But the IPCC thinks aerosols and soot have a cooling effect. There is conflicting evidence. History says combustion has been around for a long time. Bushfires existed long before firefighters. Volcanoes have spewed ash into the atmosphere since the beginning. What if the earth’s climate systems can cope with soot and aerosols resulting from combustion? What if this does produce cooling?

The earth has no historical mechanisms to deal with pure energy liberated from unnatural nuclear fission.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Echoing Gore court jester James Hansen, Hamilton is today endorsing and even encouraging “civil disobedience” by climate protesters in Victoria this weekend:

“Writing on the Crikey website, Professor Hamilton said activists at what was intended to be a peaceful protest at Victoria’s coal-fired Hazelwood power station might break the law, “but they have justice on their side”.

“… With scientists predicting runaway climate change unless we take drastic action in the next five years, and the manifest failure of our democratic system to respond adequately to the overwhelming threat posed to our future, it is legitimate to step outside the usual boundaries of protest.”

‘Manifest failure of our democratic system’ … ‘legitimate to step outside the usual boundaries of protest’ … where have we heard this sort of thing before?

This is fascism, no less.

Full article:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26061641-11949,00.html

Like or Dislike: 0  0

“It therefore behoves the politicians to stay their activities, particularly cap and trade, until some incontrovertible evidence is found.”

I think Tony is being a bit naive when he implies that most of them don’t already know that the AGW theory is complete and utter nonsense. As to the rest, the blind followers and true believers, I believe that trying to use logical and rational arguments on them is as futile as trying to use scientific evidence to convince creationists that Darwin was right.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25897957-14743,00.html

“… It’s not called a tax, but if it waddles like one, quacks like one, and most pointedly raises money like one, it’s a tax. And not just any old tax — it’s a huge and continually growing tax.

It starts out in 2012-13 raising about a quarter as much as the GST. The budget in May put a number on it for the first time. Almost $12 billion in its first full year, 2012-13.

It is the equivalent of increasing the GST from 10 per cent to 12.5 per cent in that year. And in its impact on people it won’t be all that different from doing exactly that…”

And it doesn’t stop there:

“… Crucially and very ominously, there is no, if you’ll pardon the pun, cap on this insidious version of a GST. The effective rate could double or triple, the amount of money raised could skyrocket. Indeed, it is intended to do exactly that, with no referral back to parliament for endorsement…”

Indeed.

There has been a growing trend in Australian media over the past few weeks, of both sides of politics and business voicing increasing concern over the wider economic implication of an ETS.

Are people finally starting to wake up? I’m not holding my breath, I think we still have a very long way to go before the Emperors of the world start to realise that their private parts are on public display.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Your summary of the situation is highly relevant. My enquiries of Australian politicians and their CSIRO advisers have not produced any solid proof of AGW. Even when confronted by solid evidence to the contrary they are still buried in the Gospel according to Gore. Perhaps when in Copenhagen they can drop in on Henrik Svensmark. Perchance a Dane can re-tell the story of the Emperor’s absent clothes.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Deny the truth, if that’s what you must do to maintain your belief in the AGW fantasy, but your denials will not influence me as I’m only influenced by the physics and the data. You will need to come up with some powerful arguments to counter all of the compelling science that has changed my mind about AGW. Yes, I considered CO2 forcing might be an issue when the ice core data was first revealed. Unlike most of the AGW believers I’m a scientist, so I investigated further and discovered that there are many other, far more important things influencing the climate. While the effect of AGW is finite, it’s far too small to be obsessing about and under no circumstances can justify a multi-trillion dollar experiment in climate control based on this effect.

The ice core data is publicly available and you can look at it yourself to identify the maximum dT/dt, and in both the Vostok and DomeC cores, this is close to 2C/century. Even the RMS average change per century is about 0.5C (over the first 150K years or so, where the samples are close enough together to meaningfully infer this. You should also examine the satellite data, which show that the ‘delay’ between solar energy and ocean warming is on the order of 45 days, not the decades to centuries you need for AGW to be viable. We can see this in the seasonal climate change, where the coldest and warmest days of the season are on average about 45 days after minimum or maximum solar energy (both over the ocean and over the land). If it took decades to centuries for the ocean to respond to energy changes, we would not see any seasonal response, or even any difference between night and day.

The primary logic flaw in your logic is that you assume anomaly analysis is a valid way to identify trends. As you pointed out, this is easy to coerce into producing whatever results you want! This is particulary problematic when the trends being discerned are smaller than the accuracy of the data and the natural variability. In other words, the data uncertainty and natural variability are so large, that a trend in either direction can be shown depending on how the data is presented. How can you complain about the deniers claim of recent cooling while at the same time, believing in the warming claimed by the alarmists based on the same kind of flawed statistics? Talk about hypocrisy. Yes there has been decade scale warming and cooling episodes on the order of tenth’s of a degree C in recent history. All this does is confirm that climate change is normal. Why are you getting so bent out of shape about the expected behavior? Any perceived correlation between man’s CO2 emissions and climate change can’t be ruled out as being purely coincidental.

BTW, the GISS data is biased from a discontinuity in the data around 10/2001 which makes it completely inappropriate for anomaly analysis, which can’t differentiate between small data trends and actual data anomalies. Many factors contributed to this data anomaly, including the switch over from the NOA14 satellite to NOAA16.

Look here for some background on the science and data.

http://www.palisad.com/co2/slides/siframes.html

George

Like or Dislike: 0  0

No it does not. From Lindzens article – “However, the contribution of increasing CO2 alone does not, in fact, lead to much warming (approximately 1°C for each doubling of CO2).” – He then goes on to say – “The larger predictions from climate models are due to the fact that, within these models, the more important greenhouse substances, water vapor and clouds, act to greatly amplify whatever CO2 does. This is referred to as a positive feedback. ”

CO2ISEVIL – It also assumes 0% cloud coverage.

As does your calculation. Face it, you are way off even Lindzens conservative approximation.

CO2ISEVIL – CO2 underneath clouds has no incremental effect since the clouds are already trapping most of the energy.

Debatable. Clouds can be both positive or negative feedback depending on where they form.
Also recent studies shed more light …
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090723141812.htm
July 24, 2009 – Strong Evidence That Cloud Changes May Exacerbate Global Warming
Using observational data collected over the last 50 years and complex climate models, the team has established that low-level stratiform clouds appear to dissipate as the ocean warms, indicating that changes in these clouds may enhance the warming of the planet.

Re Oceans. Nice sciency sounding “uncited” assertions George, but simply citing your ice core data demonstrates a delayed ocean response to both climate cooling and warming due to the oceans thermal inertia.

CO2ISEVIL – You are also mistaken about the speed of the current temperature change.

I don’t think so. There have been no rapid global 2′C temperature changes over the last 10,000 years. Over the last 150 years temperature has risen .74′C and the rate of change is accelerating.

CO2ISEVIL – making assumptions

Not an assumption, an observation.

CO2ISEVIL – about the short term absolute temperature change

that you are determined to make long term.

CO2ISEVIL – from the change in long term averages is typical of the statistical errors used to support AGW.

Statistical error? Like denialists all over the Internet claiming the climate has cooled since 1998?
Not to mention, claiming it with Hadcrut and RSS MSU data which unlike GISS, omit both polar regions (only the fastest warming regions on the globe). Oh the hypocrisy!

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Lindzen’s estimate includes a gratuitous feedback effect above and beyond the immediate effect. It also assumes 0% cloud coverage. CO2 underneath clouds has no incremental effect since the clouds are already trapping most of the energy.

The entire ocean’s depth is not heated. The bottom of the ocean is below the average temperature and the top surface (mostly between the tropics) is above the average temperature. The thermocline separates these layers and acts as insulation between the hot ocean and the cold ocean (examine dT/dx across the thermocline, while accounting for the thermal conductivity of water). The average temperature of the Earth is the average of the hot ocean and the cold ocean and equal to the temperature at the midpoint of the thermocline (find and examine the data for yourself if you don’t believe me).

The lower layers of the ocean are clamped to 0C, owing the the density/temperature profile of water, as enforced by gravity. This will always be the case as long as the average temperature at the poles is less than 0C at any time during the year. This will create 0C water that falls into the deep ocean by virtue of it’s higher density.

Only the upper layer of the ocean above the thermocline is heated. The rest is cooled via the deep ocean thermal connection that links the polar ice caps. Because so little of the ocean is involved in storing heat, it adapts far faster to incident energy than the AGW hypothesis requires. This is why the satellite data indicates that the ocean temperatures respond quickly to changes in energy and why there’s no missing energy and why the AGW hypothesis is hopelessly broken.

You are also mistaken about the speed of the current temperature change. If you examine the ice core data, the peak dT/dt in the 100 year average is close to 2C per century. This is the change in a 100 year running average, which changes far slower than the absolute, short term change you’re so afraid of. Even though the absolute short term change is no big deal relative to the change in long term averages, making assumptions about the short term absolute temperature change from the change in long term averages is typical of the statistical errors used to support AGW.

George

Like or Dislike: 0  0

From the article above – “approximately 1°C for each doubling of CO2″
So not even the approximation in Lindzen’s article agrees with you.

CO2ISEVIL – The current anthropogenic CO2 causes at most, less than 0.5C warming.

About right since the increase in CO2 concentration has been about 40%. The temperature increase so far is .74′C, or about .24′C above the normal climatic variation.

CO2ISEVIL – There is no ‘deferred’ warming as the oceans have already adapted to the slow increase in forcing power caused by increased GHG. The physics and data precludes the idea of deferred warming.

An interesting claim since the temperature increase of .74′c has been rapid. Over 100 times faster than the cooling that has been ongoing since the temperature spike that ended the last ice age. Heating the entire depth of the ocean will take several hundred years, during which time the ocean will keep the earth’s surface temperature artificially cool, with decreasing effectiveness.

Like or Dislike: 0  0