Trant said...

FormulaNova said...

Trant said...

FormulaNova said...
Can you please point me to some proper research articles, not a glossy mag that shows a summary?

Not a fun read by any means, but here's at least one.

www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/JonesMannROG04.pdf

www.realclimate.org is a good portal if you want to get into the nitty, gritty of things. (I certainly don't)

Trant I will try and read these articles completely, but my first thought when I started reading the first was that the author appears to be the same author of the 'Hockey Stick' graph, which itself appears to be a bit dodgy. The 'Hockey Stick' graph takes very uncertain data and appends data from a completely different source, which funnily enough shows that the climate is rocketing up in temperature. It only seems to show this alarming trend in the new data that was appended though. Surely not an example of good science there.

The same guy appears to have gone on to a climate-based career, probably from his viewpoint on this climate change. How do I trust the conclusions from someone that has produced a paper that seems quite flawed?

Oh I see what you're doing!

Ok, try reading it then and come to your own conclusions. They list all their sources, the data is available for anyone to view (go to the RealClimate.org link)
The "Hockey Stick Controversy" is old news and has been dealt with many, many times. The American National Academy of Science was asked to investigate the graph. You can read the whole report here;
www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11676
or a synopsis here;
www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/06/national-academies-synthesis-report/

It's up to you mate, you asked for links and both I and Gestalt has shown you then.


I'm wondering if we should be counting how many times the same question gets asked? Hockey Stick Graph + 1

Well, you are the one that provided a link to the article by the same scientist. What? Did you think I would ignore that fact?

Yes, I asked for links, and I appreciate you posting them. I am also happy to read them (although this could take some time) and see if "I" believe them. I approach this as someone interested in the science, not someone that just reads the articles and goes 'well aint that interesting'.

ok, i found an excellent and easily read document from csiro. to quote a comment in it.

"There is greater than 90 per cent likelihood that most of the global warming since the mid 20th century is due to increases in greenhouse gas emissions from human activities."

it also contains a graph overlay of nasa, hadley and usncdc where contrary to the article in theregister hadley shows temps rising not falling.



the entire article can be found here. i urge people read it. it goes on to claim that the chances of climate change not being man made are only 5%

http://www.csiro.au/science/the-science-of-climate-change.html

maxm said...

I've said before (maybe even in this thread?) that my attitude to global warming is "so what"? But regardless of whether you believe the planet is getting warmer or whether it's all a con by some bunch of eggheads doesn't matter. The real problem, the one that's not contentious is that the world is running out of:
...

Now I'm no economist but I don't know how you do that except to make the current energy sources more expensive. That makes alternative energy sources more attractive. We need to do that now, not when the oil and the coal run out because if we do it now, it can be done smoothly with minor pain whereas waiting till they run out means throwing the entire global economy into chaos. That'd mean unemployment, hunger and bloody hard times for my grandchildren. For some you it'll be your children.

You need to think about that.

A tax on carbon? Fine. One world government? A bloody good idea.

I agree. Unfortunately the only thing that seems to make alternative energy available is the increased costs of existing sources. People won't support something more expensive, until it is no longer more expensive.

You can't really blame people in developing countries for that either. They will use whatever is cheap as that is all they can afford.

I guess the danger in the way this pans out is that some people make money from resources getting more expensive without funding alternatives.

Oh well, it will happen. I don't agree with the all of a sudden 'we've run out of oil/coal/gas' theory, but I do think prices will increase when we start running low.

Trant said...

FormulaNova said...
Oh well, it will happen. I don't agree with the all of a sudden 'we've run out of oil/coal/gas' theory, but I do think prices will increase when we start running low.

Agree, but I reckon most sensible people would want a large investment in "alternative" energy so that it then becomes an economically preferred (cheaper) alternative to coal, gas and oil. No point waiting until coal/gas/oil becomes scarce, lets get rid of it now.

Solar is getting there, wind is mostly there. We just need a push

Yes, it would make sense to do it earlier than later, but I think economics will ultimately decide this.

I was a bit surprised to see an article by Terrence(?) McCann (the name is a wild guess here) in the Daily Telegraph (an acclaimed scientific journal) a few months ago criticizing AGL for spending money on wind turbines when it was obviously a better investment to spend more money on gas...

I can understand that this guy is a finance journalist, but it worries you when the same paper's front pages talk about global warming. I guess this shows you that there is a disconnect, and unless there is a tax or a price rise to make less polluting technologies cheaper, people and corporations won't change.

Some common sense for the objective reader. Man made global warming zealots need not read

Let's put this into a bit of perspective for laymen! Read the following analogy and you will realize the insignificance of carbon dioxide as a weather controller. Here's a practical way to understand Mr. Rudd's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. Imagine 1 kilometre of atmosphere and we want to get rid of the carbon pollution in it created by human activity. Let's go for a walk along it. The first 770 metres are Nitrogen. The next 210 metres are Oxygen. That's 980 metres of the 1 kilometre. 20 metres to go. The next 10 metres are water vapour. 10 metres left. 9 metres are argon. Just 1 more metre. A few gases make up the first bit of that last metre. The last 38 centimetres of the kilometre - that's carbon dioxide. A bit over one foot. 97% of that is produced by Mother Nature. Itâ#128;#153;s natural. Out of our journey of one kilometre, there are just 12 millimetres left. Just over a centimetre - about half an inch. That's the amount of carbon dioxide that global human activity puts into the atmosphere. And of those 12 millimetres Australia puts in .18 of a millimetre. Less than the thickness of a hair. Out of a kilometre! As a hair is to a kilometre - so is Australia's contribution to what Mr. Rudd calls Carbon Pollution. Imagine Brisbane's new Gateway Bridge, ready to be opened by Mr. Rudd. It's been polished, painted and scrubbed by an army of workers till its 1 kilometre length is surgically clean. Except that Mr. Rudd says we have a huge problem, the bridge is polluted - there's a human hair on the roadway. We'd laugh ourselves silly. There are plenty of real pollution problems to worry about. It's hard to imagine that Australia's contribution to carbon dioxide in the world's atmosphere is one of the more pressing ones. And I can't believe that a new tax on everything is the only way to blow that pesky hair away. After all, the sun controls the climate on our planet, not human beings. Always has, always will. Only the arrogance of human beings over their own importance makes people think otherwise.

ginger pom said...
please don't call him a scientist. He was a ships officer, is british and has written for woman's own - his scientific credentials are missing from his biog

Michael E. Mann?

Or were you meaning to link to another post? I suspect you're talking about Lord Monckton.

another dissprove the skeptics website this one from an ex physicist at UQ.

www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

and some more bad news

climateprogress.org/2008/12/21/hadley-study-warns-of-catastrophic-5%c2%b0c-warming-by-2100-on-current-emissions-path/

plus info on CO2

www.newscientist.com/article/dn11638-climate-myths-human-co2-emissions-are-too-tiny-to-matter.html

"wow... one paragraph that conclusively proves global warming is fake. If only the oil companies could afford the TV air time to put that convincing message to the world.... "

This is a typical response made by the followers of climate change against anyone with a disenting opinion... their form of defence of the propoganda that is climate change - is attack. Typically, they make derogatory comments aimed at anyone who opposes their doctrines.

Scary stuff.

What is alsio scary is the UNFCCC Framework Convention on Climate change - a 188 page draft outline of the proposed world agreement that Copenhagen is all about
unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/awglca7/eng/inf02.pdf
Peace

ginger pom said...
please don't call him a scientist. He was a ships officer, is british and has written for woman's own - his scientific credentials are missing from his biog

Albert Einstein did not finish grade school or was it high school and said of himself that his education did not start until he had left the education system.

Is he disqualified from being called a scientist and only to be regarded as a crackpot or a "shed scientist"???

Gestalt said...

a few quotes from the csiro papers in case you didn't read them.

"A shift of just a few degrees in global temperature can cause major changes"

Can but not necessarily DO.

"The CO2 concentration in 2008 of 383 parts per million (ppm) is much higher than the natural range of 172 to 300 ppm that existed over the last 800 000 years."

One year compared to 800,000? Hmmm. Much higher? 83 over 300 is 27.6%. How much is much? 800,000 years??? Where exactly did they get 800,000 years ago record from? One of Michael Mann's tree rings?

"There is greater than 90 per cent likelihood that most of the global warming since the mid 20th century is due to increases in greenhouse gas emissions from human activities."

Likelihood? Is that something like the form guide on a race horse or a greyhound?

"About 25 per cent of the CO2 emitted into the atmosphere is absorbed by the ocean and another 25 per cent is absorbed by the terrestrial biosphere. In water, the CO2 forms a weak carbonic acid, making the oceans more acidic.

About? About? Is that like plus or minus 24.9999%?

Ocean acidification interferes with the formation of shells and coral, and has far reaching implications for the health and productivity of the world’s oceans. Higher CO2 levels can also increase plant growth and productivity but this can be offset by changes in climate such as less rainfall or higher temperatures."

I thought it was only French show Girls did the "Can, Can" but here we have the CSIRO doing it. It CAN do this or it CAN do that. Certainty not supposition is what we want.

can you provide any evidence that small changes in co2 levels have no impact on the earth and also any evidence that your figures are correct.

Can you provide any evidence of the converse?

isn't more arrogant to not listen to the worlds science bodies, even if they were to be wrong they are the experts

It has nothing to do with arrogance and all to do with healthy scepticism because they could be wrong, be they experts or not.

cisco said...

Can you provide any evidence of the converse?

YES!!!!!!!

but why bother. you seem to have all of the answers.

Well it has been a marathon day gentlemen with about 6 or 7 of us debating the issues for some 18 hours and at a fast and furious pace between around 5.30 am to 9.00 am Qld time with some further flurries during the day.

Time to fess up fellas. Who has been posting to the forum during paid work time on their employer's computer and/or network?

I must admit that I have been but my boss deserves it because he is the worst boss in the world and that is me.

I did do a few productive things for him during the day though.

Firstly I sold his Zodiac and outboard for $3,300 while having a chat with a couple of mates down at the slipway. Then I drove 25klm out of town and sold his hydraulic backstay tensioner for $1,100. When I got back to town I fixed up his washing machine.

Did anybody else do anything productive for their boss today???

cisco said...

Well it has been a marathon day gentlemen with about 6 or 7 of us debating the issues for some 18 hours and at a fast and furious pace between around 5.30 am to 9.00 am Qld time with some further flurries during the day.

Time to fess up fellas. Who has been posting to the forum during paid work time on their employer's computer and/or network?

It feels like Groundhog day. It's always the same, by the evening people change their arguments to "I'm only arguing against the Tax", in the morning is more quoted dribble from another journalist/economist saying that Global Warming is a lie. I notice todays "Skeptic of the Day" is another great example!
Should we post all the links to data and scientific papers again?

Yes, I work from home but I have to say that yesterday I accomplished far more than I normally do. Long day for me, 7am to 6pm.

Don't worry, pom, they'll be taken care of once we've got the global government installed next year. First against the wall. They should be easy to spot with those foil caps.

googleforidiots.com/