before, scientists take the little piece of data they want and use it as “proof” of something, instead of looking at the big picture. Their own information doesn’t seem to support the argument, so how can one be convinced with such a narrow minded view?

bigfeet said :

dungfungus said :

How can the earth be “warming up” when the temperature of the land and sea surface and of the lower atmosphere is controlled by the sun’s rays.
This is why higher temperatures prevail around the equatorial belt where the sun shines more directly upon the earth’s surface. Conversely, areas of low temperatures are found around the poles where the sun’s rays are oblique.
The temperature of the the air is not much affected by the direct action of the suns ray’s and the so- called man made gasses “spewing” into the atmosphere are in tiny proportional amounts that make up the air so how can this be possibly be affecting the temperature of the land and sea?

Just because you either refuse to believe, or are incapable of understanding, how something works doesn’t make it less real!

dungfungus said :

The one thing I take exception to in this “debate” is the arrogance and air of superiority taken by people like you who think that because people like me have the audacity to challenge the claims of self-appointed climate science experts we are branded “science deniers” which implies sinister associations with the holocaust deniers.

I like how you put ‘debate’ in inverted commas, because that is where it belongs. This is not a ‘debate’. It is scientific fact, studied, examined, tested and proven to exist. The ‘debate’ is over. Anyone who cannot see that will never be convinced and there really is no point talking to them. They belong consigned to history the same way that those who ‘debated’ the fact that the earth revolves around the sun long after it was proven to be true.

This is not ‘arrogance’ or an ‘air of superiority’. Quite simply, the matter has been proven and is settled.

Arrogance is only shown by those who refuse to believe the evidence, believing they know better.

“Quite simply, the matter has been proven and is settled.”
That is arrogance in its purest form.
BTW, I presented the word “debate” that way because the that is how it was in the post I was responding to.
What you accept as evidence is just over-analysed theory which is challenging the status-quo which has been in place for hundreds of years and one cannot “know better” about something that is already absolute.

dungfungus said :

How can the earth be “warming up” when the temperature of the land and sea surface and of the lower atmosphere is controlled by the sun’s rays.
This is why higher temperatures prevail around the equatorial belt where the sun shines more directly upon the earth’s surface. Conversely, areas of low temperatures are found around the poles where the sun’s rays are oblique. The temperature of the the air is not much affected by the direct action of the suns ray’s and the so- called man made gasses “spewing” into the atmosphere are in tiny proportional amounts that make up the air so how can this be possibly be affecting the temperature of the land and sea?

The poles substantially less energy per square metre than the equator, and the Earth’s surface absorbs far more energy at the equator: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page3.php

Please give this a read (even though I’m sure you know the basics of the greenhouse effect): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect.

dungfungus said :

Canberroid said :

There is generally not much point trying to use facts to persuade science deniers (by definition really). This “debate” is a good and unfortunate example of that. Here’s an interesting read on the subject: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/

I’ll put my trust in the scientific community rather than politicians and fossil fuel industry lobbyists.

The one thing I take exception to in this “debate” is the arrogance and air of superiority taken by people like you who think that because people like me have the audacity to challenge the claims of self-appointed climate science experts we are branded “science deniers” which implies sinister associations with the holocaust deniers.
I think, I see, I hear and I consider every aspect of climate change and I don’t really care what the outcome is as there is nothing mankind can do about it but that doesn’t stop a group of carpetbaggers cashing in on the manipulation of hopes and fears of the general population by projecting dark scenarios when there is no tangible evidence of their claims.
It is a shame that the situation has been reached where people are admitting that they trust “the scientific community” more that they trust their own judgement.

Of course I trust the scientific community over my own judgement (or rather to shape my judgement) for matters like climate change. They are the experts, and my expertise lie in other areas. Remember that we are talking about thousands of highly trained individuals who have devoted their careers to research.

We didn’t see too many public debates over whether the Higgs boson existed in the lead up to it’s confirmed discovery. We let the researchers do their jobs and when the results were announced, we (or at least I) believed them. I’m sure neither you or I are qualified to truly debate or question their results. I don’t see how the collection, analysis and presentation of huge volumes of evidence pointing to man-made climate change is any different. The same could be said for the whole anti-vaccination movement, and we saw how that turned out.

“Free thinking” in the face of evidence is simply ignoring the evidence. If you actually “consider every aspect of climate change” you would not say that “there is no tangible evidence of their claims”.

Which of these scenarios are more likely:
– The vast majority of climatologists around the world who believe that man-made climate change is a real and imminent threat are wrong, and you are right,
– The vast majority of climatologists around the world who believe that man-made climate change is a real and imminent threat are lying and are actually in a global conspiracy to sell something, or
– The vast majority of climatologists around the world who believe that man-made climate change is a real and imminent threat are correct?

bigfeet said :

dungfungus said :

How can the earth be “warming up” when the temperature of the land and sea surface and of the lower atmosphere is controlled by the sun’s rays.
This is why higher temperatures prevail around the equatorial belt where the sun shines more directly upon the earth’s surface. Conversely, areas of low temperatures are found around the poles where the sun’s rays are oblique.
The temperature of the the air is not much affected by the direct action of the suns ray’s and the so- called man made gasses “spewing” into the atmosphere are in tiny proportional amounts that make up the air so how can this be possibly be affecting the temperature of the land and sea?

Just because you either refuse to believe, or are incapable of understanding, how something works doesn’t make it less real!

dungfungus said :

The one thing I take exception to in this “debate” is the arrogance and air of superiority taken by people like you who think that because people like me have the audacity to challenge the claims of self-appointed climate science experts we are branded “science deniers” which implies sinister associations with the holocaust deniers.

I like how you put ‘debate’ in inverted commas, because that is where it belongs. This is not a ‘debate’. It is scientific fact, studied, examined, tested and proven to exist. The ‘debate’ is over. Anyone who cannot see that will never be convinced and there really is no point talking to them. They belong consigned to history the same way that those who ‘debated’ the fact that the earth revolves around the sun long after it was proven to be true.

This is not ‘arrogance’ or an ‘air of superiority’. Quite simply, the matter has been proven and is settled.

Arrogance is only shown by those who refuse to believe the evidence, believing they know better.

“Well said.” As dungfungus has been known to say.

dungfungus said :

How can the earth be “warming up” when the temperature of the land and sea surface and of the lower atmosphere is controlled by the sun’s rays.
This is why higher temperatures prevail around the equatorial belt where the sun shines more directly upon the earth’s surface. Conversely, areas of low temperatures are found around the poles where the sun’s rays are oblique.
The temperature of the the air is not much affected by the direct action of the suns ray’s and the so- called man made gasses “spewing” into the atmosphere are in tiny proportional amounts that make up the air so how can this be possibly be affecting the temperature of the land and sea?

Just because you either refuse to believe, or are incapable of understanding, how something works doesn’t make it less real!

dungfungus said :

The one thing I take exception to in this “debate” is the arrogance and air of superiority taken by people like you who think that because people like me have the audacity to challenge the claims of self-appointed climate science experts we are branded “science deniers” which implies sinister associations with the holocaust deniers.

I like how you put ‘debate’ in inverted commas, because that is where it belongs. This is not a ‘debate’. It is scientific fact, studied, examined, tested and proven to exist. The ‘debate’ is over. Anyone who cannot see that will never be convinced and there really is no point talking to them. They belong consigned to history the same way that those who ‘debated’ the fact that the earth revolves around the sun long after it was proven to be true.

This is not ‘arrogance’ or an ‘air of superiority’. Quite simply, the matter has been proven and is settled.

Arrogance is only shown by those who refuse to believe the evidence, believing they know better.

Australian Bureau of Meteorology has been busted fudging or homogenizing historic weather temperature data. In doing this homogenization a warming trend is created when none previously existed.

“This cooling of past temperatures is a new trick* that the mainstream climate science community has endorsed over recent years to ensure next year is always hotter than last year – at least for Australia.”

John Hargreaves Ex MLA said :

Masquara said :

John Hargreaves Ex MLA said :

dungfungus said :

Roksteddy said :

dungfungus said :

There is no evidence that humans are causing climate change

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/csiro-almost-100-sure-humans-causing-temperatures-to-rise-20140904-10c7y4.html

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212096314000163

Well, really, these articles are merely opinion by people who are paid to write it that way. That is not proof.
Why not consider that while Hobart last year recorded it’s highest temperature since records were started, the BOM is forecasting a temperature of -2.0 tonight which is close to the record low of -2.8 recorded in 1972 and 1981?
What about the “best snowfalls in the Snowy Mountains for decades” which was in the news today?
When climate alarmists were focused solely on temperature increases there were inconvenient returns to usual cold weather which prompted the condition to be changed from “global warming” to “climate change”.
Then there was some spin about it “working both ways”. Give me a break.

The issue is that the natural warming of the earth is being sped up exponentially by the spewing of gases into the atmosphere from man made activities.

The case has been made. We’re killing the planet and we can’t go back but we can stop.

John, what were you doing about climate change when you were an MLA?

Q: What were you doing about climate change when I was an MLA?
A: when Environment minister for a very short period I was trying to include the use of urban forests as a mitigation factor in the damage we do here, minute as it may be.

Jon Stanhope got it right in creating the Arboretum cos this is a major mitigation factor here as is the man made urban forest that you live in, contrasting with the cement jungle and smoke generating larger cities.

I also enhanced the use of CNG buses to remove the reliance on diesel and to encourage people out of their cars.

Just to name a few… so what did you do? put solar on your roof, get rid of a wood heater, take up cycling? I doubt any of the above.

“Jon Stanhope got it right in creating the Arboretum cos this is a major mitigation factor here as is the man made urban forest that you live in, ………..”
This is the best spin I have heard for a long time, John.
The trees at the National Arboretum will not even replace, in number, the trees that were previously there before they were destroyed in the 2001 bushfire.

John Hargreaves Ex MLA said :

Just to name a few… so what did you do? put solar on your roof, get rid of a wood heater, take up cycling? I doubt any of the above.

Unlike the ALP insiders who were tipped off about the ending of the solar scheme subsidies at less than 24 hours notice (to the public) by an ALP fed minister, my solar panels did not benefit from a taxpayer’s subsidy. And yes, decommissioned a woodburning heater.

No one disputes that the earth is warming naturally as an evolutionary and inexorable inevitability. But the big thing is that mankind is speeding the whole process up by stuffing up the atmosphere through which the sun heats the planet.

If the big polluters like the US, China, India, Indonesia and Europe would only significantly reduce the emission of these damaging gasses, we might slow down instead of speeding up the inevitability.

If some of the countries with large forest areas, such as in South America, would only stop cutting down the trees which mitigate against the release of carbon into the atmosphere, we might, just might, be better off.

Masquara said :

John Hargreaves Ex MLA said :

dungfungus said :

Roksteddy said :

dungfungus said :

There is no evidence that humans are causing climate change

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/csiro-almost-100-sure-humans-causing-temperatures-to-rise-20140904-10c7y4.html

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212096314000163

Well, really, these articles are merely opinion by people who are paid to write it that way. That is not proof.
Why not consider that while Hobart last year recorded it’s highest temperature since records were started, the BOM is forecasting a temperature of -2.0 tonight which is close to the record low of -2.8 recorded in 1972 and 1981?
What about the “best snowfalls in the Snowy Mountains for decades” which was in the news today?
When climate alarmists were focused solely on temperature increases there were inconvenient returns to usual cold weather which prompted the condition to be changed from “global warming” to “climate change”.
Then there was some spin about it “working both ways”. Give me a break.

The issue is that the natural warming of the earth is being sped up exponentially by the spewing of gases into the atmosphere from man made activities.

The case has been made. We’re killing the planet and we can’t go back but we can stop.

John, what were you doing about climate change when you were an MLA?

Q: What were you doing about climate change when I was an MLA?
A: when Environment minister for a very short period I was trying to include the use of urban forests as a mitigation factor in the damage we do here, minute as it may be.

Jon Stanhope got it right in creating the Arboretum cos this is a major mitigation factor here as is the man made urban forest that you live in, contrasting with the cement jungle and smoke generating larger cities.

I also enhanced the use of CNG buses to remove the reliance on diesel and to encourage people out of their cars.

Just to name a few… so what did you do? put solar on your roof, get rid of a wood heater, take up cycling? I doubt any of the above.

Canberroid said :

There is generally not much point trying to use facts to persuade science deniers (by definition really). This “debate” is a good and unfortunate example of that. Here’s an interesting read on the subject: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/

I’ll put my trust in the scientific community rather than politicians and fossil fuel industry lobbyists.

The one thing I take exception to in this “debate” is the arrogance and air of superiority taken by people like you who think that because people like me have the audacity to challenge the claims of self-appointed climate science experts we are branded “science deniers” which implies sinister associations with the holocaust deniers.
I think, I see, I hear and I consider every aspect of climate change and I don’t really care what the outcome is as there is nothing mankind can do about it but that doesn’t stop a group of carpetbaggers cashing in on the manipulation of hopes and fears of the general population by projecting dark scenarios when there is no tangible evidence of their claims.
It is a shame that the situation has been reached where people are admitting that they trust “the scientific community” more that they trust their own judgement.

Grrrr said :

nor is 1 or even 100 nights in Hobart indicative of a global trend!

By this logic, I can also say that the last few centuries of warmer conditions does not represent global warming either in comparison to the previous tens or hundreds of thousands of years. You say you can’t take a small sample and make it a trend but that is exactly what scientists are doing instead of looking at what has happened in the long term. This warmer “climate” could be just one of those freakishly hot days in a calendar of a million years, simply a glitch in a gradual cycle that will eventually plunge us into an ice age again.
As dungfungus said, you can use statistics to create the outcome you want.

Aren’t scientists also the ones who speculate that massive volcanic eruptions have caused global weather anomalies, killing entire species such as the dinosaurs due to the freeze when ash spread all over the sky and darkened our world? So if it can happen naturally in an instant, why can’t the eruptions from present day volcanoes be contributing to global warming in a more believable way than our piddly little coal burners? I remain unswayed in my opinion, until they abide by their own rules instead of twisting all their facts to suit their own theories.

There is generally not much point trying to use facts to persuade science deniers (by definition really). This “debate” is a good and unfortunate example of that. Here’s an interesting read on the subject: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/

I’ll put my trust in the scientific community rather than politicians and fossil fuel industry lobbyists.

John Hargreaves Ex MLA said :

dungfungus said :

Roksteddy said :

dungfungus said :

There is no evidence that humans are causing climate change

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/csiro-almost-100-sure-humans-causing-temperatures-to-rise-20140904-10c7y4.html

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212096314000163

Well, really, these articles are merely opinion by people who are paid to write it that way. That is not proof.
Why not consider that while Hobart last year recorded it’s highest temperature since records were started, the BOM is forecasting a temperature of -2.0 tonight which is close to the record low of -2.8 recorded in 1972 and 1981?
What about the “best snowfalls in the Snowy Mountains for decades” which was in the news today?
When climate alarmists were focused solely on temperature increases there were inconvenient returns to usual cold weather which prompted the condition to be changed from “global warming” to “climate change”.
Then there was some spin about it “working both ways”. Give me a break.

The issue is that the natural warming of the earth is being sped up exponentially by the spewing of gases into the atmosphere from man made activities.

The case has been made. We’re killing the planet and we can’t go back but we can stop.

How can the earth be “warming up” when the temperature of the land and sea surface and of the lower atmosphere is controlled by the sun’s rays.
This is why higher temperatures prevail around the equatorial belt where the sun shines more directly upon the earth’s surface. Conversely, areas of low temperatures are found around the poles where the sun’s rays are oblique.
The temperature of the the air is not much affected by the direct action of the suns ray’s and the so- called man made gasses “spewing” into the atmosphere are in tiny proportional amounts that make up the air so how can this be possibly be affecting the temperature of the land and sea?

Grrrr said :

dungfungus said :

Why not consider that while Hobart last year recorded it’s highest temperature since records were started, the BOM is forecasting a temperature of -2.0 tonight which is close to the record low of -2.8 recorded in 1972 and 1981?
What about the “best snowfalls in the Snowy Mountains for decades” which was in the news today?
When climate alarmists were focused solely on temperature increases there were inconvenient returns to usual cold weather which prompted the condition to be changed from “global warming” to “climate change”.

You quote 1 instance of cold weather in a single location, and 1 of a season’s snow depth in a single location – then called it “a return to the usual cold weather.” Resort closing date at Perisher isn’t inversely proportionate to global temperature, and nor is 1 or even 100 nights in Hobart indicative of a global trend!

You need to spend a less time decrying actual scientists’ findings and a little more learning the absolute basics of statistical analysis. Even a high school maths student could tell you that your sample size will result in a Statistically Insignificant result.

You can deal in statistics and all that computer modelling sophistry to create the outcome you want.
In the meantime, I will be guided by what actually happens.

dungfungus said :

Why not consider that while Hobart last year recorded it’s highest temperature since records were started, the BOM is forecasting a temperature of -2.0 tonight which is close to the record low of -2.8 recorded in 1972 and 1981?
What about the “best snowfalls in the Snowy Mountains for decades” which was in the news today?
When climate alarmists were focused solely on temperature increases there were inconvenient returns to usual cold weather which prompted the condition to be changed from “global warming” to “climate change”.

You quote 1 instance of cold weather in a single location, and 1 of a season’s snow depth in a single location – then called it “a return to the usual cold weather.” Resort closing date at Perisher isn’t inversely proportionate to global temperature, and nor is 1 or even 100 nights in Hobart indicative of a global trend!

You need to spend a less time decrying actual scientists’ findings and a little more learning the absolute basics of statistical analysis. Even a high school maths student could tell you that your sample size will result in a Statistically Insignificant result.

John Hargreaves Ex MLA said :

dungfungus said :

Roksteddy said :

dungfungus said :

There is no evidence that humans are causing climate change

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/csiro-almost-100-sure-humans-causing-temperatures-to-rise-20140904-10c7y4.html

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212096314000163

Well, really, these articles are merely opinion by people who are paid to write it that way. That is not proof.
Why not consider that while Hobart last year recorded it’s highest temperature since records were started, the BOM is forecasting a temperature of -2.0 tonight which is close to the record low of -2.8 recorded in 1972 and 1981?
What about the “best snowfalls in the Snowy Mountains for decades” which was in the news today?
When climate alarmists were focused solely on temperature increases there were inconvenient returns to usual cold weather which prompted the condition to be changed from “global warming” to “climate change”.
Then there was some spin about it “working both ways”. Give me a break.

The issue is that the natural warming of the earth is being sped up exponentially by the spewing of gases into the atmosphere from man made activities.

The case has been made. We’re killing the planet and we can’t go back but we can stop.

John, what were you doing about climate change when you were an MLA?

dungfungus said :

Roksteddy said :

dungfungus said :

There is no evidence that humans are causing climate change

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/csiro-almost-100-sure-humans-causing-temperatures-to-rise-20140904-10c7y4.html

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212096314000163

Well, really, these articles are merely opinion by people who are paid to write it that way. That is not proof.
Why not consider that while Hobart last year recorded it’s highest temperature since records were started, the BOM is forecasting a temperature of -2.0 tonight which is close to the record low of -2.8 recorded in 1972 and 1981?
What about the “best snowfalls in the Snowy Mountains for decades” which was in the news today?
When climate alarmists were focused solely on temperature increases there were inconvenient returns to usual cold weather which prompted the condition to be changed from “global warming” to “climate change”.
Then there was some spin about it “working both ways”. Give me a break.

The issue is that the natural warming of the earth is being sped up exponentially by the spewing of gases into the atmosphere from man made activities.

The case has been made. We’re killing the planet and we can’t go back but we can stop.

Roksteddy said :

dungfungus said :

There is no evidence that humans are causing climate change

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/csiro-almost-100-sure-humans-causing-temperatures-to-rise-20140904-10c7y4.html

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212096314000163

Well, really, these articles are merely opinion by people who are paid to write it that way. That is not proof.
Why not consider that while Hobart last year recorded it’s highest temperature since records were started, the BOM is forecasting a temperature of -2.0 tonight which is close to the record low of -2.8 recorded in 1972 and 1981?
What about the “best snowfalls in the Snowy Mountains for decades” which was in the news today?
When climate alarmists were focused solely on temperature increases there were inconvenient returns to usual cold weather which prompted the condition to be changed from “global warming” to “climate change”.
Then there was some spin about it “working both ways”. Give me a break.

HenryBG said :

dungfungus said :

Field studies conducted by geophysicists 150 years ago concluded that glaciers advance and retreat on average every 30 years.

Any current science source for that factoid?

dungfungus said :

Another study by T. J. CHINN, Institute of Geological & Nuclear Sciences, Dunedin, New Zealand
states that an investigation of 127 glaciers of the New Zealand Southern Alps shows the losses that have occurred since the end of the Little Ice Age on average were between 35% and 60%.
Note the time span involved everybody and relax.

You mention a study, but provide no date, no title, no publication.

Could it be that you are asking people to believe your story about Glaciers not melting on account of a 20-year-old paper that looked only at New Zealand glaciers, and doesn’t say anything remotely like what you are claiming it says?

Here, on the other hand, I am presenting real information consisting of some genuine science:
http://nsidc.org/data/g10002
Shorter version:
http://nsidc.org/glims/glaciermelt/index.html

If you prefer not to have to wade through a professional paper on the subject, it is summarised visually :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Glacier_Mass_Balance_Map.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e5/Glacier_Mass_Balance.png/280px-Glacier_Mass_Balance.png

As you can see, the known effects of increased CO2 in the atmosphere are without a skerrick of a doubt causing glaciers to melt.

And as you saw, claims to the contrary are confused and contradicted by the facts.

From Physical Geography, William Morris Davis, Professor of Physical Geography in Harvard University, published 1898:
“The length of glaciers is found to increase and decrease slowly in successive years. For a time they lengthen or advance; then they melt back or retreat; the change being completed in the Alps in a period of about thirty-five years. This is believed to result chiefly from a variation in the snowfall.
A change of snow supply is sooner indicated by a variation in the end of a short than of a long glacier; hence all the glaciers of a mountain range do not vary together.”

From: http://hydrologynz.co.nz/downloads/20071015-094857-JoHNZ_2001_v40_2_Chinn.pdf please read the section titled Ongoing Snowline Monitoring which I will quote from.
“……the data collected have shown that the trend of glacier recession (New Zealand) over the past 100 years has reversed, with the glaciers showing inferred positive balances in most years since 1978.
Currently, all except a few glacier fronts are thickening and advancing”

It’s easy to find the populous stuff about so called climate change on the internet but the truth takes a a bit longer.
Now I have demolished the myth about glaciers disappearing I will look at the other false claims of the alarmists and report back.
Factoid indeed.

dungfungus said :

John Hargreaves Ex MLA said :

Thanks to all posters. Good quality debate. I was in Switzerland a couple of years ago and went to a glacier near Mont Blanc. It had receded about a hundred metres in depth and about two kilometres in length (my memory is still a bit hazy but the effect of warming was obvious and I stopped being a sceptic about then.

The same is happening in the glaciers in New Zealand so for those who don’t want to rely on facts in print, go see for yourself and ask the locals.

They have seen the effects of warming over their lifespan.

Do a Google search on “Mt. Blanc Glaciers Refuse to Shrink” and you may become a sceptic again.

Yep because one glacier not retreating makes up for all the others. If there is a general trend of glaciers retreating which there is, then theire is also most likely a cause.

I will agree sometimes climate based science can be alarmist at times, but the real issue is when is it too late to make a change to prevent the alarmist situation from occuring. Its like speeding, people speed all the time and never have an accident. Does it mean its safe? No not really. There is plenty of evidence from many many sources with no financial interest or gain, showing that the global climate is changing and having an effect on the globe.

I’m happy to have an argument about whether we should do anything or just let it happen, but to suggest there is no climate change or global warming is just being ignorant and showing your inability to read and interpret information in an unbiased and constructive manner.
More disturbing is at one time a majority of voters were all for doing something to stop climate change. Then they were told, no its too expensive (and it might be I’m not arguing that point here) and now they are all sceptics! Its important to keep the political party policy seperate from the science, although that doesn’t suit many peoples arguments.

dungfungus said :

Field studies conducted by geophysicists 150 years ago concluded that glaciers advance and retreat on average every 30 years.

Any current science source for that factoid?

dungfungus said :

Another study by T. J. CHINN, Institute of Geological & Nuclear Sciences, Dunedin, New Zealand
states that an investigation of 127 glaciers of the New Zealand Southern Alps shows the losses that have occurred since the end of the Little Ice Age on average were between 35% and 60%.
Note the time span involved everybody and relax.

You mention a study, but provide no date, no title, no publication.

Could it be that you are asking people to believe your story about Glaciers not melting on account of a 20-year-old paper that looked only at New Zealand glaciers, and doesn’t say anything remotely like what you are claiming it says?

Here, on the other hand, I am presenting real information consisting of some genuine science:
http://nsidc.org/data/g10002
Shorter version:
http://nsidc.org/glims/glaciermelt/index.html

If you prefer not to have to wade through a professional paper on the subject, it is summarised visually :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Glacier_Mass_Balance_Map.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e5/Glacier_Mass_Balance.png/280px-Glacier_Mass_Balance.png

As you can see, the known effects of increased CO2 in the atmosphere are without a skerrick of a doubt causing glaciers to melt.

And as you saw, claims to the contrary are confused and contradicted by the facts.

It’s interesting how climate sceptics deny global scientific consensus which is inconvenient for them, but are more than happy to take advantage of scientific advancements that suits them (such as the computers they’re using right now).

There is no debate in the global scientific community about whether man-made climate change is real and bad news. Our oceans are acidifying, atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases are increasing, and changes are too rapid for ecosystems to adapt.

Personal anecdotal evidence against climate change does not invalidate the huge body of evidence pointing to ACC.

I wish people would stop complaining about a small rise in their quarterly energy bill and recognise that their current actions will have devastating results for future generations. It’s not okay to ignore it simply because you might have died of old age by then.

dungfungus said :

There is no evidence that humans are causing climate change

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/csiro-almost-100-sure-humans-causing-temperatures-to-rise-20140904-10c7y4.html

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212096314000163

John Hargreaves Ex MLA said :

dungfungus said :

John Hargreaves Ex MLA said :

Thanks to all posters. Good quality debate. I was in Switzerland a couple of years ago and went to a glacier near Mont Blanc. It had receded about a hundred metres in depth and about two kilometres in length (my memory is still a bit hazy but the effect of warming was obvious and I stopped being a sceptic about then.

The same is happening in the glaciers in New Zealand so for those who don’t want to rely on facts in print, go see for yourself and ask the locals.

They have seen the effects of warming over their lifespan.

Do a Google search on “Mt. Blanc Glaciers Refuse to Shrink” and you may become a sceptic again.

My eyes don’t lie. The ice cave was at road level and now one has to go down about a hundred metres of steps to cross the glacier to get to it. I trust my eyes before Google.

There are lots of reasons why glacial caves disappear: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacier_cave

John Hargreaves Ex MLA said :

dungfungus said :

John Hargreaves Ex MLA said :

Thanks to all posters. Good quality debate. I was in Switzerland a couple of years ago and went to a glacier near Mont Blanc. It had receded about a hundred metres in depth and about two kilometres in length (my memory is still a bit hazy but the effect of warming was obvious and I stopped being a sceptic about then.

The same is happening in the glaciers in New Zealand so for those who don’t want to rely on facts in print, go see for yourself and ask the locals.

They have seen the effects of warming over their lifespan.

Do a Google search on “Mt. Blanc Glaciers Refuse to Shrink” and you may become a sceptic again.

My eyes don’t lie. The ice cave was at road level and now one has to go down about a hundred metres of steps to cross the glacier to get to it. I trust my eyes before Google.

Glaciers have been disappearing for millions of years. I read somewhere that where Canberra is was previously covered by a glacier.
Field studies conducted by geophysicists 150 years ago concluded that glaciers advance and retreat on average every 30 years.
Another study by T. J. CHINN, Institute of Geological & Nuclear Sciences, Dunedin, New Zealand
states that an investigation of 127 glaciers of the New Zealand Southern Alps shows the losses that have occurred since the end of the Little Ice Age on average were between 35% and 60%.
Note the time span involved everybody and relax.

John Hargreaves Ex MLA said :

dungfungus said :

John Hargreaves Ex MLA said :

Thanks to all posters. Good quality debate. I was in Switzerland a couple of years ago and went to a glacier near Mont Blanc. It had receded about a hundred metres in depth and about two kilometres in length (my memory is still a bit hazy but the effect of warming was obvious and I stopped being a sceptic about then.

The same is happening in the glaciers in New Zealand so for those who don’t want to rely on facts in print, go see for yourself and ask the locals.

They have seen the effects of warming over their lifespan.

Do a Google search on “Mt. Blanc Glaciers Refuse to Shrink” and you may become a sceptic again.

My eyes don’t lie. The ice cave was at road level and now one has to go down about a hundred metres of steps to cross the glacier to get to it. I trust my eyes before Google.

Did you hear on ABC News this morning that the snow at Perisher has been so good this year that they are extending the season into October?
Maybe Australia should consider exporting snow to NZ.

dungfungus said :

John Hargreaves Ex MLA said :

Thanks to all posters. Good quality debate. I was in Switzerland a couple of years ago and went to a glacier near Mont Blanc. It had receded about a hundred metres in depth and about two kilometres in length (my memory is still a bit hazy but the effect of warming was obvious and I stopped being a sceptic about then.

The same is happening in the glaciers in New Zealand so for those who don’t want to rely on facts in print, go see for yourself and ask the locals.

They have seen the effects of warming over their lifespan.

Do a Google search on “Mt. Blanc Glaciers Refuse to Shrink” and you may become a sceptic again.

My eyes don’t lie. The ice cave was at road level and now one has to go down about a hundred metres of steps to cross the glacier to get to it. I trust my eyes before Google.

HenryBG said :

dungfungus said :

Here are some real facts. (some facts are more factual than other facts)
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/11/11/kiribati-was-half-submerged-in-wwii/

Those aren’t facts. That’s Steven Goddard.

Notice that I have pointed you to real facts published in the academic literature by genuine scientists who conduct actual science research, while you point me to a notoriously inaccurate and inexpert blogger who does no actual research and publishes no science?

dungfungus said :

Also, can’t you recall lessons about tectonic plate convergences that were taught to us in primary school?

I don’t recall any of my textbooks talking about “tectonic plate convergences”, however assuming you are in fact referring to convergent boundaries, I am puzzled by what you may mean. You may find it interesting to brush up on Kiribati’s situation slap bang in the middle of a tectonic basin.
You also may have missed the bit in the science that I quoted from which mentions that Kiribati’s net vertical movement is *positive*. That means *up*.
Perhaps recalling past science lessons isn’t one of my issues.

For those who don’t know, Tarawa, the island capital of Kiribati, is a coral atoll, or what’s left of it. It has an airport and a road from the airport to the main township has a bitumen buckle in it about half way cross the causeway. it is about 3 cm high and the locals call it Mount Tarawa.

Masquara said :

Well Tim Flannery bought low-lying waterfront property north of Sydney, and he’s the climate change guru, isn’t he? So I wouldn’t worry about it John.

That is an outright lie. Flannery’s house is not low-lying. It is above the levels of projected sea level rise.

http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/11/22/flannery-hadley-concocted-story-on-my-waterside-home/

dungfungus said :

You were in Kiribati 16 years ago then.
If all the crazy predictions from climate change alarmists were true then that group of islands would be submerged by now.
Last time I checked, nothing had changed.
I am glad the USA is always behind in its “payments” to the UN. That organisation is spending a disproportionate amount of resources in trying to keep the non- problem of climate change alive. The following is an example of the sort of rubbish they are getting involved in now:
“The United Nations is looking for a young woman to, as BBC put it, be the ‘Malala’ of the climate change movement, serving as a voice that will energize this September’s climate change conference.
The organization has put out a call for a woman under 30 to speak at the opening session of the 2014 Climate Summit, which is being held on September 23 in New York City. The woman has to be from a developing country and must have a background that includes advocacy on climate change or work on implementing climate mitigation or adaptation solutions. So far, the call for applicants has drawn 544 women, who emailed short videos of themselves persuading world leaders to act on climate change to the Secretary-General’s office.
Organizers hope to find someone who can capture the hearts and minds of people around the world as much as Malala Yousafzai, a Pakastani schoolgirl who was shot in the head by the Taliban and has since become an advocate for women’s rights to education, did when she addressed the UN in July 2013. But as the BBC notes, the choice to include only women in the candidate pool could create some controversy. Susan Alzner, who works at the UN Non-Governmental Liaison Service and is the main person in charge of the search, told the BBC that the decision stems from the fact that women are often the ones who suffer the most from climate change impacts.”

Of course, as climate activists, they’ll be skyping in to New York, not flying …

Well Tim Flannery bought low-lying waterfront property north of Sydney, and he’s the climate change guru, isn’t he? So I wouldn’t worry about it John.

ScienceRules said :

I was going to comment, but HenryBG nailed it.

Every major peak scientific body has acknowledged that the climate is changing and that humans are largely the cause of this. It isn’t up for debate or argument. All we can discuss is how the situation can be managed so that there is the potential for the planet to support life sometime in the future.

Climate changes by nature.
Just because a few government funded self-elected climate scientists mix data with computer modelling to bamboozle everyone doesn’t mean that we should believe them. There is no evidence that humans are causing climate change and even if they are there has been no catastrophic sea level rising or more frequent storms/bushfires/eathquakes etc.
A bit of common sense would go a long way with some of you people.

dungfungus said :

John Hargreaves Ex MLA said :

Thanks to all posters. Good quality debate. I was in Switzerland a couple of years ago and went to a glacier near Mont Blanc. It had receded about a hundred metres in depth and about two kilometres in length (my memory is still a bit hazy but the effect of warming was obvious and I stopped being a sceptic about then.

The same is happening in the glaciers in New Zealand so for those who don’t want to rely on facts in print, go see for yourself and ask the locals.

They have seen the effects of warming over their lifespan.

Do a Google search on “Mt. Blanc Glaciers Refuse to Shrink” and you may become a sceptic again.

According to the first link below, between 1980 and 1995 the glacier of Mont Blanc and the Bossons retreated 519 meters.
http://www.toptotop.org/climate/montblanc.php

Other links:

http://glacierchange.wordpress.com/2010/04/04/mer-de-glace-glacier-retreat-a-receding-sea/

http://www.chamonet.com/events/news/mont-blanc-glacier-retreats-by-15-metres

Moving away from the Mt Blanc area and travelling south, last year I was shocked on a visit to New Zealand to see how much their glaciers had retreated, because up till then I believed the NZ ones hadn’t. An eye-opener, which corrected my ignorance.

John Hargreaves Ex MLA said :

Thanks to all posters. Good quality debate. I was in Switzerland a couple of years ago and went to a glacier near Mont Blanc. It had receded about a hundred metres in depth and about two kilometres in length (my memory is still a bit hazy but the effect of warming was obvious and I stopped being a sceptic about then.

The same is happening in the glaciers in New Zealand so for those who don’t want to rely on facts in print, go see for yourself and ask the locals.

They have seen the effects of warming over their lifespan.

Do a Google search on “Mt. Blanc Glaciers Refuse to Shrink” and you may become a sceptic again.

Why should we be so alarmist about islands under threat of oceans rising, when there are other islands and indeed countries, who are under threat of another global crisis – shifting tectonic plates!!
If you look at events around the world that have occurred in the last several thousand years, there is non-disputable proof that volcanoes have wiped out entire cities and civilizations. Granted, the short term – just like global warming – evidence is not as convincing, but looking at the past we can see that tectonic movement of the Earth’s crust is destroying our world. Mt. Vesuvius, Krakatoa, Mt. St. Helens…these are examples that we know of that have caused great catastrophes and compared to global warming not exactly a small issue either. Should we also fund anyone within earshot of a “dormant” volcano to relocate to a safe place??
I only came up with this on a whim just then, but if you used the global warming style of argument to support global volcanosation, what difference is there in the scientific “evidence” and predictions of what is to come? Maybe mankind is to blame for all the earthquakes everywhere too, but we just haven’t figured out who to blame yet.

dungfungus said :

All of us read fairy tales when we were young. Some of us still do, apparently.
As I said, if all those alarmist’s crazy predictions were true, all these islands would be submerged by now and they are not so why dredge up more data?

The predictions you are sharing with us are indeed alarming.

Any chance you could share your source for those alleged predictions?

I’ve already provided evidence that the IPCC says no such thing.

dungfungus said :

Here are some real facts. (some facts are more factual than other facts)
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/11/11/kiribati-was-half-submerged-in-wwii/

Those aren’t facts. That’s Steven Goddard.

Notice that I have pointed you to real facts published in the academic literature by genuine scientists who conduct actual science research, while you point me to a notoriously inaccurate and inexpert blogger who does no actual research and publishes no science?

dungfungus said :

Also, can’t you recall lessons about tectonic plate convergences that were taught to us in primary school?

I don’t recall any of my textbooks talking about “tectonic plate convergences”, however assuming you are in fact referring to convergent boundaries, I am puzzled by what you may mean. You may find it interesting to brush up on Kiribati’s situation slap bang in the middle of a tectonic basin.
You also may have missed the bit in the science that I quoted from which mentions that Kiribati’s net vertical movement is *positive*. That means *up*.
Perhaps recalling past science lessons isn’t one of my issues.

I was going to comment, but HenryBG nailed it.

Every major peak scientific body has acknowledged that the climate is changing and that humans are largely the cause of this. It isn’t up for debate or argument. All we can discuss is how the situation can be managed so that there is the potential for the planet to support life sometime in the future.

Thanks to all posters. Good quality debate. I was in Switzerland a couple of years ago and went to a glacier near Mont Blanc. It had receded about a hundred metres in depth and about two kilometres in length (my memory is still a bit hazy but the effect of warming was obvious and I stopped being a sceptic about then.

The same is happening in the glaciers in New Zealand so for those who don’t want to rely on facts in print, go see for yourself and ask the locals.

They have seen the effects of warming over their lifespan.

http://www.nanseninitiative.org/

i’d assume this is a hot topic of conversation – well, has been – in samoa at the moment as the un holds its decadal small island developing states conference. does australia, as a developed country, have a moral obligation to resettle [some of] these people? probably.

HenryBG said :

dungfungus said :

If all the crazy predictions from climate change alarmists were true then that group of islands would be submerged by now.

http://www.climate.gov.ki/category/effects/coastal-erosion/
“The Australian National Tidal Centre reports that sea levels in Kiribati have averaged a rise of 3.7 millimetres a year since 1992.”

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=671
“Many small island nations are only a few meters above present sea level. These states may face serious threat of permanent inundation from sea-level rise. Among the most vulnerable of these island states are the Marshall Islands, Kiribati, Tuvalu, Tonga, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Cook Islands (in the Pacific Ocean); Antigua and Nevis (in the Caribbean Sea); and the Maldives (in the Indian Ocean). Small island states may face the following types of impacts from sea-level rise and climate change (Gaffin, 1997; Nurse et al., 1998):
Increased coastal erosion
Changes in aquifer volume and water quality with increased saline intrusion
Coral reef deterioration resulting from sea-level rise and thermal stress
Outmigration caused by permanent inundation
Social instability related to inter-island migration
Loss of income resulting from negative effects on tourist industry
Increased vulnerability of human settlement due to decrease in land area
Loss of agriculture and vegetation.
Gaffin (1997) concludes that without planned adaptation, the vulnerabilities of small island states are as follows:
An 80-cm sea-level rise could inundate two-thirds of the Marshall Islands and Kiribati.2
A 90-cm sea-level rise could cause 85% of Male, the capital of the Maldives, to be inundated (Pernetta, 1989).”

I see no “crazy predictions”, just careful and professional scientists recording reality. Perhaps you can backup your assertion with something?

dungfungus said :

Last time I checked, nothing had changed.

What did you check with? Tidal gauge data? Satellite altimetry?
Or…and going out on a limb here…you didn’t really “check”, did you?

Here’s what you find when you actually *do* check:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wea.396/pdf
“Table 1
Significant parameters for the sea-level situation in the Kiribati area.
Parameters Values Comments
Length of data 16 yrs Not long enough yet
Sea-level trend + 3.9mm/yr Very small change from the previous months
Sea-level rise ~ 6.14cm For the last 16 years
Vertical land movement ~+0.2mm/yr Not significant [slightly reducing sea level]”
“A study of sea-level changes in the Kiribati area for the last 16 years”, Than Aung, Awnesh Singh and Uma Prasad, Royal Meteorological Society, Weather, Vol 64 no9.

And that is the difference between people who source their opinions carefully, and those who rely instead on tabloids and dodgy blogs. Or their imaginations.

All of us read fairy tales when we were young. Some of us still do, apparently.
As I said, if all those alarmist’s crazy predictions were true, all these islands would be submerged by now and they are not so why dredge up more data?

dungfungus said :

Here are some real facts. (some facts are more factual than other facts)
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/11/11/kiribati-was-half-submerged-in-wwii/
Also, can’t you recall lessons about tectonic plate convergences that were taught to us in primary school?

Oh oh, some black and white pictures on a climate denialist blog.

Well that proves it, somebody body better call the IPCC and let them know that climate change is a scam.

Now if only people would wake up to the way the CIA is implementing mind control through the use of orange golf balls.

You know what I’m talking about dungfungus.

HenryBG said :

John Moulis said :

Perhaps after one of the coldest winters in our history after the climate change believers assured us that it would never happen again, even the staunchest climate change advocates might be realising that they got things terribly wrong.

Here is some data for Kiribati:
http://www.pacificclimatechangescience.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/11_PCCSP_Kiribati_8pp.pdf

As you can see, Kiribati is experiencing increased temperatures and sea level rise.

Describing yourself as a “climate realist” would make more sense, were you to in fact accomodate reality within your beliefs.

You could perhaps start by explaining what you mean by “coldest winters in our history”, and then explaining how a bit of cold weather negates the laws of physics, which laws show that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that increased greenhouse gases result in greater heat retention.

(Incidentally, a “theory”, in science, is an explanation of the facts against which nobody has found any contradicting data. In other words, a “theory” in science, is a description of reality. If you don’t like a theory, you’re going to need to provide something pretty compelling to convince anybody your opinion is worth anything.)

Here is BoM’s summary for June 2014:
“Above average temperatures, particularly in
eastern States
• Warmest January–June period on record for
Australia
• Warmest Australian-region sea surface
temperatures on record for June”
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/mwr/aus/mwr-aus-201406.pdf

July 2014:
• Warm days and cool nights over much of the
mainland
• Another warm month overall in the south
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/mwr/aus/mwr-aus-201407.pdf

And seeing as August isn’t out yet, for interest, May2014:
Record-breaking late-season warm spell
• Above average mean temperatures (3rd-warmest
May on record nationally)
• South Australia’s warmest May on record for both
mean and minimum temperatures.

Hmmm…but maybe April was cold:
Above average mean temperatures (7th-highest on
record nationally)
• Above average maximum and minimum
temperatures
• Queensland’s warmest April on record for
minimum temperatures

Nope. And March?
Above average maximum and minimum
temperatures

I have a suggestion for you John: Form an opinion *after* carefully analysing the facts. Because when you do the opposite by selectively quoting facts(if that’s what they are) to support an opinion, you don’t come across as somebody doing any sound thinking.

Here are some real facts. (some facts are more factual than other facts)
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/11/11/kiribati-was-half-submerged-in-wwii/
Also, can’t you recall lessons about tectonic plate convergences that were taught to us in primary school?

John Moulis said :

Perhaps after one of the coldest winters in our history after the climate change believers assured us that it would never happen again, even the staunchest climate change advocates might be realising that they got things terribly wrong.

Here is some data for Kiribati:
http://www.pacificclimatechangescience.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/11_PCCSP_Kiribati_8pp.pdf

As you can see, Kiribati is experiencing increased temperatures and sea level rise.

Describing yourself as a “climate realist” would make more sense, were you to in fact accomodate reality within your beliefs.

You could perhaps start by explaining what you mean by “coldest winters in our history”, and then explaining how a bit of cold weather negates the laws of physics, which laws show that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that increased greenhouse gases result in greater heat retention.

(Incidentally, a “theory”, in science, is an explanation of the facts against which nobody has found any contradicting data. In other words, a “theory” in science, is a description of reality. If you don’t like a theory, you’re going to need to provide something pretty compelling to convince anybody your opinion is worth anything.)

Here is BoM’s summary for June 2014:
“Above average temperatures, particularly in
eastern States
• Warmest January–June period on record for
Australia
• Warmest Australian-region sea surface
temperatures on record for June”
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/mwr/aus/mwr-aus-201406.pdf

July 2014:
• Warm days and cool nights over much of the
mainland
• Another warm month overall in the south
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/mwr/aus/mwr-aus-201407.pdf

And seeing as August isn’t out yet, for interest, May2014:
Record-breaking late-season warm spell
• Above average mean temperatures (3rd-warmest
May on record nationally)
• South Australia’s warmest May on record for both
mean and minimum temperatures.

Hmmm…but maybe April was cold:
Above average mean temperatures (7th-highest on
record nationally)
• Above average maximum and minimum
temperatures
• Queensland’s warmest April on record for
minimum temperatures

Nope. And March?
Above average maximum and minimum
temperatures

I have a suggestion for you John: Form an opinion *after* carefully analysing the facts. Because when you do the opposite by selectively quoting facts(if that’s what they are) to support an opinion, you don’t come across as somebody doing any sound thinking.

dungfungus said :

If all the crazy predictions from climate change alarmists were true then that group of islands would be submerged by now.

http://www.climate.gov.ki/category/effects/coastal-erosion/
“The Australian National Tidal Centre reports that sea levels in Kiribati have averaged a rise of 3.7 millimetres a year since 1992.”

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=671
“Many small island nations are only a few meters above present sea level. These states may face serious threat of permanent inundation from sea-level rise. Among the most vulnerable of these island states are the Marshall Islands, Kiribati, Tuvalu, Tonga, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Cook Islands (in the Pacific Ocean); Antigua and Nevis (in the Caribbean Sea); and the Maldives (in the Indian Ocean). Small island states may face the following types of impacts from sea-level rise and climate change (Gaffin, 1997; Nurse et al., 1998):
Increased coastal erosion
Changes in aquifer volume and water quality with increased saline intrusion
Coral reef deterioration resulting from sea-level rise and thermal stress
Outmigration caused by permanent inundation
Social instability related to inter-island migration
Loss of income resulting from negative effects on tourist industry
Increased vulnerability of human settlement due to decrease in land area
Loss of agriculture and vegetation.
Gaffin (1997) concludes that without planned adaptation, the vulnerabilities of small island states are as follows:
An 80-cm sea-level rise could inundate two-thirds of the Marshall Islands and Kiribati.2
A 90-cm sea-level rise could cause 85% of Male, the capital of the Maldives, to be inundated (Pernetta, 1989).”

I see no “crazy predictions”, just careful and professional scientists recording reality. Perhaps you can backup your assertion with something?

dungfungus said :

Last time I checked, nothing had changed.

What did you check with? Tidal gauge data? Satellite altimetry?
Or…and going out on a limb here…you didn’t really “check”, did you?

Here’s what you find when you actually *do* check:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wea.396/pdf
“Table 1
Significant parameters for the sea-level situation in the Kiribati area.
Parameters Values Comments
Length of data 16 yrs Not long enough yet
Sea-level trend + 3.9mm/yr Very small change from the previous months
Sea-level rise ~ 6.14cm For the last 16 years
Vertical land movement ~+0.2mm/yr Not significant [slightly reducing sea level]”
“A study of sea-level changes in the Kiribati area for the last 16 years”, Than Aung, Awnesh Singh and Uma Prasad, Royal Meteorological Society, Weather, Vol 64 no9.

And that is the difference between people who source their opinions carefully, and those who rely instead on tabloids and dodgy blogs. Or their imaginations.

The CT’s fabrications about so-called global warming have become so blatant that even ex-Labor politicians are now calling them out. As for their headline “Aid for island nations hit by warming a moral duty”, that isn’t surprising either. The paper has waged campaigns over many years urging governments to boost foreign aid. Whenever they published one of their editorials on the subject I would write to them with a contrary view but the letters were never published. As for “climate change”, the paper is growing up a bit. They had previously imposed a total ban on the publishing of any letters or articles criticising pro-climate change theory, but over the past few months I have been able to get two letters published giving the climate realist viewpoint.

Perhaps after one of the coldest winters in our history after the climate change believers assured us that it would never happen again, even the staunchest climate change advocates might be realising that they got things terribly wrong.

Sea levels are changing. http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/ is just one such piece of evidence.
The thing is that change doesn’t happen very fast, but it also can’t be reversed very quickly either. This is why there are so many skeptics out there. The ozone layer holw has only just stabilised in size and isn’t expected to close til 2070. It was what 20-30 yrs ago they banned the main cause of the ozone layer layer hole. There were skeptics back then too. Problem is when visual proof takes so long to develop people just tend to read the things that suit their skepticism, much like those who will only vote for a political party and refuse to believe any facts that conflict what they want to believe.

You were in Kiribati 16 years ago then.
If all the crazy predictions from climate change alarmists were true then that group of islands would be submerged by now.
Last time I checked, nothing had changed.
I am glad the USA is always behind in its “payments” to the UN. That organisation is spending a disproportionate amount of resources in trying to keep the non- problem of climate change alive. The following is an example of the sort of rubbish they are getting involved in now:
“The United Nations is looking for a young woman to, as BBC put it, be the ‘Malala’ of the climate change movement, serving as a voice that will energize this September’s climate change conference.
The organization has put out a call for a woman under 30 to speak at the opening session of the 2014 Climate Summit, which is being held on September 23 in New York City. The woman has to be from a developing country and must have a background that includes advocacy on climate change or work on implementing climate mitigation or adaptation solutions. So far, the call for applicants has drawn 544 women, who emailed short videos of themselves persuading world leaders to act on climate change to the Secretary-General’s office.
Organizers hope to find someone who can capture the hearts and minds of people around the world as much as Malala Yousafzai, a Pakastani schoolgirl who was shot in the head by the Taliban and has since become an advocate for women’s rights to education, did when she addressed the UN in July 2013. But as the BBC notes, the choice to include only women in the candidate pool could create some controversy. Susan Alzner, who works at the UN Non-Governmental Liaison Service and is the main person in charge of the search, told the BBC that the decision stems from the fact that women are often the ones who suffer the most from climate change impacts.”