JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



NIPCC report: Rising CO2 is beneficial

For those who want science and not politics, the enormous scientific compendium known as the NIPCC reports has been updated to incorporate new results. There are hundreds of references to peer reviewed research. It is as always, thorough, professional and comprehensive.

The authors of the new NIPCC report conclude that “the net effect of continued warming and rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere is most likely to be beneficial to humans, plants, and wildlife.”

To summarize the executive summary:

  • The models overestimate the warming, don’t include chemical and biological process that may be as important as the physical ones.
  • Plants like CO2, grow faster and the green biomass of the Earth tends to counteract the warming effects of CO2.
  • New evidence shows the Medieval Warm Period was real, global and warmer than the present, while CO2 was 28% lower.
  • The ice is not melting as much as people expected; the seas are not accelerating; there’s no change in rain or river flows that you can blame CO2 on.
  • Life on Earth likes warmth. Amphibians, birds, butterflies, other insects, lizards, mammals, and even worms do better with a bit of global warming.
  • Warmth and CO2 increases crops and global food. It’s good for hungry people.
  • The latest research shows corals and marine life can adapt to climate change and flourish.
  • Warming improves human health. It reduces winter deaths more than it increases summer ones.
  • Even in the worst scenarios, mankind will be much better off in the year 2100 than it is today, and therefore able to adapt to whatever challenges climate change presents.

The 430-page report was coauthored and edited by: Craig D. Idso, Ph.D., Robert M. Carter, Ph.D.S. Fred Singer, Ph.D., amoung others.

“The book is titled Climate Change Reconsidered: 2011 Interim Report because it precedes a comprehensive volume that is expected to be released in 2013. It focuses on scientific research released since publication of Climate Change Reconsidered: The 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC).”

The report was produced by The Heartland Institute, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, and Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), three national nonprofit organizations based in Chicago, Illinois; Tempe, Arizona; and Arlington, Virginia; respectively.

Links to Download material:

Front Cover JPG (0.2 MB)Front Matter PDF (0.6 MB)

Chapter 1
Climate Models and Their Limitations   PDF (0.6 MB)

Chapter 2
Forcings and Feedbacks   PDF (0.6 MB)

Chapter 3
Paleoclimate and Recent Temperatures   PDF (0.8 MB)

Chapter 4
Observations and Projections: Cryosphere, Ocean Dynamics, and Hydrology   PDF (0.7 MB)

Chapter 5
Observations and Projections: Extreme Weather   PDF (0.6 MB)

Chapter 6
Terrestrial Animals   PDF (0.6 MB)Chapter 7
Terrestrial Plants and Soils   PDF (1.4 MB)

Chapter 8
Aquatic Life   PDF (0.9 MB)

Chapter 9
Human Health Effects   PDF (0.5 MB)

Chapter 10
Economic and Other Policy Implications   PDF (1.0 MB)

Appendicies
Appendix 1: Acronyms   PDF (0.3 MB)
Appendix 2: Contributors to the 2011 Interim Report   PDF (0.3 MB)

Back Cover GIF (0.1 MB)

Full Report PDF (8.3 MB)

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 5.5/10 (4 votes cast)
NIPCC report: Rising CO2 is beneficial, 5.5 out of 10 based on 4 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/3qqrore

177 comments to NIPCC report: Rising CO2 is beneficial

  • #

    Funny how an independent group of scientists can come to exactly the opposite conclusion to those who’ve become depedent on the global warming gravy train.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    mark

    WoW!! More recycled crap from Fred Singer!! Just how many time does one author need to be publicly humiliated before they’ll actually stop talking.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    “For those who want science and not politics”

    *snort* Oh my that is funny.


    Report this

    01

  • #
    debbie

    Well it must be a gravy train.
    You can even get funding for a mental health study as long as you link it to climate change :)
    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/mental-illness-rise-linked-to-climate-20110828-1jger.html
    and here:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/29/climate-change-causes-mental-illness/
    This one is truly pushing it.
    Mental health is actually a serious problem in our society but climate change has so very little to do with it.
    When are we going to get to the obvious conclusion here?
    THE SCIENCE IS NOT SETTLED!
    There are too many variables and way too much that we don’t understand and therefore can’t predict.
    I would so like to see these insane amounts of tax payer money being spent wisely on things like mental health.
    I’m also getting tired of the ‘greatest moral challenge of out time’ BS.
    I have recently travelled in Asia and I can promise our Govt that the greatest moral challenge of our time has little to do with trying to control the climate and way more to do with raising the living, education and health standards of the rest of the world.
    From what I have recently seen, people are way more concerned about their next meal and will therefore burn carbon without any guilt if it helps them to feed their families.
    Wouldn’t anyone?
    Methinks we may be suffering from a rather decadent and expensive obsession :)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    MattB @ 2

    “For those who want science and not politics”

    *snort* Oh my that is funny.

    WOW – MattB – even for you that is a record.

    - less than thirty minutes and you’ve downloaded 8mb of files, read it all, studied all the cited links, and can confidentally rubbish the findings and conclusions.

    I know I’ve asked before, but do YOU wear your undies over the top of your tights like that “other” super-hero?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    Me @ 4

    Damn – confidently

    I have come to the conclusion that spell-check is not compatible with Cabernet Merlot.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    OMG, Idso, Carter & Singer! And they’ve decided that more CO2 is good for us. Its in a book, so it must be true.

    I don’t know why I ever believed those ratbag, bunch of so called “scientists” led by Mann, Hansen, Jones etc. Having seen the error of my ways, I’ll be saving the world by running my air conditioning 24/7, and buying a bigger car.


    Report this

    01

  • #

    [...] Jo Nova reports on the latest report of the NIPCC – the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change. In brief “the net effect of continued warming and rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere is most likely to be beneficial to humans, plants, and wildlife.” [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Grumpy Old Man

    Well done John! Your third sentence encapsulates the eco-loon gospel, and you have the strength of character to follow that through to its logical conclusion. However running your air conditioning 24/7 won’t make the blindest bit of difference to the World’s survivability, and you can buy a bigger car that will have up-to-date systems which will make it a more economical bet than your smaller clunker. So while you’ve Seen The Light, you need to step out of the shadows.
    [ed]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Grumpy Old Man

    BUY, not BY. Put it down to the 22C heatwave sweeping over S.E. England.
    [fixed]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brett_McS

    Corals are one of the oldest forms of life on Earth; they have survived through eras of CO2 levels many times our present level; plants are clearly optimal at much higher levels than the historically low levels we have now. etc etc.

    And yet it all has to be spelt out in painful detail because we’re discussing with ‘the smart people’ here folks.


    Report this

    10

  • #

    But Julia gets her scientific information from the best scientists money can buy and they all tell her what she already knows that carbon dioxide is a pollutant.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    warcroft

    Ooooo. . . the warmists arent going to like this one.
    I dont post much, but I am going to enjoy reading the comments for this story.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    janama

    just another nail in the coffin made of nails. I’m losing interest in this fiasco.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    warcroft

    @4 Memoryvault
    Superman doesnt wear his undies on the outside any more.
    Somebody finally told him he looked silly.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    warcroft

    Soz, need a link with that. . .


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #

    John Brookes @ 6

    If less CO2 is good then what is the optimum level of CO2 in the atmosphere and how will a Julia’s tax be regulated to maintain that optimum?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sceptical Sam

    John Brookes @ 6

    Good call John. At long last you’ve moved out of the Ice Age.

    On the bigger car front I can recommend a nice big shiny Toyota Landcruiser. A black one is good as it absorbs the heat. I prefer the 100 Series V8 to the new model. You can get one at a good price second-hand. They do about 15 litres per 100 kilometres on the highway and about 17 L/100k when you’re bush-bashing. They’re great in the scrubby country around the goldfields. With a good heavy-duty steel Bull-bar they have sufficient weight (2.5 tonnes) to knock down most of the scrubby stuff – although the larger Salmon Gums are best avoided. They also have a great air-conditioner in them that keeps you cool in the hottest of places and, if you’ve taken my advice and purchased a black one, you’ll really understand just how good it is.

    So there John, you get both of your wishes under the one roof.

    Go on, do it. Oh what a feeling!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Joe Lalonde

    Jo,

    Is it the expanded heat that is good in a longer growing season?
    Or the CO2 itself?

    Who studies the differences?
    Packed and combined together and yet just laboratory testing the CO2 without the heat needed…
    So far the heat that creates CO2 has been written off as of no consequence. Yet the studying of the warming planet includes it.

    Confusion…confusion. When the science is bad, then the science is not settled and many factors have to be considered.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    mobilly1

    Thank Goodness the worm is finally turning, Even Teenagers are aware of Gore`s Global Fraud.
    Science does come into it to a good Degree.Although
    I feel that Commonsense is making a comeback , Ordinary
    Australians are waking up from their apathy ,Realising the Fraudulent scam of AGM is tied to a higher Agenda.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Twodogs

    Plants liking more carbon dioxide, who would have thought? What next, animals liking more oxygen?!


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Dave

    Great work by the authors on Part 7 – Terrestrial Plants and Soils.
    Good to see the C3, C4 & CAM plants all evaluated.

    On the Environment Quarter ABC 24 today – it is reported that CSIRO & Climate Change Department are researching new varities of wheat – that are able to withstand high CO2 and high temperatures. Why waste money on this when simple testing of current hybrids and species will reveal massive increases in crop yield, plus searching existing data (including the NIPCC Report Part 7) will also tell the same story if only they looked outside the square.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    handjive

    Recently, on ABC (aust) the British archeological show called Time Team uncovered a dig where it was concluded they had discovered a roman brothel where infanticide was evident.

    Perusing the Mailonline (30th August 2011) I noticed this headline, “Roman prostitutes were forced to kill their own children and bury them in mass graves at English ‘brothel’”, I clicked on it, assuming it might be related.

    Buried deep in the article is some science, pre UN-IPCC hockeystick:

    Nearly 2,000 years ago it was the Romans who were enjoying the pleasant climate and farming bountiful crops in this corner of south-east England.

    Life was tough, disease rife and hygiene for the poor dreadful, but the climate is thought to have been warmer than now, making farming easier.

    An opportunity to revisit this post from JoNova:

    Roman Warming (Gullible Rudd steps right in it)

    Further evidence life on our dynamic planet thrives in warmth, and current warmth is not dangerous.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sceptical Sam

    Hey Dave @ 23

    Maybe they are looking outside the square; but getting their funding by dressing it up as Global Warming research.

    They’re pretty smart these scientists from the Climate Science Industry Research Organization.

    The ideologues in the CCD are the stupid ones. They’ll fund anything if they think that it is ideologically sound.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Dave

    PS Forgot to add that many CAM plants are also very tolerant to Sodium (saline soils) and this tolerance increases with elevation of CO2 and temperature. eg Bromeliaceae, Agavaceae, Plectranthus etc. and even the common Dracaena. In some CAM plants it is thought that Sodium is a requirement of this pathway to operate.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    From chapter 6:

    Stockwell‘s final thoughts on the matter, therefore, were, ―Thomas et al. (2004) seek to create the impression of impending ecological disaster due to CO2-induced global warming, claiming their results justify mandating reductions of greenhouse gas emissions,‖ but their findings ―are forced by the calculations, confounded with statistical bias, lack supporting real-world evidence, and are perforated with speculation. Stockwell concludes their doctrine of massive extinction is actually a case of massive extinction bias.

    (bold is mine)

    The effects of this bias are widespread. Here in Minnesota the population of Moose are in steep decline. The news has reported for years now that “scientists believe claimate change (spelling error intended) is partially to blame” Never mind that the Moose are known to be suffering from a parasite that is spread by the Whitetail Deer. The Whitetail currently experiencing a population boom. Both species are “managed” by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources mostly by hunting regulation. The DNR “scientists” have been unable/unwilling to lower the deer population by extending the hunting season. Additionally, they have not applied significant research to determine what exactly is causing the steep decline in Moose survival.

    One thing for sure in my mind is that Climate is not to blame. First, northern Minnesota has not experienced huge warming trends. Second, the Moose spend much time immersed in water while feeding. This water (lakes, ponds, streams) I can assure you are much colder than Mammal body temperature. This means that the Moose can and does have a place to go if they were “too warm”. Third, the Moose is preyed upon by the Grey (timber) Wolf. Do you think that the decline of the Moose correlates with the now completely recovered Wolf population?
    So Moose Population Decline Correlates inversely with the KNOWN Deer population increase and Wolf population increase. Yet the press consistently ties the decline to the UNKNOWN “climate change”

    The lack of logic applied when “scientists” suggest that the Moose decline is “climate related” surely relates to this “study” by Thomas et al. 2004. I am happy to see a counter study.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    incoherent rambler

    Jo, I confess that I read (and posted) on your political thread first. Unfortunately I was vastly outnumbered by the automaton posters. So I have retreated to the science thread.
    Herein, it occurred to me, lies that problem. Science has been politicized.
    The difficulty we now have is that science must win the political debate so that it can be free of the politics.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Joe Lalonde

    incoherent rambler #28:

    Your right! Science has been shaped by politics rather than politics shaped by the path of which science flows.
    Conclusions of theories become facts backed by the publishing of this junk and spewed back by ignorant scientists.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Kneel 8250

    It is interesting that there is a large amount of water vapour in the Gulf of Mexico atmosphere at the moment and the computer models are totally confused as to what the weather will be like tomorrow (Friday) and Saturday yet are able to predict so accurately 50 or 100 years from now.

    Putting a tax on a trace gas like Carbon Dioxide in Australia does nothing for the environment. Carbon Dioxiode at current and predicted levels is not a pollutant. You need Carbon Dioxiode to trigger the automatic breathing mechanism in your body.
    Keep up the great work Jo.

    Have a great day
    Kneel.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Reed Coray

    mark:
    September 1st, 2011 at 5:46 pm
    WoW!! More recycled crap from Fred Singer!! Just how many time does one author need to be publicly humiliated before they’ll (sic) actually stop talking.

    Good question. Why don’t you write Dr. Michael Mann and ask him?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    … is most likely to be beneficial to humans, plants, and wildlife

    Say what? … must be a misprint! Please tell me it is a misprint! OMG .. we are all going to live …


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Don’t worry Janama, mate… as long as the Rainbow Coalition rulez we will have plenty more fiascos in Australia. Watch the boats come flooding in now the High Court made its ruling.

    On topic… I love the way the warmists go straight for the man and not the ball.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Stanley Parks

    Looks like an interesting read……is it legal to provide the pdf’s for public download?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    a truly cringe-inducing piece, full of MISINFORMATION, INACCURACIES AND NONSENSE from the strange Lewandowsky, who nonetheless gets PUBLISHED in the MSM:

    1 Sept: Guardian: Stephan Lewandowsky: Australia’s climate scientists expose shock-jock distortion tactics
    Academics catalogue the deluge of spin and misinformation of climate science by various Murdoch-owned papers
    Stephan Lewandowsky is a Winthrop professor and Australian professorial fellow at the University of Western Australia. His research addresses the distinction between scepticism and denial and how people respond to misinformation.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/sep/01/australia-climate-scientists


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Madjak

    Ladies and Gentlemen

    It is that time of year again when we’re all warned about how the ice is melting in the arctic (funny how this coincides with the near end of summer in the northern hemisphere, and just before the annual AGW church meeting)

    Interestingly, for the first time I have seen it the article mentions how loss of sea ice doesn’t result in sea level rise. This is the first time I have seen this fact stated in the MSM.

    Could it be the activists have actually subconciously listned to what we have had to repeat over the last 3 years+?

    http://tvnz.co.nz/world-news/arctic-sea-ice-shrinks-free-summer-looms-4381803

    Is some rationality actually finding it’s way into how the lamestream reports nthis topic?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    Joe Lalonde @ 20

    Is it the expanded heat that is good in a longer growing season?
    Or the CO2 itself?

    All three – heat, CO2 AND extended growing season – can all increase crop yields independently.

    For instance, it is well-known that the primary purpose of a “greenhouse” is to raise ambient temperature. It is also well-known that many modern commercial greenhouses pump in CO2 to increase crop yields.

    What is less well-known is that when crops are raised under artificial light, yields can be substantially increased by “tricking” the plants into false, extended growing seasons.

    This is done by keeping the lights turned on for around 20 to 22 hours a day until the plants have reached a size that will give the maximum crop return (which obviously happens much quicker than under “normal” conditions), then reducing the “day”(light) period to about 15 to 18 hours.

    Plants interpret this as the “shortening” of the growing season at Autumn, and start flowering and fruiting. This way crops can be grown completely out of kilter with the natural seasons, can be grown to maturity much faster, and can be induced to flower and fruit whenever required to suit market demand.

    Obviously this methodology only pays off with crops that promise a high return in the market place. Exotic orchids and marijuana being two prime examples.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    memoryvault

    Madjak @ 35

    It is also almost time for the inevitable “hole in the ozone layer” story.

    Probably in about two weeks.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    This may come as a shock, but a relatively balanced piece at the ABC by Barrie Cassidy about the Thompson issue:

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-08-25/cassidy-what-about-the-hypocrisy-mr-speaker/2854218


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MaryFJohnston

    Kneel @ 30

    Good point: “”You need Carbon Dioxiode to trigger the automatic breathing mechanism in your body.”"

    I agree with you that there is a minimum amount of CO2 needed by humans. Some commentators have stated that we would be OK with no CO2 but as you say, that may be fatal.

    Additionally the pp CO2 levels associated with the human panic mechanism are of interest.

    Where someone is confronted by a threat, there is an automatic deep breathing response that increases the bloodstreams Oxygen content at the expense of CO2.

    People discovered that breathing into a paper bag would alleviate the panic.

    The paper bag trick of course relies on the restoration of stasis by bringing CO2 pp back up to where it was before the threat.

    Who’d a thought that CO2 was good for panic!

    We do need CO2 in the bloodstream. So much for being a pollutant.

    A better description of CO2 is that it is a regulator of our physical systems and neurobiology and is an essential part of our lives.


    Report this

    10

  • #
  • #
    Mike W

    Even Teenagers are aware of Gore`s Global Fraud.

    Thats why they are never seen at any of the Carbon tax “protests” recently.! :)
    People under 35 are now days more prone to group mentality/herd thinking than the previously were.
    Which is sort of counter intuitive…
    No longer the rebels..
    Such is life..


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Got to love the morning news… top item? Who is going to replace Joooolya?

    I am on fire this year… just yesterday I emailed a colleague suggesting Labor was going to implode in the next week or two.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    PaulM

    This may come as a shock,

    Barry Cassidy and balance are two words that should never appear in the same sentence.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    MaryFJohnson @40

    So do you think that the slight seasonal rise of co2 is actually caused by the panics of several billion people when they realize what a co2 tax will cause them? Wow! what a theory?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    PaulM

    Bulldust

    From the Cassidy article,

    In normal circumstances few people inside or outside the Parliament would give a toss about whether a backbencher once abused his privileges while working for a trade union movement.

    As has been the case with so much of the commentary on this issue from the echo chamber of the ALP and the ABC, it doesn’t matter one bit if the tossers at the ABC or within the Parliamentary Party care wether a union official abuses privileges, what matters is that the members of the HSU, some of the lowest paid workers in the nation, do. It is their money, extorted from them by the unions, that is supposed to be used to advocate on their behalf and provide benefits for them, not to pay for prostitutes and fund Thomsons election campaign


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    He did rightly point out that Howard sacked several Ministers for relatively minor offences by comparison, but they were offences against the taxpayers who elected them, not against a former non-government organisation as is the case for Thompson. Clearly, assuming what is alledged is true, Thompson would have transgressed far more grieviously than those sacked Howard Ministers. As is pointed out, somewhat redundantly perhaps, there is far more focus on Thompson because of the precarious margin with which the Rainbow Coalition holds power.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    did my daily “climate change” search online and, among the thousands of MSM links stating unequivocally that AGW (now CC) causes mental illness, war, racism, asthma, hurricanes, etc., i found the following:

    2 Sept: SMH: Robert Manne: Fair, balanced reporting not on Murdoch agenda
    Take, for example, the reported discussion by News Ltd editors and key journalists earlier this year about the need to do something about the minority Gillard government and its alliance with the Greens. Following that meeting, Murdoch tabloids began to campaign in earnest against the government and in particular its carbon tax…
    It has sought systematically to undermine the credibility of its only broadsheet rivals – the Herald and The Age – and, in a relentless campaign, to intimidate and drive towards the right the only other mainstream source of analysis and opinion in this country, the ABC.
    It has conducted a kind of jihad against the Greens, a party supported by 1.5 million…
    http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/fair-balanced-reporting-not-on-murdoch-agenda-20110901-1jnzx.html

    1 Sept: The Conversation: Natalie Latter: Scientists vs farmers? How the media threw the climate ‘debate’ off balance
    Because there is such consensus among scientists on human-induced climate change, “balancing” their views can lead journalists into tricky territory.
    It’s interesting to note that this is a problem that has been solved elsewhere. In Britain, for example, the BBC has determined that it no longer has to present “both sides of the story” on climate change. It considers the science is settled, and not up for debate…
    Second, “balance” that news with anecdotal evidence from a lay-person – a farmer perhaps, who hasn’t noticed any change in the climate. (That’s not surprising given that climate isn’t something that can be readily observed from one location; climate is not the same as weather.)…
    The consequences of creating a distorted debate on climate change in the media are serious.
    Climate change policies must be based on the best available scientific information. It would be outrageous (but not unusual) for any government to base complex policy on poor information for ideological reasons.
    Once the situation is understood as much as possible, we look for policy solutions that fit with our social values and the kind of society we envision…
    The public needs to be able to trust the information on which we are basing major public policy decisions. Injecting doubt is an effective way to delay such decisions…
    Climate science doesn’t dictate policy…
    http://theconversation.edu.au/scientists-vs-farmers-how-the-media-threw-the-climate-debate-off-balance-2434

    Natalie Latter
    Current research: PhD thesis on the ethics of climate change, examining how to balance our obligations to current and future generations..
    University of Western Australia, Bachelor of Arts (Hons), 2008
    http://theconversation.edu.au/profiles/natalie-latter-2811

    31 Aug: The Conversation: Michael Ashley, Event horizon: the black hole in The Australian’s climate change coverage
    Professor of Astrophysics at University of New South Wales
    MEDIA & DEMOCRACY – Michael Ashley investigates the national paper’s op-ed policy.
    The “event horizon” of a black hole is one of the most mind-boggling concepts in astrophysics.
    The black hole’s stupendous gravity causes time itself to be warped — an astronaut falling inwards sufficiently slowly would see arbitrarily far into the future history of the universe during their final minutes and seconds before crossing the event horizon.
    There is no other place in time or space where our normal perception of reality is so completely overturned.
    That is, apart from a meeting room deep within the News Limited bunker at 2 Holt Street, Surry Hills.
    It is in this room that Chris Mitchell, editor-in-chief of The Australian, holds editorial meetings…
    Other editorials have made it clear that The Australian believes it is treating its readers as mature adults who should be able to make up their own minds based on arguments from “both sides” of the debate.
    The problem is that on one side of the debate you have 97% of the world’s published climate scientists and the world’s major scientific organisations, and on the other side you have fools…
    http://theconversation.edu.au/event-horizon-the-black-hole-in-the-australians-climate-change-coverage-2642

    jo, you will enjoy the page of “FOOLS” which is linked…

    not even having at least 99% of MSM advocating for CAGW/CARBON DIOXIDE TRADING/TAXING is enough for the Mannes, Ashleys, Latters and Lewandowskys of this MAD, MAD, WORLD OF CAGW shills.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    PaulM

    there is far more focus on Thompson because of the precarious margin with which the Rainbow Coalition holds power.

    And that in a nutshell is the essence of the problem. If the government wasn’t in minority and so desperate to cling to office at any cost, he would be gone. Which shows that political power is more important to these elected representatives than the union members that put them there. When the national interest is calculated based on personal ambition, and outweighs right and wrong, and when the improper use of union members monies is trumped by political ambition, then the party/parties have no right to say they stand for workers or ordinary Australians.

    And for all his blather in the article, not once does Cassidy mention that the role of union officials is to represent the intrests of members, Cassidy, like so many of his ilk holds firm to the belief that the party comes first. That isn’t a view of someone who believes in democracy or representative governance.

    The key question to be answeered is, if Thomson was so blase about the misuse of union members funds, whether by himself or by the overly considerate individual who kept returning his credit card, drivers licence and mobile phone, after using them to procure and pay for prostitutes, is he a truly fit and proper person to be part of a government managing a $2 Trillion dollar economy? IMO, he wouldn’t be fit to run a chook raffle, let alone be a member of Parliament or chair of the Economics Committee.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Well for what it’s worth Paul, I have flirted with the idea of joining the State Government union from time to time, but the recent Thompson affair has well and truly erradicated that concept from my mind. When I looked at their annual report a couple years ago I noticed most of the expenses were for salaries… in other words union dues are primarily to fund Labor supporters, and future Labor politicians.

    I can only imagine that this sordid story will cause union memberships around Australia to plummet, and along with it support for the Labor Party. The Labor Party is due for a massive rethink of what it represents.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MaryFJohnston

    You’re quite correct Mark D @45.

    There would be a momentary CO2 rise if too many people go the news all at the same time.

    That is why Joolia and Kev The Sequestrator have never been game to tell us the truth about the full cost of the Carbin Tax.

    There is a problem with detecting the CO2 rise because it would not last long. Because we have become accustomed to politicians giving us bad news, you would very quickly have equilibrium restored with the excess atmospheric CO2 being re – absorbed.

    Even the University of NSW Climate Change Department would be unable to detect the change and they are always on the lookout for excess CO2.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    PaulM

    Bulldust

    Thanks for the responses, I know where you are coming from there. In the past I was put forward and elected unopposed as workers delegate in Enterprise Bargaining for the AMWU workers where I worked, I was also elected unopposed by the floor as union delegate and tried my best in those roles to represent the workers best interests. The treatment I received from the union when I refused to put their motion for a strike to the members to have an individual who had flagrantly disregarded and violated safety rules and endangerd other workers, to be reinstated was to say the least eye opening. I resigned from the union and stood down as delegate after explaining my decision to the floor. Subsequently a large proportion of members also resigned from the union and to this day that particular enterprise remains the branch of the company with the lowest union membership in the company. The evil employer has paid for delegates to receive proper training in their roles as employee delegates on the management committee, workplace health and safety committee and enterprise bargaining committee. As a result, this branch has the lowest level of disputes, highest productivity, lowest rate of workplace injuries and the highest rates of pay and conditions across the company. All acheived without the support of the union who are only allowed to participate as observers but have almost no input into the process. Union membership is not blocked, it is discouraged, but unsurprisingly new workers rarely continue union membership after their first 12 months. Effective collective bargaining doesn’t require unions if you have a management structure that appreciates a willing and loyal workforce. Productivity isn’t a function of union representation, rather it is a function of open and balanced negotioation between management and employees where both parties are allowed to argue their case free from threats of punative action and where there is alway a proviso that renegotiation of agreements can be done when circumstances change, even if the agreements aren’t up for re-negotiation.

    For myself, I chose not to accept the pay increases for those functions as I was set to benefit as were all the workers from any gains we negotiated. I still did the same work as the rest of the factory, my interest in doing those things was long term as I had thoughts of entering politics when I was so much younger, but have since decided that I don’t have the stomach to put the party above those that I would be representing, and standing as an independent is little more than self agrandisement with little chance of acheiving substantial in normal circumstances.

    My friends say I could only be effective if we could elect a benevolent dictator and many are the enjoyable nights of port, cigars, chess, backgammon and cards that have taken the place of the ammount of time I once spent actively politicing.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MaryFJohnston

    Kneel 8250 @ 30 has got me going on the benefits of CO2 in the animal world.

    TV nature shows sometimes show large birds going to sleep with their beaks tucked under a wing.

    Yep they’re relaxing with a little snort of CO2 to send them off to sleep.

    And yes. They do wake up.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    KeithH

    Poll at ninemsn.com.au/?ocid=ww

    Should the Labor Party replace Julia Gillard?

    Currently YES 27,965 NO 6803


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
  • #
  • #
    Marot

    I’ve translated in french your summary of executive summary.

    You can look at it here :

    http://www.skyfall.fr/?p=763#comment-68979

    Best regards

    [Thanks! -- JN]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    David, UK

    John Brookes:
    September 1st, 2011 at 6:51 pm

    OMG, Idso, Carter & Singer! And they’ve decided that more CO2 is good for us. Its in a book, so it must be true.

    I don’t know why I ever believed those ratbag, bunch of so called “scientists” led by Mann, Hansen, Jones etc. Having seen the error of my ways, I’ll be saving the world by running my air conditioning 24/7, and buying a bigger car.

    Well, to be serious: obviously the world itself doesn’t need “saving,” we (sane adults) all know that – the very concept is laughable. But society certainly needs saving from the likes of you.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Twodogs

    Bulldust @ 33,

    Too true i’m afraid. Or, to be more precise…

    Tactic 1 – ad hominem attack
    Tactic 2 – label denier / racist / homophobe / islamophobe / etc
    Tactic 3 – take bat and ball and go home.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    David, UK:

    You are supposed to try and be witty. I was, you wasn’t. Get with the game!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    We do need CO2 in the bloodstream. So much for being a pollutant.

    A better description of CO2 is that it is a regulator of our physical systems and neurobiology and is an essential part of our lives.

    The CO2 in our blood, though, doesn’t come from the atmosphere but from our metabolizing hydrocarbons for energy to run on. We make it internally and must get rid of it. We function perfectly over a very wide range of CO2 in the air around us and never know the difference.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    John Brookes @ 60

    You are supposed to try and be witty. I was, you wasn’t.

    Have I got sad news for you . . . .


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Kneel 8250

    MaryFJohnston: at 40 and 53 and Roy Hogue.

    I like it !!!!!!!

    Have you noticed that over the last 10 years or so there is less use of the paper bag to combat panic when compared to say the 1960′s. Plus brown paper bags have almost disappeared.

    Kneel.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Fred Singer has the misfortune of being a collegue of Mann when he perpetuated the Hockey Stick Hoax. His contributions to science have been largely overlooked due to the notoriety of his less ethical compatriot. But his work is good and more scientific.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MaryFJohnston

    Hi Roy

    Good point: “”We make it internally and must get rid of it.”"

    The bit about adaptation to political shocks was a bit tongue in cheek.

    But the panic mechanism is real, and does revolve around expelling “too much” CO2 during initial stress.

    To feel calmer we need to reverse the breathing pattern that occurred at the time of stress; gulping air and reducing CO2 in the bloodstream.

    If we take a deep breath, hold it for a bit then slowly let air out, we will be re establishing CO2 normality and eventually feel better.

    This is exactly the pattern of breathing we use in singing and is why singing makes us feel good.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MaryFJohnston

    Hi Roy @62

    Good point: “”We make it internally and must get rid of it.”"

    The bit about adaptation to political shocks was a bit tongue in cheek.

    But the panic mechanism is real, and does revolve around expelling “too much” CO2 during initial stress.

    To feel calmer we need to reverse the breathing pattern that occurred at the time of stress; gulping air and reducing CO2 in the bloodstream.

    If we take a deep breath, hold it for a bit then slowly let air out, we will be re establishing CO2 normality and eventually feel better.

    This is exactly the pattern of breathing we use in singing and is why singing makes us feel good.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    And this is what happens when a sceptical scientist gets published in a peer-reviewed journal:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/02/breaking-editor-in-chief-of-remote-sensing-resigns-over-spencer-braswell-paper/

    The establishment flexes its PC muscle and the editor-in-chief suddenly decides to resign. I am sure the next editor-in-chief won’t make the same “error of judgment.”

    Sick, and not in a good way…


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Mary @ 6721. ”

    How are Humans affected by high levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide?

    At very high levels carbon dioxide has an asphyxiating effect on humans. Our current CO2 levels are 0.039% or 391 ppmv (parts per million by volume).

    The “Free Encyclopedia of Building & Environmental Inspection” describes the response of humans to greatly elevated levels of carbon dioxide:

    At 1% concentration of carbon dioxide CO2 (10,000 ppmv) and under continuous exposure at that level, such as in an auditorium filled with occupants and poor fresh air ventilation, some occupants are likely to feel drowsy.

    The concentration of carbon dioxide must be over about 2% (20,000 ppmv) before most people are aware of its presence unless the odor of an associated material (auto exhaust or fermenting yeast, for instance) is present at lower concentrations.

    Above 2%, carbon dioxide may cause a feeling of heaviness in the chest and/or more frequent and deeper respirations.

    Breathing rate doubles at 3% (30,000 ppmv) CO2 and is four times the normal rate at 5% (50,000 ppmv) CO2.

    Toxic levels of carbon dioxide: at levels above 5% concentration CO2 is directly toxic.
    To recapitulate: our current level of CO2 is 391 ppmv. Levels of CO2 must be 51 times that much (roughly 20,000 ppmv) in order for humans to feel any ill effects.”

    From: “Is Carbon Dioxide a Pollutant? What You Need To Know About CO2″ Deneen Borelli.

    http://www.deneenborelli.com/commentaries/is-carbon-dioxide-a-pollutant-what-you-need-to-know-about-co2/


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Roy Hogue

    MaryFJohnston @67,

    I didn’t miss the point if that’s what you mean. It didn’t seem to need elaborating on.

    Our bodies use CO2 in our blood as a buffering agent to keep the right ph — CO2 in water forms a weak acid. That’s why CO2 governs respiration, not need for O2.

    By hyperventilating the CO2 level is reduced too much and the ph gets out of range causing all sorts of things to start going wrong. By breathing into the bag some CO2 is recycled back into the lungs and the level in the blood starts to go back up to where it belongs. And as Kevin points out there can be trouble at the opposite end of the scale — too much CO2 in the air. But it’s harder to get into such a situation.

    The human body is quite a study in economy of means. What’s better than to make use of something for another purpose that’s otherwise just a waste product?

    Of course it wouldn’t work if O2 wasn’t so much more abundant than CO2. According to a nurse when I was hospitalized, we’re all about 96% saturated with O2 all the time.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Dave

    Roy & MaryFJohnton,

    Have any studies been done on athletes at higher levels of CO2, high altitude (less O2) does affect performance – but with O2 still the same will increased CO2 affect the body in relation to the bodies ability to perform? CO2 would have to increase to 1000ppm (I think is 0.1% concentration) before any affects were measurable?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    OT, but I’ll mention it here because with the ongoing political messes it may get lost.

    Brendan O’Neil has written an absolutely excoriating piece on the CAGW/Green attempts to censor sceptics:

    When the green morality police are not branding sceptics morally repugnant, they are labelling them mentally ill. More and more greens are writing about the “psychology of climate-change denial”.

    What we are witnessing is an attempt to pathologise dissent, to depict dissent not as a legitimate intellectual endeavour but as a kind of mental disorder or a creed as immoral as racism. In their pathologisation, demoralisation and even criminalisation of dissent, greens unwittingly expose their deeply censorious, inquisitorial instincts.

    With the controversy breaking over Spencer & Braswell 2011 as I write, this is an ominous warning. Fortunately the carbon tax debacle and Mr Obama’s distress over the poor US performance and EPA activism is discrediting these people so badly that I don’t think they will succeed.

    But Jo, please keep up your good fight if you can.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Madjak

    O/T

    It turns out the big sodium/Salt scare of the last few decades may be about to have a few credibility problems:

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/food-wine/5557009/Salt-facts-not-rock-solid

    I must say its good to see real science getting exposure regardless of whether it fits with what people currently believes or not.

    My currently largely uninformed view on this one is that Sodium is an essential part of peoples diets. Their sodium requirements will differ by each individual persons metabolism. Fortunately eating handfuls of salt is hardly desirable, so taking in too much more than your body can excise is probably unlikely.

    Not having enough sodium for pregnant women, I understand is a root cause of cretinism.

    Not having enough sodium in peoples diets, as someone I trust unreservedly suggested is probably one of the main reasons people find themselves buying chips at the supermarket. Your body is probably craving the salt – not the potatoes.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Madjak

    Bruce@73,

    With al gore equating scepticism with racism, he is, by proxy declaring AGW advocates as being some kind of master race. By encouraging the ending of communication, he is really saying that we are subhuman.

    I have allways equated this kind of castigation of sceptics by calling us deniers etc as being no different to the castigation Germans (and other europeans, lets be honest here) experienced in the 1920s and 1930s when they found that the academic and ignorant classes had convinced their neighbours that even though their families were german and had been for centuries, that they were now regarded as being just a bunch of “Juden” or found themselves to be politically opposed to the Nazis, or because they were gay, or because they were gypsies etc. It was at this time, that these germans (and europeans) found themselves to be isolated from so called polite society. The methods and the ignorance is identical. The intent is the same.

    Now that I have stated these facts, I now await the inevitable ignoramus to start referring to godwins law which doesn’t actually happen to be a law or an example of a logical fallacy. The comparison in this context is perfectly valid as the overtones coming from people like dr clive etc are in exactly the same vein as that of the national socialist doctrine.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MaryFJohnston

    Roy

    Yep, that’s good.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MaryFJohnston

    CO2 in bloodstream

    The US navy has guidelines that suggest that up to 8,000 ppm CO2 in a sub environment for extended periods is OK.

    For longer periods there is a 5,000 ppm CO2 max.

    But as Kevin and Kneel have shown, there are limits at hi and low concentrations of atm CO2 for us.

    No doubt if world CO2 levels did rise, the human population would adapt to the new “normal” without much trouble.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Wayne, s. Job

    The political trolls on the [ Ask what she won't stand for ] Blog are strangely absent here when real science is discussed.

    Yet they are gung ho for the carbon tax. The tunnel vision of a left wired brain can be the only conclusion.

    That CO2 has been at impoverished levels for a long period of earths history is beyond doubt. Rising levels are a blessing to both the plant and animal world.

    The green agenda of allowing the world to revert to wilderness and stopping the use of carbon based fuels would see a return to impoverishment of CO2. I am some what perturbed by their stupidity.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Philip Shehan

    “For those who want science and not politics..” this report is published by the Heartland Institute a free market ideological think tank. Such groups are major forces behind “skeptical” opinion.

    Australia’s IPA provides a forum for international non-scientists like Lord Monckton and Czech President Vaclav Klaus, who spent his time here saying he knew little about science but a great deal about economics and politics.

    As for the claims in this report:

    • The models overestimate the warming, don’t include chemical and biological process that may be as important as the physical ones.

    Whether or not they overestimate warming is of course contested but thus far the evidence matches the models. The alleged lack of consideration of chemical and biological processes is complete nonsense.

    • Plants like CO2, grow faster and the green biomass of the Earth tends to counteract the warming effects of CO2.

    Yes, plant growth is an acknowledged a negative feedback which is why you can get carbon credits for reforestation.

    • New evidence shows the Medieval Warm Period was real, global and warmer than the present, while CO2 was 28% lower.

    This evidence is contested, but no-one disputes that climate has varied in the past due to natural forcings such as solar cycles, and these factors of course continue, but this in no way invalidates the science of the effects of doubling or tripling atmospheric CO2 concentrations on the climate.

    • The ice is not melting as much as people expected; the seas are not accelerating; there’s no change in rain or river flows that you can blame CO2 on.

    “As much as people expected.” Which people, and the Ice is still melting. The loss of arctic sea ice is grater than models predicted. And “that you can blame CO2 on”. Well yes, particularly at this early stage of AGW, no weather event can be definitively ascribed to global warming.

    • Life on Earth likes warmth. Amphibians, birds, butterflies, other insects, lizards, mammals, and even worms do better with a bit of global warming.

    Yes there will be winners and losers. In tha latter are low lying coastal infrastructure, island nations, agricultural regions…

    • Warmth and CO2 increases crops and global food. It’s good for hungry people.

    Some of those hungry people like those living in Bangla Desh, where storm surges already kill tens and even hundreds of thousands, are in danger of losing their land, homes, livelyhoods and lives.

    I could go on but you get my drift.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    looks like another warmist is present..

    Yes I get your alarmist religious drift.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    Philip at #79

    Your case would be better made if you cited some documentation for your claims. For example it would be rather difficult for “low lying coastal infrastructure, island nations” to be losers when the global sea levels is falling. I believe 6 mm in the last year alone?

    And Bangladesh is sinking because that is what river deltas do when they’re not built up by flood-borne silt. For example if you want to find the ancient port of Alexandria you’ll find it at the bottom of the current port of Alexandria about 5 m under sea level. The sea level has not risen 5 m or the ancient port of Ephesus would not now be 2 km inland. Intensive ground water usage also doesn’t help.

    On the other hand the Dutch didn’t wring their hands, they just got out their shovels. Cheap. But given the way the sea level is going it will be a while before we need to go down to Bunnings for some spades.

    I could give you more references, but you can use search engines as well as I can. Hint: not everything you read at the IPCC is correct.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Llew Jones

    “….. but this in no way invalidates the science of the effects of doubling or tripling atmospheric CO2 concentrations on the climate.”

    The effect of doubling and even tripling or quadrupling CO2 atmospheric concentrations on global temperature in simple form is expressed by the Arrhenius equation Tb-Ta = k ln (CO2b/CO2a). If we use that simple equation the effect on temperature of doubling CO2 is small.

    However the IPCC expresses this change in temperature in terms of radiative forcing and that is where the “science” you refer to has some challenges that give a fairly wide range to the climate’s sensitivity. Thus some areas of the science still need more understanding.

    That is not all. There are indications from recent research that human activity in the burning of fossil fuels and land use changes are most likely overwhelmed by natural CO2 churning in the ocean/biosphere/atmosphere system.

    Those as yet unanswered questions about how that system operates leave doubts about if not gaps in the significance of human activity on Earth’s climate system. I notice the IPCC report correctly uses the word guess in this context. Which in skeptical speak is similar to “take with a grain of salt”.

    “The equilibrium climate sensitivity refers to the equilibrium change in global mean near-surface air temperature that would result from a sustained doubling of the atmospheric (equivalent) CO2 concentration (ΔTx2). This value is estimated, by the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) as likely to be in the range 2 to 4.5°C with a best estimate of about 3°C, and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5°C. Values substantially higher than 4.5°C cannot be excluded, but agreement of models with observations is not as good for those values.[1] This is a slight change from the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR), which said it was “likely to be in the range of 1.5 to 4.5°C”.[2] More recent work continues to support a best-guess value around 3°C.[3]“


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    Madjak @74:

    It turns out the big sodium/Salt scare of the last few decades may be about to have a few credibility problems

    About to?? Ah, you must be young, or at least young at heart. This is way old news. James Le Fanu busted the myth of the low-salt diet well before 2002, here’s one example: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthadvice/4712217/Doctors-diary.html
    … and another from 2004.

    It was also mentioned by Steven Milroy of JunkScience.com back in 2002.

    That Stuff article is itself borderline junk science: weasel words, virtually no measurements, lots of “he said, she said”-type waffle, no mention of the kidneys at all, and presents evidence in the form of a straw poll. The only real numbers mentioned are in this paragraph:

    those with the lowest salt intake had the highest rate of death from heart disease – at 4 per cent. People who ate the most salt had the lowest death rate from heart disease, at less than 1 per cent.

    Statistics are okay, but to not even bother to inform readers on what causal mechanism makes the numbers behave the way they do is just sloppy. The statement “salt consumption was measured through urine samples” is obviously a falsehood because people do not drink urine. But the extent to which this proxy for salt intake can be relied upon is not even discussed.

    Bottom line: the kidneys have always regulated the salt level in the blood – and blood is the only way salt can get from your gut to any other part of your body. Case closed.
    Our poor old brains are overworked enough as it is without saddling them with yet another conscious choice for an action that our other mammalian bodily organs are perfectly capable of handling unconsciously.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tristan

    Hi Bruce

    Here’s data that some people seem to be citing when they refer to the fall in sea level during 2010.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    catamon

    ‘Not having enough sodium for pregnant women, I understand is a root cause of cretinism.”

    Nope Madjak, common misunderstanding. That’s iodine deficiency. Treated, usually, by the provision of iodated salt in the diet. Amazing the effect these trace amounts of things can have isn’t it??


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Dave @72

    I don’t know of any studies but I would expect that CO2 concentration makes no difference. NASA had no problem putting astronauts on pure O2 at something like half an atmosphere pressure in their space capsules.

    Of course the CO2 level begins to rise as soon as you’re sealed in and they needed scrubbers to remove it. But there was no difficulty starting with virtually no CO2.

    After a deadly fire during a dry run on the launch pad they learned the wisdom of not using pure O2 however.

    Given enough Oxygen I think CO2 level makes no difference until it’s very high. Absent enough oxygen it becomes another matter of course.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    PS:

    I don’t see any natural circumstance where CO2 levels could be high enough to bother an athlete.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Eddy Aruda

    Philip Shehan:
    September 3rd, 2011 at 3:36 pm
    “For those who want science and not politics..” this report is published by the Heartland Institute a free market ideological think tank. Such groups are major forces behind “skeptical” opinion.

    Argumentative ad hominem.

    Australia’s IPA provides a forum for international non-scientists like Lord Monckton and Czech President Vaclav Klaus, who spent his time here saying he knew little about science but a great deal about economics and politics.

    Argument ad hominem.

    Whether or not they overestimate warming is of course contested but thus far the evidence matches the models. The alleged lack of consideration of chemical and biological processes is complete nonsense.

    Yes, the warming is contested! Can you provide empirical data that the evidence matches the models? Are you referring to the predictions based upon models that Jim Hansen made that never came to fruition? Can you please cite one example of a forecast made by the warmists that came true? Models are not empirical evidence. But you know that because you’re a scientists, right?

    Yes, plant growth is an acknowledged a negative feedback which is why you can get carbon credits for reforestation.

    Acknowledged by whom? What has reforestation got to do with anything? Did you know that various skeptics have different arguments regarding the effect of plant growth on climate? Which one was the commenter citing?

    http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2007/08/12/201763/trees-wont-fix-global-warming/Him him him
    “If water availability decreases at the same time that carbon dioxide increases, then we might not have a net gain in carbon sequestration.”
    “In order to actually have an effect on the atmospheric concentration of CO2, the results suggest a future need to fertilize vast areas,” Oren said. “And the impact on water quality of fertilizing large areas will be intolerable to society. Water is already a scarce resource.”The results of the study, presented yesterday at a national meeting of the Ecological Society of America, also noted that only a few parts of a tree will store carbon for long periods of time.

    “Carbon that’s in foliage is going to last a lot shorter time than carbon in the wood, because leaves decay quickly,” said Duke graduate student and project member Heather McCarthy. “So elevated CO2 could significantly increase the production of foliage, but this would lead to only a very small increase in ecosystem carbon storage.

    • New evidence shows the Medieval Warm Period was real, global and warmer than the present, while CO2 was 28% lower.
    This evidence is contested, but no-one disputes that climate has varied in the past due to natural forcings such as solar cycles, and these factors of course continue, but this in no way invalidates the science of the effects of doubling or tripling atmospheric CO2 concentrations on the climate.

    There are hundreds of peer-reviewed papers that show that the medieval warm period was real and that it was global. Do you need me to provide you with a link, again? Which poster or commenter here has stated that climate has not varied in the past due to natural forcing’s? If the evidence is “contested” why do the warmest claim that there is a ‘consensus”?

    The loss of arctic sea ice is gr[e]ater than models predicted.

    Sea levels have been rising since the end of the Pleistocene ice age. Yet, the data shows that the rate of sea level rise has either declined or stopped. Models are not empirical data. If temperatures are increasing why aren’t sea levels rising? Are you going to respond to this question or are you going to ignore it like you do all the tough questions?

    • Life on Earth likes warmth. Amphibians, birds, butterflies, other insects, lizards, mammals, and even worms do better with a bit of global warming.
    Yes there will be winners and losers. In tha latter are low lying coastal infrastructure, island nations, agricultural regions…

    Newsflash: wildlife migrates to areas conducive to the survival of the species! Winners and losers? That is called evolution. Species that can adapt can survive and those species that cannot will not survive. Over 99% of everything that ever lived is extinct. Yep, survival of the species is not easy! Since climate is always changing sea levels are constantly changing. Wow, what a concept!

    • Warmth and CO2 increases crops and global food. It’s good for hungry people.
    Some of those hungry people like those living in Bangla Desh, where storm surges already kill tens and even hundreds of thousands, are in danger of losing their land, homes, livelyhoods and lives.

    Well, Phil, since you have already acknowledged that key points of the CAGW hypothesis are “contested” the debate is not “settled”. You have employed another fallacy, Petitio principii (begging the question). When you can “prove” CAGW then you can comment on its effect on sea levels. Gee wiz, I wonder why anyone would go through the expense and inconvenience of pumping CO2 into greenhouses? The people in the third world would benefit from crops grown more efficiently and economically, including the poor in Bangladesh! Wouldn’t you agree, Phil?

    I could go on but you get my drift.

    I get your “drift.” Instead of going on and on like a propaganda artist perhaps you should construct a logical argument and support it with citations, quotes, links etc.?

    Well, Phil, I am sure you get my “drift”, don’t you?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Eddy Aruda

    @ Phil Sheehan

    Just out of curiosity, what evidence would you accept that would falsify the CAGW hypothesis?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    Philip Shehan @ 79 :

    Whether or not they overestimate warming is of course contested but thus far the evidence matches the models. The alleged lack of consideration of chemical and biological processes is complete nonsense.

    Let’s take that step by step.

    “overestimate warming” :
    The IPCC likes to look at itself in a mirror. When they estimate climate sensitivity they prefer to use model results which are themselves constrained by the author’s understanding (and preference) for climate sensitivity. In the only estimate of climate sensitivity that the IPCC used which was based on measurement and not on models, they specifically mangled that estimate to make it look like more warming was likely than the real scientists’ original analysis had ever shown.

    “the evidence matches the models.” :
    Which models and which evidence? Surely not the troposphere models James Hansen had used back in 1988 when testifying to Congress, or the OHC model projections GISS used in 2003, or the net warming feedback coefficient the IPCC used in their 2007 report? Because by 2009 the models were wrong by 100% in air temperature, nearly 800% wrong in OHC magnitude (cooling oceans were Trenberth’s travesty), and wrong even in the sign of net feedback, respectively.
    Specifically on Lindzen & Choi 2011, Lindzen admitted “that it is hardly likely to represent the last word on the matter. One is working with data that is far from what one might wish for. Moreover, the complexity of the situation tends to defeat simple analyses. Nonetheless, certain things are clear: models are at great variance with observations, the simple regressions between outgoing radiation and surface temperature will severely misrepresent climate sensitivity, and the observations suggest negative rather than positive feedbacks.”source
    The IPCC said clouds give positive feedback on temperature. Exactly the opposite has been observed by analysis of CERES satellite data: clouds have negative feedback in response to warming. Every day clouds contribute 20 times as much cooling to the Earth than the warming of industrial CO2, so it is plausible that their effect on temperature change over the late 20th century is in the same ballpark as the warming that is claimed to have been caused mainly by added industrial CO2.

    “alleged lack of consideration of chemical and biological processes”:
    Cloud formation is where atmospheric physics crosses over the same topics as physical chemistry, so the results of the Aarhus University SKY experiment and the later CERN CLOUD experiment could forgivably be described as chemistry. The IPCC authors admitted in AR4 that their understanding of cloud feedback was poor (ie the science is not settled), but uncertainties and concerns are routinely scrubbed out of the Summary for Policy Makers and the press releases and so unfortunately the politically expedient alarmist view is all that most people have heard.
    There is an observed causal mechanism between solar activity, cosmic rays, and cloud cover chemistry. All prior warnings of man-made climate alarm are based on models that could not have included this critical cloud chemistry component – the Svensmark Theory – because the cosmic ray hypothesis has only recently been elevated to theory by multiple controlled experiments as a late addition to Nir Shaviv’s well-established GCR correlation in the long term climate history.

    As for “biological processes”, well I’m not personally familiar with any research on the thermal effect of global vegetation. But the benefits of returning the atmosphere to its prehistorically normal 1000ppm to 2000ppm CO2 range are very well documented and yet oddly absent from the alarmist’s set of usual talking points. Finding a downside for the biosphere of increased CO2 is to find an exception, not the general rule.

    natural forcings such as solar cycles, and these factors of course continue, but this in no way invalidates the science of the effects of doubling or tripling atmospheric CO2

    But there’s the problem, because the reasoning used by the IPCC up until now has been to say “we’ve accounted for all the natural warming effects in our models, so whatever difference remains between models and observations must have been industrial greenhouse gases”. The more that natural effects have been observed and understood over the last 5 years, the less room there is for CO2 to have made a difference. There is certainly room for man-made global warming to show up in the yearly averages during peaks and troughs of the solar cycles, but we have accurate global temperature measurements for only one and a half solar cycles (care to draw a conclusion from that??).

    The one thing we can say for sure about doubling or tripling the CO2 from 285ppm is that the biosphere has easily handled levels much higher during the last hundred million years.
    CAGW claims an unprecedented cause will have an unprecedented catastrophic effect. Once you recognise all CO2 operates the same way, you realise the cause is not unprecedented and the effect will not be unprecedented either. It’s only a catastrophe if you spend your money fighting an unwinnable battle to manage the climate instead of adapting to whatever unpredictable change happens next. When you take the C out of CAGW it is no problem at all.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tristan

    Sea levels have been rising since the end of the Pleistocene ice age. Yet, the data shows that the rate of sea level rise has either declined or stopped. Models are not empirical data. If temperatures are increasing why aren’t sea levels rising? Are you going to respond to this question or are you going to ignore it like you do all the tough questions?

    I linked to some data @84. If you plot it (or just glance at it) you’ll notice the sea level contains peaks and troughs yet trends upwards. You could look a the data and say ‘sea level was actually higher in early 1998 (a peak) than it was in early 2002 (a trough), the sea level has gone down over a period of 4 years!’ but that would be a pretty meaningless way of appraising the data. Similarly, sea level peaked in 2004 at a height above the trough earlier this year, although since then the level has risen substantially again.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Eddy Aruda

    Tristan:
    September 4th, 2011 at 2:29 am
    Sea levels have been rising since the end of the Pleistocene ice age. Yet, the data shows that the rate of sea level rise has either declined or stopped. Models are not empirical data. If temperatures are increasing why aren’t sea levels rising? Are you going to respond to this question or are you going to ignore it like you do all the tough questions?

    I linked to some data @84. If you plot it (or just glance at it) you’ll notice the sea level contains peaks and troughs yet trends upwards. You could look a the data and say ‘sea level was actually higher in early 1998 (a peak) than it was in early 2002 (a trough), the sea level has gone down over a period of 4 years!’ but that would be a pretty meaningless way of appraising the data. Similarly, sea level peaked in 2004 at a height above the trough earlier this year, although since then the level has risen substantially again.

    Trisan, thanks for your comment. Sea levels have been rising since the end of the last ice ago and I agree with you regarding the trends.There certainly are peaks and troughs. However, CO2 levels continue to rise and yet the tidal gauges and other empirical data show no acceleration in the rate at which sea levels rise. If CO2 is such a powerful forcing, where is it’s influence on rate at which sea level rises? If temperatures were rising then there would be more runoff into the oceans. If more water is moving from land to the sea because of global warming, shouldn’t this effect the rate at which sea levels rise? Your link http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/current/sl_ns_global.txt made me curious so I went to http://sealevel.colorado.edu/ and the graphs there show show a constant “average” rate at which sea levels rise. If Antarctica, Greenland and most of the world’s glaciers are melting then why doesn’t the graph show an acceleration in the rate at which sea levels rise since the end of the little ice age?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Eddy Aruda

    @ Trista

    Sorry for misspelling your name @91.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tristan

    G’day Eddy

    I was just referring to your query:

    “If temperatures are increasing why aren’t sea levels rising?”

    Is that what you meant?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Eddy Aruda

    G’day Tristan.

    Perhaps I should have commented that the rate of sea level rise has not increased despite the alleged warming caused by the increase in atmospheric CO2 since the end of the LIA rather than “If temperatures are increasing why aren’t sea levels rising?”. Thank you for allowing me to clarify.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    Tristan at #84

    Tristan – Yes, the second graph at the link I gave was a graph of the data you linked to, from University of Colorado. The graph is from their website originally. You will see that there has been a significant fall in sea level in the last year according to that dataset.

    Also note that the EU’s satellite, Envisat has the sea level declining for nearly two years. I don’t know which is right but you’ll see from this link that all the satellite sea level measurements are falling.

    This is consistent with the solar minimum which seems to be between the Dalton and Maunder minima in strength, and also the swing of the PDO and AMO into their respective cooling phases. Don’t expect the sea level to substantially rise for 30 years.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Eddie #89:

    Phil has been here before and spouted much the same “believer” rubbish as he does now. I asked him the same question as you did just as I have asked the same question of other believers.

    The response? Well, I seem to remember a song, “The sound of silence…” 

    I should add that back then, Phil made a snide reference to the “disciples” of Karl Popper to any suggestion that one should have to falsify a hypothesis.

    At least this woman was honest:
    “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” – Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment

    And that’s all this scam has ever been about. Bloody politics.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    And therein lies the crux of the problem Mark. Politics has become so incestuously intertwined with “climate science” that the science has become irrevocably tainted, at least for the near future. There is no way to bring credibility back to the field until the CAGW scam dies and the science can get back to strictly sciency questions.

    But I am sure this is nothing new… it is simply a more sophisticated scam than most in the past, and significantly larger in magnitude.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    And why did Politics become so intertwined with it?
    The money.
    Notice how everywhere they are seeking to lower emissions, the first thing that they do is place a cost per ton on those emissions, in effect a new tax, and because emissions, especially of CO2 are so huge, the amounts of money to be made are also monumentally huge.
    They then say that the money raised will be put to good use, to lower those emissions, but notice how they always keep something aside for themselves.
    Then they justify it by using terms like ‘market mechanisms’ etc.
    Tony.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Louis Hissink

    The link between climate science and politics is murky – in the framing of the National Curriculum, Geography, especially human geography, as distinct from physical geography, has been given pride of place – separate from science which is restricted to biology, physics and chemistry, with geology a distant last.

    This is the curriculum to be imposed on the nations youth in our schools – and from which all debate expands from, over time.

    There is also a sleeper issue – technocracy which, while it fizzled during the last century, seems to have experienced a very quiet rebirth – now that technology has caught up. Technocracy, like democracy etc, is all about an elite comprised of scientists and engineers, determining how society is to be managed, the main mechanism being some form of carbon currency as a proxy for energy allocation. Technocracy only works in a totalitarian system, by the way. Those interested should study the first descriptions of this idea of social organisation, for it’s clear that its adherent don’t understand economics at all, though one can see similarities between it’s early ideas, and those peddled by the liberals and progressives today.

    It’s a little confusing but a concerted effort by bloggers might clarify this agenda, for one thing is clear, the push for a carbon based basis for the world’s economy is not new.

    Incidentally we have three Australians on the Pacific Rim membership of the Trilateral Commission – Hugh Morgan, Ross Garnault and John Hewson – Morgan being the quietest one of the three in terms of political activism; his links to various “sceptical” groups becomes interesting under this light.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Philip Shehan

    I did actually attempted to supply a couple of links to my previous post but a glithch in the link function foiled me. Anyway:

    With regard to the statement that the evidence (in the form of observed temperature) matches the theory, or models.

    On the loss of arctic sea ice (see fig 1)

    Eddy. People like to endlessly quote Popper’s extreme falsification criterion for science, but that is not how science actually works. (Apart from being a research scientist I have a tertiary qualification in History and Philosophy of Science and have about a metre of book shelf on the subject, including Popper’s own work.) Newton would have been “falsified” centuries ago if it were.

    I did not always accept the case for AGW. I did not suddenly wake up one morning and “change sides”. Some time about ten years ago (and that’s as close as I can estimate)the accumulating evidence meant that I accepted AGW as more than likely real. The further accumulation of evidence since then has comfirmed my view.

    If the evidence to the contrary becomes strong enough, my opinion will change accordingly, but if/when that happens, it will not be a road to Damascus experience then either.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Hasbeen

    There is an old saying that “there’s no fool like an old fool”.

    Tell me Phillip @ 102, do you think you lost your ability to reason, about 10 years ago, because of advancing age, or was it some other cause.

    Suggest that after 10 years, it’s time to have another look at the flow of evidence. Another old saying goes, “you’re never too old to learn”. I wonder which applies to you?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    …but that is not how science actually works.

    The number of times I’ve read that from “warmists”. Sorta reminds me of Humpty Dumpty in “Through the Looking Glass”.

    ‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

    Humpty Dumpty’s attitude to language corresponds exactly to how AGW science “works”.

    Santer, Jones, Briffa, Mann, Trenberth. You’re welcome to all of ‘em, Phil. We’ve seen how their science “works” and we’ve seen their “ethics”. Now I’ve mentioned them, gotta go open the window.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Philip Shehan

    Hasbeen, You clearly recognise something about yourself in your choice of screen name. When you attribute it to others, psychologists call it “projection”

    I have no intention of waiting for 10 years to look at the flow of evidence.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    PaulM

    I have no intention of waiting for 10 years to look at the flow of evidence.

    I have no intention of waiting for 10 years to looking at the flow of evidence.

    There, fixed.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Philip Shehan

    Mark, did not see your post earlier but to clarify my position on Popper.

    His writings are a milestone. I considered them inportant enough to have bought and read The Logic of Scientific Discovery, and numerous other books where Popper’s ideas are discussed and critiqued. I recommend What is This Thing Called Science? by AF Chalmers as a very good and readable introduction to the subject. I was interested enough in these ideas to undertake a part time course in History and Philosophy of Science while working full time at my day (and often night and weekend) job in scientific research.

    Popper’s ideas on falsification have clearly been picked up by some AGW skeptic and repeated endelessly by those who would not otherwise have ever heard of him and who really do not understand his work or where it fits into 20th and 21st century philosphy of science and how it fits with how scientists actually work.

    If I did make a disparaging remark about Popper’s “disciples”, it was these people I had in mind.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Philip Shehan

    Thank you Hasbeen and PaulM for demonstrating what constitutes so much “skeptical” discussion of the science.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    PaulM

    Thank you Hasbeen and PaulM for demonstrating what constitutes so much “skeptical” discussion of the science.

    As Gerard Henderson is want to say, Let’s go to the tape:-

    Philip Shehan replied to Philip Shehan
    Tue 02 Oct 07 (10:53pm)
    Sorry Jim but the reports I saw said this updated eport was based on additional work.

    The leading scientist said that on the basis of this, they were “more convinced” that the changes were human caused.

    Glen V and chrisgo. If you can’t understand the concept that an initial estimate of a result may be, say, between 5 and 15, with more work may be between 6 and 11 and with yet more work between 6 and 9, I can’t help you.

    ANDREW REPLIES: Except in this case the narrowing went from between 1 and 6 degrees to between 1 and 5. Not your analogy at all.

    Just a little case of distortion there Philip.

    Philip Shehan replied to Ash
    Mon 03 Dec 07 (10:01pm)
    Once again, Mr “Logic” shows he is anything but.

    1. I am perfectly capable of demonstrating my credentials, and have done so elsewhere.

    That I chose not to respond to Mr Logic or kiwi with his typical personal cheap shots at my personal circumstances (another below, which typically, his idealogical brother in arms Gordon of Perth then criticizes me for introducing)in no way logically means I am unable to do so.

    2. Nowhere have I asserted that AGW has beeen proven.

    Even if his premises 1 and 2 are accepted as true, you don’t have to be a graduate of formal logic courses in mathematics and philosophy, (which incidentally, I am, with A grades)to see that his conclusion does not follow, ipso facto or otherwise.

    Pick another screen name, Mr “Logic”.

    I slight case of appeal to authority (trust me I’m a scientist) with a liberal dose of personalisation and ad hominem for a little extra zing.

    Philip Shehan replied to Philip Shehan
    Tue 27 Nov 07 (04:52pm)
    Peter, I am wary of the term “believer.” That is for religions and the feral right.

    I am by nature a sceptic and by training a scientist. I prefer to analyse and understand.

    My analysis of the evidence leads me to the opinion that the case for AGW has been established to the point that action needs to be taken now if very serious negative consequences are to be avoided. True sceptics are welcome to dispute me on this with rational evidence based argument.

    This precludes those whose “arguments” are a rationalisation of their belief that, its all a lefty plot, a conspiracy by thousands of self serving scientists devoid of personal or professional integrity, those whose “arguments” contain the words hoax, swindle, or consists in entirety of posts like the following: “Global warming, HA HA HA.”

    Calling something a lefty conspiracy bad but classing those you don’t agree with as the feral right is good, hypocricy and double standards hmmmm, very progressive of you.

    Don’t be such a denialist Andrew. That article quotes scientists. He gives convincing anecdotes. There is no proof that GM foods are safe. Go on. Prove to me that they are. Bet you can’t. The debate is not over. There is no such thing as consensus. etc.etc.

    Philip Shehan (Reply)
    Wed 28 Nov 07 (02:02pm)

    Denialist, dear me what an amazing level of intellectual rigor you display with that argument.

    The CSIRO is not “warmist”. They are serious professionals whose conclusions upset the denialists. I heard a CSIRO scientist say that he could scientifically attribute black Saturday to global warming but he considered it likely that it played a part. I concur.

    Philip Shehan (Reply)
    Thu 19 Aug 10 (10:47am)

    There’s that word again, shall we conduct a trend analysis?

    This is just from a cursory search on The Bolt Blog, you suffer from a rather significant credibility defecit.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    We are living at a particularly momentous time in history. In order to understand what is happening in Australia in the 2011s, you need to know about four things:

    1. The New World Order;
    2. The United Nations Agenda 21 Sustainable Development Plan;
    3. A political philosophy called ‘communitarianism’;
    4. A fake charity named Common Purpose.

    These four things are linked together. This website will help you join the dots.

    http://www.stopcp.com/cpmindmap.php


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tristan

    No probs Eddy, thanks for being so civil.

    Do you have a hypothesis for why sea levels are rising?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tristan

    G’day Bruce

    Looking at the data, you’ll see that the sea level peaked early 2010 at 55.161. Do you think the sea level will pass that point in the next 30 years?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Philip Shehan

    PaulM. Clearly a regular reader of Mr Bolt’s blog. Let me know how you manage to pull up my contributons. I would find it useful. But you are leaving out the context of the quotes.

    With regard to your first quote. There is no distortion whatsoever and my analogy is perfectly valid. In all cases there is a narrowing within the previous range.

    In the second case you will note that I do not there state I am a scientist. As you know I am regularly challenged there to state my qualifications. In many cases as in the quoted passage I decline to do so.

    You will also be perfectly aware that I am regularly subjected to personal abuse and attacks from these people. The personal circumstances I was referring to here are the regular false claims that I am on the dole. That my replies to these assaults constitute ad hominem attacks on these inoccents is laughable. The only thing poster “curious” ever has to say in reply to analyses of the science is infantile personal attack.

    But thanks again for giving me the opportunity to explain what passes for “skepical” discussion of the science on Mr Bolt’s blog.

    I did not give my profession or qualifications in my substantive post (#79)

    I mentioned them in subsequent replies to people who mention Popper as the theory and practice of scientific research is something I do know something about.

    The third quote clearly distinguishes between genuine skeptics who discuss the science and:

    those whose “arguments” are a rationalisation of their belief that, its all a lefty plot, a conspiracy by thousands of self serving scientists devoid of personal or professional integrity, those whose “arguments” contain the words hoax, swindle, or consists in entirety of posts like the following: “Global warming, HA HA HA.”

    And again as a Bolt observer, you will be aware that kind of discussion litters Mr Bolt’s blog.

    The fourth quote is clearly parodying the “arguments” put against AGW and applying them to the discussion of GM foods.

    As for the last quote you are aware that I reserve the “D” word not for genuine skeptics who discuss and challenge the evidence in ascintific manner, but for those who show all the characteristics of the psychological state of denial and are not in the least bit skeptical of their own position.

    those whose “arguments” are a rationalisation of their belief that, its all a lefty plot, a conspiracy by thousands of self serving scientists devoid of personal or professional integrity, those whose “arguments” contain the words hoax, swindle, or consists in entirety of posts like the following: “Global warming, HA HA HA.”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Philip Shehan

    Kevin Moore: Ms Nova, from the top:

    For those who want science and not politics…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    Phillip at #102

    I find it interesting that the IPCC GCM’s can match the 20th C (in your link), but certainly there are enough degrees of freedom to match almost anything if you tweak them enough. I’ve done quite a lot of modelling both multivariate statistical and process, so I know the limits of the field.

    The trouble for the IPCC is other modelling approaches can not only model the 20th C but also the full temperature record prior to 1900 AND the last decade, which the IPCC GCM’s have been having so much problem with.

    In fact you can do so with just two primary variables: previous solar cycle length (a proxy for the combined magnetic and total irradiance effects of the Sun) and a low CO2 climate sensitivity number. It works even better when you add in aspects such as the oceans and volcanos, but just those two will do almost all variance since the start of the instrumental temperature record in 1659.

    I did this using Butler & Johnston 1996, which gives the pSCL vs temperature correlation for Armagh in Northern Ireland, and the Central England Temperature, the longest instrumental dataset we have available. If you use the correlation of pSCL vs temperature in Armagh, which is similar to the CET in climate and latitude, you’ll find the residual fits with a 2XCO2 of 0.8 C. This drops slightly as you add in other minor variables (AMO, volcanos, UHIE etc) so that the value comes out almost identical to the directly measured values of Lindzen & Choi and Spencer & Braswell, who use satellite measurement.

    This can all be done on a laptop with a spreadsheet – and since solar cycle length is easy to measure, and obviously independent from temperature measurement (mercury thermometers are not about to be influenced by the Sun or vice versa, except by measuring temperature of course), then it is very hard to ignore the correlation. The IPCC does, so unsuprisingly as soon as they extrapolate from their data fitting period of 1900-2000 the simulation goes wacko. Not so for the pSCL + low 2XCO2 model. The current cooling signal is fuly consistent with the length of the solar cycle which was completed in 2008/9.

    As to why this is the case, look no closer than the recent CERN results for a postulated mechanism. All you have to hypothesis is that solar cycle length is coupled to solar magnetic field strength, which is quite plausible. Indeed Butler and Johnston say:

    In conclusion we may remark that, even though the physical mechanism(s) for solar-activity induced changes in climate are still unresolved, there is mounting evidence that a speeding up of the solar cycle appears to be accompanied by an increase in the efficiency of the solar dynamo that ultimately leads to an increase in the temperature of the Earth’s lower atmosphere.

    In other words, global warming exists but is much weaker than the IPCC would want us to believe. For the rest of the temperature variance look to the Sun, particularly the magnetic effects.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    “Philip Shehan” is a regular TROLL on Andrew Bolt’s blog.
    He makes no more sense there than he does here !

    (This blog’s moderation team does not keep track on what is going on in other blogs) CTS


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Philip Shehan

    PaulM: In case you are one of the few over at Mr Bolt’s site who do not know my identity, my current screen name there is Brian S (Surnames are banned now for “legal reasons”. Brian is my unused first name.)

    Interestingly, I have found that using a new screen name causes people who simply look for idealogical enemies heads to kick to actually consider the content of a post, until they decide they have your number, then it’s back to knee jerk hobnailed boot replies.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Philip Shehan @ 114

    How about the science of Game Theory or mind control?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Philip Shehan

    You will note the use of the abusive term “troll” for someone who goes on a discussion site and discusses things, but from a point of view not approved by the troll hunters.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    PaulM

    Again, let’s go to the tape:

    First we take-

    I have a tertiary qualification in History and Philosophy of Science

    then we add-

    Apart from being a research scientist I have a tertiary qualification in History and Philosophy of Science)

    to the subtotal we also add-

    you don’t have to be a graduate of formal logic courses in mathematics and philosophy, (which incidentally, I am, with A grades)

    and somwhow with undefined variables and constants we get,

    In the second case you will note that I do not there state I am a scientist.

    And this means exactly what?

    I don’t have to use my years of experience in a particular field of pattern recognition to spot the inconsistency of your argument.

    Let me know how you manage to pull up my contributons.

    Strange, I would have thought that a research scientist who has completed formal logic courses in mathematics, with A grades no less, would be able to write and deploy a simple search algorithm.

    Silly me…..


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Philip Shehan

    Kevin: Game theory is not a science. It is a branch of mathematics. At the risk of upsetting PaulM I have taken courses in that too.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    Tristan at #112

    Tristan – yes Topex peaked then, Envisat nearly a year earlier.

    I have too much faith in my ignorance to say sea level won’t go higher in the next 30 years, but the solar minimum correlates with a cooling signal of 1 to 1.5 C (split difference & call it 1.25 say). The ocean cyclic cooling is worth something like 0.27 C as well. I can’t recall the expected pCO2 for 2040, but let say it is 780 ppmv (wild overestimate, but for sake of easy calcs). That would imply a CO2 driven warming of about 0.7 C.

    0.7 – 1.25 – 0.27 = -0.82.

    That almost exactly reverses the warming over the whole 20th C. Now even if only part of the cooling signal translates to sea level falling it would be quite significant.

    If you look at the various solar minima of the type we seem to be seeing the length seems to be around 30 years. Half a wavelength of the PDO and the AMO is about 32 or 33 years.

    So yes a 30 year falling sea level seems indicated by the data.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    PaulM

    PaulM: In case you are one of the few over at Mr Bolt’s site who do not know my identity, my current screen name there is Brian S (Surnames are banned now for “legal reasons”. Brian is my unused first name.)

    Rest assured Brian, I was well aware that Brian S and Philip Shehan were the same persona, the same way that I am also aware of the new persona for The Black Night and who the multiple personas for Reco, Kim Durance and others are, experience in pattern recognition and all that….


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Philip Shehan

    PaulM go back and read my post carefully, and do not pull quotes out of sequence. It hangs together.

    One point: Very, very few people who study mathematics, formal logic, or philosophy actually become professional scientists.

    Your argument on that score fails as an exercise in formal logic. I know that because I… Oh, forget it.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    PaulM

    At the risk of upsetting PaulM I have taken courses in that too.

    In legal terms the assertion that this revelation would upset me would be relying on facts not in evidence.

    I have little regard for what qualifications you or any other blogger claims to have, until such time as having met face to face. I base my responses on the grounds of what they post V what my informed opinion on matters of interest to myself are.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    PaulM

    PaulM go back and read my post carefully, and do not pull quotes out of sequence.

    I don’t particularly care that you didn’t claim to be a scientist in the second quote, you have quite clearly made the claim here and elsewhere, talk about failing exercises of formal logic…


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Philip Shehan @ 121

    Game Theory is a combination of psychology and mathematics worked together to produce the most efficient result.It is a science.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Philip Shehan

    Bruce. Thank you for your post. You are an example of a genuine skeptic who knows haw to discuss the science properly.

    Without going into deatils I agree that there is much that is not understood at this stage. With regard to the link I put up, it was in response to the claim that

    The models overestimate the warming

    This is clearly incorrect in the case of the models presented in the links (but for the benefit of those who are on about logic, this does not require an endorsement on my part or anyone elses of the models.) As is it happens, your cautionary points notwithstanding, I accept the models as a reasonable theoretical explanation of the data.

    With regard to the recent CERN data (apologies for being to lazy to find the link) the lead author recognises that the results at present do not produce particles big enough to produce cloud formation but hopes to have the question “settled once and for all in about five years”.

    There is a problem however that cosmic ray intensity does not appear to correlate with temperature.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Paul @ 109:

    I think that is called game, set and match. Nice bibliography of quotes there. I note Mr Shehan continues unabated and unashamed. It is a shame that one so highly trained as he claims cannot see the inconsistency of his arguments over time.

    Heck I make mistakes from time to time, and will admit it. I doubt you will get such an admission from someone so learned as Mr Shehan, Paul … clearly the genuis is beyond reproach.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tristan

    G’day Bruce

    That’s interesting, thanks for you prediction. I’m quite lay when it comes to a lot of aspects of science, but as I asked for your guess I better give my own. I give early 2010′s record 18 months from now till it’s surpassed.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Philip Shehan

    Kevin: at the risk of going around in circles, game theory is rigorous mathematics. Psychology does not come into the equations and tables of possible outcomes of various strategies, but it often illuminates the falability of human psychology.

    It certainly does have applications in science, and in other areas. The mathematician portrayed in the film a beautiful mind (forget his name) won the Nobel prize in economics because of the uses made of his work.

    Similarly, probability is a rigorous mathematical discipline. The fact that it interacts with psychology (and often collides with psychology) at the casino to produce outcomes does not make it a science.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    PaulM

    Game Theory is a combination of psychology and mathematics worked together

    I actualy have to agree with Philip on this one, game theory is a field of mathematics. What you are refering to is applied game theory where an additional discipline is added to enhance the area of application, in the case you refer to that would be in politics, sociology, economics, strategies and tactics in warfare, psycho-analysis and decision making processes.

    At the core it is still based around the works of Borel and Von Neumann.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    PaulM

    Bulldust

    Thanks for that, if I was a cynical person I would mention circular reasoning and make references to visual illusions on a dreidle where one could argue that the greater the spin the higher the risk of vanishing up ones own fundamentals, but seeing as I am a rationalist and a skeptic….oopsy..


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    Philip at #128

    The phrase you need to address is “the models overestimate the warming by greenhouse gases“. I’ve just shown you by inference that they do.

    The Uni of Aarhus experiment did grow CN’s to CCN size. But they didn’t have a world of politics looking over their shoulder. Furthermore if you have a supersaturated solution and nuclei of 1-5 nm size the aggregates can grown quite large quite fast. I have done this many times in aqueous solutions, can be a matter of minutes – whereas in the LT you can do so over periods of hours or days. I’d hope CERN can go further with their experiment, but I fear that will be difficult for them with the intense ire of parts of the climate science community bearing down on them.

    Regarding cosmic ray correlation with cloudiness, I like the GISS graph which shows a nice correlation between clouds and the solar cycle. Note the coincidence of peaks in cloud with the solar cycle minima. But I don’t know what Dr Cook is about when Prof Rao shows a very nice correlation between cosmic rays and cloud (see Fig 2). Prof Rao is of course a rather eminent Indian cosmic ray scientist.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    PaulM

    Interestingly, I have found that using a new screen name causes people who simply look for idealogical enemies heads to kick to actually consider the content of a post,

    Myself, I have been posting as PaulM since I first posted on message boards in the eighties, and have posted as such on every blog or newspaper comments page since then. I see no need to change my screen name to try to get people to change the way they respond to me, if they choose to continue ad hom attacks, distortions or misrepresentations, well that says more about them than it does about the substance of my arguments.

    I can be swayed by logic and well reasoned and argued opinions, and whilst I don’t always succeed at being scrupulous polite, I do try to respond with the appropriate level of respect a poster/commentator deserves.

    To change ones persona to change the response from others seems a little thin skinned and cast doubt on the confidence and conviction you hold in your own opinions.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    “Nash” is the name our newfound friend is looking for BTW. Yes, I studied game theory briefly in its application in economics. How glorious it is to be in such erudite company.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Ahhh seeing as we are on screen names… Bulldust is a nickname by which many know me IRL. As far as I know, I am the only blogger that uses the moniker.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    PaulM

    I studied game theory briefly in its application in economics.

    Myself, strategies and tactics, combat logistics and planning and politics.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    PaulM

    Bulldust is a nickname by which many know me IRL.

    With the content of much of what you post I have always assumed that it was a nickname that came from either a reigonal origin or occupation?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MaryFJohnston

    Andrew McRae: @ 90

    Liked that Andrew.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Hash House Harriers – Drinking club with a running problem ;)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    “Philip Shehan” read this !

    A spotter’s guide to trolls

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/a_spotters_guide_to_trolls/

    A special gift for YOU!

    (Did you read #5 yet? It seems to describe you rather well lately) CTS


    Report this

    00

  • #

    With respect to screen names, I’ve been using mine since early 2005, and I use it everywhere.
    As I am the Editor at the site I contribute to in the U.S. I needed to very carefully explain it for the edification of U.S. readers who assumed that it was from that mythical place where the Wizard resides, and did not readily associate it with the three letter International designator for Australia, AUS, and pronounced as Oz.
    Tony.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Damian Allen – did you recognise Troll #5?
    “5. Spambot troll. Spambot troll is on a mission – quite possibly a paid-for mission to judge by the frequency with which he posts. His job is to sabotage the comments section by filling it with cut-and-paste postings of little relevance to the debate in hand.”

    (Good putdown!) CTS


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Philip Shehan,

    (Apart from being a research scientist I have a tertiary qualification in History and Philosophy of Science and have about a metre of book shelf on the subject, including Popper’s own work.) [bold is mine, RH]

    I’ve been quite content to just read all this debate. And you’re welcome to your opinion too as far as I’m concerned. But I can no longer resist asking, what has philosophy got to do with science?

    When I went to school science was just a method of investigation. I’m sure you can recite it to me so I’ll not bore you with it. It remains just a method of investigation to this day; a set of steps that define what science is and implicitly, what it is not.

    It’s entirely objective and has withstood the test of time. There’s no wiggle room there for philosophy which is entirely subjective.

    One other thing since I’ve spoken out: my math teachers taught me to never interpolate beyond the end of my data; a mathematical sin you seem to have no trouble with. It’s worse when the data is from a computer model that, as you accept, can only predict current conditions if anthropogenic forcings are included. I note with great interest that you can make the anthropogenic forcings anything they need to be to make the model work. All your models show is that a computer can be made to show whatever you want it to show. Predicting the past is no great trick.

    In case you haven’t noticed — the weight of real world evidence is beginning to crush your preferred explanation of things.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    jazznick

    Philip Shehan nr 128

    The results from CERN are not a big deal and too much is being read into them.

    Sure, it proves a long known theory but the real world effects are very small.

    Check out the latest from Piers Corbyn on his latest (correct) forecasts and on his opinion
    on Svensmark’s work at CERN. As Piers uses Solar effects and Lunar modulation to arrive at his regularly correct forecasts
    you might expect a sound endorsement of Svensmark….but FAR from it!

    http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=8295

    Beware of being sidetracked – Svensmark’s work is just another step in a long journey.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MaryFJohnston

    Hi Jazznick @ 146

    “’Beware of being sidetracked – Svensmark’s work is just another step in a long journey.””

    Your comment is something we should always keep in mind.

    It is important to remember that 99% of discussion about man made global warming centres on the possibility of there being other factors, such as the Svensmark work, besides the main issue.

    We should also keep in mind that this discussion is very useful to the CAGW proponents because it keeps the issue mysterious and coincidentally ensures the continuity of their funding.

    For too long, the IPCC and cronies got away with the main theory of CAGW because everybody trusted them.

    They discussed a small but real mechanism and disgustingly hid the magnitude of its effect so that the world could be seriously misled.

    The core issue of “Man Made” CO2 and CAGW is a non event and the science involved is very pedestrian so the only way they could keep spinning it was to cause confusion by bringing in extra theories to check.

    Even the supposed proof of 0.6 C degrees temperature rise from 1850 to now and the coinciding rise in CO2 (if real) is ridiculous.

    Warmers ascribe the entire 0.6 C rise to human industrial growth but the basic and irrefutable science tells us that, at the most the human contribution of CO2 caused a very small proportion of this rise.

    The human guilt actually is very small because we are responsible for no more than 0.0009 C degrees of the total 0.6 C degrees.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Truthseeker

    For the simplest and best short essay on why CO2 is irrelevant to climate change, I would like to direct everyone to this site;

    http://knowledgedrift.wordpress.com/2011/03/03/why-the-co2-greenhouse-gas-debate-doesnt-matter/#more-999


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Patrick

    The main virtue of the NIPCC publications is to demonstrate tangible evdence of IPCC’s gross selection bias and to prove that climate science is NOT settled. Given the relatively limited resources of NIPCC they have done a fairly good job of filling the gaps in the IPCC’s publications.

    Of course, what IPCC SHOULD have done (but did NOT do) is to undertake a comprehensive, robust EVALUATION of ALL the evidence rather than producing a one-sided political advocacy document based on highly selective cherry picking of material to support the political agendas of the sponsor governments.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    I see that Mark wants to publicly show how stupidly ignorant he is.

    He writes this drivel:

    WoW!! More recycled crap from Fred Singer!! Just how many time does one author need to be publicly humiliated before they’ll actually stop talking.

    Here is a Biography of Dr. Fred Singer,

    EXCERPT:

    Siegfried Fred Singer (born September 27, 1924) is an Austrian-born American physicist and emeritus professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia.[1] Singer trained as an atmospheric physicist and is known for his work in space research, atmospheric pollution, rocket and satellite technology, and as an outspoken critic of the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. He is the author or editor of several books including Global Effects of Environmental Pollution (1970), The Ocean in Human Affairs (1989), Global Climate Change (1989), The Greenhouse Debate Continued (1992), and Hot Talk, Cold Science (1997). He has also co-authored Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years (2007) with Dennis Avery, and Climate Change Reconsidered (2009) with Craig Idso.[2]

    Singer has had a varied career, serving in the armed forces, government, and academia. He designed mines for the U.S. Navy during World War II, before completing his Ph.D. in physics from Princeton University in 1948 and working as a scientific liaison officer in the U.S. Embassy in London.[3] He became a leading figure in early space research, was involved in the development of earth observation satellites, and in 1962 established the National Weather Bureau’s Satellite Service Center. He was the founding dean of the University of Miami School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences in 1964, and held several government positions, including deputy assistant administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency, and chief scientist for the Department of Transportation. He held a professorship with the University of Virginia from 1971 until 1994, and with George Mason University until 2000.[4]

    Singer has been an advocate of the skeptical stance in the global warming controversy for a number of years. In 1990 he founded the Science & Environmental Policy Project to advocate this position,[5] and in 2006 was named by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as one of a minority of scientists said to be creating a stand-off on a consensus on climate change.[6] Singer argues there is no evidence that global warming is attributable to human-caused increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide, and that humanity would benefit if temperatures do rise.[7] He is an opponent of the Kyoto Protocol, and has said of the climate models that scientists use to project future trends that “models are very nice, but they are not reality and they are not evidence.”[8]

    Selected Excerpts:

    1951: Design of early satellites

    The New York Times wrote in 1962 that Singer was one of the first scientists to urge the launching of earth satellites for scientific observation during the 1950s.[15] He designed the first instruments used in satellites to measure cosmic radiation and ozone, and in 1951 or 1952 designed the MOUSE—the Minimal Orbital Unmanned Satellite, Earth. It weighed 100 pounds (45 kg), and according to the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum contained Geiger counters for measuring cosmic rays, photo cells for scanning the earth, telemetry electronics for sending data back to earth, a magnetic data storage device, and rudimentary solar energy cells. The Baltimore News Post reported in 1957 that had Singer’s arguments about the need for satellites been heeded, the U.S. could have beaten Russia by launching the first earth satellite.[14] He also invented the backscatter photometer ozone-monitoring instrument for early versions of weather satellites.[16]

    1962: National Weather Center and University of Miami

    In 1962, on leave from the university, Singer was named as the first director of meteorological satellite services for the National Weather Satellite Center, now part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and directed a program for using satellites to forecast the weather.[15] He stayed there until 1964. He told Time magazine in 1969 that he enjoyed moving around. “Each move gave me a completely new perspective,” he said. “If I had sat still, I’d probably still be measuring cosmic rays, the subject of my thesis at Princeton. That’s what happens to most scientists.”[28] When he stepped down as director he received a Department of Commerce Gold Medal Award for Distinguished Federal Service.[30]

    In 1964, he became the first dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences at the University of Miami in 1964, the first school of its kind in the country, dedicated to space-age research.[31] In December 1965, The New York Times reported on a conference Singer hosted in Miami Beach during which five groups of scientists, working independently, presented research identifying what they believed was the remains of a primordial flash that occurred when the universe was born.[32]

    There is a lot more to know about one of the most talented and successful scientist the world has ever known.A man who has served America with distinction and intelligence.

    From WIKIPEDIA

    Mark you have been exposed as the empty headed fool you are.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MaryFJohnston

    Hi Sunsettottomy 150

    Your comment prompted me to try and find the original post with

    “”WoW!! More recycled crap from Fred Singer!! Just how many time does one author need to be publicly humiliated before they’ll actually stop talking.”"

    Couldn’t locate it but I recall there was something ambiguous about it.

    Be interesting to re read it.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Gee Aye

    Mary… that is the comment in its entirety. It is hidden due to low comment rating. A rating it deserves.

    Sunsettommy – your reply looks like an appeal to authority to me. As has been discussed here often, a lifetime of scientific achievement only means something that achievment is demonstrable in the case being debated.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Gee Aye

    edit above, “if that achievement”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MaryFJohnston

    Re Fred Singer Comment

    Thanks I found it.

    I must have been dreaming; I thought I had read that in a different context.

    The “” “”WoW!! More recycled crap from Fred Singer!!”" I recalled as being a quote from someone else like Michael Mann …..


    Report this

    00

  • #
    chris

    Funny, someone (or a few someones) use common sense and publish a paper and oh boy did it nee to be published! giving sound, common sense conclusions and the believers bleat but they just love it when carbon credits make obscene fortunes for Gore and his ilk and shove millions of jobs to china and up the emission of real pollutants (and CO2 but thats bye the bye).


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    sunsettommy #150

    I can tell you that it was not this Mark. Someone being a smartarse squirmed through with a lower case “m”.

    BTW, you mentioned once at Jen’s blog that you had owned a 25″ F5 Obsession. That’s around 10′ to the eyepiece at zenith. Hope you never fell off the ladder of a night!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Gee Aye writes:

    Sunsettommy – your reply looks like an appeal to authority to me. As has been discussed here often, a lifetime of scientific achievement only means something that achievment is demonstrable in the case being debated.

    It was not my intention to do that.What I was responding to was the way Mark attacked Dr. Singer.

    From post #2,

    WoW!! More recycled crap from Fred Singer!! Just how many time does one author need to be publicly humiliated before they’ll actually stop talking.

    His career does not match what Mark writes about him.Mark was insinuating.That he has humiliated himself a number of times.But not a single example flows from mark to support it.That means he is running on bullcrap.

    “Recycled crap” huh?

    Notice that he attacks Dr. Singer who was only one of many authors of the 430 page report?

    What about all the other contributors of the 430 page report? Why attack only one person and leave the rest alone?

    Why the unsubstantiated bile?

    He never explained why he made that smarmy comment and deservedly gets over 100 thumbs down for his gumby mouth.The dirty disrespect coming from Mark is a sign that he is an idiot.

    That is why I posted that Biography information.To let people see what kind of a man DR. Singer was for over 60 years.A distinguished career in science research.

    Go read his full Bio and note that he was a man many people wanted to have around.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    I know that this is not really relevant here in Australia, but look for a minute at what was mentioned above, China Hydro.
    They have one monster dam, the Three Gorges project, that has a Nameplate Capacity of 22,500MW, (and for Adam, that’s the equivalent of 11 Nuclear Power Plants)
    That monster project has just recently been completed, and incidentally has already paid for itself, even with a price tag of $22.5 Billion.
    That plant is selling its electricity to the grid (the wholesale price) for $30 per MWH, which equates to 3 cents a KWH (which is currently around the same wholesale price as for coal fired power)
    Both Solar and wind are currently running at 7 to 10 times that (wholesale) price.
    If the introduction of an ETS will raise that wholesale price for coal fired power by around 1.6 cents, I was wondering just how a market based mechanism will drive generating entities to move to a more competitive form of generating power.
    While Hydro in China is different to here in Australia, with so much area, and with topography and rivers that can be dammed, at least they are in fact doing something about Hydro, rather than concentrating on coal. (keeping in mind that China is bringing on line one large scale new technology coal fired plant every seven days)
    China Hydro makes up 23% of the overall power ‘mix’ while here in Australia it is only 4.5%.
    Using the ‘market mechanism’ which some say will drive a move away from coal fired power, and with Wind and Solar so expensive, and Nuclear power still a long long way off, then that market mechanism might make upgrading Snowy Hydro an attractive option.
    By installing new Francis turbines and new larger generators, (and that is just a simplification of what would be an involved process) there is a distinct possibility that this could in fact double the power output, conservatively.
    The largest generator in Snowy Hydro is 250MW, while the new ones being installed in Chinese Hydro are 700MW.
    A Snowy Hydro Upgrade could indeed be termed an equivalent of the Snowy Scheme.
    Tony.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MaryFJohnston

    Explanation.

    Someone is playing sillibuggers.

    mark Mark

    There is a diifference


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Mark with the capital letter,Post # 156.

    sunsettommy #150

    I can tell you that it was not this Mark. Someone being a smartarse squirmed through with a lower case “m”.

    BTW, you mentioned once at Jen’s blog that you had owned a 25″ F5 Obsession. That’s around 10′ to the eyepiece at zenith. Hope you never fell off the ladder of a night!

    Ok.

    I get the difference.

    Yes it was me who had that giant Telescope.A portable scope.That required a trailer to travel and store in.Never fell off the 10′ ladder once.

    I shared the scope and other scopes I owned over the years.With the public at local parks for viewing celestial objects.There were lines of over 100 people waiting to climb that tall ladder and look through the ocular.Nobody ever fell off either.Not even young kids!

    There were a few trips into the high hills.The highest being 6,300′ elevation,near Ellensburg Washington.And the best place I stargazed was in the Ochoco Mountains near Prinville,Oregon.There,it is a majestic sight with 5,000′ elevation and panoramic views.Oh the wonderful summer nights I enjoyed!

    I no longer have the scope,since I sold it last year.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Oh the wonderful summer nights I enjoyed!

    Knock it off willya, I’m going green with envy! An object like the Orion nebula must have been truly stunning through that baby.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Gee Aye

    The tone and content left no doubt which Mark was what and who was not.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    My apologies here.
    This Comment of mine at 158 was in fact in the wrong Thread.
    I should have been in the one below this.
    Sorry!
    Tony.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Eddy Aruda

    Philip Shehan:
    September 4th, 2011 at 10:55 am
    I did actually attempted to supply a couple of links to my previous post but a glithch in the link function foiled me. Anyway:
    With regard to the statement that the evidence (in the form of observed temperature) matches the theory, or models.
    On the loss of arctic sea ice (see fig 1)
    Eddy. People like to endlessly quote Popper’s extreme falsification criterion for science, but that is not how science actually works. (Apart from being a research scientist I have a tertiary qualification in History and Philosophy of Science and have about a metre of book shelf on the subject, including Popper’s own work.) Newton would have been “falsified” centuries ago if it were.
    I did not always accept the case for AGW. I did not suddenly wake up one morning and “change sides”. Some time about ten years ago (and that’s as close as I can estimate)the accumulating evidence meant that I accepted AGW as more than likely real. The further accumulation of evidence since then has comfirmed my view.
    If the evidence to the contrary becomes strong enough, my opinion will change accordingly, but if/when that happens, it will not be a road to Damascus experience then either.

    Phil, Thanks for your usual feeble response. The minute you noticed your lame links did not post you should have posted the links with a follow on comment. You didn’t. Instead, you posted a link to…. the IPCC! What kind of a “scientists” posts something other than the SOURCE of the IPCC’s conclusions? Your second link http://www.ualberta.ca/~eec/Stroeve2007.pdf is dated.

    Regarding your link to arctic sea ice: http://junksciencecom.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/science-sea-ice-seesaw.pdf

    For the last 10,000 years, summer sea ice in the Arctic Ocean has been far from constant. For several thousand years, there was much less sea ice in The Arctic Ocean – probably less than half of current amounts. This is indicated by new findings by the Danish National Research Foundation for Geogenetics at the University of Copenhagen…

    Team leader Svend Funder… says, “Our studies also show that when the ice disappears in one area, it may accumulate in another. We have discovered this by comparing our results with observations from northern Canada. While the amount of sea ice decreased in northern Greenland, it increased in Canada. This is probably due to changes in the prevailing wind systems. This factor has not been sufficiently taken into account when forecasting the imminent disappearance of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean.”

    Here is a reality check for you Phil, the ice has rebounded. Moreover, if temperatures were increasing globally then Antarctica would be melting, as well. It isn’t. In fact, Antarctica ice is at an all time high! See http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_8vNzwxlohg0/SIDAe8AalqI/AAAAAAAAATM/uUruaj1NqFg/s1600-h/071208-2323-antarcticic14.jpg

    As usual, you respond with a vague reference to the IPCC and outdated data on the arctic; pathetic, pitiful and unworthy of a real “scientists.”

    Here are a few questions you dodged with your usual mind numbing efficiency.

    Yes, the warming is contested! Can you provide empirical data that the evidence matches the models? Are you referring to the predictions based upon models that Jim Hansen made that never came to fruition? Can you please cite one example of a forecast made by the warmists that came true? Models are not empirical evidence. But you know that because you’re a scientists, right?Please, don’t quote the IPCC as almost 30% of their report is not peer reviewed and with the various “gates” associated with IPCC assessment reports please show me how any forecast based upon models has materialized).

    Yes, plant growth is an acknowledged a negative feedback which is why you can get carbon credits for reforestation.
    Acknowledged by whom? What has reforestation got to do with anything? Did you know that various skeptics have different arguments regarding the effect of plant growth on climate? Which one was the commenter citing?

    There are hundreds of peer-reviewed papers that show that the medieval warm period was real and that it was global. Do you need me to provide you with a link, again? Which poster or commenter here has stated that climate has not varied in the past due to natural forcing’s? If the evidence is “contested” why do the warmest claim that there is a ‘consensus”?

    If temperatures are increasing why aren’t sea levels rising? Are you going to respond to this question or are you going to ignore it like you do all the tough questions?

    • Life on Earth likes warmth. Amphibians, birds, butterflies, other insects, lizards, mammals, and even worms do better with a bit of global warming.
    Yes there will be winners and losers. In tha latter are low lying coastal infrastructure, island nations, agricultural regions…
    Newsflash: wildlife migrates to areas conducive to the survival of the species! Winners and losers? That is called evolution. Species that can adapt can survive and those species that cannot will not survive. Over 99% of everything that ever lived is extinct. Yep, survival of the species is not easy! Since climate is always changing sea levels are constantly changing. Wow, what a concept!

    Just out of curiosity, what evidence would you accept that would falsify the CAGW hypothesis?

    Answer the question or consider yourself exposed as a propagandists that has sold science out for 30 pieces of silver!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Eddy Aruda

    Tristan:
    September 4th, 2011 at 1:23 pm
    No probs Eddy, thanks for being so civil.
    Do you have a hypothesis for why sea levels are rising?

    Hey Bro!

    From what I understand, sea levels have been rising since the world began to exit the Pleistocene ice age. The rate of rise has been constant with little variance from the mean since 1850. If temperatures are rising, where is the increase in the rate of acceleration in the rise of sea level that would be the result of the increase in ice melt runoff caused by the aforementioned higher temperatures?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MaryFJohnston

    Eddy @165

    Sea levels have been on constant rise for the last 6,000 years or so.

    For the 10,000 years preceding that, the rise was much more rapid and is now tapering off.

    People can’t seem to understand that most of the ice has melted over the last 18,000 years and there is a state of equilibrium. At least as far as nature can be in equilibrium.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MaryFJohnston

    From 164

    “Just out of curiosity, what evidence would you accept that would falsify the CAGW hypothesis?”

    There is very basic, pedestrian, indisputable physics that denies the capacity of Human Origin CO2 from having any real world effect on global temperature.

    This fact has been deliberately hidden from the view of lay people for the benefit of researchers, many cynical green leaders, many politicians and the alternative energy business.

    The green pawns, innocent world savers, the young and gullible in all this get nothing and the taxpayers as usual get screwed.

    I can just hear it building… wait for it …

    But but .. what about the feed back loops???

    Yeah, real loopey.

    There is NO man made CO2 AGW catastrophe and can’t be — that’s science.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    MaryFJohnson,

    You might like this chart:

    CHART LINK


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MaryFJohnston

    sunsettommy: 168

    Yeas, that’s the one.

    The last 8,000 years is really interesting but it’s hard to get a lot of detail there.

    Lots of ups and downs in that period.

    The graphs of UV IR spectra above that are the key point to most of the CO2 catastrophe thing.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MaryFJohnston

    Yes

    You should always check.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Tristan

    G’day Bruce

    I think that sometimes it can help to quantify results that would cause us to change our mind regarding a given scientific hypothesis. This is after all, about predicting outcomes.

    Now, you said:

    a 30 year falling sea level seems indicated by the data.

    Whereas the AGW hypothesis has its money on the reverse happening.

    The latest TOPEX figures for sea level on the website have sea level at roughly +45mm.

    So how about this, if sea levels stay above +60mm for a period of 180 days, you admit that there is something fundamentaly wrong with the climate model you accept and if sea levels go below +30 for 180 days I’ll admit that there is something fundamentally wrong with the climate models I accept.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Truthseeker

    For a very simple but excellent analysis why the CO2 debate is entirely irrelevant with regard to climate see this …

    http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.com/2010/11/venus-no-greenhouse-effect.html#comments


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Eddy Aruda

    Tristan:
    September 6th, 2011 at 4:05 pm

    So how about this, if sea levels stay above +60mm for a period of 180 days, you admit that there is something fundamentaly wrong with the climate model you accept and if sea levels go below +30 for 180 days I’ll admit that there is something fundamentally wrong with the climate models I accept.

    180 days is too short a period of time. You may want to google “end point fallacy.” You keep droning on and on about sea level but fail to address the question: If rising CO2 levels are causing temperatures to rise then why hasn’t the increase in runoff caused by the higher temperatures caused the rate of sea level rise to increase? After all, if the ice is melting faster shouldn’t sea levels be rising faster?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Me

    [snip - no more gas yourself type comments.]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    James

    It doesn’t look like extra Co2 is always good.

    Carbon Dioxide Could Reduce Crop Yields


    Report this

    00